open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Learning skills solution
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (25)

Author Topic

the lovebug
Posted - 2010.07.18 09:11:00 - [511]
 

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!


DONT LIKE THEM DONT TRAIN THEM STFULaughing

Tarana Orwell
Posted - 2010.07.19 20:19:00 - [512]
 

Supported!

Remove Learning Skills CCP!

It's one thing to make a mistake in adding these stupid skills to the game, it's quite another matter to have let that mistake stand for so many years even when you acknowledge they're a mistake. Still better late than never.

Neyuki
Posted - 2010.07.20 06:26:00 - [513]
 

No....Learning is NOT broken. Leave it alone CCP,

Jasdemi
Interstellar Whine Brewery
Monocle Overlords
Posted - 2010.07.21 18:18:00 - [514]
 

*Digging out a serious thread.*

Gorongo Frostfyr
Shimohi Heavy Industries

Posted - 2010.07.24 15:49:00 - [515]
 

want my sp back now. :[

Jason Bauer
Posted - 2010.07.25 10:41:00 - [516]
 

I support. Have my SP put in my Swiss bank account.Cool

Barney Killer
Posted - 2010.07.26 05:43:00 - [517]
 

Supported

As a noob I hated them
ExclamationI have to buy them?
ExclamationThey take HOW long to train?
ExclamationThey make it HOW much faster, 1-2 hrs per level???
ExclamationIf I don't train them I won't be able to get my shiny new ship fast enough?


Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.26 15:19:00 - [518]
 

Raised as a proposal to the CSM.

Your comments regarding adjustments and improvements are solicited.

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2010.07.26 19:29:00 - [519]
 

Edited by: Santiago Fahahrri on 26/07/2010 19:28:58
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Raised as a proposal to the CSM.

Your comments regarding adjustments and improvements are solicited.


Bah.

After this shall we work on the "Level V skills take too long to train and they frustrate new players to let's automatically give people level V when they reach level IV. It'll improve new player retention!" proposal?

Tyrin Amari
Posted - 2010.07.26 20:08:00 - [520]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Raised as a proposal to the CSM.

Your comments regarding adjustments and improvements are solicited.


13,071 and counting views
156 Supports

and this is the horse your backing????


Bfoster
Appetite 4 Destruction
Posted - 2010.07.26 21:35:00 - [521]
 

Well since I have them trained, I don't really care. But I do know it is killing the new player experience and know a lot of new players that leave because of it. It's just not fun spending a couple of days training skills that don't get you into something new. Sure as a experienced player I see the benefit of them, but new players don't and don't care. They just see it as a annoyance and loose interest in the game.
This would be one way to help the new player experience.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.27 10:37:00 - [522]
 

I am raising the proposal for several reasons:

* It has received significant support (as well as passionate dissent).

* It has significant consequences for the health of the game.

* The CSM represents all players -- including clueless noobs.

* The issue deserves attention by the full CSM. They may well vote it down, or pass it in modified form. But no matter what the outcome...

* ...I think it is important to get some sort of position on this issue on the record, for the simple reason that at some point CCP may decide to make changes for retention reasons, and if they do, I think it's important to have a template out there that suggests how to do it in a manner that is as favorable as possible to the people who've already trained learning skills.

Think of this proposal as a condom whose purpose is to *prevent* a screwing.

Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Aurora Security
Posted - 2010.07.27 14:55:00 - [523]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
I am raising the proposal for several reasons:

* It has received significant support (as well as passionate dissent).

* It has significant consequences for the health of the game.

* The CSM represents all players -- including clueless noobs.

* The issue deserves attention by the full CSM. They may well vote it down, or pass it in modified form. But no matter what the outcome...

* ...I think it is important to get some sort of position on this issue on the record, for the simple reason that at some point CCP may decide to make changes for retention reasons, and if they do, I think it's important to have a template out there that suggests how to do it in a manner that is as favorable as possible to the people who've already trained learning skills.

Think of this proposal as a condom whose purpose is to *prevent* a screwing.


I think that you are full of it. Do you have a position on this, or are you a true politician? I think your wiki article makes it obvious where you stand on this with this one line:

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
will eventually create more bitter old vets


The wiki article is a mess, including unsubstantiated "facts" that are likely fallacies. If we are allowed to edit your proposals, I would have done it directly.

consensus: n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole

This is probably an outright lie, based on the definition of consensus (above):
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
The consensus of the CSM is that the current learning skills system is, on balance, a detriment to EVE


I would like to see the actual post-account-cancellation surveys that are for truly "new" players (not players creating alt accounts) that cite having to train Learning skills as a cause for their cancellation.

I angrily hate this proposal - not necessarily the removal of learning skills but the "give me stats or give me basic learning skills" - either the learning skills are a problem, or they are not. Either they should exist (as is) or not.

I firmly believe that the learning skills should stay as is. HOWEVER, if there were to be a change, it should be to remove learning skills and refund the actual SP that players have put into said skills. All attributes are reduced to non-learning skill levels. Refunding skillbooks has to be based on NPC sell price (and still has issues). PERIOD. Anything else is a wolf in sheep's clothing, whining entitlement babies who don't like that it takes days(weeks/months) to train for the big shiny.

I take this position from a player with 3 accounts and 7 characters, all with basic learning skills to V and advanced skills to at least III, (some IV and 1 with all learning skills at V). If they are going away, make everything about them go away - don't institute fake attribute boosts and additional remaps.

A more accurate statement about Pros:
Simplifies the skill training decision tree for players
Removes psychological barrier to undocking without learning skills

A more accurate statement about Cons:
Simplifies the skill training decision tree for players
increases overall training time for all skills by removing learning bonuses

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2010.07.27 15:10:00 - [524]
 

Edited by: SencneS on 27/07/2010 15:11:00
If the CMS's and CCP manage to get this passed, there will undoubtedly be a new Proposal to re-add learning skills which will receive MUCH MUCH more support then this thread received.. Rolling Eyes

For that reason alone I would much rather the CSM's and CCP devote their time to an issue which ISN'T going to result in a proposal to reverse the changes..

P.S. No supported.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.27 20:04:00 - [525]
 

Originally by: Tyrin Amari

13,071 and counting views
156 Supports

and this is the horse your backing????




156 supports and *ZERO* disapprovals! Plus not all supporters add a thumbs up to every post they make in the thread (voting multiple times is rude.) It's a good day to be a politician when you can vote on an issue and not anger anyone.

Rolling Eyes


Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Aurora Security
Posted - 2010.07.27 20:37:00 - [526]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
156 supports and *ZERO* disapprovals! Plus not all supporters add a thumbs up to every post they make in the thread (voting multiple times is rude.) It's a good day to be a politician when you can vote on an issue and not anger anyone.

Rolling Eyes



I'm sorry can you show me the DO NOT SUPPORT button to check? maybe if you read this threadnaught you'd realize the odds are like 156 for, 1560 against...

Tyrin Amari
Posted - 2010.07.27 21:53:00 - [527]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Tyrin Amari

13,071 and counting views
156 Supports

and this is the horse your backing????




156 supports and *ZERO* disapprovals! Plus not all supporters add a thumbs up to every post they make in the thread (voting multiple times is rude.) It's a good day to be a politician when you can vote on an issue and not anger anyone.

Rolling Eyes




You Sir are an Asshat. As stated above there is no option to not support.


Tacolina
Posted - 2010.07.28 00:18:00 - [528]
 

I'd support but only if ccp implemented Learning skills replaced with focused training instead.


Irjuna Valar
Posted - 2010.07.28 00:48:00 - [529]
 

/supported

Learning skills are a flawed mechanic. While no fix would be popular with everyone, that isn't a good reason to keep a poor gameplay design.

Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
Posted - 2010.07.28 06:03:00 - [530]
 

not supported.
Learning skills are part of the game from the beginning.
Thats why i learned the learning skills first to get the benefit of it.
If you dont do it, its your mistake.

I have all learning up on all my chars, so now i want have the longterm benefits of this game mechanic.

Because if ccp removes them now, this would really suck to me because then i will loose my trust to the game and i will never make any longterm plans anymore.

Echo Gemini
Minmatar
Intergalactic Sunrise
Posted - 2010.07.28 08:12:00 - [531]
 

[not supported]

EvE has bigger issues than "learning is evil" complains!

Learning skills are good for:
- increases the time all the isk-selling characters are flying Covertors or bigger;
- increases the time all the isk-selling characters are flying Nighmare/Paladin/Golem s;
- increases the number of rtards that are complaining about EvE's game design - i wonder if everybody who sign the petitions so far ever worked in game-developing industry or if have knowledge about game-design;
- increases the number of rtards that are complaining about ammar ships;
- increases the number of rtards that are complaining about caldari ships;
- increases the number of rtards that are complaining about gallente ships;
- increases the number of rtards that are complaining about minmatar ships;
- increases rate for the griefers/carebears/*******s are spawning in game [i.e. everyone will have 5 alts with bs that will pop everything at 1.0 gates ... and nobody -> ccp employee <- will check 100 bilions lines of logs to apply the proper punishment];
- decreases the time all the ******s leaves and plays WoW;
- makes a good difference between an industrial pilot and a pew-pew pilot ... otherwise everybody will know everything [super-bad];
- older people will feel bad about choosing EvE when all pvp fights will be with 14.year.old.blobs in 1.0 [holy**** I will ask for refunds ... all of them Razz];
- friends of friends of friends will have so many ISK in day 1 ... why i'm even bodering
- they are 50000 players in weekends, at the moment ... if friends of friends of friends will play ... every system will be JITA;

So:
- you don't have to bring your moronic friends to have fun!..
- all games should be played by everyone is silly and childish;
- "**** Sleipnir has +1 slot!.. I'm so ****ing sad ... Let's remove learning!" is based on your alcoholic unconscious brain;
- if you say: "I have to stay 2 months in EvE docked and i'm losing time saving money for my titan", you should play WoW;
- yeah WoW is better! Go play it!
- EvE is dying and losing player because of the bugs/griefers/10000 isk/second carebears;
- EvE is dying because some ships are not even used(that's bad game design) and only 4-5 ships/per race are frequently used;
- EvE is dying because CCP introduces new planetary-**** features instead of new ships and jovian empire!
- EvE is dying because everything is redundant, and with or without learning, your moronic friend will still get bored!

True stories dude:

I'm doing missions ... and omfg my tank breaks!.. But that's ok, I'm aligned and at full spead ... Waiting for my drones! Waiting for my drones! Where are you drones ... Heeeey i'm in half armor ... Let me warp out ... press warp to button ...
Your-Ending: yes your ship has warped out!..
One second later: omfg i'm in capsule!..

Gate camp ... oh goddie!.. Pew pew peeeeew ship blows!
One second later: omfg i'm in station!..

Morale:
I have broadband connection and an quad-core intel processor!.. And my ships gets destroyed from time to time and i'm lagging ... And I still have fun with my in-game/rl friends!.. But you are telling me you cannot because of the learning skills... Just **** off!!

Thoran Karlien
Perkone

Posted - 2010.07.28 12:49:00 - [532]
 

Times sinks are bad.

I am currently in at about 1.3 million in learnings, 4/5 everything, mostly 4. I'd support removing of the learning skills even if only 5 points are added to the attributes and no sp refunded.

Less points added and the higher rank skills are going to make my bite my desk.

So, thumbs up

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.28 14:56:00 - [533]
 

Originally by: Swearte Widfarend
I think that you are full of it. Do you have a position on this, or are you a true politician?


I substantially agree with the contents of the proposal. You should note that I raised it knowing that it would be controversial and probably get me at least lightly toasted in this thread. I did so because I feel it is a topic that needs debate at the CSM level, because I view it as an overall "long-term health of the game" issue.

Quote:
The wiki article is a mess, including unsubstantiated "facts" that are likely fallacies.


I am open to evidence that there are errors in the presentation. Also note that all CSM proposals are drafts, subject to debate and modification during the actual meetings. Even if it is passed, certain aspects of it may be strengthened or weakened after discussion by delegates.

Quote:
I would like to see the actual post-account-cancellation surveys that are for truly "new" players (not players creating alt accounts) that cite having to train Learning skills as a cause for their cancellation.


So would I. Unfortunately, this information has not been made available to CSM. Getting more info out of CCP has been an enduring CSM theme.

Quote:
I angrily hate this proposal - not necessarily the removal of learning skills but the "give me stats or give me basic learning skills" - either the learning skills are a problem, or they are not. Either they should exist (as is) or not.


Alas, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". There is no solution to this issue that will satisfy all the players. The point of the elimination proposal was to address the perceived retention issue while not affecting the training rate of existing players (except for the people who have trained advanced skills to V).

While as a purist (from a game-design standpoint) I would say "dump the learning skills and adjust training times so that the average rates are the same as they currently are", the realist in me is tending towards the other proposal (3's in everything as default) as easier to do while getting most of the benefits (and not affecting people with advanced V skills).

The bottom line is, if CCP doesn't think there is a retention issue associated with learning skills, they will simply dump this into the backlog to rot. If they do, better we have some input (and public debate) than for them to present you with a fait-accompi that will cause you to ragequit.

Politics is, indeed, "the art of the possible."

Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Aurora Security
Posted - 2010.07.28 15:35:00 - [534]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
I am open to evidence that there are errors in the presentation. Also note that all CSM proposals are drafts, subject to debate and modification during the actual meetings. Even if it is passed, certain aspects of it may be strengthened or weakened after discussion by delegates.


Well, to begin with there is no consensus in the CSM that the Learning skills are a problem - since you haven't had the meeting to discuss them.

Then, the claims that new player retention is affected by the learning skills.

Then the claim that changing them would improve new player retention

Then the claim that the only negative impact is "bitter old vets"

With no facts and a biased presentation, I turn this back upon you. Present FACTS that any of these are true before stating them as facts. You are the one making claims. Where is your evidence?

I am merely accusing you of making claims without facts to support them.

Nateryl
Lone Star Exploration
Posted - 2010.07.28 15:44:00 - [535]
 

I support this. Although I would like fine tuning of the implementation. Probably just allow players to immediately distribute the SP from learning skills rather then giving a time bonus.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.29 11:55:00 - [536]
 

Originally by: Swearte Widfarend
Well, to begin with there is no consensus in the CSM that the Learning skills are a problem - since you haven't had the meeting to discuss them.

Then, the claims that new player retention is affected by the learning skills.

Then the claim that changing them would improve new player retention

Then the claim that the only negative impact is "bitter old vets"

With no facts and a biased presentation, I turn this back upon you. Present FACTS that any of these are true before stating them as facts. You are the one making claims. Where is your evidence?

I am merely accusing you of making claims without facts to support them.


The proposal is merely that, a proposed statement by the CSM. If the other members of the CSM do not agree with the wording, it will be changed after debate during the meeting.

I have come to a considered conclusion on this issue, based on all the evidence available to me at this time. If you provide additional evidence, I will reconsider my conclusions in light of the new information.

PS: the mention of "bitter old vets" in the proposal is an example of an extremely advanced concept that you are clearly unfamiliar with. Here is a Wikipedia link that may be helpful.

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2010.07.29 13:47:00 - [537]
 

I would like to see the following added to the Cons list to correctly represent much of the feedback that has been given:

Removes a level of depth/choice/consequence from character development that many feel are a feature/benefit and not a problem.

Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Aurora Security
Posted - 2010.07.29 14:42:00 - [538]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
PS: the mention of "bitter old vets" in the proposal is an example of an extremely advanced concept that you are clearly unfamiliar with. Here is a Wikipedia link that may be helpful.

I did not realize that a proposal going before the CSM was the place for a satirical comment. I thought it was "serious spaceship business" - my bad. Guess my belief that CSM is supposed to be doing "serious spaceship business" for the playerbase is incorrect then...

Thoran Karlien
Perkone
Posted - 2010.07.29 15:09:00 - [539]
 

Originally by: Swearte Widfarend
I am merely accusing you of making claims without facts to support them.


Problem is, both sides are doing that in either case...

The biggest problem still lies in the nearly mandatory need to skill at least a bit into the learning skills.

Yes, there are strategical thoughts about it, but those only come into play a lot later. I haven't skilled the learnings fully nad now my current skill plan would take 2 month longer than if I had skilled them further. But to be honest, after more than 40 million sp, there isn't that much importance in squeezing out the last drop of sp/hour. At least to me.
Heh, I lost far more training time when I went away from Eve while still paying for my account.

And just a few more thoughts to ponder:
If learnings get removed (as certain / uncertain you feel it is) and no attribute change would compensate this, the efective value of imps is going to rise a lot. Getting +5 attribute on top of 15 is a very nice bonus, but getting it on top of 5 doubles it. An attribute compensation seems to me necessary so the gap between those being able to pay for +5s and those not being able wouldn't widen too much.

My alt chars (two of them, both on hiatus due to financial status atm) have by far better leranings than my main. Reason is, I could more easily plan those skills and wasn't in any hurry or need to get anything. I could actually play Eve with my main while my alts slowly got their learning skills. And that is to me the biggest pro for removing the learnings. Alt chars have it by far easier to actually gain those learnings than first chars ever will. They are the only ones that can really spend the time in the beginning to maximize the learnings, because the play is happening on another account.

CryHarder
Posted - 2010.07.29 15:38:00 - [540]
 

Worst Idea Ever.


Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (25)

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