| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nitrah
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
48
   |
Posted - 2014.04.24 22:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
How about adding an implant which would cause the loss of a T3 to not cause a loss of skillpoints?
Balance decisions would be new slot vs. Existing skill hardwiring.
Might also make it be consumed on T3 loss instead of podkill.
I'm thinking shooting for a price point around 200M. |
Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3365
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 22:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
How about no.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Carmen Electra
Drunk Chaos
373
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 22:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
I don't fly T3s because I like my SP too much.
Would cause me to fly T3s for better or for worse. |
Nitrah
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
48
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 22:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:How about no.
Can't argue with such a well reasoned argument.
Well played, Mr. Forum alt! |
Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3366
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 23:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nitrah wrote:Can't argue with such a well reasoned argument.
Well played, Mr. Forum alt!
Let's recap, shall we? You want a $200-million "one-time" use implant to avoid the potential skill loss in a T3 that's only worth around $275m to begin with. So which skill slot will this potentially consume and override, because I'm pretty sure we're not going to get an 11th slot. So, again - thank you for playing - but no.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
69
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 23:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Close client & don't lose sp |
Kenrailae
Mind Games.
Suddenly Spaceships.
292
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 23:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
^ That guy has it.
Nope.
The Law is a point of View |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
417
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 00:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Along time ago it was cost of t3 that limited its (ab)use.
Now all t3 has a deterent is sp loss.
CCP has fixed up the most of the cruisers. Don't dig this scene...run them. I know, they can't run 100mn prop mods as readily, work around that someway. Whoever popped you did.
Or take your 5 day retrain to reflect on why you lost your ship if you jsut can't fly that ship at whatever skill level 4. |
Rafe Vatta
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 01:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Along time ago it was cost of t3 that limited its (ab)use.
Now all t3 has a deterent is sp loss.
Why should T3s need a deterrent beyond price? If you feel they are currently too cheap, a consumable implant solves this neatly. X additional isk spent on each T3 loss. Depending on how much extra deterrent you want, pick a popular/non-popular slot for the implant to go in.
Or if you don't like consumable and want to build in more interesting tradeoffs, make it a set. Each implant reduces SP lost by a percent, with the full set reducing by 100%. Would require sacrificing attribute slots and forgoing other set bonuses. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2146
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 01:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Personally, I would prefer to see T3s get their rebalancing pass. Then, when they've been brought to the approximate level of super-versatile Navy cruisers, we can see the SP loss mechanic removed (it was only implemented in order to help balance their current power level) and everyone will be happy. Except the people who rely on the Tengu and Proteus specifically for their broken aspects. |
|
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
783
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 02:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Along time ago it was cost of t3 that limited its (ab)use.
Now all t3 has a deterent is sp loss.
CCP has fixed up the most of the cruisers. Don't dig this scene...run them. I know, they can't run 100mn prop mods as readily, work around that someway. Whoever popped you did.
Or take your 5 day retrain to reflect on why you lost your ship if you jsut can't fly that ship at whatever skill level 4.
oh my.....
Well, I know it's difficult for forum trolls to understand this but not everyone responds the same way they would. So, your projection of a sandy, inflamed and staph infected vagg from whoever shot you down is perfectly understandable reaction (for some) but it's really not Nitrah's motivation.
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Nitrah wrote:Can't argue with such a well reasoned argument.
Well played, Mr. Forum alt! Let's recap, shall we? You want a $200-million "one-time" use implant to avoid the potential skill loss in a T3 that's only worth around $275m to begin with. So which skill slot will this potentially consume and override, because I'm pretty sure we're not going to get an 11th slot. So, again - thank you for playing - but no.
Lets Recap shall we?
A: The four day retrain isn't that big a deal to most of us at this point.
B: Taking a slot away is a decent liability to offset the removal of losing skill points/time and would seem to offset the gained advantage of not having lost time.
Of course, one wouldn't have to use it if one didn't want to.
Bob is the god of Wormholes.
That's all you need to know. |
Bane Nucleus
Sky Fighters
Sky Syndicate
1508
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 03:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:T3 that's only worth around $275m to begin with.
YUPOORBRO?
Should be worth way more than that. Spend the isk!
No trolling please |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch
Heiian Conglomerate
753
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 05:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
stop losing T3 ships, problem solved. |
Luwc
Biohazard.
WINMATAR.
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 07:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
No.
http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif |
Koz Katral
Sanctuary of Shadows
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 09:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
I like my T3's exactly as they are now - awesome. I'm pretty much a dedicated T3/Cruiser pilot, and if SP loss is the price I have to pay for that awesomeness then so be it, its usually 5 day retrain max, and if you are dieing that often - don't fly t3's. |
Jean-Paul Hutchinson
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 09:10:00 -
[16] - Quote
The only thing daft is a t3 that can out tank a t2 BC. neut the t3 and its pretty much game over for the pilot. you can kill a t3 with a HAC everytime you just need to fit it properly.
Nice idea though and if you loose your pod you loose more sp than the original loss would have been. |
Koz Katral
Sanctuary of Shadows
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 09:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jean-Paul Hutchinson wrote:The only thing daft is a t3 that can out tank a t2 BC. neut the t3 and its pretty much game over for the pilot. you can kill a t3 with a HAC everytime you just need to fit it properly.
Nice idea though and if you loose your pod you loose more sp than the original loss would have been.
presumably you mean some kind of 1 v 1 against an armour t3 in your cerb/vaga that never gets tackled? because the ahac t3's will smash actual ahacs into the floor. Same DPS, tripple the tank. I'm pretty sure my zealot can't get 200k ehp no matter how I fit it. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
768
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 13:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
removing the SP loss is the only sensible option really
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Nalelmir Ahashion
Omegon 42nd Core
298
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 15:35:00 -
[19] - Quote
You can abandon ship and not loss skillpoints.
"What's worse than a foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother? A foul-mouthed eight-year-old constantly claiming he's had relations with your mother who thinks he's a gangser, that's what."
--áAaron Birch |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
643
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
Nalelmir Ahashion wrote:You can abandon ship and not loss skillpoints.
Which can actually be quite hard as they often are used in high damage scenarios where their BS like tank but cruiser sig makes them one of if not the only viable choice but they only have cruiser structure so often its low armor one moment, gone the next.
Not really a fan of removing or reducing the SP loss as there needs to be some pain to balance their power. |
|
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
3903
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 17:19:00 -
[21] - Quote
Nitrah wrote:How about adding an implant which would cause the loss of a T3 to not cause a loss of skillpoints?
Balance decisions would be new slot vs. Existing skill hardwiring.
Might also make it be consumed on T3 loss instead of podkill.
I'm thinking shooting for a price point around 200M.
T3's are very powerful compared to most t2 cruisers, BC's, and even some BS's. One of their major drawbacks is the loss of skillpoints upon destruction.
If you want to remove the skillpoint loss, the solution should be to rebalances T3's to make them more inline with other ships.
|
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition
Dustm3n
104
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jean-Paul Hutchinson wrote:The only thing daft is a t3 that can out tank a t2 BC
And yet Command Ships get more DPS compared to a T3... good balance in my opinion
-Bl+¦d
http://bloodytravels.blogspot.com/ -á-- My travels through space. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
Test Alliance Please Ignore
642
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 18:19:00 -
[23] - Quote
T3 skill loss mitigation technique #1: Don't fly T3.
#2: Don't lose you T3.
#3: Eject from your ship. (Can you still do this?)
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition
Dustm3n
104
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 20:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:T3 skill loss mitigation technique #1: Don't fly T3.
#2: Don't lose you T3.
#3: Eject from your ship. (Can you still do this?)
Yes but you have to wait for your weapon timer to cool down.
-Bl+¦d
http://bloodytravels.blogspot.com/ -á-- My travels through space. |
Jarod Garamonde
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
1650
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 20:25:00 -
[25] - Quote
Nitrah wrote:How about adding an implant which would cause the loss of a T3 to not cause a loss of skillpoints?
Balance decisions would be new slot vs. Existing skill hardwiring.
Might also make it be consumed on T3 loss instead of podkill.
I'm thinking shooting for a price point around 200M.
No. Risk vs Reward.
Fly a T3.... be uber.... but risk losing SP when it dies. That must NEVER change. EVER. And I actually fly T3's.
That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right... |
Lazarus Laxenos
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 11:53:00 -
[26] - Quote
Time is money, and the converse is true as well. A little back-of-the-napkin math reveals that right now, 1SP is worth about 400-600 ISK (it depends on your current mapping). As a result, the impact of losing a subsystem skill at V is roughly 80m - 130m ISK worth of game time. I'd expect the implants to go for a good bit more than that: a single implant, after all, could insulate all 5 of my subsystem skills at V (note that this suggests a whole set of 5 implants might also be a possibility to explore, 1 for each subsystem ...).
It seems reasonable to me that a player could give up an implant slot (I'd suggest slot six, so there's a trade-off made against use of the Omega implants) for an implant that would mitigate the SP cost of losing a T3. Or, 1 implant slot for an implant that insulates just 1 of the 5 subsystems from SP loss: we could use slots 1-5 or 6-10, causing yet another trade-off to be required.
It's already possible, as others have noted, to avoid this SP loss via ejecting from the ship. That this ability still exists suggests that it's certainly not game-breaking. It is, however, an ugly little kludge. Making an implant or implants available to mitigate what can already be mitigated via a little mouse clicking looks pretty reasonable to me. Industrialists have another chance to make money, T3 pilots would have another ISK sink and a potentially thorny trade-off to sort out, T3 pilot pods would become more blingy leading to fatter killboard stats, and the rest of us would be none the worse off.
Full disclosure: I fly T3s, I lose T3s, and I'm not sure if I'd buy these or not. But I like the idea. |
Mocam
EVE University
Ivy League
436
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 14:59:00 -
[27] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
...
A: The four day retrain isn't that big a deal to most of us at this point.
B: Taking a slot away is a decent liability to offset the removal of losing skill points/time and would seem to offset the gained advantage of not having lost time.
Of course, one wouldn't have to use it if one didn't want to.
A: "4 day retrain..."
So chars your age and mine can afford to fly and lose carriers, dreadnaughts, deadspace fit pirate battleships... Any kind of fit we desire. We can *AFFORD* this easily.
200m? Chump change. 1b? pft... woopie. A mutter at most.
You can't buy SP in this game and 1 loss isn't squat to look at. Now look at 5 losses and at the list of skills you could have trained up that last notch with 20 days you just wasted retraining the same skill again and again...
ISK is cheap and easy to get for vets - SP to polish off this or that skill... Weeks of training and losing T3's a few times puts you that much further behind on polishing up this or that skill.
tl;dr: Time is the one thing in this game that isn't cheap and easy to come by for vets. |
Lord Wulfengheist
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 15:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lore wise, the SP loss is because you were forceably removed from what amounts to a electrical taped and breadboarded mess of a control interface. Lore wise, it would be reasonable at this point for a method of at least soldering that breadboard together to avoid the SP loss to come around.
What's being proposed is an option to trade ISK for time, basically, at a steeper rate than the time is theoretically worth, per Lazarus' math. So, basically, the proposed idea is paying a hefty price for convenience.
If you insist the 4 day train or the 200m ISK is "nothing" and the implant is pointless, then you should actually have no issue with this implant being put in, because it wouldn't really effect you. If you're only complaint is the cost, then you still approve of the idea. If you are horrified at the thought of removing the SP loss penalty on T3's, you likely don't actually fly them or die to them far more often than you'd like. However, bear in mind that the currently proposed price is a 20-30% increase on the ship cost to avoid it. That's kind of steep, especially if its lost on t3 loss, not pod loss. Likely that last bit, where you lose it, is a more sensible implementation.
"Eject from your t3" to avoid SP loss is a counter argument to this? For one, technically, yes you can, but odds are if you have time to wait out the timers, the ejection was pointless. But, really, you're fine with a sketchy mechanic to accomplish this, but not fine with a better established mechanic. That seems silly.
For what it's worth, I always thought that if you were the owner of the T3, and it went pop, then you lost the SP regardless of timers. But I don't tend to leave my T3's floating around where they can get shot without me, and for the very few T3's I've, uh, borrowed, there would be no SP loss. |
Mocam
EVE University
Ivy League
436
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 16:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lord Wulfengheist wrote:Lore wise, the SP loss is because you were forceably removed from what amounts to a electrical taped and breadboarded mess of a control interface. Lore wise, it would be reasonable at this point for a method of at least soldering that breadboard together to avoid the SP loss to come around.
What's being proposed is an option to trade ISK for time, basically, at a steeper rate than the time is theoretically worth, per Lazarus' math. So, basically, the proposed idea is paying a hefty price for convenience.
If you insist the 4 day train or the 200m ISK is "nothing" and the implant is pointless, then you should actually have no issue with this implant being put in, because it wouldn't really effect you. If you're only complaint is the cost, then you still approve of the idea. If you are horrified at the thought of removing the SP loss penalty on T3's, you likely don't actually fly them or die to them far more often than you'd like. However, bear in mind that the currently proposed price is a 20-30% increase on the ship cost to avoid it. That's kind of steep, especially if its lost on t3 loss, not pod loss. Likely that last bit, where you lose it, is a more sensible implementation.
"Eject from your t3" to avoid SP loss is a counter argument to this? For one, technically, yes you can, but odds are if you have time to wait out the timers, the ejection was pointless. But, really, you're fine with a sketchy mechanic to accomplish this, but not fine with a better established mechanic. That seems silly.
For what it's worth, I always thought that if you were the owner of the T3, and it went pop, then you lost the SP regardless of timers. But I don't tend to leave my T3's floating around where they can get shot without me, and for the very few T3's I've, uh, borrowed, there would be no SP loss.
Not quite.
200m isk per loss isn't a big deal for vets. 4 days adds up quick enough. That was my point and it appears you missed it.
You can *BUY* tons of things but not trade isk for SP and that is exactly what you are proposing with your argument here. -- let me spend isk instead of the SP loss.
It's not a trivial concept change. Bluntly why not let PLEX for SP go through? It's simply a reverse mechanism - trading isk *FOR* SP vs to avoid losing it? |
Lazarus Laxenos
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 16:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mocam wrote:
It's not a trivial concept change. Bluntly why not let PLEX for SP go through? It's simply a reverse mechanism - trading isk *FOR* SP vs to avoid losing it?
Just as bluntly: we already PLEX for SP. Buy one PLEX, get a month's worth of SP. As another example, just buy a toon off the character auction and get an arbitrarily large pile of SP in exchange for the corresponding pile of PLEX.
The original idea implies taking that fungibility one step further: If I can buy PLEX for ISK, and having bought a PLEX I then get one month's worth of SP, why not enable a player to avoid that SP loss by spending ISK as well? Ultimately it's a question about how fungible do we want the ISK/SP (well, the ISK/SP/Real Money/PLEX) relationship to be.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |