| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Larno
   |
Posted - 2005.07.30 12:18:00 -
[1]
There should be blueprints for attribute implants, to increase supply and lower price. This will have quite a few effects, mainly:
1. Increased amount of PvP (good)
1a. Increased mineral prices from PvP?
2. Decreased level of agent mission rewards (bad, but easy to fix)
3. People who have stocks of implants will lose money (bad, but easy to fix)
4. Increased training time (bad, but easy to fix - read below).
5. Less gap between noobies and veterans (not sure :P)
To compensate for the increased training time, everyone should get +5 to all of their attributes. This will help train things faster, but the upper limit of training speed will still stay the same. Also, noobies will have the same attributes as veterans (besides learning skills). On the other hand, veterans still have the advantage (from better skills, PvP implants, and more experience). Implant Blueprints FTW!
|
Neon Genesis
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 12:51:00 -
[2]
How about we remove all risk from pvp? 
Eve pvp = risk. And thats what makes it unique.
__
There, i just contributed nothing to your thread
|
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 13:04:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Neon Genesis
How about we remove all risk from pvp?
Eve pvp = risk. And thats what makes it unique.
Yes.
1. Dont think implants really matter. People who want take risks will take them anyway.
Next time you`ll suggest give away ships and T2\faction mods because people afraid of loosing them ?
2. Dont care
3. same
4. Why ?
5. Why ? Vets will be able to use implants too, just more expensive ones.
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 13:23:00 -
[4]
If implants become easily available to anyone then they become pointless since you may as well just give everyone +whatever to their attributes.
|
Ronzap
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 13:38:00 -
[5]
My main has been playing for over a year now and has the same +3 implants that I got through missions.
Those implants have made me shy away from PvP for all the time that I've played EvE.
If you want to encourage PvP remove implants from the game
|
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 13:51:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ronzap
My main has been playing for over a year now and has the same +3 implants that I got through missions.
Those implants have made me shy away from PvP for all the time that I've played EvE.
If you want to encourage PvP remove implants from the game
My parents bought me bicycle 2 years ago but I was scared to use it in bicycle tournament coz other nasty bicycle pilots could scratch it.
Please remove paint from bicycles if you want to encourage tournaments.
|
Ravenal
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 13:59:00 -
[7]
not a half bad idea no... and of course not a new one.
how to move implants from agents to bpo market:
1. remove them from the agent missions and replace them with faction implants
2. ALL agent rewards will be LP rewards that can be cashed in for a SELECTION of faction items.
essentially... all agent rewards will be faction items.
...new sig coming up
Ravenal - Fate is what you make of it. |
Larno
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:02:00 -
[8]
Risk in PvP is already way too high. HAC:
Ship -70mil
Insurance Payout +25mil
Modules -10mil
Thats a loss of 55mil for a result of about 2-3 fights (if you're lucky) lasting about 2-3 minutes each. The amount of PvP time vs money making time is pathetic already. CCP are lucky that the game is good enough to make it worth it.
|
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:06:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Larno
Risk in PvP is already way too high. HAC:
Ship -70mil
Insurance Payout +25mil
Modules -10mil
Thats a loss of 55mil for a result of about 2-3 fights (if you're lucky) lasting about 2-3 minutes each. The amount of PvP time vs money making time is pathetic already. CCP are lucky that the game is good enough to make it worth it.
HAC is not too good example.
If you can not afford HAC - fly BS or frigate or cruiser.
Risk is one of the best parts of EVE PvP and there is no need to reduce it.
If you want risk-free battles go to test server. After couple of day in becomes dedly boring.
|
Keta Min
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Larno
Risk in PvP is already way too high. HAC:
Ship -70mil
Insurance Payout +25mil
Modules -10mil
Thats a loss of 55mil for a result of about 2-3 fights (if you're lucky) lasting about 2-3 minutes each. The amount of PvP time vs money making time is pathetic already. CCP are lucky that the game is good enough to make it worth it.
risk in pvp is pretty low because good pvpers know what they can fly without hurting their wallet too much when it's lost.
if you have the cash to replace the HAC or BS no matter how often you lose one then good. if not, fly something else. the system should not be changed because of noobs flying the best they can afford into combat and then getting ****ed off when they lose it.
|
Larno
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:17:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Larno on 30/07/2005 14:19:25
Ok, BS instead... for example Geddon. Thats -25mil from ship loss, and -15mil from modules loss. The fact of the matter is, if you fly a cruiser then your only defense from getting obliterated by a BS is warp out - not very fun obviously.
Edit: And BTW, I used HAC because it has a good battle length/cost ratio. HAC fights are relatively long compared to the uber dps fights with battleships these days.
|
Keta Min
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:25:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Larno
Edited by: Larno on 30/07/2005 14:19:25
Ok, BS instead... for example Geddon. Thats -25mil from ship loss, and -15mil from modules loss. The fact of the matter is, if you fly a cruiser then your only defense from getting obliterated by a BS is warp out - not very fun obviously.
Edit: And BTW, I used HAC because it has a good battle length/cost ratio. HAC fights are relatively long compared to the uber dps fights with battleships these days.
what's your point? geddon too expensive to lose - use cruiser or frig. lower costs but drawbacks as you mentioned.
|
Larno
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:27:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Keta Min
Originally by: Larno
Edited by: Larno on 30/07/2005 14:19:25
Ok, BS instead... for example Geddon. Thats -25mil from ship loss, and -15mil from modules loss. The fact of the matter is, if you fly a cruiser then your only defense from getting obliterated by a BS is warp out - not very fun obviously.
Edit: And BTW, I used HAC because it has a good battle length/cost ratio. HAC fights are relatively long compared to the uber dps fights with battleships these days.
what's your point? geddon too expensive to lose - use cruiser or frig. lower costs but drawbacks as you mentioned.
With a cruiser, you will die in just a few seconds if you run into a geddon, there are not many cruisers flying round to fight, and thus you will get even less bang for your buck because you die so quickly.
|
Larno
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:32:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Larno on 30/07/2005 14:32:34
Originally by: Neon Genesis
How about we remove all risk from pvp?
Eve pvp = risk. And thats what makes it unique.
Risk is already high enough without implants. Originally by: Wild Rho
If implants become easily available to anyone then they become pointless since you may as well just give everyone +whatever to their attributes.
This would be just as good as making implants super cheap. 
|
Keta Min
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:33:00 -
[15]
that's not a reason to reduce loss. imo losing a BS should hurt a lot more than it does now so people think a bit before taking one into combat and we would have more cruisers around.
what you want is being able to use the most effective tools/weapons without worrying about your wallet. sorry not going to happen. either use less powerful ships/mods or put up with the increased risk by using high end equipment.
|
Larno
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Keta Min
that's not a reason to reduce loss. imo losing a BS should hurt a lot more than it does now so people think a bit before taking one into combat and we would have more cruisers around.
what you want is being able to use the most effective tools/weapons without worrying about your wallet. sorry not going to happen. either use less powerful ships/mods or put up with the increased risk by using high end equipment.
Nope, I just want to reduce the maximum loss. You have managed to turn this into a thread about losing ships instead of losing implants.
There would still be much risk in PvP. Losing PvP implants, losing named modules (which might start being used if implants are much cheaper), losing Tech II ships. Losing a nicely fitted BS is a high enough death penalty. That is approx 3 hours of 0.0 mining to make up for that one loss, way too much. Now losing implants? About 250mil last time I checked, that is about 15 hours of 0.0 mining. WAAAAAAAY too much. Now before anyone says "do not use implants if you cant afford to lose them", my response to that is - I have already plugged them in many months ago. Since then the price has gone up, and I am not as enthusiastic about PvP. I am less likely to go on risky operations because of the potential to lose.
|
Keta Min
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:51:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Larno
Originally by: Keta Min
that's not a reason to reduce loss. imo losing a BS should hurt a lot more than it does now so people think a bit before taking one into combat and we would have more cruisers around.
what you want is being able to use the most effective tools/weapons without worrying about your wallet. sorry not going to happen. either use less powerful ships/mods or put up with the increased risk by using high end equipment.
Nope, I just want to reduce the maximum loss. You have managed to turn this into a thread about losing ships instead of losing implants.
There would still be much risk in PvP. Losing PvP implants, losing named modules (which might start being used if implants are much cheaper), losing Tech II ships. Losing a nicely fitted BS is a high enough death penalty. That is approx 3 hours of 0.0 mining to make up for that one loss, way too much. Now losing implants? About 250mil last time I checked, that is about 15 hours of 0.0 mining. WAAAAAAAY too much. Now before anyone says "do not use implants if you cant afford to lose them", my response to that is - I have already plugged them in many months ago. Since then the price has gone up, and I am not as enthusiastic about PvP. I am less likely to go on risky operations because of the potential to lose.
i dont see a problem with implants either. i have some from the times when they were cheap myself but that's not important. if they are lost just replace them if you can afford it, if not, then dont. usually a perc and willpower implant for training combat skills and a few cheap hardwirings are enough.
|
subvert
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 14:55:00 -
[18]
This is needed. Vets don't admit it, but they are the only ones who can afford the good implants. Implants only serve to widen the gap between newer and older players. Something should be done about it.
|
Jebidus Skari
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 15:55:00 -
[19]
Remove attributes altogether and put a 2day cap on every skill! Long skill training is unecessary and CCP loses 500 paying customers a day because of it.
Players should get a ship of their choice to use for the day and, if they lose it, they only have to wait unitl d/t to choose another.
New players should start with 10mil SP's and a BS of their choice.
Only these suggestions will make EVE a balanced game 
|
Wendat Huron
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 16:04:00 -
[20]
There's a skill for it sp let's have it, not everyone wants to grind agents.
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 16:12:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Wild Rho
If implants become easily available to anyone then they become pointless since you may as well just give everyone +whatever to their attributes.
Indeed, let's just do that, the skill grind is already borked enough.
Very good suggestion, hats off 
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 16:16:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Sorja
Originally by: Wild Rho
If implants become easily available to anyone then they become pointless since you may as well just give everyone +whatever to their attributes.
Indeed, let's just do that, the skill grind is already borked enough.
Very good suggestion, hats off
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 
|
Keltin
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 16:23:00 -
[23]
Larno, your request isn't a bad one at all.
Why do certain people feel a need to bash anyone that asks for a very simple change?
What is so problematic about moving implants to the manufacturing market? (I actually have an answer to this, but for those people ripping his idea; why not come at it from this angle?)
The way implants can be received from agents has been changed dramatically. They are far easier to get than they once were, but the prices are relatively stagnant and have not changed even with the increase in ways to receive them. Perhaps, the real part of this idea being bashed is people see their little cash cow is at risk.
So many threads are started by the have not's, to be repeatedly trounced by the have's. It's a bit tiring, but to twist this guys request into "you're a newbie thread" is even more tiresome.
"I have never had so much fun playing a game that I have trouble staying awake playing!" |
Rivek
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 16:26:00 -
[24]
I support either increasing implant drop rates significantly (3x?) or releasing bpos and giving the +3s a mineral cost of around 10mil. Why?
Well everyone sees that to be competative in skill training (and not be left behind all their friends and enemies) they have to use implants. Yet, when using implants they are unwilling to PvP. Therefore, they will never PvP. PvP = good and therefore implants need to be more easily replaced.
----------------------------------------------
TunDraGon.com |
Larno
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 17:11:00 -
[25]
Thanks for the support Keltin & others. To enlighten everyone who is trolling this thread, I have just passed 20 mil SP two days ago, and I have a full rack of +3 implants. The reason I am asking for this change is because then I will not be reluctant to take part in fleet battles, because even if I lag and get pod killed, it is not such a big deal (though clones these days, ouch!  ). Lower death penalty means that I can afford to PvP more, and take part in bigger battles so that it does not matter if/when I get pod killed.
Aside from my PERSONAL reason for wanting this change (see above) I noted other reason why I think this would be a good idea. As noted in the first post, it helps to lower the gap between noobies and veterans, though there is still many MANY advantages to being a veteran. One of the USPs of eve is that the skill system does not favour power gamers as much as in other games. Implants nullify this somewhat.
This change would mean faster training for poor players/noobies/casual players, increased PvP time for all players, and decreases the gap in abilites between veterans and noobs.
So why pod kill? Well for me I think my clone is 8mil? which is quite expensive, and also people would still have implants, but they would be much cheaper.
Perhaps if this change was implemented, then in the future CCP might consider removing attribute implants altogether, which is the ideal option imo.. but one step at a time is best tbh.
|
Larno
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 18:40:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Larno on 30/07/2005 18:40:56
I just remembered, there is a item on the market called 'R.A.M.- Cybernetics'. The description says; "Robotic assembly modules designed for Implant Manufacturing". I have never actually seen any of these for sale, and I don't think there are currently and manufacturable items that use this RAM type. Maybe I'm wrong though, but I think it is definately a good sign!
EDIT: Linkage
|
Ashelth
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 19:36:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Keltin
The way implants can be received from agents has been changed dramatically. They are far easier to get than they once were, but the prices are relatively stagnant and have not changed even with the increase in ways to receive them. Perhaps, the real part of this idea being bashed is people see their little cash cow is at risk.
They are FAR harder to get now. Way back when you used to be able to get 3-4 a week running missions.
Now I see about 2-3 useless +3% hardwiring implants. I could accept my agent offers, but still 100k lp for a few +4 implants is still pretty infrequently.
|
Khargos
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 19:50:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Khargos on 30/07/2005 19:50:50
implants discourage pvp,
if you disagree you are simply wrong.
I know i would pvp a helluva lot more if i didnt have 500 mill worth of implants all up in here.
the fear of losing implants keeps people away from 0.0, where they might lose them, stops people from pvping.
and people who say "let somebody podkill you, its freedom", are insane, after spending so much money to get the implants, it wouldnt make sence to put yourself in a situation where you could lose them and wind up grinding for months to get them again wouldnt it?
So yeah BPO's of implants would be good.
|
Jofika Roxwell
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 21:25:00 -
[29]
I agree with Neon Genesis.
The thrill in PVP = Risk
If you go into PVP combat with your $500m of Imps, think of the rush you'd be getting.
(Phwooaaar! - wet pants material if your ship blows up! and you try getting your pod out!)
Personally, I think the imp system is fine the way it is, ppl carrying on coz there hard to obtain after being pk'd should consider a career change, you know what your risking when you go into combat with them plugged in.
Implants are a luxury item, not a necessity (sp)
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.07.30 22:01:00 -
[30]
The thrill is about losing your ship, it's more than enough.
Everybody is equal when it comes to ship losses, while everybody is not equal when it comes to skillpoints.
So, this discussion is not about penalties for dieing but about implants that don't do anything else than leveling the playing field.
Or so I understand it...
P.S.: I don't use implants, pod jumping is way too convenient 
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |