| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Amy Amarr
The Vogon Poet's Armada Punch Drunk Lemmings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 18:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hey there folks!
GM Arcade informed me that my idea should be posted on the forums.
My idea is that you are able to 'back date' your characters lapsed skill training time, Either by paying subscription to recieve the lost SP or by another means. In this way you are able to 'catch up' with other characters of your year e.t.c.
For example;
If you are a 2006 character and you were inactive for three years due to financial problems e.t.c. Your character could easily be tens of millions of SP behind others 'Born' at the same time as you.
The way I see it is that with 'Back dating' you could pay a subscription or something similar to that ilk and receive your 'lost' SP.
For example;
You could pay a 'subscription' of say 3 months and in turn receive 3 months of your lost SP in bulk to spread where you would like in the way it was done when Learning Skills were abolished.
I also think that these 'subscriptions' should be able to go down to hours minutes and seconds. Perhaps a way to track your inactivity and have a 'reclaimable balance' of sorts could be created. Thus enabling you to reclaim every single 'lost' skill point.
Let me know what you guys think. |

Faile Nightsong
DSB Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
I wholeheartedly support and affirm this concept.
Most importantly, I believe CCP could get a huge profit boost from it, and in return we wouldn't have an openended situation where people could just throw cash at skill points. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
6024
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

The Riddickman
Misadventures in Cake Eating
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
I don't really care either way if this is implemented. My only concern is that it must be bought w/ cold hard real world cash. Plex prices are high enough already, the last thing we need is even higher demand for the stuff. |

ShipToaster
130
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Not this again.
You were trolled by GM Arcade who just wanted rid of you.  Incursion math? part 1 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=678400#post678400
part 2 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=698871#post698871 |

Feligast
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1060
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past.
If I could like this more than once, I would.
No to buying SP in any form or fashion. |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
445
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
So you're saying I should create a dozen trial accounts and then let them unsub and just wait for the next FotM and bring them back and pay a bit to instantly train them up to whatever the current FotM is with the pile of SP it gets.
Yeah, no, if you can't pay for the account, you don't train, no 'backdating' SP. If you can do that then I demand the ability to backdate education in RL, so the people who skipped college to work can instantly catch back up with everyone else their age. Oh ... wait ... learning doesn't work that way ... (yeah, it is a RL->Eve analogy, but it does point out how stupid the concept is) |

Amy Amarr
The Vogon Poet's Armada Punch Drunk Lemmings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
mxzf wrote:So you're saying I should create a dozen trial accounts and then let them unsub and just wait for the next FotM and bring them back and pay a bit to instantly train them up to whatever the current FotM is with the pile of SP it gets.
In response to this I can think of a couple of things.
One being that you restrict the age of characters being able to use it. Problem with that is as you said 'waiting'.
Other idea is that there's a Skill training speed penalty if you use the SP backdating to acquire the missing Skill points. Such as;
If you bought your 'missing' SP back you take a hit to the SP speed dropping it to something like normal Skill speed if you're using +4 implants. As then people would only do such a thing if they deem it 'vital or necessary '.
Just to clarify this point. I mean a permanent SP speed hit from then onwards for say the duration of the amount of time you 'reclaimed' from being inactive or even permanent indefinitely |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
445
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
Amy Amarr wrote:mxzf wrote:So you're saying I should create a dozen trial accounts and then let them unsub and just wait for the next FotM and bring them back and pay a bit to instantly train them up to whatever the current FotM is with the pile of SP it gets. In response to this I can think of a couple of things. One being that you restrict the age of characters being able to use it. Problem with that is as you said 'waiting'. Other idea is that there's a Skill training speed penalty if you use the SP backdating to acquire the missing Skill points. Such as; If you bought your 'missing' SP back you take a hit to the SP speed dropping it to something like normal Skill speed if you're using +4 implants. As then people would only do such a thing if they deem it 'vital or necessary '. Just to clarify this point. I mean a permanent SP speed hit from then onwards for say the duration of the amount of time you 'reclaimed' from being inactive or even permanent indefinitely
Nothing you've said prevents it from being badly exploited. |

Mangren Skor
DSB Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
The issue isn't whether or not people would do things like pay for one month trials and hold them for 2 years and then reactivate and sell them... The question is would it break the game ?
It would generate additional revenue for CCP, it would definitely affect the market for PLEX if you could buy 30 days of backdated skill training for old accounts with a PLEX.
Obviously it would have to be done based on current Attribute Mapping, and probably without current implants. As getting them after the fact would be ...
The argument could be made that a clone was sitting in station for that time, with a skill training queue that had been sitting and got pulled out after the fact.
What about 2 PLEX for per 30 day boost to an old character?
On the market argument, the higher PLEX prices go, the more demand there is for people to purchase PLEX at the going rate in real world currencies, which will bring it back down.
Now the downside is that as people get more skills they can turn around and generate more ISK/hour in game. So... hmmmph.
It would unbalance the game for new players in a way. But hasn't that always been true? Every day that goes by and you don't have an account training SP, you're falling behind the guy who has an active account.
Not sure this changes that aspect dramatically. New accounts will always have that hurdle.
|

Amy Amarr
The Vogon Poet's Armada Punch Drunk Lemmings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Amy Amarr wrote:mxzf wrote:So you're saying I should create a dozen trial accounts and then let them unsub and just wait for the next FotM and bring them back and pay a bit to instantly train them up to whatever the current FotM is with the pile of SP it gets. In response to this I can think of a couple of things. One being that you restrict the age of characters being able to use it. Problem with that is as you said 'waiting'. Other idea is that there's a Skill training speed penalty if you use the SP backdating to acquire the missing Skill points. Such as; If you bought your 'missing' SP back you take a hit to the SP speed dropping it to something like normal Skill speed if you're using +4 implants. As then people would only do such a thing if they deem it 'vital or necessary '. Just to clarify this point. I mean a permanent SP speed hit from then onwards for say the duration of the amount of time you 'reclaimed' from being inactive or even permanent indefinitely Nothing you've said prevents it from being badly exploited.
Perhaps then something a bit more severe such as. You're back on eve. been away long enough to have 'lost' 90m sp but to back date you only receive 30m due to not being active over the time and the other 60m is lost and unredeemable. |

Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1014
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:56:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past. You should quit playing EvE then since your subscription essentially buys you time to gain SP and therefor you are buying SP in a form.
I still don't think this is a good idea though. That means that account I made back in 2004 that has been dormant since then could be reactivated and I could pay a thousand bucks to get all the SP and assign it how I want. I don't think that would be very good... EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |

Amy Amarr
The Vogon Poet's Armada Punch Drunk Lemmings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 20:06:00 -
[13] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshiz wrote: I still don't think this is a good idea though. That means that account I made back in 2004 that has been dormant since then could be reactivated and I could pay a thousand bucks to get all the SP and assign it how I want. I don't think that would be very good...
As i just said above your post. Perhaps incur a 2/3 loss to reclaimable sp.
Could even name it 'Capsuleer Sickness'
"Due to being in your capsule for a very long period of time you have lost 2/3 of the skill points you could have attained over x amount of time." |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
296
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 20:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
Suddenly all my 2005 alts with 200k SP can fly titans. |

Xolve
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
775
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 20:48:00 -
[15] - Quote
Feligast wrote:Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past. If I could like this more than once, I would. No to buying SP in any form or fashion.
Not empty quoting. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator. |

Olive Juice
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 20:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past.
Except for buying skills that are on a character? |

Olive Juice
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 20:57:00 -
[17] - Quote
mxzf wrote:So you're saying I should create a dozen trial accounts and then let them unsub and just wait for the next FotM and bring them back and pay a bit to instantly train them up to whatever the current FotM is with the pile of SP it gets.
Why make trial accounts?
You can do this now!
Just buy some PLEX, sell it for isk, then buy characters that are skilled!
|

iNfeck7ed
Blueprint Haus Get Off My Lawn
17
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 21:15:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past.
quiet peasant, people with jobs who support this game you probably paid your whole eve life with plex which doesn't help ccp advance its software or hardware are thinking, shoosh.
support the buying of back-logged sp |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
447
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 21:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
iNfeck7ed wrote:quiet peasant, people with jobs who support this game you probably paid your whole eve life with plex which doesn't help ccp advance its software or hardware are thinking, shoosh.
Quoting a self-righteous idiot who doesn't realize that CCP gets MORE money because of people who play the game via PLEX (because CCP gets the money either way and PLEXers are even getting someone else to give CCP cash for them to play, which would be one less subscription otherwise). |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
6028
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 21:29:00 -
[20] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past. You should quit playing EvE then since your subscription essentially buys you time to gain SP and therefor you are buying SP in a form. The subscription buys me access to the server. While I had that access, I was able to use my character sheet and train/change skills over that time.
Fake edit: You made me laugh though, because I know you were serious.
Olive Juice wrote:Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past. Except for buying skills that are on a character? Characters bought and sold have had the time spent on them and are the result of choices made over time. The whole point of skill levels, is so you have to decided is it worth train that skill to level 5, or should I train other stuff to level 4?
No matter what excuse is used to justify buying SP, it all boils down to the same thing. The removal of those decisions and consequences.
Buying a char comes with them, buying SP does not.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Dimitri Jackal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 21:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jesus, another moron who thinks that buying SP would EVER be supported by the community. Hell no. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
6028
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 21:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
iNfeck7ed wrote:Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past. quiet peasant, people with jobs who support this game you probably paid your whole eve life with plex which doesn't help ccp advance its software or hardware are thinking, shoosh. support the buying of back-logged sp Good god, is that the best you can do? Come out with some ad hominem to justify what is and always will be, a bad idea?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Grimdragon420
HotRock Mining PLC Punch Drunk Lemmings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 04:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
I support it as a 2008 character with 17.6 million SP. Maybe they just limit it to main characters with at least 1 yr of SP? |

Amy Amarr
The Vogon Poet's Armada Punch Drunk Lemmings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 07:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
As grim said above me. Limitation and or perhaps a loss of SP so you only receive x amount from each year.
Thus creating a limit that each person could acquire.
For Example.
If you could afford to run your account you get x amount of SP over x amount of years
But a person with only the ability to pay now and then could back date and receive a penalty of losing two thirds of the SP due to being inactive.
This would remove the urge to 'farm' inactive accounts and give people who cannot afford it a shade of the SP that they could have acquired if they had been able to run the account full time.
|

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 11:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
mxzf wrote:So you're saying I should create a dozen trial accounts and then let them unsub and just wait for the next FotM and bring them back and pay a bit to instantly train them up to whatever the current FotM is with the pile of SP it gets.
Yeah, no, if you can't pay for the account, you don't train, no 'backdating' SP. If you can do that then I demand the ability to backdate education in RL, so the people who skipped college to work can instantly catch back up with everyone else their age. Oh ... wait ... learning doesn't work that way ... (yeah, it is a RL->Eve analogy, but it does point out how stupid the concept is)
Well, EVE skill training system is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike anything you could learn in RL so let's not bring it up.
To the point, I don't think it would be so much game breaking. Yes, dozen dormant accounts is different than dozen of accounts being actively kept. It's delayed choice: I could reactivate one or not. But buying trained character is also a form of such delayed choice. The only actual difference would be having those raw SPs to spend, and personally I like this idea. (2005 toon flying titan? if I can buy titan pilot then this problem is moot).
As for it not being too easy, first, my understanding of original idea would be that the price paid would have to cover for full period of inactivity. It's anyone's assessment whether spending couple of hundreds, or maybe thousand, of bucks is acceptable or not but I think it's not peanuts in any case (my wild guess is that people for whom it IS peanuts don't actually play this game).
Also I'd propose that instead of incurring artificial penalties it would suffice if the amount of SP granted would be the LOWEST possible amount to have trained by this time. You know, assuming trainig with minimal attributes in area and without implants. The reason being that if you're interested in having good skills then better you keep your character active and maintained. |

XXSketchxx
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
187
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 13:39:00 -
[26] - Quote
Next time you take a break, just biomass yourself. Now you won't have to worry about any lapsed time and we won't have to read about your terrible idea. |

XXSketchxx
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
187
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 13:41:00 -
[27] - Quote
iNfeck7ed wrote:Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past. quiet peasant, people with jobs who support this game you probably paid your whole eve life with plex which doesn't help ccp advance its software or hardware are thinking, shoosh. support the buying of back-logged sp
Haha this guy is mad.
Sounds kinda space poor too. |

Valea Silpha
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
32
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 15:32:00 -
[28] - Quote
I understand the idea of wanting people who stopped playing be able to come back into eve and not be stuck having to retrain for the current popular ships.
However, the answer to that is in balancing ships so that all of the skill trees are viable rather than providing people with backdated SP. As things stand today, if you left with any half decent t2 skills, when you come back you will be able to achieve something worthwhile.
As various people have pointed out, the concept of having free SP to spend for time unsubbed is terrible. There is no way that this couldn't be abused.
However, I would support the idea of you accruing free training time while you account is subbed, but no character is in training, so that you can either bank training time while you are on break or that if you forgot to set a skill you don't lose time.
The OPs idea is bad though. Really bad. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 17:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
Valea Silpha wrote:As various people have pointed out, the concept of having free SP to spend for time unsubbed is terrible. There is no way that this couldn't be abused.
I don't get it. How would it be abused? I mean, of those three situations (numbers pulled out of my ass; might be sligthly off):
1. Proposed idea: account dormant for 2 years, upon reactivation and paying back 2 year subscription receives 40 mil SP to use.
2. Character incubation: not actively playing, just paying subscription for 2 years and maintaining skill queue, because of implants and attribute remaps gaining 50 mil SP in trained skills.
3. Buying 2 years old, 50 mil SP toon.
How is it that the #1 is exploitable and game breaking while others are not? |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
457
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 17:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
hmskrecik wrote:How is it that the #1 is exploitable and game breaking while others are not?
Because 1 lets you instantly put points into whatever you want and completely skill for something in an instant. 2 and 3 force either you or the seller of the char to constantly make decisions over the course of two years and live with those decisions when FotM changes.
2 and 3 reward forward-thinking and planning out what you want to train, 1 rewards dumping a bunch of cash into the char and getting an instant FotM char. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 18:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
mxzf wrote:hmskrecik wrote:How is it that the #1 is exploitable and game breaking while others are not? Because 1 lets you instantly put points into whatever you want and completely skill for something in an instant. 2 and 3 force either you or the seller of the char to constantly make decisions over the course of two years and live with those decisions when FotM changes. 2 and 3 reward forward-thinking and planning out what you want to train, 1 rewards dumping a bunch of cash into the char and getting an instant FotM char.
OK. I see your point. But isn't it enough that such dumping would effect in lower total SP than with normal training?
Mind you we're not talking about artificially pumping a character (like 2 years old to have more SP than 4 years one), just giving some handicap. And the pool of existing but inactive accounts is limited, no matter what size it actually is.
Besides, even if I now activate dozen of accounts with intention of keeping them dormant for 2 years, isn't it such forward thinking the scam-ridden EVE is famous and proud of? ;) |

Zillz
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 18:45:00 -
[32] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Olive Juice wrote:Mag's wrote:I'll have to say no. Buying SP, not matter what the reasoning, is a bad idea for all the reasons stated in the past. Except for buying skills that are on a character? Characters bought and sold have had the time spent on them and are the result of choices made over time. The whole point of skill levels, is so you have to decided is it worth train that skill to level 5, or should I train other stuff to level 4? No matter what excuse is used to justify buying SP, it all boils down to the same thing. The removal of those decisions and consequences. Buying a char comes with them, buying SP does not.
Not empty quoting. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 18:23:00 -
[33] - Quote
I definitely agree with skill buyback for players resubscribing. It will attract players back which can only be a good thing. Full price, money only and limited to 6 months would be fine by me. |

Amy Amarr
The Vogon Poet's Armada Punch Drunk Lemmings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 19:21:00 -
[34] - Quote
Bingo jasper's struck a good point. make a limitation of how far you can backdate your skill points 6months to a year maximum will enable you to 'catch up' with others of your characters age group slighty.
But would not induce 'farming' inactive accounts for the use of backdating all your sp into a nommy titan or something of that ilk. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
6043
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 19:53:00 -
[35] - Quote
Amy Amarr wrote:Bingo jasper's struck a good point. make a limitation of how far you can backdate your skill points 6months to a year maximum will enable you to 'catch up' with others of your characters age group slighty.
But would not induce 'farming' inactive accounts for the use of backdating all your sp into a nommy titan or something of that ilk. It's not a good point, because it still involves buying SP.
Again it boils down to consequences. Don't keep your account active, you lose training time. If you wish to keep gaining SP, then pay to keep your account running.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
462
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 19:56:00 -
[36] - Quote
hmskrecik wrote:OK. I see your point. But isn't it enough that such dumping would effect in lower total SP than with normal training?
Yes, because any dumping of skill points onto a character, however small or large, is abusable; and if there's one thing I know about Eve, it's that people will abuse the crap out of anything they can, however they can.
And I do understand Jasp3r's point about returning chars wanting to 'catch up', but Eve is supposed to have consequences, and a "whoops, I really did want those SP after all" button is completely contrary to the whole mindset of Eve. This is the same situation as the "let me delete skills and re-use the SP" threads, it might be kinda nice for some people, but it would be abused to no end by others, and the abuse would be worse than the benefits.
tl;dr: There are certainly valid(ish) desires for this, I can understand how someone would want the SP that they could have had, but the abuse of the system would far outweigh any and all possible benefits. That's really what I see as the bottom line, that it would hurt Eve more than it would help it. |

Amy Amarr
The Vogon Poet's Armada Punch Drunk Lemmings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 19:59:00 -
[37] - Quote
So you're saying that if someone had to move country like I did and then have no broadband for a year, But the money to pay for an eve sub we cant backdate even though we would have paid for a sub if we were able to download the client?
Even though we would be paying for a full years subscription?
|

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 20:03:00 -
[38] - Quote
How about...
When resubscribing, players get the option to pay the full amount since they left and then they get a module that doubles the training time for that period going forward.
So, you don't get an instant win (which rules out the flavour of the month issue) and have to plan and queue skills in the same way for the next 1-6 months... they just training at twice the speed.
From the perspective of the re-subbing player, it still takes away the feeling of training time lost. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 20:04:00 -
[39] - Quote
Sorry, module = Cerebral Accelerator |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
6043
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 20:06:00 -
[40] - Quote
Amy Amarr wrote:So you're saying that if someone had to move country like I did and then have no broadband for a year, But the money to pay for an eve sub we cant backdate even though we would have paid for a sub if we were able to download the client?
Even though we would be paying for a full years subscription?
Your personal circumstance, has absolutely no bearing on this idea.
But I will say one thing. Where there's a will, there's a way. 
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 20:11:00 -
[41] - Quote
Oh, and doubles the training speed, not time :) |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1935
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 00:45:00 -
[42] - Quote
this is a dumb idea
buy PLEX and sell it to buy a character andski for csm7~ |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 11:20:00 -
[43] - Quote
Although I agree this is a solution to some people, personally I prefer to train my own characters up. It feels weird buying a character, kind of like skipping the main point of the game.
For those like me, why not the cerebral accelerator idea (above).. it could even fit into the story similar to the officer edition version.
I realise that most people that are already ahead don't want any kind of catch-up advantage given to those returning. However, you can't deny that EVE would benefit from an injection of returning players that this might encourage to come back. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 12:12:00 -
[44] - Quote
mxzf wrote:hmskrecik wrote:OK. I see your point. But isn't it enough that such dumping would effect in lower total SP than with normal training? Yes, because any dumping of skill points onto a character, however small or large, is abusable; and if there's one thing I know about Eve, it's that people will abuse the crap out of anything they can, however they can. And I do understand Jasp3r's point about returning chars wanting to 'catch up', but Eve is supposed to have consequences, and a "whoops, I really did want those SP after all" button is completely contrary to the whole mindset of Eve. This is the same situation as the "let me delete skills and re-use the SP" threads, it might be kinda nice for some people, but it would be abused to no end by others, and the abuse would be worse than the benefits. Mind you, such dumping has already happened when CCP removed learning skills. Sky failed to explode.
The only real problem I see with that is that it would be 'easy' to gain SP. In the sense it wouldn't require constant attention to skill queue as would be in case of incubation. When think about it, IMO this is the core problem: if such unattended skill gaining was permitted, why not allow, say, one year long skill queue? Similar effect.
Choices are lesser issue. Even with backdated SP choices made would stay made.
My opinion is that of course it would require careful balancing of how much SP would be given this way but I'm still not convinced it would break the game.
Jasp3r wrote:I realise that most people that are already ahead don't want any kind of catch-up advantage given to those returning. I think it nicely sums it up. "If I got calluses on my ass training titan, so everyone else should." Though I try not to think this way, I understand people who do. |

Caliph Muhammed
Caldari Investment and Security Industries Innovia Alliance
64
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 13:56:00 -
[45] - Quote
Amy Amarr wrote:So you're saying that if someone had to move country like I did and then have no broadband for a year, But the money to pay for an eve sub we cant backdate even though we would have paid for a sub if we were able to download the client?
Even though we would be paying for a full years subscription?
That's precisely what we are telling you. If you lie sick and dying of rectal cancer for 5 years and your sub lapsed and by some divine miracle you come back to game, the answer is still no. |

Yaris San
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 14:00:00 -
[46] - Quote
My idea:
1. You can buy missed skills only once per character. This applies for the life of the character. This prevents players from buying a years worth of skills, putting the character into hibernation, then doing it again one year later.
2. You can only buy up to 75% of missed skills. This prevents someone who has paid and played since Day 1 from losing their earned advantage.
3. You lose 5% of missed skills as a penalty. This somewhat covers the 'bad decisions' that would have happened had the person played through that time.
"All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."
So say we all. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
6049
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 15:08:00 -
[47] - Quote
Yaris San wrote:My idea:
1. You can buy missed skills only once per character. This applies for the life of the character. This prevents players from buying a years worth of skills, putting the character into hibernation, then doing it again one year later.
2. You can only buy up to 75% of missed skills. This prevents someone who has paid and played since Day 1 from losing their earned advantage.
3. You lose 5% of missed skills as a penalty. This somewhat covers the 'bad decisions' that would have happened had the person played through that time. Counter proposal..... NO.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Valea Silpha
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
36
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 18:02:00 -
[48] - Quote
Amy Amarr wrote:So you're saying that if someone had to move country like I did and then have no broadband for a year, But the money to pay for an eve sub we cant backdate even though we would have paid for a sub if we were able to download the client?
Even though we would be paying for a full years subscription?
Personally, I don't have a problem with a subbed account accruing training time while skills are not being trained. But you have to do it up front. You can dump 12 months of sub into the account, and when you get back to civilization you have 12 months of SP to invest.
I think that this would only be minorly abuse-able (it takes well under a year to spec for any sub-capital FoTM) and you would have to have the forsight to keep a number of accounts full subbed for long periods for it to become genuine abuse, and even then it is no more abusable then having multiple alts training different things and sitting them in station doing nothing until they are at max skills, it just changes when you make the decisions.
However, this is totally different from buying back skill points.
I have two characters from 2004 that I abandoned when I made Valea, and I'm sure that a lot of people made new accounts instead of biomassing their old characters.
The real problem is that by letting an account unsub, you make the statement 'I am not playing eve anymore'. That can be because you are poor, or because you don't have time or because you actually quit the game, or whatever.
So, if you are in fact rewarded for leaving the game for whatever reason then it totally goes against game mechanics. And yes you would be rewarded. Being able to freely invest skill points really is a massive advantage.
Everyone who actually PLAYS eve trains various odd or out of character skills (I have mining director, for example) because that is what they needed at the time. You're journey through eve is seldom a predictable one. When you come in with 15mil sp to dump, you can come out with perfect skills for what you want to do NOW, not what you ended up needing to do 6 months ago.
Giving people an active reason to not play the game is just awful. Unsub your accounts today, and next year you will be leader of the pack.
That's why this is a bad idea. Getting an advantage by not playing (not just not logging in, but actually not even subscribing) is just bad. Anyone can make unlimited rookie accounts and come back to them as needed to do whatever roll they need doing at the time. Ten million SP can get a character into basically any sub-cap ship in game with nearly max skills. And you get that for 6bil, as many times as you want.
To contrast it to any other MMO, you do not get experience when you are not subscribed. Why would you ? You have to go out and earn those levels. When you come back you don't get a pop-up saying 'Well done for not playing for 6 months, you are now level 70'. That would insane. While eve has a different training model that gives you SP when you aren't logged in, if it didn't keep the basic rule of 'No sub, no sp' then you are going to end up rewarding large numbers of people who quit an account but still actively play (who can plex with isk) handing them ANOTHER high SP character for free.
It would also radically devalue all characters, and I think that is a bad thing too. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 18:41:00 -
[49] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:How about...
When resubscribing, players get the option to pay the full amount since they left and then they get a cerebral accelerator that doubles the training speed for that period going forward.
So, you don't get an instant win (which rules out the flavour of the month issue) and have to plan and queue skills in the same way for the next 1-6 months... they are just training at twice the speed.
From the perspective of the re-subbing player, it still takes away the feeling of training time lost.
It seems that the majority of people that are against this take issue with the ability to dump skills into the flavour of the month. In which case, does anyone have a genuine argument against the above? |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 18:48:00 -
[50] - Quote
Valea Silpha wrote:So, if you are in fact rewarded for leaving the game for whatever reason then it totally goes against game mechanics. And yes you would be rewarded. Being able to freely invest skill points really is a massive advantage.
Exactly. And this is what would have to be balanced.
First, no proposal in this thread allowed for reactivating player having real advantage in number of SP. In every case reactivated player would have lower SP than that being active during this time.
And "how much lower" is the question which makes whole thing interesting. Suppose there is proposal to give 10 SP (exactly, ten) per year of inactivity. If you disagree then it means you're against just by principle and there's no further discussion about it. But if such insignificant amount is acceptable then it means there's some level of balance. For everyone involved it will be different but I'm sure one could be found which would be acceptable to most (or cause least public bitching). |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
6053
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 21:04:00 -
[51] - Quote
Consequences, I'll keep repeating it and you should learn to live with them.
Want your skills to keep training? Then keep your account alive and train, it's that simple.
No one should be able to buy SP, no matter what the reason or how low the amount. Ever.
Edit: This also includes some back hand 'Implant'. It's just another form of consequence removal.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 22:28:00 -
[52] - Quote
Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion... you can't please all of the people all of the time. There should be a vote which includes currently unsubbed players. |

Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1937
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 23:06:00 -
[53] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion... you can't please all of the people all of the time. There should be a vote which includes currently unsubbed players.
Why?
CCP isn't going to consider this at all - people went ballistic over the possibility that "gold ammo" would be sold via the NeX store. Do you expect the playerbase to be any more receptive of sales of SP?
This isn't HoN, WoT or LoL - if you want "pay to win," go play those games. andski for csm7~ |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:06:00 -
[54] - Quote
Vets will at some point have to give way on a few of these issues. What good is it being ahead if there is nobody to be ahead of? We need ideas to bring players back and I don't think a catch-up training speed implant for resubscribing players is a bad one.
I think gold ammo is different as it would affect all players and almost 'require' people to pay money to stay ahead in fights. A catch-up implant would not give anyone an advantage.. their skill numbers would be the same as if they'd never unsubbed and it would take the same 'overall' time.
This does seem to be a "I don't want people catching-up to me" issue, which is natural.. but imagine what it means for the player count and CCP... more players returning than what might have without it; and then when they do a lump sum to CCP. A small price to pay for the vets I feel... how is it any different from the officer edition? |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
478
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:14:00 -
[55] - Quote
Andski wrote:This isn't HoN, WoT or LoL - if you want "pay to win," go play those games.
Actually, I've played LoL and it's very much against P2W, they're extremely clear about that and refuse to let you pay for any in-game advantage; IDK about the other games though.
But your point remains valid, you should never be able to pay for an advantage in Eve, ever. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 15:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
I don't class this as an advantage, but a disadvantage turned into neutral. You're just back-paying your subscription. I'd be against gold ammo myself, but a catch-up training speed implant feels fine to me. |

Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 16:15:00 -
[57] - Quote
Since absolutely no one likes your idea (likes received 0) I think there is nothing to discuss here. Most playes like curent skill system, thinks its fair and don't want to make ANY changes to it. Also its one of the most important things, that differs EvE from other games. EvE is a game, where your choces have meaning. Stop playing is one of these choices and it will have consequences. |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
484
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 16:45:00 -
[58] - Quote
Daeva Teresa wrote:EvE is a game, where your choces have meaning. Stop playing is one of these choices and it will have consequences.
I wish I could like this many times over. This is the bottom line of all the argument against this thread and sums it up perfectly. |

Caliph Muhammed
Caldari Investment and Security Industries Innovia Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 17:54:00 -
[59] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:Vets will at some point have to give way on a few of these issues. What good is it being ahead if there is nobody to be ahead of? We need ideas to bring players back and I don't think a catch-up training speed implant for resubscribing players is a bad one.
I think gold ammo is different as it would affect all players and almost 'require' people to pay money to stay ahead in fights. A catch-up implant would not give anyone an advantage.. their skill numbers would be the same as if they'd never unsubbed and it would take the same 'overall' time.
This does seem to be a "I don't want people catching-up to me" issue, which is natural.. but imagine what it means for the player count and CCP... more players returning than what might have without it; and then when they do a lump sum to CCP. A small price to pay for the vets I feel... how is it any different from the officer edition?
You assume maxing the population is a goal. If that were the case they could advertise on the television and make the game free to play. But they aren't.
Because it isn't a goal. Increasing the population is a tertiary plan. They target a certain audience and are satified with attracting and maintaining those player types.
This fallacious argument is always the last resort of someone whose idea is decisively rejected. I assure you in this community every often peddled form of fallacious argument will be shot down and left to fall to earth in a burning mass. Our community is special. You can't threaten (used loosely), bribe or blackmail us into letting the entitlement minded and impatient "hurt" EVE.
There are many genius level IQs (135+) in our community and they will shut you down. My favorite is Tippia. =) |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 19:20:00 -
[60] - Quote
It's not about choices being meaningful or not. It's about whether someone else makes same choices as you.
My feeling is that the bottom line of all arguments against is that in case this feature was implemented in any way, a couple of vets would ragequit. |

Infernal Travesty
Magnum Research
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 00:36:00 -
[61] - Quote
As much as I would love to be backdated those years of SP I missed while I was away, the whole principal of this seems completely wrong to me.
Also many many moons ago we had what was commonly referred to as Ghost Training. It was a bug *cough*feature*cough* allowing accounts to train to the end of a skill while unsubbed. If, God forbid, this idea was put into affect, an account which was able to make use of the Ghost Training would be able to backdate their SP to include SP a SECOND TIME, earning twice as much for ghost trained periods.
I believe that this would make it technically extremely difficult if not impossible to implement. Good. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 20:25:00 -
[62] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:This fallacious argument is always the last resort of someone whose idea is decisively rejected.
Caliph Muhammed wrote:There are many genius level IQs (135+) in our community and they will shut you down. My favorite is Tippia. =)
I think the 'I'm cleverer than you' fallacious argument is the last resort, and rather immature :) It's obvious this isn't going to get through the vets so I'll drop it. I'm sure the CCP stakeholders would disagree with you on the growth issue though. |

Anika Mobius
Solid State Security
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 20:29:00 -
[63] - Quote
I support the idea. Anything to boost the size of the EVE community I'm all for. - A.Mobius |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
495
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 20:33:00 -
[64] - Quote
Anika Mobius wrote:I support the idea. Anything to boost the size of the EVE community I'm all for.
Going F2P would also boost the size of the community too. I suppose you're all for that?
This proposal would damage Eve far more than it would help it and should never be implemented. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
mxzf wrote:This proposal would damage Eve far more than it would help But HOW?
Funny thing is I actually don't think it's much needed feature. I can live without it. But there were stated some arguments pro and in my opinion they are quite valid and I'm still waiting to see same quality argument against. That hardcore vets would be pissed? It's hardly an argument as hardcore vets would be pissed at ANYTHING giving slightest advantage to anyone else. Please show how such change would negatively affect such carebear like me. |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
495
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 21:37:00 -
[66] - Quote
1. It is easily exploitable to train FotM characters ....This would reduce variety in what ships are flown and make combat more uniform and FotM ships even more prevalent. 2. It devalues the people who have continued to play Eve for long times 3. It reduces the consequences to your actions (namely the action of unsubscribing)
Anything that allows characters to dump SP into skills all at once at will can (and will) be exploited. Anything that reduces consequences to a person's choices is against the core philosophy of Eve (choices have consequences).
Of course, if you'd actually read the thread you would have seen these same facts repeated over and over. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
188
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 22:27:00 -
[67] - Quote
Many of these posts have eloquently elaborated why this is a bad idea.
I don't see any need for this mechanic... What benefit does this bring to the game?
If you have the money to pay 2-yrs of lapsed subscription fees... 2yrs == ~24 plex == ~12 bill.
10b 38m Cal/Minnie PvP Pilot 9.5b 39m Amar PvP Pilot 40B 100+M PvP Pilot
There are many other characters for sale, from industry and mining to capital pilots to ....
Those are characters that were developed by people facing the choices and consequences for creating their characters. Why do we need to empower castaway alt accounts from 2006 with many millions of instant skillpoints? How is that good for the game?? How is that an improvement over the system we have??
|

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 12:08:00 -
[68] - Quote
OK, I may look stupid but I have really read this thread, honest. If I've overlooked some good arguments, my apologies.
mxzf wrote:1. It is easily exploitable to train FotM characters ....This would reduce variety in what ships are flown and make combat more uniform and FotM ships even more prevalent. 2. It devalues the people who have continued to play Eve for long times 3. It reduces the consequences to your actions (namely the action of unsubscribing) 1.True. But up to a point. Since you can't create backdated account the number of existing inactive accounts, no matter how high or low, is finite. And since SP spent won't be given back the problem would soon sort itself.
Farming and incubating accounts for future use could be a problem though. This is the place which would require careful balancing.
2.To some degree, yes. It would narrow gap a little, but would never close it significantly. In latter case I would too be in arms against.
3. True again. But would it be so bad? I mean, does canceling the subscription have to be penalized? If so, why not just automatically delete account and biomass toons? THAT would keep them in line...
Look, I'm not talking about removing consequences. In my opinion it makes just different consequences and along with them, creates different choices to be made.
Besides, for CCP that would be money for nothing. Subscription paid for all the time when service wasn't provided...
mxzf wrote:Anything that allows characters to dump SP into skills all at once at will can (and will) be exploited. Let me remind you again about learning skills removal. If I'm the only person remembering it, doesn't this fact itself indicate how insignificant the matter was on the whole?
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I don't see any need for this mechanic... What benefit does this bring to the game?
I can come up with two answers. One is the OP proposal to give some incentive to old players to reactivate accounts.
Second is below.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:If you have the money to pay 2-yrs of lapsed subscription fees... 2yrs == ~24 plex == ~12 bill.
10b 38m Cal/Minnie PvP Pilot 9.5b 39m Amar PvP Pilot 40B 100+M PvP Pilot
Please excuse my ignorance of character market, I've never been involved with, but as I imagine it the SP backdating would disrupt the market but not destroy it. And possibly create a new one. Take following example and assume you have choice of buying one of two characters:
10b 40m PvP pilot <-- assume most of skills are relevant to what you want to do 10b 20m in unallocated SP <-- assume you still need 40m in skills to do what you want to do
Doesn't it make it interesting choice?
And lastly, I think I have one good, if somewhat weak, argument against: it would hurt most those it's supposed to benefit. All other mechanics aside, waiting until skill is trained, the anticipation of what can be done with it, creates kind of bond. If someone doesn't play EVE for long time the bond may weaken. And then upon reactivation being given such instant gratitude may not help. In short, it could be that while having incentive to reactivate account, such player won't have one to keep playing. |

mxzf
Shovel Bros
506
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 14:49:00 -
[69] - Quote
hmskrecik wrote:mxzf wrote:Anything that allows characters to dump SP into skills all at once at will can (and will) be exploited. Let me remind you again about learning skills removal. If I'm the only person remembering it, doesn't this fact itself indicate how insignificant the matter was on the whole?
Notice how I said "Anything that allows characters to dump SP into skill all at once at will. Learning skill removal was a one-time event, which minimized how much it could be exploited. Making it possible to do that at will, would make it extremely exploitable. Can you see the difference between a one-time thing and an every-single-day thing?
And in response to your other stuff
1. Exploitable up to a point is still exploitable. And you're underestimating the lengths to which people will go to exploit things. 2. How do you know it would never close it significantly? What evidence do you have of that? 3. Yes, it would be that bad.
And it would pretty much destroy the character market, not just add choices. Why buy a char with fixed SP when you can buy one with a pile of SP to assign? Did you notice what happened to any and all chars with Learning skills remaining to assign back when that happened? It rocked the market around pretty good back then IIRC. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:01:00 -
[70] - Quote
mxzf wrote:hmskrecik wrote:mxzf wrote:Anything that allows characters to dump SP into skills all at once at will can (and will) be exploited. Let me remind you again about learning skills removal. If I'm the only person remembering it, doesn't this fact itself indicate how insignificant the matter was on the whole? Notice how I said "Anything that allows characters to dump SP into skill all at once at will. Learning skill removal was a one-time event, which minimized how much it could be exploited. Making it possible to do that at will, would make it extremely exploitable. Can you see the difference between a one-time thing and an every-single-day thing? And in response to your other stuff 1. Exploitable up to a point is still exploitable. And you're underestimating the lengths to which people will go to exploit things. 2. How do you know it would never close it significantly? What evidence do you have of that? 3. Yes, it would be that bad.
I think we're slowly getting into semantics-fencing. I'm exploiting ability to run missions over and over again, and except for carebear-haters nobody seems to have problem with that.
So, do I get you correctly that your main objection here is that this SP backdating would happen at the moment choosen by the player, at the time of account reactivation? OK, I still fail to see it as such but if it really is an exploitable problem then I don't know how to get around it.
And as I said, I don't know character market and so I don't know how it rocked after learning skills removal. At this time I was quite low-skilled and I quickly made me Hull Tanking Elite cert. ;)
To your other concerns:
1. This is where we differ about semantics. To me 'exploitable' means 'destroying balance', not just 'possible to use'. If players are given some ability, this ability is limited in extent and full extent is taken into account, then by definition it's use will not cause imbalance.
2. Because of said balance. Amount of SP given may be significant enough to make player happy and still so small not to make it on par with player active during all this time.
mxzf wrote:And it would pretty much destroy the character market, not just add choices. Why buy a char with fixed SP when you can buy one with a pile of SP to assign? Because you'd have to pay MORE for such character? Please take closer look at the example I provided. Numbers were pulled out of my ass and frankly I have no idea where in fact they would stabilise. But general principle should be clear. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:47:00 -
[71] - Quote
I think I've seen the light (fresh air does wonders to the brain).
The actual problem as I see it is not related to any issue I've seen already risen. And not to what I thought it is. I compared reactivated account to other account which is as old as the one we're talking about. The real issue is with younger account having THE SAME amount of SP as the backdated.
Quick and simple example:
Player A creates and activates account in 2008 and instantly cancels subscribtion at 0 SP. Upon reactivation now pays for 4 years and let's say he's eligible to receive quarter of SP. Assuming and rounding let's make it 20 mil SP.
Player B creates and activates account in 2011 and plays whole the year gathering 20 mil SP in trained skills.
Now player B can be rightfully pissed at player A for the latter being in better starting position (no junk skills trained before knowing what one really needs) just for not being there. And problem will exist no matter how small fraction of SP would be backdated.
Until this issue is addressed I'm retracting my support to whole the idea. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 19:30:00 -
[72] - Quote
- Only reactivated accounts and a cap of 6 months. - Must be purchased with real money (not plex) and at full cost. - No skill dump but a 'Cerebral Accelerator' (Like the officer edition implant) that doubles the training speed for the duration (upto the max of 6 months).
As the above is only a training speed modifier, there is no skill dump and removes the flavour of the month argument. As the training time is double, the _overall_ training time is no less or greater than if they were subscribed all along.
The buy a character argument is fine if that's what you want to do... for those of us that like to develop our own characters that's not an option.
The consequences argument isn't valid in this scenario, as the catch-up will still take time. If players are going to leave, they'll do it... regardless of consequences. At least with this they might want to return before the 6 month cap.
This option simply means that a player can catch up to where they were before they left (if < 6 months), although it will take them the same time again, i.e. 6 months... certainly not a quick 'exploit' :) |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 20:14:00 -
[73] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:- Only reactivated accounts and a cap of 6 months. - Must be purchased with real money (not plex) and at full cost. - No skill dump but a 'Cerebral Accelerator' (Like the officer edition implant) that doubles the training speed for the duration (upto the max of 6 months).
As the above is only a training speed modifier, there is no skill dump and removes the flavour of the month argument. As the training time is double, the _overall_ training time is no less or greater than if they were subscribed all along.
How much I'd like it to have good solution I see no way to make it.
Training speed boost seems being almost there but still not quite. I haven't thought it throughly but I have gut feeling that the speed will be either too low to be relevant or too high to be fair regarding active players, or both.
And implant could be sold. I'm still not sure if it's a problem or not.
The longer I think about it the more I'm convinced it can't be done. Initial question being, what is economy of SP related to RL money. Obviously it's not that you buy SP for subscription fee. If it was the case we could just buy SP and problem solved. What we buy for $$ is game time when we are allowed to do whatever we want. And SP trained seems to be reward for that time being active. If this interpretation is true you can't have those SP back. It's the reward you have not earned, willingly or not. Like you can't have backdated all the winnings in lotteries you didn't attend in the past. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 20:19:00 -
[74] - Quote
The officer edition implant already does the same thing, so they must have got around the exploits. The training speed would be exactly double.. so the _overall_ time would be the same... as if they never unsubbed basically... although it would take the same time again to catch-up.
So, you're gone for 6 months, you'll be caught up in another 6 months. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 21:55:00 -
[75] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:The officer edition implant already does the same thing, so they must have got around the exploits. The training speed would be exactly double.. so the _overall_ time would be the same... as if they never unsubbed basically... although it would take the same time again to catch-up.
So, you're gone for 6 months, you'll be caught up in another 6 months.
What you're proposing is the period of accelerated training like what noobs have, only faster and longer. Am I right? I'm still not sure what to think about it but in any case it's much better idea than what I was arguing for. Though 6 months and 2x speed still feels as too much of good.
BTW, what implant are you referring to? Ordinary Cerebral Accelerator work only for characters up to 35 days old and I haven't found any officer edition of it in game. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 22:02:00 -
[76] - Quote
I mean the officer edition of the game that includes that implant. They must have prevented that from being traded.. I think it was just applied to my account when I did it... this would be the same, just applied to the account with an expiry of 1-6 months based on the period.
I'd say it is neutral in the good/bad argument as it would be the same as if the person was active during the time. The overall training time and skill amount would be the same. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7026
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 22:03:00 -
[77] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Consequences, I'll keep repeating it and you should learn to live with them.
Want your skills to keep training? Then keep your account alive and train, it's that simple.
No one should be able to buy SP, no matter what the reason or how low the amount. Ever.
Edit: This also includes some back hand 'Implant'. It's just another form of consequence removal.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 22:09:00 -
[78] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:The consequences argument isn't valid in this scenario, as the catch-up will still take time. If players are going to leave, they'll do it... regardless of consequences. At least with this they might want to return before the 6 month cap.
|

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7027
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 22:49:00 -
[79] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:Jasp3r wrote:The consequences argument isn't valid in this scenario, as the catch-up will still take time. If players are going to leave, they'll do it... regardless of consequences. At least with this they might want to return before the 6 month cap. Of course it's valid, your removing the consequence of letting your sub run out.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 22:54:00 -
[80] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:I mean the officer edition of the game that includes that implant. They must have prevented that from being traded.. I think it was just applied to my account when I did it... this would be the same, just applied to the account with an expiry of 1-6 months based on the period.
I'd say it is neutral in the good/bad argument as it would be the same as if the person was active during the time. The overall training time and skill amount would be the same.
OK, I get it.
The general idea seems reasonable to me. I still have reservations about balance of supertraining length and speed but at least it's something worth considering.
Thought implant is tricky. Mind you the CA has hard limit of player age. Means even if you sell it to me I won't be able to use it, or if I'm new char I could use it only once. That implant, the new one, would have to be more generic to allow toon of any age to use it. So, ISK reserves permitting, I could amass batch of such implants allowing me to train at superspeed for many years. Smells a bit fishy to me. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 23:18:00 -
[81] - Quote
Mag's: Nobody is completely removing consequences. There still are, just some of them of not your favorite sort. I.e. person wanting to catch up upon reactivation would have to pay extra. Like it or not, be it exploitable or not, it IS a consequence of letting subscription to run out.
Jasp3r: Another reason why it's bad idea. Well, maybe not bad but not going to be allowed. This period of supertraining is functionally equal to six months grace period after account deactivation when you cannot play but still can train skills. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 23:33:00 -
[82] - Quote
hmskrecik wrote:[quote=Jasp3r]I could amass batch of such implants allowing me to train at superspeed for many years. Smells a bit fishy to me.
They could just apply it to your account, not have it as an in-game item at all.
Mags, people leaving the game don't care about consequences, they just want to stop paying for a game they're bored of. Although when they're thinking of coming back, this might be the icing on the cake... the consequence will be having to pay a bulk amount.
|

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 23:35:00 -
[83] - Quote
hmskrecik wrote:Well, maybe not bad but not going to be allowed. This period of supertraining is functionally equal to six months grace period after account deactivation when you cannot play but still can train skills.
Not sure what you mean here, can you expand? |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7027
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 23:57:00 -
[84] - Quote
@ hmskrecik: It's a removal of the consequence of leaving and losing all that SP, when your account is not active. Plus it introduces pay to gain.
@ Jasp3r: If players don't care about consequences, then why are we having this discussion and why should we give them this? Either keep your account active, or lose SP. It really is that simple, whether you care about consequences or not.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:51:00 -
[85] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:They could just apply it to your account, not have it as an in-game item at all. Yeah, I guess if it was to be implemented that would be the only way.
Jasp3r wrote:Not sure what you mean here, can you expand? For simplification assume 20m SP trained in a year, character created and immediately deactivatedwith 0 SP, reactiation after a year.
Your proposal: - 6 months of supertraining: 20m (10m in half a year, twice speed) - half year after reactivation player has 20m SP
Grace period: - 6 months trainig after deactivation: 10m - reactiation, 6 months of normal training: 10m - half year after reactivation player has 20m SP
Tweaking numbers won't help. Any kind of supertraining will amount to some extra training time after subscription expires.
Mag's wrote:It's a removal of the consequence of leaving and losing all that SP, when your account is not active. Plus it introduces pay to gain. Oh, well, I've been misled then. From all your earlier posts in this thread I got impression you're bellowing "every action shall have consequences". Here is no different. There still are consequences, whether you use this term or not.
Or if you meant this specific consequence, training time lost then yes, removal or rather limiting this consequence is all this whole discussion is about. |

Limerance Zet-Giry
Hedion University Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 09:42:00 -
[86] - Quote
Completely unacceptable. Eve will be flooded by characters with 150+ millions of SP. Everybody will remember that he has some temporary required/wrong started etc account, and pay $300-$400 to instantly get his own perfect miner or perfect logist say. Eve will be flooded by such "perfect-skilled" alts. This will just kill the game. |

Limerance Zet-Giry
Hedion University Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 09:45:00 -
[87] - Quote
P.S. If you had no finances to pay for your account in past, or you decided that you will stop playing forever, and now you want turn back - it's you problems. If you didn't study in the school, you cannot get all of that knowledge instantly when you will be 30 years old. Forget it. |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7034
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:02:00 -
[88] - Quote
hmskrecik wrote:Mag's wrote:It's a removal of the consequence of leaving and losing all that SP, when your account is not active. Plus it introduces pay to gain. Oh, well, I've been misled then. From all your earlier posts in this thread I got impression you're bellowing "every action shall have consequences". Here is no different. There still are consequences, whether you use this term or not. What? I've been consistent throughout this thread, misled how exactly?
hmskrecik wrote:Or if you meant this specific consequence, training time lost then yes, removal or rather limiting this consequence is all this whole discussion is about. I know, I have been reading and replying to the new tangent of this discussion. I disagree with it as much as the last, as this new idea gives the option of buying faster training. In other words, pay to gain.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:21:00 -
[89] - Quote
Mag's wrote:What? I've been consistent throughout this thread, misled how exactly? Yes, you were consistent. But not clear [enough to me] whether you meant consequences in general or this particular one. As I said, in general consequences still are, just slightly different.
Mag's wrote:I disagree with it as much as the last, as this new idea gives the option of buying faster training. In other words, pay to gain. I agree that the idea is wrong. I believe I have shown it from in-game POV. |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:32:00 -
[90] - Quote
Limerance Zet-Giry wrote:If you didn't study in the school, you cannot get all of that knowledge instantly when you will be 30 years old. Forget it. Some studies have shown that older folks can learn faster and better than young ones. What they lack in mental performance they tend to make up with experience and motivation.
Bottom line: I'd not draw too many parallels between game mechanics and RL. The game is the game and you don't expect chess bishop to conduct field mass, do you? |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7036
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:41:00 -
[91] - Quote
Fair enough.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |

Jasp3r
Inter Arma Dead On Arrival Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 19:36:00 -
[92] - Quote
Limerance Zet-Giry wrote: Completely unacceptable. Eve will be flooded by characters with 150+ millions of SP. Everybody will remember that he has some temporary required/wrong started etc account, and pay $300-$400 to instantly get his own perfect miner or perfect logist say. Eve will be flooded by such "perfect-skilled" alts. This will just kill the game.
Read the full thread, all of the arguments above have been resolved. It's maxed at 6 months and certainly not instant.
hmskrecik wrote: Your proposal: - 6 months of supertraining: 20m (10m in half a year, twice speed) - half year after reactivation player has 20m SP
Yes, they will get 20m skill in 6 months.. the normal 10m and 10m from the training time modifier (capped at 6 months). However, they will already be 20m skill behind due to the year timeout. So if they had of stayed, they would now be at 30m skill points (1 1/2 years). |

hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:11:00 -
[93] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:hmskrecik wrote: Your proposal: - 6 months of supertraining: 20m (10m in half a year, twice speed) - half year after reactivation player has 20m SP
Yes, they will get 20m skill in 6 months.. the normal 10m and 10m from the training time modifier (capped at 6 months). However, they will already be 20m skill behind due to the year timeout. So if they had of stayed, they would now be at 30m skill points (1 1/2 years). This was my thinking too: compared to same age characters they would still have lower amount SP so it looks like everybody's happy. But not so. Take third person:
(say, our prodigal son created account exactly at the beginning of 2010, reactivated exactly at the beginning of 2011, thus supertraining finished by the end of June 2011)
- account created at the beginning of July 2010 and active since then - at the end of June 2011 he has 20m SP, incidentally the same as our dude.
Now what would you say to this guy if he came complaining to you that it's not fair he had to freeze his balls in space for whole the year to get where he is now while that other guy got the same in six months? |

Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7267
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 08:30:00 -
[94] - Quote
Jasp3r wrote:Limerance Zet-Giry wrote: Completely unacceptable. Eve will be flooded by characters with 150+ millions of SP. Everybody will remember that he has some temporary required/wrong started etc account, and pay $300-$400 to instantly get his own perfect miner or perfect logist say. Eve will be flooded by such "perfect-skilled" alts. This will just kill the game.
Read the full thread, all of the arguments above have been resolved. It's maxed at 6 months and certainly not instant. Resolved for you maybe, but I and others still disagree with any change.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |