open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog - Learning skills are going away
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 ... : last (67)

Author Topic

Beltan Kelara
Posted - 2010.11.29 00:40:00 - [1681]
 

It is very easy to see why the big push to get this done right now and not really put all the thought just some of the thought in to it... A new MMO was just released on November 25th that stands to compete with EVE. One server, player owned market, PVP, online/offline skill point generation, manufacturing, mining, PVG (Player vs. Game), and cheaper than EVE at $9.95 a month... No noob wants to learn learning skills I get that, but penalizing those who actually trained it should be a sign to everyone that this is a bad choice. How will you react when they nerf your fleet battles to just 10 ships since with all the new players then can not support the lag? Take a look at the new MMO. I testing it as I type this and I'm impressed. Good luck CCP.

Perpetuum

Interfly Ghormenheist
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2010.11.29 01:20:00 - [1682]
 

Originally by: Beltan Kelara
It is very easy to see why the big push to get this done right now and not really put all the thought just some of the thought in to it... A new MMO was just released on November 25th that stands to compete with EVE. One server, player owned market, PVP, online/offline skill point generation, manufacturing, mining, PVG (Player vs. Game), and cheaper than EVE at $9.95 a month... No noob wants to learn learning skills I get that, but penalizing those who actually trained it should be a sign to everyone that this is a bad choice. How will you react when they nerf your fleet battles to just 10 ships since with all the new players then can not support the lag? Take a look at the new MMO. I testing it as I type this and I'm impressed. Good luck CCP.

Perpetuum


space was taken, so they set up an mmo in a coalmine? Shocked

Sed Man
Gallente
Havoc Violence and Chaos
Posted - 2010.11.29 01:40:00 - [1683]
 

Originally by: Gritstone
Edited by: Gritstone on 28/11/2010 23:17:41
For anyone who can't be bothered to read the 50 + pages that this thread has already generated allow me to summarise,

You are in favour of this idea - you are correct. You may now eat cake.

You are against this improvement - you are utterly wrong and the game would be vastly improved if you cancelled your subscriptions and buggered off entirely. In fact for the sake of completeness, it might be an idea if you never subscribe to any online game ever again.



I suspect, along with many 2+ yo players, you have not skilled all your learning skills to 5, and you are very happy with the change, you never have to think about completing those learning skills again and you never have to worry now, that a toon created after yours will ever have a chance in exceeding your toons raw SP total.

I have two toons, ones 10 months old, I play with this toon, the second is 9 months old and is almost equal in raw SPs to the toon created 1 month before. In 5 months time, the second toon WOULD have had all the skills of the first toon plus 2mill SP in learning, and in 24 months the second toon would have been several mill SP ahead in combat skills.

To say that this change is not game changing and everyone is happy is a complete white wash of the reality.

Also, people saying that MOST toons are skilled to 5's are full of BS and are only saying that to back up their pathetic arguments. the average is 2.1mill SP in learning. so a small minority have learning skills all to 5.

Seems like there are a lot of people who just dont understanding how the learning skills work, or are just bad at math.

Go ahead, quote me out of context, say I will be getting FREE SP with the refunded SP and I should just be happy blah blah...

I should say that I agree generally with the change, it will be good for the game. But, there are people who will be adversly impacted by this change in that 1 of 3 real ways to differentiate your toon from another is being removed, and the only real way of ever catching up with any other toon, in raw SP, is being removed, solidifying and entrenching further the SP divide.

In any case 'the train has left the station' there is no discussion...

Rupicolous
Higher Ground
Posted - 2010.11.29 01:41:00 - [1684]
 


Originally by: Tippia
Nothing, but there is also nothing about this change that would motivate or require a free remap for everyone.


True but if one gets a remap, all have to get a remap.


Originally by: Gallians
I am Gallians and I approve of this message.


I think most of us would agree, noone gives a rats a$$ what Gallians thinks.

About anything .........


Alexis Sapphire
Posted - 2010.11.29 02:13:00 - [1685]
 

This is directed towards Tippia, be interested to see the reply.

I am a veteran player who most definitely could use a remap in light of this announcement. I don't fit into any of your scenarios. I remapped 3 weeks ago to a Per/Mem map so that I could learn both drones and the Per/Will stuff at pretty decent rates. I was looking at 2640 for Per/Will and 2574 for drones. I don't have anymore Int/Mem stuff I want done - I did it under my original stats. My character will have the full 5.376 mil to apply where I like.

Had I known of this change, I'd have simply waited out till the 14th, dumped my 5.376 mil into drones (finishing what I wanted done) and then remapped Per/Will to do all the shoot-y/ship fly-y skills.

And to head off one thing I've seen pointed out - I do not need to learn leadership on this character I'm referring to. I have it already on others.

So, where does this leave me? It leaves me in a less than optimal place. Had I known of this change, I'd have simply waited. As I sit now, I don't have much to dump my reimbursed skills into except drones. It's a PvP/PvE character that has Int/Mem done, and also has navigation done. So, things left to learn are drones and anything Per/Will. I have no need or interest in trade, industry, PI, leadership, corp stuff (have anchoring 5 and POS gunner 4), social, etc.

EVEMon told me Per/Mem for the first year of my plan (knocking out drones first) and then getting that pretty good 2640/hr in Per/Will things. My plan had always been to do my year, then respec full Per/Will since drones would have been done, and then I'd never need to look back (or maybe after that second year go to Will/Per for T2 ship min-max action).

Point is, I'm less optimal than I could have been had I known and waited. Thus, in my mind, just toggling a switch that says "remap reset for all" makes sense.

I should finish by saying, that had I remapped months ago, I'd not really care (can't even say I'm all that miffed as is - I am happy with the change, and look forward to dumping my learning SP somewhere). But I did this change less than a month ago. My stats prior to the remap let me learn Int/Mem and Per/Will at the same 2409 SP/hr, so it's not like I'd have to wait 5 weeks at some terrible learning pace.

Whatever, it's hardly a make or break situation. I just think that there ARE instances whereby people who remapped recently would have waited/made different plans had they known. Nor do I think every situation is covered by "remap not needed."

Gallians
Posted - 2010.11.29 02:23:00 - [1686]
 

Originally by: Rupicolous

I still don't have anything of value to say.




You care enough for bad trolls <3

Rupicolous
Higher Ground
Posted - 2010.11.29 02:26:00 - [1687]
 

Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 02:27:13


Originally by: Tippia
There are a limited number of scenarios, and all of them end up with "no remap needed":

  • They are not new (i.e. they don't have a second remap in store) and changed to int/mem to train one year of int/mem skills, the learning skills among them.
    • They finished the learning skills → The plan can proceed as planned, the remap will happen when it was planned to happen.
      No remap needed.


    • They haven't gotten to the learning skills yet → Toss in a few more int/mem skills for the 3-4 months and then remap as planned, or, as above, make use of the time left to the change to earn some redistributable SP at a high SP/h rate.
      No remap needed.
  • quote]


    Both are unacceptable scenarios for "NO REMAP NEEDED"

    the first simply says continue on, nevermind the gap in the skill que.

    the second simply says to fill the gap with whatever you can fit in.

    error - potential is gone - no refund on potential - remap needed - vet player would like compensation -

    Rupicolous
    Higher Ground
    Posted - 2010.11.29 02:38:00 - [1688]
     

    Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 03:03:36


    Originally by: Tippia
    Originally by: Rupicolous
    Do you really think this change is THE CHANGE that will put your average player count above 50 million ???
    Of course not. Nothing will. It is, however, removing a pointless obstacle along the way.


    learning skills were a pointless obsticle ? why because alot of players end up at the same place ? If that were the case you could argue that none of the skills be involved - with enough time every player would have everything skilled , so what's the point.

    Quote:
    is this really what is best for the games' distinction.
    Yes. More focus on player choice, more focus on getting out there and doing stuff and learning the game from day one. A move further away from the "progress grind" that signify so many other games — move that now makes EVE even more distinctly different from those games.


    The progress grind that signify so many other games - wtf are you talking about - chopping wood or skill training ? Noone ever said they HAD to be trained !!!

    Quote:
    I have an uncanny feeling that this game will look and feel very different 3 years from now
    Yes? Do you also have an uncanny feeling that the sun will rise tomorrow? The game three years ago looked and felt very different from what we have today, and the game of 6 years ago looked and felt very different from what Trinity brought. It's what has made the game survive for so long: progress and change and staying away from stagnation.



    Neither you nor Gallians seemed to get the jist of this one: What I was saying was about change and not just throwing something away for the sake of it - then drawing a relationship between this statement and not throwing a character away either, simply because of change.

    BTW, the last one you took out of context, hell you took it all out of context .........


    Quote:
    Is there a new scheme to replace this, because more attribute points is the stupidest, most generic, pile of $h1t I've have yet to hear.

    You've watered down the game before, so I sappose you will try again.

    You are simply out of your god damn minds.

    Do you really think this change is THE CHANGE that will put your average player count above 50 million ???

    Shame on you, your average player count deserves to drop because of this.

    Looks like the collateral damage will be minimized just enough to limit subscription cancellations but is this really what is best for the games' distinction.

    I have an uncanny feeling that this game will look and feel very different 3 years from now and it will be accepted simply because change is good and change is growth but change shouldn't be the reason you throw something away.



    Tarartia
    Posted - 2010.11.29 02:58:00 - [1689]
     

    Originally by: Bel Rigean
    As long as ALL the skill points a player invested in Learning are being reimbursed & the attribute points are being compensated, I do not have a problem with the Learning skills going away. That was a lot of time spent going to level 5 on all 11 Learning skills to gain the +10 in each attribute.

    Just curious...How many others fully trained the Learning skills besides me?


    I think it would actually be interesting to know the stats about how many characters actually do have 5/5. I’m sure CCP could run a query and release this info if they wanted.

    For my part, I have a toon with all learning 5/5 that has been this way for several years (before the noob learning bonus came in anyway). I also have a character that I started only two weeks ago who is still inside the 1,600,000 SP 100% bonus training time (who forked out the 20 mil for advanced learning skills). So technically I represent both of the arguments that 'lose' from the change. Having said that, I support the change in-so-far that it will make the game better in the long run, however, I think a measure of compensation should be introduced. Ultimately, I will carry on either way it plays out, (so no, you can’t haz my stuffs).

    But, for those who use the line saying ‘the resulting bonus being applied to others relative to you, doesn’t technically affect you, so this is not a genuine argument against the changes… stop being such a whiner/bitter old vet (I actually think some people really believe there are 80 year old gamers out there ‘throwing sand’ at young’uns, lol); here is an idea to test this logic:

    How about CCP do a check and determine which characters have 5/5 learning skills, and instead give them permanent 21/21/21/21/20 stats after the change. After all, this won’t affect those people who only get 20/20/20/20/19, so technically there is nothing for those guys to complain about…

    Patri Andari
    Caldari
    Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
    Posted - 2010.11.29 03:07:00 - [1690]
     

    Originally by: Tarartia

    How about CCP do a check and determine which characters have 5/5 learning skills, and instead give them permanent 21/21/21/21/20 stats after the change. After all, this won’t affect those people who only get 20/20/20/20/19, so technically there is nothing for those guys to complain about…



    Deal!





    Gallians
    Posted - 2010.11.29 03:08:00 - [1691]
     

    Originally by: Tarartia
    Originally by: Bel Rigean
    As long as ALL the skill points a player invested in Learning are being reimbursed & the attribute points are being compensated, I do not have a problem with the Learning skills going away. That was a lot of time spent going to level 5 on all 11 Learning skills to gain the +10 in each attribute.

    Just curious...How many others fully trained the Learning skills besides me?


    I think it would actually be interesting to know the stats about how many characters actually do have 5/5. I’m sure CCP could run a query and release this info if they wanted.

    For my part, I have a toon with all learning 5/5 that has been this way for several years (before the noob learning bonus came in anyway). I also have a character that I started only two weeks ago who is still inside the 1,600,000 SP 100% bonus training time (who forked out the 20 mil for advanced learning skills). So technically I represent both of the arguments that 'lose' from the change. Having said that, I support the change in-so-far that it will make the game better in the long run, however, I think a measure of compensation should be introduced. Ultimately, I will carry on either way it plays out, (so no, you can’t haz my stuffs).

    But, for those who use the line saying ‘the resulting bonus being applied to others relative to you, doesn’t technically affect you, so this is not a genuine argument against the changes… stop being such a whiner/bitter old vet (I actually think some people really believe there are 80 year old gamers out there ‘throwing sand’ at young’uns, lol); here is an idea to test this logic:

    How about CCP do a check and determine which characters have 5/5 learning skills, and instead give them permanent 21/21/21/21/20 stats after the change. After all, this won’t affect those people who only get 20/20/20/20/19, so technically there is nothing for those guys to complain about…



    Would there be a way to get everyone else to those stats tho? if not, well I am not cool with a permanent buff to people that have played for a while and have all the advantages in every possible way already just because.. they have been playing for a while and have every advantage one could have.

    As awesome as more points for everyone would be, it doesn't seem to be what CCP wants to do, but the current solution seems satisfying to most. Certainly, to me.

    Rupicolous
    Higher Ground
    Posted - 2010.11.29 03:54:00 - [1692]
     

    Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 04:10:47


    Originally by: Gallians
    Would there be a way to get everyone else to those stats tho? if not, well I am not cool with a permanent buff to people that have played for a while and have all the advantages in every possible way already just because.. they have been playing for a while and have every advantage one could have.




    This is the very incentive to commit to something in this game in the very first place.

    Why is it so difficult to realize that every player in this game started at the same place and has made choices in their skilling to get where they are now.

    This includes learning skills - what don't you get about it ? The fact that they will always be futher along because they started before you ???

    You will never catch up unless they take a break and let their subscription/skilling time slide.

    Chr1st, if there is anything our subscription money is going to ......... it is skilling.

    Everything else is an after thought - including learning skills



    Tarartia
    Posted - 2010.11.29 04:13:00 - [1693]
     

    Originally by: Gallians
    Would there be a way to get everyone else to those stats tho? if not, well I am not cool with a permanent buff to people that have played for a while and have all the advantages in every possible way already just because.. they have been playing for a while and have every advantage one could have.

    As awesome as more points for everyone would be, it doesn't seem to be what CCP wants to do, but the current solution seems satisfying to most. Certainly, to me.


    Well, the point is, it was a logic exercise mostly to show by refection that you can’t dismiss the concerns of a minority by saying that the positive changes for the majority don’t affect that minority therefore the negative changes to the minority should be of no consequence. I agree with you, I have no doubt that my proposal would never happen, if only because the counter-part to this thread would be proportionally much longer, with all the gloaters becoming whiners, and the whiners becoming gloaters (thanks for the apt demonstration above re the line about longer-playing players having all the advantage). I think you make another good point though, maybe you could just have a skill that allows the 20/20/20/20/19 players to skill up to 21/21/21/21/20… oh wait, hang on…

    Finally, why is it such a problem for newer players to be out classed by older players, if it is so unfair, stop skilling your toon and you will always be on par with new players who come to the game after you. The fact is high SP are a ‘permenant buff’ to people who have played longer relative to those who haven’t played as long. That is exactly the point of the ‘advantage of playing longer’ … CCP want people to invest their time (money) in EVE for a long time, not just come and go, because there is no advantage to be had by not subbing for the long haul. Equalizing the starting attribute stats after 14 Dec will actually entrench the permanence of the gap between new and old even more.

    While some may glaze over the issue of the distinction between an ‘absolute’ choice Vs an ‘effective’ choice to skill up learning skills (and I totally agree, it was a painful time-sink, and should go), the fact is that most only ‘chose’ to go 4/4, while a proportional minority ‘chose’ to go on to full 5/5. Hence it still was a choice by degrees. The guys who only went 4/5 now rejoice because they chose to get BattleShip 5 instead of Presence 5. The guys who picked Presence 5 did so with a different set of expectations; expectations that have now been rendered null and void. Sucks to be them, hey?

    Gallians
    Posted - 2010.11.29 05:00:00 - [1694]
     

    Originally by: Tarartia


    Well, the point is, it was a logic exercise mostly to show by refection that you can’t dismiss the concerns of a minority by saying that the positive changes for the majority don’t affect that minority therefore the negative changes to the minority should be of no consequence. I agree with you, I have no doubt that my proposal would never happen, if only because the counter-part to this thread would be proportionally much longer, with all the gloaters becoming whiners, and the whiners becoming gloaters (thanks for the apt demonstration above re the line about longer-playing players having all the advantage). I think you make another good point though, maybe you could just have a skill that allows the 20/20/20/20/19 players to skill up to 21/21/21/21/20… oh wait, hang on…

    Finally, why is it such a problem for newer players to be out classed by older players, if it is so unfair, stop skilling your toon and you will always be on par with new players who come to the game after you. The fact is high SP are a ‘permenant buff’ to people who have played longer relative to those who haven’t played as long. That is exactly the point of the ‘advantage of playing longer’ … CCP want people to invest their time (money) in EVE for a long time, not just come and go, because there is no advantage to be had by not subbing for the long haul. Equalizing the starting attribute stats after 14 Dec will actually entrench the permanence of the gap between new and old even more.

    While some may glaze over the issue of the distinction between an ‘absolute’ choice Vs an ‘effective’ choice to skill up learning skills (and I totally agree, it was a painful time-sink, and should go), the fact is that most only ‘chose’ to go 4/4, while a proportional minority ‘chose’ to go on to full 5/5. Hence it still was a choice by degrees. The guys who only went 4/5 now rejoice because they chose to get BattleShip 5 instead of Presence 5. The guys who picked Presence 5 did so with a different set of expectations; expectations that have now been rendered null and void. Sucks to be them, hey?


    I think you misunderstand. I see the "catching up in sp" strawman a lot but I must question the validity of that argument. My personal experience as a newer player and from what I have gathered from other players, new and old, there is no obsession with catching up. We merely want to play the game. That would be the biggest problem with the learnings: They prevented you from doing that.

    I remember hearing for instance that a CCP dev went play Counterstrike instead of EVE for the time the learnings trained. And that is a problem. They took an inordinate amount of time and as you acknowledge, the choice is barely existent. And as have been mentioned: If you commit the mistake of not training the learnings, or most of them, to a high level during the 1.6 bonus, you are screwed. Because suddenly they take 3 times as long (about) to train.

    I have no problem with high sp people being able to fly all kinds of ships and do all kinds of things, and neither does anyone else. The problem is the amount of time it takes for a new person to fly most anything, or do most anything, especially under the old system.

    That being said, I don't think that older players should have an even bigger advantage: when a group is too coddled and the deck too stacked, playing the game becomes pointless. And that is a lose lose proposition because the vets don't get new blood to play with, people don't get to play a pretty cool game, and CCP loses subscription money. Hence changes like this that make the game more approachable.

    I don't think more skills to increase attributes would be a good idea btw :P

    Rupicolous
    Higher Ground
    Posted - 2010.11.29 05:03:00 - [1695]
     

    Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 05:05:34


    I'm done for the day.

    Anyone following the posts from page 55 on, will realize and understand the position I took with the Veteran side of the arguement.

    Tippia and Gallians ......... it's been fun.


    P.S. If I find you taking me out of context or puttin words in my mouth ......... again, i'ma gonna shove a pipe up yer azz. lol Shocked

    Biytor
    Star Frontiers
    Talos Coalition
    Posted - 2010.11.29 05:34:00 - [1696]
     

    Originally by: Gallians

    That being said, I don't think that older players should have an even bigger advantage: when a group is too coddled and the deck too stacked, playing the game becomes pointless.



    Wanna talk about a group being coddled? It sure as hell isn't the ones that gave up time to max their learning skills. The group being coddled are the ones getting something for nothing. The ones that spent the time and effort to get to maxed learning are getting the shaft. They are getting a nerf right off the bat and being told it's a Christmas present.

    Yes the people that went 5/5 with all their learning skills, should be getting full return on it. Not this damn nerf CCP came up with to coddle the whiny "I don't want too, it takes too long" crowd. I'm not looking for anything extra, but I sure as hell expect to be comped completely for the time I put in.

    Interfly Ghormenheist
    Caldari
    State War Academy
    Posted - 2010.11.29 06:07:00 - [1697]
     

    Edited by: Interfly Ghormenheist on 29/11/2010 09:43:20
    Originally by: Gallians
    Originally by: Tarartia
    Originally by: Bel Rigean
    ... asking about number of 5/5 skilled ...


    ... answer ... explanation ...

    How about CCP do a check and determine which characters have 5/5 learning skills, and instead give them permanent 21/21/21/21/20 stats after the change. After all, this won’t affect those people who only get 20/20/20/20/19, so technically there is nothing for those guys to complain about…



    Would there be a way to get everyone else to those stats tho? if not, well I am not cool with a permanent buff to people that have played for a while and have all the advantages in every possible way already just because.. they have been playing for a while and have every advantage one could have.

    As awesome as more points for everyone would be, it doesn't seem to be what CCP wants to do, but the current solution seems satisfying to most. Certainly, to me.


    Oh noes, some sort of compromise? How is this ever gonna make 100 pages. Rolling Eyes

    So called bitter vets are quoting time in station prison when they had to live on bread and water, waiting for better high SP times to come.

    So called beggars are cheering over the end of unpopular learning skills.

    CCP are claiming to hand out presents, especially for the newbies.

    Many of these 'vets' are only couple of years old, and the 'beggars' may not be so poor.

    EVE could be seen made up of three columns, influencing each other: SP, ISK, soft skills. ISK for skillbooks and more SP, these on the other hand enable new professions and ways to make more ISK. Soft skills being the way one distributes efforts, can interact in any way.

    It may well be, that the 'vets' had a feeling of austerity during their high learning skill run. Nothing that can be accounted for tho, happened out of free will. The long time gain, remember? The only thing that could be is a loss of ISK and soft skills, and this is something the 'beggars' on the other hand seem to overlook. One can double ISK easily by means of trading each week assuming full reinvestment. In comparison maxing learning skills will leave most with little means. Of course there is enough room to train cash cow skills as well before the 1.6e6 Mio SP barrier. The margin is very narrow though, so only a very small number may pick the right ones. This implies soft skills, and no matter if they ghost-train or hug stations, they will also have a disadvantage in these. (Beggars may have felt austerity, too, cause of lower SP, just a hint.) Now, why does it matter?

    Basically it will always be necessary to boost absolute beginners ISK and SP wise, taken how clueless we are for starts and for keeping the balance in many ways.

    At the start of EVE we had to decide on static attributes in order to learn skills one had no frickin' clue about. Bloodlines came, introducing also chars with lower Charisma, effectively training faster. In the end yearly attribute redistribution was necessary tho, to overcome this basic discrepancy.

    Learning skills are meta-skills. Saying they therefore make no sense is like saying there should be no implants for this since they got no direct use in-game. Upon podding in an inadequate clone learning skills might be gone just as implants btw. YARRRR!! The real problem was a second discrepancy: we also have no frickin' clue if these skills or our chars will still be around at break-even point, thus about the future. Now some will get podded by CCP Greyscale for means of clarification in this matter. Evil or Very Mad

    Difference is, they did not force low Charisma chars to remap. They got the advantage till today, many have not made a single remap, for a good reason. So maybe this could be a solution: next SPs give 20/20/20/20/20 to all New Eden plus a set of attribute enhancing implants for the ones who did not meet break-even point. Or at least a PhD cert. Laughing It is also about balance between vets and geriatric vets in the end!

    CCP: this fuzz is not about presets, it is about presents. Wink

    Tippia
    Caldari
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    Posted - 2010.11.29 06:39:00 - [1698]
     

    Edited by: Tippia on 29/11/2010 06:40:59
    Originally by: Rupicolous
    Both are unacceptable scenarios for "NO REMAP NEEDED"

    the first simply says continue on, nevermind the gap in the skill que.

    the second simply says to fill the gap with whatever you can fit in.
    Both say "you intended to wait that extra bit anyway, so why not wait that extra bit?"
    Quote:
    learning skills were a pointless obsticle ? why because alot of players end up at the same place ?
    No. Because they were a meta-game mechanic that interfered with actual game mechanics.
    Quote:
    The progress grind that signify so many other games - wtf are you talking about - chopping wood or skill training ? Noone ever said they HAD to be trained !!!
    I'm talking about the "do this boring thing for N amount of time and you will get better" that usually comes in the form of the classic fetch 20 bear-asses grind; in EVE, it was the learning skills. Now EVE distinguishes itself even further from those lousy games that employ this cheap tactic as way to pad the length of the game. Oh, and the statistics (and common sense, and the "if you weren't smart enough to train them…" argument you see with quite a few people who want to keep them) show that they did have to be trained…
    Quote:
    What I was saying was about change and not just throwing something away for the sake of it
    And what I was saying is that it's not just "for the sake of it" — it's part of progressing towards a better game. The reason it was thrown away was because it kept the game bad; it stood in the way of progress; and that yes, even without those change is actually in and of itself a good enough reason to remove things because it avoids stagnation. The context was there.

    Dorn Val
    Posted - 2010.11.29 07:50:00 - [1699]
     

    Originally by: Tippia
    ... The reason it [the Learning Section] was thrown away was because it kept the game bad; it stood in the way of progress; and that yes, even without those change is actually in and of itself a good enough reason to remove things because it avoids stagnation. The context was there.


    ^This. The Learning section was a bad solution to one simple problem; game progression is too slow. Removing it means that peep swill actually have to learn how to play the game, to develop some real personal skills, instead of relying on just skill training alone. In the end there will be more people in the game, who actually know how to play it better than before. Sorry, but I just can't see anything negative about it.

    To those of you who felt special because you maxed out the Learning section there are other ways to compensate for a small epeen... Twisted Evil

    Rupicolous
    Higher Ground
    Posted - 2010.11.29 07:55:00 - [1700]
     

    Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 08:10:15


    Originally by: Tippia
    Both say "you intended to wait that extra bit anyway, so why not wait that extra bit?"



    Wrong, both say we implemented an attribute remap because we planned to reap the benefits from it

    Originally by: Tippia
    No. Because they were a meta-game mechanic that interfered with actual game mechanics.



    Wrong, they are the same game mechanic that operates each and every other skill in your character sheet.

    Originally by: Tippia
    I'm talking about the "do this boring thing for N amount of time and you will get better" that usually comes in the form of the classic fetch 20 bear-asses grind; in EVE, it was the learning skills. Now EVE distinguishes itself even further from those lousy games that employ this cheap tactic as way to pad the length of the game. Oh, and the statistics (and common sense, and the "if you weren't smart enough to train them…" argument you see with quite a few people who want to keep them) show that they did have to be trained…



    Wrong again, Fetching 20 bear - asses grind is the equivelent to mining and the only thing padding the game is skill sets in general. It's time you realized that the learning skills are/were exactly like every other skill in the game. If you wanted to advance as efficiently as possible then yes you trained them up a bit and you also injected some implants as well. All a simple choice of direction.

    Originally by: Tippia
    And what I was saying is that it's not just "for the sake of it" — it's part of progressing towards a better game. The reason it was thrown away was because it kept the game bad; it stood in the way of progress; and that yes, even without those change is actually in and of itself a good enough reason to remove things because it avoids stagnation. The context was there.



    Wrong, It represented progress just like every other skill in this game does. Stagnation had nothing to do with the skills and everything to do with your mind and it's lack of understanding. When you take part of something and respond to it on it's own, seperate and away from the rest ......... it becomes out of context.

    Ranka Mei
    Caldari
    Posted - 2010.11.29 08:10:00 - [1701]
     

    Originally by: ElectroPulse


    Originally by: Ranka Mei
    I know 72 sp/h is widely believed to be a laughable quantity, in terms of loss. But when you consider that it amounts to nearly an entire day (!) per month, suddenly it doesn't sound so little any more, does it?

    Let me be clear on this: it's a good thing we're finally getting rid of those pesky learning skills. I just say: throw an extra 1.026x multiplier into the deal, and we're all good. And it's not like CCP has to go out of their way to add one, as a 1.1x multiplier is currently already in place. Merely adjust the mother, and we're all set to go. :)


    72 sp/h? Seriously? That's not very much when you consider that you are getting back a huge amount of SP from the learning skills... say you spent 2.8mil sp on learning skills (just a number I am throwing out there, as a friend mentioned he had that many). That divided by 72 sp is 38,888 hrs, or 1,620 days, or about 4.44 years... So if you play for more than another 4.44 years, then you will make up for this.


    Throughout this thread -- which you could have known, had you read it -- this has become known as the infamous '8 years' fallacy. It's flawed; it's been refuted; and it requires no further comment at this time.

    Having said that, there's a limited compensation to be had when you apply your refunded SP towards a skill you would not normally otherwise have remapped to. For instance, on my Indy alt I will apply it to 'Mining Foreman V,' requiring Charisma and Willpower. I would otherwise be training that at a dismal 1716 (!) sp/h, as I'm am currently mapped for Memory + Perception, and I initially robbed my own Charisma blind (like most folks, I reckon). And as I don't think I can ever find sufficient justification for remapping a whole year towards Charisma, I can now simply apply some SP towards 'Mining Foreman V,' and be done with it in one foul swoop, and save a lot of training time in the process.

    So, it's not like we're not getting any compensation for the 72 sp/h loss -- it's just limited, in that you can de facto only apply it to something with Charisma in it (assuming you would normally be remapping towards all the other attributes, at one time or another, whereas you likely won't towards Charisma).

    Quote:
    But remember, there are still implants for attributes (unless I missed somthing saying there weren't), so just pop a few +1s in your head for a few hundred thousand isk and you've more than made up the difference. (I said +1s because if I said +5s somebody would come back and say "what about PvPers? So because +1s are so cheap, you could go for those).


    Gee, attribute implants! Why didn't I think of that!? (that was sarcasm, btw; I have all +5 implants)

    Quote:
    Oh, btw, what happens to the people who have done remaps? That would stink if you just remapped...


    Not would, but could. I read of a guy who just heavily remapped towards mem, balancing his perc and other ones. After the change, instead of winding up with a nicely balanced set of attributes, suddenly his mem will be sky-high (which is not really what he wanted per se). Had he known of the upcoming change, he wouldn't have done this particular remap.

    Why, mem is actually a bad example, as the learning mechanics work in such a fashion that, if you do it right, mem would never really lag behind to begin with, but would be among the first things you trained up high. But I'm sure they're other folks who suddenly wind up with a set of attributes that will now appear askew because of a recent remap. Personally, I don't need it; but there's something to be said for giving people an extra remap (arguing it wouldn't really be extra: CCP forcibly unbalanced their attributes, so it's only fair they get 1x option to compensate for the meddling). Or maybe it could be done on a 'per petition' basis, where you get one, if you can demonstrate that you're really negatively remapped now, as the outcome of the change.

    Tippia
    Caldari
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    Posted - 2010.11.29 08:14:00 - [1702]
     

    Originally by: Alexis Sapphire
    So, where does this leave me? It leaves me in a less than optimal place. Had I known of this change, I'd have simply waited. As I sit now, I don't have much to dump my reimbursed skills into except drones. It's a PvP/PvE character that has Int/Mem done, and also has navigation done. So, things left to learn are drones and anything Per/Will. I have no need or interest in trade, industry, PI, leadership, corp stuff (have anchoring 5 and POS gunner 4), social, etc.
    Fair enough. I'm talking more about these huge mismatches between plan and (now) reality that people make it out to be — the "onoz, I remapped int/mem when what I really wanted was per/will".

    That said, if it's a PvE/PVP character, I'd say that there are still some auxiliary things you might want to look for. You say that Int/Mem is done — what do you mean by "done"? All V:s? In what categories? How do you run your missions/complexes? How do you run your PvP? Had you got the skills (assuming you would use them, of course) for optimal loot recycling? Have you got the skills (same caveat) for probing out your enemies or complexes? If you're running missions, the social skills are definitely something you want to look into. Even if you don't run industry job yourself, why not toss some SP into some datacore skills? Etc. etc.

    My main point here is that there's always things you could add that aren't in line with what your current remap will give you.

    Tippia
    Caldari
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    Posted - 2010.11.29 08:30:00 - [1703]
     

    Originally by: Rupicolous
    Wrong, both say we implemented an attribute remap because we planned to reap the benefits from it.
    …and nothing about this change means you'll lose those benefits.
    Quote:
    Wrong, they are the same game mechanic that operates each and every other skill in your character sheet.
    No. No other skills are meta-skills. All the other affect your in-game performance; the learning skills did not.
    Quote:
    Wrong again, Fetching 20 bear - asses grind is the equivelent to mining and the only thing padding the game is skill sets in general.
    No, because mining does not give you "XP" like those bear ass missions (or the bears themselves) do. Mining forms the basis for industry and is a means of generating income; the bear asses just give you XP and the next mission in the grind. Grinding bear asses was a matter of adding XP to your character progression though pointless padding and tedium… just like the learning skills added SP.
    Quote:
    It's time you realized that the learning skills are/were exactly like every other skill in the game.
    Really? What in-game equipment did they unlock? What bonuses to in-game equipment did they give? What in-game activities did they affect? What in-game abilities did they unlock?

    None. They were completely different from all other skills because they were a meta-mechanic that competed for time with actual in-game mechanics. This is horrid design, and CCP knew this years ago. Therefore, they are now getting rightfully nuked.
    Quote:
    Wrong, It represented progress just like every other skill in this game does.
    Wrong progress — re-read that bit again. I'm talking about about progressing the game, not your character. Yes, the skills were about the progress of the character; their removal is not — their removal is about EVE itself progressing towards better gameplay and away from gameplay stagnation.
    Quote:
    When you take part of something and respond to it on it's own, seperate and away from the rest ......... it becomes out of context.
    You mean like the above bit where you're talking about something completely different? You were talking about changes in the game; I was talking about changes in the game (which you claimed was out of context)… if you think it's about the character, then I understand why you made this error and why you accidentally changed the context. Re-read it.

    Ebisu Kami
    Posted - 2010.11.29 08:33:00 - [1704]
     

    Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 29/11/2010 08:45:51
    Originally by: Rupicolous
    Originally by: Gallians
    Would there be a way to get everyone else to those stats tho? if not, well I am not cool with a permanent buff to people that have played for a while and have all the advantages in every possible way already just because.. they have been playing for a while and have every advantage one could have.




    This is the very incentive to commit to something in this game in the very first place.

    Why is it so difficult to realize that every player in this game started at the same place and has made choices in their skilling to get where they are now.

    This includes learning skills - what don't you get about it ? The fact that they will always be futher along because they started before you ???

    You will never catch up unless they take a break and let their subscription/skilling time slide.

    Chr1st, if there is anything our subscription money is going to ......... it is skilling.

    Everything else is an after thought - including learning skills


    Weren't you rambling around earlier, that it is important to cater to people with 5/5s, because they had the drive to take that grind to be able to catch up to older people without 5/5s? How does that work in conjunction with you cheering now for current 5/5ers to get a flat bonus on every attribute (and still not reaching the magic 2772 SP/h that way, just to mention it) and thus not only accepting to negate your own words and intentions, but on top of that also solidifying and extending the advantage of those, who had the chance to get to 5/5 in comparison to those, who join now and would have taken the grind, but can't anymore?

    EdFromHumanResources
    Caldari
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    Posted - 2010.11.29 08:36:00 - [1705]
     

    I have multiple characters with maxed out learning skills and I completely support this dev blog. Learning skills ruin the new player experience.

    Tippia
    Caldari
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    Posted - 2010.11.29 08:36:00 - [1706]
     

    Originally by: Ranka Mei
    there's something to be said for giving people an extra remap (arguing it wouldn't really be extra: CCP forcibly unbalanced their attributes, so it's only fair they get 1x option to compensate for the meddling).
    How did CCP do this? All attributes are changed equally.

    If there is an imbalance like the one you speak of after the change, it's because the person himself didn't balance the attributes (in the example you don't-quite-quote, I assume it's because he never trained his mem-skills) — that's their choice and hardly something CCP forced them to do.

    Rupicolous
    Higher Ground
    Posted - 2010.11.29 09:13:00 - [1707]
     

    Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 09:16:11

    Originally by: Tippia
    …and nothing about this change means you'll lose those benefits.



    Actually everything about this change means we lose those benefits. Especially if you remapped right before the announcement and get stuck with an empty time period in the skill que.

    Originally by: Tippia
    No, because mining does not give you "XP" like those bear ass missions (or the bears themselves) do. Mining forms the basis for industry and is a means of generating income; the bear asses just give you XP and the next mission in the grind. Grinding bear asses was a matter of adding XP to your character progression though pointless padding and tedium… just like the learning skills added SP.



    The difference here is between passive game play and active game play - skilling is inactive except for the actual queing up of the skill itself.

    Originally by: Tappia
    Really? What in-game equipment did they unlock? What bonuses to in-game equipment did they give? What in-game activities did they affect? What in-game abilities did they unlock?

    None. They were completely different from all other skills because they were a meta-mechanic that competed for time with actual in-game mechanics. This is horrid design, and CCP knew this years ago. Therefore, they are now getting rightfully nuked.



    They unlocked the ability to advance in any other skill at a faster rate than before the attribute was increased. This was the bonus and a good one at that. It should stay in the game just like implants and remaps.

    Originally by: Tappia
    Wrong progress — re-read that bit again. I'm talking about about progressing the game, not your character. Yes, the skills were about the progress of the character; their removal is not — their removal is about EVE itself progressing towards better gameplay and away from gameplay stagnation.



    Once again, the only stagnation here is your mind and it's ability to understand. You do realize that things speed up again after the skills are learned and the end result is a faster learning time for any skill you choose from there on afterwards.

    Originally by: Tippia
    You mean like the above bit where you're talking about something completely different? You were talking about changes in the game; I was talking about changes in the game (which you claimed was out of context)… if you think it's about the character, then I understand why you made this error and why you accidentally changed the context. Re-read it.


    It wasn't an error at all, in fact the context is the text as a whole, not seperate parts cut out and disected at your discretion.


    Rupicolous
    Higher Ground
    Posted - 2010.11.29 09:36:00 - [1708]
     


    Originally by: Ebisu Kami
    Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 29/11/2010 08:45:51
    Originally by: Rupicolous
    Originally by: Gallians
    Would there be a way to get everyone else to those stats tho? if not, well I am not cool with a permanent buff to people that have played for a while and have all the advantages in every possible way already just because.. they have been playing for a while and have every advantage one could have.




    This is the very incentive to commit to something in this game in the very first place.

    Why is it so difficult to realize that every player in this game started at the same place and has made choices in their skilling to get where they are now.

    This includes learning skills - what don't you get about it ? The fact that they will always be futher along because they started before you ???

    You will never catch up unless they take a break and let their subscription/skilling time slide.

    Chr1st, if there is anything our subscription money is going to ......... it is skilling.

    Everything else is an after thought - including learning skills


    Weren't you rambling around earlier, that it is important to cater to people with 5/5s, because they had the drive to take that grind to be able to catch up to older people without 5/5s? How does that work in conjunction with you cheering now for current 5/5ers to get a flat bonus on every attribute (and still not reaching the magic 2772 SP/h that way, just to mention it) and thus not only accepting to negate your own words and intentions, but on top of that also solidifying and extending the advantage of those, who had the chance to get to 5/5 in comparison to those, who join now and would have taken the grind, but can't anymore?


    Naw, you're the only one rambling (just to mention it) and on top of that, solidifying and extending your vast lexicon into some kind of Hall of Fame.

    Tippia
    Caldari
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    Posted - 2010.11.29 09:47:00 - [1709]
     

    Originally by: Rupicolous
    Actually everything about this change means we lose those benefits. Especially if you remapped right before the announcement and get stuck with an empty time period in the skill que.
    There's always more to train…
    Quote:
    The difference here is between passive game play and active game play - skilling is inactive except for the actual queing up of the skill itself.
    Yes, but it still blocks other skill progression — in other words, it blocks progression where it actually matters, just to fulfill meta-requirements that shouldn't be in-game mechanics to begin with.

    Quote:
    They unlocked the ability to advance in any other skill at a faster rate than before the attribute was increased.
    Again, a meta-ability, not something that provides in-game benefits.
    Quote:
    Once again, the only stagnation here is your mind and it's ability to understand. You do realize that things speed up again after the skills are learned and the end result is a faster learning time for any skill you choose from there on afterwards.
    Still the wrong context. So no. I'll answer your comment as if they were actual relevant to what I said, and we'll see if you get where you went wrong: No, the skills do not speed up the rate at which CCP delivers new content or at which rate new games are brought to the market.
    Quote:
    It wasn't an error at all, in fact the context is the text as a whole, not seperate parts cut out and disected at your discretion.
    The context can change, you know. It is entirely possible to discuss two things at once…

    …well, for most of us.

    Ranka Mei
    Caldari
    Posted - 2010.11.29 09:55:00 - [1710]
     

    Edited by: Ranka Mei on 29/11/2010 09:56:24
    Originally by: Tippia
    Originally by: Ranka Mei
    there's something to be said for giving people an extra remap (arguing it wouldn't really be extra: CCP forcibly unbalanced their attributes, so it's only fair they get 1x option to compensate for the meddling).
    How did CCP do this? All attributes are changed equally.

    If there is an imbalance like the one you speak of after the change, it's because the person himself didn't balance the attributes (in the example you don't-quite-quote, I assume it's because he never trained his mem-skills) — that's their choice and hardly something CCP forced them to do.


    Say, a newbie has the following stats:

    Intelligence: 27
    Perception: 27
    Charisma: 19
    Memory: 19
    Willpower: 20

    He could then decide to remap 8 points away from intel + perc, towards charisma + mem, to balance out his learning skills (just an example; the remap in question doesn't necessarily have to make sense). He then made said decision, based on the expectation that he would wind up with a more or less balanced learning sheet. Expecting this:

    Intelligence: 23
    Perception: 23
    Charisma: 23
    Memory: 23
    Willpower: 20

    So far so good. But now cometh The Removal, equalizing all skills. So, what he winds up with is suddenly having an +8 surplus in Charisma + Memory:

    Intelligence: 23
    Perception: 23
    Charisma: 31
    Memory: 31
    Willpower: 27

    And now his sheet doesn't look so balanced any more, actually favoring Charisma + Memory! So, had he known about The Removal upfront -- and there's no plausible reason to say that he should have -- he would have made a different remap.

    Most people remap in a 'positive' manner towards their main + secondary attribute, and not to compensate for a deficiency (or to gain equilibrium). But, like in the above scenario, I can see why someone might want a new remap as a result of The Removal.


    Pages: first : previous : ... 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 ... : last (67)

    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