|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 10:53:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Pottsey on 15/12/2009 10:57:11 I really donÆt like using payoff by its self to say if the learning skills are worth getting or not as payoff doesnÆt tell you the whole story. If you have a change of skill focus, change of in game role, get new skills or new skills come out, have a change of mood or many other reasons then learning V and Adv learning skills become worth it long before the payoff point has been hit.
Say in 6months you decided to have a change of skill focus and swap from hybrids to missiles along with a new line of ships. You will finish that new missile skill plan faster with learning V then without learning V. Things like that are what make learning and adv5 learning skills worth it. Finishing skill plans days or weeks faster with learning or adv5 learning is worthwhile even if you have not hit payoff.
Saying if learning skills are worth it or not by only looking at playoff is misleading unless its a very rare player with a static never changeing skill plan.
For example my Orca skill plan finished something like 17days faster with adv5 skills. I consider that worthwhile. But payoff says itÆs not worthwhile. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.15 17:16:00 -
[2]
Estel Arador said "Because the point isn't excellent (it requires conventiently forgetting time invested in training the skills in the first place and/or planning to not stick to the training plan)" How many times do I have to point out it does not require conveniently forgetting time invested in training the skills. Using payoff by itself self to say if learning skills are worth it is just as bad as it requires conveniently forgetting that people make new skill plans up, skill plans that often start after the point of getting the learning skills.
Only talking about payoff and ignoring the rest is giving someone half the facts they need to decide if learning skills are worth getting. Purposely ignoring half the facts to me is the same as misleading someone. All I want to do are give people who ask the question are learning skills worth it all the facts. Conveniently forgetting to tell people the advantages of learning skills and when and when not these advantages work before payoff is not helping.
Estel Arador said ôThat's the figure most people are interested in, not your weird personal interpretation of payoff.ö My interpretation of payoff is the same as everyone else. The question was not how long does payoff take. Answers about payoff and ignoring all the worthwhile reasons to get learning V is not answering the original questions in a helpful way.
Estel Arador said ôYour interpretation is hardly applicable for the advanced learning skills (with their long payoffs) and it certainly isn't for Learning V with it's short payoff.ö I really hope that is a poor joke. My interpretation is correct and has been proven correct many times. ItÆs just some people like you seem to want to ignore the advantages of learning skills and focus on payoff. The question is not when does learning skill payoff. The question was ôis worth it to train this skillö those are very different questions. I listed good reasons for why learning V and adv5 learning skills are worthwhile to train. The reasons I posted don't apply to all situations but at least I explain when they are worthwhile so people can make their own minds up. It's better than just ignoring the benefits.
Estel Arador said ôthe most you can gain in the very unlikely scenario you sketched is a few days.ö ItÆs not very unlikely, it's very common. What is very unlikely is the scenario you use for payoff where people do not change skill plans which is what you need for payoff to work. As soon as the skill plan is changed your whole way of valuing learning skills via payoff stops working. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 07:54:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Pottsey on 16/12/2009 07:56:36 Estel Arador said "That's what I meant with "you have to plan on not sticking to the plan". You decide to train Learning V now to train faster when you decide to not to stick to your previous decisions (are you confused yet? I am...)" You don't have to plan to not stick to your plan. You just need to be aware that things are ever changing and that there is a high chance you won't stick to your plan. Not sticking to a plan is common. What's rare is sticking to a plan long team.
Just how many people do stick to skill plans for 1 year, 2 years, 3 years? have many don't even stick to skill plans for 200 days? Anyway your ignoring some of the advantages of learning skills and not telling people those advantages when they ask are the skills worth it.
Estel Arador said "The "payoff theorists" take a guaranteed investment of SP (learning skills) and see when it is guaranteed to be recouped." But payoff does it in a way that doesn't apply to a very large amount of players. Most players will not fit into the situation where payoff works nicely. Payoff tells you when you get a guaranteed recouped of SP. It does not tell you when learning skills are worth it. Like I proved many times, learning skills can be worth it long before the payoff point it has been hit.
Estel Arador said "Pottsey theorists" take a guaranteed investment of SP (learning skills) and claim it's worth it after a possible change in training plans." My way says you get a guaranteed point of payoff plus there are further advantages like if you change skill plans which a very large amount of players do. This is a much better way than ignoring advantages like the payoff way does. Yes its possible, not guaranteed but you should not ignore a fact that can happen and happens a lot.
I am not saying abandon payoff. But when people ask is it worth it? Say something like Payoff guarantees SP will be recouped by x date. But there are other advantages like changing skill plans. Then people can make an informed dissuasion on if learning skills are worth or not for themselves.
If I and many other players followed what payoff says we would be much worse off. Yet payoff says we are better off. So payoff by its self is wrong some of the time.
Vritri said " You seem to say that because you picked up Learning V and shaved 10 mins off your Orca training, it was a benefit to your corp, even before the 200 day marker. But you could have picked up that same training 3 days, 23 hours, and 50 minutes earlier if you didn't train Learning. You are ignoring the initial investment of time spent into the learning skill." First we are talking days not 10mins just with learning V. Second I am talking about the game from a realist's point of view as Dretzle Omega put it. If you think about it, how could I train the Orca skills before I got learning? A, the skills in my case where not out before I got learning B, I had no interested in leadership back then. C, I couldn't afford the skills.
The problem with saying"But you could have picked up that same training 3 days, 23 hours, and 50 minutes earlier if you didn't train Learning" is that requires a crystal ball telling you changes before they happen. Take my recent Rorqual example. It was my corp moving to a class 6 wormhole on the 12th of December that caused me to train for a Rorqual. Training the Rorqual before I got learning would require me to have trained for the Rorqual before the event on the 12th of December happened. But before the 12th I had no interest in the Rorqual.
That's the advantage of learning skills. They give you the flexibility to change and respond to game balances, new skills and events that cause you to change skill plans. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 08:08:00 -
[4]
Estel Arador said " Sure the second thing could happen, but if you want to make a decision on whether or to train the skills the first is far more sensible." I don't think it is more sensible, in fact its misleading. The first requires you to plan for a situation that is very rare. I don't think planning to never change your skill plan is realistic or sensible.
How can you make a decision on whether or to train the skills without factoring in the advantages? Payoff requires you to ignore the advantages and make the decision purely on payoff. That is not more sensible. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 19:44:00 -
[5]
Fulbert said "You require 200 days of training to see a benefit. There's nothing more to write about" You don't always require 200days training to see a benefit. How can some people still fail to see this? You only sometimes have to wait 200days before you get a benefit. Sometimes you get benefits in less then 200 days.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 21:49:00 -
[6]
You are right that is so true. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 17:39:00 -
[7]
My idea does not only apply to those that have no idea what to train and it apply's to far more then a small subset of characters. In fact I would bet more players full under it then full into the payoff method. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 18:19:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Pottsey on 17/12/2009 18:21:38 Akita T said " Assume you start WITHOUT the learning skills trained up." Why assume it's going be like that when very often it's not? My problem with this thread is people are acting like the payoff situation of people never changing skill plan is the norm when it is not the norm. A very large amount of players do change skill plans. Yes payoff is a mathematical fact, but once someone changes skill plans payoff fails to measure the worth of learning skills. I don't agree with you when you say the following are a small subset of characters.
"* inability to log in for skill changes within a certain timeframe, and no other skills longer than learnings was longer than your absence period * inability to train skills because the skills were non-existent at the time * inability to train skills because you didn't know you really want them Now add on * Inability to get hold of skills due to location. * Inability to get hold of skills due to lack of isk. * Not sure what to train next.
Do you really think only a small subset of players fit into one of those 6 points in the time payoff takes? How many players in this thread have never changed skill plans based on mood, game balance, new skills, some sort of game event causing them to change skill plans or any other reason to change plans. How many people keep the same skill plan for 200days and never change? How many for 1 or 2 years and never change?
All I am saying is when someone asks are learning skills a benefit or worthwhile you give them the situations that are a benefit before payoff has been hit and you tell them when it's not a benefit. With so few people falling into the never changing skill plan during payoff situation, it seems wrong to use payoff by its self to value learning skills.
A lot of people in this thread seem so focus on the mathematical payoff point they forget about realism and how people change skill plans for lots of reasons.
What if the amount of players that never change skill plans that payoff works for is only 1% of the player base or less? What if its 51% never change and 49% do change plans? Should we just ignore the advantages of learning skills for those 49%? When anyone in that 49% that asks for advice on learning you are giving them bad advice by saying payoff says the skills are not worth getting and never saying anything about the advantages. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 19:38:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Pottsey on 17/12/2009 19:39:31 Akita T said " If you want some specific skills fast, mathematical payoff is the way to go when you determine what skills you want." I agree with that the problem is people are acting like that is the only situation when giving advice. It's wrong to assume everyone falls into that. It's wrong not to mention the other points.
"If you're not QUITE sure of what you want, make a long plan of stuff you MIGHT want to train, then use mathematical payoff on THAT specific larger plan to see what's best." Even then payoff somteimes fails to work due to all the variables that happen in game. People can have a long skill plan set in stone. Then 6months down the line the skill plan changes a lot.
The problem with payoff is it ignores a lot of common variables that happen in game. So we should at least explain when payoff doesn't work. Like the people who had long missile skill plans then the rebalance happened and they no longer like missions so they changed to hybrids. payoff says they are worse off, in reality and gameplay wise they are much better off. Like I said before, there is a place for payoff and payoff shouldn't be abandoned. But payoff by its self is not good advice. Good advice is to mention payoff and mention when it does work. That all I did, I mentioned when payoff doesn't work and when learning skills are useful before payoff has been hit and people started telling me I was wrong.
There is nothing wrong with what I said. There is no need to call me a moron like some did. My objection is saying everyone is worse off until payoff has been hit and that there is zero advantage until payoff has been hit. Clearly there is an advantage for many players befor payoff has been hit. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 21:45:00 -
[10]
Akita T said "The only problem is that your usually chosen words do not convey the meaning you just finally described." I just re read post 9 and I fail to see how it is unclear. It conveys the meaning just like my last post at least from how I read it. What is wrong with it? I admit English is not one of my strongest points but I don't see how it is that bad. What is so poor about post 9? If it's phrased badly I need it explaining so I can improve my post next time this crops up.
Swidgen said "No there isn't. Numbers, please. If you can't quantify your assertion then there is no way to evaluate it objectively. Faith-based skill training is fail." I have already quantified my ideas more than once both in this thread and others. For example in December my corp moved to a class 6 wormhole this trigged a need for me to train for a Rorqual something I had zero need for before, being based in empire. Even if I have not hit payoff my skill plan for the Rorqual ends faster with high learning skills. As my skill plan ends faster I have received a benefit. This is some one example of many where you gain a benefit before payoff has been hit.
You say there is no benefit or advantage and then go onto say it's me who is bad at math. Please explain how ending a skill plan faster for a ship I need is not a benefit? how am I better off by taking longer to train for the ship I need now?
Swidgen said " What variables are those?" variable x with x=change of skill plan due to event y. Payoff does not factor this in or the advantages of training x faster. You cannot train for event y before event y has happend.
Swidgen said "No there isn't. Train a skill - any skill at any level - and you will finish training that skill later on the calendar (and the clock) with Learning 5 than without it. Until the break-even point at 200+ days" Not always there are many times when learning 5 finishes first as has been explained. Like in my Rorqual example. Sure sometimes learning 5 is slower but not always.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
|
|
|
|