51 Reply by Marcus Nirev (edited by Marcus Nirev 2010-12-04 00:04:32)

  • TM-UAS
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Discussion on the probelms of attributes

GLiMPSE wrote:
Marcus Nirev wrote:
GLiMPSE wrote:

Sorry, it was meant to be a rhetorical question -- there really is no point of Attributes. If people want to train into something quicker or specialize.. they will do so with their EP allocation regardless of whether or not it is efficient or inefficient to put some EP into something else -- if anything attributes limit diversity. You will have very few jack of all trades and very many highly specialized agents.


heh, i was thinking of the attributes as a bonus, moreso than a hindrance... though I seem to be in the minority..

You want to spec (at first) in combat? ok, take the attributes geared toward combat, and you can be "effective" quicker. Though it will cost you later as you will train crafting at a "normal" rate..

Again, i'm pretty ignorant on this topic... And I'm more than sure i will be corrected ; )


Your glass is half full, mine is half empty. Either way, the water that's inside of said glass isn't worth drinking or showering with.. it's tainted and needs to be disposed of.


you need more positive thinking big_smile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqgKZnAoavM

  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Discussion on the probelms of attributes

Nipa wrote:
Marcus Nirev wrote:

It all comes out in the wash...eventually.... no?

No, it doesn't, since some attributes affect nearly no skills. The only available options are 4 in military or 4 in industry. And that's the problem.

Add a respec and you only worsen the problem, as you will incite players to delay skill learning until they can respec their attributes to minimize the cost of the skill they want.

How's that even an issue ? Players want to minmax their stuff according to a respec (considering said respec will probably be only one or two per year if eve is any indicator)  ?

Be my guest, while you're sitting on a pile of unspent EPs I'll be ripping your head off with maxxed extensions, while indies and traders will be racking NICs all the while.


At most, from a full industrial type to a full military type, you only have something like 150 days discrepancy, on a typical military template, on a timespan of almost 1200 days of skilling up.

And that's it. Just a little over 10% difference from a full industrial to a full military on a specialized template on a 4 years skill plan, and that's considering the guy never touches anything related to anything else but its specialized template.

So please stop being such a bunch of drama queens. And for those who'll say that the discrepancy will be higher than 10% past 4 years, well I'll see them then if this game is still up.

53 Reply by Nipa (edited by Nipa 2010-12-04 02:28:13)

  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Discussion on the probelms of attributes

Kogaratsu wrote:

How's that even an issue ? Players want to minmax their stuff according to a respec (considering said respec will probably be only one or two per year if eve is any indicator)  ?

Be my guest, while you're sitting on a pile of unspent EPs I'll be ripping your head off with maxxed extensions, while indies and traders will be racking NICs all the while.

You forgot the third choice: no renewing. Of course some players don't mind at all the system, but you have to take in consideration that some players do. Even if they are aware they can't spend months doing nothing, every skill point they spend, they have that feeling of wasting something. At least I do. I felt exactly the same with Eve learnings and I was happy to hear they removed them. My guess is that I wasn't the only one.

And as for Eve attribute system, it doesn't exactly compare with PO attribute system, since you can't actually stop training and collect your skill points, so even if the workings are very similar, that little bit of difference balances a seemly pointless and maybe frustrating system into an reason to play to get more of these attributes points. I know this may not seems like something important for some players, but trust me, it is for some others.

Of course, like everything it's a matter of numbers. If we are in the range of near 10%, then most won't mind. Probably. I can't really tell. But I'm pretty sure that if the numbers can be considered negligible, then maybe it would be worth it to remove/rework the system to avoid the risk of frustrating some players? As for me, I'll be ok with whatever decision is taken on this, since a lot of other points make me love the current state of the game. But what about someone who's considering whether to subscribe after his 4 days trial? Maybe a respect once a year will be enough for him, but again, I don't know.

That's my real question: is it really worth it?

  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Discussion on the probelms of attributes

Wasting something ?

You're telling that, by actually having fun, improving both your character and your efficiency during several months instead of keeping the EPs and waiting for a respec while doing basically no better than a complete beginner, people will feel at a loss ?

Dude, if you or anyone else reading this is really convinced of that, you should stop playing and get a deep breath. Because this is absurd.

Perpetuum is a game, and is meant to be played that way. Guys willing to minmax everything or get all serious about it are free to do so, but don't ask the devs to overhaul gameplay systems just so a minority of devious players could feel better about an obsessional behaviour.

Once again, this attribute bs is just making mountains out of mole hills. Do attributes make a difference ? yes. Is this difference a game breaker ? Not at all.

People have to understand that this game isn't about some points in x or y attribs or a few days worth of EPs. It is about how skilled you are as an individual and how well you play as a part of a team.

Stop whining on forums and start playing the damn game. That's how you learn. That's how you'll get better.

  • ICS-NA
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Discussion on the probelms of attributes

Saul Tigh wrote:
Zhroedinger wrote:

You are assuming...

I am assuming you are a crybaby now...

While I do agree that the attributes are a little odd, it is NOT hard or that INSANE to do a little research for a game you are going to be paying for every month, unless you are just lazy (or just want to whine to get what you want). The character system is setup to be very accessible to making several characters. If you did a trial, its 4 dollars. Don't renew the trial. Make another one. This is not very hard to understand from a developer standpoint either. If you are just 'testing the waters' I don't see why you wouldn't have done the trial anyway. In short, cry more.

In a time-based game time spent it time lost.  It's not about whining or being a lazy, cry-baby or a carebear.  These are games, not jobs.  If what I want from the game changes a month or two in I should not have to start from friggin' scratch and lose all that accumulated time rolling another 'Toon' just b/c it offends your idea of game purity or b/c you want to feel superior having made 'the right choices from the start.'   As a developer you should be flexible enough to know that people's commitment to their game changes with time and circumstance and provide tools for the player to play the way HE wants, not the way some obnoxious jerk wants, ie. people like you.  This is not about the trial period, which is way too short a time to decide whether the game is for you or not.  Personally, I don't judge a game until I've played it for at least a month, so mistakes I make at generation now will have a large effect on my game later.

Different people learn differently. 

There's a 6 page thread here rehashing all the tired arguments so-called 'hardcore' people like you make to try to control their version of 'game purity' ignoring the reality that the vast majority of players won't play that game or pay to subsidize your vision.  The OP in that thread is right, but very few listen.

It's overly aggressive, dismissive and divisive people like you that drive people away from games like these. 

Cry more.

Ta,

  • *
  • Agent
  • Offline

Re: Discussion on the probelms of attributes

Zhroedinger wrote:

so-called 'hardcore' ... their version of 'game purity'

Thank you.

PO is still new, the devs haven't really stated where they want to go with their game in the long run, so all those causal suggestions still have a place here.

Attrib respec, skill delearning, quick-travel, automated mining, chat bubbles, macros and add-ons, joining multiple corps, instantiated PvE buildings, what else? As long as we don't have orcs or elves, everything can be alright, as long as it's balanced and that enough players find this entertaining.

Maybe it won't be Eve On Earth, but is that a problem? Different games have different playerbases. Hence more money to draw from.