| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SOL Ranger
SOL.
78
   |
Posted - 2013.11.16 20:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
This has been presented several times in the past, I'm now hoping you(CCP) could share your thoughts on the subject if it is an action you feel makes sense or if you are against it.
I'm sure you developers are fully aware of the problems concerning learning implants but I'll list some quite obvious effects they bring about.
They benefit the inactive/offline the most.
They benefit station campers the most.
They benefit carebears the most.
They benefit the rich most.
They benefit veterans the most.
They suffer the same downsides as did learning skills.
They suffer the additional downside of costing much thus not only do you need to focus your skills on cyber V first but you also need to save up for the implants immediately after as well, or fall behind.
You continually lose potential SP when actively playing the game with purpose built implants rather than pure learning implants.
Quite often I'm seeing myself staying docked and closing the client to train rather than play because I CBA. to change clone into less optimal learning implants and lose hours, possibly even days worth of SP because of that one or several gaming sessions.
Those who actually decide to go out an play, most notably interact in PvP and pod each other, those are the ones who suffer the real consequences, not only do they lose SP due to almost never having V's plugged in but they lose their IV's or III's when their pods pop. it makes little sense for a game supposed to promote PvP yet punish those who participate in it the most.
It is not an interesting nor exciting choice deciding to either play and lose efficiency or staying offline or docked while benefiting more, essentially playing 'optimally' when not playing.
What could be done is to remove the learning implants and make '+3 implants' baseline, people will rage about this but it's a reasonable suggestion, +5's made baseline might be just as fine a solution, I'm not sure, I'm just sure the learning implants must be removed.
Bottom line:
Rich inactive veteran station hugging carebears benefit the most
Poor active newbie proactive PvP'ers suffer the most
The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.
|
Pobunjenik
Direwolf-Rayet
skylian Verge
90
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 20:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
At first, I came here to flame at you. But then I read you wall of text, and it totally makes sense.
Especially since I'm a wormholer (CCP dun wanna give us jumpclones hurdur).
Neka mi se jave igra-ìi sa prostora Balkana koji nisu jebeni fa+íisti.
1st Wormhole Alliance Tournament |
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
Kiki's Delivery Service.
26
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 21:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Pobunjenik wrote:At first, I came here to flame at you. But then I read you wall of text, and it totally makes sense.
Especially since I'm a wormholer (CCP dun wanna give us jumpclones hurdur).
Holy crap yeah, I was going to do the same... In general I play the game without implants to avoid precisely what the OP is talking about. His reasoning makes some very surprising sense. |
Jason Itiner
Sectatores Pax
26
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 21:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
The Rorqual can fit a clone vat, can't it? |
Ix Method
Barrington-Smythe Victory War Goodness
62
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 21:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
The best suggestion I ever saw was turning them into kinda boosters that last for say a month and aren't effected by pod loss. That way the current isk sink remains, hardwirings/pirate implants can still be lost yet people can pewpew at will.
Seems sensible to me. Learning implants as is are as daft as, well, learning skills.
Travelling at the speed of love. |
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
Kiki's Delivery Service.
26
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 22:13:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jason Itiner wrote:The Rorqual can fit a clone vat, can't it?
Wonderful thing about wormhole space is that it doesn't work there. |
Jason Itiner
Sectatores Pax
26
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 22:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:Jason Itiner wrote:The Rorqual can fit a clone vat, can't it? Wonderful thing about wormhole space is that it doesn't work there.
Well that's a strange thing, considering mind transfer supposedly works via quantum entanglement... |
NEONOVUS
Saablast Followers
503
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 23:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Jason Itiner wrote:Kaerakh wrote:Jason Itiner wrote:The Rorqual can fit a clone vat, can't it? Wonderful thing about wormhole space is that it doesn't work there. Well that's a strange thing, considering mind transfer supposedly works via quantum entanglement...
Yes and a wormhole has no dimension being merely a folded piece of space time.
But it is ultimately a topographically definable fold.
Thus wh space actually exists within the quantum realm
Its universes all the way down boys. |
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
Kiki's Delivery Service.
26
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 00:44:00 -
[9] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Jason Itiner wrote:Kaerakh wrote:Jason Itiner wrote:The Rorqual can fit a clone vat, can't it? Wonderful thing about wormhole space is that it doesn't work there. Well that's a strange thing, considering mind transfer supposedly works via quantum entanglement... Yes and a wormhole has no dimension being merely a folded piece of space time. But it is ultimately a topographically definable fold. Thus wh space actually exists within the quantum realm Its universes all the way down boys.
Yes, but the system that the wormhole connects to is in 'real' space. Ergo, it shouldn't be a problem. Anyways, back to topic. learning implants are in a similar vein as learning skills. It would be consistent to phase them out. |
novellus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 03:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
This... I... Why does this make so much sense? Stop making so much sense.
....A surprising +1 from me |
Sara Yazria
Lucky Holdings LTD
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 04:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Same as the guys above... I came in here thinking "baha some newb lost his +5's and is having a rage" but this makes so much sense and adds potential to make more hardwirings to fill the first 5 slots. |
joshua mckayne
Bubblewrap.
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 05:51:00 -
[12] - Quote
this is pretty well thought out and if implemented the owners of said implants should be refunded +1 |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
Space Wolves Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 06:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
As long as they adjust training times so we all basically have +3 implants all the time I totally agree (+5 is too much). Implants should be about gameplay, not passive skill point hoarding. |
Heisenbergur
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 06:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
This is a great idea - why should the inactive benefit over the active? Why should the rich benefit over the poor (in terms of character development and progression)?
+1 |
Kirkwood Ross
Golden Profession
50
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 06:54:00 -
[15] - Quote
People who have crystal, slave, snakes, etc don't pvp as much either. Should those implants be removed? |
Icarus Able
Traverse Holdings
Setting The Universe on Fire
170
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 07:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
Kirkwood Ross wrote:People who have crystal, slave, snakes, etc don't pvp as much either. Should those implants be removed?
Your missing the point. |
Roime
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Samurai Pizza Cats
3662
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 07:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
haha stupid
Notify-á-á You cannot do that while warping. |
Yummy Chocolate
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2483
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 07:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
which implants are those again?
I've never heard of such implants so I'm going to assume(for now) that you're talking about the regular attribute implants.
useless post is useless.
Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
Felicity Love >... was thinking "moar popcorn"... but now, seeing the truly awesome contribution this thread is going to make to the Greater Glory Of EVE.... imagonnamakkadapizza.... |
Shivanthar
Thrilling Institution of TaTas
Permanent Mental Syndrome
51
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 08:06:00 -
[19] - Quote
Pobunjenik wrote:At first, I came here to flame at you. But then I read you wall of text, and it totally makes sense.
Especially since I'm a wormholer (CCP dun wanna give us jumpclones hurdur).
Wow, same rage here. But after I read the whole thing, it totally makes sense and made me cool down. I'm not a pvp guy, but I dip my toe time to time. I can simply tell the risk of being podded pushes you back of the high-sec or offline players, WHO train with their +4 - +5 implants on their head. Not to mention T3 ship skills being lost when podded. |
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 08:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
I agree with the OP. I've got 154 days worth of skills that I want before I enter 0.0 and/or wormholes. But, if this change goes through before I train those skills, I'll shift to null/wormhole the day that change goes live because wanting to train at full speed is the only thing keeping me in high/low security space.
Kirkwood Ross wrote:People who have crystal, slave, snakes, etc don't pvp as much either. Should those implants be removed?
No. But they should have their attribute bonus reduced to 0 at the same time as the learning implants get removed. |
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct
Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
53
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 08:47:00 -
[21] - Quote
I agree with this, but I think we need to consider why they should be removed. You point is valid OP, having expensive items in your skull that actively dissuade players from wanting to get out and play with (or more often shoot) other players is the opposite of the climate EvE is supposed to cultivate. But there are reasons why these implants have not been removed yet, so let's dig into them:
1) They're an ISK sink.
This is plainly obvious; Every time someone loses a pod with a head full of +3's or +4's they may very well be losing close to or more then 100M in ISK. ISK sinks in this game are few and balanced ones are difficult to implement. Simply removing learning implants would not only cause more ISK to continue to build up in the system of which I am of the opinion there is too much already, most of which is distributed quite unevenly (Don't take this the wrong way, I don't think everyone should be equal, but I do think that the current skew of wealth in this game can hinder the will to PvP or take risks, an idea which is backed up by this situation with learning implants although there can be an entire debate held on the subject). In order to counteract this, some other ISK sink would have to be added or modified. This would probably boil down to either an increase in the costs of ships and gear (which get destroyed easier then pods do) or an increase in clone costs (which is a system that has already been talked about and is considered to be a bad mechanic as well due to the fact that it penalizes someone for no other reason then faithfully subscribing and playing EvE for a long time).
2) They're a time sink (Yes, you read that correctly).
Removing them and compensating for them with increased training time potentially decreases the amount of time, on average, players spend training skills as not all players having learning implants in their heads, especially the more PvP centric ones. Although I'm sure that it would not happen on a great enough scale to really affect the average in this case reducing the amount of time it takes to accomplish something in the game can reduce the amount of time people stay subscribed if they get bored upon reaching their goal. While many of us would simply state that we don't want people who can't make their own entertainment by interacting with others in this game, we need to look at it for what it is, a potential reduction in revenue for CCP. While this is a much smaller reason then #1 to oppose removing them, it is still important to at least take it into consideration. I'm sure that there was tons of talking at CCP for this reason before they decided to change the turret training times as radically they are, and it may very well be the reason it hasn't happened until now.
These are the two cons that we need to think about before we implement (or rather remove, in this case) anything. Now for the pros:
1) They're only kind of an ISK sink.
Learning implants are, by themselves, a decent ISK sink. However, they are only an ISK sink in PvP, as NPC's will not pod you, and the very system itself is in opposition to where they can be lost! Removing them from the game, and therefor removing the feeling of risk that accompanies PvPing with them encourages people who normally don't fight but live in more dangerous space (read nullbears) to get out and help defend their space, and possibly die in a fire. It further encourages new pilots to leave the safety of highsec to go out (and die in a fire) as opposed to feeling restricted by this super expensive +2 willpower implant they just bought. And it encourages medium age players to use that jump clone or quickly grab a frig for some lowsec fun. It also means that pirates (especially the up and coming ones) are no longer getting punished by mechanics for their actions in the regions of space where the mechanics are supposed to support them. Finally, more people going out and taking some risk would breath more life into lowsec and nullsec. I think removing learning implants may very well increase the total number of ship/gear losses to the point of compensating for the loss of this ISK sink, although if it doesn't and a supplementary ISK sink needs to be added a little down the line then CCP can cross that bridge when they come to it.
2) They're only a time sink.
Having learning implants in game, or rather, the potential lack-there-of in players heads, does serve to extend the amount of time that players stay subscribed; Particularly the ones who lose pods a lot. But the reality is that a system that delays player progress in the hopes of extending player interest in the game is a weak one. At the end of that road, the player may, nay, probably, will still quit. However, the removal of this potential time spent subscribed is more then justified if the replacement results in more players having fun and thus choosing to remain subscribed for a far longer period then if they were just impeded by mechanics. A player who feels less like they are being punished for going out and experiencing the games more risky regions is far more likely to meet and fall in with other players who can provide the experience that they, hopefully, came to EvE looking for. And if they meet people and have fun chatting, fighting, pirating or simply have fun from the tension that can be provided by more dangerous space then they are far more inclined to stick around. And players who stick around for a few years are worth far more revenue then players who stuck around for what should have been 4 months dragged out to 6 because they dared to venture outside of the safety net that is highsec or because they got killed, lost their nice implants and feel spiteful because of it.
TLDR: I think that I could support the removal of such implants, and as for the baseline, I would not oppose it being set at +3 providing that some combat implants were readily available with minor attribute bonuses. +1 |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
64
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 08:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
Can't we make our own implants as of Rubicon? Doesn't that completely invalidate your sink argument?
+1, BTW. |
Anomaly One
32
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 08:53:00 -
[23] - Quote
If they ever remove them, they should have some new combat implants already lined up (or other than implants ), or some new sort of **** that idk but yea definitely something new.
Also, baseline should be +4 implants (that's what I use), they give way better than +3 and only take 2 days training, +5 not justifiable but hey vov all the better.
I'm starting to like this idea each minute more when I think of all the new better implants they can introduce if they get rid of the learning ones..
*~~*running my own mission and have some class bully run up and blow me up because they think its funny, then give the excuses that I was just firing fireworks at you*~~* |
Richard Stiff
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 08:58:00 -
[24] - Quote
Not against this idea but when you yourself get to be "veteran player" and have aquired wealth enough to have these implants you might think differently. You have then earned the implants.
You have reasonable idea tho and deserves Dev attention.
SOL Ranger wrote:This has been presented several times in the past, I'm now hoping you(CCP) could share your thoughts on the subject if it is an action you feel makes sense or if you are against it.
I'm sure you developers are fully aware of the problems concerning learning implants but I'll list some quite obvious effects they bring about.
They benefit the inactive/offline the most.
They benefit station campers the most.
They benefit carebears the most.
They benefit the rich most.
They benefit veterans the most.
They suffer the same downsides as did learning skills.
They suffer the additional downside of costing much thus not only do you need to focus your skills on cyber V first but you also need to save up for the implants immediately after as well, or fall behind.
You continually lose potential SP when actively playing the game with purpose built implants rather than pure learning implants.
Quite often I'm seeing myself staying docked and closing the client to train rather than play because I CBA. to change clone into less optimal learning implants and lose hours, possibly even days worth of SP because of that one or several gaming sessions.
Those who actually decide to go out and play, most notably interact in PvP and pod each other, those are the ones who suffer the real consequences, not only do they lose SP due to almost never having V's plugged in but they lose their IV's or III's when their pods pop. it makes little sense for a game supposed to promote PvP yet punish those who participate in it the most.
It is not an interesting nor exciting choice deciding to either play and lose efficiency or staying offline or docked while benefiting more, essentially playing 'optimally' when not playing.
What could be done is to remove the learning implants and make '+3 implants' baseline, people will rage about this but it's a reasonable suggestion, +5's made baseline might be just as fine a solution, I'm not sure, I'm just sure the learning implants must be removed.
Bottom line:
Rich inactive veteran station hugging carebears benefit the most
Poor active newbie proactive PvP'ers suffer the most
|
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 09:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
Quote:1) They're an ISK sink.
This is plainly obvious; Every time someone loses a pod with a head full of +3's or +4's they may very well be losing close to or more then 100M in ISK
ISK changing hands from one player to another is not an ISK sink. An ISK sink is only when ISK gets moved out of player hands. Which means the only ISK sink from implant destruction is the cost of purchasing it at an LP store and the tax taken in market transactions.
Checking here: +4 implants only sink 12 million ISK each. That's 60mil for a full set, 48mil if they skip the charisma implant.
+3s sink 5.25 million ISK each.
At the same time, the ISK sink of people buying new clones will go up, because you've got more people losing pods in PvP. Still, if CCP need to introduce new ISK sinks they will.
Quote:2) They're a time sink (Yes, you read that correctly).
How long will it take a player to train every ship useful to a 0.0 alliance, and all its supporting skills to 5 both with and without learning implants ?
If you want your timesink argument to be credible, you need to quantify the timesink. |
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct
Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
53
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 09:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
Sarah Stallman wrote:Can't we make our own implants as of Rubicon? Doesn't that completely invalidate your sink argument?
+1, BTW.
No? The creation of implants will require materials, which take time and or risk to acquire. Just because something can be acquired doesn't mean it's loss doesn't constitute a sink.
Hesod Adee wrote:Gigan Amilupar wrote:
1) They're an ISK sink.
This is plainly obvious; Every time someone loses a pod with a head full of +3's or +4's they may very well be losing close to or more then 100M in ISK
ISK changing hands from one player to another is not an ISK sink. An ISK sink is only when ISK gets moved out of player hands. Which means the only ISK sink from implant destruction is the cost of purchasing it at an LP store and the tax taken in market transactions. Checking here: +4 implants only sink 12 million ISK each. That's 60mil for a full set, 48mil if they skip the charisma implant. +3s sink 5.25 million ISK each. At the same time, the ISK sink of people buying new clones will go up, because you've got more people losing pods in PvP. Still, if CCP need to introduce new ISK sinks they will. Gigan Amilupar wrote:
2) They're a time sink (Yes, you read that correctly).
How long will it take a player to train every ship useful to a 0.0 alliance, and all its supporting skills to 5 both with and without learning implants ? If you want your timesink argument to be credible, you need to quantify the timesink.
You are absolutely correct! ISK changing hands does not constitute an ISK sink. However, when a pod gets blow up along with it's clone carrying a set of implants, then those implants cease to exist in the game and therefor it is an ISK sink by proxy of item loss, unless they are implementing the ability to harvest implants from corpses in Rubicon, which I don't remember reading in the released patch notes; although feel free to correct me on that if I am wrong. As for your number check, that means that a full set of implants is 60M, which is a mark less then 100, and therefor I will alter my initial post. I am not above admitting I got my numbers wrong because I didn't feel like confirming it. To my credit though, losing 48 or 60 million in implants and then buying them again does in fact feel a lot like losing out on 100M, so please don't be too harsh on me for taking that as a point of reference  .
Finally, I'm not about to crunch the numbers on how much time that training takes, but if you read my post closely you will see that I'm arguing both for and against the merits of mechanics that have the potential to shorten game play experiences, and simply quoting the title of one paragraph is hardly enough to make a just counterargument. I even stated that it was a minor detail compared to implant loss as an ISK sink, and was simply bringing it up since I felt it was relevant to the discussion. Again though, I'm not above being wrong, so if you read it through and feel that I am off base please explain so, so that I can gain a new viewpoint and so that more discussion can be held on how the matter affects this change, if at all. Because if it does, then CCP has to consider it, and therefor it becomes relevant. |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
64
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 09:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:Sarah Stallman wrote:Can't we make our own implants as of Rubicon? Doesn't that completely invalidate your sink argument?
+1, BTW. No? The creation of implants will require materials, which take time and or risk to acquire. Just because something can be acquired doesn't mean it's loss doesn't constitute a sink..
It's only a sink if it is removed from the economy. If a player harvests the materials, builds the implant and then sells it on the market, the ISK moves from one player to another, not a player to nonexistence.
By being able to craft them, they are no longer a sink. |
SOL Ranger
SOL.
96
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 09:39:00 -
[28] - Quote
Hesod Adee wrote:... Kirkwood Ross wrote:People who have crystal, slave, snakes, etc don't pvp as much either. Should those implants be removed? No. But they should have their attribute bonus reduced to 0 at the same time as the learning implants get removed.
This is the idea and I'm sorry for not explaining it in detail.
There is no intention of removing crystals etc, only to remove the attributes in them.
The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.
|
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct
Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
53
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 09:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sarah Stallman wrote:Gigan Amilupar wrote:Sarah Stallman wrote:Can't we make our own implants as of Rubicon? Doesn't that completely invalidate your sink argument?
+1, BTW. No? The creation of implants will require materials, which take time and or risk to acquire. Just because something can be acquired doesn't mean it's loss doesn't constitute a sink.. It's only a sink if it is removed from the economy. If a player harvests the materials, builds the implant and then sells it on the market, the ISK moves from one player to another, not a player to nonexistence. By being able to craft them, they are no longer a sink.
I'm talking about them being a sink in regards to their destruction via pod loss, not due to the LP and ISK cost commonly associated with acquiring them. Although your point is at least half correct, as being able to build implants does change them from an ISK sink into a time sink, which could be argued as an ISK sink in of itself, but that is neither here nor there. Also, nearest I can tell the only buildable implants are the new warp speed ones, the ascendency set, not any of the attribute implants, so it doesn't apply to the points being made in this thread. At best I see your point that if someone buys a set of implants constructed by another player and then loses them that it is not an ISK sink as materials are being destroyed, not the ISK in of itself, but that doesn't apply here due to the aforementioned reason that Rubicon will not allow us to build +4 attribute implants and the like (that I know of). |
Kate stark
876
|
Posted - 2013.11.17 10:32:00 -
[30] - Quote
I'd do more things in eve if learning implants were removed.
training is in RL time, and RL time is purchased for real money. i want to get the most sp/irl currency. therefore keeping my learning implants means more to me than pvping and potentially losing them, etc.
learning implants are a large portion of the reason why i'm risk averse. slot 1-5 will still be useful for slaves, snakes, etc.
Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |