These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

@ Ccp, Please Revise the skill List

Author
Aminari Talar
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#1 - 2015-06-17 13:17:35 UTC
I really think you guys should reconsider your timers on a lot of the tech two ships, one of the long complaints with eve has been its immense training time. As game developers we understand the importance of retention rates, and the like but i would like to advocate for a few changes to the current training policies.


- Reduce All tech two ship requirements to Level 4 of the hull class, or reduce the hull train time on level 5.
Largely i feel like "Hac's, logi etc" have an insane train time, and with the current meta you are focusing most
players a 3 month duration to be competitive. It would be better for the game and economy if you pushed these timers
to a reduce rate.

For me as a new alt, it takes me 5 days level 4, and 28 days level 5. I would like to see a reduction in cruisers, and destroyer based ships to 5 days, and 8 days. This will help improve the training direction of players into tech two ships faster, help improve the tech two industry, and also promote better training principles in the player base.

In short, It takes people to long to get into tech two ships, and it would be great if you pushed all of the tier 5 training times on sub-cruiser classes to a max of say 10 or 12 days, while keeping things like command ship plus, to a min of 90 day train time.

Additionally, please dont forget about the industrial side of things two, it'd be great to see more easily accessible training on things like cloaky transports.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#2 - 2015-06-17 13:24:03 UTC
There is a word, it's called 'specialization'. So I say no to what you ask for.

However. I do see that the current attribute system tends to punish players that 'Specialize', so wouldn't be averse to their removal and flat rate for all (2700 maybe), put in place. This would mean that learning attributes, are also removed from implants.

Then CCP could ascribe attributes to say, a bonus role. Linked with clones maybe. I have mentioned this before, but I cannot remember when.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2015-06-17 13:27:58 UTC
At the moment with default attributes, it takes 65 days to train for HAC (not counting weaponry).
I think this is fine as cruisers are incredibly powerful in their current state.

The only ship which I think needs it's training time reduced is Battlecruisers.
I have however trained the 115 days for a Marauder, which I personally think is the waiting time worth.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#4 - 2015-06-17 13:29:47 UTC
Oh noes you mean you have to invest some effort to be a pilot?

If the docterine calls for Basilisks i'm sure they'll take a t1 basi with a comparable fit if you ask the FC... I know i've used them when running incursions to feed cap to all the basilisks who then did cap and reps without needing to worry about cap chains...

Dont have an ishtar, use a VNI or hell even a normal vexor...
Portiko
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2015-06-17 13:33:18 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
promote better training principles in the player base.

Explain how pandering to instant gratification promotes better training principles.

SDPPenter link description here

Send dick pics please...

Aminari Talar
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#6 - 2015-06-17 13:40:06 UTC
Portiko wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
promote better training principles in the player base.

Explain how pandering to instant gratification promotes better training principles.



A reduction from 30-50 days is not "instant".


And "training time" does not have anything to do with "specialization".

I believe the ship training should be shorter, and the support skills (advanced and higher) be longer (meaning things like "small weapon specialization" should take a little longer to train. I also think that tech 2 should be better then faction (but not officer) to further support this.).

Portiko
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#7 - 2015-06-17 13:42:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Portiko
So you'd rather see new players using T1 guns on T2 ships rather than the current system which does things the other way around.

I'm not sure if it's better for player retention to have new players rush into ships they don't understand, die and then quit because they suck at Eve, or to let them rush into the shiniest ships and get bored of them before they really understand what they're doing with them.

SDPPenter link description here

Send dick pics please...

Aminari Talar
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#8 - 2015-06-17 13:54:49 UTC
They die already, So whats changing other then the "feeling" they are progressing.

We are talking about a 15-20 day reduction on cruiser 5.
It would open up a lot more alliances to be competitive with the nono-ishtar spam nonsense out there,
and help balance out the "odds" of newer player alliances against the rest.

Making the game skill based, not skill point based.
Aminari Talar
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#9 - 2015-06-17 14:01:16 UTC
I find conversations like this often have people with your point attacking the position "instant gratification" (which is proven to be successful in gaming btw, not just that but highly)

Whats interesting about this is people who advocate against this, are you not advocating for your own version of that, by one shotting the noobs?

Your never going to change the nature of rushing.. Player always and will always do the efficient thing. We developers work very hard to make awesome really near content but time and time again see you guys sit in the same spam spot spamming blizzard over and over and over.

Players are efficient is what they do, and if they think "the biggest best thing" is efficient they will drive with that unrelenting.
The only thing this is doing is helping them get to that point where they are in the area of being competitive with you.

To put it in perspective number values

28 Days + another 7 for level 5 cruiser. This is 35 days.

I advocate for a reduction to 13 days (specifically this high drop on cruisers since they access so many different types of ships, ie hics, logi, hacs, recons etc).

lets assume tech 2 specialization takes 8 days to train. I then advocate for an increase on that to something like 12 days (+4 days).

and tech 1 and two variants are not so massively different to be honest, they do have a noticeable effect, but i think a tech 1 hack is in the area of competitive with a tech two especially if it has a faction mod or two on it.

This change is more or less needed to allow the alliances that grow and try to live on newer alts and players to be competitive with the few larger more skill point alliances around.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#10 - 2015-06-17 14:38:44 UTC
FireFrenzy wrote:
Oh noes you mean you have to invest some effort to be a pilot?

If the docterine calls for Basilisks i'm sure they'll take a t1 basi with a comparable fit if you ask the FC... I know i've used them when running incursions to feed cap to all the basilisks who then did cap and reps without needing to worry about cap chains...

Dont have an ishtar, use a VNI or hell even a normal vexor...



This basically.


Even years ago before rebalance passes made even t1 really good there was always the navies to run. I when building up to cerb enjoyed navy caracals for example. Not a bad little ship all in all.


And with the rebalance passes ccp made some t1 much more fun rides. Its not like the old days imo where this sucked more as t1 cruisers and frigates were just not that great.


And my usual take the time to make the isk to buy your new shiny toys. they will go boom just like the t1's. Difference being they are more expensive lm's. And even if they don't go boom very often when you get them...you may find you buy lots of them anyway to cover rig arrangements.

As ripping out rigs can get expensive. Especially for frigates where usually with good prices splurging on t2 rigs not so bad an idea most times. Or just annoying really over time. So buy 2-3 of them, rig em differently and ready to roll in no time at all.

All this takes isk...make it in the grind basically.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#11 - 2015-06-17 15:03:05 UTC
How exactly does a shorter training time "promote better training principles in the player base"? The basic principle in EVE is that the better your stuff is, the longer it takes to train, the more ISK it costs and the narrower are the benefits over less powerful elements. How does your shorter training time match these fundamental principles? What you are basically asking for is a complete reversal of these for cruisers while keeping them up for everything else, which would create a major inconsistency in skill training (and other things) for no good reason.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-06-17 17:25:11 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
FireFrenzy wrote:
Oh noes you mean you have to invest some effort to be a pilot?

If the docterine calls for Basilisks i'm sure they'll take a t1 basi with a comparable fit if you ask the FC... I know i've used them when running incursions to feed cap to all the basilisks who then did cap and reps without needing to worry about cap chains...

Dont have an ishtar, use a VNI or hell even a normal vexor...



This basically.


Even years ago before rebalance passes made even t1 really good there was always the navies to run. I when building up to cerb enjoyed navy caracals for example. Not a bad little ship all in all.


And with the rebalance passes ccp made some t1 much more fun rides. Its not like the old days imo where this sucked more as t1 cruisers and frigates were just not that great.


And my usual take the time to make the isk to buy your new shiny toys. they will go boom just like the t1's. Difference being they are more expensive lm's. And even if they don't go boom very often when you get them...you may find you buy lots of them anyway to cover rig arrangements.

As ripping out rigs can get expensive. Especially for frigates where usually with good prices splurging on t2 rigs not so bad an idea most times. Or just annoying really over time. So buy 2-3 of them, rig em differently and ready to roll in no time at all.

All this takes isk...make it in the grind basically.


Before the rebalance/re-design, logi was the complete red-headed step child of offering no progression. The base cruiser hull had mining bonus so you really had to make some bastardised fit if you ever wanted to try logi before commiting to the T2 long (it's relative of course) train because the logistic boat don't ever work before at the very least IV.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#13 - 2015-06-17 17:31:59 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
I find conversations like this often have people with your point attacking the position "instant gratification" (which is proven to be successful in gaming btw, not just that but highly)



Different players seek different things.

Delayed gratification and progression based games have proven to be at least as successful. Funny how instant gratification games like COD and BF adopted progression mechanics like levelling up.

By making things quicker and easier to get into you cheapen the achievement of getting there. So whilst your saying 'think of the noobs', it would devalue the experience.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
Of Essence
#14 - 2015-06-17 17:40:26 UTC
Wow this thread is so much fail.

We see lots of bad ideas, mine included, according to some people... but at least the OP usually tries to give reasons and justifications for ideas to nerf this or buff that.

You Sir, just come right out and say "waaaaaah it takes too long to train for HACs and I want to fly them fasterrrr!!!".

Just get right out of here.

I couldn't even call this a rant, because it's concise and you're clearly not emotional about it, but this is just a whine-thread. A shameless, water-trash whine.
Iain Cariaba
#15 - 2015-06-17 18:35:13 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
I find conversations like this often have people with your point attacking the position "instant gratification" (which is proven to be successful in gaming btw, not just that but highly)

You want instant gratification, go play a MOBA. Many EvE players do when nothing is happening in EvE.

EvE is not, nor has it ever been, an instant gratification game. Turning it into one would make it not EvE.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2015-06-17 19:04:30 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:


For me as a new alt, it takes me 5 days level 4, and 28 days level 5. I would like to see a reduction in cruisers, and destroyer based ships to 5 days, and 8 days. This will help improve the training direction of players into tech two ships faster, help improve the tech two industry, and also promote better training principles in the player base.



An old fart hiding behind the alt's mask and complaining about learning time Roll

Cyberneyics V and Cerebral Accelerators are your best friends.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#17 - 2015-06-17 19:30:29 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
They die already, So whats changing other then the "feeling" they are progressing.

We are talking about a 15-20 day reduction on cruiser 5.
It would open up a lot more alliances to be competitive with the nono-ishtar spam nonsense out there,
and help balance out the "odds" of newer player alliances against the rest.

Making the game skill based, not skill point based.


The reliance on Ishtars has nothing to do with SP accrual rates. It has to do with the toxic meta and Ishtars.

Assault Frigates and particularly now tactical destroyers are quick trains, and find homes in lots of set ups. There is definitely that first few months when everything seems impossibly far off, but as time passes, skills compound and multiply their utility and the hulls one is able to properly fly.

Honestly the clumsiness of the attribute system and remaps is probably the first thing that will go and let you get what you want faster and easier.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

DaReaper
Net 7
Cannon.Fodder
#18 - 2015-06-17 20:29:25 UTC  |  Edited by: DaReaper
you are just chalk full of dumb ideas arn't you?

as i said in your other thread.... hell no.

However. attributes and skill training could and should get a second look. Either so you can add interesting features, like perma death, or to correct inconstancy/unessiary work.

But making it way easy to get a t2 ship? no thanks. The time it takes you to train also teaches you the mechanics so you have a better chance of keeping your ship

OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!

Eve For life.

Iain Cariaba
#19 - 2015-06-17 20:43:30 UTC
After being in nullsec for several years, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've heard a FC tell some newbie in a t1 frig that he can't join the fleet.

There is nothing wrong with the current skill train times for most ships. It helps later in game when you learn to fly right before they get into the more advanced ships.
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#20 - 2015-06-17 21:27:24 UTC
I'm still left wondering what games the OP has designed

There's also a lot more prerequisites to T2 ships than the frigate V or cruiser V... plus necessary support skills to properly use those ships.
(Still haven't bought an Ishtar or Proteus yet - keep looking at the numbers and wondering if a VNI is a better bet)
12Next page