|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Royal Enterprise
Dead Terrorists
   |
Posted - 2010.06.25 03:22:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Frank d'Fairy
Oh look the conservatives in the "it's fine," camp are out again.
For god's sake how can you not support this with a strait face? It's a chore and there's no reason for it. Stop acting like training learning skills is somehow a thoughtful and strateigic thing to do. It's blatantly obvious training up learnin skills is beneficial in the long run, there's no question about it. The pay-off might only be realised after a year or more, but it's there, so anyone with half a clue will be training them as quickly as possible.
I've got learning 5/5 on three characters total and i'm apalled this is still an issue.
Oh look it's the entitlement crew out for a sTROLL.
Harden up. Learning skills are an option. They provide depth to the game. Go play your FPS on the XBox 360 if you want a shallow game. Some of us use our brains and hands when playing EVE, I realize that may be difficult for you, I know - SUE SOMEONE! Sure, entitlement at it's best. I don't have to work for stuff, I should just be given it because I'm special...
HTFU or get off the ride.... |
Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Royal Enterprise
Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.07.27 14:55:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
I am raising the proposal for several reasons:
* It has received significant support (as well as passionate dissent).
* It has significant consequences for the health of the game.
* The CSM represents all players -- including clueless noobs.
* The issue deserves attention by the full CSM. They may well vote it down, or pass it in modified form. But no matter what the outcome...
* ...I think it is important to get some sort of position on this issue on the record, for the simple reason that at some point CCP may decide to make changes for retention reasons, and if they do, I think it's important to have a template out there that suggests how to do it in a manner that is as favorable as possible to the people who've already trained learning skills.
Think of this proposal as a condom whose purpose is to *prevent* a screwing.
I think that you are full of it. Do you have a position on this, or are you a true politician? I think your wiki article makes it obvious where you stand on this with this one line:
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
will eventually create more bitter old vets
The wiki article is a mess, including unsubstantiated "facts" that are likely fallacies. If we are allowed to edit your proposals, I would have done it directly.
consensus: n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole
This is probably an outright lie, based on the definition of consensus (above):
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
The consensus of the CSM is that the current learning skills system is, on balance, a detriment to EVE
I would like to see the actual post-account-cancellation surveys that are for truly "new" players (not players creating alt accounts) that cite having to train Learning skills as a cause for their cancellation.
I angrily hate this proposal - not necessarily the removal of learning skills but the "give me stats or give me basic learning skills" - either the learning skills are a problem, or they are not. Either they should exist (as is) or not.
I firmly believe that the learning skills should stay as is. HOWEVER, if there were to be a change, it should be to remove learning skills and refund the actual SP that players have put into said skills. All attributes are reduced to non-learning skill levels. Refunding skillbooks has to be based on NPC sell price (and still has issues). PERIOD. Anything else is a wolf in sheep's clothing, whining entitlement babies who don't like that it takes days(weeks/months) to train for the big shiny.
I take this position from a player with 3 accounts and 7 characters, all with basic learning skills to V and advanced skills to at least III, (some IV and 1 with all learning skills at V). If they are going away, make everything about them go away - don't institute fake attribute boosts and additional remaps.
A more accurate statement about Pros:
ò Simplifies the skill training decision tree for players
ò Removes psychological barrier to undocking without learning skills
A more accurate statement about Cons:
ò Simplifies the skill training decision tree for players
ò increases overall training time for all skills by removing learning bonuses
|
Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Royal Enterprise
Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.07.27 20:37:00 -
[3]
Originally by: stoicfaux
156 supports and *ZERO* disapprovals! Plus not all supporters add a thumbs up to every post they make in the thread (voting multiple times is rude.) It's a good day to be a politician when you can vote on an issue and not anger anyone.
I'm sorry can you show me the DO NOT SUPPORT button to check? maybe if you read this threadnaught you'd realize the odds are like 156 for, 1560 against...
|
Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Royal Enterprise
Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.07.28 15:35:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
I am open to evidence that there are errors in the presentation. Also note that all CSM proposals are drafts, subject to debate and modification during the actual meetings. Even if it is passed, certain aspects of it may be strengthened or weakened after discussion by delegates.
Well, to begin with there is no consensus in the CSM that the Learning skills are a problem - since you haven't had the meeting to discuss them.
Then, the claims that new player retention is affected by the learning skills.
Then the claim that changing them would improve new player retention
Then the claim that the only negative impact is "bitter old vets"
With no facts and a biased presentation, I turn this back upon you. Present FACTS that any of these are true before stating them as facts. You are the one making claims. Where is your evidence?
I am merely accusing you of making claims without facts to support them.
|
Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Royal Enterprise
Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 14:42:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
PS: the mention of "bitter old vets" in the proposal is an example of an extremely advanced concept that you are clearly unfamiliar with. Here is a Wikipedia link that may be helpful.
I did not realize that a proposal going before the CSM was the place for a satirical comment. I thought it was "serious spaceship business" - my bad. Guess my belief that CSM is supposed to be doing "serious spaceship business" for the playerbase is incorrect then...
|
|
|
| |
|