Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bethany Mishi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 12:31:08 -
[1] - Quote
the ships skins are super nice and character clothing enhancement has been around for several years. both of these items bring a lot to the game. Here's an idea: try adding ship or skill enhancements to these items. E.G. Goggles or Glasses worn on the character that enhance weapon accuracy or damage or a ship skin that enhances armor resists or hitpoints. Small bonuses to give pilots an edge in pvp combat and even miners increased yield or ore hold space. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3311
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 12:51:28 -
[2] - Quote
No, they cease to be vanity items at that point and become mandatory to be competitive.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Bethany Mishi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 13:02:10 -
[3] - Quote
Untrue. There are a variety of skills in the game that can be enchanced meaning a continued variety of items to be worn and skins to be applied to ships. Skill or ship attribute bonuses just simply need to be kept small on the items. 1 percent increase to weapon damage or tracking speed for Goggles or Glasses. Small 2 or 3 percent bonuses for armor hitpoints or shield regen. Providing only small bonuses give players only a small edge compared to other players without them. |
Iain Cariaba
2345
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 13:46:41 -
[4] - Quote
Bethany Mishi wrote:Providing only small bonuses give players only a small edge compared to other players without them. That they provide bonuses at all would make some people imagine they're mandatory. Some people think +5 learning implants are mandatory, and quite often come onto forums whinjng about how they need to be cheaper/removable because they can't/won't PvP with them.
Additionally, ship skins and clothing do not go away when you lose the ship/get podded, and permanent bonuses are bad.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2214
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 14:51:37 -
[5] - Quote
Bethany Mishi wrote:Untrue. There are a variety of skills in the game that can be enchanced meaning a continued variety of items to be worn and skins to be applied to ships. Skill or ship attribute bonuses just simply need to be kept small on the items. 1 percent increase to weapon damage or tracking speed for Goggles or Glasses. Small 2 or 3 percent bonuses for armor hitpoints or shield regen. Providing only small bonuses give players only a small edge compared to other players without them. 1% is huge in EVE. That is the difference between 1300 DPS and 1200 DPS, between 0.5 tracking and 0.7 tracking, between 100,000 EHP and 95,000 EHP. Your idea is flawed and dangerous to the game beyond imagination. Get lost with your P2W entitlement.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
9441
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 17:39:49 -
[6] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Bethany Mishi wrote:Untrue. There are a variety of skills in the game that can be enchanced meaning a continued variety of items to be worn and skins to be applied to ships. Skill or ship attribute bonuses just simply need to be kept small on the items. 1 percent increase to weapon damage or tracking speed for Goggles or Glasses. Small 2 or 3 percent bonuses for armor hitpoints or shield regen. Providing only small bonuses give players only a small edge compared to other players without them. 1% is huge in EVE. That is the difference between 1300 DPS and 1200 DPS, between 0.5 tracking and 0.7 tracking, between 100,000 EHP and 95,000 EHP. Your idea is flawed and dangerous to the game beyond imagination. Get lost with your P2W entitlement. Check your math Rivr. Your numbers are are 5 to 10% differences, not 1%.
Even still. No, I would not want this for the two reasons already stated:
Iain Cariaba wrote:That they provide bonuses at all would make some people imagine they're mandatory. Some people think +5 learning implants are mandatory, and quite often come onto forums whinjng about how they need to be cheaper/removable because they can't/won't PvP with them.
Iain Cariaba wrote:ship skins and clothing do not go away when you lose the ship/get podded, and permanent bonuses are bad. With the last one; yes, skills are also permanent. But they take time to train, there is an opportunity cost in training certain skills over others (see: if I train X skill now then I will not be able to train Y skill, but both are useful), and they are not interchangeable based on the meta or whims of the person training them (see: if you train to kite but the meta changes to brawling, you can't simply swap your skills over to the new thing).
Clothing and accessories that grant bonuses are both permanent and interchangeable with no penalties for their use. They would be like implant hardwirings but without the cost and tedium of replacing them if you get podded.
How did you Veterans start?
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2216
|
Posted - 2016.01.16 19:14:57 -
[7] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Bethany Mishi wrote:Untrue. There are a variety of skills in the game that can be enchanced meaning a continued variety of items to be worn and skins to be applied to ships. Skill or ship attribute bonuses just simply need to be kept small on the items. 1 percent increase to weapon damage or tracking speed for Goggles or Glasses. Small 2 or 3 percent bonuses for armor hitpoints or shield regen. Providing only small bonuses give players only a small edge compared to other players without them. 1% is huge in EVE. That is the difference between 1300 DPS and 1200 DPS, between 0.5 tracking and 0.7 tracking, between 100,000 EHP and 95,000 EHP. Your idea is flawed and dangerous to the game beyond imagination. Get lost with your P2W entitlement. Check your math Rivr. Your numbers are are 5 to 10% differences, not 1%. I am aware of that. ^^ But she did not stop at 1%, she also mentioned 2, 3% and why stop there if you can buy chance increase to your victory with money anyways?
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1857
|
Posted - 2016.01.17 08:20:23 -
[8] - Quote
No
Akrasjel Lanate
CEO of Naquatech Conglomerate
Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Nyalnara
The Unchained Club
197
|
Posted - 2016.01.17 09:29:56 -
[9] - Quote
I'm okay with that kind of thing (non-destructible bonuses not dependent on skills), with the following conditions:
- Must not be available in NEX store: no pay to win.
- Must not be transferable once owned: no power-leveling an alt/friend/newbie.
- Must be non-stackable, just like implants. Limited number of slots, limited effects through possible combinations.
- Must be kept as low-bonuses, as it will stack with skills, implants, and drugs. 1>5%.
- Must be hard to obtain. By hard, i mean in the style of "crying blood for 5 years, farming all corporation standings from a faction to +10". You want that bonus, you better go earn it. Can be scaled to access the higher bonus items: 20% of +10 corps for the 1% thingie, 100% at +10 for the 5% bonus.
- Should be obtainable, if possible, through methods related to bonus: exploration bonuses through exploration completion, racial weaponry through racial standings, etc...
(Last 2 points may be especially interesting to consider as it would also extend the retention of WoW-like players, as they just want to grind a game to get higher rewards...)
French half-noob.
CEO of [.TUC.] The Unchained Club
Founder of [DEUPP] Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions
In case of ponies, keep calm and start running.
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
728
|
Posted - 2016.01.17 15:04:10 -
[10] - Quote
This one represents one of the great quandaries of EvE.
On the one hand you have the no pay to win aspect, and yet with plex sold for ISK there is in reality a huge pay to win mechanic already in the game so why why not allow this one?
On the other hand there is the where does it stop mentality. Those players usually acknowledge the pay to win aspects plex and then seek to justify keeping it as the only one because it has always been that way.
Personally as long as the bonuses are small, in the 1% or so range and they are affected by stacking penalties I say why not. surely it will not be game breaker and pilot skill can usually overcome that small of a statistical advantage anyway. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3318
|
Posted - 2016.01.17 16:18:44 -
[11] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: On the one hand you have the no pay to win aspect, and yet with plex sold for ISK there is in reality a huge pay to win mechanic already in the game so why why not allow this one?
Except its not, you are trading goods, one persons time for another persons money. And the entire concept that ISK = winning is just flawed.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
252
|
Posted - 2016.01.17 22:02:04 -
[12] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:This one represents one of the great quandaries of EvE.
On the one hand you have the no pay to win aspect, and yet with plex sold for ISK there is in reality a huge pay to win mechanic already in the game so why why not allow this one?
On the other hand there is the where does it stop mentality. Those players usually acknowledge the pay to win aspects plex and then seek to justify keeping it as the only one because it has always been that way.
Personally as long as the bonuses are small, in the 1% or so range and they are affected by stacking penalties I say why not. surely it will not be game breaker and pilot skill can usually overcome that small of a statistical advantage anyway.
Plex is not P2W....so what if you bought plex and then sold it for ISK, you **** can still be destroyed wihtout any real advantages...ask all the ones who thought purps and +5's in their first month gave them uber superpowers.
But now the idea of permanent bonus that can not be destroyed? NO, Hell no it cant be allowed. That is a Golden Ammo concept and it should be shot down immediately.
The only solution for these items would be to make all Skins non-permanent, and if your wearing clothers when podded....well then you lose them as well. that is the only way it could work by making them destructible....but then maybe sales will fall and dwindle into nothing because no one wants to lose their cool clothes, and there will be no point skinning a ship that can be lost in mere seconds.
-1
CCP we really need a button for the forums that is opposite of LIKE |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2437
|
Posted - 2016.01.17 22:33:45 -
[13] - Quote
There are plenty of bad ideas in F&I. Far fewer make me want to reach through my screen and slap whoever posted it. This one gets that honor.
Plex is not pay to win. Plex is pay to play. This, however, is pay to win and as such a horrible, horrible idea that undermines the best things in the game. Hell no. |
Alena McJenkins
McJenkins' Saucy Shipwreckers LLC
52
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 06:35:32 -
[14] - Quote
A visual overlay of some kind would be kinda cool, but adding bonuses based on SKINs and clothing is just silly.
Also to note,
Max Deveron wrote:Golden Ammo could work as a hydrid shell. Make it similar to lead charges, but more expensive.
Sauce.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1620
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 07:03:52 -
[15] - Quote
See, this...
...this is why we really need a DISLIKE button.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Shelick
Addicted To Chaos Archetype.
14
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 11:57:41 -
[16] - Quote
No.
pls unsub |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
871
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 12:15:27 -
[17] - Quote
No.
Biomass.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1042
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 12:33:45 -
[18] - Quote
And what about an ocd thing like putting a true sansha heat sink instead of a tech 2 or imperial navy one on a true sansha ship that gives you an extra 0.1?
Like a true sansha heat sink on a Phantasm that gives you a 1.3 damage multiplier instead of the 1.2 it usually gives?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
JonnyPew
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 14:24:59 -
[19] - Quote
Nope. Not gonna happen.
EVE Online is my hobby.
http://www.youtube.com/JonnyPew
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
731
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 14:32:55 -
[20] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Except its not, you are trading goods, one persons time for another persons money. And the entire concept that ISK = winning is just flawed.
Max Deveron wrote:[Plex is not P2W....so what if you bought plex and then sold it for ISK, you **** can still be destroyed wihtout any real advantages...ask all the ones who thought purps and +5's in their first month gave them uber superpowers.
Zhilia Mann wrote:Plex is not pay to win. Plex is pay to play. This, however, is pay to win and as such a horrible, horrible idea that undermines the best things in the game. Hell no. And there we have it perfect examples of those who defend a P2W system simply because it has always been, just as I predicted.
Omnathious Deninard while plex can and often is used as a way of playing without having to pay cash money it can and is used to allow player that have limited gaming time to buy modules that give them an advantage. If you are flying a T1 frigate fit with the usual array of T1 and T2 modules and come up against a T1 frigate that is fit with all Officer or Deadspace modules you are at a distinct disadvantage. If the ISK needed for those modules was gained by buying a plex for cash and selling it then the situation fits the classic definition of P2W.
Max Deveron That plex can be sold for ISK and that ISK used to fit a ship in a manor that has superior performance is the very definition of P2W, the fact that that ship could be destroyed does not change that.
Zhilia Mann see the responses above.
Do I think that CCP should remove the plex system? No it serves the game and it's players, but that does not mean that it is not and can not be used as a P2W option for those with the real life cash and willingness to use it that way. |
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Sustainable Whaling Inc.
61
|
Posted - 2016.01.20 16:02:56 -
[21] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: And there we have it perfect examples of those who defend a P2W system simply because it has always been, just as I predicted.
PLEX was introduced several years after EVE's release.. In 2007.. There was no PLEX before that.
Donnachadh wrote:Omnathious Deninard while plex can and often is used as a way of playing without having to pay cash money it can and is used to allow player that have limited gaming time to buy modules that give them an advantage. If you are flying a T1 frigate fit with the usual array of T1 and T2 modules and come up against a T1 frigate that is fit with all Officer or Deadspace modules you are at a distinct disadvantage. Say what? Are you telling me that a competent pilot with actual skill is going to lose against an F1 monkey just because the monkey has better modules? Better modules don't teach you how to fly that ship, nor do more SP.
Donnachadh wrote:Max Deveron That plex can be sold for ISK and that ISK used to fit a ship in a manor that has superior performance is the very definition of P2W, the fact that that ship could be destroyed does not change that. It will die just the same when being flown by a ******. It won't change anything.
Here's some advice: Biomass your characters, uninstall the game and go back to WoW. Same goes for the OP, since this idea is pretty much the worst I've read in quite some time.
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Bethany Mishi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 15:42:22 -
[22] - Quote
I've waited to respond to this topic for a while to get a good idea of how other players feel about this topic. I must conclude from the responses that only PVP oriented players have responded. In my original post I also mentioned bonuses to mining ships or essentially industrial players, most of which aren't PVP oriented. This aspect of the game gets over shadowed a lot in my opinion. The PVP players think their opinion about game mechanics is all that matters and forget that there are none pvp and even pvp players that play the game casually and do not live and breathe the game. This brings me to the another point, since this forum was designed to bring fresh ideas to the game, and the forum rules ask for productive input, several of you had simple responses of "NO" or "Terrible Idea" which brings nothing to the discussion. LOSERS! I can only conclude that you are the ignorant folks that think you don't have to read directions before you do anything and just make up your own rules. Finally, I know the concept of Pay to Win is a very hostile subject when it comes to eve. Even though I agree mostly that it is negative, the game is already set up this way. More isk = Better ships, modules, implants, and so on. This means, the wealthier the player is, the better his chances of winning, as some players like to put it. My main reason for the idea is that it brings further realism to the game. The idea fits the concept, which is found in many other games, that some clothing worn can enhance a characters attributes. In Shooter games, certain worn items increase weapon damage or a characters speed. This is a game that is depicted in a futuristic, science fiction setting and this concept is real and fits in this game. As for ship skins, it is not far fetched to conclude that if you are adding a skin or extra layer to the hull of the ship that it can also provide a benefit other than improving the look of the ship. This was a simple fresh idea I thought could benefit not just one type of player in the game but all the players in the game, regardless of their reason for playing. Finally, since I did read the forum rules before posting, I hope that I brought something productive to the discussion.
Fly Safe! |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1773
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 16:47:35 -
[23] - Quote
No argument against your bad idea specifically mentioned pvp, yet you do....
These folks aren't against you, they are for balanced game play. |
Bethany Mishi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:03:31 -
[24] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:No argument against your bad idea specifically mentioned pvp, yet you do....
These folks aren't against you, they are for balanced game play. You are correct, none of them mentioned pvp. They only gave examples of pvp gameplay in their responses. My Bad. Even though it is the same thing. Just using more words. As for balanced gameplay, offering benefits to each and every player in the game is balanced gameplay. It's their choice to use them or not. Offering benefits to only some players isn't. I'm not quite sure what point your were trying to make? I personally don't care if this idea makes it into the game, I'm not the game designers, just sharing an idea. Once again, was hoping for productive comments not simple unproductive statements. You mentioned nothing about the idea, only about a statement I made on others comments. Did anyone read the rules of this forum? I don't mind if anyone argues against the idea. But no one has argued for or against any other player types in the game other than the PVP ones in the arguments that were of actual substance. Last I checked, all players pay the same amount to play the game whether it be with money or plex. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17143
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 17:10:52 -
[25] - Quote
Pay to win is a cancer I never want to see here. OP you are bad, your idea is bad and you should go into the corner and think about how bad of an idea you just posted.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2448
|
Posted - 2016.01.26 19:25:20 -
[26] - Quote
Bethany Mishi wrote:I've waited to respond to this topic for a while to get a good idea of how other players feel about this topic. I must conclude from the responses that only PVP oriented players have responded.
Exploration and market shenanigans on one account; pure industry on my other. I'm as PvE as they come in Eve and I still don't like it.
Bethany Mishi wrote:In my original post I also mentioned bonuses to mining ships or essentially industrial players, most of which aren't PVP oriented. Except that the activities you mention are in fact competitive. If I can produce something more cheaply or acquire minerals at a faster rate I still have a huge competitive advantage against someone who can't do these things. Paying for this advantage inevitably skews the market and strips the playing field. Industry runs on margins that are tight enough already for many items; all you're suggesting is that anyone who doesn't pay to win has to suffer from further reduced profits as the market takes into account the people who do pay. Bethany Mishi wrote:Finally, I know the concept of Pay to Win is a very hostile subject when it comes to eve. Even though I agree mostly that it is negative, the game is already set up this way. More isk = Better ships, modules, implants, and so on. This means, the wealthier the player is, the better his chances of winning, as some players like to put it. Better ships, modules, and implants are acquired via Isk, which is an in-game, fully-tradeable currency. Requiring out-of-game currency for certain tangible benefits is the pay-to-win aspect of your idea that people -- myself included -- object to. [quote=Bethany Mishi] My main reason for the idea is that it brings further realism to the game. The idea fits the concept, which is found in many other games, that some clothing worn can enhance a characters attributes. In Shooter games, certain worn items increase weapon damage or a characters speed. This is a game that is depicted in a futuristic, science fiction setting and this concept is real and fits in this game. As for ship skins, it is not far fetched to conclude that if you are adding a skin or extra layer to the hull of the ship that it can also provide a benefit other than improving the look of the ship. This was a simple fresh idea I thought could benefit not just one type of player in the game but all the players in the game, regardless of their reason for playing. Finally, since I did read the forum rules before posting, I hope that I brought something productive to the discussion.
Realism isn't really a goal here. Balance is. Requiring out-of-game currency to compete skews balance inside the game. That's the problem. |
Bethany Mishi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.01.27 15:19:47 -
[27] - Quote
Better ships, modules, and implants are acquired via Isk, which is an in-game, fully-tradeable currency. Requiring out-of-game currency for certain tangible benefits is the pay-to-win aspect of your idea that people -- myself included -- object to.
Everyone's big complaint about this topic is pay-to-win. We have fully established that Isk wealthy players are at an advantage over isk poor players. I never once stated that the items I am suggesting could not be purchased using isk. In fact, I never stated they should be bought with out of game money. As most skins and clothing are currently purchased through the eve store, I can easily see everyones assumption. I currently do not like or think these items should be purchased through the eve store even in their current state. Even so, since plex is traded using isk and can be converted to aurum, there is already a mechanic in game that allows for these items to be traded using in game currency.
Realism isn't really a goal here. Balance is. Requiring out-of-game currency to compete skews balance inside the game. That's the problem.
Realism isn't a goal for some. I would say a lot of gamers play games for the realism of the game. The more real the game and the more real it looks and performs is a big attraction for gamers who want to immerse themselves in a different world. If realism was never a factor, we would never have gotten away from the 16 bit 2-D Sega and Nintendo era. Wouldn't EVE be great if the ships looked like the giant blocks in MINECRAFT. No, realism in a game is very important. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1475
|
Posted - 2016.01.28 05:34:50 -
[28] - Quote
You do this and any illusion that eve is not pay to win will go out the window
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |