Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 06:24:25 -
[31] - Quote
Why not make it a temporary replacement for implants? +10 makes it a very grindy boost. +5 makes it a temporary replacement for implants if it replaces the attribute gain from implants.
A signature :o
|

Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
268
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 09:03:16 -
[32] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Malcanis wrote:What's wrong with an "as well as" solution rather than an "instead of"? Yes, we have been over this before. I have no objection to an 'and' solution, especially if they cannot be stacked. I am assuming that the decision to remove attributes/learning implants has already been made but perhaps this is incorrect. Why would they remove Implants and replace it with boosters. If they are going to remove attributes then I can't see them adding items that would boost attributes / training time as it defeats the purpose. As it stands implants offer a couple of benefits over enhancers.
1. Implants are not time limited and so do not induce as much of a grind (if you buy +4s and you go on holiday then the +4s are still there when you get back)
2. Implants are destructible and so fit in the with philosophy of eve and add interesting choices and consequences.
I do think implants should be rebalanced though so that they cost less, and also pirate implants should confer higher attribute bonuses.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The issue with learning implants is their ability to be lost The opposite, that is what makes them interesting and gives you a meaningful decision. If you are playing Eve and complaining about having to make choices which result in consequences, ie losing implants, then you probably are playing the wrong game.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|

Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2533
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 09:37:18 -
[33] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Zappity wrote:Malcanis wrote:What's wrong with an "as well as" solution rather than an "instead of"? Yes, we have been over this before. I have no objection to an 'and' solution, especially if they cannot be stacked. I am assuming that the decision to remove attributes/learning implants has already been made but perhaps this is incorrect. Why would they remove Implants and replace it with boosters. If they are going to remove attributes then I can't see them adding items that would boost attributes / training time as it defeats the purpose. As it stands implants offer a couple of benefits over enhancers. 1. Implants are not time limited and so do not induce as much of a grind (if you buy +4s and you go on holiday then the +4s are still there when you get back) 2. Implants are destructible and so fit in the with philosophy of eve and add interesting choices and consequences. I do think implants should be rebalanced though so that they cost less, and also pirate implants should confer higher attribute bonuses. Tyberius Franklin wrote:The issue with learning implants is their ability to be lost The opposite, that is what makes them interesting and gives you a meaningful decision. If you are playing Eve and complaining about having to make choices which result in consequences, ie losing implants, then you probably are playing the wrong game. In my opinion the key problem with learning implants is that they are 'sitting in station' implants rather than 'out in space' implants and do not add to the undocked experience in any way. It is nothing to do with loss or risk - other implants are much more expensive and many people are perfectly happy to PvP in them.
Having said that, I think that attribute enhancers and training rate boosters are not necessarily the same thing. You can have training rate boosts after removing attributes.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|

Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
529
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 11:26:09 -
[34] - Quote
So you basically want to move SP boosting from everywhere to just places that benefit you.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1837
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 13:53:52 -
[35] - Quote
So, here is one of my problems with the new booster. They do not work well with the skill queue. I've been traveling a lot lately. After being deployed for over six months, I flew back home for three days of glorious Eve time - no more logging in on a laptop with a 4G connection to eke out a couple of hours here and there. No, I could actually sit down at my desktop, with two glorious screens, tasty beverages in abundance, and play Eve properly for 10-12 hours straight.
So, I did. I went out exploring. I went looking for these Blood Raider sites. I got a bunch of the new cerebral accelerators - enough to keep all my characters training at a high rate until 2 November. I had a lot of fun gathering them. Running from Russian hordes. Chasing away single Russians. Etc. But one of the greatest joys was plugging in that +12 booster and watching the training time for Caldari Carrier V drop considerably.
Tomorrow I fly off to see my family. The skill queue is a wonderful thing, because if I do not pay close attention to Eve for the next few days, my characters will still keep training away. The OCD in me, however, sees how many "potential SP" I am leaving on the table if I do not find a way to log in all seven characters I am currently training and plug in a new cerebral accelerator every two days.
If I was not able to play Eve at all right now, then perhaps it would not bother me that much... Actually, yes, it would. The whole point of a promotion like this is to make people want to login and get out in space doing things. I want to take advantage of this opportunity.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, this is peanuts for a character of my age, but it is still an issue. I could finish Caldari Carrier V a few days earlier. My alt could finish Cynosural Field Theory V that much sooner. It's taken me right back to eight years ago, when I used to set alarm clocks to log in to add a new skill because Gunnery V was going to finish at 01:57:33 and I'll be damned if I waste six hours worth of skill training.
All Eve subscriptions should be created equal - the only thing you can consistently expect from Eve is that your character will keep training skills so long as you pay your subscription and update your queue. It's the only thing that kept me subscribed for the past six months, when I otherwise could not have justified paying for Eve.
That is why I would rather see everyone train at the same rate - no remaps, no boosters, no implants. Pay your subscription and your character learns at a steady, consistent 2500 SP/hour. The occasional promotion like this is all well and good, especially if it draws people back to the game, but it has to be occasional.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|

Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2536
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 20:39:45 -
[36] - Quote
I see no problem with rewarding people who log in and get out in space. Having said that, I also travel a lot and it would be irritating to miss out on boosts while away. But maybe that is OK - if you do not log in often you still get the base rate. I'm not sure CCP should balance the game in favour of people who do not log in regularly.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2622
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 21:20:56 -
[37] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I see no problem with rewarding people who log in and get out in space. Having said that, I also travel a lot and it would be irritating to miss out on boosts while away. But maybe that is OK - if you do not log in often you still get the base rate. I'm not sure CCP should balance the game in favour of people who do not log in regularly. Except it's not the 'base rate'. Right now the base rate is with a booster. Because the sites are common. If you make them less common it becomes a situation where the rich can buy additional SP and the poor can't. Because the rich can run the sites in blinged out T3's and the like and therefore win any contest vs the poor people also.
So, either it's only for the rich, in which case it's the old vets with resources who benefit. Or it's for everyone in which case the new base rate is higher, and you are just forcing people to grind for SP
And grinding for SP is directly counter to EVE's philosophy in general. I'm not even keen for this to be a once in a while event, even if I'm making use of it. Note how a lot of the people against the SP selling are also quite openly saying if it comes in they will make massive use of it themselves, but they are against it despite the fact it actually will help them. |

Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2536
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 21:52:04 -
[38] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except it's not the 'base rate'. Right now the base rate is with a booster. Because the sites are common. But this is not true. Base rate is unmodified training rate. If you choose to accelerate it, whether this be with easy sites or expensive purchases, this is no longer base rate. I see no problem with having sites which are easy to run. Better that noobs can access without paying vets I think.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1667
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 00:08:42 -
[39] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The issue with learning implants is their ability to be lost The opposite, that is what makes them interesting and gives you a meaningful decision. If you are playing Eve and complaining about having to make choices which result in consequences, ie losing implants, then you probably are playing the wrong game. No, the issue as CCP and most that have objection to them is fundamentally their capacity to be lost.
Whether you work that out a bit to being about "grinding" or "risk aversion" the fundamental issue always boils down to their ability to be lost and having an associated cost for replacement. I've yet to see any other objection to their existence that doesn't originate from this.
If you want to play this "you may be playing the wrong game" BS, take that up with the company making the game and looking to replace them for reasons similar to those I listed.
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1667
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 00:17:45 -
[40] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:So, here is one of my problems with the new booster. They do not work well with the skill queue. I've been traveling a lot lately. After being deployed for over six months, I flew back home for three days of glorious Eve time - no more logging in on a laptop with a 4G connection to eke out a couple of hours here and there. No, I could actually sit down at my desktop, with two glorious screens, tasty beverages in abundance, and play Eve properly for 10-12 hours straight.
So, I did. I went out exploring. I went looking for these Blood Raider sites. I got a bunch of the new cerebral accelerators - enough to keep all my characters training at a high rate until 2 November. I had a lot of fun gathering them. Running from Russian hordes. Chasing away single Russians. Etc. But one of the greatest joys was plugging in that +12 booster and watching the training time for Caldari Carrier V drop considerably.
Tomorrow I fly off to see my family. The skill queue is a wonderful thing, because if I do not pay close attention to Eve for the next few days, my characters will still keep training away. The OCD in me, however, sees how many "potential SP" I am leaving on the table if I do not find a way to log in all seven characters I am currently training and plug in a new cerebral accelerator every two days.
If I was not able to play Eve at all right now, then perhaps it would not bother me that much... Actually, yes, it would. The whole point of a promotion like this is to make people want to login and get out in space doing things. I want to take advantage of this opportunity.
Now, in the grand scheme of things, this is peanuts for a character of my age, but it is still an issue. I could finish Caldari Carrier V a few days earlier. My alt could finish Cynosural Field Theory V that much sooner. It's taken me right back to eight years ago, when I used to set alarm clocks to log in to add a new skill because Gunnery V was going to finish at 01:57:33 and I'll be damned if I waste six hours worth of skill training.
All Eve subscriptions should be created equal - the only thing you can consistently expect from Eve is that your character will keep training skills so long as you pay your subscription and update your queue. It's the only thing that kept me subscribed for the past six months, when I otherwise could not have justified paying for Eve.
That is why I would rather see everyone train at the same rate - no remaps, no boosters, no implants. Pay your subscription and your character learns at a steady, consistent 2500 SP/hour. The occasional promotion like this is all well and good, especially if it draws people back to the game, but it has to be occasional. Why should training be wholly unmodifyable? I get the idea of a sub letting you train, but not how that extends to the rate of training within reason. Honestly I don't see the training system itself as becoming more valuable when just a static element of time which no effort or behavior can modify.
But then I guess that's just a personal opinion.
The specific issue here could easily enough be solved through lowering the boost and lengthening the timer on a more permanent implementation of these boosters. |
|

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1840
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 01:14:28 -
[41] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except it's not the 'base rate'. Right now the base rate is with a booster. Because the sites are common. But this is not true. Base rate is unmodified training rate. If you choose to accelerate it, whether this be with easy sites or expensive purchases, this is no longer base rate. I see no problem with having sites which are easy to run. Better that noobs can access without paying vets I think.
I agree that during the promotion the event should be open to as many people as possible. CCP did a pretty decent job with this - the only thing they should have done differently is have the BC spawn in the final cruiser wave, not the first one. Having people spend those extra few minutes in the celestial beacon opens them up to more interaction with other players.
Some people with lots of time on their hands will make a lot of ISK off this promotion. Others will gain some extra SP. I don't really worry about what other people can do in Eve, so long as it's all theoretically available to everyone else.
As long as whatever CCP implements is equally available to all players, I don't really care what they do with the character bazaar, selling SP, purchasing SP, etc. I would simply like to see attribute implants gone, because I want to see them replaced with more implants that benefit the player in space, right now. Not with, "sit in your +5's in safe station/space and avoid risk."
I made a choice long ago that I was not ever going to purchase another character - I would make all my own. I do not care if others want to spend a few hundred dollars catching up with me by purchasing another 2007 character. I do not care if someone else grinds Incursions for 16 hours a day and then buys a new character with his hard earned ISK. By the same token, I do not care if someone sells all those "extra" SP they never use any more. It makes no difference to FT Diomedes. He is who he is.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|

Lodestone Toyee
Awakened Ones
87
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 04:41:03 -
[42] - Quote
They just need to nerf offgrid skill training boosts, and the problem is solved. |

Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
966
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 05:55:39 -
[43] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Zappity wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except it's not the 'base rate'. Right now the base rate is with a booster. Because the sites are common. But this is not true. Base rate is unmodified training rate. If you choose to accelerate it, whether this be with easy sites or expensive purchases, this is no longer base rate. I see no problem with having sites which are easy to run. Better that noobs can access without paying vets I think. I agree that during the promotion the event should be open to as many people as possible. CCP did a pretty decent job with this - the only thing they should have done differently is have the BC spawn in the final cruiser wave, not the first one. Having people spend those extra few minutes in the celestial beacon opens them up to more interaction with other players. Some people with lots of time on their hands will make a lot of ISK off this promotion. Others will gain some extra SP. I don't really worry about what other people can do in Eve, so long as it's all theoretically available to everyone else. As long as whatever CCP implements is equally available to all players, I don't really care what they do with the character bazaar, selling SP, purchasing SP, etc. I would simply like to see attribute implants gone, because I want to see them replaced with more implants that benefit the player in space, right now. Not with, "sit in your +5's in safe station/space and avoid risk." I made a choice long ago that I was not ever going to purchase another character - I would make all my own. I do not care if others want to spend a few hundred dollars catching up with me by purchasing another 2007 character. I do not care if someone else grinds Incursions for 16 hours a day and then buys a new character with his hard earned ISK. By the same token, I do not care if someone sells all those "extra" SP they never use any more. It makes no difference to FT Diomedes. He is who he is.
where are these sites anyway?
|

Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
268
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 09:14:33 -
[44] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Whether you work that out a bit to being about "grinding" or "risk aversion" the fundamental issue always boils down to their ability to be lost and having an associated cost for replacement. So using your logic once we buy a ship (let us say a thorax) then when you lose that thorax you should respawn back in your station with a new thorax..
The concept of eve has always been about everything being destructible (unless it involves micro-transaction more recently). So I don't need to take anything up with CCP as that is their clear position since day one. So I have no idea where you got it into your head that CCP doesn't want implants or anything else to be destructible (care to link source?), and where you feel entitled to respawn back in your base without losing anything.
So hence when I said are you sure you are playing the right game it was incredibly apt.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|

afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2296
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 10:19:03 -
[45] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Zappity wrote:This builds upon the assumption that learning implants will be removed as per CCP RiseGÇÖs post ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5859807#post5859807). I would like the current Blood Raider sites to be left in place, perhaps slightly modified. I love them. There was a surprising amount of satisfaction in consuming a booster than I had just looted from a wreck and seeing the booster timer flash up on the screen. My reward! The little lightning icon in the skill queue is great, too. Importantly, the site can be run in PvP ships. They are therefore very tempting when you are roaming around looking for a fight. They are generating LOTS of content. I would suggest a couple of tweaks, namely more variants with longer training times and strengths. Also, please make them available on the market rather than contract only. I donGÇÖt know what to do with learning implants. But I do know that this is just better. This is hopefully a redundant post owing to CCP already have decided that this is the way to go. What's wrong with an "as well as" solution rather than an "instead of"?
This - the market for these is (largely) mutually exclusive from implants.
And as discussed people on deployment etc should not lose out.
Boosters would feed the bubble space crowd, implants everywhere else.
It should come as an addition, not a replacement.
The content would still be generated, there are a LOT of people in null/WH space who would give their right arm for these boosters, but will never buy implants. The two markets can cheerfully coexist, imo. |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1841
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 10:29:41 -
[46] - Quote
The two could still exist, so long as the boosters and implants provide the same training time boost, and cannot be used together. So, if the best booster was a +5 that lasted a week and cost 50m, that would be very attractive to players who die a lot.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|

Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2541
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 10:52:53 -
[47] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:where are these sites anyway? Everywhere. There is a lot of competition for them in heavily populated space, though.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|

elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
880
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 11:16:53 -
[48] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:where are these sites anyway? Everywhere. There is a lot of competition for them in heavily populated space, though.
note to self: don't run the sites without a point.. Had some noob steal my booster last night and I didn't have a point on so he warped in low structure..
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2626
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 20:14:08 -
[49] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote: So using your logic once we buy a ship (let us say a thorax) then when you lose that thorax you should respawn back in your station with a new thorax..
The concept of eve has always been about everything being destructible (unless it involves micro-transaction more recently). So I don't need to take anything up with CCP as that is their clear position since day one. So I have no idea where you got it into your head that CCP doesn't want implants or anything else to be destructible (care to link source?), and where you feel entitled to respawn back in your base without losing anything.
So hence when I said are you sure you are playing the right game it was incredibly apt.
Except the difference is the Thorax only benefits you while in space. The learning Implants benefit you while you are docked.
Having to grind for things that benefit you while you are docked and offline (Corp structures such as POS's are not included in this statement for obvious reasons) is a bad thing. Hence why learning implants should be removed, and they should not be replaced by anything. The entire attribute system should be removed. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1667
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 20:42:41 -
[50] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Whether you work that out a bit to being about "grinding" or "risk aversion" the fundamental issue always boils down to their ability to be lost and having an associated cost for replacement. So using your logic once we buy a ship (let us say a thorax) then when you lose that thorax you should respawn back in your station with a new thorax.. The concept of eve has always been about everything being destructible (unless it involves micro-transaction more recently). So I don't need to take anything up with CCP as that is their clear position since day one. So I have no idea where you got it into your head that CCP doesn't want implants or anything else to be destructible (care to link source?), and where you feel entitled to respawn back in your base without losing anything. So hence when I said are you sure you are playing the right game it was incredibly apt. As stated, you have an issue with the reasoning, take it up qith ccp where it originated. Aguing with me as if it were my reasoning after i already pointed you at the source isn't too bright an argument.
Read the csm minutes btw. If you did then youd know exactly why I'm pointing this back at ccp. Their "clear position" isn't so clear for those of us that bother to stay informed. |
|

Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
269
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 00:19:46 -
[51] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Whether you work that out a bit to being about "grinding" or "risk aversion" the fundamental issue always boils down to their ability to be lost and having an associated cost for replacement. So using your logic once we buy a ship (let us say a thorax) then when you lose that thorax you should respawn back in your station with a new thorax.. The concept of eve has always been about everything being destructible (unless it involves micro-transaction more recently). So I don't need to take anything up with CCP as that is their clear position since day one. So I have no idea where you got it into your head that CCP doesn't want implants or anything else to be destructible (care to link source?), and where you feel entitled to respawn back in your base without losing anything. So hence when I said are you sure you are playing the right game it was incredibly apt. As stated, you have an issue with the reasoning, take it up qith ccp where it originated. Aguing with me as if it were my reasoning after i already pointed you at the source isn't too bright an argument. Read the csm minutes btw. If you did then youd know exactly why I'm pointing this back at ccp. Their "clear position" isn't so clear for those of us that bother to stay informed. CSM minutes are in no way a good indication of CCPs official position, it is simply a place where ideas are thrown around and much of it doesn't stick. And even then I still see no source to your wild claim that CCP don't like that implants are destructible.
So again, please link your source (I doubt that you can because what you wrote is not CCPs official or unofficial position and is basically nonsense to try and backup your own argument / desire).
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|

M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
804
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 01:08:33 -
[52] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Zappity wrote: Why? These sites are focus points for conflict and provide rewards for people willing to get out in space. I don't understand why training boosts are a bad thing.
Because it becomes grind for your Xp. It's just a sneaky way to bring levels into EVE. Since if people have to grind for skills, then they are in space where you can shoot them, so xp grinding and levels should be introduced to EVE and the passive skill queue should be removed right? One of the big unique draws of EVE is the passive SP gain, and the fact that everyone gains at (roughly) the same pace. Your progress is dictated by where you want to put that Sp. If these Boosters become regular, then it becomes a grinding game instead.
Currently you have to grind for the SP implants. Or you can buy them and sit in station and still benefit With the SP boosters you can grind for them, or buy them and sit in station and still benefit.
No difference.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|

M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
804
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 01:13:04 -
[53] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Lady Rift wrote:they got rid of clone cost. Just use whatever + stat implant you can afford without going over what a new clone would cost you. It had nothing to do with cost.
It does for me, I live in nullsec. I'd have to be either idiotic or 2008 Tech Moon RichGäó to use +5 implants. Thus I use +4s and fall behind.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1667
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 01:50:50 -
[54] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Whether you work that out a bit to being about "grinding" or "risk aversion" the fundamental issue always boils down to their ability to be lost and having an associated cost for replacement. So using your logic once we buy a ship (let us say a thorax) then when you lose that thorax you should respawn back in your station with a new thorax.. The concept of eve has always been about everything being destructible (unless it involves micro-transaction more recently). So I don't need to take anything up with CCP as that is their clear position since day one. So I have no idea where you got it into your head that CCP doesn't want implants or anything else to be destructible (care to link source?), and where you feel entitled to respawn back in your base without losing anything. So hence when I said are you sure you are playing the right game it was incredibly apt. As stated, you have an issue with the reasoning, take it up qith ccp where it originated. Aguing with me as if it were my reasoning after i already pointed you at the source isn't too bright an argument. Read the csm minutes btw. If you did then youd know exactly why I'm pointing this back at ccp. Their "clear position" isn't so clear for those of us that bother to stay informed. CSM minutes are in no way a good indication of CCPs official position, it is simply a place where ideas are thrown around and much of it doesn't stick. And even then I still see no source to your wild claim that CCP don't like that implants are destructible. So again, please link your source (I doubt that you can because what you wrote is not CCPs official or unofficial position and is basically nonsense to try and backup your own argument / desire). My desire is that implants and attributes stay intact. Not sure what you're implying i need to justify. But I also know CCP proposed the removal of attributes and stated the major barrier was the learning implants and needing to replace them in some form.
Like i said, the reasoning isn'tmine and the conclusion isn't one i endorse, but I also know what's been written. I'm just not in denial about what the devs say is all. |

Lara Sunji
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:01:59 -
[55] - Quote
lol as I suspected - Using a booster on a skill that takes 4 days will cut it down to 2 days while the booster is active. Once it's effect is gone, the training time returns to 3 days - So in effect, completely useless on anything that takes longer than 24 hours to train. |

Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2545
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:59:37 -
[56] - Quote
Lara Sunji wrote:lol as I suspected - Using a booster on a skill that takes 4 days will cut it down to 2 days while the booster is active. Once it's effect is gone, the training time returns to 3 days - So in effect, completely useless on anything that takes longer than 24 hours to train. You get an extra ~20 k sp per day of booster.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1845
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:28:18 -
[57] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Lara Sunji wrote:lol as I suspected - Using a booster on a skill that takes 4 days will cut it down to 2 days while the booster is active. Once it's effect is gone, the training time returns to 3 days - So in effect, completely useless on anything that takes longer than 24 hours to train. You get an extra ~20 k sp per day of booster.
Zappity, you are far more patient than I am. Additionally, if you trained Biology 5, the booster works for 48 hours. So, each time you inject one you are essentially getting 40k SP applied to whatever skill you are currently training.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|

Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
269
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:41:21 -
[58] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Whether you work that out a bit to being about "grinding" or "risk aversion" the fundamental issue always boils down to their ability to be lost and having an associated cost for replacement. So using your logic once we buy a ship (let us say a thorax) then when you lose that thorax you should respawn back in your station with a new thorax.. The concept of eve has always been about everything being destructible (unless it involves micro-transaction more recently). So I don't need to take anything up with CCP as that is their clear position since day one. So I have no idea where you got it into your head that CCP doesn't want implants or anything else to be destructible (care to link source?), and where you feel entitled to respawn back in your base without losing anything. So hence when I said are you sure you are playing the right game it was incredibly apt. As stated, you have an issue with the reasoning, take it up qith ccp where it originated. Aguing with me as if it were my reasoning after i already pointed you at the source isn't too bright an argument. Read the csm minutes btw. If you did then youd know exactly why I'm pointing this back at ccp. Their "clear position" isn't so clear for those of us that bother to stay informed. CSM minutes are in no way a good indication of CCPs official position, it is simply a place where ideas are thrown around and much of it doesn't stick. And even then I still see no source to your wild claim that CCP don't like that implants are destructible. So again, please link your source (I doubt that you can because what you wrote is not CCPs official or unofficial position and is basically nonsense to try and backup your own argument / desire). My desire is that implants and attributes stay intact. Not sure what you're implying i need to justify. But I also know CCP proposed the removal of attributes and stated the major barrier was the learning implants and needing to replace them in some form. Like i said, the reasoning isn'tmine and the conclusion isn't one i endorse, but I also know what's been written. I'm just not in denial about what the devs say is all. Also: CSM 9 winter meeting minutes and thread stating the attribute were looking at being removed with learning implants as the major barrier. Again there is nothing in the sources which you linked to back up your claim that CCP dislikes implants because they are destructible.
It seems you may be confusing / conflating things as you seem to agree with me that implants are a valued addition to the game. I think you have misunderstood CCPs position, CCP have never said (AFAIK) that they dislike implants because they are destructible. They have mentioned they are unhappy with attributes due to the fact they are confusing for new players, but again nothing about implants being destructible.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|

Cara Forelli
Meticulously Indifferent
1282
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 16:32:56 -
[59] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Importantly, the site can be run in PvP ships. They are therefore very tempting when you are roaming around looking for a fight. They are generating LOTS of content. I like this part a lot. I have one major complaint though. Those OP webs are ruining my fights. I keep getting webbed down and losing my target because he just burns out of range while I'm going 50 m/s. Bonused webs don't even fit with the lore, they really should be ranged webs. I hate when npcs interfere with a good fight.
And while we're at it, the whole npc AI could use some work. Why are they webbing me when I came to help them against their attacker? That's a whole other thing though...
Adventures
New player with questions? Join my public channel in game: House Forelli
Titan's Lament
|

Karash Amerius
Sutoka
213
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 19:47:44 -
[60] - Quote
I rarely log into the forums, but when I do, its to point out absurd poasts like this.
Not everyone wants to GRIND THEIR EYES OUT getting SP. Eve Online was originally built so you could 'get ahead' at a constant rate. It is baked into the original design document. It should never change. If you want to remove all learning implants, fine...but having to go grind blood raiders to get a boost in per hour skillpoints is about the worst thing you can do.
Karash Amerius
Operative, Sutoka
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |