Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
649
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 15:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
One of the more distorted sides of the "risk vs. reward" issue is the existence of learning implants. Learning implants are pretty much a must in this game because they increase the rate at which we acquire the most precious commodity: skillpoints. The only problem with this is that people in nullsec who PVP have significantly greater risk to their pods than people who play pretty much anywhere else in EVE.
So for literally the same reward, the risk is much, much greater. And as often as nullsec PVPers get podded, replacing +5s or +4s can add up to be quite costly. The only other option is to sacrifice training time, which for most people is a non-option.
To mitigate this risk we often use jump clones, but these are also not without problems. The jump clone timer is 24 hours, meaning that players will often jump into a clone with implants, only to abstain from fleet ops for the next day because they don't want to lose their precious clone. The end result is that the learning implants cause many nullsec dwellers to be risk-averse.
I propose a simple solution: allow learning implants to be unplugged without destroying them. This would exclude the T2 implants of course (Crystals, Snakes, Slaves, etc.), but apply to the attribute enhancers specifically. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Spr09
East India Ore Trade Intrepid Crossing
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 16:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
I like the idea of them being unpluggable, but it doesn't really fix anything. I'd say make it so that implants degrade the longer they're plugged in, so that people in highsec need to switch them out every once and a while. |
Kitt JT
League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda
99
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
This is dumb.
These are the trade offs. You want to pvp with expensive ****? You risk losing said ****. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
650
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kitt JT wrote:This is dumb.
These are the trade offs. You want to pvp with expensive ****? You risk losing said ****. No, the point is that people don't PVP because it means a loss in their precious training time. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Astroniomix
Thorn Project Black Thorne Alliance
175
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Kitt JT wrote:This is dumb.
These are the trade offs. You want to pvp with expensive ****? You risk losing said ****. No, the point is that people don't PVP because it means a loss in their precious training time. People who are that concerned about maxing their training time aren't likely to be PVPing anyway. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
650
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Kitt JT wrote:This is dumb.
These are the trade offs. You want to pvp with expensive ****? You risk losing said ****. No, the point is that people don't PVP because it means a loss in their precious training time. People who are that concerned about maxing their training time aren't likely to be PVPing anyway. What makes you say that? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2643
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Kitt JT wrote:This is dumb.
These are the trade offs. You want to pvp with expensive ****? You risk losing said ****. No, the point is that people don't PVP because it means a loss in their precious training time. People who are that concerned about maxing their training time aren't likely to be PVPing anyway.
They're just less likely to PvP, but that doesn't mean CCP shouldn't try to get them to take part in PvP when the opportunity is presented. What all these different implant ideas try to do is allow people to decide the level of risk they take to PvP. That is basically it. Currently you can't make that choice in the short term as far as all implants are concerned and gaining that limited flexibility is put behind a barrier instead of made readily available to all players. The choices left for the people interested in PvP are to put PvP above most implant benefits or not utilize such implants, to soak the extra expense of losing expensive implants, that often offer zero combat benefit for your ship/fit, or being unwilling to pay that extra cost and not PvP at all that time. The choice should be to just decide what you are willing to risk and then allowing players to do that with as few restrictions as possible. Not everyone will choose to PvP, but the added flexibility and lowered barriers will mean more people are going to PvP when the situation presents itself and that is good.
The real question you need to ask is there anything wrong with allowing people to choose their risk level on the short term? I don't see any real downsides to allowing it. The game allows it in other instances and practically no one is complaining about it. To better illustrate the problem you can think of it like ship fitting. Is it better to allow people to change fits/ships as they see necessary or do you force a 24 hour timer between non-destructive fitting/ship changes? Using a long timer between changes forces people to choose fits geared towards their main activity within that timeframe and make choosing your fit/ship have more consequense, but it will also act as an unnecessary barrier for people to take part in any side activity of what that ship/fit specializes in.
My view is, that this pointless barrier should have never been erected in the first place and people should always get to choose their level of risk when flying their spaceships. Jump clones helped with it in a limited way, but the 24 hour timer doesn't work well. I suspect the current jump clone timers were initially put in because of the instant teleporting function of jump clones, since it makes sense to limit such mode of travel. With the wide selection of role specific expensive implant sets the issue with being married to a set of implants has only gotten worse over the years. This issue needs to be fixed permanently one way or another. The precise method is somewhat irrelevant, but it needs to put the choice of what people want to risk fully in the hands of the players and lower the barrier to take part in PvP as much as possible. If you can think of any downsides to allowing this, I'd like to hear it. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
85
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
I have thought about the idea of removing learning implants all togeather and replace them with a SINGLE learing skill book purchasable in all starter systems, each level would give +1 to all attributes. Before you say they removed learning skills for a reason, they removed 5 learning skilll books that were only available for purchase in LP stores or grossly overpriced in the open market. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 22:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'd say remove the things entirely.
Their main reason of existence seems to be rewarding avoidance of risk.
You get the most benefit from them if you don't take any sort of risk.
Contrary to just about everything else in the game. You take a mining barge into low-sec or null-sec and you're rewarded with a greater variety and quantity of ore. You take a missioning ship into low-sec or null-sec and you're rewarded with higher LP payouts. You take a ratting ship into a belt in low-sec or null-sec and you're rewarded with higher bounty rats. You place a POS in low-sec or null-sec and you're rewarded with many more options in modules to anchor.
Other implants give additional benefits in space with higher risk by increasing your chances of coming out on top. Learning implants do no such thing.
Even if the rewards don't measure up to the additional risk taken in some cases, there still is an increase in reward. Risks may multiply by a factor of hundreds whilst rewards barely increase at all, point is that with just about every single item players can use there is a reward when risking it, however minor it may be.
I've troubling thinking of any other item that can be purchased which gives the greatest possible benefit by never undocking.
I'd say learning implants are clearly against the spirit of EvE. |
Souisa
WESCORP 2.0
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dont people in low-sec have signifcantly better options of earning isk as well? |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Souisa wrote:Dont people in low-sec have signifcantly better options of earning isk as well? That's related to the risk of living in lowsec, not having anything to do with learning implants. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 00:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Astroniomix wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Kitt JT wrote:This is dumb.
These are the trade offs. You want to pvp with expensive ****? You risk losing said ****. No, the point is that people don't PVP because it means a loss in their precious training time. People who are that concerned about maxing their training time aren't likely to be PVPing anyway. They're just less likely to PvP, but that doesn't mean CCP shouldn't try to get them to take part in PvP when the opportunity is presented. What all these different implant ideas try to do is allow people to decide the level of risk they take to PvP. That is basically it. Currently you can't make that choice in the short term as far as all implants are concerned and gaining that limited flexibility is put behind a barrier instead of made readily available to all players. The choices left for the people interested in PvP are to put PvP above most implant benefits or not utilize such implants, to soak the extra expense of losing expensive implants, that often offer zero combat benefit for your ship/fit, or being unwilling to pay that extra cost and not PvP at all that time. The choice should be to just decide what you are willing to risk and then allowing players to do that with as few restrictions as possible. Not everyone will choose to PvP, but the added flexibility and lowered barriers will mean more people are going to PvP when the situation presents itself and that is good. The real question you need to ask is there anything wrong with allowing people to choose their risk level on the short term? I don't see any real downsides to allowing it. The game allows it in other instances and practically no one is complaining about it. To better illustrate the problem you can think of it like ship fitting. Is it better to allow people to change fits/ships as they see necessary or do you force a 24 hour timer between non-destructive fitting/ship changes? Using a long timer between changes forces people to choose fits geared towards their main activity within that timeframe and make choosing your fit/ship have more consequense, but it will also act as an unnecessary barrier for people to take part in any side activity of what that ship/fit specializes in. My view is, that this pointless barrier should have never been erected in the first place and people should always get to choose their level of risk when flying their spaceships. Jump clones helped with it in a limited way, but the 24 hour timer doesn't work well. I suspect the current jump clone timers were initially put in because of the instant teleporting function of jump clones, since it makes sense to limit such mode of travel. With the wide selection of role specific expensive implant sets the issue with being married to a set of implants has only gotten worse over the years. This issue needs to be fixed permanently one way or another. The precise method is somewhat irrelevant, but it needs to put the choice of what people want to risk fully in the hands of the players and lower the barrier to take part in PvP as much as possible. If you can think of any downsides to allowing this, I'd like to hear it.
isnt this called jump clones ? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 02:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
Uh, he mentioned jump clones. Did you actually read the post you were replying to? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Uh, he mentioned jump clones. Did you actually read the post you were replying to?
nope not really as if your gonna pvp you have a blank clone with nothing in it simple you take the hit for 24 hours. even if ccp ever considerd removable implants so you can pvp and lose nothing your loseing that training time anyway and the chances are there would be a minimal of 12 hours before you could plug them back in anyway. so i do not see a single problem here |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
And then when you jump back to the clone with implants? What then? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 03:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
Cpt Gobla wrote:I'd say remove the things entirely.
Their main reason of existence seems to be rewarding avoidance of risk.
You get the most benefit from them if you don't take any sort of risk.
Contrary to just about everything else in the game. You take a mining barge into low-sec or null-sec and you're rewarded with a greater variety and quantity of ore. You take a missioning ship into low-sec or null-sec and you're rewarded with higher LP payouts. You take a ratting ship into a belt in low-sec or null-sec and you're rewarded with higher bounty rats. You place a POS in low-sec or null-sec and you're rewarded with many more options in modules to anchor.
Other implants give additional benefits in space with higher risk by increasing your chances of coming out on top. Learning implants do no such thing.
Even if the rewards don't measure up to the additional risk taken in some cases, there still is an increase in reward. Risks may multiply by a factor of hundreds whilst rewards barely increase at all, point is that with just about every single item players can use there is a reward when risking it, however minor it may be.
I've troubling thinking of any other item that can be purchased which gives the greatest possible benefit by never undocking.
I'd say learning implants are clearly against the spirit of EvE.
How about pirate implants which are, for the most part PVP implants?
To the OP, proposal is horrible. We need to be able to have more than 5 jump clones, and mora than 1 in any station. That would solve the problem, and add additional benefit of being able to use more implant sets. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
Nestara Aldent wrote:How about pirate implants which are, for the most part PVP implants? Those were explicitly excluded from the proposal.
Nestara Aldent wrote:To the OP, proposal is horrible. We need to be able to have more than 5 jump clones, and mora than 1 in any station. That would solve the problem, and add additional benefit of being able to use more implant sets. Why is that a better solution? In fact, how does that solve the identified problem? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:06:00 -
[18] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:And then when you jump back to the clone with implants? What then?
the idea with training implants is that you would either a not be playing again for maybey a day or 2 or b you will be in "secure" or what ever you class as secure space while useing em. other than that use the cheap +2 or +3 implants |
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Nestara Aldent wrote:How about pirate implants which are, for the most part PVP implants? Those were explicitly excluded from the proposal. Nestara Aldent wrote:To the OP, proposal is horrible. We need to be able to have more than 5 jump clones, and mora than 1 in any station. That would solve the problem, and add additional benefit of being able to use more implant sets. Why is that a better solution? In fact, how does that solve the identified problem?
Theres no problem whatsoever, it exists only in your head!
Look, in each moment you need *two implants* only to max your skill training. Make them 2 +3. Or +4. Now its not to expensive, is it?
Multiple JCs in the same station and more than 5 JCs would allow player to base these JCs where he wants, and yet can switch from one clone to another, as apropriate.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:12:00 -
[20] - Quote
The problem isn't mine, but it is a common psychological problem and in the end it is true that the risk vs. reward is skewed here. Cpt Gobla explained it better than I could. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:The problem isn't mine, but it is a common psychological problem and in the end it is true that the risk vs. reward is skewed here. Cpt Gobla explained it better than I could.
Look ppl PVP in T3 and lose skillpoints. You dont wanna lose it, dont PVP in T3. Ppl PVP in cheap clones, and dont gain SP at the rate they would with expensive clone. If you dont want that, dont PVP at all!
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nestara Aldent wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:The problem isn't mine, but it is a common psychological problem and in the end it is true that the risk vs. reward is skewed here. Cpt Gobla explained it better than I could. Look ppl PVP in T3 and lose skillpoints. You dont wanna lose it, dont PVP in T3. Not comparable. The risk comes with the reward of PVPing in a T3.
Nestara Aldent wrote:Ppl PVP in cheap clones, and dont gain SP at the rate they would with expensive clone. If you dont want that, dont PVP at all!
Nullsec PVPing in a clone with expensive learning implants has the exact same reward as someone with the same implants staying docked all the time, yet the risk is far greater. This is against the spirit of the game. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Nestara Aldent wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:The problem isn't mine, but it is a common psychological problem and in the end it is true that the risk vs. reward is skewed here. Cpt Gobla explained it better than I could. Look ppl PVP in T3 and lose skillpoints. You dont wanna lose it, dont PVP in T3. Not comparable. The risk comes with the reward of PVPing in a T3. Nestara Aldent wrote:Ppl PVP in cheap clones, and dont gain SP at the rate they would with expensive clone. If you dont want that, dont PVP at all!
Nullsec PVPing in a clone with expensive learning implants has the exact same reward as someone with the same implants staying docked all the time, yet the risk is far greater. This is against the spirit of the game.
See, not if you could have 3 clones in your station where your corp/alliance have cloning, one with per7wil, second int/mem, and third, maybe cha/wil +3 or +4 implants.
But you want essentialy, to be able to have full +5 set, then unplug them when you go to a roam? Sorry, thats too much.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:27:00 -
[24] - Quote
There's not really any significant difference from your proposal and what we have now.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to unplug these implants when I go out on a roam? The direct result of this would be more people going out on roams because they aren't stuck in clones for 24 hours that they don't want to lose. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:32:00 -
[25] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:There's not really any significant difference from your proposal and what we have now.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to unplug these implants when I go out on a roam? The direct result of this would be more people going out on roams because they aren't stuck in clones for 24 hours that they don't want to lose.
You have loss in this game. When you PVP you must accept there can be loss. Essentially you want PVP w/o loss (as your null corp/alliance have reimbursement, so you dont ever need to farm isk to PVP).
Pls, just find a game where PVP have acceptable loss to you. Your proposal would give ONLY YOU cost fre PVP w/o loss (and for other nullsec dwellers in sov). How about small gangs in lowsec or npc-null which cant reimburse losses?
So its bad proposal, no matter how we look at it. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Nestara Aldent wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:There's not really any significant difference from your proposal and what we have now.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to unplug these implants when I go out on a roam? The direct result of this would be more people going out on roams because they aren't stuck in clones for 24 hours that they don't want to lose. You have loss in this game. When you PVP you must accept there can be loss. Essentially you want PVP w/o loss (as your null corp/alliance have reimbursement, so you dont ever need to farm isk to PVP). We have reimbursement for specific ops only, and reimbursement doesn't cover implants. I'm only talking about implants that don't give you a PVP advantage. In other words, hardwirings and T2 implants aren't affected by this proposal.
If I decide to take a Phantasm out on a small gang roam for example, and lose it, then I don't get reimbursed for it.
Nestara Aldent wrote:Pls, just find a game where PVP have acceptable loss to you. Your proposal would give ONLY YOU cost fre PVP w/o loss (and for other nullsec dwellers in sov). How about small gangs in lowsec or npc-null which cant reimburse losses?
So its bad proposal, no matter how we look at it. Acceptable loss is what I decide it to be. I don't take out pirate battleships on small gangs because I'm unwilling to lose them, but I'd take out a battlecruiser or pirate cruiser because they're losses I can more easily replace.
You're still ignoring the point that we're talking about the most precious commodity in the game being most easily available to people who refuse to face risk. How does that make sense at all? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:53:00 -
[27] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:...
Skills are not a commodity, but just a number on the screen, unless you wish to sell the char. Once you understand that, you'll know why ppl welp T3s no matter whats the loss. Point of the game is having fun, not looking skillpoint number getting bigger.
And if you skill a char to sell later, why then you PVP in it?
Phantasm: yes I know null alliances/corps have their list of ships and fits they replace, and wont replace something like that. |
Whisperen
That's Not A Knife Flatline.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:57:00 -
[28] - Quote
Just make them have no or a negative effect in hisec that way you get far more reward for your risk in using them ;) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 04:58:00 -
[29] - Quote
Nestara Aldent wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:... Skills are not a commodity, but just a number on the screen, unless you wish to sell the char.Once you understand that, you'll know why ppl welp T3s no matter whats the loss. Point of the game is having fun, not looking skillpoint number getting bigger. You mean people lose skills other than a single level off a single rank 1 subsystem skill when they lose T3s? You mean it's not possible to avoid skillpoint loss entirely by merely ejecting before the ship is destroyed? Gee, I didn't know! And of course skillpoints are important, they allow us to do more things than we could before. With learning implants we can do more things faster and better. Especially with so much of the community saying that this or this must have very good support skills and everything else related before you should even attempt flying it. Is it any wonder people maximize their training rate with this kind of pressure?
Nestara Aldent wrote:And if you skill a char to sell later, why then you PVP in it? This clearly wasn't about making characters to sell, because obviously there's no problem encountered there.
Nestara Aldent wrote:Phantasm: yes I know null alliances/corps have their list of ships and fits they replace, and wont replace something like that. It was just an example. Again, the alliance only reimburses losses from official fleet ops. Unofficial roams aren't covered, no matter what ships and fits they're done in. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:00:00 -
[30] - Quote
Whisperen wrote:Just make them have no or a negative effect in hisec that way you get far more reward for your risk in using them ;)
You're subject to PVP in highsec too.
@James
That level 5 of a subsystem skill is very very important. Will your fits work at all without it, its a question, if you lose engineering skill level? But all L5 in subsystems are a must for a competent T3 pilot.
And still it takes 3-4 days I believe to retrain. And pl in wormholes fly and welp those T3s all the time. Its a substantial loss, much bigger then using +3 instead of +5 for period when you PVP. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |