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 : ... 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 ... : last (67)

Author Topic

Rupicolous
Higher Ground
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:00:00 - [1711]
 

Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 10:03:38


Originally by: Tippia
There's always more to train…


Sure there are other skills that take advantage of those attributes, but are they skills that were originally intended for the characters career ?

Originally by: Tippia
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.


Doesn't block anything unless the player decides to skill them instead of a different skill in other words it's a choice that any player can make whenever they choose. All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive.

Originally by: Tippia
Again, a meta-ability, not something that provides in-game benefits.


Again, Meta because they are passsive. They provide faster learning times of every other skill from there on afterwards. In game !!!

Originally by: Tappia
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.


Getting rid of something is not new content, it is old content being removed. Gamers are brought to the market by the content itself, not the lack of.

Originally by: Tippia
The context can change, you know. It is entirely possible to discuss two things at once…

…well, for most of us.


Well don't get too far ahead of yourself, you might trip over your' own feet.


Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:04:00 - [1712]
 

Originally by: Rupicolous


All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive.


That's a rather silly statement. Only the learning skills are meta, nothing else. Period.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:07:00 - [1713]
 

Originally by: Mishikaii
The removal of the learning skills is an incredibly good thing for EVE. As a newer player that has tried to get RL friends to play, I have seen a lot of them quit over having to spend a significant amount of time training "nothing" or being gimped.

We are all University students and smart enough to get the "good" route of playing, and I would argue, people the "learning skills keep morons away" crowd would be okay with. But they keep us away too.

Because if you arent an utter moron you realize sort of fast that there are better ways to spend your money than paying 20 dollars to station spin for month 1. And if you choose not to station spin for a significant portion of those bonus speed sp? well, then the learnings will take.. 5 MONTHS OF STATION SPINNING.

An absolutely ludicrous amount of time to pay a game to.. not play it.

Now, I am staying, since CCP decided to remove them. And a couple of the people that quit will try the game again. I see this as a good thing.

A lot of noise is made about how the "vets" should have an inordinate advantage forever (why exactly? and if they are so favored, why should anyone new ever play at all?) but it is terrible game design when one of those so called advantages is a 5 month speed buffer when people can not play the game at all.

A speed bump that CCP is more than correctly removing.

Looking at the people that want to keep them, they most seem to be said vets, complaining that one of the advantages they had over what they see as stupid people is gone. Or alternatively, that the game sucked for them and it should suck for others.

Both are pathetic arguments. The fact is that games neew growing playerbases to be around. And you can't get a growing playerbase by catering to the *aptly called* bitter vet crowd that want to be put in a pedestal forever, over all others. Fundamental notions of playability must be in place for new people to try the game, and more importantly from CCP's point of view, to stay.

Else you will have a sandbox where only 70 year olds who hate everything throw sand at passer by's, while they soak in their own pee and wonder why nobody will come and play with them. Until the day the sandbox is removed.

Well said.

Also major LOL to everyone still whinging about the 72SP/h loss. Up until the neural remaps were available 18 months 2400SP/h was considered fast, and if you totally gimped your stats you could reach 2739SP/h in int/mem for dedicated science Achuras. You could never get near that speed in perc/will skills.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:13:00 - [1714]
 

Originally by: Mashie Saldana

Also major LOL to everyone still whinging about the 72SP/h loss. Up until the neural remaps were available 18 months 2400SP/h was considered fast, and if you totally gimped your stats you could reach 2739SP/h in int/mem for dedicated science Achuras. You could never get near that speed in perc/will skills.


LOL right back @ ya! With that sort of reasoning you should have no problem with pretty much any type of nerf, as there's always been a period in EVE history where things were even worse.

Takseen
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:19:00 - [1715]
 

I don't see the point of arguing against the extra attribute points to bring the new max learning speed about 2772(or was it 2776?). Just seems fair that the 5/5 crowd get to keep their old speed.

Rupicolous
Higher Ground
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:20:00 - [1716]
 


Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Rupicolous


All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive.


That's a rather silly statement. Only the learning skills are meta, nothing else. Period.



When you say "period" do you mean the end of your sentence or simply the small dot that signifies (my turn) ?

Ebisu Kami
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:36:00 - [1717]
 

Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 29/11/2010 11:01:19
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Say, a newbie has the following stats:

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


Wait wait wait... Before we continue: What's the learning-skill distribution and which implants does that toon have? Because there's a flaw somehwere in your maths. Let me show you why:

Originally by: Same toon after change
Intelligence: 23
Perception: 23
Charisma: 31
Memory: 31
Willpower: 27


The new base value will be 5+12=17, so your toon ends up with these "excess points" (redistributable points + implant bonus):

Intelligence: 6
Perception: 6
Charisma: 14
Memory: 14
Willpower: 10

Does anyone already notice something? Well, I'll get clearer... Let's assume, that this very toon has +5 implants on all attributes, so the toon ends up with that point allocation of freely distributable points:

Intelligence: 1
Perception: 1
Charisma: 9
Memory: 9
Willpower: 5

So that toon has 9+9+1+1+5=25 freely distributable points? How did that happen?

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:37:00 - [1718]
 

Originally by: Rupicolous

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Rupicolous


All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive.


That's a rather silly statement. Only the learning skills are meta, nothing else. Period.



When you say "period" do you mean the end of your sentence or simply the small dot that signifies (my turn) ?



Propably she means that anyone who knows what the word meta in this instance means can see the original message she replied to is nonsense.

Rupicolous
Higher Ground
Posted - 2010.11.29 10:39:00 - [1719]
 


Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Originally by: Rupicolous

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Rupicolous


All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive.


That's a rather silly statement. Only the learning skills are meta, nothing else. Period.



When you say "period" do you mean the end of your sentence or simply the small dot that signifies (my turn) ?



Propably she means that anyone who knows what the word meta in this instance means can see the original message she replied to is nonsense.



Activism at it's finest

Aldap
Posted - 2010.11.29 11:04:00 - [1720]
 

Edited by: Aldap on 29/11/2010 11:05:24

If I have on my account three characters: char1, char2 and char3, and each of them has 2kk sp in learning. Will I be able to distribute 6kk sp, for example, to a char1?

*sorry if this question has already sounded - too lazy to re-read 58 pages.


Biocross
Posted - 2010.11.29 11:10:00 - [1721]
 

Originally by: Aldap
Edited by: Aldap on 29/11/2010 11:05:24

If I have on my account three characters: char1, char2 and char3, and each of them has 2kk sp in learning. Will I be able to distribute 6kk sp, for example, to a char1?

*sorry if this question has already sounded - too lazy to re-read 58 pages.




No, the points are per char, not per account.

Also, good riddance to the learnings, may they rot in hell.

Much <3 to CCP

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.11.29 11:24:00 - [1722]
 

After writing one answer to this post, I figured I was doing the thing the wrong way around, so attempt II: you'll have to excuse the in-quote additions — they're there to make my interpretation clear.
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Say, a newbie has the following stats:
No, let's start at the end to figure out what his attributes and remaps are like.
Quote:
Intelligence: 23 → 5+12 base + 1 remap + 5 implant
Perception: 23 → 5+12 base + 1 remap + 5 implant
Charisma: 31 → 5+12 base + 9 remap + 5 implant
Memory: 31 → 5+12 base + 9 remap + 5 implant
Willpower: 27 → 5+12 base + 5 remap + 5 implant
What we have here is an impossible character, and that's what shows that something is amiss with your example. He has 135 attribute points and 25 remappable points, rather than the max 124 / 14 possible; he also must have a full set of +5 implants, which isn't very newbie-like, but that's less of an issue. PLEXes or donations are obvious possibilities. My guess is that somewhere along the way, you've figure the base attribute additions wrong.

So, that scenario simply didn't happen. Let's instead look at the starting attributes in your example and see what the more likely scenario is:
Quote:
Intelligence: 27 → 5 base +7 remap +5 implant +8 skill +8% from Learning IV
Perception: 27 → 5 base +7 remap +5 implant +8 skill +8% from Learning IV
Charisma: 19 → 5 base +0 remap +5 implant +8 skill +8% from Learning IV (actually 19.44)
Memory: 19 → 5 base +0 remap +5 implant +8 skill +8% from Learning IV (actually 19.44)
Willpower: 20 → 5 base +0 remap +5 implant +9 skill +8% from Learning IV (actually 20.52)
A far more newbie-like build. 4+4 attribute skills, Learning IV, and still those PLEXed/donated +5s. Now, we remap 8 AP from Int/Per to Cha/Mem (4 from each, since the goal was a balanced build).

Intelligence: 22.68 → 5 base +3 remap +5 implant +8 skill +8% from Learning IV
Perception: 22.68 → 5 base +3 remap +5 implant +8 skill +8% from Learning IV
Charisma: 23.76 → 5 base +4 remap +5 implant +8 skill +8% from Learning IV
Memory: 23.76 → 5 base +4 remap +5 implant +8 skill +8% from Learning IV
Willpower: 20.52 → 5 base +0 remap +5 implant +9 skill +8% from Learning IV (same as before)

Now we do the great Learning-to-base AP switch:

Intelligence: 25 → 5+12 base +3 remap +5 implant
Perception: 25 → 5+12 base +3 remap +5 implant
Charisma: 26 → 5+12 base +4 remap +5 implant
Memory: 26 → 5+12 base +4 remap +5 implant
Willpower: 22 → 5+12 base +0 remap +5 implant

No great shift in attribute values, the same degree of levelledness. Now, granted, I started this more realistic scenario based on the assumption that the character had equally trained learning skills across the board, which might not be the case in your scenario — after all, you mention doing the remap to "balance out the learning skills". So the real question here is, what is the actual breakdown between the attribute bonuses in your starting example? The end result is obviously wrong, so I have a sneaking suspicion that, as mentioned, either you've missed something in the Learning-to-base AP conversion, or your starting scenario is just as over-loaded with points as the end result.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.11.29 12:34:00 - [1723]
 

Some other reconstructive math later:

Assuming something close to your starting values, and with skewed learning skills that you could possible need to compensate for (bold shows changes from previous step):

I: 27.5 : 5 base +5 remap +5 implant +10 skill +10% from Learning V
P: 27.5 : 5 base +5 remap +5 implant +10 skill +10%
C: 19.8 : 5 base +1 remap +5 implant +7 skill +10%
M: 19.8 : 5 base +1 remap +5 implant +7 skill + 10%
W: 20.9 : 5 base +2 remap +5 implant +7 skill + 10%

With 4 pts shifted from each of Int/Per to Cha/Mem gives:

I: 23.1 : 5 base +1 remap +5 implant +10 skill +10%
P: 23.1 : 5 base +1 remap +5 implant +10 skill +10%
C: 24.2 : 5 base +5 remap +5 implant +7 skill +10%
M: 24.2 : 5 base +5 remap +5 implant +7 skill + 10%
W: 20.9 : 5 base +2 remap +5 implant +7 skill + 10%

…which, with the attribute change becomes:

I: 5+12 base +1 remap +5 implant = 23
P: 5+12 base +1 remap +5 implant = 23
C: 5+12 base +5 remap +5 implant = 27
M: 5+12 base +5 remap +5 implant = 27
W: 5+12 base +2 remap +5 implant = 24

That's a more likely scenario, but notice how the shift isn't nearly as dramatic as you make it out to be: the imbalance is exactly as high as the amount of AP you shuffle around through the remap — in this case 2×4 points, and the end result isn't nearly as imbalanced between the different attributes. Moreover, the loss from what was intended amounts to a measly .1 AP in Int/Per — for all others, it creates a vast improvement. Sure, it's perhaps not a "optimal" for the task ahead, but on the other hand, the remap was most likely done in order to train Cha and Mem-based skills more quickly, and that will still be the case, so it's quite likely that it all evens out in the end.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.29 12:42:00 - [1724]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Some other reconstructive math later:

Assuming something close to your starting values, and with skewed learning skills that you could possible need to compensate for (bold shows changes from previous step):

I: 27.5 : 5 base +5 remap +5 implant +10 skill +10% from Learning V
P: 27.5 : 5 base +5 remap +5 implant +10 skill +10%
C: 19.8 : 5 base +1 remap +5 implant +7 skill +10%
M: 19.8 : 5 base +1 remap +5 implant +7 skill + 10%
W: 20.9 : 5 base +2 remap +5 implant +7 skill + 10%

With 4 pts shifted from each of Int/Per to Cha/Mem gives:

I: 23.1 : 5 base +1 remap +5 implant +10 skill +10%
P: 23.1 : 5 base +1 remap +5 implant +10 skill +10%
C: 24.2 : 5 base +5 remap +5 implant +7 skill +10%
M: 24.2 : 5 base +5 remap +5 implant +7 skill + 10%
W: 20.9 : 5 base +2 remap +5 implant +7 skill + 10%

…which, with the attribute change becomes:

I: 5+12 base +1 remap +5 implant = 23
P: 5+12 base +1 remap +5 implant = 23
C: 5+12 base +5 remap +5 implant = 27
M: 5+12 base +5 remap +5 implant = 27
W: 5+12 base +2 remap +5 implant = 24

That's a more likely scenario, but notice how the shift isn't nearly as dramatic as you make it out to be: the imbalance is exactly as high as the amount of AP you shuffle around through the remap — in this case 2×4 points, and the end result isn't nearly as imbalanced between the different attributes. Moreover, the loss from what was intended amounts to a measly .1 AP in Int/Per — for all others, it creates a vast improvement. Sure, it's perhaps not a "optimal" for the task ahead, but on the other hand, the remap was most likely done in order to train Cha and Mem-based skills more quickly, and that will still be the case, so it's quite likely that it all evens out in the end.


Why, my Monday Morning math was rather off. :) Thanks for the corrections. And with all his other attributes getting bumped as well, indeed the effect isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. So I guess a remap isn't really necessary, after all.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.11.29 12:58:00 - [1725]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 29/11/2010 13:01:58
Originally by: Rupicolous
Sure there are other skills that take advantage of those attributes, but are they skills that were originally intended for the characters career ?
Most of the time, yes, but they were probably omitted because they wouldn't fit within the time line and/or without delaying the remap — now they don't, and again, if the person could stand the idea of waiting that extra time to begin with, he can still stand it.
Quote:
Doesn't block anything unless the player decides to skill them instead of a different skill
In other words, it blocks other in-game skill progression for meta-gaming purposes. It doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not, that in-game/meta-game collision should never happen — it's the hallmark of horrible design.
Quote:
All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive.
No, being passive is not a factor. No other skills are meta because they all deal with in-game mechanics; learning skills are because they do not.
Quote:
Again, Meta because they are passsive.
Incorrect. Meta has nothing to do with passiveness — it has to do with what the skill affects.
Quote:
Getting rid of something is not new content, it is old content being removed. Gamers are brought to the market by the content itself, not the lack of.
The point is (now that you've understood the level we're talking about): removing the learning skills is an improvement on the game — it progresses the game development and keeps it from stagnating. Gamers (especially EVE ones) have shown that they are quite willing to be drawn back in by such improvements.

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Why, my Monday Morning math was rather off. :) Thanks for the corrections.
That was much lunch break gone you nasty evil person you! Wink

But yes, like I hinted at, I didn't even pick up on that bit before already writing a full post going through the changes, and only at the end did I go "hey, something is very off here…" and I scrapped the whole thing so I could work backwards instead. So I blame Mondays too — it always works.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.29 13:37:00 - [1726]
 

Edited by: Ranka Mei on 29/11/2010 13:37:23
Originally by: Tippia

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Why, my Monday Morning math was rather off. :) Thanks for the corrections.
That was much lunch break gone you nasty evil person you! Wink

On that note, allow me to express my hope that the good folks at Battleclinic are watching this too, and are already eagerly thinking about an EVEMON upate; because I'm have the darndest hard time figuring out the exact new training speed for my non-main skills. EVEMON has got me spoiled and lazy. :P

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.29 13:59:00 - [1727]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Originally by: Rupicolous

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Rupicolous


All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive.


That's a rather silly statement. Only the learning skills are meta, nothing else. Period.

When you say "period" do you mean the end of your sentence or simply the small dot that signifies (my turn) ?


Propably she means that anyone who knows what the word meta in this instance means can see the original message she replied to is nonsense.

^^ This. Except that she's a he. :)

@Rupicolous: 'Meta' is like when you ask your favorite genie to grant you three wishes, and your last wish is wishing for three more wishes. The latter is a meta-wish, because it's a wish for wishes. Same with learning skills: they are meta-skills because, unlike every other skill, they pertain to learning itself: you learn learning with them, so to speak.

And I'm not sure where exactly 'passive' entered into the discussion; but it looks to me someone needs to look up the definition of 'meta' again -- and it ain't Tippia. :)

Ebisu Kami
Posted - 2010.11.29 14:21:00 - [1728]
 

Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 29/11/2010 14:29:22
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Why, my Monday Morning math was rather off. :) Thanks for the corrections. And with all his other attributes getting bumped as well, indeed the effect isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. So I guess a remap isn't really necessary, after all.


Well, I can see the viability for a remap. However that really only seems to apply to people, who are...
  • a) having learning skills in their queue and hence might get their queue shortened by a large margin by the change or

  • b) those who haven't done learning skills to 4/4 or above yet and due to the boost by higher attributes might end their queue early, like type a-people

However in both cases their attributes will get a considerable attribute-boost, so that might mitigate some of the time they have to spend on "off-attribute training" (plus the refund or the SP they do not have to waste or wait to pay-off in the long run). Those two types are the people, which actually have a reason to complain or did I miss anyone?

Shasz
Angels of Anarchy
Posted - 2010.11.29 15:27:00 - [1729]
 

To all those with complaints:

There is more to Eve than optimizing how skilled you are at waiting for a skill to complete. Go build/buy/blowup something and worry less about whether that level 5 will complete today or tomorrow.


To the rest of us:

Please pass the cake.

Master Flakattack
Posted - 2010.11.29 15:28:00 - [1730]
 

Originally by: Rupicolous
Originally by: Tippia
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.


Doesn't block anything unless the player decides to skill them instead of a different skill in other words it's a choice that any player can make whenever they choose. All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive.

To correct your post, most skills have a meta effect, in addition to being prereqs for equipment/ships. Learning skills affect your attributes, which affect learning speed. They only indirectly effect gameplay and are thus purely meta-game skills.

Also, missions, ships, equipment, solar systems, wormholes, stations, agents, etc. are content. I don't think it's fair to the rest of the game's content to call the Learning skills "content".

Vildrin
Entwi De Maila
Posted - 2010.11.29 16:00:00 - [1731]
 

CCP has the power to make nearly everyone here happy or happier here, they should get in the holiday spirit on December 14th +13 attributes across the board, give everyone out of trial a free remap to compensate any inconvience.

I'd likely be a bitter one if my learning speed was reduced as well. As it stands I break even with this change. So I kinda see both sides of the fence.

Side 1: Older playerbase trained the learning skills to Max(likely pre-training multiplier)

Middle: Old + New trained to 5/4 (likely very happy with this change)

Side 2: Newer playerbase train the Leanring to 4/4 or not much at all(Happiest)

So I can see why Side 1 can feel different degrees of bitterness, why not just make them a little happier as it isn't the 72sp an hour they are likely missing it is likely the 2-5 months of reduced training speed to bring those skills up to where they are today. The agruement of they get those SP back isn't the issue. It is the time they burnt to get where they are today I'd feel pretty friggen bitter about it too.

So I'm taking the side of those that paved my way in this game. Without the Veterans of this game it may not be what it is today.

Dmoney3788
Black Aces
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.11.29 17:09:00 - [1732]
 

And the treadnaught continues Laughing

Nothing funnier than whiny nerd rage. Feel free to keep whining oh you butthurt max SP'ers you. But remember, all your whining and no matter how strongly you think you're "right", CCP is not going to give you any special treatment or cancel the removal of the learning skills when its got a damn good approval rating:

http://poll.pollcode.com/ClQ_result?v

Gallians
Posted - 2010.11.29 17:22:00 - [1733]
 

You know, I have come to see the other side. It truly would not hurt anyone, and make even more people happy if the attributes were increased more, and everyone got a remap, akin to the original CSM proposal.

Training slower for the 5/5 people does seem like a lousy gift. And although I am happy with learnings going, they have a point in their rage and sadness.

C'mon CCP, one more.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.29 17:30:00 - [1734]
 

Originally by: Gallians
You know, I have come to see the other side. It truly would not hurt anyone, and make even more people happy if the attributes were increased more, and everyone got a remap, akin to the original CSM proposal.

Training slower for the 5/5 people does seem like a lousy gift. And although I am happy with learnings going, they have a point in their rage and sadness.

C'mon CCP, one more.

Can't say I've seen a lot of outright rage. :) Having just arrived at the moment where I would start training at 2772 sp/h, seeing it get lowered is a bit of a bummer, though. Especially since all CCP has to do, really, is to adjust the already existing multiplier to 1.026x, and everything is solved immediately.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.11.29 17:32:00 - [1735]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
LOL right back @ ya! With that sort of reasoning you should have no problem with pretty much any type of nerf, as there's always been a period in EVE history where things were even worse.

I will get my learning speed reduced to 2700SP/h as everyone else that is min/maxed at the moment. However I'm still skilling up nearly 400SP/h higher than when this char was born many moons ago. I'm pretty much nerf proof as long as CCP doesn't get rid of every ship below BS. Laughing

I just ordered the new EVE box to get one more account started after DT on the 14th. It will be very nice to not do the bloody learning skills yet again as I have had that pleasure four times already. I'm actually a bit at a loss how I will do the remaps this time as I'm for once isn't forced to go int/mem from start. Another interesting feature due to the lack of learning skills is that you can use cheaper clones as you don't have to hold an extra 3-4m SP of "padding" in there.

Pantload
Gallente
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Flatline.
Posted - 2010.11.29 18:16:00 - [1736]
 

Edited by: Pantload on 29/11/2010 18:38:10
Originally by: Gallians
You know, I have come to see the other side. It truly would not hurt anyone, and make even more people happy if the attributes were increased more, and everyone got a remap, akin to the original CSM proposal.

Training slower for the 5/5 people does seem like a lousy gift. And although I am happy with learnings going, they have a point in their rage and sadness.

C'mon CCP, one more.


What is this? Why have you fought me tooth-and-nail only to come to this thread and post exactly what I've been proposing? I have to stop posting on the forums. I'm going to wind up as crazy as you people.


On topic...
The learning skill changes are fine except for one thing: Slightly reduced training speeds for those who had their learnings already maxed. There should be a very easy tweak to the upcoming proposed changes that will easily fix that and then pretty much everyone is happy.

And please people, refrain from telling me about your imaginary 8 year time-span until the slower training affects me. I will be training slower immediately after the changes. Simple as that.

Also, I'm not motivated by greed, hypocrisy, anger, childishness, *insert whatever epithet you're going to hurl*. I'm asking only for fairness. Fair is a change that doesn't boost nearly everyone while slightly nerfing some people. Fair is everyone gets a boost or at least remains the same. If you're like me, you just want to keep training at same speed. If you trained your learning skills to any lesser degree then it could be anywhere from a small boost to a huge boost. Great. good. Everyone is happy. And the solution was FAIR.

Flame on.


*edit*
Hooligan Tool has posted another one of his polls. This poll pertains to this subject and to a remap related issue. Link here: Linkage

Rupicolous
Higher Ground
Posted - 2010.11.29 19:30:00 - [1737]
 


Originally by: Tippia
Most of the time, yes, but they were probably omitted because they wouldn't fit within the time line and/or without delaying the remap — now they don't, and again, if the person could stand the idea of waiting that extra time to begin with, he can still stand it.


No, they were omitted because they did not fall in line wth the career path that was anticipated for said character and the only reason one would be willing to wait is because the remap provided a benefit for that wait. With a gap in a skill que that would have been filled by learning skills the time becomes less than optimal and takes a turn for the worse becoming frivolously spent.

Originally by: Tippia
In other words, it blocks other in-game skill progression for meta-gaming purposes. It doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not, that in-game/meta-game collision should never happen — it's the hallmark of horrible design.


Most people would have probably given up on you by now but i'm convinced, by the time we are done discussing this, you will have started to see things a bit different than the ways you have been brainwashed to see. If there is any conflict between learning skills and any other skill it is simply the get less now to get more later, train of thought, it's called an investment and it is a choice. Having choice is the basis for sandbox style gaming and is a foundation which EVE has built itself upon.

Originally by: Tippia
No, being passive is not a factor. No other skills are meta because they all deal with in-game mechanics; learning skills are because they do not.


Meta in and of itself means out of game. All skills are passive because they do not require continuous regulation by mouse clicks in order to control. There is no difference between a Gunnery skill and a Learning skill simply because both are set and then left alone till they are completed. There is nothing in game that requires continuous regulation of the skill or it's advancement.

Originally by: Tippia
The point is (now that you've understood the level we're talking about): removing the learning skills is an improvement on the game — it progresses the game development and keeps it from stagnating. Gamers (especially EVE ones) have shown that they are quite willing to be drawn back in by such improvements.


Removing the learning skills hurts the game because it takes away choices that help define a characters worth, whatever form that worth may come in. The only thing stagnant here is your mind and it's lack of understanding. Flavors of the month are common and what brings a new or old character to or back to the game itself remains a variable that is as old as the world itself.

So it's safe to say that if the learning skills have been in the game this long already, it would probably be a great idea to leave them in for another 6+ years. Rather than go off the deep end trying to come up with outlandish ideas for "Improving" the game, take a step back and realize that they were there for a reason and that reason hasn't gone anywhere, so there should be no reason to remove them. Sometimes it's just best to let a sleeping dog lie.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.11.29 19:43:00 - [1738]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 29/11/2010 19:46:25
Originally by: Rupicolous
No, they were omitted because they did not fall in line wth the career path that was anticipated for said character and the only reason one would be willing to wait is because the remap provided a benefit for that wait.
No, the only reason one would be willing to wait was that one made the decision to do so to begin with. Now you can get more useful stuff in there as a bonus.
Quote:
Having choice is the basis for sandbox style gaming and is a foundation which EVE has built itself upon.
And as everyone keeps pointing out: they weren't really a choice.
Quote:
Meta in and of itself means out of game. All skills are passive because they do not require continuous regulation by mouse clicks in order to control.
That still has nothing to do with them being meta or not. Again, it's what they affect that determines this, and…
Quote:
There is no difference between a Gunnery skill and a Learning skill simply because both are set and then left alone till they are completed.
…there is a huge difference in what they affect: Learning skills affect meta-mechanics; all other skills affect mechanics.
Quote:
Removing the learning skills hurts the game because it takes away choices that help define a characters worth, whatever form that worth may come in.
There was no choice, and the skills did exactly zero for the usefulness of the character. Removing them adds choice since people can now free to pick their path with far more freedom and with less things making everyone same:y.
Quote:
Flavors of the month are common and what brings a new or old character to or back to the game itself remains a variable that is as old as the world itself.
Yes: changes in the game — a move away from stagnation. It is the thing that has always brought people back.
Quote:
So it's safe to say that if the learning skills have been in the game this long already, it would probably be a great idea to leave them in for another 6+ years.
No. It's safe to say that, since CCP have been wanting them gone for the last four years, it's about time they actually do that and move on to fixing the next problem holding the game back.
Quote:
Rather than go off the deep end trying to come up with outlandish ideas for "Improving" the game, take a step back and realize that they were there for a reason and that reason hasn't gone anywhere,
The reason may still be there (or not — one stated reason has been removed), but there are now far better ways of solving that problem. Learning skills were never a good solution to begin with, and now they have been replaced by something better.

Oh, and keep the ad hominems up, please — this tells me you have lost already, and it warms my heart to see you so immensely scared of what I have to say that you have to resort to that kind of tactic. Laughing

Rupicolous
Higher Ground
Posted - 2010.11.29 19:44:00 - [1739]
 


Originally by: Ranka Mei
@Rupicolous: 'Meta' is like when you ask your favorite genie to grant you three wishes, and your last wish is wishing for three more wishes. The latter is a meta-wish, because it's a wish for wishes. Same with learning skills: they are meta-skills because, unlike every other skill, they pertain to learning itself: you learn learning with them, so to speak.

And I'm not sure where exactly 'passive' entered into the discussion; but it looks to me someone needs to look up the definition of 'meta' again -- and it ain't Tippia. :)


I've looked up meta again for a refresher and 'am quite confident i have a better understanding of it than you or Tippia. With that said you can reference my last post for your instructional pleasure.

Originally by: Master Flakattack
To correct your post, most skills have a meta effect, in addition to being prereqs for equipment/ships. Learning skills affect your attributes, which affect learning speed. They only indirectly effect gameplay and are thus purely meta-game skills.

Also, missions, ships, equipment, solar systems, wormholes, stations, agents, etc. are content. I don't think it's fair to the rest of the game's content to call the Learning skills "content".


Has nothing to do with being fair or not, if it's a feature that a player uses in game, it can be considered content. Content is the substance which is created and installed into the game on a level of interaction that allows a player to manipulate it's condition. If I can interact with something in game, that something is content regardless of it's depth or lack ther of.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.11.29 19:48:00 - [1740]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 29/11/2010 19:50:08
Originally by: Rupicolous
I've looked up meta again for a refresher and 'am quite confident i have a better understanding of it than you or Tippia.
Not even close. You still think it's about locus and control, when it is about level of reference and about effect.


Pages: first : previous : ... 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 ... : 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