Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mynxee
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 22:17:00 -
[1]
CSM5 Meeting 006 will take place Saturday 14 August 2010 at 17:00 EVE time. All CSM5 Delegates and Alternates are invited to attend.
Deadline for Delegates to declare issues for the agenda is 12 August 2010 at 18:00. To get an issue added to the agenda, CSM Delegates must post in this thread linking the issue name to its CSM wiki page. A maximum of 9 issues will be considered in the meeting. Delegates are encouraged to post multiple issues; issues will be addressed in rotating order, 1 per delegate, until the max is reached.
Note to Community: CSM working meetings will rotate between 2nd Saturday/4th Sunday dates until the December Summit.
=============================
Agenda
A. Introduction -- Roll Call -- Reminders
B. Issues
C. Other Business -- CCP deliverables status update -- Progress reports
Life In Low Sec |
Marcus Vorenius
Caldari Citadel Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 22:44:00 -
[2]
there can only be one agenda item: the CSM needs to decide if it's part of the problem or part of the solution. If you guys have information that's privy to you only, then you need to inform us about it e.g. "chill out guys we are talking with CCP about it and we will give you an update soon" _______________________ P3T Blog: Lessons Learned from New Eden |
Hairy Bum
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 03:59:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Marcus Vorenius Edited by: Marcus Vorenius on 01/08/2010 05:17:54 nvm
You should run for the CSM - all of their posts get created, then edited over with "nvm" when they remember the futility of it all.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 05:49:00 -
[4]
Can I suggest some of you read this:
missing EVE economy discussion in it the CSM 5 meeting?
|
Marcus Vorenius
Caldari Citadel Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 15:21:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Hairy Bum
Originally by: Marcus Vorenius Edited by: Marcus Vorenius on 01/08/2010 05:17:54 nvm
You should run for the CSM - all of their posts get created, then edited over with "nvm" when they remember the futility of it all.
I deleted my post because it provided zero information. I'm quite sure that the CSM is busy enough championing our issues, so I don't want them to waste time on replying to my BS ______ Blog: "Lessons Learned from New Eden" - why you should add EVE to your CV/resume |
Hairy Bum
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 22:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Marcus Vorenius I deleted my post because it provided zero information. I'm quite sure that the CSM is busy enough championing our issues, so I don't want them to waste time on replying to my BS
Your admiration to a lost cause is to be admired. I'm sure though that they are championing their own perks and game status more than anything else. Self-centredness and player abuse seems to be the hallmark of CSM5 in this (and many others) humble opinion.
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 10:56:00 -
[7]
Two items from me this time:
Modify or Remove Learning Skills
User Interface - Big Wins, Fan Favorites and Low Hanging Fruit
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 15:14:00 -
[8]
May I please ask CSM members who will present the most wanted Backlog issues ?
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1362966&page=9
And the Commit to excellence one ?
Item Count Score Popular Issue Name ---- ----- ----- ------- ----------- 34 115 114.90 53.99% Commit to excellence (CSM) 39 87 86.86 40.85% Corporation Bookmarks (CSM) 14 76 75.86 35.68% Allign to Bookmarks (CSM) 40 71 71.00 33.33% Corporation and Alliance tool overhaul (CSM) 19 67 66.69 31.46% Assault Frigates 4th Bonus (CSM) 108 61 60.90 28.64% Overhaul of roles and grantable roles system (CSM) 33 60 59.86 28.17% Commit to Fixing the UI (CSM) 38 56 56.00 26.29% Corp Hangar Audit Logs (CSM) 69 54 54.00 25.35% Fix rockets (CSM)
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 20:05:00 -
[9]
Those are all passed CSM issues. We will prioritize them this weekend as part of the CCP release planning process. Hopefully some of them will be allocated dev time.
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 10:38:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Two items from me this time:
Modify or Remove Learning Skills
Too bad you did the math wrong in that suggestion, this would be much more suitable:
Increase the base attributes by 12 and increase the lowest number of attributes you can assign in a remap from 5 to 17. This will more or less compensate for the lack of the 10% boost provided by the learning skill.
End result: Min/maxed char without implants: 27/21 (2250SP/h) compared to 27.5/20.9 (2277SP/h). Min/maxed char with +5 implants: 32/26 (2700SP/h) compared to 33/26.4 (2770SP/h).
In other words we are talking about a max SP reduction of 613k SP/year for a +5 implant char and 236k SP/year for no implants. Another thing to consider is that before the neural remaps the highest speed you could reach in game was 2739SP/h.
|
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 13:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Too bad you did the math wrong in that suggestion, this would be much more suitable:
Increase the base attributes by 12 and increase the lowest number of attributes you can assign in a remap from 5 to 17. This will more or less compensate for the lack of the 10% boost provided by the learning skill.
End result: Min/maxed char without implants: 27/21 (2250SP/h) compared to 27.5/20.9 (2277SP/h). Min/maxed char with +5 implants: 32/26 (2700SP/h) compared to 33/26.4 (2770SP/h).
In other words we are talking about a max SP reduction of 613k SP/year for a +5 implant char and 236k SP/year for no implants. Another thing to consider is that before the neural remaps the highest speed you could reach in game was 2739SP/h.
Hmm... I think you may be right. It's been a while since I've had to compute training speeds (for the EViE tool I wrote a few years back).
If someone can confirm Mashie's numbers, I'll amend the proposal. And is there a way to get closer to the current numbers? I'm a bit of a SP-***** and don't want to gyp my +5 implant empire logistics alt...
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 14:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 09/08/2010 14:04:18 Ok, I just redid the the math slightly to make it even less of a SP drop compared to current levels:
Increase the base attributes by 12 so the lowest value in a remap is 17. Keep the 15 distributable points but change the max assignable from 15 to 16.
######## +5 clone with max/min attributes ########
Base DistributeImpsTotal 1216533 129526 125522 125522 125522
New max speed 33+26/2 = 2760 SP/h Old max speed 33+26.4/2 = 2772 SP/h
Effective change -0.43% or -105120 SP/year.
######## Empty clone with max/min attributes ########
Base DistributeImpsTotal 1216028 129021 125017 125017 125017
New max speed: 28+21/2 = 2310 SP/h Old max speed: 27.5+20.9/2 = 2277 SP/h
Effective change +1.4% or +289080 SP/year
Now before everyone is going OMG we lose speed with these attributes in +5 clones you have to remember that it is still 192720 SP/year faster than was possible before the neural remapping was introduced.
|
Richard Christy
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 16:13:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Hairy Bum
Originally by: Marcus Vorenius Edited by: Marcus Vorenius on 01/08/2010 05:17:54 nvm
You should run for the CSM - all of their posts get created, then edited over with "nvm" when they remember the futility of it all.
lol
|
Yeay Fritg
Caldari Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.08.11 10:50:00 -
[14]
May I please ask the CSM members to publish/link here the proposal their will submit to CCP ?
CCP, please don't come at the meeting and say 'Oh, we haven't noticed players wanted these points !' we will not trust you !
CCP, you had plenty of time to prepare a mature reaction like 'Ok guys we can allocate x weeks of Dev for this point...' or 'We will not do it !'.
CCP, avoid also 'We are aware of it we are investigating...' we aren't IT idiots.
Cheers, Yeay
|
Trebor Daehdoow
|
Posted - 2010.08.11 13:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Ok, I just redid the the math slightly to make it even less of a SP drop compared to current levels:
I have updated the proposal page to incorporate your suggestion. Please check it and confirm I got it right.
Best, Trebor
Confessions of a Noob Starship Politician Spending Hours blogging the Minutes
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2010.08.12 16:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Ok, I just redid the the math slightly to make it even less of a SP drop compared to current levels:
I have updated the proposal page to incorporate your suggestion. Please check it and confirm I got it right.
Best, Trebor
You should really update the Cons section of that proposal to accurately and fairly reflect a lot of the feedback provided in the Assembly Hall thread - that this change removes a level of choice/consequence/depth/planning from the character development process that many players feel is a positive aspect of the learning skills (and the loss of that choice/consequence/depth planning is undesirable).
I posted this suggestion in the main thread some time ago.
|
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 21:33:00 -
[17]
soooo a Q about the learning skills
whats so bad about them? will we get the SP trained in them spread between skills we want?
-----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
Ackbarre
Minmatar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 22:14:00 -
[18]
If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
|
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.13 22:38:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ackbarre If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
and what about the ones that put a couple months to train them to lv5 I'd like that sp put into something else if CCP is gunna **** up the attribute system like the rest of stuff the change -----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 01:05:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
You should really update the Cons section of that proposal to accurately and fairly reflect a lot of the feedback provided in the Assembly Hall thread - that this change removes a level of choice/consequence/depth/planning from the character development process that many players feel is a positive aspect of the learning skills (and the loss of that choice/consequence/depth planning is undesirable).
I posted this suggestion in the main thread some time ago.
None of those "cons" have come supported by reasoned argument. The notion that Learning Skills add any kind of real depth to EVE was seen as absurd by most posters. It would be accurate to say there is a significant minority opposed to changing the learning skills, but they've yet to come up with much in defense of that position. However, I welcome CSMs or better yet CCP staff to read that Assembly thread and see for themselves the arguments for and against the removal of learning skills.
|
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 01:10:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Ok, I just redid the the math slightly to make it even less of a SP drop compared to current levels:
I have updated the proposal page to incorporate your suggestion. Please check it and confirm I got it right.
Best, Trebor
That looks about right yes.
Originally by: eliminator2
Originally by: Ackbarre If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
and what about the ones that put a couple months to train them to lv5 I'd like that sp put into something else if CCP is gunna **** up the attribute system like the rest of stuff the change
Then you get however many SP you have in the Learning skill tree to use on other skills.
|
Qwert0
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 04:57:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: eliminator2
Originally by: Ackbarre If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
and what about the ones that put a couple months to train them to lv5 I'd like that sp put into something else if CCP is gunna **** up the attribute system like the rest of stuff the change
Then you get however many SP you have in the Learning skill tree to use on other skills.
PLUS whatever extra SP you earned by having higher attributes compared to a peer that didn't train them, so it's not like you lose anything in the process.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 06:36:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Xorv
None of those "cons" have come supported by reasoned argument.
All of them have. They've been handwaved away with "nuh unhhh!!!" (like you just did) but that doesn't change their support. The fact is that the 'pro' arguments not only lack support, the fact that they lack support is noted.
Quote:
* Easier initial career paths for new players. (needs facts to verify) * Improved new player retention. (needs facts to verify)
Claiming something that you don't know is true as a "pro" point and then saying "oh yeah, and we need some facts to prove that this even exists" is... odd. As for simplifying skill planning by removing variables, seriously? In EVE? We can also simplify training by cutting three races out of the game. Or maybe just take away the long/short weapon dynamic and give each race one generic weapon. After all it's confusing having to choose which to put SP's into and when, to say nothing of how much time it takes to specialize in multiple weapon systems, and as we all know complexity, specialization and more-choices-than-time are all totally against the core nature of EVE. Eh? Eh?
Removing complexity and choice that leads to varying development paths is a pro, in EVE? Since when?
And, of course, the 'cons' section does not include the very real fact that removing learning skills removes depth and choice as well as the tradeoff between short and long term profit. It's a solution in search of a problem and hopefully CCP ignores that specific proposal. ------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 08:30:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Qwert0
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: eliminator2
Originally by: Ackbarre If we get a refund on skill points already trained in learning skills. I would get a whopping 442,040 SP back to reallocate ala the server downtime recently.
and what about the ones that put a couple months to train them to lv5 I'd like that sp put into something else if CCP is gunna **** up the attribute system like the rest of stuff the change
Then you get however many SP you have in the Learning skill tree to use on other skills.
PLUS whatever extra SP you earned by having higher attributes compared to a peer that didn't train them, so it's not like you lose anything in the process.
not our fault that people didnt train these skills we learnt about them did the math and worked it it would be better to train them so we did others maybe new about them but put it off and didnt train now in relity the person who didnt train the learning skills now are better off or gunna be because they spent all sp on other skills and are gunna get better/equal attributes to the ones that did train them so they infact lost no time and gain quite abit of time
now the ones that did train em sure we gained time from training them but thats because we put the few months into training them to get sometyhing out of it now that specail reward of training the skills will be taken away from us depending how they change it and they are taking a big choice out of the game which is to train or not to train so basicly we loose that 1-2 months of training + specail prize we get for training them (as in shorter time for skills) so yes we are at a loss and i demand my SP put into other stuff if they change it -----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 10:27:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Xorv on 14/08/2010 10:27:40
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Xorv
None of those "cons" have come supported by reasoned argument.
All of them have.
What utter rubbish, maybe you need to reread that thread.
Quote:
* Easier initial career paths for new players. (needs facts to verify) * Improved new player retention. (needs facts to verify)
How is removing Learning Skills and replacing the lost stats (or at least most of them) not a huge boost to new players pursuit of their first "career path" in EVE?
No one can accurately empirically prove something like the causes of new player retention or departure from EVE. That said there's a great abundance of anecdotal evidence that it is the case, but obviously that alone doesn't prove the point. Still we can logically surmise that a great many players would be put off playing EVE because they essentially are pushed into not playing for the first few months of their subscription. Don't deny that's the case there's even video footage of a CCP employee saying he played Counter Strike for the first few months of EVE while he trained these skills, and said words to the effect that it was terrible game design.
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
As for simplifying skill planning by removing variables, seriously? In EVE? We can also simplify training by cutting three races out of the game. Or maybe just take away the long/short weapon dynamic and give each race one generic weapon. After all it's confusing having to choose which to put SP's into and when, to say nothing of how much time it takes to specialize in multiple weapon systems, and as we all know complexity, specialization and more-choices-than-time are all totally against the core nature of EVE. Eh? Eh?
Removing complexity and choice that leads to varying development paths is a pro, in EVE? Since when?
This ******ed argument has been slammed over and over again. There's little choice involved in learning skills. Saying there is a choice is like saying we have a choice to either Fly in a plane or Swim from New York to London... sure there's a choice of a kind, but when everyone chooses the one choice it's no longer a choice of any meaning. Learning skills are rather simple actually, complexity is neither their problem nor an attribute of Learning Skills, just a rather feeble myth propagated by posters like you. I don't think I'll respond to the rest of your nonsense in the quote as anyone with half a brain knows it has no relevance to removing Learning Skills.
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
And, of course, the 'cons' section does not include the very real fact that removing learning skills removes depth and choice as well as the tradeoff between short and long term profit. It's a solution in search of a problem and hopefully CCP ignores that specific proposal.
Learning Skills add Depth???? This is a "very real fact" is it? How so? There maybe a choice in whether you take them to 5, but other than that what is this depth you speak of? Maybe you mean depth in terms of game time? It adds more time sink that's the only "depth" I see...
Hate to break it to you (well actually I kind of enjoy telling you), but CCP already agrees with those of us that think Learning Skills should be removed. It's only their sluggish pace at fixing long standing issues and fear of the rage of lamers like you that has prevented Learning Skills being dumped long ago.
To the CSMs presenting this to CCP:
Let CCP know they're going to get anger either way, so just do what they think is right for the game. It annoys me far more that they would cave into players like FinnAgain and his ilk based on fear of their negative reaction than the actual prospect of Learning Skills remaining. The later just means I won't encourage friends and family to play EVE, not that any likely would in it's current form. The former tells me that game is pretty much doomed due to developer attitudes, and I should consider canceling.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 12:15:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Xorv
What utter rubbish
Ahhh, the Argument By Nuhn Unnnhh! Convincing.
Originally by: Xorv
How is removing Learning Skills and replacing the lost stats (or at least most of them) not a huge boost to new players pursuit of their first "career path" in EVE?
Other things that would boost new players: -Give new players [racial] Titan V and their own titan. Give them several replacement titans if they lose those, too. It's essential for EVE that some players not have an advantage over others if it's the result of their investment of resources that earns them that bonus. -Give new players all 800 billion ISK. If they spend it, give them more in increments of 100 billion. After all, there is really no choice between making ISK and doing other things, since everybody makes ISK to some degree or another, and so it's not a choice at all. Free ISK for all new players. -Make them all Jedis (or has that been done before?)
Originally by: Xorv
Don't deny that's the case
Of course I'll deny that that's the case as it's stupid. How long does it take to train warp disruptors and AB's? (Hint: not long) Bonus points for "but a dev did something so that proves that nobody can play the game without waiting for MONTHS!!!"
Originally by: Xorv
This ******ed argument has been slammed over and over again.
I think you mean that tards have flailed at it again and again while actually doing nothing to debunk it. Is there choice involved? Yes. Do the choices allowed balance long and short term rewards and expenses? Yes. Is there anything you've said which rebuts that? No. Using your same 'logic', we also must do something about having tacklers in fleets, since all fleets have them if they don't want their enemies to warp off. And DPS, since all fleets have DPS if they want to shoot folks. And mining lasers/drones, since all miners have them. And ISK, since all traders use that, and...
And train Analogies to at least lvl II (unless that's too hard. If so just get CCP to give you that skill). Swimming the Atlantic is a physical impossibility, but training skills without SP's in LS's is not, at all. It'd be a choice between, say, spending $100 on a train between New York and LA versus spending $1,000 on a commercial jet airliner between New York and LA. And then some muppets demanding that everybody be given free airfare since, after all, there must be no choice at all involved since almost nobody takes Amtrak these days.
Originally by: Xorv
Learning Skills add Depth????
Ahhh, the Argument By Excessive Punctuation. Also a classic. Yes, learning skills add depth to a character's profile, as the degree they are taken to govern how quickly SP's are gained. Just like implants. But there is less rage over +4's... and ~gasp!~ you even need to train a skill to be able to use +4's as opposed to +3's. Why, that's no choice at all. Right, eh? Or maybe all new players should be given Cybernetics V and OVER 9000 +5 implants for each stat. I mean, that'd probably help new player retention, right?
Originally by: Xorv The later just means I won't encourage friends and family to play EVE
If there are learning skills in the game, which are totally optional and completely unnecessary to having an enjoyable and rewarding time playing EVE, you'll still refrain from encouraging family and friends from playing EVE. A game that you've been playing for nearly half a decade, during which time learning skills have existed for 100% of the time and which haven't stopped you from playing the game year, after year, after year, after year. Kind of a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of a tack.
Because we all know that the quality of EVE is determined by how fast you can amass SP's. But it'd totally be much cooler if every new player could start as a Jedi. How could that go wrong?
------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
Xorv
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 20:06:00 -
[27]
Rather than wasting my time responding to all that trash I'll simply ask you a question or two.
If Learning Skills are so great for EVE and should be kept, why not add Learning Skills for Learning Skills? Lets call these new skills "childhood development", they would be a series of skills CCP adds to the game that takes 6 months to fully train, both prerequisites for basic learning skill and that without which all other training time is doubled.
It would add "depth" and "choice" to EVE wouldn't it?
The new "Child Development" Skills wouldn't really be necessary skills to train surely?
Not having "Child Development" skills might mean CCP is about to give Cybernetics and Titan V to new players right?
Jedi's will be introduced into the game
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
[..]A game that you've been playing for nearly half a decade, during which time learning skills have existed for 100% of the time and which haven't stopped you from playing the game year, after year, after year, after year. Kind of a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of a tack.
Was this your attempt at digging up dirt on me for some lame ad hominem attack to add to the rest of your nonsense. Aren't you sneaky... Unfortunately, you forget that a player's character creation date or first post does not mean they've been playing all that time.
|
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 21:00:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Xorv Rather than wasting my time responding to all that trash
Ahhh, the Argument by Sure You Showed That Every Single Point I Made Was Full of Crap, But... Nuhn Unnnnhhh! Highly cogent.
Originally by: Xorv
If Learning Skills are so great for EVE and should be kept, why not add Learning Skills for Learning Skills?
Learn about EVE, yes? There are learning skills that effect other learning skills. Memory and intelligence effect the tier 1 skills, tier 2 have other skills. and Learning effects them all. Interesting fallacy you're falling back on now, though. If there is a good level of depth and choice involved, why, we must need to add even more! Of course, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but your example of skills that only effect learning is ******ed as all learning skills effect the totality of SP acquisition. Pretending that something new not being added is the same as a long-standing game feature being removed for absolutely no good reason is part for the course for your argument.
Speaking of the rationalizations that you are using in the place of actual reasoning, you seem to have accidentally forgotten each and every single one and coincidentally tried to handwave away the refutations once your rationalizations were shown to be total bull... that was pretty lucky.
Originally by: Xorv Was this your attempt at digging up dirt on me for some lame ad hominem attack
Yet another bit of fail, eh? Please learn the definition of ad hominem. It doesn't, in fact, mean pointing out that you're full of crap and engaging in blatant hypocrisy and that you don't even believe your own nonsense about how people shouldn't play the game due to learning skills (which, let's face it, is a total tard claim even if you weren't trolling anyways).
Of course, your evasion is even lamer then the claim that showing you were trolling is an "ad hominem". Whether or not you played continually is hardly relevant to the fact that after nearly half a decade you are still playing EVE, despite your bluster about how horrible EVE is due to having the option to increase your rate of acquiring skillpoints and how people shouldn't play EVE. ------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 21:21:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 14/08/2010 21:21:49
Having skills just for the sake of skills is stupid and poses an unnecessary barrier for new players.
I hated doing them on my main and did so for all of my alts. Yes they are a choice, but not a very voluntary one if you want to be able to compete so I will vote for whatever measure is taken to remove them or diminish their influence. á
I think CSM is a pretty cool guy. eh creates e-drama and doesnt afraid of anything. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 22:16:00 -
[30]
They're not skills for the sake of skills, they're skills for the sake of time. Time is the only real resource that's inelastic in EVE; with time you make ISK, complete missions, kill sov structures, whatever, but the amount of time in a day cannot be modified. Learning skills are essentially no different than implants. should those be removed from the game too?
Nor does the objection about 'extra time' for noobs hold water. No matter how fast skills train with a 'boosted attributes' '"fix", it will still take a significant amount of time for new players to, say, fly fully T2 fit battleships. And those who can afford implants will have an advantage over those who cannot. And those who can afford better implants....
There's no barrier to playing. If you're new to the game and want to get into a profession immediately, then train for that. If you want to keep your SP's/hour as high as possible, then train for Learning. It's 100% volitional, and not a necessity at all. You can have exactly as many skills as a player with maxed learning skills, it just takes a bit longer. In point of fact, it takes years until a full investment in learning skills sees the time invested rewarded by time savings. There is no actual barrier, just a perceptual one. I started the game and barely trained any skills, found a lowsec corp, got into 0.0 PvP, participated in an alliance that built and lost an outpost... all without putting more than a few 10's of thousands of points into the Learning group. ------------------------------------------------
Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you're going to be Mister Finnagain! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |