Again, that is both reactionary and extreme… we are attempting to circumvent this. Risking implants needs to remain a significant thing. I think we all feel that. I would not have empty 1-5 slots, just not necessarily learning ones, if for example I loose a pod (I have a few now) in teir 4 abyss space, I’ll still be loosing expensive ■■■■.
Risking implants is not the issue, loosing skill training time as a result of a daft, dare I say, unneeded system is. This is precisely why the having to contantly update your clone was removed, not to increase pvp, to reduce skill loss.
It was actually neither of those, it was for when high SP characters wanted to PVP and had to spend 50M isk on a new clone so they could go out and PVP in a 5M isk frigate fight.
Removing skill loss was a beneficial side effect.
Isn’t that effectively the same as removing attribute scores?
No it’s not the same. Removing the remap timer should be fairly easy for CCP compared to reworking attribute game mechanics and all items effected by it.
I don’t think there are, because most of those people have also said “I don’t bother with them”. They are just very loud in saying others should have to put up with them, while they have enough SP to no longer care.
If you go back to the learning skills discussion I’m sure you’ll find similar there as well.
They see it as a messy system that can be improved by player input still. One that they still have a say in, so to speak, not the most important. So they speak about it. I say give free remaps for the first year, (so they learn the system, (facepalm after facepalm lol) 2 remaps for the next 2 years, then down to 1, or something like that. I like the system the way it is because when you have a year of skill to train, (capitols) it helps a lot.
I get the impression that everyone stopped talking about the other topics because we have no more say in them other than what’s already been posted. Hence, above…
At least this subject discussion is not a rude pissing match!
To reduce skill lose incurring by …? You only lose your pod when pvp (mainly) or when pod-express (rare occurrence, mostly happen when you lost your ship and don’t want to give them another kill).
So no, removal of clone upgrades was linked to pvp.
Maybe not the most important but the only one deserved discussion?
I personally never take seriously these meetings. “CCP said XXX, we said YYY.” Years passed and next CSM mention basically the same things in their summit minutes. Nothing really changes until CCP itself chooses something to be changed.
Ever had the harrowing near-death experience of take off from Keflavik International Airport.?
That’s some serious sheet man. The plane aims directly at a mountain and flies full full-bore towards it. I think it fair to say that those of the CSM that go to iceland take it seriously.
Edit:
It would seem changing things in EVE in not without complications and the ramifications can not always be envisioned.
Let’s not argue over why clone upgrades were removed, it’s in the past now. CCP’s reasoning often has numerous facets of interpretability. It was pre driffters/abyss space so pod loss was indeed either pvp or self harm related.
BUT… Now they are gone, do we miss them? I don’t. Yourself?
Complexity is good, as long as it’s good complexity. Complexity that provides options and opportunities is good. Complexity that produces frustration and confusion is not. Do attributes and remapping provide opportunities?
My guess is they do. Proper using provides for higher SP collected, improper - for lower.
Whether they provide options and opportunities or frustration and confusion is a personal matter. I think it is not far from “not sure - use Gila” rule in PVE. Some can find fun in playing with fits and optimizing tactics while others prefer lazy way to complete the task. Sure first group will have better ISK/hour but both ways are legit.
Is that an opportunity, or is it a penalty? Is maximizing your skill training speed a way to expand and enhance your gameplay, to get options that you would otherwise never need, but might enjoy?
Or is it the introduction of an opaque system that isn’t well-explained to new players, and which locks you into sub-optimal performance for an extended period of time—without the opportunity to reset it—if you fail to grasp all of the complexities that are being poorly-explained?
You mean ‘not sure - use [ship that is being specifically targeted for nerfs partly because it’s that much of a default]’?
That doesn’t exactly support the idea that attributes are the way things should be.
Here you should not ask me because i have never cared about amount of SP i have collected. I always played with the system we have and maximized it as much as possible without losing ability to play:
used EveMon to optimize my training plans by adding Learning skills and remaps where it provided actual benefit
never followed rules like “do not use battleship until you have all support skills and gunnery skills”. My first Dominix was fitted with medium guns and T1 drones, half T1/T2 modules and dual shield/armor tank and yet, i was doing stuff with it having fun where possible).
So you better ask those who supported removal of Learning skills and now supporting removal of Attributes why they need that anything less than maximum possible training speed is acceptable.
To this i can only say that it’s the task for CCP to properly document and describe systems they develop and present.
Other than that if i’m not mistaken we don’t have good and full documentation about missions, complexes, ships and modules. Difference between shield tank and armor tank and where to use which. How to deal with jammers and dampers in PVE, etc, etc…
At least i don’t remember reading it in EvE client or somewhere in CCP’s internet resources. Correct me if i’m wrong.
You’re not. We don’t have all of that important, useful information.
But CCP’s been trying to get better about documenting it. Either way, as we see with the VNI and Gila, this idea of ‘oh, well, if you don’t know what you’re doing, here’s a go-to’ doesn’t seem to be the direction they want to support.
