Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1014
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 03:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:IIshira wrote:Why not just remove all skill requirements? If you don't have the skill you don't get the bonuses... Yay day old Carrier pilots that's a bad exaggeration and I hope you know it. also, this is about T2 and that does not include any carriers. lastly, plenty of people would love the idea of a day-old carrier pilot.
Of course it's an exaggeration but the point was minimum skill requirements are for a reason.
Yes skills give bonuses per level but there should be some minimum. Using your argument why level 4 requirement for a bonus per level skill? With this there really isn't a bonus from 1-4 since it's required... So for the Guardian are we just going to ask for Amarr cruiser 1 and Logistics 1? |
Rain6637
Team Evil
15346
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 14:26:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tau, thanks for the feedback regarding the writing. I have no vested interest in a change like this, and most of the motivation for the essay was the writing practice. having cleared core skills with all of my mains, I would be unmoved if minimum requirements were doubled, or tripled.
what I hoped to convey was
the difference between
a skill's training time difficulty compared to its benefit (training time multiplier)
versus
withholding a benefit until a threshold of a number of skills were trained.
IIshira wrote:Rain6637 wrote:IIshira wrote:Why not just remove all skill requirements? If you don't have the skill you don't get the bonuses... Yay day old Carrier pilots that's a bad exaggeration and I hope you know it. also, this is about T2 and that does not include any carriers. lastly, plenty of people would love the idea of a day-old carrier pilot. Of course it's an exaggeration but the point was minimum skill requirements are for a reason. Yes skills give bonuses per level but there should be some minimum. Using your argument why level 4 requirement for a bonus per level skill? With this there really isn't a bonus from 1-4 since it's required... So for the Guardian are we just going to ask for Amarr cruiser 1 and Logistics 1?
YES Amarr Cruiser I and Logistics I, along with a complement of meaningful skills as requirements.
moving requirements to Mastery I also involves disconnecting ability skills from core skills, such as:
Capacitor Emission Systems not requiring Power Grid Management III (+PG)
Remote Armor Repair Systems requiring Mechanics III (hull HP) or Repair Systems II (repair system duration)
so that skipping core skills means gimped fitting and module performance, but players are free to undock in a failship anyway.
that's not so different from the usefulness of minimums currently President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Rain6637
Team Evil
15346
|
Posted - 2014.07.13 14:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tau, thanks for the feedback regarding the writing. I have no vested interest in a change like this, and most of the motivation for the essay was the writing practice. having cleared core skills with all of my mains, I would be unmoved if minimum requirements were doubled, or tripled.
what I hoped to convey was
the difference between
a skill's training time difficulty compared to its benefit (training time multiplier)
versus
withholding a benefit until a threshold of a number of skills were trained.
IIshira wrote:Rain6637 wrote:IIshira wrote:Why not just remove all skill requirements? If you don't have the skill you don't get the bonuses... Yay day old Carrier pilots that's a bad exaggeration and I hope you know it. also, this is about T2 and that does not include any carriers. lastly, plenty of people would love the idea of a day-old carrier pilot. Of course it's an exaggeration but the point was minimum skill requirements are for a reason. Yes skills give bonuses per level but there should be some minimum. Using your argument why level 4 requirement for a bonus per level skill? With this there really isn't a bonus from 1-4 since it's required... So for the Guardian are we just going to ask for Amarr cruiser 1 and Logistics 1?
YES Amarr Cruiser I and Logistics I, along with a complement of meaningful skills as requirements.
moving requirements to Mastery I also involves disconnecting ability skills from core skills, such as:
Capacitor Emission Systems not requiring Power Grid Management III (+PG)
Remote Armor Repair Systems requiring Mechanics III (hull HP) or Repair Systems II (repair system duration)
so that skipping core skills means gimped fitting and module performance, but players are free to undock in a failship anyway.
that's not so different from the usefulness of minimums currently President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
48
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 16:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
I'm not going to speak to modules, but for ships, t2 is specialization. You cannot specialize without having a base. I can't speak for other professions, but as an engineer, we all went through the same general engineering classes (dynamics, statics, calc, physics, etc.) These classes are you trainin to five in the ship skill. After that, you all go your different ways and specialize. The electricals go off and do their E&M, the civil go off and do structures, and aero go off and study aerodynamics.
TL;DR you have to have a solid general base of knowledge before you can specialize |
Tibo Paralian
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
15
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 17:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
I get the "EVE is real" thing, but, how does training 25+ days for a ship give you a more solid general base of knowledge? |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1014
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 17:37:00 -
[36] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:I get the "EVE is real" thing, but, how does training 25+ days for a ship give you a more solid general base of knowledge? Any in game skills aren't going to give you game play knowledge. You can keep setting skills and never play for 5 years. Yes you'll be able to fly a super carrier but have no clue how to.
This is not the point of skill. It's about setting goals and making decisions as to what you want to fly. Eve is not about instant gratification. If you want it right away there are many games that offer that. |
Tibo Paralian
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
15
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 17:59:00 -
[37] - Quote
I never mentioned instant gratification. But thanks, I know there are other games out there that offer it. I went off by Shahai's IRL example having nothing to do with EVE. |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
49
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 18:21:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:I get the "EVE is real" thing, but, how does training 25+ days for a ship give you a more solid general base of knowledge?
The general base is battleships. From any sort of realistic training you would have to know how to fly a battleship before learning how to use all the extra buttons that are there only for marauders.
Should we stick a fighter pilot in an f-22 before he knows how to fly a Cessna? So look at training level 1-5 as learning how to fly the Cessna before you get the keys to the raptor. If you don't like that example then let's say level 1-5 BS is your bachelor degree and Marauders is your masters.
If you don't like any of those because they are "real world" examples, then let's just let day 1 players fly titans. Why do they need all those other skills that don't directly effect the hull? In fact, why not take it to the extreme and remove all prereqs because that's what's being asked. No one has issues with certain mods being attached to level 5 skills. Why should ships be different |
Tibo Paralian
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
15
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 18:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
Do you oppose the change CCP did to T2 guns no longer needing the class below it in order to use them? Somewhat of the same principal right?
Again, as Rain has said multiple times, since when has CCP cared about protecting players in a pvp situation? Why does CCP cares about players knowing how to fly a frigate before getting into a cruiser? You are still trying to compare skill points as IRL knowledge/experience.
If day one player titans ever become a thing then it simply means more PLEX sales for CCP, I don't see them saying no to more PLEX sales.
GÇ£What people resist is not change per se, but loss.GÇ¥ GÇò Ronald A. Heifetz |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
49
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:03:00 -
[40] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:Do you oppose the change CCP did to T2 guns no longer needing the class below it in order to use them? Somewhat of the same principal right?
This isn't the same thing. As far as I know you still require your gun skill to 5 in order to train the same guns 2 weapon specialization skills. Again solid base before specializing. Or do you think I should be able to use t2 guns out of the gate? If you do then all training plans say train level 1 of the specialization skills then go train your general gun skills and that makes no sense
|
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1015
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:24:00 -
[41] - Quote
Shahai Shintaro wrote:Tibo Paralian wrote:Do you oppose the change CCP did to T2 guns no longer needing the class below it in order to use them? Somewhat of the same principal right? This isn't the same thing. As far as I know you still require your gun skill to 5 in order to train the same guns 2 weapon specialization skills. Again solid base before specializing. Or do you think I should be able to use t2 guns out of the gate? If you do then all training plans say train level 1 of the specialization skills then go train your general gun skills and that makes no sense
Not even close to the same thing. If it was like the old gunnery system you would need racial frigate, destroyer, then cruiser 5 to fly a T2 cruiser. Currently you only need the base cruiser skill to 5. Just like if you want to use a T2 medium turrets you only need the base turret skill to 5. |
Decon Matarius
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:33:00 -
[42] - Quote
In an age where capital ships can be trained without rank5 bs, I have to agree, it's kind of dumb for t2 ships to retain those requirements.
I wouldn't go hog-wild and change a lot about the skill system as it stands, but given the ability to specialize earlier on is critical from graduating out of "adorable tacking newb," to whatever it is you want to do next, I don't see shaving a week off a t2 train is game-breaking given the ship you'd end up with would be very imperfect. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
15348
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:33:00 -
[43] - Quote
gun size and ship size progression to III makes enough sense. it's the random support skill level V requirements that don't.
another problem with saying "because specialization" is equivocation. it's when there's more than one definition or sense of a word, and the wrong one is used to justify something.
I'm asking because it doesn't make sense, and my altered requirement/Mastery I example was an attempt to help illustrate the problem with saying "because specialization." I don't mean to accuse CCP of saying "we'll only give you this if you give us three months of subs," but right now that's the only effect that I can see, and apparently I'm not the only one.
can you think of another explanation, other than an original dev setting those requirements for T2 hulls based on a simple sentiment "because better," and it has been around for so long that it's simply accepted by the devs, just like it is by players...? I can't tell.
I'm -not- trying to make things easier for anyone, and I am not a person who cares about something for the sake of noobs, or that it should be easier for them.
I've been accused of elitism for my opinion of what proper skill training means. I don't like being in fleets with people who don't have level V skills, and I am not nice to people with incomplete skills who expect me to risk expensive ships for a shared benefit. one fully skilled ship with proper fittings is equal to two or three failships, so the smart thing to do is not fly a failship. I'd like to maintain that truth. that imaginary requirement example is just more rope for players to hang themselves.
...so please don't make exaggerations about ship class and weapon size progression, which are understandable enough as level III skills President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Sinnish Saken
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:39:00 -
[44] - Quote
I have a few problems with the idea.
#1 get 80% of the value for 18% of the investment means T1 becomes Civilian.
#2 the demand for T2 with a change like this would cause prices to go through the roof to a point where it would be unreasonable. Those who aren't willing to put in the training for the bonuses surely aren't willing to farm the isk to afford flying T2bat these higher rates, putting them back into T1 hulls to begin with.
Personally I like the current system where getting a skill to V has a significant meaning at an affordable price, time and isk wise. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
15352
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:42:00 -
[45] - Quote
that's false. you get "80% of the value" by training the T1 to level III or IV.
I would make a nice surface chart plotting time vs benefit compared to T1, but I'm not dying for the practice of making complicated charts, and it's not my job. nor does it matter that much to me.
as for farming, I am under the impression a lot of people have the habit of PLEXing for shinies, and they're the same people who have low SP President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Tibo Paralian
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
21
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:43:00 -
[46] - Quote
True it is not the same, simply used it as an example against the following:
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
The general base is battleships. From any sort of realistic training you would have to know how to fly a battleship before learning how to use all the extra buttons that are there only for marauders.
Yes, you should know how to fly a battleship before getting into a marauder, but aren't multiple skills at level 5 too prohibitive? And once again, why does CCP cares about people knowing how to properly fly a ship or not? How many ALOD articles are there of people using T2 ships, the skill wait time did not improve their knowledge.
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
15352
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:51:00 -
[47] - Quote
you know... the weapon size progression change from V to III is the same basic idea of what I think would make sense. ship class to III before having the option to train the T2 bonus, instead of requiring level V on the hull along with two or more random attributes at V. it changes nothing for the players who already have the skills President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1015
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:54:00 -
[48] - Quote
Decon Matarius wrote:In an age where capital ships can be trained without rank5 bs, I have to agree, it's kind of dumb for t2 ships to retain those requirements. You do realize Capital ships are T1? |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1015
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 19:59:00 -
[49] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:you know... the weapon size progression change from V to III is the same basic idea of what I think would make sense. ship class to III before having the option to train the T2 bonus, instead of requiring level V on the hull along with two or more random attributes at V. it changes nothing for the players who already have the skills Are you saying that T2 guns shouldn't require level 5 of the T1 gun skill? |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 20:03:00 -
[50] - Quote
Decon Matarius wrote:In an age where capital ships can be trained without rank5 bs, I have to agree, it's kind of dumb for t2 ships to retain those requirements.
Capital ships aren't the same thing, it's the same as moving from destroyers to cruisers. T2 is the same ship class and and a specialization and therefore requires you to know it's base ship. |
|
Gully Alex Foyle
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
1231
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 20:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:when the skill structure is so bad (how skills are arranged, not what skills do), the only reason for keeping the structure is preserving the status quo
preserving the status quo is basically the sentiment that "if I had to do it, other people should have to do it too" Rain, I agree with the lvl 5 prereqs being just an arbitrary timesink, and I also think what you stated here is the main reason CCP are weary of changing them at this point.
I personally wouldn't give a damn if newer players than me had an easier time training stuff, actually I'd be happy to have both more friends and more foes to play with in T2 ships.
I realize I may not be perfectly credible saying this as just a 1-year old player - but that's my honest opinion.
T2/3 ships - especially cruisers and above - are already 'limited' by their ISK cost, the player skill needed to not whelp them (including the 'meta-skill' of getting to fly with people that know what they're doing), the need to train several support skills to 4 or 5 anyway to be competitive and - regarding supers - the difficulty of manufacturing them.
I'd also like to point out that CCP do seem to have second thoughts on this - see the recent examples of Carriers (racial BS from 5 to 3) and Thermodynamics (Power Grid Mgmt from 5 to 4). |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 20:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:
can you think of another explanation, other than an original dev setting those requirements for T2 hulls based on a simple sentiment "because better," and it has been around for so long that it's simply accepted by the devs, just like it is by players...? I can't tell.
one fully skilled ship with proper fittings is equal to two or three failships, so the smart thing to do is not fly a failship.
The answer isn't just because. The answer is specialization. T2 ships aren't by definition better than t1 ships. 9 times out of 10 I want you in a kestrel over a manticore. You keep putting on others to say why it shouldn't, yet you never give a reason why it should. Can you give a single example where you can specialize before mastering the general?
As for the second part I quote, you seem to imply all t1 are fail fit. If so, you are completely wrong as I'll take 3 t1 vs 1 t2 any day of the week |
Tibo Paralian
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 21:21:00 -
[53] - Quote
You should re-read the OP. You keep using the word specialization as if the only way to learn about something is to first read a 200 page manual rather than read the first few chapters and dive in. Specialization comes after you are able to practice and test the thing it is you are trying to learn, not before hand.
A kestrel and a manticore serve two different purposes. While you want a kestrel for fighting in FW plexes 10/10, you want a manticore to run FW missions 10/10.
OP never said T2 > T1, he said that a ship (any ship, be it t1 or t2) with proper fittings is equal to two or more ships with bad fits and skills.
The actual reward shouldn't be sitting in the ship, but getting the mastery to IV or V. That is specialization. |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 21:52:00 -
[54] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:You should re-read the OP. You keep using the word specialization as if the only way to learn about something is to first read a 200 page manual rather than read the first few chapters and dive in. Specialization comes after you are able to practice and test the thing it is you are trying to learn, not before hand
No, what you are describing is mastery. Specialization is the difference between a heart surgeon and a brain surgeon. Both require the same base knowledge and skills, but then this separates into two different specializations. Mastery is then becoming the best heart surgeon
I have reread the op. The op raises the question of why I need racial ship skill to 5 as well as the t2 skill. The answer is because the t2 skill is a specialization of the racial ship skill. You cannot specialize until you master the basics. There is nothing anywhere that I can think of where you can. No where in this entire thread have I commented on needing any other skill to 5 for t2 ships except the racial ship skill it's based off. Whether you really need AWU 5 is a completely different discussion.
|
Tibo Paralian
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 22:43:00 -
[55] - Quote
The mastery/specialization comparison still stands, and since you like using IRL examples so much, a heart or brain surgeon can both practice their studies before officially getting their title.
Shahai Shintaro wrote:You cannot specialize until you master the basics.
What basics are those? Patiently waiting?
|
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 22:53:00 -
[56] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:The mastery/specialization comparison still stands, and since you like using IRL examples so much, a heart or brain surgeon can both practice their studies before officially getting their title. Shahai Shintaro wrote:You cannot specialize until you master the basics. What basics are those? Patiently waiting? The basics are the racial ship skill. If we are talking about a golem, Caldari BS. If we are talking about a hawk the basic is Caldari frigate. Also, a heart and brain can practice before becoming masters. This is you able to fly with assault ships 1. However, they both still had to pass medical school first. This is represented by getting cruiser to 5. |
Tibo Paralian
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.14 23:42:00 -
[57] - Quote
Hey look , another IRL analogy. It's a good thing you only have to wait in EVE rather than study, practice and take tests to get the skill. |
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
841
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 00:56:00 -
[58] - Quote
As a true bittervet, I don't really want for 30/60 day old characters to be able to fly what I fly. And that's not just because I want him to do his time (like I did) It's also because I don't want the game de-volving. I don't care about killing newbs in shiny ships. My best fights, most fun, have always been against GOOD pilots. I joined the game because it is complex and I knew it is a long haul. If I wanted a game that was dumbed down, I wouldn't have come here.
EVE has already de-volved into *Frigates Online* and there is not really the same achievement path that there was in the past. Skills have a max level of V... It has to mean something or it might as well be maxed at level IV.
|
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
51
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 01:04:00 -
[59] - Quote
Tibo Paralian wrote:Hey look , another IRL analogy. It's a good thing you only have to wait in EVE rather than study, practice and take tests to get the skill.
Where else are you supposed to go besides real world examples? Would you like me to use another game? In d&d you have to train several feats in a chain to specialize. In dust (though it's been ages since I played it) you train general weapon classes before specializing. How about instead of me listing 1000 places where you have to master the general before working on the specific, you give me a single example where you don't have to.
As far as waiting for the skill to learn it in eve, that's the amount of time it takes to install the skill into your brain so you don't have to practice, study, etc. |
Tibo Paralian
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 01:20:00 -
[60] - Quote
How about stop using analogies to justify the status quo? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |