These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
Already Replaced.
#1121 - 2015-02-18 21:14:46 UTC  |  Edited by: xxxTRUSTxxx
It's all about getting players to log in, it's all about getting players to stay around. So let's see how we can affect the game that could change that. We need to keep players active, interested and sticking around.
Isn’t it best first to admit that there is a fairly high number of players in EVE that have zero interest in PVP.
No matter what the hell you do with game mechanics, these people will never change their mind.
They would rather quit EVE than take part in PVP so they stay in an NPC corp and love the game just as much as we do.
So CCP……. Active, Interested and sticking around.
Ah the very same problem every single CEO in EVE faces. How the hell do I keep these assholes logged in, interested and sticking around?
I tried the, hey, here’s free skill books, here’s free ships, now let’s get the feck off station and go **** the locals off.
PVP guys go yay \0/ industrial and PVE guys go really? Do we have too? I say yes! Come on, you’ll have a laugh with the lads.
So the lads show up, yup all of them, they listen and do a good job, have a great laugh, they even get a kill or 2. Some of them get into PVP some don’t. So it kind of worked a little.
Do they all gain an interest in PVP? No, Not any more than they need too because they are being pushed into it. I even covered pod loss costs. It didn’t matter even a little. Bottom line, some will love it, some will hate it. Those that hate it will fight if pushed but will revert back to PVE/Indy the second you stop pushing them. You can dress a duck up as an Eagle but that fecker is gonna quack and head for the nearest water the second you take your eyes of him.
It’s unrealistic to think everyone who joins EVE will love PVP and it will keep them in game forever.
Some will wander into EVE, have a laugh for a year or so and leave. Some will wander in and have a horrible time and leave in a very short time. No different than every single game out there.
This idea to remove attributes and implants may work short term. I have very little faith in it working long term.
Perhaps CCP taking a very active roll online in game. Lots of epic live events for newbs and bitter vets alike. Perhaps this whole Caroline star event is leading towards more of that. Blink
Reelin Antollare
Merlins Online
#1122 - 2015-02-18 21:28:01 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
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.


Empty quoting much? I have +5s plugged in, am not too old and yet would love this change happening.
Considering it takes close to a year to offset the difference from +4 to +5, training cyb V if you don't plan on using hardwirings seems like a rather bad plan.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1123 - 2015-02-18 21:30:22 UTC
Reelin Antollare wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
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.


Empty quoting much? I have +5s plugged in, am not too old and yet would love this change happening.
Considering it takes close to a year to offset the difference from +4 to +5, training cyb V if you don't plan on using hardwirings seems like a rather bad plan.

Why is planning for a long term return inherently bad?
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1124 - 2015-02-18 21:43:18 UTC
Reelin Antollare wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
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.


Empty quoting much? I have +5s plugged in, am not too old and yet would love this change happening.
Considering it takes close to a year to offset the difference from +4 to +5, training cyb V if you don't plan on using hardwirings seems like a rather bad plan.


When training any type of capital alt it makes a lot of sense to use +5's considering you're going to be training for at least a year to sit in the thing. 2 years if you want to REALLY be able to fly it (near max tank/ fitting/ drone/ gun/ nav skills etc.)
Dave Stark
#1125 - 2015-02-18 22:03:10 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Reelin Antollare wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
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.


Empty quoting much? I have +5s plugged in, am not too old and yet would love this change happening.
Considering it takes close to a year to offset the difference from +4 to +5, training cyb V if you don't plan on using hardwirings seems like a rather bad plan.

Why is planning for a long term return inherently bad?


because you're not getting a long term return, you're just picking what you want to train slowly.

we've been over this point.

the system just lets you pick a punishment - that's a bad system. something is going to have to train slowly, you just get to pick what it is.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1126 - 2015-02-18 22:10:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Dave Stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Reelin Antollare wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
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.


Empty quoting much? I have +5s plugged in, am not too old and yet would love this change happening.
Considering it takes close to a year to offset the difference from +4 to +5, training cyb V if you don't plan on using hardwirings seems like a rather bad plan.

Why is planning for a long term return inherently bad?


because you're not getting a long term return, you're just picking what you want to train slowly.

we've been over this point.

the system just lets you pick a punishment - that's a bad system. something is going to have to train slowly, you just get to pick what it is.

But you are getting a return in that you train less slowly. It doesn't bypass training, nor speed it to a great degree; that I can agree with. But if there is no return, why are you doing it? Furthermore why are you altering your gameplay to maintain this lack of return? Why did you alter training for it in the first place?

Edit: Also, I haven't looked over your posts but your reasoning is a bit confusing in that it applies to the basic idea of a real time training system even without the details EvE's skill system adds. That being the case I have to ask what about implants makes your objection more pertinent to this than a system without them?
Circumstantial Evidence
#1127 - 2015-02-18 22:36:21 UTC
CCP doesn't reimburse SP very often, usually responding that players received value for time spent, up to the point of the change. Game mechanics may change going forward, but past investments in time or isk weren't "wasted."
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1128 - 2015-02-18 22:36:46 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Reelin Antollare wrote:
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
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.


Empty quoting much? I have +5s plugged in, am not too old and yet would love this change happening.
Considering it takes close to a year to offset the difference from +4 to +5, training cyb V if you don't plan on using hardwirings seems like a rather bad plan.

Why is planning for a long term return inherently bad?


because you're not getting a long term return, you're just picking what you want to train slowly.

we've been over this point.

the system just lets you pick a punishment - that's a bad system. something is going to have to train slowly, you just get to pick what it is.

But you are getting a return in that you train less slowly. It doesn't bypass training, nor speed it to a great degree; that I can agree with. But if there is no return, why are you doing it? Furthermore why are you altering your gameplay to maintain this lack of return? Why did you alter training for it in the first place?

Edit: Also, I haven't looked over your posts but your reasoning is a bit confusing in that it applies to the basic idea of a real time training system even without the details EvE's skill system adds. That being the case I have to ask what about implants makes your objection more pertinent to this than a system without them?


I am equally confused what he is trying to say. From the sounds of it he is reasoning the only reason to train cybernetics V is for the high-grade ship implants.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#1129 - 2015-02-18 22:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
CCP doesn't reimburse SP very often, usually responding that players received value for time spent, up to the point of the change. Game mechanics may change going forward, but past investments in time or isk weren't "wasted."


True. And if you trained Cybernetics V for the high-grade implants then no your time would not be wasted. However if you only trained it for the +5's then yes it would be. It would be simple for CCP to just refund the SP needed to train cybernetics from IV to V for those than have it. Then if you wanted the skillpoints for the high-grades you just reapply them. If you only got it for the +5's you can just re delegate them to something else. It's actually a simple solution.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1130 - 2015-02-18 23:52:15 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Circumstantial Evidence
#1131 - 2015-02-18 23:57:46 UTC
For any change, the developers have to draw a line somewhere. If you have received +5 learning implant benefits longer than the training time, you got a benefit for time spent.

If you received less or no use of +5 learning implants prior to their removal, and weren't aware of this rumored change, then you would have some right to feel left out. But in looking at this thread, word is getting out. It started end of January, and is pushing over 250 unique posters with an awesome 25 from CCP Darwin, proving that they are considering this player feedback.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1132 - 2015-02-19 00:05:35 UTC
I'm not stuck on the absolute rate of SP, only relative. If the max rate is the only rate, that's fine. It would be liberating.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1133 - 2015-02-19 00:26:20 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
I'm not stuck on the absolute rate of SP, only relative. If the max rate is the only rate, that's fine. It would be liberating.

I can't really disagree with that idea, but as a system it seems lacking. It removes any interaction with the system itself aside from building a sequential list, even if that interaction is a source of consternation for some.
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1134 - 2015-02-19 00:37:47 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Darwin
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
This idea to remove attributes and implants may work short term. I have very little faith in it working long term.

I'm not a game designer (sorry I keep repeating this) but I can say with certainty that we're not making changes to manipulate players into staying with the game longer. We make changes to improve the game while retaining its unique character.

(Slippery-slope arguments notwithstanding, EVE's unique character is what has attracted many of us to CCP, and, for those of us who have moved to Iceland from elsewhere, it's what keeps us in this beautiful but formidable country. We're not going to gamble that unique character away to improve our metrics.)

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

Tetsel
House Amamake
#1135 - 2015-02-19 01:03:40 UTC
I'm a dumb pilot and I totally don't get the attribute/skill relationship back in the day, I lost a lot of SP/h because of that, forget to remap before changing my skill plan etc etc… I didn't invest in implant cause I thought it was better to stack useless iskies instead of skilling faster…
I made mistake cause I didn't pay enough attention to "Skills how it works" and I paid the price…
That's what EVE is all about, remove those attribute/implant is just reducing player choice of what they can do, and simplify the game for those lazy whiners who don't want to learn how to master it.

Stoopid idea to get in more "lazy" players that used to think EVE was too difficult. It's all about $$$ and nothing with "better player experience"

My 2 isk

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore

Kenneth Endashi
Kor-Azor Slave Holdings
#1136 - 2015-02-19 01:30:52 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
This idea to remove attributes and implants may work short term. I have very little faith in it working long term.

I'm not a game designer (sorry I keep repeating this) but I can say with certainty that we're not making changes to manipulate players into staying with the game longer. We make changes to improve the game while retaining its unique character.

(Slippery-slope arguments notwithstanding, EVE's unique character is what has attracted many of us to CCP, and, for those of us who have moved to Iceland from elsewhere, it's what keeps us in this beautiful but formidable country. We're not going to gamble that unique character away to improve our metrics.)


There are a lot of people who would love to be in the same position you folks are in. It's nice to know that after 11 years, CCP still hasn't flipped the pay-to-win switch and turned the game into an ATM. It's rewarding for everyone when you hold to that concept, from the roleplaying capsuleer to the role developers play in pursuit of a shared ideal.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1137 - 2015-02-19 01:34:10 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
I'm not stuck on the absolute rate of SP, only relative. If the max rate is the only rate, that's fine. It would be liberating.

I can't really disagree with that idea, but as a system it seems lacking. It removes any interaction with the system itself aside from building a sequential list, even if that interaction is a source of consternation for some.

I said that knowing CCP is not going to remove learning implants. They're available for everyone, so the mechanic is accessible, and rather quickly. On top of that, Cybernetics has other uses beyond learning implants.

No way they're uprooting learning implants. The industry, the gameplay, depth of the mechanic. It's the unnatural bits that need to be ironed out.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
#1138 - 2015-02-19 03:43:12 UTC
Dominique Vasilkovsky wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Zappity wrote:
The problem with learning implants is that they don't contribute to in game activities. Having them active means you are less likely to be doing something else which other people can interact with. So when I'm in my +5 learning I'm not in my snakes, or industry, or whatever else.

Encouraging people into learning clones rather than 'interacting' clones is bad game design.


Thats not the implants that entirely down to you.

True but why promote a feature that makes people chose inactivity for a large percentage of the playerbase? If the option for attribute implants didn't exist people wouldn't get themselfs locked in "in the wrong clone" in the first place.



That is the way consequence works. In RL and in game.
Implants are a choice, and should never be considered for removal. With that being said, a newb does need implants at all...most skills they need while learning how to actually play in their first 30-90 days take as much as 4 days to reach lv4 each without them.
Having implants does not make you less interactable.....the player mentatlity of "I want to play and be left alone to do so" is the problem with that question. It is a problem because EvE is a game based on someone ruining your day just because they can or because some how you have become a problem without knowing your a problem or do not fit in with their group..yet.

Also the higher cost of some implants......like +5's you do not really need them unless your a veteran and skilling some long time skill. For example i have a research toon that is planned to learn her science skills from 4 to 5 each....359 days total...with +5's installed. So do not go on about (those of you that do) removing implants for the sake of the newb.......you are not helping them but instead trying to gimp veterans that do use them and can afford them because they are vets.

Now as to attributes themselves.
Instead of removing them, besides increasing SP slightly the higher they are for what ever category why not make them more useful instead. Perception for example as in most table top RPG games helps tremendously with combat related skills, being able to track movement better, notice things easier than others, being able to hit a moving target much easier than the next guy.

Perception should have a noticable combat related mechanic for higher attribute score.....then say the next guy.

The person with really high Charisma should have bonus to how their Fleet command skills and links work as well.

just my 2 cents.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#1139 - 2015-02-19 03:59:36 UTC
You don't have to explain consequence, we know what it is. The problem with this particular consequence is the prevailing logic that makes most players stay inside, and EVE is less active as a result.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
#1140 - 2015-02-19 04:05:17 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
You don't have to explain consequence, we know what it is. The problem with this particular consequence is the prevailing logic that makes most players stay inside, and EVE is less active as a result.


Which is by result the same logic such players use in RL to avoid conflict.....whether its abuse by law enforcement, their friend being beaten to death at a bar, or the next door neighbor getting robbed.........they still will never undock.