These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Latest CSM notes : Rumours of attribute points/implants being removed.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki
Plex Patrol.
#761 - 2015-02-13 23:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Eto Uzamaki
Why change/do some massive overhaul, when you could just remove the clone jump timer and remap restrictions....problem solved. You can remap every week if you want to, and jump into your bank clone for pvp...if u pvp in a blank clone........
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#762 - 2015-02-13 23:44:46 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Leannor wrote:
the 'time savings' provided by implants is not massive ... it's a tiny proportion.


Implants offer about a third of the benefit of remaps. The difference between +5 implants and no implants will still typically cut a month off a year of training. I wouldn't call a little under 10% a "tiny" proportion, but it's not overwhelming either.

Regarding the economic and LP implications of the idea of removing learning implants, just wanted to reinforce that this is a very significant concern that's known to the developers on the team and that they wouldn't do it without satisfying themselves that they have a solid answer for that concern.

Finally, thanks to everyone who's posting here for carrying on a substantive and constructive discussion about the idea. That kind of tone makes it a lot easier for game designers to understand and think about everyone's arguments either way, and we appreciate the thought and time everyone's brought to this.



Whats the difference between +3's and +5's and then include the training time to get cybernetics that is required for +5's from lv4-5
Changing from +3's to +5's is about 180 SP/hour if I remember the applicable numbers correctly. Non-faction +3's only take level cybernetics 1 so 750 out of the 768k it takes to use +5's.

So for +5's to pay back the training investment from +3's in hours is (768,000 - 750)/180 = 4262.5 hours or 177.6 days.

After that the benefit is a flat 180sp/h. For reference being fully mapped to a skill without implants is 2250sp/h, add +3's and it's 2520sp/h, vs +5's at 2700sp/h.

I would do just from lvl 4 cybernetics to 5 but I don't know how much SP it takes to get to 4.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#763 - 2015-02-13 23:45:53 UTC
Seiko Sorrelius wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Seiko Sorrelius wrote:
[
Jump clones are definitely not a solution as they are only able to be used very infrequently, are a pain in the ass, and just a general hassle


The learning implants create an incentive to avoid pvp, and nothing should incentive avoiding gameplay.

Learning implants provide nothing to the game other than loss, and that loss can be kept just by changing them to do other things.

It would be the best of both worlds, think about it.




"this game takes effort, this is not right!"

Also, if we follow your.... logic... then we should do away with ship losses too. It just keeps ppl from pvping you know.


Nice straw man argument.

Losing a ship doesn't cause your character to develop more slowly. Losing ships and killing ships is the point of the game.


It's not a strawman at all, your logic easily allows for the removal of ship losses. Here's some other things that are part of EVE; choices, consequences to choices, risk and risk vs reward.

You just want implants gone because it suits you, not because it'll be "good for the game".
Seiko Sorrelius
Rekall Inc.
#764 - 2015-02-13 23:52:35 UTC
Selena Aldura wrote:
The current attribute system is fine and not broken. The thing that's broken is the people that are not smart enough to know how to use it.

God forbid you have to put some thought into your skillplan and remaps instead of just winging it if you want to train with some efficiency. If you can't grasp this simple concept you deserve to be punished with slow training.

Removing learning implants won't make much of a difference to encourage pvp either, not to mention all the people that make ISK from selling said implants. The whiners that don't want to loose ISK by getting podded with learning implants will just complain about something else.


I think what you and everyone else who makes this same argument fail to understand is that it isn't a matter of a lack of understanding of the mechanic, it is that the mechanic forces you to make a stupid choice.

You either have fun playing the game.

Or you train optimally in a boring-as-hell manner.

And you can go between those two options and remap a few times, but then you're still going to get stuck in some boring remap at the end, and someone who trained optimally is going to be better than you. And the guy who didn't train optimally is going to have more fun than you in the mean time.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=403417
Seiko Sorrelius
Rekall Inc.
#765 - 2015-02-13 23:57:20 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:

Nice straw man argument.

Losing a ship doesn't cause your character to develop more slowly. Losing ships and killing ships is the point of the game.


It's not a strawman at all, your logic easily allows for the removal of ship losses. Here's some other things that are part of EVE; choices, consequences to choices, risk and risk vs reward.

You just want implants gone because it suits you, not because it'll be "good for the game".[/quote]

You can't apply the logic that is used for one subject against another different subject. Implants are not ships, and ships aren't implants. My reason for rallying against attribute implants isn't a matter of isk loss, which ships have, it is a matter of SP loss/gain.

Hence, straw man.

But to further point out differences between ships and implants:


  • Ships are replaceable, lost SP is not.
  • Newbie ships are far cheaper than even mid-tier implants.
  • Newbies are much more greatly affected by implants than longer term players are, and yet they're the ones most affected by slow SP gain.


So you should probably stop talking about removing ships and get back to the subject at hand: implants.

Secondly, I never said I wanted to remove implants in the first place, you should read my posts more thoroughly. I said I wanted to change what the implants do.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=403417
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki
Plex Patrol.
#766 - 2015-02-14 00:01:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Eto Uzamaki
I like my idea moar!
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#767 - 2015-02-14 00:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki wrote:


Examples:
Perception = weapon (turret, missile) damage 0.5% per level
Willpower = ship speed, 0.5% per level
charisma = trading tax 0.5% per level
intelligence = shield, armor, hull 0.5% per level.
Memory = Manufacturing time 1% per level

Drop attribute bases down to 0. 10 allocatable points, 5 max per attribute. Default everyone to 2 each and give everyone a bonus remap.
Essentially, attributes become powerful hardwires. Economy shouldn't change significantly, but will shift around. Remap code can be left in place. Implant code can be left in place. And primarily, skill training is no longer linked to a loss in fun.


I like my idea moar!

The benefits of a simplified system seem great (I liked your idea when I first read it to).

But what about any negatives from this approach also.

- Let's say a guy maps to Charisma or Memory. Is he encouraged to do anything other than industry because min-max is not optimal and that makes it riskier for him (seems that optimal and risk are major themes running in this thread. I can't pvp because I'm in a learning clone. Not optimal. Too risky)?
- Let's say someone maps to Percetion, but the FC of a fleet wants a logistics pilot. The player is happy to do it, but the min-max FC wants someone mapped to Intelligence for remote shield or armor reps.
- A player is mapped to Perception because she pvps constantly. But also earns her ISK through PI and market trading. Is she required to have alts for manufacturing and trading just to compete on an even keel?

Not saying your idea is bad, just that any idea has both positives and negatives and you need to analyse the negatives just as much because all of those and more will end up being the reason someone else whines about the system.

Having thought about what you proposed, I don't personally think making attributes more like hard-wired implants provides much benefit over the current system, but that could just totally be me.
Jane Shapperd
Quafe Commandos
The Commonwealth.
#768 - 2015-02-14 00:19:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jane Shapperd
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki wrote:


Examples:
Perception = weapon (turret, missile) damage 0.5% per level
Willpower = ship speed, 0.5% per level
charisma = trading tax 0.5% per level
intelligence = shield, armor, hull 0.5% per level.
Memory = Manufacturing time 1% per level

Drop attribute bases down to 0. 10 allocatable points, 5 max per attribute. Default everyone to 2 each and give everyone a bonus remap.
Essentially, attributes become powerful hardwires. Economy shouldn't change significantly, but will shift around. Remap code can be left in place. Implant code can be left in place. And primarily, skill training is no longer linked to a loss in fun.


I like my idea moar!

The benefits of a simplified system seem great (I liked your idea when I first read it to).

But what about any negatives from this approach also.

- Let's say a guy maps to Charisma or Memory. Is he encouraged to do anything other than industry because min-max is not optimal and that makes it riskier for him (seems that optimal and risk are major themes running in this thread. I can't pvp because I'm in a learning clone. Not optimal. Too risky)?
- Let's say someone maps to Percetion, but the FC of a fleet wants a logistics pilot. The player is happy to do it, but the min-max FC wants someone mapped to Intelligence for remote shield or armor reps.
- A player is mapped to Perception because she pvps constantly. But also earns her ISK through PI and market trading. Is she required to have alts for manufacturing and trading just to compete on an even keel?

Not saying your idea is bad, just that any idea has both positives and negatives and you need to analyse the negatives just as much because all of those and more will end up being the reason someone else whines about the system.

Having thought about what you proposed, I don't personally think making attributes more like hard-wired implants provides much benefit over the current system, but that could just totally b me.


the idea is taken out of context please return to the original idea post 2 or 3 pages earlier
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#769 - 2015-02-14 00:23:53 UTC
Seiko Sorrelius wrote:
You can't apply the logic that is used for one subject against another different subject. Implants are not ships, and ships aren't implants. My reason for rallying against attribute implants isn't a matter of isk loss, which ships have, it is a matter of SP loss/gain.

Hence, straw man.

But to further point out differences between ships and implants:


  • Ships are replaceable, lost SP is not.
  • Newbie ships are far cheaper than even mid-tier implants.
  • Newbies are much more greatly affected by implants than longer term players are, and yet they're the ones most affected by slow SP gain.


So you should probably stop talking about removing ships and get back to the subject at hand: implants.

Secondly, I never said I wanted to remove implants in the first place, you should read my posts more thoroughly. I said I wanted to change what the implants do.



I can see why you don't like the comparison because it doesn't suit you, but the comparison is there. Your explanation as to why implants should be removed is nothing other than "waah effort", "waah risk" and "I like increased skill training at no cost".

Then we get to your points:

- well, if you don't like how not using implants gives you a disadvantage then you'll surely agree to a flat 2000sp/h, everyone will have the same rate. It doesn't matter what that rate is as everyone will be equal right? And we can't assume higher sp/h because per your statements people who pvp don't use implants.

- then don't use them, SP isn't that important

- factually untrue. Newbie can fly/pvp JUST FINE with skills at lvl 3/4. It's the older players and alts training for titans/Scaps etc who sit in station with +5.



The only ones helped by the removal of implants like that are the 0.0 lob blob terrible clown alliances making for cheap whelps, and high end 0.0 alliances who foresee the removal of learning implants to be followed by the introduction or really funky combat implants for slot 1-5. The first is a terrible quantity over quality and the second will most definitely NOT favour newer players.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#770 - 2015-02-14 00:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Seiko Sorrelius wrote:

No game mechanic should ever place fun against permanent character growth: remaps.

No game mechanic should place isk loss against permanent charcter growth: attribute implants.

Isk is the lifeblood of the game and can almost directly correlate to fun, ...

... And primarily, skill training is no longer linked to a loss in fun.

Fun isn't and hopefully never becomes the sole goal of the game designers (it's such a subjective term anyway).

Challenge, unique play, sense of achievement and accomplishment, diverse options, etc. These are all aspects of the game that different players gain out of playing the game.

I hope Eve never reduces every sub-game to fun. Then it will truly be a theme-park game.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#771 - 2015-02-14 00:28:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Seiko Sorrelius wrote:

No game mechanic should ever place fun against permanent character growth: remaps.

No game mechanic should place isk loss against permanent charcter growth: attribute implants.

Isk is the lifeblood of the game and can almost directly correlate to fun, ...

... And primarily, skill training is no longer linked to a loss in fun.

Fun isn't and hopefully never becomes the sole goal of the game designers.

Challenge, unique play, sense of achievement and accomplishment, diverse options, etc. These are all aspects of the game that different players gain out of playing the game.

I hope Eve never reduces every sub-game to fun. Then it will truly be a theme-park game.

what? Surely you realize that fun and all those other requirements are not mutually exclusive.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Memphis Baas
#772 - 2015-02-14 00:32:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Memphis Baas
If it's not fun it won't be played. Mining, for example, is a sub-game that has unique play, sense of achievement, and a number of options, but I'm not sure how many non-bot players it actually attracts and for how long. There's gotta be fun somewhere.

Also, fun for whom? There are some people who DO mine.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#773 - 2015-02-14 00:36:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Memphis Baas wrote:
If it's not fun it won't be played. Mining, for example, is a sub-game that has unique play, sense of achievement, and a number of options, but I'm not sure how many non-bot players it actually attracts and for how long. There's gotta be fun somewhere.

Also, fun for whom? There are some people who DO mine.


So you mean to say that no one has been playing EVE the last 12 years, no one pvped at all because it was no fun with these darned implants?
Memphis Baas
#774 - 2015-02-14 00:38:48 UTC
No, I don't mean to say that.
Jane Shapperd
Quafe Commandos
The Commonwealth.
#775 - 2015-02-14 00:42:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jane Shapperd
Seiko Sorrelius wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:


"this game takes effort, this is not right!"

Also, if we follow your.... logic... then we should do away with ship losses too. It just keeps ppl from pvping you know.


Nice straw man argument.

Losing a ship doesn't cause your character to develop more slowly. Losing ships and killing ships is the point of the game.

Scipio Artelius wrote:

One question and one counter-point for consideration:

One
Why does having high skillpoints lead you to choose not to pvp?

Two
Gameplay is about the way each of us interact with the game. The more complex the options for gameplay that still work, the more opportunities there are for players to discover unique solutions (emergent play) as well as play the anticipated ways. Complex systems also usually provide for more non-linear play, which leads to a more varied and interesting game.

The trick is in ensuring that systems aren't complex just for the sake of it, so that they all provide for interesting gameplay.

Players stating they would pvp in the absence of learning implants doesn't itself mean the current game design is at fault. The current game design provides solutions to that, especially through jump clones. Choosing not to use that option is the way someone has chosen to play the game, not the games fault.

That doesn't make the current situation ideal in terms of game design, but learning implants aren't the cause of non-pvp. That is down to player choice because they don't use the other forms of gameplay available.

Let's not make the game more linear and less interesting on the whole, just because some fail to use all paths available.

One issue which CCP has already mentioned is the use of jump clones and the way they are used to change implant sets. So change that aspect of the play and those that could otherwise pvp might also have a solution. Make implants removable without destruction for example. That would solve the problem for those people. Without considering the impact on other areas of play, that isn't necessarily good design either, but there has to be more than one solution that still keeps interesting play in the game.


1. Because SP is almost like its own currency, and if I slow down my training (by losing implants/not buying implants) on Seiko then I lose a currency that I can't gain back (you can always gain more isk, but I can't gain lost SP due to time spent without implants).

2. Making implants removable would horribly upset the market and game mechanics, and jump clones are a bad mechanic for short-term use and were intended, as far as I am aware, for travel and whole sets of implants. I still think the best solution is to replace attribute implants with something else that is equally as valuable but doesn't affect skill gain:

This would:

  • Keep the implant economy stable
  • Encourage PVP, especially amongst new players.
  • Allow new players to train skills without loss, thus encouraging them to actually play the game and subscribe.
  • Easier to program and implement than most options so far.


The problem with your solution is that all players will have same skill point gain.
this unwanted as a lot of people would want to train faster than other people regardless of what they do in eve
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#776 - 2015-02-14 00:42:38 UTC
As for fun, EVE has a huge problem in lacking visceral feedback. The target lock sequence is tame, and the following button press of F1 through F8 is tame, too. The damage calculation is not engaging (compared to manual aiming).

EVE very closely resembles a text-based game like Dungeons and Dragons. Stop calling PVE "dungeons", thanks.

There is plenty of room for fun. There are benchmarks for what qualifies an MMO as successful based on subscriptions, and EVE is what, 1/10th of that? EVE is not fun, we are not normal players. Make no mistake, we are all broken for playing this game and sticking to it.

Players who say they will leave if EVE becomes a Theme Park MMO, or even mention the term Theme Park MMO need to leave right now, for equivocating any improvement in EVE as something bad.

Successful games are enjoyed by everyone. Players who disagree with that statement need to leave, and have no place in a discussion such as this one.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#777 - 2015-02-14 00:42:52 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
what? Surely you realize that fun and all those other requirements are not mutually exclusive.

Absolutely. I just don't see fun as the primary reason to design every system in a game. It will be the primary goal for some systems and the by-product of good design for others.

But fun is so subjective that while in game design you certainly don't want to design un-fun elements, there are a lot of other goals that can have priority.

As a personal example. I don't find PI fun. Yet I run 6 planets at max upgrades on a max skilled alt because it allows me to produce 20,000 nanite repair paste a month that helps support my pvp habit. I do gain a sense of achievement from producing those repair paste and selling them on the market. That's why I do it for more than just income. PI has an element of challenge around the decisions of what to produce and where to produce them and there is a fair amount of interaction with the game (not the button pushing, but on a larger level).

Someone else might find PI fun just the way it is.

That to me is where fun has limitations as a game design goal. It's a by-product of good game design, not a primary aim because you can't meet everyone's idea of fun.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#778 - 2015-02-14 00:43:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Memphis Baas wrote:
No, I don't mean to say that.


Given your earlier posts on the whole "implants are no fun" I'd say that it's exactly what you said, you just didn't realise the scope of your statement.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#779 - 2015-02-14 01:02:42 UTC
This is to no one in particular:

Playing EVE does not make you edgy, it certainly does not make you leet. EVE is essentially a turn based game. Adjust your perspective before considering an opinion in a change discussion thread.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Memphis Baas
#780 - 2015-02-14 01:15:09 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Given your earlier posts on the whole "implants are no fun" I'd say that it's exactly what you said, you just didn't realise the scope of your statement.


I'm sorry, but you are arguing aggressively against people with different opinions; you're basically looking to start a fight. You've shitted up pages 12-20 with a prolonged flaming campaign vs. Dominique Vasilikovsky and others, then went away when the Dev posted.

Now you've come back with
Gregor Parud wrote:
Lets just accept that 0.0 CSM shills and management get their way anyway and stop bothering & caring. And that all pretence of "discussion" is just that: pretence.

followed by a multitude of posts containing what looks like a repeat of the sentiments and attitude displayed throughout pp. 12-20.

So I'm not going to explain what I meant, and will just ignore you. You can rant if you want, but it won't remove the posts of those you disagree with from this thread; all it will do is just close the thread due to ranting.

Which I believe is your goal anyway.