open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked REQ - A longer skill Q 72h ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Vierego
Vierego's Junk Imports
Posted - 2011.07.05 01:43:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: B00T INI
Some people don't have computers, they should make the game playable with pen & paper.


Me and some friends are playing, we started last fall. We should be in tech 2 cruisers and gear sometime next month.

One of our guy has been mining for the last fourty game sessions. He almost has enough for a hulk

kerradeph
Gallente
CATO.nss
Posted - 2011.07.05 02:05:00 - [32]
 

no. as has been stated there is no need for a skill past 24 hours. I think what might work is to have something like the limited and full API only with passwords. one allows you access to everything, one allows access to skill que and PI interface, but will not let you undock, access any items/ships, or access the wallet.

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.05 02:51:00 - [33]
 

I remember when skill queues were being debated (I was opposed to the idea of skill queues at all,) I predicted that it would only be a matter of time before the WoW players convinced CCP to make it longer.

My prediction might come to pass yet, though it'll likely be something you acquire with Aurum.

Blackjack 3v3
Posted - 2011.07.05 08:08:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Cutter Isaacson
Originally by: Blackjack 3v3



PS: To every troll that will answer with "you need a cash shop item for a longer skill Q" hope they die in a fire or a car/airplane crash w/e comes first.




You have some serious issues mate.


That`s what you got from my post the dam PS directed @ trolls , let me change it up a little all - Cutter I know you from ER so you`re cool.

I don`t have issues what are you on about.The only problem I have is I NEED a longer skill Q that`s not a even a real problem more like a BIG inconvenience forcing me to log in more then I would like to.

Have over 6 months on my few accounts so if I had say a 6 month skill Q ^^ - Epic gaming at it`s finest Exclamation

Blackjack 3v3
Posted - 2011.07.05 08:12:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: AkJon Ferguson
I remember when skill queues were being debated (I was opposed to the idea of skill queues at all,) I predicted that it would only be a matter of time before the WoW players convinced CCP to make it longer.

My prediction might come to pass yet, though it'll likely be something you acquire with Aurum.


Just to make it clear to you "Num-Nut" I never played wow in my life. Also read the fine print the one in Yellow to trolls who direct this little request to the cash shop. You can pick fire / car/airplane crash or my fav burning airplane crash. Now kindly remove yourself from this world.

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.07.05 08:59:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: AkJon Ferguson
I remember when skill queues were being debated (I was opposed to the idea of skill queues at all,) I predicted that it would only be a matter of time before the WoW players convinced CCP to make it longer.

What arguments could you possibly have against the skill queue? Seriously, please tell us.

I'm all for a longer skill queue. CCP's reasoning that they want to have the players log in and play the game is flawed; I log in every morning to update my queues, but I hardly ever play before work. You know, there's a difference between making something hard and making it inconvenient. The short skill queue is a perfect example for the latter (and for ****ty game mechanics).

Oh, and yes, I started playing before the skill queue was introduced. And I never once played WoW.

Kira Hasashin
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:01:00 - [37]
 

A longer skill Q would be too easy, I can understand it's convenience but such a feature would get abused real badly by most players.

True we all have other things to do in life, but it never hurts to ask a close friend or even a trusted corporation member to continue your Q if you're really that busy.

Ayame Yubari
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:14:00 - [38]
 

If you ask me, CCP has set this up to artificially bloat their statistics. People logging in once a day gives much better numbers than once a week or month.

Perpetuum does this better, in my opinion. Each player accumulates SP over time (1 per minute I think) and then gets to spend that on skills whenever he pleases. Makes much more sense that way.

Zoroa Aulx-Gao
Koa Mai Hoku
Destiny Corrupted.
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:23:00 - [39]
 

I thought that one of the future purposes of EVE Gate was to be able to add and switch skills in your training queue. Did I not read that somewhere?

Either way, if you could do that then going on holiday wouldn't really be an issue since there's usually internet cafés or just pay as you go ones in hotels.

Franny
Mentis Seorsum
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:24:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Celeritas 5k
ITT: People who weren't around before the skill queue was implemented.

You have less than zero reason to complain, stop being a little *****.

I miss those days
back when your skill continued training after your sub was up too

*looks at DoomsDay Operations 5*(but a strange lack of titan skill still :( , maybe I should stop quitting EvE every now and then)

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:33:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Blackjack 3v3
The only problem I have is I NEED a longer skill Q that`s not a even a real problem more like a BIG inconvenience forcing me to log in more then I would like to.

Have over 6 months on my few accounts so if I had say a 6 month skill Q ^^ - Epic gaming at it`s finest Exclamation

What you need is to find a pastime that fits in with your busy schedule. If you don't have the time to even log in and set skills training then I really don't see why you bother subscribing to an online game at all.

Expecting a longer skill queue because the current system inconveniences you while it would be to the detriment of the game in general is selfish.

CCP want's people to log in. They conceded after years of whining to add the current skill queue and opting to make it 24hrs only was the best implementation they could have gone with. It eliminates the realistic issues of alarm clock skill changes or setting long skills when you are away for inconvenient periods without just letting people farm their accounts and not interact with the game.

Believe it or not, CCP aren't simply after your subscription, they want an active player-base.

Ayame Yubari
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:37:00 - [42]
 

Uh yeah, logging in 2 minutes to set a skill is very "interacting with the game" Rolling Eyes

Just Another Toon
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:38:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Just Another Toon on 05/07/2011 09:49:35
what makes me laugh about the eve community they are so dumb that they actually oppose a feature that helps them ugh

However I really dont understand why you just dont queue up as many skills as you like and at what length. Its not going have a serious impact on server performance. Now CCP stopped the ghost training (booo) - if you havent resub then your training will just stop anyway.
As for extra play time its not going to effect anything as you just come on switch skill and turn off. However from a business point of view, MMOs want you to play the game for as long as possible, so delaying your training is good for business!

Ayame Yubari
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:43:00 - [44]
 

Not to mention: say I'm training Mining Barge 5 so I can train Exhumers. Of course I can't queue up both skills even though it would be technically possible for the game to recognize that the Exhumer skill is queued after the Mining Barge 5 skill.

So I either have to set a "bridge" skill to avoid running empty or I have to be online the exact moment the Mining Barge skill is finnished. This is effectively still the alarm clock mechanic.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.07.05 09:56:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 05/07/2011 09:57:44
Originally by: Lu'Marat
Originally by: Tippia
People would log in less.
A day is only 24h long, so the queue only needs to be 24h long to serve its purpose.
Again, what's the problem with that?
The problem is that people would log in less. This gives them less opportunities to stay logged in.
Quote:
The question is not, does the queue serve it's purpose, the question is, why shouldn't it do more than it does right now if there's people who'd benefit from that?
Because it already serves it purpose perfectly — to avoid alarm-clock skill changes and still have people log in every now and then — so there's no need to fiddle with it and make it worse. Also, because "people would benefit from it" isn't enough of a reason unless you also consider the negative consequences and explain why they don't matter. I would benefit immensely from having a trillion ISK injected into my wallet every day, but that would ruin the purpose of ISK.
Originally by: Just Another Toon
what makes me laugh about the eve community they are so dumb that they actually oppose a feature that helps them ugh
Because not all helpful features are actually beneficial. A PvP flag would be helpful, but hugely detrimental, for instance.
Originally by: Ayame Yubari
So I either have to set a "bridge" skill to avoid running empty or I have to be online the exact moment the Mining Barge skill is finnished. This is effectively still the alarm clock mechanic.
…except that you don't have to alarm-clock the change-over, so it's quite effectively not that at all. And at any rate, the problem you're describing would not in any way be solved by extending the skill queue.

Ayame Yubari
Posted - 2011.07.05 10:06:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Tippia
…except that you don't have to alarm-clock the change-over, so it's quite effectively not that at all. And at any rate, the problem you're describing would not in any way be solved by extending the skill queue.


If I want to transition from Mining Barge 5 seamlessly to Exhumers, then yes it's alarm clock time. Your second statement is true of course, it's more of a separate issue.

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.07.05 10:13:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Ayame Yubari
Originally by: Tippia
…except that you don't have to alarm-clock the change-over, so it's quite effectively not that at all. And at any rate, the problem you're describing would not in any way be solved by extending the skill queue.


If I want to transition from Mining Barge 5 seamlessly to Exhumers, then yes it's alarm clock time. Your second statement is true of course, it's more of a separate issue.


No one is FORCING you to do this. Go make a suggestion in features and ideas.

Lu'Marat
Posted - 2011.07.05 12:02:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Lu''Marat on 05/07/2011 12:08:27
Originally by: Tippia

Because it already serves it purpose perfectly ... so there's no need to fiddle with it and make it worse.
...
consider the negative consequences and explain why they don't matter.
...
I would benefit immensely from having a trillion ISK injected into my wallet every day, but that would ruin the purpose of ISK.


Er, how does that example apply to the topic at hand? Spawning free ISK in a game driven by ISK economy clearly and obviously is a bad idea. What's the connection to the skill queue?

Don't get me wrong, if there are negative aspects to changing the skill queue then I'm perfectly willing to accept them as valid or tell you why I think they're invalid. So I'm asking again, what ARE the negative aspects? Negative as in, would affect you as a player negatively, or your gameplay, or the game as such, or CCP as a company? I reckon that's the categories a feature can be harmful in.

The only actual argument I see is your "if people log in less, that gives them less opportunities to stay logged in", but I don't see what point you're trying to make. If a player logs in less because he/she sets up the skill queue to last a long time, then chances are that person right now does not have the time or ability or desire to actually play the game. Do you mean that if those people are required to log in every so often because their queue ran out, then seeing the game interface creates an impulse to stay logged in just a little longer and run just one mission, or sell that tritanium that's been lying in their hold for so long? And if so, do you estimate that this is a significant factor in total gameplay happening? Is that what would "make it worse?"

As for what others said:
Why pay for a game you don't play? Simple, because EVE allows me to keep my character growing even in times when I can't actually play. For me that is right now because my computer is kaputt, soon it will be because I need to focus on my studies for a month or two and can't afford the time to play. I'll probably keep my sub going anyway beacuse I know when I can go back to playing EVE, my character will let me use new toys and have new fun. That factor is one -major- advantage EVE has over literally all other titles on the market. So, I believe it would actually be a smart idea to extend the queue, because it strengthens that advantage and may convince more people to keep an unused character running and paid.

And as for "how long do you want the queue to be?" Simple - keep it training and switching skills as long as there's skills set up to train and switch. No need to agree on a limit, just keep it open end. Maybe even allow people to inject skills whose requirements are not yet met, so they can set them up to train after the requirements ARE met. Just mark them as inactive, if that doesn't happen automatically for skills at level 0, not a big deal.

Is that bad? Don't see why. Would it be hard to implement? Guess not. Would it benefit people? Yep. So why not have it?

Zulf BesGUowy
Amarr
Posted - 2011.07.05 12:19:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Zulf BesGUowy on 05/07/2011 12:24:53
I dont care about my skill queue, somtime im to lazy to login and change skills even i know my queue stop two day ago, probably because i got a lot sp, but i understand people whith low sp amount so they are crazy over sp and queue.

Blackjack 3v3
Posted - 2011.07.05 12:27:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Kira Hasashin
A longer skill Q would be too easy, I can understand it's convenience but such a feature would get abused real badly by most players.

True we all have other things to do in life, but it never hurts to ask a close friend or even a trusted corporation member to continue your Q if you're really that busy.


Account sharing is Illegal Exclamation. Also I would not trust anyone with my account info especially a virtual friend.

Check out this guy crying he got hacked but what he actually did was give away his account details to corp "friends" then he left the corp and joined a new one then he lost all his stuff ... that`s not hacked that`s just plain stupid. Linkage - EvE Online forum

Lu'Marat
Posted - 2011.07.05 12:28:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Lu''Marat on 05/07/2011 12:29:45
Oh I dunno, I'm not saying we need to have this or else. Sure, I'd love to have it 'cause it'd be very convenient, but I can manage. I really just would like to know why some people seem to think it is such a bad, bad idea. ugh

Also:
Originally by: Kira Hasashin

A longer skill Q would be too easy, I can understand it's convenience but such a feature would get abused real badly by most players.

Abused? How do you abuse something like a skill queue??

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.07.05 12:51:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 05/07/2011 12:52:48
Originally by: Lu'Marat
Er, how does that example apply to the topic at hand?
"It would be good for me" ≠ good for the game.
Beneficial is not the same thing as non-harmful.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, if there are negative aspects to changing the skill queue then I'm perfectly willing to accept them as valid or tell you why I think they're invalid. So I'm asking again, what ARE the negative aspects?
People would log in less. This gives them less opportunities to stay logged in.
Quote:
If a player logs in less because he/she sets up the skill queue to last a long time, then chances are that person right now does not have the time or ability or desire to actually play the game.
If a player does not have the time/ability/desire to play the game right now, he can already set up a skill queue that lasts a long time. If he wants to extend that queue, it can be done at any time, without the need for alarm-clock attention, and taking, what? A minute? No need to increase the queue length.
Quote:
Do you mean that if those people are required to log in every so often because their queue ran out, then seeing the game interface creates an impulse to stay logged in just a little longer
No. I'm saying that the number of things that keep them in the game are given a chance to make an impression and make the player stick around. This can be anything from local to the market window to the S&I list to corp chat to the notifications list.
Quote:
Is that what would "make it worse?"
No. Trying to add functionality to something that already perfectly solves the problem it is meant to solve usually makes things worse because any such change means it must now solve two problems, which inevitably creates trade-offs between these purposes. This is what would make it worse.
Quote:
Would it benefit people? Yep. So why not have it?
Because beneficial is not the same thing as non-harmful.

Lu'Marat
Posted - 2011.07.05 13:45:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Lu''Marat on 05/07/2011 13:49:03
Originally by: Tippia
Beneficial is not the same thing as non-harmful.

Actually, yes it is. "Harmful" is an antonym to "beneficial" so if something is beneficial then by definition it is non-harmful, otherwise it wouldn't be beneficial. Just to clarify that from a language point of view, and I'm just saying that because if I'm not wrong you're the one who wrote that nice detailed analysis of CCPs mistakes with Incarna last week or so, so you might appreciate that kind of feedback.

That said, what's good for me ain't automatically good for others, true. So let's look at this again.

Originally by: Tippia
Trying to add functionality to something that already perfectly solves the problem it is meant to solve usually makes things worse because any such change means it must now solve two problems, which inevitably creates trade-offs between these purposes. This is what would make it worse.

Well, if you simply extend the duration of the queue then that actually doesn't solve two problems, but it solves the same problem to a greater extent, in my view. Also, I think your objection here is pretty generic and essentially applicable to any kind of feature change, and certainly to any introduction of new features. Usually the answer to that is asking: is there desire for the new feature, and: do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Continuing to look at it from a development point of view, I'd say all the required functionality is already there - the queue can stack skills, you can inject skills and add them to the queue, etc. So, quite likely, implementing this could be as simple as changing a few integers that tell the queue how many hours of small-duration skills it should allow. The only thing that probably requires more fiddling is my suggestion of letting players inject skills whose requirements are not yet met, and even there I reckon changing the logic checks from "can't inject" to "can't train" wouldn't be much of an effort.

Based on this premise, I think we're left with possible disadvantages from a gameplay perspective.

Originally by: Tippia
I'm saying that the number of things that keep them in the game are given a chance to make an impression and make the player stick around.

Alright, I see your point, but I'm asking: is that important? If that player can log in it means he has an active account, so the game already made enough of an impression to have him pay a subscription. If players lacks time/ability/desire to stay logged in, they probably won't stay logged in no matter how much impression you throw at them, or if they do then they likely stay logged in for a short time only which won't produce significant gameplay. Well, except for the "lacks desire" party maybe, but I think that's a small minority, based by all I've seen and all the scenarios I can come up with. So I'll argue that up to this point, there may be a theoretical downside, but it is rather miniscule. Either people can and will play, or they can't and won't. If anything, I'd say this is an argument -against- making them log in, when they know they can't play right now but there's this really cool stuff going on right now and they're annoyed that they can't participate. So, not only miniscule, but possibly even a counter-argument.

Originally by: Tippia
If a player ... wants to extend that queue, it ... tak[es], what? A minute? No need to increase the queue length.

No need maybe, unless that player can't access the game, and really can't spend that minute even if he wanted to. In that case, what's merely convenient for some is very significant and enabling for others.

Bottom line: Unless I'm wrong about the costs of implementing this, and unless you think paying customers need additional incentive to keep paying, even if that may mean irritating them, I believe you're left with a simple "yes, this would be handy."

SC0T1SH WARRIOR
Posted - 2011.07.05 13:50:00 - [54]
 

Slap on some tiny skills to take it to 23hrs 59mins 59secs and then smash a Lv5 on to top it up for a month

if you have none of the smalls left, then why complain? stick a Lv5 in it and come back when its ~24hrs.

Lu'Marat
Posted - 2011.07.05 13:55:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Lu''Marat on 05/07/2011 13:56:29
Originally by: SC0T1SH WARRIOR
Slap on some tiny skills to take it to 23hrs 59mins 59secs and then smash a Lv5 on to top it up for a month

if you have none of the smalls left, then why complain? stick a Lv5 in it and come back when its ~24hrs.


Well, I have plenty of small skills left, and I can't come back in 24 hours, so right now I'm training assault ships V which I really don't need that badly, as opposed to a lot of smaller stuff that I can't train due to my situation and how the queue works.

Lieutenant Biscuits
Posted - 2011.07.05 14:01:00 - [56]
 

hmm whats the deal with this? as in are you asking for a longer q? or have ccp announced a change to the skill q that i missed? WHAT IS GOING ON??? LOL

i want all the details!!! but make it brief please! :P

SC0T1SH WARRIOR
Posted - 2011.07.05 14:02:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Lu'Marat
Originally by: SC0T1SH WARRIOR
Slap on some tiny skills to take it to 23hrs 59mins 59secs and then smash a Lv5 on to top it up for a month

if you have none of the smalls left, then why complain? stick a Lv5 in it and come back when its ~24hrs.


Well, one premise of this thread is "what if you can't come back in 24 hours to do just that?"


if you cant come back once in 30+ days, or cant come back for 5 mins at the end of your skill queue, then why are you even concerned about training things?

one 5 min login anytime within that 30+ days can be used to put smaller (less than 24hrs) skills before your Lv5. as long as the first set of skills is under 24hrs then it will not knock off a Lv5.

if i am going away for a month, i will throw on a set of skills up to 24hrs and then have a Lv5 to take it over the days. if i get a chance to login beforehand, i will queue up another 23:59 set to squeeze an extra day out of it.

it works well the way it is and if you plan your skills along with your RL commitments then you have no problem.

Asm Khurelem
Open University of Celestial Hardship
Art of War Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.05 14:03:00 - [58]
 

It'd be good f you could add something to the queue that depends on anohter skill trained before it, if both would fit in the queue... :?

Nizran L'Crit
Caldari
Eternal Guardians
Bloodbound.
Posted - 2011.07.05 14:10:00 - [59]
 

What's sad is there are so many people that dont know about gate.eveonline.com. When I finally discovered it after 6 months of playing I was ecstatic. Answer in-game e-mails via web? Heck ya!

Full skill queue interface instead of the limited one we have now? Please, for the love of God, yes.

Lu'Marat
Posted - 2011.07.05 17:10:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: SC0T1SH WARRIOR

if you cant come back once in 30+ days, or cant come back for 5 mins at the end of your skill queue, then why are you even concerned about training things?
...
it works well the way it is and if you plan your skills along with your RL commitments then you have no problem.


Yes, I know it works well for most people. I also remember the long time when we had no queue, so I'm aware it's already much better.

But right now I'm in a situation where I cannot log in, despite wanting to. I could of course ring up my friend and say, can I use your computer for five minutes at 22:45 on July 10th, that's when my EVE skill queue runs out. He probably would even say yes, but I know the man is busy so I don't want to bother him about it. So right now I'm wasting good training time that'd be better used on smaller skills, which I can't train because of how the queue works.

It'll also stay that way because I won't be able to replace my computer for the next two months. So while I certainly see that most of you don't need a longer queue and don't much care about it, and that there are some (as far as I can tell) pretty abstract objections to it, I'm telling you that it would be a very useful feature for me, and I don't see any practical reason not to have it.

And I want to keep training because, well, I'm paying for this month, and I'd like to pay for the next month because I like the game and want to support it, but it'd be nice if I could at least benefit from my investment by training skills that I need, rather than those I do not need.

'cause honestly, 5% more damage on rails ain't worth $30 to me. Being able to fly a command ship once I come back, on the other hand, well...

Oh and: I agree, this is just the kind of handy, non-gamebreaking thing CCP could offer on the NeX store. Ten bucks to have an indefinite skill queue, sure, why not.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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