open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Agree/Disagree: I won't use tk3 if I lose SP's when I lose a ship.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Brick Hampton
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.

Posted - 2009.02.08 06:36:00 - [31]
 

I hope those ships are AMAZING if you lose SP for dieing in them.

CrabClaw McGraw
Posted - 2009.02.08 12:13:00 - [32]
 

More details are needed but it sounds like the crappiest idea ever. A ship with exp!

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.02.08 12:33:00 - [33]
 

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M WHINING ABOUT BUT I'M WHINING ANYWAYS !!!

Fire Sweet
Posted - 2009.02.08 14:48:00 - [34]
 

If losing SP's is true, I wont bother sitting on one, period.

Jake Oman
Minmatar
Star Frontiers
Posted - 2009.02.08 15:31:00 - [35]
 

If you can save your SP by ejecting, then I won't have a problem with it. Still, I need to add that these ships had better be very powerful to justify such a risk.

Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2009.02.08 17:50:00 - [36]
 

I'm not going to condone supporting something that doesn't exist yet.

I think we should wait before jumping the gun.

Abulurd Boniface
Gallente
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2009.02.08 19:09:00 - [37]
 

Quote:
"There have been some rumours that the subsystems might be able to learn and improve through use", smiles Noah, suggesting that the sum of all knowledge might be lost if the ship is broken down. Could he be advocating that the ships themselves will be sentient? We rather think not, but it's not far from the realms of EVE possibility that there might exist somewhere a rare element (say, at the end of an unstable wormhole) that, when processed in some way, can be manufactured to react to a stimulus - a constantly active power core, for instance - that causes the material to seem to learn or adapt whenever it's shot at, or goes at a certain speed. When the powercore is shut down (when the ship is either destroyed or disassembled), the material reverts to an inert state and loses what 'knowledge' it has seemingly acquired. Look up 'smart materials' or 'programmable matter' in Wikipedia, add a small amount of imagination and you should be able to visualise how it might fit together. CCP is remaining vague about the whole idea, partly because the idea itself is pretty vague and because, even if it can easily fit into the science of EVE, it might be an impossible task to balance everything together in what little development time remains until Tech III becomes a live feature."


(Zapatero E-ON issue #014, page 54)

From that, it would seem that the 'skill' is lost with the ship but not with the capsuleer. It seems that when the same configuration would be reassembled and used, the new ship would 'learn' the same skills over time.

That would be acceptable.

Abulurd Boniface
ME ME
CEO

Kaldoreign
Caldari
CNexus
Posted - 2009.02.08 19:19:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Abulurd Boniface
Quote:
"There have been some rumours that the subsystems might be able to learn and improve through use", smiles Noah, suggesting that the sum of all knowledge might be lost if the ship is broken down. Could he be advocating that the ships themselves will be sentient? We rather think not, but it's not far from the realms of EVE possibility that there might exist somewhere a rare element (say, at the end of an unstable wormhole) that, when processed in some way, can be manufactured to react to a stimulus - a constantly active power core, for instance - that causes the material to seem to learn or adapt whenever it's shot at, or goes at a certain speed. When the powercore is shut down (when the ship is either destroyed or disassembled), the material reverts to an inert state and loses what 'knowledge' it has seemingly acquired. Look up 'smart materials' or 'programmable matter' in Wikipedia, add a small amount of imagination and you should be able to visualise how it might fit together. CCP is remaining vague about the whole idea, partly because the idea itself is pretty vague and because, even if it can easily fit into the science of EVE, it might be an impossible task to balance everything together in what little development time remains until Tech III becomes a live feature."


(Zapatero E-ON issue #014, page 54)

From that, it would seem that the 'skill' is lost with the ship but not with the capsuleer. It seems that when the same configuration would be reassembled and used, the new ship would 'learn' the same skills over time.

That would be acceptable.

Abulurd Boniface
ME ME
CEO


Does that mean that ships will be earning XP? Confused
That is great, I will just pimp my battleship in missions without any risk of losing SP, while it becomes more and more powerful. /sarcasm
I don't think that we should lose SP, that will reject even more players from using that ships in low/null sec, and t3 ships will be still damn expensive, not to mention with t3 fitting.

Abulurd Boniface
Gallente
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2009.02.08 22:17:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Kaldoreign

Does that mean that ships will be earning XP? Confused
That is great, I will just pimp my battleship in missions without any risk of losing SP, while it becomes more and more powerful. /sarcasm
I don't think that we should lose SP, that will reject even more players from using that ships in low/null sec, and t3 ships will be still damn expensive, not to mention with t3 fitting.


Actually, this is a glimpse in the thought processes on T3 space frames. It is not actually a discussion of how the feature is supposed to work, it's something under consideration.

Now, from a user's perspective this would not bode well. If CCP are indeed [and we don't really know] still debating how the functionality is supposed to work then we're looking at a feature that is not yet fully developed. Inevitably this means that the implementation will suffer. Discussing how important new features have to work 2 months before roll-out does not inspire a lot of confidence. It may lead to some frowny faces in the short term. I don't doubt that when the developers know more about the impact of the new features in a live environment, they will be able to tune it more to turn it into a seamless experience. The trouble with that is that it will cause unnecessary angst and elevation of blood pressure in some part of the New Eden constituency.

For developers who have access to a fully-featured test environment where new designs can be tested live, that would actually a sub par performance. They have room for trial and error and to get things right the first time when it is released to the general population.

I'm giving CCP the benefit of the doubt here. Designing ships with interchangeable components is an exciting twist to the New Eden space frame inventory and there is no reason why it could not be a fabulous addition when done right.

On the other hand, there appears to be some speculation [in the article I quoted previously] about whether ships like that could have rigs since they can be disassembled. The workaround seems obvious: one or more components could be fitted with rigs and be shipped in an assembled state [one assembled component]. It would be full size, including the rig. It is only when the component was repackaged that the rig would be lost. Otherwise, it would be possible to swap out one component to make a different ship, only that component has a rig attached to it. Why that appears to be such a big leap of the imagination, I cannot fathom, but I would hazard to say that if I can figure out a better way to make their new functionality work than CCP does [and I doubt it], it does not inspire great confidence in their creative process. -Somebody- at CCP figured this one out by now. It's a natural progression. I would expect it to work like that and it would be consistent with the environment.

I can't wait for March to roll around.

Abulurd Boniface
ME ME
CEO



Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.02.08 22:19:00 - [40]
 

This seems like a really good way for CCP to pre-nerf T3 ships to the point of nobody flying them. I don't mind paying a few hundred mill every time I die, because I can keep an ISK buffer and be back in another ship reasonably fast, and during that time I can still be training skills. I don't like the idea of being set back a week in both skills and ISK every time I die.

On of the main things that keeps people playing the game is the almost endless skill tree, but if you can be set back weeks or months on that tree with a single loss, people will certainly stop flying T3 ships in any form of risky situation, and a small minority (not me) may even just give up.

So yeah, signed!

Ancy Denaries
Posted - 2009.02.09 08:45:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
i'm reserving judgement till some details (hint CCP, dev blog) is released.


This.

Awox
Minmatar
North Eastern Swat
Posted - 2009.02.09 11:47:00 - [42]
 

Confirmed on EVE TV by lead game designer that if you lose a tech III ship you will lose one of the skills required to fit the upgrades. Similar to if you lost a shield rigged drake and lost shield rigging..

The skills are going to be only rank 1, but still. I think it is a stupid idea.

They claim the reason being is that ISK is no longer an issue so they need to add more penalties to dieing, well, you know what.. that's stupid because not everyone has bottomless wallets like they say.. and if they did the better solution would be to make it harder to make ISK.

Signed. CCP you ruin a good thing.

Ancy Denaries
Posted - 2009.02.09 12:15:00 - [43]
 

Again, devs stated in the forums that this functions is subject to change or removal depending on feedback. And until we've seen it in it's entirety, how can we really judge if it's a good or bad mechanic?

Ruri Dant
The Riot Act
Posted - 2009.02.09 12:55:00 - [44]
 

no way i'm going to risk losing skills even if the battle advantages are better, i'm already quite angry as it is when i lose a ship because of DC/desync!!!

Saralle Zhukov
Minmatar
Lucian Alliance
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.02.09 14:25:00 - [45]
 

Skills already take to long to train. There isn't eveN a way to grind it out and catch up with older players. DO NOT WANT LOSS OF SKILLPOINTS/SKILL LEVELS.

Shocked


Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2009.02.09 14:34:00 - [46]
 

I'm not willing to pass judement on this until I see it.

Some pilots are willing to PVP wearing expensive implants while using faction-fitted ships.

Some pilots are unwilling to enter .4 or lower space at all.

There's a huge variation in the amount of risk people are willing to take in this galaxy. On the surface, I don't see a problem with adding a new "high-risk" level for those who like to push the envelope.

Saralle Zhukov
Minmatar
Lucian Alliance
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.02.09 14:38:00 - [47]
 

We need to object now loudly and vociferously while it still can be changed!!!! Or CCP will just get stubborn and dig their heels in and start their techno whine about how difficult it is to change.

Shocked

Kandarus
Minmatar
Lyonesse.
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:39:00 - [48]
 

Loud Noises!

PS: I love lamp.

Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2009.02.09 15:49:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 09/02/2009 15:49:14
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
Open questions that need to be explained in the dev blog.

1) What happens if I eject? If you lose sp when your not piloting the ship, does that mean that the person who assembled the ship loses SP, say, if you dismantle a POS, and a number of t3 ships appear and there destroyed, can you remotely remove someone's PS? Even though there off-line?



On EVE-TV the dev said that if you eject from your ship then you side-step the skillpoint loss (as it currently stands so if you know your ship is going down bail out and you'll be fine SP-wise).

For those who did not see the interview some things are worth pointing out:

1) You will not lose skillpoints out of your current list of skills. You will only lose skillpoints in the new and relevant skills to piloting a T3 ship.

2) You will step back one level in your highest skill from the above list.

3) He said these skills would be Rank-1 so train fast and at worst you lose maybe 5 days of training.

4) CCP's reason for this was to give you another reason to really care about your ship beyond its monetary value.

Make of all that what you will. I am not supporting the OP since we just do not know and have to wait and see how it works in practice.

TU144 TEPPOPNCT'CMEPTHNK
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:43:00 - [50]
 

OMG!
that sisi patch is 1GB in size...
ho-hum long download........................YARRRR!!

Abulurd Boniface
Gallente
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:59:00 - [51]
 

Quote:


3) He said these skills would be Rank-1 so train fast and at worst you lose maybe 5 days of training.

4) CCP's reason for this was to give you another reason to really care about your ship beyond its monetary value.




On 3: that is 5 days of training maximum, -per- time a ship is lost. I cannot afford that.

On 4: that is an insane idea. Of course I -care- about my ships. A ship that has these consequences to a loss [and, indeed, we have to reserve judgement until we have more hard information] is not one I'm going to buy [unless the advantages vastly outweighed the cost].

"Caring about losing a ship", if that is truly how CCP thinks about it, bespeaks a material weakness in how the EVE universe is built. It lacks good ideas and comes up with nebulous concepts to fill a philosophical goal. Never a good sign.

New Eden is a real, harsh universe [I have a rich history of ships that have been reduced to their component parts to prove it]. It must be possible to devise a coherent and internally consistent rationale for how things work and why things are done a certain way. If we go beyond that we're in the magic realm of fairy tales and mushrooms. Ships with interchangeable components: great, awesome idea. A vague notion of why skills should be lost or why it is important to care more about the loss of one ship over another is pure nonsense.

And again: until we see it with our own eyes and get a real appreciation for how things work in the harsh light between the stars, we can't make a final conclusion [but I certainly love to speculate].

Abulurd Boniface
ME ME
CEO

Das Ende
Posted - 2009.02.09 21:03:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: FunzzeR
I will have to say the losing sp mechanice is lame and not needed.

/agree

they turn an awesome idea (modular t3 ships) into crap.

Imperator Jora'h
Posted - 2009.02.09 21:26:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 09/02/2009 21:32:31

Originally by: Abulurd Boniface
On 3: that is 5 days of training maximum, -per- time a ship is lost. I cannot afford that.


Well...5 days if you have it trained to L5.

I admit I do not relish the thought of re-training a skill. That said it might be interesting. L4 is *almost* as good as L5 and L4 can be trained in a day or so on this. It could be interesting that the pilots you face are not simply *done* with leet skills no matter how many SP they have. Maybe they got popped a day before and have lost a bit of that edge.

Just thinking out loud but it does seem to make the playing field a bit more flexible or at least interesting.


Quote:
On 4: that is an insane idea. Of course I -care- about my ships. A ship that has these consequences to a loss [and, indeed, we have to reserve judgement until we have more hard information] is not one I'm going to buy [unless the advantages vastly outweighed the cost].

"Caring about losing a ship", if that is truly how CCP thinks about it, bespeaks a material weakness in how the EVE universe is built. It lacks good ideas and comes up with nebulous concepts to fill a philosophical goal. Never a good sign.


Could be. I think in this age of PvP ships are being largely viewed as disposable due to the massive income earning potential. Consider how many cap ships BoB and Goons go through not to mention sub-cap ships. Even with BoB (err...the Allilance formerly known as BoB) having the rug yanked from under it and having 20+ cap ships stolen they seem to be hanging in there fine. Yeah for some people self-financing or buying fancy faction ships and mods things get pricey but on the whole losing ships is more an inconvenience than anything else.

CCP (I think) is looking for something else besides your pocketbook to make you care. If you think about it this is functionally no different than, say, ships having a crew which perform better with experience so if your ship pops you lose that experienced crew and the next ship is staffed by a noob crew. Lots of games have something like that as a mechanic and you care more about your units (or whatever) that have "levelled up".

Again, just thinking out loud and playing Devil's Advocate as food for thought. I do not all know what is in CCP's mind of course and I have no clue how this will really play out. As you say we kind of have to wait and see. I am with you that on the face of it this seems like a bad idea but who knows?

Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.02.09 21:42:00 - [54]
 

If EVE were a game where losing a ship simply meant respawning and getting a new one for free, then losing a bit of skill every time you die wouldn't be an issue.

However, this is not the case. Currently we all lose ISK, and if previous new ship releases are any indication, these ships will be horrendously expensive. The loss of SP's on top of losing a horribly pricey ship is a bit much for me. At least in my trusty ole Deimos and updated clone I won't have to lose precious training time.

Stalina
Gallente
Serious Business Incorporated
Posted - 2009.02.09 22:47:00 - [55]
 

Well I hope these new ships will be better bang for the buck than lolblackops or pve-maraudersRolling Eyes.
Especially when losing skill points.
I dont mind losing some SP, it's not like you gonna fly them everyday and lose sp everyday. just dont screw the ships before they are in the game Neutral


Saralle Zhukov
Minmatar
Lucian Alliance
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:47:00 - [56]
 

The thing that prolly bugs me the most is, ideas grow and not all programmers are gamers, does this skill loss thing stop here? Does it creep down the line in a few expansions into regular skills also? CCP needs to understand that the player base as a whole does not want to lose skills.

Cool


Karc Thule
Minmatar
Chillwater Ltd
Mongoose Legion
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:56:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Karc Thule on 16/02/2009 20:23:36
lol

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.02.10 19:47:00 - [58]
 

I guess we'll see T3 in empire only huh :)

The way I understood it was the skill is in the ship not the person. So the longer you pilot the ship etc the better you will become.

There is only ONE WAY CCP could fix this if it is still training... Dual Skill training for T3.

Allow us to still keep training our skills like we normally would, but while we're sitting in the ship it trains up the t3 Skill as well.

Do that and I can see people using them more often.

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2009.02.10 21:11:00 - [59]
 

We won't see T3 in empire only.

There will be pilots who choose to take the extra risk in order to take advantage of the extra "edge" these ships will almost certainly provide.


SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2009.02.10 22:06:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
We won't see T3 in empire only.

There will be pilots who choose to take the extra risk in order to take advantage of the extra "edge" these ships will almost certainly provide.




At the sticker price these things are probably going to come to the market at, it might be better just to use a carrier for that "edge".

The first few of these are going to be in the billions because they will be rare, as more and more come into play they will drop down in price, however unless the drop rate is incredible like say salvage, then these things will be pricey at best. Considering they are targeted to be the "Middle Ground" between T1's "ok at a lot master of none" and T2 "Master of this but useless everywhere else" I doubt the average PVP or fleet ops will have these in running.

Imagen taking a Bugattie to the local biker bar, sure you'll see some pricey bikes at in the parking lot but you'll stick out like fat man at an anorexic bikini conversion!


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only