Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
Mardris Fol
Den Sorte Loge Redrum Fleet
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:20:00 -
[331] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything.
Patch notes are too late.
You (collectively) write blogs and make postings telling people what's coming in the next patch. Players start making decisions - switch training plans, switch what they're building/selling in anticipation.
Your ideas change over time, which is fine but what's not fine is you leave the old blogs up there.
CCP has just re-publicised the next patch and point players at the original blogs, for example:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/
This still states:
Quote:To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower," when we know this idea has been canned. I expect ideas to develop over but CCP could do a better job of removing or correcting the misleading information, or caveat it at least - the starbase blog ends:
Quote:We hope this will shed some light on the various changes coming to Starbases in the Crius release on July 22nd and help you make the right industrial decisions before its goes live. The Community site is a good place to make players who don't have time to scan the forums or play-test sisi, aware of upcoming changes. But it needs to be kept (reasonably) up to date and include significant changes - like completely changing a skill!
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:21:00 -
[332] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Or alternatively:
Industry = 4% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
[Pre req Industry V] Advanced Industry = 3% reduction to manufacture and science jobs per level
This would confer a larger advantage to science, which seems in line with your goal of keeping copy times under build times. And also would slightly offset the massive increase in time required to get a perfect BPO under the new system.
Manufacture time reduction would be = 0.68x Science time reduction would be = 0.544x Can I just check something out of interest? Are you saying that Science would have a pre req of Industry IV? and What is the reason for lowering the M,R,S skills from 5% to 4%? Yes, under my suggestion Industry would encompass all of the science and manufacture skills. Right now ME research requires Industry, but the others don't, so it doesn't follow much of a logical progression.
Also the reason I reduced them by 1% in that proposal was because higher level skills should give equal or less benefit than the base skill, and also the cumulative bonus may be too high if they are at 5% reduction per level still.
I guess you could keep them at 5% though, but then you would have a science reduction of 0.51x, so am not sure if that is feasible. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2465
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:27:00 -
[333] - Quote
Mardris Fol wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything. Patch notes are too late. You (collectively) write blogs and make postings telling people what's coming in the next patch. Players start making decisions - switch training plans, switch what they're building/selling in anticipation. Your ideas change over time, which is fine but what's not fine is you leave the old blogs up there. CCP has just re-publicised the next patch and point players at the original blogs, for example: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/This still states: Quote:To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower," when we know this idea has been canned. I expect ideas to develop over but CCP could do a better job of removing or correcting the misleading information, or caveat it at least - the starbase blog ends: Quote:We hope this will shed some light on the various changes coming to Starbases in the Crius release on July 22nd and help you make the right industrial decisions before its goes live. The Community site is a good place to make players who don't have time to scan the forums or play-test sisi, aware of upcoming changes. But it needs to be kept (reasonably) up to date and include significant changes - like completely changing a skill!
Yeah ok, this is a reasonable criticism. I'm making a note to discuss this with the rest of the design department regarding future releases. |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:34:00 -
[334] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Or alternatively:
Industry = 4% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
[Pre req Industry V] Advanced Industry = 3% reduction to manufacture and science jobs per level
This would confer a larger advantage to science, which seems in line with your goal of keeping copy times under build times. And also would slightly offset the massive increase in time required to get a perfect BPO under the new system.
Manufacture time reduction would be = 0.68x Science time reduction would be = 0.544x Can I just check something out of interest? Are you saying that Science would have a pre req of Industry IV? and What is the reason for lowering the M,R,S skills from 5% to 4%? Yes, under my suggestion Industry would encompass all of the science and manufacture skills. Right now ME research requires Industry, but the others don't, so it doesn't follow much of a logical progression. Also the reason I reduced them by 1% in that proposal was because higher level skills should give equal or less benefit than the base skill, and also the cumulative bonus may be too high if they are at 5% reduction per level still. I guess you could keep them at 5% though, but then you would have a science reduction of 0.51x, so am not sure if that is feasible.
OK that all makes sense and I could agree with this idea. One thing that strikes me though is what about all of the skills that Science unlocks, particularly in the first 2 and some of level 3? They are not related to Industry and so would not fit in, would you propose to just remove Science as a Pre Req for those skills? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 14:53:00 -
[335] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mardris Fol wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything. Patch notes are too late. You (collectively) write blogs and make postings telling people what's coming in the next patch. Players start making decisions - switch training plans, switch what they're building/selling in anticipation. Your ideas change over time, which is fine but what's not fine is you leave the old blogs up there. CCP has just re-publicised the next patch and point players at the original blogs, for example: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/This still states: Quote:To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower," when we know this idea has been canned. I expect ideas to develop over but CCP could do a better job of removing or correcting the misleading information, or caveat it at least - the starbase blog ends: Quote:We hope this will shed some light on the various changes coming to Starbases in the Crius release on July 22nd and help you make the right industrial decisions before its goes live. The Community site is a good place to make players who don't have time to scan the forums or play-test sisi, aware of upcoming changes. But it needs to be kept (reasonably) up to date and include significant changes - like completely changing a skill! Yeah ok, this is a reasonable criticism. I'm making a note to discuss this with the rest of the design department regarding future releases.
With higher tempo releases the amount of misinformation will be much higher as it will come faster and faster, although volume will probably be much lower.
That being said it wouldn't be the end of the world to put out patch notes for the next expansion the day after Crius ships and use the one line method to show how things have changed since the beginning. Dev-blogs are nice but more for the general feel of what is coming and specific numbers etc, but the general patch notes should be available a lot sooner. That also allows people to see the progression of the patch notes over time.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2467
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 14:57:00 -
[336] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Mardris Fol wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything. Patch notes are too late. You (collectively) write blogs and make postings telling people what's coming in the next patch. Players start making decisions - switch training plans, switch what they're building/selling in anticipation. Your ideas change over time, which is fine but what's not fine is you leave the old blogs up there. CCP has just re-publicised the next patch and point players at the original blogs, for example: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/This still states: Quote:To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower," when we know this idea has been canned. I expect ideas to develop over but CCP could do a better job of removing or correcting the misleading information, or caveat it at least - the starbase blog ends: Quote:We hope this will shed some light on the various changes coming to Starbases in the Crius release on July 22nd and help you make the right industrial decisions before its goes live. The Community site is a good place to make players who don't have time to scan the forums or play-test sisi, aware of upcoming changes. But it needs to be kept (reasonably) up to date and include significant changes - like completely changing a skill! Yeah ok, this is a reasonable criticism. I'm making a note to discuss this with the rest of the design department regarding future releases. With higher tempo releases the amount of misinformation will be much higher as it will come faster and faster, although volume will probably be much lower. That being said it wouldn't be the end of the world to put out patch notes for the next expansion the day after Crius ships and use the one line method to show how things have changed since the beginning. Dev-blogs are nice but more for the general feel of what is coming and specific numbers etc, but the general patch notes should be available a lot sooner. That also allows people to see the progression of the patch notes over time.
Interesting suggestion, thanks :) |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:05:00 -
[337] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:OK that all makes sense and I could agree with this idea. One thing that strikes me though is what about all of the skills that Science unlocks, particularly in the first 2 and some of level 3? They are not related to Industry and so would not fit in, would you propose to just remove Science as a Pre Req for those skills? I don't think that would be a problem, as industry is a low ranking skill, and so it would be neglible to get it to level IV, it takes around 20 hours only . And also due to nested skill requirements those who for whatever reason don't have industry to IV, would still have the science skills. |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:12:00 -
[338] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- A general percentage reduction to *all* jobs would (perversely) probably actually be less troublesome to push higher; the 1% is somewhat constrained by our desire not to push build times below copy times, so if we did a skill that affected copy and build equally (along with research, which is clearly a pretty valuable bonus for people researching in the new system), we would probably push it up to the 3-5%/level range.
- Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want. I really like both of these options. The first option would be great, and the second option would make an nice addition although not essential. I do think this would entail a wider change of all the skills though related to industry and science, things already are overlapping with industry being required for material efficiency for example. If industry and science skills as a whole were more linked that would make a lot of sense. Perhaps something like this: Industry = 5% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Manufacture (previously material efficiency) = 4% reduction to manufacture jobs per level Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
This would mean all jobs could get a skill based time multiplier of 0.6x, which would hopefully keep everything equal. Skill progression would make a lot more sense also.
I would add two more to this list
Facility Efficiency, Pre Requisite Industry V, 3% Reduction in Research and Manufacturing Installation Costs per level Industrial Relationsp, Pre Requisite Industry, 5% Reduction in NPC Facility taxes on Research and Manufacturing Installation Costs per level.
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2467
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:18:00 -
[339] - Quote
If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? |
|
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:22:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
I'm dead set against time bonuses being the ONLY bonuses.
I'd be definitely cool with what Medalyn Isis' proposal with the two skills I added to it, and Facility Efficiency being the replacement for Material Efficiency. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:22:00 -
[341] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
3-5% reduction across all Industry jobs |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:23:00 -
[342] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:OK that all makes sense and I could agree with this idea. One thing that strikes me though is what about all of the skills that Science unlocks, particularly in the first 2 and some of level 3? They are not related to Industry and so would not fit in, would you propose to just remove Science as a Pre Req for those skills? I don't think that would be a problem, as industry is a low ranking skill, and so it would be neglible to get it to level IV, it takes around 20 hours only . And also due to nested skill requirements those who for whatever reason don't have industry to IV, would still have the science skills. Also science skills aren't related to there pre reqs in most circumstances already. Mechanics, elecontrics, engineering are all not related but still pre reqs.
Yep fair enough, gets a +1 from me.
|
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:26:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: - A big part of the reason why we're pushing back on a reimbursement here is that it's a thing that is becoming a habit and we want to push back against it being the default option. There's a lot of things feeding into this, but a major part of it is the model of the value of skill training that considers skills as an ongoing cycle of anticipation and accomplishment, and the way that (for many people, we understand how skill plans work) future training goals more more defined as longer-term skills get close to finishing. By giving people windfalls of skillpoints, we a) suddenly cut short the anticipation, which is expected to also reduce the feeling of accomplishment, and b) break the natural cycle of goal-setting by completing goals unexpectedly early and without the lead-in time to consider and select new ones. We understand that the psychological value that this sets up is not considered relevant by some of our players, but we have to also consider the ones who do derive satisfaction from this sort of system, and skillpoint windfalls can be self-defeating for them.
OK dude, but you gotta reconcile this philosophy with paying customers who spent money for the SP that you're re-purposing into something they may not want. For example, I can't use a time efficiency bonus like what is being suggested in this thread because I don't run jobs continuously. I certainly wouldn't take such a skill to V. I skilled ME to get into booster manufacturing. The manufacturing stage already runs faster than the POS reaction upstream from it, so this time bonus idea is completely useless to me. Job install cost bonus would be better but still not something I would take to V for a Rank 3 skill.
Eve is about choice but that's also the problem: i.e. you want a new bonus for this skill that you want everyone to be happy with but everyone has made different choices in the game leading up to the decison to skill ME V and so it is Mission Impossible to please everyone with this or that "other" bonus to replace it.
If an SP refund is off the table for philosophical reasons fine. Let me suggest an alternative option. You know the Cerebral Accelerator that you have available for new pilots? You guys should design one to distribute as compensation to customers who are negatively impacted by major skill changes. Not exactly the same as the Cerebral Accelerator, but lets say this implant will allow you to train SP at the maximum rate that TQ allows currently if you were perfectly mapped for the skill in the queue and with 5% attribute implants. This would be highly valuable because everyone needs to train skills quite often that are outside their current neural map. The implant would last for a set amount of time or a set amount of SP, say the difference between your prior SP gain rate and the max rate would drain the SP value loaded on the implant. The item could also perhaps be transferred to alts on the same account, but otherwise could not be traded or sold
This form of compensation for skill changes fits better with your philosophy of not "devaluing" the satisfaction of progressing your character by a flat SP refund. It also keeps players subscribing so they can benefit from this form of compensation, which is good for your company's bottom line. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
294
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:28:00 -
[344] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
The second solution again sounds like it only benefits hardcore industrialists.
Since time reduction translates into cost reduction with the new system, it would be closer to what people originally intended with training that skill, no? |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:30:00 -
[345] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? The second solution again sounds like it only benefits hardcore industrialists.?
... that's the point of specialization Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2467
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:40:00 -
[346] - Quote
Maduin Shi wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - A big part of the reason why we're pushing back on a reimbursement here is that it's a thing that is becoming a habit and we want to push back against it being the default option. There's a lot of things feeding into this, but a major part of it is the model of the value of skill training that considers skills as an ongoing cycle of anticipation and accomplishment, and the way that (for many people, we understand how skill plans work) future training goals more more defined as longer-term skills get close to finishing. By giving people windfalls of skillpoints, we a) suddenly cut short the anticipation, which is expected to also reduce the feeling of accomplishment, and b) break the natural cycle of goal-setting by completing goals unexpectedly early and without the lead-in time to consider and select new ones. We understand that the psychological value that this sets up is not considered relevant by some of our players, but we have to also consider the ones who do derive satisfaction from this sort of system, and skillpoint windfalls can be self-defeating for them.
OK dude, but you gotta reconcile this philosophy with paying customers who spent money for the SP that you're re-purposing into something they may not want. For example, I can't use a time efficiency bonus like what is being suggested in this thread because I don't run jobs continuously. I certainly wouldn't take such a skill to V. I skilled ME to get into booster manufacturing. The manufacturing stage already runs faster than the POS reaction upstream from it, so this time bonus idea is completely useless to me. Job install cost bonus would be better but still not something I would take to V for a Rank 3 skill. Eve is about choice but that's also the problem: i.e. you want a new bonus for this skill that you want everyone to be happy with but everyone has made different choices in the game leading up to the decison to skill ME V and so it is Mission Impossible to please everyone with this or that "other" bonus to replace it. If an SP refund is off the table for philosophical reasons fine. Let me suggest an alternative option. You know the Cerebral Accelerator that you have available for new pilots? You guys should design one to distribute as compensation to customers who are negatively impacted by major skill changes. Not exactly the same as the Cerebral Accelerator, but lets say this implant will allow you to train SP at the maximum rate that TQ allows currently if you were perfectly mapped for the skill in the queue and with 5% attribute implants. This would be highly valuable because everyone needs to train skills quite often that are outside their current neural map. The implant would last for a set amount of time or a set amount of SP, say the difference between your prior SP gain rate and the max rate would drain the SP value loaded on the implant. The item could also perhaps be transferred to alts on the same account, but otherwise could not be traded or sold This form of compensation for skill changes fits better with your philosophy of not "devaluing" the satisfaction of progressing your character by a flat SP refund. It also keeps players subscribing so they can benefit from this form of compensation, which is good for your company's bottom line.
Trying to reconcile those things is exactly why we're having this conversation.
As to the idea of a time-limited booster as compensation, that is a very interesting suggestion that I will take up with people. Thanks :) |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
290
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:48:00 -
[347] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? 3-5% reduction across all Industry jobs, for now. Then a proper solution can be worked out for the next patch I'd agree. Give a bonus across industry and science jobs for now, and then perhaps after the patch look at a more thorough overhaul of the science and manufacturing related skills. |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
327
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 16:27:00 -
[348] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? 3-5% reduction across all Industry jobs, for now. Then a proper solution can be worked out for the next patch I'd agree. Give a bonus across industry and science jobs for now, and then perhaps after the patch look at a more thorough overhaul of the science and manufacturing related skills. +1'd
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
340
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 16:28:00 -
[349] - Quote
I really don't see how refunds is worse for the "perceived value" of skillpoints than is an arbitrary re-purposing of a skill people have already sunk their time into.
And if there are some people out there who gets satisfaction from the skill queue management experience, they can just go ahead and not spend the unallocated skillpoints. |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
145
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 17:20:00 -
[350] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
Well option 1 is getting close to something useful. But I have actually not dealt with the upcoming work flows, so I sure don't feel comfortable in saying yup that's the one. But with it being across all industy jobs, something has be of benefit? And these are 3-5% per level, correct?
And option 2 is rather vague to me. So with my wild imagination, I best leave it alone.
damn it is hard to delete my signature |
|
Cyno Alt II
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 17:26:00 -
[351] - Quote
Will the Capital Ship Construction skill still require the Advanced Industry (former Material Efficiency) skill as a prerequisite? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 17:47:00 -
[352] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
I kind of like the 3-5% TE reduction for ALL jobs
If that one does go in, it probably oesn't NEED to be a pre req for Capital Construction, because then you would jack up Cap build time by 20% to make the 25% reduction the same as it is nowGǪinstead of all those changes, just eliminate it as a pre req and be done.
Personally, I haven't looked at the numbers, but 3% (15% total) seems like a nice balance for a rank 3 skill. Especially with the chance of an advanced skill giving like 2% per level in the future maybe |
Obunagawe
377
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 17:48:00 -
[353] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: As to the idea of a time-limited booster as compensation, that is a very interesting suggestion that I will take up with people. Thanks :)
What do people whose accounts were inactive when the changes were made get? |
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 18:03:00 -
[354] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
Why can you not see that time reduction means nothing when most people do not build things 24/7. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2470
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 18:10:00 -
[355] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Well option 1 is getting close to something useful and level 5 worthy. But I have actually not dealt with the upcoming work flows, so I sure don't feel comfortable in saying yup that's the one. But with it being across all industy jobs, something has be of benefit? And these are 3-5% per level, correct? And option 2 is rather vague to me. So with my wild imagination, I best leave it alone.
Per level is what we're discussing, yes.
Cyno Alt II wrote:Will the Capital Ship Construction skill still require the Advanced Industry (former Material Efficiency) skill as a prerequisite?
Up for discussion.
Obunagawe wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: As to the idea of a time-limited booster as compensation, that is a very interesting suggestion that I will take up with people. Thanks :)
What do people whose accounts were inactive when the changes were made get?
There are ways we could deal with that, I think, but it's just an idea at this point :)
afkboss wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Why can you not see that time reduction means nothing when most people do not build things 24/7.
People do research things 24/7, though, which this would also apply to. Again though, the discussion is still open, some people are advocating this option, I see upsides and downsides, I'm happy to discuss further :)
Do I take it from your comment that you would prefer the second option? |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 18:23:00 -
[356] - Quote
afkboss wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Why can you not see that time reduction means nothing when most people do not build things 24/7.
Once again don't forget that in Crius installation costs are directly linked to the time the job takes. So anyone who starts a job of any kind will benefit from it, though it may not be all that much. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2826
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 18:31:00 -
[357] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? How about the lower limit, 3%, AND additional skills?
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kale Freeman
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 19:01:00 -
[358] - Quote
I vote for the time bonus.
The only people who won't benefit from it are the people who choose to run small runs of small things. Anyone manufacturing seriously will be attempting to get maximum use out of each slot, so they are probably already running n*24 + 22 hour jobs. These are also the people who would have invested the time into training the skill previously, because it was pretty much a hard rule that it was required for serious manufacturing.
This will also provide some reprieve for the newbie manufacturers who face the research mountain. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 19:32:00 -
[359] - Quote
Kale Freeman wrote:I vote for the time bonus.
The only people who won't benefit from it are the people who choose to run small runs of small things. Anyone manufacturing seriously will be attempting to get maximum use out of each slot, so they are probably already running n*24 + 22 hour jobs. These are also the people who would have invested the time into training the skill previously, because it was pretty much a hard rule that it was required for serious manufacturing.
ME 5 was critical to anyone who manufactured, big- or small-time, as otherwise, it would make better financial sense to sell your resources and buy what you wanted from the market. Even small-time manufacturers (the ones like myself who don't have their lines going continuously) were able to see a huge benefit from having ME to 5.
Anyway, I still don't want the skill to apply to only manufacturing, if it has to remain as a time bonus. If it is staying that way, having a higher percentage would at least make the per-time cost savings more than a few ISK on shorter runs. Having the skill affect all industry and science jobs (even at a lower percentage) would be preferable, as it would actually have a solid use for people who don't keep their lines going back-to-back as it would reduce costs across the board. |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 19:46:00 -
[360] - Quote
I pay a monthly subscription so my indy alt can train. If you take away a skill you should refund either the skillpoints or the game time.
Please see this from your Customers point of view and understand why people are angry. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |