These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
NeodiuM
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1101 - 2015-02-18 06:08:32 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:


But CCP isn't implementing a pub any time soon. .


It hurts my soul that in this distant future there is no place I can go to get wasted with randoms.
+ 1 for pub, and to keep this post on topic, maybe in said pub you can fight and rip out each others implants : \
Dave Stark
#1102 - 2015-02-18 07:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Syn Shi wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:

The biggest concern about implants that affect training speed as such is that they don't make in-space gameplay more fun, and in fact provide an incentive to sit in station or log off instead. A better design would be one that encourages playing the game now instead of waiting for later to do so.

Looks like grasping at straws, throwing out any excuse whatsoever to justify removing attribute implants when the real reason is money..

The biggest reason why players no longer log into the game is the skill queue. Basically allowing long term uninterrupted skill training which encourages players to do repeating yearly subscriptions.

The removal of attribute implants turns skill training plans into a longer time sink, thus generating more income over time.

Seems we're back to the ole 'Greed Is Good' mentality again, just another way of squeezing more money out of 'The Golden Goose'.




DMC





he's pretty much right. i'd rather log off than risk my +4s.

my SP/hour means more to me than pvping.



That's your choice.

Doesn't mean we need to change the system because you are risk averse.



no, it just means you need to change the system if you want more people pvping.
i'm not risk averse, i just don't need to pvp, i do need to train skills. why would i risk something i need, doing something i don't?

Syn Shi wrote:
It doesn't mean it a bad system.

It means you choose to be risk averse and avoid pvp.


you keep saying risk averse, it really isn't.

[learning] implants just disincentivise an activity that already has minimal incentive than "for the sake of it" for most people.
Leannor
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Reckless Contingency.
#1103 - 2015-02-18 09:14:11 UTC
NeodiuM wrote:
Memphis Baas wrote:


But CCP isn't implementing a pub any time soon. .


It hurts my soul that in this distant future there is no place I can go to get wasted with randoms.
+ 1 for pub, and to keep this post on topic, maybe in said pub you can fight and rip out each others implants : \


always thought you should be able to salavge implants anyway ... loot and salvage actually. Lets start making implants from biomass and electronics.

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#1104 - 2015-02-18 10:58:36 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
CCP Darwin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh, now that's just hyperbole. I really don't think anyone is talking about the kind of consequences that cut your hitpoints in half for the rest of your character's life.

I was using an extreme example to demonstrate why something being a choice to customize your character didn't inherently make that a good design.

Although, replace "hitpoints" for "skill points" and you've almost described the attribute system. :)

Quote:
Attributes are meh. Yep.

Implants are not. They are a meaningful choice, and encourage decision making based on risk vs reward. (just because some people choose wrong and handcuff themselves is not reason to scrap that whole system)

While I wouldn't want to paint my game design colleagues into a corner, I don't believe that implants are going anywhere. Only learning implants are in question.

There have been suggestions in this thread and elsewhere that learning implants with flat learning speed bonuses might work in an attribute-free world. I think replacing learning speed implants with alternatives that encourage rather than discourage undocking is more likely, but I don't think anyone has yet come to any conclusions about what form that might take.

If you have any thoughts on what alternative implant designs that do not affect training might feel as interesting as those that affect training rate, please share them. (Not that you'd necessarily pick them over learning implants in a head-to-head choice, but that you'd look at them and think "Wow, I'd like to undock with that plugged in.")



As a suggestion make attributes a flat increase in learning speed and remove the old mechanic completely.
use the licencing system you have developed with skins for training implants, make them time limited, and linked to account in the same way.

They still need to be bought, and sought as drops then and we have the best of both worlds. The negative is it affects killboards online, but I am sure people are not so selfish that they would rather keep a poor system to pad their killboard

But as an alternative removing learning implants and the learning component of hardwires, whilst keeping hardwires is probably an equally good alternative. . Licencing would work well here too.

Create new time limited versions of the pirate implants to go with the existing ones (which retain their permanence ond preserve their value) to provide more choice and variety and available in more and new interesting ways, possibly player built. Keep permanent pirate implants available from their current sources.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

The Newface
Doomheim
#1105 - 2015-02-18 16:09:24 UTC
I really don’t get the problem.

You don’t HAVE to use learning implants. Only the most extreme MIN/MAX player would even think so.
I have played for 8 years, multiple accounts and I have never plugged in lvl 5. I routinely run with lvl 3, that’s about 45M ISK and compare to ships you lose your pod very rarely.

Taking learning implants away is dumbing down the game, im sorry but it seems almost the definition of dumbing it down. You don’t HAVE to use them, it’s a choice for the player, to “help” players we want to remove the choice?

I just don’t get it, you can use the same argument for allot of aspects in EVE.
• Hardwires – you don’t HAVE to use them but you are better off if you do and you lose more ISK if you get podded.
• Faction ships – you don’t HAVE to use them but you’re better off if you do and you lose more if you lose it.
• And so on.

Skill implants are a choice, you weigh it against the cost and the risk, that’s what’s EVE is about.
The Newface
Doomheim
#1106 - 2015-02-18 16:17:59 UTC
Oh btw, I think it’s important to remember that eve is not a “PVP” game, EVE is a (maybe the only) sandbox game. That means that your choices effect you and others around you.

We don’t need PvP for the sake of PvP, we need reasons beyond that. The reason need then to be countered by risk.

Anyway, for the once who say that you need to use lvl 5 implants please explain why?
Do you also NEED all skills to lvl 5 or are you for some reason able to CHOSE what skills you need to undock?
Dave Stark
#1107 - 2015-02-18 16:19:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
The Newface wrote:
I really don’t get the problem.

You don’t HAVE to use learning implants. Only the most extreme MIN/MAX player would even think so.
I have played for 8 years, multiple accounts and I have never plugged in lvl 5. I routinely run with lvl 3, that’s about 45M ISK and compare to ships you lose your pod very rarely.

Taking learning implants away is dumbing down the game, im sorry but it seems almost the definition of dumbing it down. You don’t HAVE to use them, it’s a choice for the player, to “help” players we want to remove the choice?

I just don’t get it, you can use the same argument for allot of aspects in EVE.
• Hardwires – you don’t HAVE to use them but you are better off if you do and you lose more ISK if you get podded.
• Faction ships – you don’t HAVE to use them but you’re better off if you do and you lose more if you lose it.
• And so on.

Skill implants are a choice, you weigh it against the cost and the risk, that’s what’s EVE is about.


you don't HAVE to pvp either.

the issue with your examples vs learning implants are that hardwirings, faction ships, etc all give you a direct advantage in the situation where you put them at risk. (which is risk vs reward done right, perfect examples of it - especially hardwirings)

learning implants are only at risk in pvp (until red crosses start podding) and in that situation higher sp/hour gives you 0 benefit what so ever. it's that disconnect that means players just think "i don't need to pvp, so why bother risking my implants" rather than "sure i'll come on your drunken roam and generate some content".
The Newface
Doomheim
#1108 - 2015-02-18 16:46:37 UTC  |  Edited by: The Newface
So do learning implants, I gain a little more skill points while I PvP. Sure my +3 implants won’t help me kill any ships at that specific time but so wont my gunnery hardwire when I fly my Raven. So I have the choice, risk the hardwire anyway or use the methods available to me, jump clone to a clone without that hardwire. Same as I have with the skill implants.

The change won’t change anything, next complain will be that the “good ships” are to expansive, people have multiple account or something else. The only way to get people into more PvP is to give them reasons for it. If you just want to fight there are allot of other games out there.


PS. i dont own a raven, just a example Smile
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1109 - 2015-02-18 17:03:24 UTC
If you are explaining why the learning system sucks, the person is in denial. And will probably stay that way.
Dave Stark
#1110 - 2015-02-18 17:04:21 UTC
but you don't need to be in pvp to gain a benefit from them that's the point [especially when you simply don't need to be in pvp at all] - as for hardwirings and things you do need to be in combat to gain any benefit (the same place they're at risk).

you can give people all the reasons under the sun to pvp, but if none of them mean more than their sp/hour - they would still rather dock up and log out than undock and shoot people. however with SP being disconnected from pretty much everything you interact with (it just accumulates, all the time) then there's pretty much never going to be a situation where pvping will mean more than their sp/hour unless they simply want to pvp.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1111 - 2015-02-18 17:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
most of the naysayers seem to admit it doesn't affect them, and then say some bit about an imaginary theme park.

EVE's overall skill prerequisite system needs a rework after this. The current philosophy amounts to holding modules and ships hostage. Weapon Upgrades and Advanced Weapon Upgrades is one. Keep the skills a particular multiplier, but disconnect them from one after the other.

Weapon Upgrades is a reduction in CPU use of weapon turrets, launchers, and smartbombs. Advanced Weapon Upgrades is a reduction in powergrid. It makes no sense to have them as sequential skills.

Target Painting and SIgnature Focusing are another great example. Target Painting is a reduction in cap use, but it's a prerequisite for Signature Focusing, which increases Target Painter effectiveness. Keep Target Painting IV as a prerequisite for T2 Target Painters, but de-couple it from Signature Focusing. Why is it in sequence to ensure target painters have to use less cap before becoming more powerful. Why aren't target painters allowed to be skilled as more effective but less cap efficient.

Whoever is perpetuating this should be evaluated for whether they are in touch with sensible character progression. If they say "that's the design" sit them down and really get to the bottom of why they think it should be the design. It's uncomfortable and kills choice.

Meanwhile, I don't have a dog in this fight. I have these skills trained several times over. The players who would benefit from this are ones who have unskilled characters.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1112 - 2015-02-18 18:08:11 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
The Newface wrote:
I really don’t get the problem.

You don’t HAVE to use learning implants. Only the most extreme MIN/MAX player would even think so.
I have played for 8 years, multiple accounts and I have never plugged in lvl 5. I routinely run with lvl 3, that’s about 45M ISK and compare to ships you lose your pod very rarely.

Taking learning implants away is dumbing down the game, im sorry but it seems almost the definition of dumbing it down. You don’t HAVE to use them, it’s a choice for the player, to “help” players we want to remove the choice?

I just don’t get it, you can use the same argument for allot of aspects in EVE.
• Hardwires – you don’t HAVE to use them but you are better off if you do and you lose more ISK if you get podded.
• Faction ships – you don’t HAVE to use them but you’re better off if you do and you lose more if you lose it.
• And so on.

Skill implants are a choice, you weigh it against the cost and the risk, that’s what’s EVE is about.


you don't HAVE to pvp either.

the issue with your examples vs learning implants are that hardwirings, faction ships, etc all give you a direct advantage in the situation where you put them at risk. (which is risk vs reward done right, perfect examples of it - especially hardwirings)

learning implants are only at risk in pvp (until red crosses start podding) and in that situation higher sp/hour gives you 0 benefit what so ever. it's that disconnect that means players just think "i don't need to pvp, so why bother risking my implants" rather than "sure i'll come on your drunken roam and generate some content".



Burner missions...lots of isk lost...I am sure that includes some of the most expensive implants in game...its PVE.

Again, if you want the benefit it is up to each player to make the choice for themselves.

Nothing wrong with how implants work, you are just exercising your choice to hide.

Accept it and move on.
The Newface
Doomheim
#1113 - 2015-02-18 18:24:32 UTC
I guess I’m going to give up arguing this with a final reflection.

It seems most people who are for this suggestion is actually looking to make it easier/faster to get into big ships. I get the district feeling that these people would be happy if there were no skills at all.

There are many many games like that already, there is only one EVE though and I hope CCP understands how damaging this direction would be for the subscription rates.

The simpler a game is the less longevity it have, EVE is one of the oldest MMO’s and one of the reasons, a big one I believe is that you always have something to strive for and something to learn. Take that away and EVE will lose its appeal and yes I know, doom and gloom but I believe die.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1114 - 2015-02-18 19:15:44 UTC
The Newface wrote:
I guess I’m going to give up arguing this with a final reflection.

It seems most people who are for this suggestion is actually looking to make it easier/faster to get into big ships. I get the district feeling that these people would be happy if there were no skills at all.

There are many many games like that already, there is only one EVE though and I hope CCP understands how damaging this direction would be for the subscription rates.

The simpler a game is the less longevity it have, EVE is one of the oldest MMO’s and one of the reasons, a big one I believe is that you always have something to strive for and something to learn. Take that away and EVE will lose its appeal and yes I know, doom and gloom but I believe die.

check yourself. some of the people in this discussion have everything trained, and are not lobbying in self interest.
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1115 - 2015-02-18 19:45:21 UTC
After skimming through this thread...

..."new" players (and not another alt of a current player) are actually (attempt to) playing this ancient game???
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1116 - 2015-02-18 20:33:56 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh, now that's just hyperbole. I really don't think anyone is talking about the kind of consequences that cut your hitpoints in half for the rest of your character's life.

I was using an extreme example to demonstrate why something being a choice to customize your character didn't inherently make that a good design.

Although, replace "hitpoints" for "skill points" and you've almost described the attribute system. :)

Quote:
Attributes are meh. Yep.

Implants are not. They are a meaningful choice, and encourage decision making based on risk vs reward. (just because some people choose wrong and handcuff themselves is not reason to scrap that whole system)

While I wouldn't want to paint my game design colleagues into a corner, I don't believe that implants are going anywhere. Only learning implants are in question.

There have been suggestions in this thread and elsewhere that learning implants with flat learning speed bonuses might work in an attribute-free world. I think replacing learning speed implants with alternatives that encourage rather than discourage undocking is more likely, but I don't think anyone has yet come to any conclusions about what form that might take.

If you have any thoughts on what alternative implant designs that do not affect training might feel as interesting as those that affect training rate, please share them. (Not that you'd necessarily pick them over learning implants in a head-to-head choice, but that you'd look at them and think "Wow, I'd like to undock with that plugged in.")



As a suggestion make attributes a flat increase in learning speed and remove the old mechanic completely.
use the licencing system you have developed with skins for training implants, make them time limited, and linked to account in the same way.

They still need to be bought, and sought as drops then and we have the best of both worlds. The negative is it affects killboards online, but I am sure people are not so selfish that they would rather keep a poor system to pad their killboard

But as an alternative removing learning implants and the learning component of hardwires, whilst keeping hardwires is probably an equally good alternative. . Licencing would work well here too.

Create new time limited versions of the pirate implants to go with the existing ones (which retain their permanence ond preserve their value) to provide more choice and variety and available in more and new interesting ways, possibly player built. Keep permanent pirate implants available from their current sources.


This is a horrible idea. So you want to make it so that now the ONLY way to keep your training time up is to constantly keep buying temporary learning abilities? does anyone else think this is horrible?
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1117 - 2015-02-18 20:42:11 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Right... lets all fly around PVPing with no risk whatsoever other than the ship.... no thank you


And why not? Isn't that risk enough? If you could scan for implants like you can scan for cargo, would anybody STOP to scan before attacking? You're judging each encounter by the ships you see in the overview, and you're shooting or bugging out based solely on that information. The value of the killmail is merely a (sometimes pleasant) surprise, a few hours after the fact. EVE PVP is driven by the ships (and by strategic goals), not by the implants.

Regarding the question about incentivizing people to undock, if that's what you want CCP, then incentivize that directly. I did suggest giving SHIPS a skill training bonus as long as they're undocked in space, and got shot down because OMG everyone is going to afk cloak. That's still more exposure to PVP than remaining in station. But in any case, don't give the bonus to any ships that can cloak and people won't afk in them. Just give a big skill training bonus to T1 frigates (for the newbies), smaller bonuses to T1 cruisers (not so newbies), and then varying degrees of training bonus to other ships (T2, capital) as you see fit.

Or give some other incentive, I don't know; I just think the issue is a bit like getting people to go to lowsec: subtle solutions won't work.


No the choice you make is weather or not you want to risk various levels of implants. for example I dabble in PVP extensively on another character in null. Some people never fly with more than +2 but I personally always fly with at least +4's in. does it cost more when i die? sure but that's my choice. Also this whole giving ships bonus.. you're kidding right? So the only way people can get bonuses is by being undocked... I can see 1000's of t1 frigs sitting cloaked in space all day.

One of the great things about eve is that I never have to worry about training while i'm away on vacation or away for a long weekend. Any mechanic that FORCES me to log into the game for training is an awful idea. It's the exact reason I hate WOW LOTR and every other mmo out there.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1118 - 2015-02-18 20:49:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
CCP Darwin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Oh, now that's just hyperbole. I really don't think anyone is talking about the kind of consequences that cut your hitpoints in half for the rest of your character's life.

I was using an extreme example to demonstrate why something being a choice to customize your character didn't inherently make that a good design.

Although, replace "hitpoints" for "skill points" and you've almost described the attribute system. :)

Quote:
Attributes are meh. Yep.

Implants are not. They are a meaningful choice, and encourage decision making based on risk vs reward. (just because some people choose wrong and handcuff themselves is not reason to scrap that whole system)

While I wouldn't want to paint my game design colleagues into a corner, I don't believe that implants are going anywhere. Only learning implants are in question.

There have been suggestions in this thread and elsewhere that learning implants with flat learning speed bonuses might work in an attribute-free world. I think replacing learning speed implants with alternatives that encourage rather than discourage undocking is more likely, but I don't think anyone has yet come to any conclusions about what form that might take.

If you have any thoughts on what alternative implant designs that do not affect training might feel as interesting as those that affect training rate, please share them. (Not that you'd necessarily pick them over learning implants in a head-to-head choice, but that you'd look at them and think "Wow, I'd like to undock with that plugged in.")


This would be a very difficult situation to deal with due to difficulty determining where you set the universal learning speed at. It seems like a serious punch in the gut of anyone who trained cybernetics to V and is using +5's if their learning speed is nerfed at all. At the same time it would be equally insulting if everyone got boosted up to their learning speed level. Personally I don't see a good way to remove the learning implants although I already made a post earlier in this thread how they could be improved with no remaps and doubling the effect of the implants. One way which was already discussed was if jumpcloning was reduced to a much shorter time period for in station clone swaps. say 2 hours or so. That would encourage much more people to participate in PVP as they would no longer be "stuck" in their expensive skulls.
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1119 - 2015-02-18 21:04:19 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
It seems like a serious punch in the gut of anyone who trained cybernetics to V and is using +5's if their learning speed is nerfed at all. At the same time it would be equally insulting if everyone got boosted up to their learning speed level.


I don't agree at all that these two choices would be equally annoying to players.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins

Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1120 - 2015-02-18 21:14:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
CCP Darwin wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
It seems like a serious punch in the gut of anyone who trained cybernetics to V and is using +5's if their learning speed is nerfed at all. At the same time it would be equally insulting if everyone got boosted up to their learning speed level.


I don't agree at all that these two choices would be equally annoying to players.


So I'm assuming that one of the possible options which is being considered is boosting everyone up to "perfect mapping" and making that the flat rate. If that is the case what would happen for those who trained cybernetics to V just for the +5's? that's a 10day+ train which would essentially be for nothing if you're not planning on flying with high-grade implants.