Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
NVision08
The Senate and People of Eve
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
They are in the database in EVE. The +6 and +7 attribute boosters. With the loss of learning skills I think now more than ever there should be some way to increase our attributes to separate veteran players from new ones. The first thing to come to mind is to institute the higher attribute enhancers, but then even a new player with enough isk could just buy them. How about instituting them as a bonus for reaching say 30M or 60M SP and they are only for your character. Or maybe newer, higher prereq skills, that are hard to attain?
And how about a skill learning bonus for those who play the game more? Perhaps a % increase while mining, missioning, or using certain modules and ships. Just a way to increase SP would keep me playing the game more knowing that I am increaseing skills faster WHILE DOING something. It would be an added reason Ifor me to actively play the EVE Universe more. I would think this topic has been in the mix before but I am curious why it has not gained any favor. Obviously repetition bots would come to mind first...Or is the general consesus, vets too, ok with the current SP learning system now? |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
349
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
NVision08 wrote:Or is the general consesus, vets too, ok with the current SP learning system now?
Six years and 100mil SP later -- yes, it's fine. Please don't **** with it if it isn't broken. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
IMHO LEARNING implants don't belong in the game any more than learning skills did. They give a distinct training advantage to the risk averse willing to chill in station with +5's on over the go-get-em rookie sporting a pair of +3's (if that) and loosing them daily. |
Eidric
Shadows of HyperSpace Wormholes Holders
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
OfBalance wrote:IMHO LEARNING implants don't belong in the game any more than learning skills did. They give a distinct training advantage to the risk averse willing to chill in station with +5's on over the go-get-em rookie sporting a pair of +3's (if that) and loosing them daily.
Fly with 2 +5 implants - even if you get podded the price wont be as bad. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5364
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 05:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
They already countered the GÇ£lossGÇ¥ of learning skills when the skills were removed. No additions are needed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 09:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Eidric wrote:OfBalance wrote:IMHO LEARNING implants don't belong in the game any more than learning skills did. They give a distinct training advantage to the risk averse willing to chill in station with +5's on over the go-get-em rookie sporting a pair of +3's (if that) and loosing them daily. Fly with 2 +5 implants - even if you get podded the price wont be as bad.
I do and so does anyone else with enough isk to laugh off those kind of losses, unfortunately most grunts out in nullsec can't afford 200mil + clone cost every night on top of their ship expenditures. Those players don't deserve to be training slower than the player who's running missions in highsec, but they are.
It's pretty damned simple really. EVE is about risk vs. reward. Attribute implants quite literally reward avoiding risk by allowing you to train more efficiently without repeated investment. |
Mona X
Missions Mining and Mayhem Northern Coalition.
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
OfBalance wrote: I do and so does anyone else with enough isk to laugh off those kind of losses, unfortunately most grunts out in nullsec can't afford 200mil + clone cost every night on top of their ship expenditures. Those players don't deserve to be training slower than the player who's running missions in highsec, but they are.
It's pretty damned simple really. EVE is about risk vs. reward. Attribute implants quite literally reward avoiding risk by allowing you to train more efficiently without repeated investment.
Last time I checked this game wasn't about training skills. I need new signature. |
Frank Millar
The Corporation Incorporated The Revolution.
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
Risk averse Mission Runners in High Sec being able to amass SP more "efficiently" non-shocker.
What are they going to do with that "excessive" amount of SP? Fit Bling Boats and go pwn those poor scrubs in 0.0?
I don't think so.
Also,
In EvE, nobody "deserves" anything.
tl;dr: Attribute enhancers are fine. You either use them, or you don't, and which ones you use is entirely up to you.
|
Drew Solaert
University of Caille Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
This looks familiar... where have I seen it before? OH! The majority of the posts in this board.
Why do we need something to make up for the "Loss" of Learning skills baring in mind, we got given +10 to each attribute which is identical to having 5/5 trained AND got a lot of SP to put into non shite which actually has a impact on our game playing. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 16:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
The only further change I would support to attributes and skill training time is there complete removal.
removing the learning skills was a great move and improved the game for most players. there is still what could be considered an unfair discrepancy between PVPers whop run with +3 implants due to the cost of replacing them when they get podded, and the high sec incursion and mission runners with the +5 implants with no risk to lose them. NPC's do not shoot pods even in incursions.
I would say give everyone 25 points in each attribute across the board and remove all attribute modifiers from all implants. maybe leave 10 points or so that can be remapped but no implants with attribute modifications. They would make sense if attributes affected combat performance, but they do not. they only affect skill training time. What is the point. |
|
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
350
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 16:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
OfBalance wrote:IMHO LEARNING implants don't belong in the game any more than learning skills did. They give a distinct training advantage to the risk averse willing to chill in station with +5's on over the go-get-em rookie sporting a pair of +3's (if that) and loosing them daily.
I can sort of see the point here. There's still at least a bit of a balancing act in forcing choice between pirate implants and pure learning implants though and I'm not entirely sure we want to get rid of that. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mona X wrote:Last time I checked this game wasn't about training skills.
Good observation. Maybe something relevant in your next post, huh champ?
Frank Millar wrote: In EvE, nobody "deserves" anything.
So why give that advantage to either player? Rewarding the avoidance of risk is a stupid status quo, if you're defending the status quo simply because it is the status quo, you've really got no argument at all.
Zhilia Mann wrote:I can sort of see the point here. There's still at least a bit of a balancing act in forcing choice between pirate implants and pure learning implants though and I'm not entirely sure we want to get rid of that.
Why is that a compelling or interesting choice?
|
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
350
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
OfBalance wrote:Zhilia Mann wrote:I can sort of see the point here. There's still at least a bit of a balancing act in forcing choice between pirate implants and pure learning implants though and I'm not entirely sure we want to get rid of that. Why is that a compelling or interesting choice?
Where did I say it was either?
Right now, if you choose to risk your clone, you pick between:
- +3s, which are cheap and offering some training benefit.
- +4s, which are somewhat more expensive and offer a mid-point cost and benefit
- +5s, which maximize your training for ~500mil for a full set
- LG implants, which require a training sacrifice but offer secondary benefits and can cost anywhere from 200mil to 1bil
- HG implants, which provide the same training as the cheapo option but offer really nice secondary benefits and cost, well, quite a bit
Back in the day, people used to make an argument that mission-runners could use, eg, Crystals, but common wisdom now is to just stick to +5s in a high sec clone. So we're really talking about low and null clones. If we removed attribute implants (and presumably attribute effects from pirate implants) the options would be:
- No implants
- LG implants, which require pretty decent financial risk for added benefits
- HG implants, which require even more significant financial risk for more significant added benefits
So, fair enough, without attribute implants people might be slightly more inclined to use pirate implants (for instance, I have a LG clone that doesn't see much use because I like the training I get from +4s) but there would be fewer choices overall.
If you're arguing that the choice to use or not use LG and HG pirate implants is more "compelling or interesting" than simultaneously considering training benefits -- yeah, I could see the argument. On the other hand, at least some ISK is leaving the economy when a pod with +3s pops, and I very much doubt the current +3 (and even +4) players would line up for LG sets if they were attribute-independent.
Honestly, I could go either way on this one. I wouldn't be screaming bloody murder if learning implants were deleted but neither would I strongly advocate the idea.
Edit: so convince me why removing them would be a huge boon to the game. I'm open to it; make your case. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote:so convince me why removing them would be a huge boon to the game. I'm open to it; make your case.
Sounds like you've made the connections already, what more needs to be said?
LG implants see more use, HG implants make more sense as well, young nullsec/wh pilots are not punished for frequent participation in pvp where they are certain to loose pods, and on the whole one more ancient game mechanic that rewards risk aversion is removed.
I'm sure there is a minority in the player base for whom choosing which attribute implants to use is a meaningful choice, but for the bulk of us who are either too rich to care or too poor to get a choice in the first place, it's no choice at all. |
JT SPARTAN
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 22:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'm new to the EVE Universe, but I think they should leave the learning system the way it is. I think someone said if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The idea of rewarding someone for playing more than rewarding someone who doesn't have as much time to play is ridiculous. We are talking about skills only though, not ISK which is made exponentially more (unless you play the market) if you are online as opposed to (I think they call it) ship spinning.
Fly safe,
JT |
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 00:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
Your logic for this is flawed. Your comparison would and should mean the removal of all implants from the game as according to the logic that:
Quote:implants quite literally reward avoiding risk by allowing you to train more efficiently without repeated investment
Obviously in this same scenario LG or HG implants also have the same risk/reward, with or without their attribute component, and also affect the rate at which rewards can be gained.
You're trying to justify that players who PvP train slower than people who PvE. This is not the case. You have chosen to train slower because you dont want to spend the money not because PvP made you train slower. If you feel that you are being slighted on your training time, use +5's, if you're worried you will lose them from being podded, dont pvp. It's simple. You're just trying to take some of the risk of loss out of PvPing because you're being cheap.
TL;DR If you're so concerned about our skill training speed, stop pvping and crying about your implant losses. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 00:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
Outz Xacto wrote:Your logic for this is flawed. Your comparison would and should mean the removal of all implants from the game as according to the logic that: Quote:implants quite literally reward avoiding risk by allowing you to train more efficiently without repeated investment Obviously in this same scenario LG or HG implants also have the same risk/reward, with or without their attribute component, and also affect the rate at which rewards can be gained.
Incorrect. There is no passive benefit for sitting in a station with an HG slave set on. Try again and notice the bold.
JT SPARTAN wrote:I'm new to the EVE Universe, but I think they should leave the learning system the way it is. I think someone said if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The idea of rewarding someone for playing more than rewarding someone who doesn't have as much time to play is ridiculous. We are talking about skills only though, not ISK which is made exponentially more (unless you play the market) if you are online as opposed to (I think they call it) ship spinning.
Fly safe,
JT
I don't know to whom or what issue this was addressed. But attribute implants do promote ship spinning. |
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 02:38:00 -
[18] - Quote
+5's dont give a passive benefit in station. Its a static benefit it doesn't matter where you are you get it. Also CCP clearly sees the benefit of LG/HG implants requiring a tradeoff in attributes on the bonus. If your argument is to just give everyone the attributes (whatever form they are given in) and do away with the implants then yah, you just want to dumb the game down and dont like taking as much of a risk. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 02:49:00 -
[19] - Quote
Outz Xacto wrote:+5's dont give a passive benefit in station. Its a static benefit it doesn't matter where you are you get it.
I trust you realize that does not change the point being made?
Outz Xacto wrote: Also CCP clearly sees the benefit of LG/HG implants requiring a tradeoff in attributes on the bonus. If your argument is to just give everyone the attributes (whatever form they are given in) and do away with the implants then yah, you just want to dumb the game down and dont like taking as much of a risk.
I recall the exact same argument being made about learning skills. Sufficed to say, it made no sense then and it makes no sense now. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
350
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 06:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
OfBalance wrote:Outz Xacto wrote: Also CCP clearly sees the benefit of LG/HG implants requiring a tradeoff in attributes on the bonus. If your argument is to just give everyone the attributes (whatever form they are given in) and do away with the implants then yah, you just want to dumb the game down and dont like taking as much of a risk. I recall the exact same argument being made about learning skills. Sufficed to say, it made no sense then and it makes no sense now.
I don't think it's exactly the same argument. Let's look at this from the post-remap pre-learning removal era and compare it to the current situation.
Learning skills were de facto required because of their inherently high bonuses (+9 or +10 depending on how dedicated you were). The tradeoff between having them -- and thus sinking a huge amount of time before you could train "real" skills -- and not having them was immense and created a barrier to new player entry. This forum was overrun with posts about optimal training plans, which order to get learnings up (and yes, those plans factored in Cybernetics as well), and payoff times for advanced learnings to 5. It was boring but it was quite necessary for any character that was to stay competitive for more than a few months. There really wasn't a tradeoff at all; either you trained optimally or you screwed yourself in the long run for very minimal short term gain.
On general remap, the difference between not having learning skills and having them to +9 was a 100% difference in training time. On a specialized remap, it was 64% on the primary attribute. There were times when over half your learning speed came from learning skills.
So how does this compare?
Attribute implants give a comparatively small bonus (effectively +2 for LGs, +3 for cheap clones and HGs, +4s for intermediate clones, and +5s for expensive clones). On a general remap, the difference in learning time between not having implants at all and plugging in +5s is 22.7%. It's still significant, but it isn't an absolute requirement. The difference between plugging in LGs and +5s is only 12.5%. All of these figures are reduced by optimal remaps. Now it's an actual tradeoff.
Not only that, but training Cybernetics to 5 is pretty piddly, and from there you get access to the full suite of implants. Learning implants are no longer an absolute barrier to entry but can actually be viewed as icing on the proverbial cake. They do, in fact, involve tradeoffs and choice.
So no, the argument isn't the same. Learning skills were crippling. Attribute implants are just cumbersome.
That's not to say that attribute implants should stay; I'm actually more and more taken with the idea that they could be scrapped. But claiming that this discussion is just the same as the old learning skill debate is disingenuous. |
|
OfBalance
Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 12:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
Zhilia Mann wrote: So no, the argument isn't the same. Learning skills were crippling. Attribute implants are just cumbersome.
My comments were directed at the insinuation that removing attribute implants was "dumbing down the game," as though needless and retrograde aspects of current gameplay were defensible by the mere nature they exist already. I don't propose each situation is identical. The intent was to showcase how poor that line of argument was in both situations. |
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
Your rebuttals are getting old and stale. Seeing as the basis of your argument is just your opinion of implants rather than something substantial or fact based its pretty evident that you're just whining about them. Sadly, everything you keep trying to bring up either has no relevance or is so disconnected from what it's responding to you're just not effectively making your point.
So we get it, you don't like implants. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:51:00 -
[23] - Quote
Outz Xacto wrote:Seeing as the basis of your argument is just your opinion
Explain to me the empirical evidence you have for what would constitute "dumbing down the game." |
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 21:57:00 -
[24] - Quote
OfBalance wrote:Outz Xacto wrote:Seeing as the basis of your argument is just your opinion Explain to me the empirical evidence you have for what would constitute "dumbing down the game."
Your straw man responses indicate you're either incredibly stupid or an irritating troll, it has been explained ad nauseam as to how this is a dumbing down. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5392
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 22:19:00 -
[25] - Quote
OfBalance wrote:Explain to me the empirical evidence you have for what would constitute "dumbing down the game." That's not how empirics are used.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 01:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
Tippia wrote:OfBalance wrote:Explain to me the empirical evidence you have for what would constitute "dumbing down the game." That's not how empirics are used.
You're right, it's how sarcasm is used. |
Kosetzu
Matari Munitions The Fendahlian Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 02:13:00 -
[27] - Quote
NVision08 wrote:They are in the database in EVE. The +6 and +7 attribute boosters.
I thought the +6 were actually in the game? At least they were at some point if I'm not mistaken. I believe they went for a few billions on contracts (each). Haven't checked since my EVE break so dunno if they were moved out again or if I remember incorrectly.
On another note, I don't feel implants limit my pvping if I wish to do that, it's just about what you want to risk. Some people won't risk expensive ships/fittings in pvp, others won't risk implants. People fly around with HG/LG implants for pvp and loose them, it's not like they're cheap either.
Only fly with what you can afford to loose, this goes for implants as well. Sure, LG/HG implants give you a direct boost to your combat, but learning implants give you a direct boost to training skills to get for example combat skills quicker. EVE is about choices, and implants is one of them.
Unless you're in the middle of a bubble in 0.0/W-Space you should be able to warp that pod away before you pop if you're not in a lagfest of another world. Time dilation should have fixed some of those problems now too. Pods doesn't align, they just warp when you order them to. If you know your ship will go down be prepared to save your pod. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 02:50:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kosetzu wrote:Unless you're in the middle of a bubble in 0.0/W-Space
That's the point exactly. This is essentially a tax on null/w-space pvp that hits new players hard when they need sp the most. Pirate implants and the various hardwirings affect your combat abilities. There's no reward for simply having them in and avoiding combat. A new player won't miss out on anything but an expensive lossmail if he doesn't have an HG slave set. Conversely, he'll miss out on millions of SP over time if he opts to forgo attribute implants.
In fact most newbies are advised to keep a training set and jump to it when they won't be playing for a while. What kind of message does that send to potential players who could be populating nullsec/wh space today? Limit exposure to pvp, spend lots of time either avoiding risk or not playing while in the training set.
Eve is about choices and attribute implants are the worst kind of faux-choice which affects the most vulnerable demographic.
|
Kyr Evotorin
Psycho Tech Industries Interstellar Hobos
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 18:29:00 -
[29] - Quote
Some of you have mentioned that, to sit in a station with +5's is to be missing any action, and all together be a waste of sp in total. I agree fully, however, to those who don't understand:
First: Sandbox. Nuff said.
Second: To choose to be inactive for the sake of fullfilling more efficient SP volumes is a player's choice, not a game mechanic.
Third: Anyone can buy the +5's.
Fourth: Think of Reward in its fullest sense. I feel we contain the word reward within the phrase "risk vs. reward," because we do not care to think outside of the box often enough. The trade off for the lack of risk and procurement of reward is the lack of action (in some cases, it would possibly be a case of taking action hastily as well). With the lack of action, the player would be losing out on what rewards they could obtain, should they be Adding risk at the same time. This works inversely as well (croud-wise).
Think about it... Why do people use +5's in relative safety? They understand that they can't be (or can't be bothered to be) safe enough with the +5's outside of safe space. Why do people use +3's in relative danger? They understand that they may be killed, and must adjust themselves accordingly, and price efficiency plays a role. So doesn't it come down to player skill, intelligence, and overall capability (effective SP, and ship types)? Isn't that what Eve is all about?
People who have issues with +5's and their application vs. cost, just know they aren't good enough to use them. People who 'abuse' the ability to use +5's safely... don't get to see any action. Balanced!
P.S. - I half assed this argument. sup. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
140
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 19:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kyr Evotorin wrote: Think about it... Why do people use +5's in relative safety? They understand that they can't be (or can't be bothered to be) safe enough with the +5's outside of safe space. Why do people use +3's in relative danger? They understand that they may be killed, and must adjust themselves accordingly, and price efficiency plays a role. So doesn't it come down to player skill, intelligence, and overall capability (effective SP, and ship types)? Isn't that what Eve is all about?
I think you see the point, but you cling to the status quo as though it had sacred meaning. What you are describing here is a risk-averse player in action. What does he do while in the +5 set? Absolutely nothing worth mentioning. The +3 set for "relative danger," (ie. any time he is actually playing the game) is the default. The person with this clone setup is likely to try and maximize their time in the +5 clone any time their is not an op demanding his presence.
Does it come down to player skill? Certainly not. I am not aware of any player skills that will prevent you from loosing pods when your fleet is bubbled and grossly outnumbered.
Does it come down to intelligence? Intelligence to do what? Select the path of greatest sp/hr hiding far from the danger zones of EVE (coincidentally, the places where the best pvp content is)?
Does it come down to sp? Of course it does, that's been the prime motivator the whole time. Why else would you have two clones apart just for the purpose of maximizing training time?
tldr; Attribute implants reward either avoiding pvp or practicing only the most risk-free boring pvp. If EVE is all about anything, I would certainly hope "more sp/hr for the highsec miners than nullsec grunts," is not it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |