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 : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (25)

Author Topic

Shardivh
Posted - 2010.06.01 12:09:00 - [91]
 

Good idea

OPX2
Posted - 2010.06.01 12:34:00 - [92]
 

Remove the learning skill, and double the training speed.
SP is only useful up till a certain point, 80M SP pilot wont benefit much at 120M SP. Whereas a new 50K SP pilot would be immensely better at 40M SP.
Allows new pilot to quickly get in on the action, and existing pilot to roll alts and open new account.

Also attributes... a bit redundant to me. Since again they only effect the training speed. Perhaps make them more piloting related? (Perception>Agility, Willpower>Tank? Etc) Too similar to other MMO?

Serinas Setzuni
Posted - 2010.06.01 21:26:00 - [93]
 

I had a simple idea and I'm surprised no one else had brought it up already...

Leave the learning skills in and move them all up to level 5 for everyone, from the starting character to the oldest recruit. Then no one loses a thing and everyone's equal. The main difference between people's training times could then be implants and remaps. (Also, remove the faster training speed up to 1.6m thing, or adjust it to 5m or something)

Voila, new characters could get into the action a little faster, and old characters who hadn't yet leveled all of them to 5 would skill up a bit faster. For those who had them all at L5 already, give them some kind of 'Congratulations' award or some kind of tangible reward?

Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.06.01 21:32:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Serinas Setzuni
I had a simple idea and I'm surprised no one else had brought it up already...
Don't worry, when CCP gets around to it I'm sure they'll manage to find a solution that infuriates everyone equally.Razz

Rosco Powers
Posted - 2010.06.01 22:17:00 - [95]
 

I think it's a brilliant idea. Maybe it could be as simple as removing the 2nd tier of learning skills and sticking with the basics. But either way...

/supportedVery Happy

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.01 22:33:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Ranka Mei
It's like being in school
Did you see the part where I italicised game? Think about that.
In RL you do unfun things for a long-term benefit. That's life. If you do that in a game, you are probably doing it wrong.
In EVE you do unfun things for the long-term benefit. That's the learning skills for ya in a nutshell.

See, the thing is, you and Malcanis are barking up the wrong tree: you realize having to spend much time on the learning skills potentially hampers a newbie's enjoyment of the game; yet instead of tackling said learning skills, you get upset with everyone suggesting to new people that they should do them. And that's kinda silly; because as long as learning skills exist, newbies simply will spend a predominant amount of time of their beginner's experience doing those learning skills. Not because I, or others, tell them so, but simply because the learning skills mechanics themselves dictate that a high game-efficiency is best achievied by doing them. I didn't create that game mechanic; CCP did.

Writing very angry posts about how newbies should not be doing so much learning skills, and just have a good time, is simply fruitless. High game-efficiency is geared towards doing the learning skills at an early age; and people like efficiency. In fact, asking people to stop thinking about efficiency and to just to have fun, runs very counter to human nature. You're free to do so, of course; but it's just not very productive.

Instead, were it not much better if you saw the merit of the OP's proposal, and that doing away with the learning skills altogether would serve everyone? The newbie, no longer able to be motivated to wanting to be more efficient in training than he is now, can simply go do as you suggest: have fun. And the older players, provided they won't be training slower than they are now, won't mind either.

Originally by: Malcanis
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players
Ranka Mei's Law: richer, older players always have an overwhelming advantage: live with it.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2010.06.02 10:04:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Serinas Setzuni
For those who had them all at L5 already, give them some kind of 'Congratulations' award or some kind of tangible reward?


How about giving "some kind of 'Congratulations' award or some kind of tangible reward" for those who don't have any learning skill trained insted ? Twisted Evil
Or, pick any set of your skills and change their bonus for mentioned rewards Twisted Evil

.....

IMHO, learning skills were a mistake (and I think I have read CCP considers them a mistake). However, this mistake is of that kind which gets worse when tried to "fix".

It is like a bear trap. You can try to get out by taking of your leg, or you may just sit in it, because the chain the trap is attached appears to be long enough, and surroundings are nice.



Lena Cakelicious
Posted - 2010.06.02 17:01:00 - [98]
 

I see why learning skills are concidered a flaw in design by some. And especially annoying for newbies. But on the other hadn i agree that it adds another level of specialisation to this game which is what makes eve so special.

However if they remove learnings and i don't get that 10 attributes +10% and that 5.376.000 SP back that i have in learnings i'm out :)
i don't spend isk or RL money for a game where the only thing that really matters RL time is (like in training your skills).

I don't see why i would spend 15 a month so i can keep playing but with a lot slower progress.
It already takes a crapton of time to train some skills to 5 (like up to two month when you're into capitals) and i refuse to pay the same amount each month when my skill learning speed is effectively halfed.

So there are two options:
they add 10 attributes + 10% to each chacater OR they reduce the amount of of money that you pay each month.

AND additionaly reimburse your training time that you have spend on getting your learnings to whatever level you have it at. Else CCP would effectively screw you over almost 2 month worth of game time.
Btw I like the idea of compensating this by increasing your learning speed.

So if the removal of learnings is not to be discussed and it's only a matter of how to implement it i support this topic.

- cake

Lucy Donnahue
Posted - 2010.06.02 18:41:00 - [99]
 

I agree with the removal of learning skills. They are not a fun mechanic, they are an obligation and can really deter new people from getting into the game.

My main character has the tier 1 learning skills trained to 5 (back when it was required for tier 2.

While I support this in spirit, the original proposal might cause some imbalances. Perhaps something were players are rewarded attribute points over time would cause less issues.
Maybe something like players at their 1 month mark get +1 to all attributes and so on would work better.

Nijle
Star Frontiers
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.06.02 19:34:00 - [100]
 


Ort Lofthus
Huang Yinglong

Posted - 2010.06.02 20:44:00 - [101]
 

This sounds like a pretty decent way to compensate people for their training time invested in learning while keeping the max rate of SP gain the same and getting rid of a poor mechanic. Its not really fun or fair to newbies to have to invest in a timesink so early in the game. This game is brutal enough on new players.

One thing I would like to add to it though is an isk compensation for the skillbooks. While the base learning skills are cheap as rocks, the advanced ones are rather pricey for new players. I remember having to make sacrifices in what ships I could afford just to buy the learning skillbooks and I feel it would be a kick in the teeth for the newb who just spend their savings to train up these skills just to lose them immediately without getting the isk back.

Kaya Divine
Gallente
Kittens Factory
Posted - 2010.06.03 11:56:00 - [102]
 

True.

Lorna Sicling
Caldari
Helix Pulse
Posted - 2010.06.03 12:31:00 - [103]
 

I support this. As a new player (less than 4 months old), I've had to invest a significant proportion of that time learning how to learn.

If the statistics are true that the average time people spend in game is 6 months, then I can genuinely see why. Do I expect to be on a level playing field with somebody 1 year old, 2 years old etc? No, of course not. Would it make me more likely to try low-sec and combat if the month spent training learning skills had been invested in sheilds or armour or guns or missiles? Absolutely!

CCP - fix this now please!

Stupid McStupidson
Gallente
Hoek Lyne and Sinker
Posted - 2010.06.03 18:34:00 - [104]
 

Don't like them, don't train them. Stop being so obsessed with other characters skillpoints. For the one millionth time, doing any given activity, or flying any given ship, you are only using a relatively small subset of SP. Any and all SP not related to that activity is wholly irrelevant. Why does it grate on you that one player gets there in 30 days, when it took you 32?

Players are measured on their knowledge of game mechanics, and their ability to put them to use. You do not need n SP in x amount of time to do this. There is no trophy for reaching a specific number in the least amount of time. A player with faster training times might acquire the ability to perform one mini profession or related group of level V skills in a year.

In any case, high learning skills take progressively longer to pay off, since you could have been training a direct game related skill during that time. Somebody somewhere made a chart covering this, which I can't be arsed to find.


Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.06.03 19:11:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Stupid McStupidson
Don't like them, don't train them. Stop being so obsessed with other characters skillpoints. For the one millionth time, doing any given activity, or flying any given ship, you are only using a relatively small subset of SP. Any and all SP not related to that activity is wholly irrelevant. Why does it grate on you that one player gets there in 30 days, when it took you 32?

Players are measured on their knowledge of game mechanics, and their ability to put them to use. You do not need n SP in x amount of time to do this. There is no trophy for reaching a specific number in the least amount of time. A player with faster training times might acquire the ability to perform one mini profession or related group of level V skills in a year.

In any case, high learning skills take progressively longer to pay off, since you could have been training a direct game related skill during that time. Somebody somewhere made a chart covering this, which I can't be arsed to find.


It has nothing to do with comparing other players, it has to do with being able to acheive your own train goals faster. You should consider that this is also part of the games mechanics unfortunately. As such training well is also important to a lot of people.

The trophy is that a person can get into what they want that much sooner and fly it well that much sooner. Not everyone wants to fly frigs for the rest of EVE. It has nothing at all to do with characters comparing SP sizes.

Ildryn
Posted - 2010.06.04 01:44:00 - [106]
 

I agree...

I hated doing all that learning stuff.
I really think it was a terrible few weeks.

I also hated waiting to get into a battleship with t2 weapons and mods.
Can we have all those skills to for our noobs ?
I would also like my day old character to be able to fly a carrier with max skills.

Its done to give you discipline. You know that thing most lack their first couple weeks.
So if you can't hack the first couple weeks this game is not for you anyway.

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:48:00 - [107]
 

Supported. Here's why:

Learning skills in Eve don't actually do anything. They represent an arbitrary time buffer which, if I had to guess, was originally designed to keep the complete newbies from competing with the advanced players. Nobody enjoys training learning skills. We only do it because if we don't, we suffer in the long run. Is there anybody here, anybody at all, who ENJOYED training up learning skills? Of course not. Nobody enjoys sitting around not advancing (or advancing slowly) for a period of x weeks/months.

Given that it obviously isn't fun, we have to ask ourselves, is it necessary? What useful purpose do learning skills serve?

Comparing them to other skills is bad, because they don't actually affect gameplay at all. Comparing them to implants is bad, because there's no risk-reward concerns involved.

If the purpose of the learning skills is to keep newbies from getting too good too fast, well, given that you need a matter of YEARS before you can max every available skill, somehow I don't think this is that great a concern anymore, if it ever was.

If the purpose of learning skills is to enforce a sense of patience, I think waiting a couple of weeks for a level 5 skill should enforce that just fine.

If the purpose of learning skills is to create the impression of character customization, this is a moot point: Most everybody gets learning skills, it's just a matter of when. Those who don't get them usually end up leaving the game as the longer waits for more advanced skills become unbearable.

Remove learning skills, +50 statpoints and a free neural remap across the board, redistribute learning skillpoints in the form of a temporary 10/100x training speed multiplier. Vets get a training boost, rookies don't have to suffer, everybody gets greater control over their character.

Everybody wins.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2010.06.04 09:14:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Crumplecorn on 04/06/2010 09:18:19
Originally by: Ranka Mei
people like efficiency
Ask the people who quit because of the learning skills how much they liked being 'efficient'.

A game is not a job. The objective is to have fun. For some this obviously means being as efficient as possible. For many, it doesn't.


Also,
Originally by: Ranka Mei
you realize having to spend much time on the learning skills
having to
Saying this over and over won't make it true.





In other news:
Originally by: Black Dranzer
They represent an arbitrary time buffer which, if I had to guess, was originally designed to keep the complete newbies from competing with the advanced players
Your persecution complex is stunning, and only matched by your lack of comprehension of the purpose of the learning skills.

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.04 09:48:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Crumplecorn
In other news:
Originally by: Black Dranzer
They represent an arbitrary time buffer which, if I had to guess, was originally designed to keep the complete newbies from competing with the advanced players
Your persecution complex is stunning, and only matched by your lack of comprehension of the purpose of the learning skills.


Woah woah, where did that come from?

One, I've been playing Eve on and off since 2005, so I'm not sure how I'd have a persecution complex in regards to being a newbie.

Two, I am honestly unsure as to why learning skills exist. A barrier to entry is all I could really think of, but I included customization because it also seemed like a possibility, and a slightly cynical passing mention to patience because somebody else mentioned it earlier in the thread.

Besides those three reasons, why else should learning skills even exist? If you can take the time to attack my character, you can take the time to attack my points.

I want to hear your opinions.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2010.06.04 10:16:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Crumplecorn on 04/06/2010 10:33:51
Originally by: Black Dranzer
One, I've been playing Eve on and off since 2005, so I'm not sure how I'd have a persecution complex in regards to being a newbie.
It certainly seemed that way, given that you'd guess that the reason for a character development change would be to disadvantage new players, when the opposite has always been the case. Really does sound like a narrow-minded [insert playstyle] complaining about how [CCP/EVE/players/god] hates them.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
Two, I am honestly unsure as to why learning skills exist.
To make things train faster. That's what they do. They don't provide a barrier, they makes things faster.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
Besides those three reasons, why else should learning skills even exist?
I mention some of it here and there is more scattered throughout the thread.

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:46:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Black Dranzer on 04/06/2010 11:47:13
Originally by: Crumplecorn
snip


I'm just going to go straight to attack the false premise that these skills add some kind of variety to the game.

Let's say you have two players, player A and player B. You give them both an identical skill plan: A list of skills to learn, and an order in which to learn them. Now, to make this interesting, you tell player A to max out his learning skills before following along the skill plan.

To start off with, player A is way behind player B in skills (besides learning). But as they both follow the skill plan, something happens: Eventually, player A catches up to player B. This moment in time, we shall refer to as "The Threshold". After crossing the threshold, assuming that player A and B both spend an equal amount of time training skills (and provided that implants are identical for both players, etc etc), player B will NEVER have as many skill points as player A.

The only real "choice" in regards to learning skills is this:

Will you get your learning skills first, or do you plan to be playing for less time than it takes to reach the threshold?

To reiterate this more simply: Ignoring your learning skills is only a good idea if you plan to stop playing the game at some point. The fewer learning skills you get, the shorter your character's lifespan must be for you to not be punished for it.

Any game feature which discourages players from playing is a Bad Thing. The loss of the paltry "choice" that is presented to rookie players is a small price to pay, because when given a choice of "suffer now or suffer later", most new players will leave.

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2010.06.04 12:55:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Black Dranzer
Edited by: Black Dranzer on 04/06/2010 11:47:13
Originally by: Crumplecorn
snip


I'm just going to go straight to attack the false premise that these skills add some kind of variety to the game.

Let's say you have two players, player A and player B. You give them both an identical skill plan: A list of skills to learn, and an order in which to learn them. Now, to make this interesting, you tell player A to max out his learning skills before following along the skill plan.

To start off with, player A is way behind player B in skills (besides learning). But as they both follow the skill plan, something happens: Eventually, player A catches up to player B. This moment in time, we shall refer to as "The Threshold". After crossing the threshold, assuming that player A and B both spend an equal amount of time training skills (and provided that implants are identical for both players, etc etc), player B will NEVER have as many skill points as player A.

The only real "choice" in regards to learning skills is this:

Will you get your learning skills first, or do you plan to be playing for less time than it takes to reach the threshold?

To reiterate this more simply: Ignoring your learning skills is only a good idea if you plan to stop playing the game at some point. The fewer learning skills you get, the shorter your character's lifespan must be for you to not be punished for it.

Any game feature which discourages players from playing is a Bad Thing. The loss of the paltry "choice" that is presented to rookie players is a small price to pay, because when given a choice of "suffer now or suffer later", most new players will leave.


Let's say you have two high-school graduates, player A and player B. You give them both identical grades and resources, but you send B out into the job market and A to college. : B is going straight to making money and A is “maxing out his learning skills” before following along the plan.

To start off with, player A is way behind player B in money. But as they both follow the plan, something (probably) happens: Eventually, player A catches up to player B. This moment in time, we shall refer to as "The Threshold". After crossing the threshold, assuming that player A and B both spend an equal amount of time working and training skills (and provided that implants are identical for both players, etc etc), player B will NEVER have as much money or “skill points” as player A.

You can make the same analogy with two graduates given money – one puts it into savings/investments and one spends it on stuff.

Is it a choice? Yep. Is it “more efficient” to go to college / save money / train learning first. Yes. Do people always choose the most efficient path? Absolutely not. People choose when and where to trade efficiency for convenience / enjoyment / etc all the time. This happens in life and is mirrored in Eve.

Removing choice is bad. Removing depth is bad.

If the learning skills are ever removed, I hope NOTHING replaces them and no bonuses are given. Slow everyone down to the same slow rate… no stat increases, no skill replacements. Nothing.


Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.04 13:18:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri

You can make the same analogy with two graduates given money – one puts it into savings/investments and one spends it on stuff.



Yes, but when the second graduate runs out of money, he doesn't usually kill himself.

You can not reliably compare advancement in real life to advancement in MMOs. Believe me, I've tried; By god have I tried. The fact of the matter is that people are far more willing to leave MMOs than they're willing to leave real life.

When made to choose between the lesser of two evils, an MMO player will leave.

Removing depth can be bad. But it is not unconditionally bad.

Learning skills are not worth the damage the cause.

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2010.06.04 13:26:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Black Dranzer
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri

You can make the same analogy with two graduates given money – one puts it into savings/investments and one spends it on stuff.



Yes, but when the second graduate runs out of money, he doesn't usually kill himself.

You can not reliably compare advancement in real life to advancement in MMOs. Believe me, I've tried; By god have I tried. The fact of the matter is that people are far more willing to leave MMOs than they're willing to leave real life.

When made to choose between the lesser of two evils, an MMO player will leave.

Removing depth can be bad. But it is not unconditionally bad.

Learning skills are not worth the damage the cause.


I suppose that's true if your cause is to increase the number of players at a faster rate than Eve has been growing.

Bearing in mind that Eve is one of the most stable success stories in the MMO world and still grows, I'm not sure that should be our concern.

My "cause" would be keeping it true to the complicated, pain-in-the-ass, game that got us all hooked in the first place. Learning skills are part of that picture - and removing them damages the cause.

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.04 13:38:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Black Dranzer on 04/06/2010 13:38:25
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
My "cause" would be keeping it true to the complicated, pain-in-the-ass, game that got us all hooked in the first place. Learning skills are part of that picture - and removing them damages the cause.

Eve's appeal is its complexity and its freedom, not being a pain in the ass. There is nothing complex about learning skills (I could summarize them in a paragraph), and they do more to limit freedom than promote it (because if you don't get them before anything else then you screw yourself over). They actively deter newer players.

By your logic, how about we add tier 3 learning skills with 5x training multipliers? Where does it end, and more importantly, why does it end there?

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2010.06.04 13:39:00 - [116]
 

Edited by: Crumplecorn on 04/06/2010 13:43:37
Originally by: Black Dranzer
Let's say you have two players, player A and player B. You give them both an identical skill plan: A list of skills to learn, and an order in which to learn them. Now, to make this interesting, you tell player A to max out his learning skills before following along the skill plan.

To start off with, player A is way behind player B in skills (besides learning). But as they both follow the skill plan, something happens: Eventually, player A catches up to player B. This moment in time, we shall refer to as "The Threshold". After crossing the threshold, assuming that player A and B both spend an equal amount of time training skills (and provided that implants are identical for both players, etc etc), player B will NEVER have as many skill points as player A.

The only real "choice" in regards to learning skills is this:

Will you get your learning skills first, or do you plan to be playing for less time than it takes to reach the threshold?

To reiterate this more simply: Ignoring your learning skills is only a good idea if you plan to stop playing the game at some point. The fewer learning skills you get, the shorter your character's lifespan must be for you to not be punished for it.

Any game feature which discourages players from playing is a Bad Thing. The loss of the paltry "choice" that is presented to rookie players is a small price to pay, because when given a choice of "suffer now or suffer later", most new players will leave.
As so often happens, your entire argument boils down to the imaginary skills race. Yes, player B will never have as many skill points as A. Fortunately, this doesn't matter in any way shape or form. And in return, player B will have acquired 'real' skills sooner than A, which is presumably what B wants since he chose not to do all the learning skills early on. And therein lies the choice which so many wish to deny but which continues to exist nonetheless: Does B wish to be as effective as possible in the long term, as A does, or does he instead want to focus on the short term for now?

The idea that you get 'punished' for not training the learning skills is also nonsense and is based on another common fallacy; that the training speed you have once you have all the learning skills is the 'baseline', and the learning skills are a mandatory timesink to get there. In fact, your training speed without any learning skills (or implants) is the baseline, and the learning skills merely optionally trade time for a rate increase. There is no punishment, merely a trade of a short-term advantage for a long-term one.

Somewhere in the middle there you came dangerously close to implying that the game is no longer worth playing if you fall behind in the skills race: "Will you get your learning skills first, or do you plan to be playing for less time than it takes to reach the threshold?" etc. I will assume that you did not mean to imply this, since such an implication would be ridiculous on a scale never before witnessed on these fora. Without this implication, you are merely asserting that a player's highest priority must be their position in a non-existent race which, while still nonsense, is a few astronomical units closer to the realms of rational thought.


Originally by: Black Dranzer
Learning skills are not worth the damage the cause.
The only damage they cause are the removal of people too foolish to understand what you yourself say is not a particularly complicated part of the game. They were lost before they ever started.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
they do more to limit freedom than promote it
People's narrow views of how EVE should be played limit their freedom, the game does not.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
By your logic, how about we add tier 3 learning skills with 5x training multipliers? Where does it end, and more importantly, why does it end there?
There have been requests for them.

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.04 14:01:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Crumplecorn
The idea that you get 'punished' for not training the learning skills is also nonsense and is based on another common fallacy; that the training speed you have once you have all the learning skills is the 'baseline', and the learning skills are a mandatory timesink to get there.
Find me one character who has 3 months of active playtime and who has no learning skill above level 3.

One.

One single character, and I will retract everything I have said, and concede to your point. I will not ask for more players. I will not move onto another point. I will retract all I have said and concede that they are a viable optional skill choice if you find me one single player out of the 200-odd thousand that meets that criteria.

Originally by: Crumplecorn
Somewhere in the middle there you came dangerously close to implying that the game is no longer worth playing if you fall behind in the skills race: "Will you get your learning skills first, or do you plan to be playing for less time than it takes to reach the threshold?" etc. I will assume that you did not mean to imply this, since such an implication would be ridiculous on a scale never before witnessed on these fora. Without this implication, you are merely asserting that a player's highest priority must be their position in a non-existent race which, while still nonsense, is a few astronomical units closer to the realms of rational thought.
Stay your tongue. The fact is, after a certain point, there is literally no advantage to having neglected learning skills. Because by the time you reach that point, if you'd invested in learning skills, you'd have those other skills anyway.

Originally by: Crumplecorn
The only damage they cause are the removal of people too foolish to understand what you yourself say is not a particularly complicated part of the game. They were lost before they ever started.
Creating a game that nobody will touch is not a goal to aspire to. It's not about understanding, it's about choosing if you want to leave an account to boil for weeks before playing the game or suffering for it if you end up playing longer than you envisioned.

Originally by: Crumplecorn
People's narrow views of how EVE should be played limit their freedom, the game does not.
This isn't about perspectives, it's about math.

Originally by: Crumplecorn
There have been requests for them.
Well then by all means let's add in tier 4, 5, 6 and 7 learning skills too!

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2010.06.04 15:00:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Black Dranzer
Find me one character who has 3 months of active playtime and who has no learning skill above level 3.
A fallacious request, because even if no-one has done it that does not mean it isn't viable; certainly not with armies of trolls trying to get people to train learning skills until they quit. A foolish request, because I am hardly going to spend the time to find such a person just for you. And finally, a loaded request, since you chose a level of the skills which takes virtually no time to train, and which will thus be part of even the shortest term skill plan.

You're going to need a better substitute for an actual argument than that.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
The fact is, after a certain point, there is literally no advantage to having neglected learning skills. Because by the time you reach that point, if you'd invested in learning skills, you'd have those other skills anyway.
Yes. I do believe I mentioned that one was short term and one was long term. And?

Originally by: Black Dranzer
Creating a game that nobody will touch is not a goal to aspire to.
And yet CCP aspire to it, and the subscription numbers just keep on rising.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
It's not about understanding, it's about choosing if you want to leave an account to boil for weeks before playing the game or suffering for it if you end up playing longer than you envisioned.
I've already told you what is wrong with this. Repeating it won't make it true.

Originally by: Black Dranzer
This isn't about perspectives, it's about math.
No, it's about perspective. Math helps you win the race. Perspective lets you realise the race doesn't exist.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.06.04 15:36:00 - [119]
 

Give it up, Crumplecorn. These guys come from games where you "win" by maxing out your character sheet, and they're not capable of/interested in understanding any other way to 'play'. They're not wrong in their terms of reference. That's why you're never going to win them over.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.06.04 16:22:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Give it up, Crumplecorn. These guys come from games where you "win" by maxing out your character sheet, and they're not capable of/interested in understanding any other way to 'play'. They're not wrong in their terms of reference. That's why you're never going to win them over.


New players have three options:
- Train everything frustratingly slow until they quit - "I've been playing this game for 6 months and I can barely fly a cruiser!"
- Train everything frustratingly slow for a month or two while they get some skills for their profession. Then burn a month on learning skills and continue playing the game.
- Burn a month on learning skills and then start playing the game. These people overwhelmingly quit the game because it's incredibly boring.

You may claim that the last option is stupid, but I would counter that all of the options are stupid and that there can be no good options for a new player as long as learning skills are in the game. I would rather people log in and start training useful skills instead of meta skills. This lets them get into a reasonably skilled rifter faster, or a thorax, or rupture, or battleship. This either gives me someone to fly with or someone to shoot - either one's fine with me.

I further find it incredibly ****ing funny that you decry these people as min/maxers when that is exactly the only type of person that can possibly be successful at playing Eve. Eve is a game of progressive specialization until you have a pretty extreme amount of SP - and people that take the "generalist" path tend to just suck at everything. Rolling Eyes

-Liang


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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