Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 220 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Berrice Silf
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 22:07:52 -
[6301] - Quote
Rat Scout wrote:Berrice Silf wrote:
What they going to do advertise the fact that now you can jump straight into the thick of it totally immersive environment with the ability to speed train with the TSP, you log on and find you either have to jump through hoops to get them or invest in 10 plex just to advance a few months.
You know if you used present tense, this actually makes sense. Otherwise you are just making "assumptions" that have zero net effect on the current status quo. Well seeing as the OP hasn't had the decency to even give us a heads up on what even the cost's theyre contemplating the extractor to be then every single comment here is purely speculative. Hopefully they may see sense and hit the abort button in it's current incarnation and go back to the drawing board on generating income. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1847
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 22:11:02 -
[6302] - Quote
Berrice Silf wrote:I have no intention of merging any of my characters tyson, i was just explaining to Rat that i am in a position that what ever happens it wont affect me. He's deluded into thinking i have some high ranked character when ive already stated my highest one is just coming to 120m now but i do have quite a few around that mark. and they on 11 pilots over the 8. My main concern is that doing it this way won't benefit everyone. Without the availability your not going to attract previous trialists / younger pilots who left or new players.
What they going to do advertise the fact that now you can jump straight into the thick of it totally immersive environment with the ability to speed train with the TSP, you log on and find you either have to jump through hoops to get them or invest in 10 plex just to advance a few months. I don't think this is trying to attract trial players, the very new or the unfamiliar with the game. I think it's trying to retain those that have decided to take the plunge because only then, after you are invested in the game, does the desire to work to develop the character become meaningful.
There is definitely a high point of potential draw, which I think is the lower half of the 5-50m SP range, where SP constraints of isk making are effectively overcome with some focused training, but there's still a strong draw to diversify skills.
I'm looking at this as a retention aid for the newish, 6 month+ players who are hitting walls in their flexibility and giving them carrots to chase. Meanwhile I do believe some will make them available sooner with the guidance to use them properly, but don't expect that to necessarily be a norm or hit all of the player base. That said since most of the game is already set up as an aspiration at that level what harm does one more do? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6877
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 02:13:54 -
[6303] - Quote
Berrice Silf wrote:What they going to do advertise the fact that now you can jump straight into the thick of it totally immersive environment with the ability to speed train with the TSP, you log on and find you either have to jump through hoops to get them or invest in 10 plex just to advance a few months. What do they advertise now? You can jump straight into the thick of logged out skill training?
Tyberius Franklin wrote:There is definitely a high point of potential draw, which I think is the lower half of the 5-50m SP range, where SP constraints of isk making are effectively overcome with some focused training, but there's still a strong draw to diversify skills.
I'm looking at this as a retention aid for the newish, 6 month+ players who are hitting walls in their flexibility and giving them carrots to chase. Definitely agree. Chase carrots.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Meanwhile I do believe some will make them available sooner with the guidance to use them properly, but don't expect that to necessarily be a norm or hit all of the player base. That said since most of the game is already set up as an aspiration at that level what harm does one more do? That's up them to decide.
Well, you'd think that was the case with teams before but uh well
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Dominic Altol
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 09:42:14 -
[6304] - Quote
If you've trained the skills, either by paying for your account or " earning" PLEX, then why not just reallocate them from skills you no longer wish to "use". I would suggest making the transfer of skills 1:1 using a similar system to the remap of attributes, limited to the amount or times it can be done as well as only being able to be used on your own account. for example if you wanted to use them to improve your other characters attributes.
In principal, as a relatively new player, i am not opposed to the idea of gaining skill points in areas where they would benefit/improve my experience of the game, as i play it now, similar to a lot of players i don't use some of the skills i waited eagerly for when i started.
|
Berrice Silf
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
47
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 09:58:09 -
[6305] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Berrice Silf wrote:What they going to do advertise the fact that now you can jump straight into the thick of it totally immersive environment with the ability to speed train with the TSP, you log on and find you either have to jump through hoops to get them or invest in 10 plex just to advance a few months. What do they advertise now? You can jump straight into the thick of logged out skill training?
I can't say personally I've seen a promo video that show's skills being trained, Seeing as you know its time based training within 30 mins of playing the game and within 24 hours you grasp the skills escalate by level what kept you playing so long. Are you suggesting that it should be changed so we have WoW in space level design, that would be tedious and some what same old. Perhaps skill points to kills, then wouldn't that create an even bigger gap from new to vet. As it stands now you have the best of both worlds, You progress in knowledge and personal skills whilst playing the game but when your logged out your still progressing passively. You now have the ability to become as space rich as your RL wallet allows by the plex, You can play for free if you want to have a space job.
Where do you draw the line, What is enough before you totally bugger the whole game up. |
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
16
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 16:36:17 -
[6306] - Quote
Berrice Silf wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Berrice Silf wrote:What they going to do advertise the fact that now you can jump straight into the thick of it totally immersive environment with the ability to speed train with the TSP, you log on and find you either have to jump through hoops to get them or invest in 10 plex just to advance a few months. What do they advertise now? You can jump straight into the thick of logged out skill training? I can't say personally I've seen a promo video that show's skills being trained, Seeing as you know its time based training within 30 mins of playing the game and within 24 hours you grasp the skills escalate by level what kept you playing so long. Are you suggesting that it should be changed so we have WoW in space level design, that would be tedious and some what same old. Perhaps skill points for kills, then wouldn't that create an even bigger gap from new to vet. As it stands now you have the best of both worlds, You progress in knowledge and personal skills whilst playing the game but when your logged out your still progressing passively. You now have the ability to become as space rich as your RL wallet allows by the plex, You can play for free if you want to have a space job. Where do you draw the line, What is enough before you totally bugger the whole game up.
It's the thin end of the wedge talked about when the store was introduced for "vanity items only" So after monetizing skill progression the next logical step would be monetizing the content and equipment. In WOW after you have bought your way to level 90+ it would be buying the latest upgrade or newest mount but for eve here's a couple of suggestions.
Open up Jove space for occupation but require that all the gates use keys "Get a set of 20 jove gate keys for $19.99" Do you want to be able stand your ground against 4 standard Titans? then use your TSP to train for the all new Super Titan!. "Super Titan neural interface packages are available at the store just $20 for one months supply"
Of course EVE is obviously not WOW and it's surprising that people do not know this.
|
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
16
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 16:57:11 -
[6307] - Quote
Berrice's comment " Perhaps Skill Points for kills" may be worth thinking about.
They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships. The lowest skilled ships/modules lost would result in little or no loss to SP to help newbies and high end ships proportionally higher skill losses to reflect the whole risk vs reward ethic of EVE .
I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points |
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 17:44:31 -
[6308] - Quote
Hamish McRothimay wrote:Berrice's comment " Perhaps Skill Points for kills" may be worth thinking about.
They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships. The lowest skilled ships/modules lost would result in little or no loss to SP to help newbies and high end ships proportionally higher skill losses to reflect the whole risk vs reward ethic of EVE .
I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points Did you miss the part about diminishing returns? I know it's hard to get the facts right, mark down TSP as an improvement since there is a significant SKILL POINT sink past the 50m mark.
|
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
17
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 19:20:22 -
[6309] - Quote
Rat Scout wrote:Hamish McRothimay wrote:Berrice's comment " Perhaps Skill Points for kills" may be worth thinking about.
They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships. The lowest skilled ships/modules lost would result in little or no loss to SP to help newbies and high end ships proportionally higher skill losses to reflect the whole risk vs reward ethic of EVE .
I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points Did you miss the part about diminishing returns? I know it's hard to get the facts right, mark down TSP as an improvement since there is a significant SKILL POINT sink past the 50m mark.
I have read about the diminishing returns but again you misread my comment. I didn't mention diminishing returns, it was a comment about introducing the loss of existing skill points when a ship is lost. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1847
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 19:36:25 -
[6310] - Quote
Hamish McRothimay wrote:Berrice's comment " Perhaps Skill Points for kills" may be worth thinking about.
They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships. The lowest skilled ships/modules lost would result in little or no loss to SP to help newbies and high end ships proportionally higher skill losses to reflect the whole risk vs reward ethic of EVE .
I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points For all of the game we've always had a skilling mechanic that didn't promote any sort of sinking as a normal mechanic. Clone losses were a punishment for neglegence and were removed. T3 SP losses weren't designed to be sinks so much as limit the use of those ships (and for the most part failed). Why would we need SP sinks now that we've mechanically acknowledged that it wasn't the greatest idea to begin with? How would we benefit? Why would we promote risk aversion further? |
|
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
17
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 20:02:20 -
[6311] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hamish McRothimay wrote:Berrice's comment " Perhaps Skill Points for kills" may be worth thinking about.
They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships. The lowest skilled ships/modules lost would result in little or no loss to SP to help newbies and high end ships proportionally higher skill losses to reflect the whole risk vs reward ethic of EVE .
I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points For all of the game we've always had a skilling mechanic that didn't promote any sort of sinking as a normal mechanic. Clone losses were a punishment for neglegence and were removed. T3 SP losses weren't designed to be sinks so much as limit the use of those ships (and for the most part failed). Why would we need SP sinks now that we've mechanically acknowledged that it wasn't the greatest idea to begin with? How would we benefit? Why would we promote risk aversion further?
But, for all the game we have had a skill point system tied to subscription that precluded any sink mechanism, losses from getting destroyed in a T3 are absolute losses that effectively cost the time invested through subscription. The trade-able system demotes skill points to the same value as isk, a monetary based system with no limitation due to time subscribed. So absolute SP loss should be included in the system not just the one side diminishing returns loss that is a bill footed by the buyer only.
Normally it would promote risk aversion but if they introduce skill point trading then skill farming will become a thing and it would be more likely to encourage multiple training or accounts to farm for skill points, So from CCP's point of view as another income stream it's a bonus ( This is the same argument used for off grid booster alts being a risk aversion factor and in fact it promoted multiple account ownership ) |
Max Muni
Muni Corp
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 20:48:43 -
[6312] - Quote
This is a MUST feature for the long term health of the game.
I know many Vets feel it's unfair since they had to wait to skill up to where they are, but the big issue is new player retention and not old player rewards. Old players are constantly being rewarded with new advanced ships that new players can't fly effectively.
At present, the bar is set too high in this very mature game, many don't stay with the game in any meaningful way as a result. I for one would buy them using in game earned ISK via missions, etc.. I can speak for the casual gamer and this one feature alone would make the in game goals far more meaningful.
The main Issue is.
The space game genre is the biggest it's ever been and EVE has seen little value from the massive new interest and this is directly due to new player retention after the trial period. The game is just too slow to skill and be effective. ELITE, SC and any other new game will/do not have this SP wait for months time barrier and CCP should consider any and all options to level playing field. It's old school and no longer relevant to gaming balance.
Skill should be the balancing factor, not time.
|
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 21:11:44 -
[6313] - Quote
I hear the force supports TSP. Obi Wan Kenobi sent me the memo. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1847
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 21:30:03 -
[6314] - Quote
Hamish McRothimay wrote:But, for all the game we have had a skill point system tied to subscription that precluded any sink mechanism, losses from getting destroyed in a T3 are absolute losses that effectively cost the time invested through subscription. The trade-able system demotes skill points to the same value as isk, a monetary based system with no limitation due to time subscribed. So absolute SP loss should be included in the system not just the one side diminishing returns loss that is a bill footed by the buyer only.
Normally it would promote risk aversion but if they introduce skill point trading then skill farming will become a thing and it would be more likely to encourage multiple training or accounts to farm for skill points, So from CCP's point of view as another income stream it's a bonus ( This is the same argument used for off grid booster alts being a risk aversion factor and in fact it promoted multiple account ownership ) No, at no point did the skill point system as it stands preclude loss. As I noted just prior we've had 2 loss mechanisms, one still in effect. What was decided was that that one mechanism wasn't a positive one, and further, from it's removal and lack of replacement we can see that SP loss was in no way vital or even largely important.
So you're first incorrect about the current system precluding loss, second contradicting the erroneous initial position by bringing up T3 losses and third further contradicting yourself through the fact that you advocated the system even without tradable SP. Especially with the last factor there the idea needs justified as a benefit to the game in some way. The idea of the devaluation of SP (which isn't the value of isk BTW since isk can be created without limit and transferred without loss while SP has the same limit as it ever has, just now in a pool of participating accounts instead of single characters) doesn't accomplish this. That's at best an argument for mitigating impact while acknowledging the negative.
So the logic doesn't flow that tradable SP should include SP loss. The system was never and as proposed would not be designed to require or benefit from SP loss on ship destruction.
To the idea of promotion of farming accounts: That doesn't counter the idea of risk aversion. All it does is raise the cost of PvP which creates more risk aversion even with tradable SP accounted for. Short term it may increase revenue at the cost of potentially higher PLEX prices than without these increased farms driving PLEX consumption and reduced activity due to aversion of risk from escalating recovery costs, further possibly reducing subs.
The OGB argument doesn't work in your favor either if CCPs public statements on the matter still hold. The priority there is removing them to reduce the low risk, high reward gains. Being that this is currently a goal the idea of a purely sub motivated change with a large and obviously negative impact with no justification or benefit seems unlikely. |
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 21:54:21 -
[6315] - Quote
Max Muni wrote:This is a MUST feature for the long term health of the game.
I know many Vets feel it's unfair since they had to wait to skill up to where they are, but the big issue is new player retention and not old player rewards. Old players are constantly being rewarded with new advanced ships that new players can't fly effectively.
At present, the bar is set too high in this very mature game, many don't stay with the game in any meaningful way as a result. I for one would buy them using in game earned ISK via missions, etc.. I can speak for the casual gamer and this one feature alone would make the in game goals far more meaningful.
The main Issue is.
The space game genre is the biggest it's ever been and EVE has seen little value from the massive new interest and this is directly due to new player retention after the trial period. The game is just too slow to skill and be effective. ELITE, SC and any other new game will/do not have this SP wait for months time barrier and CCP should consider any and all options to level playing field. It's old school and no longer relevant to gaming balance.
Skill should be the balancing factor, not time.
Ahhh Elite Dangerous, become a pilot rise through the ranks and command a fleet of fellow PVP'rs in defense of one of the 3 super packs. Or SC? is that Star Conflict where you become a pilot to fight for one of the major corporations and rise through the ranks to command a fleet of fellow PvP'rs to defend your chosen corporation Or does SC stand for Star Citizen where you fight for one side or another (it doesn't matter which side you fight in the tacked on FPS it's just there for fun) until you 'engage' with the universe to become the leader of a fleet of fellow PvP'rs to defend your space alliance. How about SWTOR where you chose the path of Jedi, Sith or Merc and fight you way across many planets to become a Lord of your chosen path and then you can join with fellow lords to enter the PVP arena where at least you are fighting for honor and glory not no NPC entity.
and the end game of EVE is..... ??
I was going to edit out the double negative but changed my mind as it seems appropriate |
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 22:54:42 -
[6316] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hamish McRothimay wrote:But, for all the game we have had a skill point system tied to subscription that precluded any sink mechanism, losses from getting destroyed in a T3 are absolute losses that effectively cost the time invested through subscription. The trade-able system demotes skill points to the same value as isk, a monetary based system with no limitation due to time subscribed. So absolute SP loss should be included in the system not just the one side diminishing returns loss that is a bill footed by the buyer only.
Normally it would promote risk aversion but if they introduce skill point trading then skill farming will become a thing and it would be more likely to encourage multiple training or accounts to farm for skill points, So from CCP's point of view as another income stream it's a bonus ( This is the same argument used for off grid booster alts being a risk aversion factor and in fact it promoted multiple account ownership ) No, at no point did the skill point system as it stands preclude loss. As I noted just prior we've had 2 loss mechanisms, one still in effect. What was decided was that that one mechanism wasn't a positive one, and further, from it's removal and lack of replacement we can see that SP loss was in no way vital or even largely important. So you're first incorrect about the current system precluding loss, second contradicting the erroneous initial position by bringing up T3 losses and third further contradicting yourself through the fact that you advocated the system even without tradable SP. Especially with the last factor there the idea needs justified as a benefit to the game in some way. The idea of the devaluation of SP (which isn't the value of isk BTW since isk can be created without limit and transferred without loss while SP has the same limit as it ever has, just now in a pool of participating accounts instead of single characters) doesn't accomplish this. That's at best an argument for mitigating impact while acknowledging the negative. So the logic doesn't flow that tradable SP should include SP loss. The system was never and as proposed would not be designed to require or benefit from SP loss on ship destruction. To the idea of promotion of farming accounts: That doesn't counter the idea of risk aversion. All it does is raise the cost of PvP which creates more risk aversion even with tradable SP accounted for. Short term it may increase revenue at the cost of potentially higher PLEX prices than without these increased farms driving PLEX consumption and reduced activity due to aversion of risk from escalating recovery costs, further possibly reducing subs. The OGB argument doesn't work in your favor either if CCPs public statements on the matter still hold. The priority there is removing them to reduce the low risk, high reward gains. Being that this is currently a goal the idea of a purely sub motivated change with a large and obviously negative impact with no justification or benefit seems unlikely.
That would be precluding the use of my proposed SP loss for Ship loss mechanism. Sorry you wasted a most eloquent response on your false presumption.
The only absolute loss in the trade-able SP exchange is by the buyer through diminishing returns ( I did read about it) The seller is trading his SP for ISK therefore it's not a loss.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1847
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 23:29:05 -
[6317] - Quote
Hamish McRothimay wrote:That would be precluding the use of my proposed SP loss for Ship loss mechanism. Sorry you wasted a most eloquent response on your false presumption.
The only absolute loss in the trade-able SP exchange is by the buyer through diminishing returns ( I did read about it) The seller is trading his SP for ISK therefore it's not a loss. What presumption is false? You advocated loss of SP on ship loss and I addressed that. You further advocated it in the absence of a change which makes everything in the op irrelevant for that point as none of it yet applies. You also stated the idea in the op creates room for SP loss on ship destruction and I asked you to justify that, and addressed the fact that your prior attempts at justification were flawed.
There were no assumptions, everything came directly from what you said:
"They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships." - There is no introduction since SP has always been a faucet with few sinks and the most common of which was removed. We never had any reason since then to believe such sinks were beneficial or necessary. Pointing that out in direct response isn't an assumption.
"I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points" - Which establishes that this mechanism is not simply a response to the proposal in the op but an idea you think has it's own merits. No assumptions there.
"for all the game we have had a skill point system tied to subscription that precluded any sink mechanism" - To which I responded that's what clone grades were, so it was in no way precluded, just judged non-beneficial. And again, no assumption. Just a response to what you said. If you meant to say from ship loss specifically, as addressed you would still be wrong with T3s and further, if you mean something, you should write it rather than make assumptions yourself about your reader. I made none. I just read what was presented.
The rest was further exploration and explanation of those points. And still you have yet to address the fully relevant request for benefit regarding this idea aside from suggesting the promotion of SP farms at the expense of all else is positive. |
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 15:44:53 -
[6318] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hamish McRothimay wrote:That would be precluding the use of my proposed SP loss for Ship loss mechanism. Sorry you wasted a most eloquent response on your false presumption.
The only absolute loss in the trade-able SP exchange is by the buyer through diminishing returns ( I did read about it) The seller is trading his SP for ISK therefore it's not a loss. What presumption is false? You advocated loss of SP on ship loss and I addressed that. You further advocated it in the absence of a change which makes everything in the op irrelevant for that point as none of it yet applies. You also stated the idea in the op creates room for SP loss on ship destruction and I asked you to justify that, and addressed the fact that your prior attempts at justification were flawed. There were no assumptions, everything came directly from what you said: "They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships." - There is no introduction since SP has always been a faucet with few sinks and the most common of which was removed. We never had any reason since then to believe such sinks were beneficial or necessary. Pointing that out in direct response isn't an assumption."I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points" - Which establishes that this mechanism is not simply a response to the proposal in the op but an idea you think has it's own merits. No assumptions there."for all the game we have had a skill point system tied to subscription that precluded any sink mechanism" - To which I responded that's what clone grades were, so it was in no way precluded, just judged non-beneficial. And again, no assumption. Just a response to what you said. If you meant to say from ship loss specifically (as opposed to "any"), as addressed you would still be wrong with T3s and further, if you mean something, you should write it rather than make assumptions yourself about your reader. I made none. I just read what was presented.The rest was further exploration and explanation of those points. And still you have yet to address the fully relevant request for benefit regarding this idea aside from suggesting the promotion of SP farms at the expense of all else is positive.
OMG I've forgotten to buy a clone upgrade - no wait they trashed that - They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6878
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 17:21:42 -
[6319] - Quote
Sounds like someone is really thirsty or wants to suck down on a faucet.
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1847
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 19:47:47 -
[6320] - Quote
Hamish McRothimay wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hamish McRothimay wrote:That would be precluding the use of my proposed SP loss for Ship loss mechanism. Sorry you wasted a most eloquent response on your false presumption.
The only absolute loss in the trade-able SP exchange is by the buyer through diminishing returns ( I did read about it) The seller is trading his SP for ISK therefore it's not a loss. What presumption is false? You advocated loss of SP on ship loss and I addressed that. You further advocated it in the absence of a change which makes everything in the op irrelevant for that point as none of it yet applies. You also stated the idea in the op creates room for SP loss on ship destruction and I asked you to justify that, and addressed the fact that your prior attempts at justification were flawed. There were no assumptions, everything came directly from what you said: "They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships." - There is no introduction since SP has always been a faucet with few sinks and the most common of which was removed. We never had any reason since then to believe such sinks were beneficial or necessary. Pointing that out in direct response isn't an assumption."I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points" - Which establishes that this mechanism is not simply a response to the proposal in the op but an idea you think has it's own merits. No assumptions there."for all the game we have had a skill point system tied to subscription that precluded any sink mechanism" - To which I responded that's what clone grades were, so it was in no way precluded, just judged non-beneficial. And again, no assumption. Just a response to what you said. If you meant to say from ship loss specifically (as opposed to "any"), as addressed you would still be wrong with T3s and further, if you mean something, you should write it rather than make assumptions yourself about your reader. I made none. I just read what was presented.The rest was further exploration and explanation of those points. And still you have yet to address the fully relevant request for benefit regarding this idea aside from suggesting the promotion of SP farms at the expense of all else is positive. OMG I've forgotten to buy a clone upgrade - no wait they trashed that - They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks From the very post you quoted: "There is no introduction since SP has always been a faucet with few sinks and the most common of which was removed. We never had any reason since then to believe such sinks were beneficial or necessary...
...that's what clone grades were, so it was in no way precluded, just judged non-beneficial.
...And still you have yet to address the fully relevant request for benefit regarding this idea aside from suggesting the promotion of SP farms at the expense of all else is positive."
That sink has been gone leaving SP a pure faucet for those not losing T3s for a while. Care to actually explain why that should change and what benefit there is rather than repeat the fact we've both acknowledged several times? |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6878
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 00:22:16 -
[6321] - Quote
So suddenly upgrading your clone has become a saint after it's martyrdom?
This thread definitely delivers something extreme.
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 20:50:06 -
[6322] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hamish McRothimay wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hamish McRothimay wrote:That would be precluding the use of my proposed SP loss for Ship loss mechanism. Sorry you wasted a most eloquent response on your false presumption.
The only absolute loss in the trade-able SP exchange is by the buyer through diminishing returns ( I did read about it) The seller is trading his SP for ISK therefore it's not a loss. What presumption is false? You advocated loss of SP on ship loss and I addressed that. You further advocated it in the absence of a change which makes everything in the op irrelevant for that point as none of it yet applies. You also stated the idea in the op creates room for SP loss on ship destruction and I asked you to justify that, and addressed the fact that your prior attempts at justification were flawed. There were no assumptions, everything came directly from what you said: "They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks. If skills were a consumable item then a system to farm / generate them makes sense. How about introducing a skill loss mechanic by expanding the T3 Strategic Cruiser system to cover all ship losses and maybe even modules fitted on ships." - There is no introduction since SP has always been a faucet with few sinks and the most common of which was removed. We never had any reason since then to believe such sinks were beneficial or necessary. Pointing that out in direct response isn't an assumption."I would consider this an attractive feature even without trade-able skill points" - Which establishes that this mechanism is not simply a response to the proposal in the op but an idea you think has it's own merits. No assumptions there."for all the game we have had a skill point system tied to subscription that precluded any sink mechanism" - To which I responded that's what clone grades were, so it was in no way precluded, just judged non-beneficial. And again, no assumption. Just a response to what you said. If you meant to say from ship loss specifically (as opposed to "any"), as addressed you would still be wrong with T3s and further, if you mean something, you should write it rather than make assumptions yourself about your reader. I made none. I just read what was presented.The rest was further exploration and explanation of those points. And still you have yet to address the fully relevant request for benefit regarding this idea aside from suggesting the promotion of SP farms at the expense of all else is positive. OMG I've forgotten to buy a clone upgrade - no wait they trashed that - They are introducing a type of skill faucet that has no sinks From the very post you quoted: " There is no introduction since SP has always been a faucet with few sinks and the most common of which was removed. We never had any reason since then to believe such sinks were beneficial or necessary...
...that's what clone grades were, so it was in no way precluded, just judged non-beneficial....And still you have yet to address the fully relevant request for benefit regarding this idea aside from suggesting the promotion of SP farms at the expense of all else is positive." That sink has been gone leaving SP a pure faucet for those not losing T3s for a while. Care to actually explain why that should change and what benefit there is rather than repeat the fact we've both acknowledged several times?
Faucet + Sink = Balanced Faucet + One-sided Sink = Unbalanced
The sink on the proposed system is applied to buyers only and made worse because of the diminishing returns system where the balance is actually reversed - Where else in-game does your training actually penalize your returns ?
Why does your lack of skills NOT penalize you ? Why isn't there a balancing mechanic that says I am a toon with under 10million SP only 10% of my extracted Points added
If its going to be treated as a market transaction then - At minimum the sink should drain SP from both sides of the exchange |
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 21:06:30 -
[6323] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: From the very post you quoted: "[i]There is no introduction since SP has always been a faucet with few sinks and the most common of which was removed. We never had any reason since then to believe such sinks were beneficial or necessary...
and the REASON is they are will no longer be gained only via the Subscription/time/character they will be a marketable item
The whole idea becomes as stupid as introducing a new a ship that can be bought, upgraded but never destroyed except through self destruction. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1847
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 21:37:36 -
[6324] - Quote
Hamish McRothimay wrote:Faucet + Sink = Balanced Faucet + One-sided Sink = Unbalanced
The sink on the proposed system is applied to buyers only and made worse because of the diminishing returns system where the balance is actually reversed - Where else in-game does your training actually penalize your returns ?
Why does your lack of skills NOT penalize you ? Why isn't there a balancing mechanic that says I am a toon with under 10million SP only 10% of my extracted Points added
If its going to be treated as a market transaction then - At minimum the sink should drain SP from both sides of the exchange How is it unbalanced? SP is designed to go up over time, not have an equal in:out to enforce beneficial scarcity like isk or materials. SP related capabilities are supposed to go up over time, and there is no specified rate for that since there are no economic considerations for SP as a medium save the suggestion that your idea is terrible because it will make tradable SP exclusive and much more expensive by putting it in constant demand for active combat pilots just to maintain their capabilities.
SP was never meant to meet your definition of "balanced." Why should it start?
And a lack of skills does penalize you every time you engage in an activity to which those skills could be applied, and ironically, the one SP universal SP sink we did have functioned the same way, penalizing greater SP characters. The reason is obvious in this case for why it's set up as it is, to prevent trivial creation of very high SP characters and disincentivize use on them so more supply could be used to meet the demand of the intended newer player/character group.
Basically you're starting from the premise that SP needs sinked or that SP growth needs counterbalanced and going from there, but there is no reason for that to be true. The game as it strands evidences the opposite of what you advocate. You've stated that this inequality between incoming and outgoing SP is a problem, but have yet to explain why, or what benefits come from correcting it yet again.
Hamish McRothimay wrote:and the REASON is they are will no longer be gained only via the Subscription/time/character they will be a marketable item
The whole idea becomes as stupid as introducing a new a ship that can be bought, upgraded but never destroyed except through self destruction At the point where characters become capable of acting in space without ships you'd have a point, but until then the comparison ignores the fact that no amount of SP makes your pod a highly lethal, effective, productive or resilient vessel.
All skills do is allow greater effect over a wider set of tools and abilities which themselves represent the capacity for loss. What you're trying to do is ignore that and double punish loss, I suspect with the intent of advocating a complete break of any SP economy to the point of being non-functional.
All selling SP does is allow characters to procure and use it, which is what SP is designed for, without the need for or benefit from further sinks. SP is designed to accumulate and be used, and as such accumulation and use doesn't need countered by another mechanic. |
JonnyPew
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2015.12.19 01:26:31 -
[6325] - Quote
I support this and want to see it implemented.
EVE Online is my hobby.
http://www.youtube.com/JonnyPew
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2015.12.19 02:32:57 -
[6326] - Quote
Despite a complete absence of evidence, I'm still convinced this system is part of a broader plan to launch Dust on PC and create a F2P version of EVE.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6878
|
Posted - 2015.12.19 03:44:18 -
[6327] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Despite a complete absence of evidence, I'm still convinced this system is part of a broader plan to launch Dust on PC Hmm thought Dust got headshot. Maybe the v2, Legion?
This is good news if it was backed by any evidence...
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
Hamish McRothimay
Norse Complex Inc
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.19 06:55:57 -
[6328] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hamish McRothimay wrote:Faucet + Sink = Balanced Faucet + One-sided Sink = Unbalanced
The sink on the proposed system is applied to buyers only and made worse because of the diminishing returns system where the balance is actually reversed - Where else in-game does your training actually penalize your returns ?
Why does your lack of skills NOT penalize you ? Why isn't there a balancing mechanic that says I am a toon with under 10million SP only 10% of my extracted Points added
If its going to be treated as a market transaction then - At minimum the sink should drain SP from both sides of the exchange How is it unbalanced? SP is designed to go up over time, not have an equal in:out to enforce beneficial scarcity like isk or materials. SP related capabilities are supposed to go up over time, and there is no specified rate for that since there are no economic considerations for SP as a medium save the suggestion that your idea is terrible because it will make tradable SP exclusive and much more expensive by putting it in constant demand for active combat pilots just to maintain their capabilities. SP was never meant to meet your definition of "balanced." Why should it start? And a lack of skills does penalize you every time you engage in an activity to which those skills could be applied, and ironically, the one SP universal SP sink we did have functioned the same way, penalizing greater SP characters. The reason is obvious in this case for why it's set up as it is, to prevent trivial creation of very high SP characters and disincentivize use on them so more supply could be used to meet the demand of the intended newer player/character group. Basically you're starting from the premise that SP needs sinked or that SP growth needs counterbalanced and going from there, but there is no reason for that to be true. The game as it strands evidences the opposite of what you advocate. You've stated that this inequality between incoming and outgoing SP is a problem, but have yet to explain why, or what benefits come from correcting it yet again. Hamish McRothimay wrote:and the REASON is they are will no longer be gained only via the Subscription/time/character they will be a marketable item
The whole idea becomes as stupid as introducing a new a ship that can be bought, upgraded but never destroyed except through self destruction At the point where characters become capable of acting in space without ships you'd have a point, but until then the comparison ignores the fact that no amount of SP makes your pod a highly lethal, effective, productive or resilient vessel. All skills do is allow greater effect over a wider set of tools and abilities which themselves represent the capacity for loss. What you're trying to do is ignore that and double punish loss, I suspect with the intent of advocating a complete break of any SP economy to the point of being non-functional. All selling SP does is allow characters to procure and use it, which is what SP is designed for, without the need for or benefit from further sinks. SP is designed to accumulate and be used, and as such accumulation and use doesn't need countered by another mechanic.
"SP was never meant to meet your definition of "balanced." Why should it start?"
"SP were never meant to be bought and sold as a tradable item on the market "so ... now it need balancing" "and because of that .. its time to start!"
""At the point where characters become capable of acting in space without ships you'd have a point"" Station Trading, contracting, Alliance forming, hiring haulers, corporation forming all nice and cozy in my pod but then you are fully aware that I was pointing out that you can buy SP and have no risk of loss thus nothing to do with the tangent you replied with. so its just like buying a ship that can be upgraded and not lost apart from self destructing it |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1847
|
Posted - 2015.12.19 20:51:02 -
[6329] - Quote
Hamish McRothimay wrote:Station Trading, contracting, Alliance forming, hiring haulers, corporation forming all nice and cozy in my pod but then you are fully aware that I was pointing out that you can buy SP and have no risk of loss thus nothing to do with the tangent you replied with. so its just like buying a ship that can be upgraded and not lost apart from self destructing it I like how you think pointing out professions that won't be affected by your proposal and are free to gain purchasable SP without fear of loss is somehow more relevant than me pointing out the areas where you are directly double penalizing loss.
Or is this one of those "loss for thee but not for me" proposals by intent?
"SP were never meant to be bought and sold as a tradable item on the market "so ... now it need balancing" "and because of that .. its time to start!" - Already addressed: "SP is designed to go up over time, not have an equal in:out to enforce beneficial scarcity like isk or materials. SP related capabilities are supposed to go up over time, and there is no specified rate for that since there are no economic considerations for SP as a medium save the suggestion that your idea is terrible because it will make tradable SP exclusive and much more expensive by putting it in constant demand for active combat pilots just to maintain their capabilities."
SP was meant to increase character abilities, that's all. And that is what it will continue to do even if trading is introduced. Trading does not interfere with that function, and thus brings no reason to sink SP.
So your search for an actual reason to sink SP continues. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6878
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 00:30:06 -
[6330] - Quote
Your attempts to sink this by page 314 are not looking good, you'd have done better to rehash pages 1 to 20 or so (ie: the rawest kneejerks)
Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall.
We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 220 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |