Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 18:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was thinking of stuff to make this game a little more diverse, so I came up with ideas that make the education/school you choose affect your gameplay.
My idea is, when you choose your school/education at the character creation; the school you choose gives you benefits over choosing another one. This would allow people to specialize in what they want to and it would allow for an actual purpose for the schools.
It doesn't go away if you leave an NPC corp, it stays with you like a degree.
Each school would offer 25% reduction in training time for a certain thing. For example:
Imperial War Academy - 25% reduction in training time for Gunnery. Hedion University - 25% reduction in training time for Social. Royal Amarr Institute - 25% reduction in training time for Industry.
State War Academy - 25% reduction in training time for Missiles. School of Applied Knowledge - 25% reduction in training time for Social. Science and Trade Institute - 25% reduction in training time for Science.
Etc, etc... |
Covert Kitty
SRS Industries SRS.
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 19:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
No, we do not want more people in npc corps. Join a player corp. |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 19:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Covert Kitty wrote:No, we do not want more people in npc corps. Join a player corp.
Didn't you bother to actually read my post?
This benefits you all throughout EVE kind of like a degree in real life, it helps you no matter what corp you are in... |
Esunisen
Les Tueurs de Killer Une Pour Tous
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 19:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Could work if there was a drawback, i.e. +25% for missiles and -25% for shield |
Covert Kitty
SRS Industries SRS.
34
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 19:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
I missed that part, but regardless its a silly suggestion. There's already variety, and people already specialize with attribute assignment. This suggestion is really nothing more than "make my skills train faster". |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 19:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Covert Kitty wrote:I missed that part, but regardless its a silly suggestion. There's already variety, and people already specialize with attribute assignment. This suggestion is really nothing more than "make my skills train faster".
I was just suggesting a way to make people actually have a reason not to choose a random education in character creation. |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
185
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 19:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Are you insane?
25% reduction in skill training time?
I'd support 2-5%, active only when in a player corp with more than 15 people in it. |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 20:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:Are you insane?
25% reduction in skill training time?
I'd support 2-5%, active only when in a player corp with more than 15 people in it.
25% of 20 days is only 5 days off... |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
185
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 21:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Aesiron wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:Are you insane?
25% reduction in skill training time?
I'd support 2-5%, active only when in a player corp with more than 15 people in it. 25% of 20 days is only 5 days off...
Only being the important word here.
5 days is not "only." 5 days is quite a lot, and to give something to EVERY player for a group of skills would be absolutely terrible. |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 21:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:Aesiron wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:Are you insane?
25% reduction in skill training time?
I'd support 2-5%, active only when in a player corp with more than 15 people in it. 25% of 20 days is only 5 days off... Only being the important word here. 5 days is not "only." 5 days is quite a lot, and to give something to EVERY player for a group of skills would be absolutely terrible. 5 days is nothing, you obviously haven't been training something like T2 guns for about 50 days yet. |
|
Zyress
Deaths Head Brigade Gryphon League
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 22:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Covert Kitty wrote:I missed that part, but regardless its a silly suggestion. There's already variety, and people already specialize with attribute assignment. This suggestion is really nothing more than "make my skills train faster".
agreed |
Somal Thunder
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 22:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
I can tell that you're new to this game. Schools used to mean something, the school you selected (determined by your race and ancestry) would determine your attribute levels (which in turn have an effect on training times for certain things). This, however, resulted in EVERYONE creating Caldari Achura for pve and some Amarr thing that had low charisma as well. This was changed since, let's face it - it really sucks to create a character with 12 in charisma just to realize that charisma is for leadership and social training and maybe all you want to do is fly interdictors. |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
185
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 22:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
Aesiron wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:Aesiron wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:Are you insane?
25% reduction in skill training time?
I'd support 2-5%, active only when in a player corp with more than 15 people in it. 25% of 20 days is only 5 days off... Only being the important word here. 5 days is not "only." 5 days is quite a lot, and to give something to EVERY player for a group of skills would be absolutely terrible. 5 days is nothing, you obviously haven't been training something like T2 guns for about 50 days yet.
You're literally retar*ded. 5 days off a 20 day skill is huge.
Now, what would 25% of 50 days be? About 12 days off. So 50 day skill becomes a 38 day skill.
Thats stupid as hell. |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 07:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:Aesiron wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:Aesiron wrote:Emperor Salazar wrote:Are you insane?
25% reduction in skill training time?
I'd support 2-5%, active only when in a player corp with more than 15 people in it. 25% of 20 days is only 5 days off... Only being the important word here. 5 days is not "only." 5 days is quite a lot, and to give something to EVERY player for a group of skills would be absolutely terrible. 5 days is nothing, you obviously haven't been training something like T2 guns for about 50 days yet. You're literally retar*ded. 5 days off a 20 day skill is huge. Now, what would 25% of 50 days be? About 12 days off. So 50 day skill becomes a 38 day skill. Thats stupid as hell.
Well if you think 5 days is a long time to train, you obviously haven't trained T2 guns or T2 ships yet. |
Venus Rinah
Paladin Philanthropists
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 08:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
-1
Not optional. (Only useful if has balanced penalities).
Puts people into prescribed roles.
25% is a ridiculous beneift.
Unequal skill numbers, training multipliers and associated attributes and costs may give an unequal distirbution of desired skill areas. (E.g. Social skills have few skills whereas Science has lots.)
No mention of how this will affect existing character's choices. Or re-imbursements/redistribution of focus of existing characters skill vlaues.
No penalties in other areas due to specialisation (implies focussing).
Racial focus of skill preferences will confer greater racial bias.
Limited choice per racial path. |
Endovior
Brothers At Arms Intrepid Crossing
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 08:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
-1, not supported.
It would be more useful to give starting players a bit more choice in their initial skill selection... possibly by giving them more SP to start with in general... then it would to try and mess with permanent, far-flung bonuses to everything. That latter is seriously too much, and all skill groups are not created equal. |
JohnnyRingo
TunDraGon
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 13:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
+1 , just not this ridiculous 25%, max 5%, but if this were done everyone currently now would need to be able to rechoose their school or like Endovior said above it would be nice having a bigger start skillpool like in the old days, you don't really do anything in eve the first week except maybe explore and a few missions. |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
186
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 16:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
Aesiron wrote:
Well if you think 5 days is a long time to train, you obviously haven't trained T2 guns or T2 ships yet.
I have a character with jdc5 and this character is max skilled for two races sub caps. I know what long skills are like.I also know how large 25% is. You apparently do not. 5 days off of a 20 day skill is absolutely huge, as is 12 days off of a 50 day skill.
But that's OK, keep making assumptions about my eve experience, neglecting the fact that this idea would make all training in a particular group 25% faster, which is huge in the long run and pretty terrible. |
Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
216
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 16:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
I see a lot of bandwagoners tears, as it would be a relative nerf to FOTM chasing.
Supported. +1
As for shortening training time, it takes 30 years to train everything in Eve so far. A 25% increase in, say, missile skills, or roughly 5% of total SP in game, less if you exclude citadel cruise/torp, won't make a dent. |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 17:25:00 -
[20] - Quote
Venus Rinah wrote:-1
Not optional. (Only useful if has balanced penalities).
Puts people into prescribed roles.
25% is a ridiculous beneift.
Unequal skill numbers, training multipliers and associated attributes and costs may give an unequal distirbution of desired skill areas. (E.g. Social skills have few skills whereas Science has lots.)
No mention of how this will affect existing character's choices. Or re-imbursements/redistribution of focus of existing characters skill vlaues.
No penalties in other areas due to specialisation (implies focussing).
Racial focus of skill preferences will confer greater racial bias.
Limited choice per racial path.
Or if you choose what you study? And calm down about the 25% it isn't as if I am not aware of it.
|
|
David Xavier
The Scope Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 18:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Covert Kitty wrote:No, we do not want more people in npc corps. Join a player corp.
And one should join a player corporation for why exactly?
Back to topic: Messing with learning time is a touchy subject, the bittervets will protest as they do not want anybody else suck any less than they had to. And you know EvE Online is the only game that offers just as much fun offline as online. I don't suffer from insanity.. I enjoy it ! |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 18:37:00 -
[22] - Quote
I was trying to make people have a reason not to choose a random education, not messing it up as you put it. |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
186
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 00:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
David Xavier wrote:[quote=Covert Kitty]
And one should join a player corporation for why exactly?
Spoken like a true NPC corp pubbie.
|
Aesiron
Squadron 1
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 07:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
Venus Rinah wrote:-1
Not optional. (Only useful if has balanced penalities).
Puts people into prescribed roles.
25% is a ridiculous beneift.
Unequal skill numbers, training multipliers and associated attributes and costs may give an unequal distirbution of desired skill areas. (E.g. Social skills have few skills whereas Science has lots.)
No mention of how this will affect existing character's choices. Or re-imbursements/redistribution of focus of existing characters skill vlaues.
No penalties in other areas due to specialisation (implies focussing).
Racial focus of skill preferences will confer greater racial bias.
Limited choice per racial path.
I support your ideas, but was the imaginary -1 really there to make a point or just because you feel like trolling? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |