Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fulbert
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 18:03:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Fulbert on 16/12/2009 18:04:40
Originally by: Jerid Verges 4 Days seems like a long time to train though. So I was wondering if 4 Days is worth a 2% bonus.
Here's the math : 4 days / 0.02 = 200 days You require 200 days of training to see a benefit. There's nothing more to write about that. Level V is interesting if you think you'll still be on EVE in 200 days... if your skill plan is 200d+ long. Enough said. -------------------------------- Fulbert. Miner - Industrialist |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 18:20:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Fulbert Edited by: Fulbert on 16/12/2009 18:04:40
Originally by: Jerid Verges 4 Days seems like a long time to train though. So I was wondering if 4 Days is worth a 2% bonus.
Here's the math : 4 days / 0.02 = 200 days You require 200 days of training to see a benefit. There's nothing more to write about that. ..
note that math says 4 days / ((1.10/1.08)-1)) = 216 days.
and it's not that simple. nobody can really tell how long will they play EVE. if you play month by month, payoff method would prevent you from training learnings past 4, which in hindsight would be nonsense. also, spending first three months just training learning would chase away many gamers.
in the end, you have to balance between what you want and what you need.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 19:44:00 -
[33]
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
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 20:14:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Pottsey 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.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Pottsey. Please see my link for a humorous yet, oh-so-true, answer to your question. (Just a webcomic, guys. I swear.)
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 21:49:00 -
[35]
You are right that is so true. ______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2009.12.16 22:12:00 -
[36]
That comic applies to both sides apparently
Free jumpclone service: Thread|Expanded again! |
GavinCapacitor
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 16:44:00 -
[37]
Only read part of this thread, but Pottsey seems like a moron.
We are talking about learning, so changing a skill plan doesn't matter because the skill "Learning" affects all training times, doesn't matter what skill plan you are currently on. And it becomes worth it when you get to where you would be without learning but are also training faster.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 17:06:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Akita T on 17/12/2009 17:15:45
Originally by: GavinCapacitor Only read part of this thread, but Pottsey seems like a moron. We are talking about learning, so changing a skill plan doesn't matter because the skill "Learning" affects all training times, doesn't matter what skill plan you are currently on. And it becomes worth it when you get to where you would be without learning but are also training faster.
Actually, he is correct. However, he's talking about just a few people, namely two groups... that of "so, I've trained pretty much everything I want and have no idea what to train now, but want to be ready for when the next set of skills come up in some future expansion"... and that of "I have absolutely no idea what to train next, but I will want something specific later on done ASAP". Of course, he conveniently neglects to mention any of that _as_such_ most of the time.
Basically, his theory/interpretation/viewpoint is (technically) correct, but it (usually) applies to such a small subset of characters (or, at least, for very short periods of times in most character's lives) that he might as well not really bother with it.
_
We are recruiting | Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 17:39:00 -
[39]
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
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 18:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Pottsey 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.
Assume you start WITHOUT the learning skills trained up. Any individual intermediary step, every skill level you train up to the "payoff" point, all of it can be trained faster without training the learning skills. It's the very definition of the payoff time, and it's not a matter of preference, but mathematical fact.
Now, in order for the training of the learning skill to make any sense whatsoever for stuff before the payoff time, there MUST be a reason why you COULD NOT have simply trained all the needed skills before that time, or else your entire line of reasoning becomes invalid. The only possible situations are : * 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
If any of those situations apply, yes, you are absolutely correct - training the learning skills CAN become beneficial to train before the mathematical payoff time. If not, however - you don't have a point at all - the mathematical payoff is the earliest time training the learnings does, well, pay off.
_
We are recruiting | Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 18:19:00 -
[41]
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
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 18:26:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Pottsey 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.
This is where the knowing yourself and matter of taste come in that Akita and I have pointed out.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 18:50:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Akita T on 17/12/2009 18:55:56
Most people do indeed frequently change the specific order of the things they do want trained, but they eventually want all the desired skills trained. Very few people COMPLETELY change focus of their long-term skillplan. As such, the decision to train or not train learning skills earlier (and to what level) SHOULD be influenced by the mathematical payoff time, not by anything else. A small thing here about "frequent short-term skillplan shifters" - for them, the payoff can and should be calculated not against the actual collection of skillplans followed, but that of the extended skillplan encompassing all desirable smaller skillplans they MIGHT want to get.
But that brings us back to the starting point - your interpretation of your side of the argument is basically a matter of semantics : you acknowledge the existence of the mathematical payoff, you state that the "actual" payoff can be earlier in case of skillplan changes, but conveniently play down the fact the achievement of that "faster payoff than mathematically calculable one" not just depends on, but is mandated by the willingness to handwave the time spent training the learning skills as having been almost completely useless if it would have been used on non-learning skill training. Because if you do NOT do that, you're back to the mathematical payoff as earliest point stuff makes sense. ___
Concrete example ?
You have all learning skills to L4 and WU4. You want Production Efficiency 5 as soon as possible, and nothing else. Does it make sense to train learning 5 first ? Clearly, NO.
Now, say you might be also eying AWU 4 and Minmatar Strategic Cruiser too, and what the heck, put both med projectile specialisation into the mix also alongside some other stuff that doesn't quite add up to the mathematical payoff of learning 5, and you want them all done ASAP. Does it make sense to train learning 5 now ? I'm sorry, STILL NO. Now, if you don't really care to have them done ASAP, then by all means, feel free to train learning 5 already.
Let's you start with the projectile and minnie training, leaving PE5/WU5/AWU4 for the last few skills... and before you train those last ones, you suddenly decide "screw it, I'll train for med laser spec and Amarr Strategic cruiser instead", and never use the minnie/projectile training (and none of the "other stuff" mentioned earlier either)... and all of a sudden, you want all THESE new skills ALSO done ASAP. Does it makes sense to train learning 5 now ? NO. But would it have made sense to train learning 5 at the start of all of this ? YES. Of course, if you're so undecided on what you want, you should have trained learning from the start anyway.
But what if you DO use those skills you trained until now ? Well, if you have had trained learning first, they would again have come only later. If you cared about getting them fast, you wouldn't have trained learning. ___
If you want some specific skills fast, mathematical payoff is the way to go when you determine what skills you want. 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. If you COMPLETELY UNSURE of what you want, then by all means, DO train up learnings as soon as you got whatever else you need ASAP first, since you'll probably be better off in the long run for sure.
_
We are recruiting | Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 19:38:00 -
[44]
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
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 19:41:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Akita T on 17/12/2009 19:45:14
The only problem is that your usually chosen words do not convey the meaning you just finally described.
P.S. In case you haven't noticed, I was actually agreeing with you the whole time on the core of the issue. I was only having an argument about the way your prefer to phrase your viewpoint, and the way in which you integrate it into the context. You express yourself very poorly, and as such it's no wonder so many people attack you.
_
We are recruiting | Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Swidgen
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 21:02:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Pottsey It's wrong not to mention the other points.
You are not entitled to your own facts, and a different point of view is not necessarily a good one.
Originally by: Pottsey The problem with payoff is it ignores a lot of common variables that happen in game.
What variables are those? One gets the feeling that you aren't very good at math. If that's the case then you are not qualified to talk about "variables".
Originally by: Pottsey 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.
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. |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 21:43:00 -
[47]
What he's trying to say is that there are circumstances in which a big chunk of your skill training so far becomes partially invalidated by either game mechanics adjustments or a personal choice to radically shift scope of skill training. What he's also saying is that learning skills are never invalidated by such changes. In those circumstances, the part of the skills that become useless to you (or at least will largely remain unused from that moment on by you) can be considered "wasted SP", and therefore if you would have instead spent (some of) those SP on learning skills first, you could allegedly consider them already a net gain in comparison.
To put things into perspective, let's take one of those scenarios... taken to the extreme. So, for instance, let's say you have at one time the FOTM being the T2 torpedo Widow. You could probably easily spend 5 mil SP total training for a Widow and its fittings that you wouldn't have otherwise trained. Now, next patch, the FOTM becomes worthless - not just the ship, but the entire weapon system, the entire ship class, and so on and so forth, leaving you with 5 mil SP that you no longer desire to have... ...and now, you want to train for this other new FOTM which is 3 mil SP into something entirely different. Now, his point is that if you would have maxed out all your learning skills already (total SP needed being below 5 mil SP) first instead of focusing on getting all those FOTM-related skills, you would be better off as soon as the FOTM becomes the fail-of-the-month - regardless of whether you barely started training for it or just finished training for it - it's instant payoff either way since you don't want those SP into FOTM stuff anyway, and you get those other 3 mil SP in the next FOTM faster than the guy who didn't train the learnings first (even if that guy got to the first FOTM faster than you did).
Of course, that is an intentionally exaggerated scenario, but it serves to illustrate his reasoning. Under normal circumstances, the situations are far less clear-cut, a lot of "claimed useless" skills are still relatively useful even if you wouldn't have necessarily trained for them with the new rules, people don't change training plans that radically anyway, gameplay changes are seldom that radical... and people training just for FOTM are kind of asking for it anyway.
_
We are recruiting | Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 21:45:00 -
[48]
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
|
Abdiesus
Amarr Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 21:47:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Swidgen
Originally by: Estel Arador Learning V compared to Learning IV is a 1.85% increase no matter how you cut it. If it takes 4 Days to train, it will take 216 Days before you have gained as much SP from the skill as you invested in it.
That's exactly where the question begins and ends. This vague additional "benefit" you might get from "changing skill plans" is nonsense. With Learning V you'll shave the 1.8 percent off anything and everything you train, regardless of what your skill plan is, how long you stick to it, or change it.
If you're not planning to play for 216 days then Learning 5 in the long run (which in this case is 216 days) is not worth it. That's the length of time before the skill pays for itself and no nebulous change in your skill plan will change that one iota.
Sorry, but it really isnt nonsense. As a fairly new player, a long time player of MMOs in general, and one of those wierdos who reads EVERYTHING I can find on a game before I even open the box, the idea of "payoff" in a literal, definable period of time sense, as you and Estel define it, should make sense to me.
But it doesnt. I have no damn clue what I intend to do in a year from now, hell, I cant even tell you which ship I want to fly a year from now. I know I want to fly a BC and solo C1 wormholes, which should take 3-4 months, but beyond that? No clue. I might decide to take up mining, or science, or become a trader or....etc.
I think the point that's being made here is that having all the learning skills at a good level early makes you more flexible. It gives you an immediate and tangible benefit of speedy training in the event your path changes direction, which I suspect happens a bit more often than you might think.
High learning skills are a contingency plan, a way to cushion the blow of change, and while they do have a definable "payoff" in terms of hours and minutes, they can be worth more to a player on an individual level dependent on their situation.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 21:53:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Pottsey 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
You need to emphasize the wasted skillpoints due to "environmental issues" or personal choice shifts, and the difference made by having had trained all those wasted SP into learnings instead. You need to clearly state that it is only in such cases where you have managed to acquire a significant portion of SP you would now rather not have trained in the first place that your choice to have trained the learnings instead would pay off sooner than the actual mathematical payoff.
_
We are recruiting | Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2009.12.17 22:58:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Akita T Basically, his theory/interpretation/viewpoint is (technically) correct, but it (usually) applies to such a small subset of characters (or, at least, for very short periods of times in most character's lives) that he might as well not really bother with it.
This.
As for the mathematical view / knowing yourself: knowing when skills will pay off is one thing, acting on it is another. The payoff calculation only serves as information which you can use to make a decision. It's perfectly fine to train skills even though you know they won't pay off - as long as you know what you're doing and why. The opposite can also be true, as it was in my case. I know and knew exactly how long it would pay off for the learning skills to V to pay off and I knew I would play that long yet I made the decision not to train them. A suboptimal choice, but at least I knew it was suboptimal when I made it.
Free jumpclone service: Thread|Expanded again! |
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 12:50:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Estel Arador
Originally by: Akita T Basically, his theory/interpretation/viewpoint is (technically) correct, but it (usually) applies to such a small subset of characters (or, at least, for very short periods of times in most character's lives) that he might as well not really bother with it.
This.
As for the mathematical view / knowing yourself: knowing when skills will pay off is one thing, acting on it is another. The payoff calculation only serves as information which you can use to make a decision. It's perfectly fine to train skills even though you know they won't pay off - as long as you know what you're doing and why. The opposite can also be true, as it was in my case. I know and knew exactly how long it would pay off for the learning skills to V to pay off and I knew I would play that long yet I made the decision not to train them. A suboptimal choice, but at least I knew it was suboptimal when I made it.
Exactly. Like engineers and physicists, the payoff theorists and Pottsey theorists need each other.
|
Forduc
|
Posted - 2009.12.18 21:05:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Swidgen
Originally by: Pottsey 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.
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.
Faith-based skill training is fail.
Bad Bad Troll. Completely illogical argument. Would apply for skills that belong to your plan before decide whether or not to train learning V, but definetly not for any skill at any level
|
Sue MeiWydoncha
Caldari Union of Disinterested Parties
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 00:49:00 -
[54]
I read this whole freaking thread. Here's a different take on the subject. Each time you train "Learning" your attributes....each one, go up by one. Those points can be redistributed in a remap and with 5 extra points in each attribute you can make a more effective remap. Each time you change your training focus (if you have'nt used up your remaps) you could remap for the set your trying to change. There's where it can really pay off. In general, in day to day play, the payoff is rather small. Unless 2% is huge.....and it's not.
Now I may be completely wrong here.....I am after all a Troll.
|
Yelan Zhou
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 01:55:00 -
[55]
Since those points from the learning skills cant be remaped afaik yer a bad troll too.
|
Vritri
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 05:17:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Vritri on 19/12/2009 05:16:57
Originally by: Abdiesus
Sorry, but it really isnt nonsense. As a fairly new player, a long time player of MMOs in general, and one of those wierdos who reads EVERYTHING I can find on a game before I even open the box, the idea of "payoff" in a literal, definable period of time sense, as you and Estel define it, should make sense to me.
But it doesnt. I have no damn clue what I intend to do in a year from now, hell, I cant even tell you which ship I want to fly a year from now. I know I want to fly a BC and solo C1 wormholes, which should take 3-4 months, but beyond that? No clue. I might decide to take up mining, or science, or become a trader or....etc.
Well frankly, especially as far as Learning V is concerned, you don't need to know WHAT you will be doing a year from now for Learning V to be worthwhile. As long as you intend to be training skills constantly, the only thing you need to know is "Will I be playing 200 days from now". Learning V is probably the easiest learning skill to see the benefit of, because no matter what you are training it will speed up your skill training times.
Thus, regardless of how often you change skill plans or what your skill plan is, you will always see the benefit of Learning V as long as you play about 200 days. It's more tricky for the other learning skills (because training say, Presence to V when you plan to train no skills needing Charisma would be a very silly thing to do) but it's very straightforward for Learning.
The exceptions I make for this are as Pottsey did point out, if you are unable to get the skills you want because of cost or availability or other circumstances, then the learning skill may be a great filler in the meantime until you can get it. Generally speaking though, Learning is the easiest skill to figure out since it affects everything equally.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 08:33:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Sue MeiWydoncha I read this whole freaking thread. Here's a different take on the subject. Each time you train "Learning" your attributes....each one, go up by one. Those points can be redistributed in a remap and with 5 extra points in each attribute you can make a more effective remap.
It doesn't work that way. Only the BASE attributes may be remapped... and not all of them, just 14 points of the total 39 (there's a minimum of 5 in each base attribute after a remap, so 25 are locked, and also there's a maximum of 15 base in any of them, so the most extreme remap you can take looks like this : 15/9/5/5/5).
_
We are recruiting | Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Harkwyth Mist
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 15:42:00 -
[58]
+2% to all 5 attributes doesn't sound like much
but at L5 thats +10%, which is slightly more impressive.
At level 4 you'll get xSP/hr in whatever skill your training. At level 5 you'll get xSP+/hr in whatever skill your training.
|
RavenPaine
|
Posted - 2009.12.19 19:07:00 -
[59]
I read this whole thread.
I wish I could have read it 2% faster.
|
Yelan Zhou
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 00:13:00 -
[60]
To sum it up, its like any skill. If you think you want/need it simply learn it.Well if not...then not
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |