open All Channels
seplocked Skill Discussions
blankseplocked Pottsey Theroy vs. Payoff Theory for Learning Skills; Who was right?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Clementina
The Scope
Posted - 2010.12.19 22:40:00 - [1]
 

I want to know who was correct for learning skills training theory. Recall the Pottsey Theorists believe that a person should train the both the basic and the advanced old learning skills to level 5, in order to be able to take the most advantage of changes in the game that would necessitate training for some new item. Meanwhile the Payoff Theorists believed that it was not necessary to train the old advanced learning skills to level 5 because the payoff from having the advanced learning skill that high did not happen in a reasonable amount of time. One of the debates the skills forum had is Here.

Yes, because the learning skills have been removed, this is an academic argument. However, this is probably the best time to have this argument because nobody is invested in the outcome any longer, but at the same time most of the people reading still have had experience with the old learning skills.

(For full disclosure, My first Level 5 skill was Analytical Mind, and my second Level 5 skill was Logic (Both Intelligence boosting Learning skills) when learning skills existed, I leaned more towards Payoff Theory, but I had garnered several Level 5's in Advanced Learning skills.)

Lagruna Zegata
Posted - 2010.12.19 22:51:00 - [2]
 

From what I remember Pottsey faced the biggest disagreements from people concerning Presence 5 training. It was shown that in the vast majority of cases training Presence 5 was simply not worth it no matter how long you stayed in EVE afterwards. This may have changed with the new PI skills, however.

Pottsey's main argument for training advanced learnings to 5 was based on flexibilty of training. In other words, she claimed training the advanced learnings to 5 had a higher implied payoff in terms of game utility if you desired to change your training plan often or "on the fly".

I believe she may have been correct, but only in very limited and specialized circumstances.

~LZ

Lagruna Zegata
Posted - 2010.12.19 22:59:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Lagruna Zegata on 19/12/2010 23:01:53
(Double Post)

Forgot to add.

Also, it's worth noting that training the advanced learnings to 5 actually had more benefit for those who spend most of their time in 0.0, lowsec, or WH space. Most people won't wear uber learning implants in dangerous space, and having lower grade implants would actually make training advanced learnings to 5 more beneficial over the long run since it added a greater amount of training speed on a percentage basis in that scenario.

~LZ

Estel Arador
Posted - 2010.12.19 23:55:00 - [4]
 

The matter has become (even more) hopelessly complicated with the skill point reimbursement. In hindsight, it would've been absolutely beneficial to train any learning skill to level V, as long as your attributes were optimised for the skill. After all, you'll get both the faster learning (for a while) and the skill points (eventually) to put in 'useful' skills.

Now add the argument of whether or not this should be taken into account to the myriad of previous arguments, and you've got another endless discussion on your hands.


(As for me, I didn't train the advanced learning skills to V, despite knowing it would be beneficial by the reckoning of both "Payoff Theorists" and "Pottsey Theorists".)

ivar R'dhak
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.12.20 01:14:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Estel Arador
(As for me, I didn't train the advanced learning skills to V, despite knowing it would be beneficial by the reckoning of both "Payoff Theorists" and "Pottsey Theorists".)
Dito, and glad for it.
This way I now had lvl5s to train that were optimal to my current attrib layout. Gaining quite some points for weak skills not even close to good attributes.

IMHO after CCP got rid of the training during account cancellation all this lvl5 theorizing already became moot.

Apart from some longtime RMT drones, I donīt believe there were that many people constantly subscribed for that long. Or even holding on to their original accounts.

Clementina
The Scope
Posted - 2010.12.20 04:12:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Estel Arador
The matter has become (even more) hopelessly complicated with the skill point reimbursement. In hindsight, it would've been absolutely beneficial to train any learning skill to level V, as long as your attributes were optimised for the skill. After all, you'll get both the faster learning (for a while) and the skill points (eventually) to put in 'useful' skills.


I understand that, and was thinking that the way that learning skills ended made training them to level 5 ultimately correct. Witness that everyone was training optimized level 5's between the announcement of the learning skills removal, and their actual removal, so that they could put the skill points into skills requiring Charisma... er I mean unoptimized skill groups.

However this particular end could not have been relied upon. The developers could have just done nothing, or taken the skills without reimbursement.

DarthCaboose
Posted - 2010.12.20 07:41:00 - [7]
 

One of my arguments to Pottsey was about taking the Advanced Charisma learning skill to level 5. At the time (before PI added a bunch of Charisma related skills), there were just not enough Charisma-based skills to justify taking that advanced learning skill to level 5, as you could never realize the Payoff Theory.

But I don't want to re-hash this. Some people just aren't tuned to understanding math, and the difference is relatively negligible in the first place...

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.20 07:57:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Pottsey on 20/12/2010 07:59:43
Clementina said "I want to know who was correct for learning skills training theory."
Both ideas are correct the problem is people didn't understand my idea and got to caught up with the payoff math and did not realise there are other situations that payoff didnt work with. A lot of people didn't and still don't understand the math. People didn't realise even if you had not hit payoff you can still finished your skill plan much faster which is a benefit.

Just look at DarthCaboose post. "there were just not enough Charisma-based skills to justify taking that advanced learning skill to level 5, as you could never realize the Payoff Theory." yet without hitting this payoff theory I finished my skill plan over 17days faster which is justification for advanced learning skill to level 5. If I followed his and others bad advance about payoff I would be months behind my training plans over my acounts.

I still stand by payoff by itself is a terrible way to measure the value of learning skills. Payoff ignores many of the benefits of learning skills which gives people bad advice. It is a 100% fact you could benefit from learning skills before payoff is hit. Anyone who argues against that clearly doesn't understand the math or ideas.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.12.20 08:30:00 - [9]
 

For me it was worth it training the Adv learnings to 5 as I had them for more than 4 years so the payoff for me quite happened.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.12.20 10:53:00 - [10]
 

Pottsey theory works in case of unlimited training time. for any case where skills to be trained are limited or time to train is limited, payoff theory is mathematically correct. for example, training alt for R&D has limit. training 3 months of Learning skill was pointless if only 4-5 mil useful SP was needed. similarly, 14 day trial has time limit where everything else was more important than any advanced learning L5. however, for a main that will train indefinitely, Pottsey theory has merit. even Presence 5 would have eventually payoff, as infinite training time "guarantees" CCP will eventually put more Charisma skills in game.

at most, Pottsey theory is sub-case of payoff theory where total training time or skills equals infinite. of course, whether infinity is something you want to count on is whole different ballgame. most of us mortals... yeah :)

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.12.20 11:16:00 - [11]
 

oh, and just to spice it up:

"it ain't over while the fat lady sings" or attribute implants are still in the game :)

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.20 12:37:00 - [12]
 

Jagga Spikes I donít think you understand my theory at all. You pretty much just said the opposite of my theory with timelines. The main point of my idea was you can get a large benefit without having hit payoff. The timeframe for my theory to work is much smaller then payoff.

I also donít agree with payoff being mathematically correct for working out if learning skills were worth getting. There are just to many exmples of where payoff fails to work.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.12.20 13:18:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Pottsey
...
I also donít agree with payoff being mathematically correct for working out if learning skills were worth getting. There are just to many exmples of where payoff fails to work.



such as?

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.20 13:53:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Pottsey on 20/12/2010 13:54:31
Such as where a new ship came out, Orca in my case and I started a new skill plan based around that ship and finished the skill plan over 17 days early due to having Charisma adv learning lvl 5. Payoff says I am worse off, but in actual fact I finished the skill plan early which is a benefit. If I had not trained adv5 due to what payoff said I would have been worse off.

Payoff fails to factor in changes to skill plans something that happens a lot over 3 years. The only time payoff is accurate is when you never, not once change the skill plan over the period off payoff time. I bet very few if any players never change skill plans.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.12.20 14:14:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 20/12/2010 14:16:29
to make your example more generic, lets say this:

- two characters are created with equal starting attributes and skills;
- they do not remap and start training all the same skills, except
- one trains Presence 5, other trains "something else"
- time goes on, CCP adds Orca and Industrial Command ships

note one: "something else" could have been Orca requirements (or part of), therefore character with Presence 5 would train requirements faster, but other character might get to skill itself faster.

but lets say neither has requirements.

- one trains requirements faster, other trains slower
- at the end of the day, first character has: bunch of skills, Presence 5, Industrial Command skill and requirements, and "little extra" (due to Presence 5)
- other character has: bunch of skills, "something else", Industrial Command skill and requirements

so how much is "something else" more or less worth it than "little extra"?

edit: typo

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.20 16:11:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Pottsey on 20/12/2010 16:11:46
Jagga Spikes said ďso how much is "something else" more or less worth it than "little extra"?Ē
Thatís variable and changes player to player. Sometimes the player is better off with something else, sometimes better off with little extra. In my experience most ended up better with little extra as plans change over years.

If you are spending all or most of your time in the new stuff and not using the old stuff then the little extra is far more worth it over the something else. I know I havenít touched anything much that users my skill points from the first few years of play. I never mine anymore, so the extra skill points I do use are much better spent in my mind.

Using a real life example. My alt finished the Orca training around 17days faster. Then T3 came out and I just about maxed out T3 skills before the version of me without adv5ís would have even started T3 as they would still be on the Orca plan. Later I move to wormholes and so need to learn some different command ship again due to adv5 skills in general I was not only in a position to start the new command ship plan sooner but I finished the plan in a shorter time. This pattern would have continued if the learning skills were not removed. In this expansion I started a new T2 ammo training plan due to the ammo rebalance. Even though the plan is no longer faster due to having learning skills I still have still started the plan sooner due to finishing my last plan sooner.

With both my characters the skills I would have trained instead of Presence 5 and other adv5 skills are nowhere near as good as the extra skills I gained from having adv5. Clearly this is not the case for everyone but it happens a lot.

Tripoli
XenTech
Posted - 2010.12.20 17:46:00 - [17]
 

Pottsey, as usual, your logic is impeccable. Always glad to have folks like you around. Cool

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.12.20 18:38:00 - [18]
 

saving 17 days on Orca because of Presence 5? you can do better than that. you could say you had Leadership and Mining Foreman trained, but you were not the only one. saved hours, maybe, at best. besides, someone could have had that instead of Presence 5, and "something else".

and for old stuff? things like electronics, engineering, mechanic, energy mangements, gunnery, missile launchers, spaceship operation? i wouldn't call that useless old stuff.

none of T3 is based on Charisma, so saying that you trained it faster than others doesn't hold. saying people would be still on Orca plan because they had to train "17 days" is forgetting that they had "17 days" of other skills that you don't. when YOU're gonna catch up? well, you have "17 days" to catch up :)

you are conveniently evading possibility that "little extra" eventually becomes "something else", which happens exactly when Presence 5 pays off. each fraction of time that you train faster, was paid by Presence 5.

in other words, every time you trained something faster, someone was already there.

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.20 19:36:00 - [19]
 

Jagga Spikes said "none of T3 is based on Charisma, so saying that you trained it faster than others doesn't hold. saying people would be still on Orca plan because they had to train "17 days" is forgetting that they had "17 days" of other skills that you don't. when YOU're gonna catch up? well, you have "17 days" to catch up :)"
I see you still don't understand it. T3 doesn't need to be based on Charisma for me to train it faster. What happened was I finished my other skill plan 17days sooner due to Charisma. That meant I managed to start my none Charisma T3 skill plan 17days sooner which in turn means it finished over 17days before the version of me without Adv5. It's a knock on effect.

Think of it like this. (These numbers are off, as this is just an example not using my real timeframes)
adv5 version of me starts the T3 plan on the 1st of March and the plan takes 30days.
adv4 version of me starts the T3 plan on the 17th of March and takes 35days.

Av4 has to start the plan later as its still working on the Orca plan. Not only does it start later but it takes 5 days longer to train. But he has some skills I dont care about that adv5 is missing.



Jagga Spikes said " saying people would be still on Orca plan because they had to train "17 days" is forgetting that they had "17 days" of other skills that you don't. when YOU're gonna catch up? well, you have "17 days" to catch up :)"
Yes the other version have x amount of days of skills I don't have. But I have 17 or more days of current skills I use over the other person. Its all about which skill plan matters the most. How many people have stoped a skill plan and started a new one as the new skill plan become more important than the old plan?

For example again using a real one. This account Pottsey was training mining skills and I didn't fully max them out. Instead I stopped to train adv5 learning skills. If I didn't train adv5 learning skills I would have maxed out my mining skills. Over the years I completely stopped mining but gained month's worth of skills I wouldn't have had without adv5.

This has left me in a situation were the old skills I would have trained instead of adv5 are worthless or very low value. The extra skills I gained from adv5 are very high value and mean more then what I lost. Like I said before its not a case of one path is better. Some players are better with adv4 and some players are better with adv5. It's not a clear cut case one path is better all the time.



Jagga Spikes said "in other words, every time you trained something faster, someone was already there. "
On my main account that's impossible. There is no way what so ever that adv4 got there before me. In my case there are only two possible outcomes. adv5 finished the current skill plan first. adv4 or less, takes weeks or months longer.

Yes adv5 has a few very low value skills missing that an adv4 version of me would have. But adv4 is massively behind on the current important skill plans. So I say adv5 is better off at least in my case.




Jagga Spikes said " and for old stuff? things like electronics, engineering, mechanic, energy mangements, gunnery, missile launchers, spaceship operation? i wouldn't call that useless old stuff."
It can be uselss, due to the Stealth Bomber change my missile skills become 100% useless for the ships I can fly (Gallente) and I had to train a lot of new skills to re-use the Stealth Bomber just as one example. Situations change, what's useful one year is not the next. Having adv5 let me adapt to those changes much faster. Without adv5 I would have taken much longer to max out the Stealth Bomber after the change.

Swidgen
Posted - 2010.12.20 20:35:00 - [20]
 

10/10 op for kicking poopsie's nest again Very Happy

Poopsie never did understand the math behind the break-even point with the learning skills (see how many times he uses the word "payoff" without the slightest understanding of what it means).

I was not in favor of the removal of learning skills. Strangely enough, I agree with Poopsie's conclusion that they were all worth training to 5, but my criteria for their value was based on mathematical fact, whereas Poopsie's was based on a mumbo-jumbo belief system with no basis in reality. Poopsie never had a real "theory". A theory is something that allows you to make predictions and test whether or not the predictions are accurate. Poopsie's theory as to learning skills has the same relationship to reality as the theory of intelligent design. It fails to rise to the level of "theory" at all.

Nevertheless, in this instance I am glad the learning skills are gone. Noobs will no longer be subjected to Poopsie's idiotic ideas.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.12.20 20:49:00 - [21]
 

so, you didn't save 17 days due to Presence 5, but due to all advanced 5 and probably +5 implants. and 5 days difference could be there, if tight. i can go with that. Cybernetics, Logic and Clarity 5 were worth every point.

what else you got?

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.20 22:00:00 - [22]
 

Swidgen I do understand the math its pretty basic stuff. Its people like you who don't understand the systems as proven many times before. Which I guess is why you resort to childish name calling.
If I am wrong prove it with facts. People like you are as bad as the intelligent design bunch that refuse to acknowledge facts and just flat out say everyone else is wrong no matter the evidence. Just because you fail to understand something it does not mean it's wrong.


Swidgen said " Poopsie never had a real "theory". A theory is something that allows you to make predictions and test whether or not the predictions are accurate."
Which I have done many times. I had a theory that I could finish skill plans faster due to adv5 learning skills before payoff has been hit. I tested the theory out and the predictions where accurate. I managed to more than once to end skill plans faster due to adv5 then without all before payoff had been hit. Other people then tested my theory and proved it accurate as well. Then people like you who don't understand it say it's wrong without posting any facts on why it's wrong. Just telling someone they are wrong without evidence is a bad arguemtn.
I class skill plans ending weeks or months faster as a benefit.



Jagga Spikes said "so, you didn't save 17 days due to Presence 5, but due to all advanced 5 and probably +5 implants. and 5 days difference could be there, if tight. i can go with that. Cybernetics, Logic and Clarity 5 were worth every point."
No its 17 days just from Presence 5 in fact its more now. It was 17days on just the skill related to the Orca skill plan. I have to dig though my old notes or old posts to get full accurate details which I don't have time for right now. As I recall just the leadership skills without implants had a 17days difference between Presence 4 & Presence 5 for me. If I add willpower adv5 and charisma adv 5the skill plan ended around 26days faster just for the leadership skills. I have charisma as well so if my charisma was at a more normal level it would have been even more days saved.

My alt lives in 0.0 and wormhole space so no implants. My main does have +5 implants.

Clementina
The Scope
Posted - 2010.12.21 02:19:00 - [23]
 

The Strength of Payoff Theory had always been the Payoff Math. Assuming that a person, (1) Knows what they want to train from then they decide on their training plan, and (2) doesn't alter their preferences based upon how the game was altered or on their own perceived enjoyment of having certain skills, we can determine mathematically that Advanced Learning 5's had poor payoff and Presence (and Charisma) didn't have they payoff greater than the 15 days or whatever it would have been to train Presence to level 5. The 15 days of skill points in advanced learning would have given less than 15 days of skill points anywhere else.

The Strength of Pottsey Theory on the other hand had always been for assuming that a person's training preferences would change with an upcoming patch. If someone changes, then they would of course benefit from having the advanced learning skills, provided that new skills used the particular learning skills that one trained to level 5.

Interestingly enough, Pottsey theory supposes that training decided on latter is more valuable than training decided on earlier. A person may have wanted to train a subject, and started doing so until a patch made other training more attractive. The previous training then becomes disused with time. Meaning that the earlier skill points do not provide as much pleasure as later skill points. Witness the quote here
Originally by: "Pottsey"
This account Pottsey was training mining skills and I didn't fully max them out. Instead I stopped to train adv5 learning skills. If I didn't train adv5 learning skills I would have maxed out my mining skills. Over the years I completely stopped mining but gained month's worth of skills I wouldn't have had without adv5.

Payoff theory I believe assumes that all non-learning skill points were equally valuable, and learning skill points were worthless from a hedonistic standpoint.


Estel Arador
Posted - 2010.12.21 19:46:00 - [24]
 

Pottsey's thinking requires arbitrary 'resets' of skill plans where all skills trained before a certain point become worthless and irrelevant. Pottsey does not take into account training time of the learning skills, or the possibility of having trained useful skills instead of the learning skills. I do not subscribe to this view; what has been trained already cannot be ignored just because you're switching skill plans (/training for something new).

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.21 20:21:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Pottsey on 21/12/2010 20:22:54
Estel Arador how can you still not understand it after all this time? Why do you keep going on about rubbish that you know is not true? You know full well I take into account training time of learning skills so why do you keep lying and say I don't? Yes I do factor resets into skillplans as that's common. What is very rare are skill plans without changes over years. Ignoring changes to skill plans which is a common accordance is a bad way to look at things. My theory does not require all skills trained before a certain point to become worthless or irrelevant. I also factor in the possibility of having trained useful skills instead of the learning skills so again you are wrong. I never once said ignore what is trained just because you switch plans, in fact I said the opposite and you must factor in skills trained before learning skills. Very clearly you have no real understanding of what is being talked about.

My theory does not require arbitrary 'resets'. It works perfectly well without resets of skill plans. That's why my theory is better, it works with and without resets. While the payoff theory only works without resets which is a highly unrealistic and rare play style which doesn't work for most players over a large time frame.

Estel Arador
Posted - 2010.12.21 20:43:00 - [26]
 

We've discussed this many time, I won't do it all over again. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand your position. My disagreement is mainly due to this:

When you say "My alt finished the Orca training around 17days faster.", you are not taking into account that you spent 60+ days training learning skills before starting the Orca plan, and you are not taking into account that fact that instead of 60+ days of learning skills one could have trained 60+ days worth of skills which may have been prerequisites for the Orca.

Nanferr
Posted - 2010.12.21 23:09:00 - [27]
 

Assumption:
player is hardcore
player knows what he is doing
player just started playing and doesnt want to buy isk with PLEX.

Learning skill first is bad. The example is simple.

character A: train V/V/iv learning, fly raven, earn isk (50 days of learning)
character B: traing III/IV/III learning, fly raven, earn isk ( 5 days of learning)

apparently character B flies raven 1 month faster then character A
on day 30, character B has raven (end of 1.6m sp bonus)
on day 30, character A is still learning learning.
assuming hardcore enuf for 40m isk/hour 800m isk a day, he earns 4b in 5 days.

on the 35th day, character B can buy a toon with perfect learning, any T2 ship or V battleship he wants, even a cap pilot, or a mission grindier

on the 35th day, character A cant even do anythng yet.

QED.

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:42:00 - [28]
 

Estel Arador said "The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand your position. My disagreement is mainly due to this:
It's not the fact you disagreed with me that means you don't understand me. It's the reasons you post that show you clearly don't understand it. You are saying I am doing things that are a direct opposite of what I am doing. You are saying I am not doing things that I am in actually fact doing. That's what shows you don't understand it. Just look at "My disagreement is mainly due to this" so the main reason you don't agree with me is because of something you think I am not doing that in actually fact I am doing? Just goes to show you don't understand the idea.



Estel Arador said "When you say "My alt finished the Orca training around 17days faster.", you are not taking into account that you spent 60+ days training learning skills before starting the Orca plan, and you are not taking into account that fact that instead of 60+ days of learning skills one could have trained 60+ days worth of skills which may have been prerequisites for the Orca."
Which again shows you have no understanding as that is not what I am doing. I am taking into account the days spent on learning before the Orca plan. I am taking into account the x days of skills I would have had instead of learning skills, clearly you don't understand it. I am factoring in the extremely small chance of training the Orca prerequisites skills before knowing what they are and instead of training learning skills. In fact on my main account if I trained all the possible for me prerequisites before I got learning skills it would still have meant that adv5 finished the skill plan faster but you like to ignore that going by past history. What if I didn't train any of the prerequisites the complete plan would have ended over 30days faster due to adv5 learning skills, which is a massive benefit you seem to like to ignore as well.

If you understood the argument you would realise that in the example on my alt using the Orca skill plans ends around 20 to 26days faster with adv5 learning skills over training what little I could instead of learning skills. That's is 26 ish days with the charisma skills only. I assumed I already had the other none charisma skills prerequisites which if I didn't would push the total time saved on the plan to over 1 month.

Anyway your reasons for not liking my idea are proven completely wrong and have been many times.


Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:10:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Pottsey on 22/12/2010 08:20:15
Nanferr said "Learning skill first is bad. The example is simple."
It's too simple and just because learning skills are bad in some situations it does not meant they are bad in all. No one disagrees that in some situations learning skills are bad.

Let's take your example and expand it a little and look at what happened to some players.
character A: train V/V/iv learning, fly Stealth bomber, earn isk (50 days of learning)
character B: train III/IV/III learning, Stealth bomber, earn isk ( 5 days of learning)

A game balance hits and although character B had more damage due to more missiles skills instead of learning, he finds those missile skills are now useless for his chosen career path so he has to retrain new missile skills. Character A is in the same situation he finds those same missiles skills now useless but as both character retrain starting on the same day, character A now pulls ahead. Learning skills don't seem so bad now.

Character B had the advantage before the game balance, character A has the advantage after the game balance.



Nanferr said " on the 35th day, character B can buy a toon with perfect learning, any T2 ship or V battleship he wants, even a cap pilot, or a mission grindier"
But character A can train towards different skill careers faster. What if after the 35th day the character decided they prefer Gallente ships, drones and railguns and Gallente missions or finds out about faction ships that require dual race skills . Both have to retrain now character A is at an large advantage. Or perhaps a better example what if the characters moves to 0.0 and joins a corp or alliance whom all armour tank and so he decides he wants to train for a Gallante cap ship. Character B might have the money but character A can train up to that career path weeks if not months faster so if the alliance donates money he can fly the ship sooner.

What if both character A & B get a few core skills and start earning isk. Both don't yet know what career path to settle in. After a few core skills character A trains learning more while trying out different parts of the game, character B trains other skills instead of learning. Character A & B will settle on a career path after trying out many parts of the game. One of two things will now happen. Character B will find the skills he trained instead of learning useful for his chosen career so he is at an advantage. Or character B finds his skills trained are of low value or useless for his chosen career path and character A is at an advantage.

It's never a case of low learning is always better or high learning is always better. It's different for every player and situation. A lot of people seem to look at one single situation and say right its best for this situation so its best for all.

Valdenmar
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:28:00 - [30]
 

lol

The cursed Learning skills are finally gone, yet the debate rages on and Pottsey still can't use the quote function!

Rolling Eyes


Pages: [1] 2

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