EVE Search - New Dev Blog - Learning skills are going away

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog - Learning skills are going away

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 24 post(s)
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.25 18:48:00 - [1] I thought the point was always to train but train faster for longer periods of time with higher learning skills. Alot of the dead time during early character creation gave a player the time needed to start advancing his/her learning curve in this game. Everything is becomeing right out of the box, little learning curve, little forthought, and little creativity. All about the noobs huh ? Makes it easier and less daunting for the little ones to get involved which in turn = more revenue in new accounts. When I first became a subscriber I would hear stories about how tough it used to be and how characters started with next to nothing. Now I feel like one of the old timers remembering when. 'Not sure i like it, 'NOT SURE I LIKE IT MUCH AT ALL. seems like just about everything is getting dumbed down with each and every expansion. So i'm left wondering if there will be anyway to reach the players that had all the learning skills trained to level 5 or are they in an elite club of untouchable attribute now ???
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.25 18:55:00 - [2] Oh Tippia, get off my a$$, lol
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.25 19:29:00 - [3] Lets start a quick tally ......... PI investments = GONE Learning Investments = GONE Like others have said, what next ? Research ??? The satisfaction of having worked for something seems to be diminishing rapidly throughout the game leaving fewer and fewer arenas for vet dedication to reign.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.25 21:59:00 - [4] So we have trial accounts that can currently train for tier 1 BS and smart bombs within a month that are reusable or disposable and now you are giving grievers even more power in less time. So many things just don't make sense with this decision. The only thing that does is ......... Make it easier for noobs and make more money quicker. 'really hope you have considered the long term effects of this in the grander scheme of business. I'm sure your competition is watching very closely.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.26 17:46:00 - [5] Hey your idea for circumvention is spot on considering the faster learning times we all recieved prior to the change but I still have to wonder why you you change something that embraces the very nature of the game itself. You start with a character who (now) gets several basic skills to work off of - you then decide which direction to take them - if a player thinks they like the game and will stick with it for a while then they invest in more skills and progress to higher levels of competency. The same goes for the learning skills - if a player thinks they will want to learn faster in the long run bacuse they foresee a 3+ year commitment then by all means give them the tools to do so. Learning skills have always been that tool and with implants as well should remain tools for learning faster. If you take learning skills out for server effieciency that is one thing but to take them out simply because new players need to fill the gap sooner, c'mon who in the hell are you kidding ? The gap is there for a reason, it's the same gap in every other skill set that sepaerates the dedicated from the dabblers. CCP has gone off the deep end and i'm just not sure what exactally it was that sent them over. I just hope they land on their feet because after this change I find it hard to believe they would ever be able to go back.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.26 21:32:00 - [6] It's obviously part of a larger scheme to uproot the player base which controls eve's economy.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.26 22:38:00 - [7] Just start dismantling this game piece by piece till you have either a copy of a competitive MMO's franchise or a diluted, hybrid of everything else out there.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.26 23:03:00 - [8] You are taking out learning skills why ? Because newer players think it is a waste of time ? The benefits are usually worth the efforts invested, espcially for learning skills which continue to give back throughout a players career. You newer players simply need to dig in a bit and realize that if there is one aspect that sets EVE apart from other MMO's it's the simple fact that you're going to have to wait for the good things in life.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.27 05:20:00 - [9] uh ya, missions take too long and aren't worth it in the long run - get rid of them !!! BPC's require too much material and the profits are too small - get rid of them !!! PI hurts my hand and is too boring - get rid of it !!! Mining takes too long and makes my mind numb - get rid of it !!! Pvp is just blobs and I can't load a screen fast enough - just get rid of it !!! On and on and on ......... not the right answer plain and simple.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.27 21:27:00 - [10] Edited by: Rupicolous on 27/11/2010 21:30:59 There's probably alot more going on here than the player base or the game itself is concerned. Who knows what kind of closed door politics are taking place in the offices of CCP. For all we know, several jobs are being saved / created or destroyed from this one, very controversial decision. May the powers that be, guide you in your struggles and ambitions equally, without prejudice or discrimination.

Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 03:58:00 - [11] Makes me want to peuke.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 18:25:00 - [12] Edited by: Rupicolous on 28/11/2010 18:26:03 Is there a new scheme to replace this, because more attribute points is the stupidest, most generic, pile of $h1t I've have yet to hear. You've watered down the game before, so I sappose you will try again. You are simply out of your god damn minds. Do you really think this change is *THE CHANGE* that will put your average player count above 50 million ??? Shame on you, your average player count deserves to drop because of this. Looks like the collateral damage will be minimized just enough to limit subscription cancellations but is this really what is best for the games' distinction. I have an uncanny feeling that this game will look and feel very different 3 years from now and it will be accepted simply because change is good and change is growth but change shouldn't be the reason you throw something away.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 18:41:00 - [13] Originally by: Gallians Incorrect, their average player count deserves to increase because of this. And I have the feeling it will. Furthermore, Eve is very different today than it was 3 years ago, and I would say it is so for the better. Please dont forget to contract me your stuff before you ragequit, Ill fondly remember you forever. You obviously haven't a clue to what I was saying ? Woof woof
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 19:02:00 - [14] Originally by: Gallians Good boy! there there. Pretending to be the master - too funny. How could you ever control something else when you can't even control yourself. Quote and spin with your ignorant response.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 19:14:00 - [15] Now you've lowered yourself to putting words in my mouth with a misquote. You must be looking in the mirrior again.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 19:19:00 - [16] Originally by: Gallians Originally by: Rupicolous Edited by: Rupicolous on 28/11/2010 18:26:03 Is there a new scheme to replace this, because more attribute points is the stupidest, most generic, pile of $h1t I've have yet to hear. You've watered down the game before, so I sappose you will try again. You are simply out of your god damn minds. Do you really think this change is *THE CHANGE* that will put your average player count above 50 million ??? Shame on you, your average player count deserves to drop because of this. Looks like the collateral damage will be minimized just enough to limit subscription cancellations but is this really what is best for the games' distinction. I have an uncanny feeling that this game will look and feel very different 3 years from now and it will be accepted simply because change is good and change is growth but change shouldn't be the reason you throw something away. Incorrect, their average player count deserves to increase because of this. And I have the feeling it will. Furthermore, Eve is very different today than it was 3 years ago, and I would say it is so for the better. Please dont forget to contract me your stuff before you ragequit, Ill fondly remember you forever. I'll take you back to the beginning since you can't remember how it started
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 19:34:00 - [17] They say "it takes a big man to realize how small he actually is". Let me know when you get here .........
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 19:50:00 - [18] Edited by: Rupicolous on 28/11/2010 19:51:26 It would be one thing if you quoted yourself or even used your own words but all you do is quote others and then disagree. This is neither intelligent nor debatable and continues to be your problem with each and every post you make. btw, you already used the concept of a misquote, get some new material.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 20:03:00 - [19] Originally by: Gallians Originally by: Rupicolous Edited by: Rupicolous on 28/11/2010 18:26:03 Is there a new scheme to replace this, because more attribute points is the stupidest, most generic, pile of $h1t I've have yet to hear. You've watered down the game before, so I sappose you will try again. You are simply out of your god damn minds. Do you really think this change is *THE CHANGE* that will put your average player count above 50 million ??? Shame on you, your average player count deserves to drop because of this. Looks like the collateral damage will be minimized just enough to limit subscription cancellations but is this really what is best for the games' distinction. I have an uncanny feeling that this game will look and feel very different 3 years from now and it will be accepted simply because change is good and change is growth but change shouldn't be the reason you throw something away. Incorrect, their average player count deserves to increase because of this. And I have the feeling it will. Furthermore, Eve is very different today than it was 3 years ago, and I would say it is so for the better. Please dont forget to contract me your stuff before you ragequit, Ill fondly remember you forever. Once again i'll take you back to the beginning, you let me know when you understand what i was saying.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 20:13:00 - [20] Yup

Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 20:22:00 - [21] Edited by: Rupicolous on 28/11/2010 20:23:19 Originally by: Vurseus Edited by: Vurseus on 28/11/2010 17:09:48 CCP: 1) I remapped INT/MEM to train learning skills earlier this year. Please give all players an extra remap to account for this. I don't want to spend the rest of the year training skills for an area of the game in which I have no interest. I'm not sure how you managed to remap block yourself. Surely the smart way to do it is 1) First free remap Int/Mem to train learning skills and any important fitting skills. 2) Second free remap to whatever you've decided your training focus will be for the next 12 months IE Perc/Will for combat characters. What did you end up doing? You're assuming that was a new character, when it might of only had 1 remap.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 20:35:00 - [22] Edited by: Rupicolous on 28/11/2010 20:35:30 I agree and don't see why the que couldn't be filled with close to 2 years of skills that relate to those 2 attributes. Anyone would gladly take another remap though.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 20:44:00 - [23] If he did remap for a 3 year plan of learning lvl 5 across the board a remap should be awarded if many of the other basic sklls have already been trained and there isn't much to fill the que with anymore. This could be the case with several players and a remap would surely sweeten the deal for disgruntled veteran players, wink wink.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 23:16:00 - [24] Say player (X) is a 5 year vet and started with max mem/int then moved to will/per and just recently remapped to mem/int again to finish up the learning skills and a couple other related skills - now that the learning skills are being taken out lets say he has a 4-5 month gap in the que planned for the next year. Hmmm what to put in ??? A remap sure would be nice !!!
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.28 23:44:00 - [25] Just saying, there was probably a few players that happened to remap right before the anouncement that learning skills were goin byby. What could possibly be wrong with throwing in a remap for veteran players when they are going to lose all the potential of those skills over other players.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 01:41:00 - [26] Originally by: Tippia Nothing, but there is also nothing about this change that would motivate or require a free remap for everyone. True but if one gets a remap, all have to get a remap. Originally by: Gallians I am Gallians and I approve of this message. I think most of us would agree, noone gives a rats a$$ what Gallians thinks. About anything .........
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 02:26:00 - [27] Originally by: Tippia There are a limited number of scenarios, and all of them end up with "no remap needed": They are not new (i.e. they don't have a second remap in store) and changed to int/mem to train one year of int/mem skills, the learning skills among them. They finished the learning skills → The plan can proceed as planned, the remap will happen when it was planned to happen. No remap needed. They haven't gotten to the learning skills yet → Toss in a few more int/mem skills for the 3-4 months and then remap as planned, or, as above, make use of the time left to the change to earn some redistributable SP at a high SP/h rate. No remap needed. quote] Both are unacceptable scenarios for "NO REMAP NEEDED" the first simply says continue on, nevermind the gap in the skill que. the second simply says to fill the gap with whatever you can fit in. error - potential is gone - no refund on potential - remap needed - vet player would like compensation -
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 02:38:00 - [28] Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 02:44:00 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rupicolous Do you really think this change is *THE CHANGE* that will put your average player count above 50 million ??? Of course not. Nothing will. It is, however, removing a pointless obstacle along the way. learning skills were a pointless obsticle ? why because alot of players end up at the same place ? If that were the case you could argue that none of the skills be involved - with enough time every player would have everything skilled , so what's the point. Quote: is this really what is best for the games' distinction. Yes. More focus on player choice, more focus on getting out there and doing stuff and learning the game from day one. A move further away from the "progress grind" that signify so many other games ù move that now makes EVE even more distinctly different from those games. The progress grind that signify so many other games - wtf are you talking about - chopping wood or skill training ? Noone ever said they *HAD* to be trained !!! Quote: I have an uncanny feeling that this game will look and feel very different 3 years from now Yes? Do you also have an uncanny feeling that the sun will rise tomorrow? The game three years ago looked and felt very different from what we have today, and the game of 6 years ago looked and felt very different from what Trinity brought. It's what has made the game survive for so long: progress and change and staying away from stagnation. Neither you nor Gallians seemed to get the jist of this one: What I was saying was about change and not just throwing something away for the sake of it - then drawing a relationship between this statement and not throwing a character away either, simply because of change.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 03:54:00 - [29] Originally by: Gallians Would there be a way to get everyone else to those stats tho? if not, well I am not cool with a permanent buff to people that have played for a while and have all the advantages in every possible way already just because.. they have been playing for a while and have every advantage one could have. This is the very incentive to commit to something in this game in the very first place.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 05:03:00 - [30] Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 05:05:34 I'm done for the day. Anyone following the posts from page 55 on, will realize and understand the position I took with the Veteran side of the arguement. Tippia and Gallians ......... it's been fun. P.S. If I find you taking me out of context or puttin words in my mouth ......... again, i'ma gonna shove a pipe up yer azz. lol

Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 07:55:00 - [31] Originally by: Tippia Both say "you intended to wait that extra bit anyway, so why not wait that extra bit?" Wrong, both say we implemented an attribute remap because we planned to reap the benefits from it Originally by: Tippia No. Because they were a meta-game mechanic that interfered with actual game mechanics. Wrong, They are the same game mechanic that opperates each and every other skill in your character sheet. Originally by: Tippia I'm talking about the "do this boring thing for N amount of time and you will get better" that usually comes in the form of the classic fetch 20 bear-asses grind; in EVE, it was the learning skills. Now EVE distinguishes itself even further from those lousy games that employ this cheap tactic as way to pad the length of the game. Oh, and the statistics (and common sense, and the "if you weren't smart enough to train themà" argument you see with quite a few people who want to keep them) show that they did have to be trainedà Wrong again, Fetching 20 bear - asses grind is the equivelent to mining and the only thing padding the game is skillsets in general. It's time you realized that the learning skillsare/were exactally like every other skill in the game. If you wanted to advance as efficiently as possible then yes you trained them up a bit and you also injected some implants as well. All a simply choice of dirction. Originally by: Toippia And what I was saying is that it's not just "for the sake of it" ù it's part of progressing towards a better game. The reason it was thrown away was because it kept the game bad; it stood in the way of progress; and that yes, even without those change is actually in and of itself a good enough reason to remove things because it avoids stagnation. The context was there. Wrong, It represented progress just like every other skill in this game does. Stagnation had nothing to do with the skills and everything to do with your mind and it's lack of understanding. When you take part of something and respond to it on it's own,seperate and away from the rest ......... it becomes out of context.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 09:13:00 - [32] Originally by: Tippia àand nothing about this change means you'll lose those benefits. Actually everything about this change means we lose those benefits. Especially if you remapped right before the announcement and get stuck with an empty time period in the skill que. Originally by: Tippia No, because mining does not give you "XP" like those bear ass missions (or the bears themselves) do. Mining forms the basis for industry and is a means of generating income; the bear asses just give you XP and the next mission in the grind. Grinding bear asses was a matter of adding XP to your character progression though pointless padding and tediumà just like the learning skills added SP. The difference here is between passive game play and active game play - skilling is inactive except for the actual queing up of the skill itself. Originally by: Tappia Really? What in-game equipment did they unlock? What bonuses to in-game equipment did they give? What in-game activities did they affect? What in-game abilities did they unlock? None. They were completely different from all other skills because they were a meta-mechanic that competed for time with actual in-game mechanics. This is horrid design, and CCP knew this years ago. Therefore, they are now getting rightfully nuked. They unlocked the ability to advance in any other skill at a faster rate than before the attribute was increased. This was the bonus and a good one at that. It should stay in the game just like implants and remaps. Originally by: Tappia Wrong progress ù re-read that bit again. I'm talking about about progressing the game, not your character. Yes, the skills were about the progress of the character; their removal is not ù their removal is about EVE itself progressing towards better gameplay and away from gameplay stagnation. Once again, the only stagnation here is your mind and it's ability to understand. You do realize that things speed up again after the skills are learned and the end result is a faster learning time for any skill you choose from there on afterwards. Originally by: Tippia You mean like the above bit where you're talking about something completely different? You were talking about changes in the game; I was talking about changes in the game (which you claimed was out of context)à if you think it's about the character, then I understand why you made this error and why you accidentally changed the context. Re-read it. It wasn't an error at all, in fact the context is the text as a whole, not seperate parts cut out and desected at your discretion.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 09:36:00 - [33] Originally by: Ebisu Kami Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 29/11/2010 08:45:51 Originally by: Rupicolous Originally by: Gallians Would there be a way to get everyone else to those stats tho? if not, well I am not cool with a permanent buff to people that have played for a while and have all the advantages in every possible way already just because.. they have been playing for a while and have every advantage one could have. This is the very incentive to commit to something in this game in the very first place. Why is it so difficult to realize that every player in this game started at the same place and has made choices in their skilling to get where they are now. This includes learning skills - what don't you get about it ? The fact that they will always be futher along because they started before you ??? You will never catch up unless they take a break and let their subscription/skilling time slide. Chr1st, if there is anything our subscription money is going to ......... it is skilling. Everything else is an after thought - including learning skills Weren't you rambling around earlier, that it is important to cater to people with 5/5s, because they had the drive to take that grind to be able to catch up to older people without 5/5s? How does that work in conjunction with you cheering now for current 5/5ers to get a flat bonus on every attribute (and still not reaching the magic 2772 SP/h that way, just to mention it) and thus not only accepting to negate your own words and intentions, but on top of that also solidifying and extending the advantage of those, who had the chance to get to 5/5 in comparison to those, who join now and would have taken the grind, but can't anymore? Naw, you're the only one rambling (just to mention it) and on top of that, solidifying and extending your vast lexicon into some kind of Hall of Fame.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 10:00:00 - [34] Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 10:03:38 Originally by: Tippia There's always more to trainà Sure there are other skills that take advantage of those attributes, but are they skills that were originally intended for the characters career ? Originally by: Tippia Yes, but it still blocks other skill progression ù in other words, it blocks progression where it actually matters, just to fulfill meta-requirements that shouldn't be in-game mechanics to begin with. Doesn't block anything unless the player decides to skill them instead of a different skill in other words it's a choice that any player can make whenever they choose. All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive. Originally by: Tippia Again, a meta-ability, not something that provides in-game benefits. Again, Meta because they are passsive. They provide faster learning times of every other skill from there on afterwards. In game !!! Originally by: Tappia Still the wrong context. So no. I'll answer your comment as if they were actual relevant to what I said, and we'll see if you get where you went wrong: No, the skills do not speed up the rate at which CCP delivers new content or at which rate new games are brought to the market. Getting rid of something is not new content, it is old content being removed. Gamers are brought to the market by the content itself, not the lack of. Originally by: Tippia The context can change, you know. It is entirely possible to discuss two things at onceà àwell, for most of us. Well don't get too far ahead of yourself, you might trip over your' own feet.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 10:20:00 - [35] Originally by: Ranka Mei Originally by: Rupicolous All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive. That's a rather silly statement. Only the learning skills are meta, nothing else. Period. When you say "period" do you mean the end of your sentence or simply the small dot that signifies (my turn) ?
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 10:39:00 - [36] Originally by: Destination SkillQueue Originally by: Rupicolous Originally by: Ranka Mei Originally by: Rupicolous All Skills are meta, simply because they are passive. That's a rather silly statement. Only the learning skills are meta, nothing else. Period. When you say "period" do you mean the end of your sentence or simply the small dot that signifies (my turn) ? Propably she means that anyone who knows what the word meta in this instance means can see the original message she replied to is nonsense. Activism at it's finest
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 19:30:00 - [37] Originally by: Tippia Most of the time, yes, but they were probably omitted because they wouldn't fit within the time line and/or without delaying the remap ù now they don't, and again, if the person could stand the idea of waiting that extra time to begin with, he can still stand it. No, they were omitted because they did not fall in line wth the career path that was anticipated for said character and the only reason one would be willing to wait is because the remap provided a benefit for that wait. With a gap in a skill que that would have been filled by learning skills the time becomes less than optimal and takes a turn for the worse becoming frivolously spent. Originally by: Tippia In other words, it blocks other in-game skill progression for meta-gaming purposes. It doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not, that in-game/meta-game collision should never happen ù it's the hallmark of horrible design. Most people would have probably given up on you by now but i'm convinced, by the time we are done discussing this, you will have started to see things a bit different than the ways you have been brainwashed to see. If there is any conflict between learning skills and any other skill it is simply the get less now to get more later, train of thought, it's called an investment and it is a choice. Having choice is the basis for sandbox style gaming and is a foundation which EVE has built itself upon. Originally by: Tippia No, being passive is not a factor. No other skills are meta because they all deal with in-game mechanics; learning skills are because they do not. Meta in and of itself means out of game. All skills are passive because they do not require continuous regulation by mouse clicks in order to control. There is no difference between a Gunnery skill and a Learning skill simply because both are set and then left alone till they are completed. There is nothing in game that requires continuous regulation of the skill or it's advancement. Originally by: Tippia The point is (now that you've understood the level we're talking about): removing the learning skills is an improvement on the game ù it progresses the game development and keeps it from stagnating. Gamers (especially EVE ones) have shown that they are quite willing to be drawn back in by such improvements. Removing the learning skills hurts the game because it takes away choices that help define a characters worth, whatever form that worth may come in. The only thing stagnant here is your mind and it's lack of understanding. Flavors of the month are common and what brings a new or old character to or back to the game itself remains a variable that is as old as the world itself. So it's safe to say that if the learning skills have been in the game this long already, it would probably be a great idea to leave them in for another 6+ years. Rather than go off the deep end trying to come up with outlandish ideas for "Improving" the game, take a step back and realize that they were there for a reason and that reason hasn't gone anywhere, so there should be no reason to remove them. Sometimes it's just best to let a sleeping dog lie.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 19:44:00 - [38] Originally by: Ranka Mei @Rupicolous: 'Meta' is like when you ask your favorite genie to grant you three wishes, and your last wish is wishing for three more wishes. The latter is a meta-wish, because it's a wish for wishes. Same with learning skills: they are meta-skills because, unlike every other skill, they pertain to learning itself: you learn learning with them, so to speak. And I'm not sure where exactly 'passive' entered into the discussion; but it looks to me someone needs to look up the definition of 'meta' again -- and it ain't Tippia. :) I've looked up meta again for a refresher and 'am quite confident i have a better understanding of it than you or Tippia. With that said you can reference my last post for your instructional pleasure. Originally by: Master Flakattack To correct your post, most skills have a meta effect, in addition to being prereqs for equipment/ships. Learning skills affect your attributes, which affect learning speed. They only indirectly effect gameplay and are thus purely meta-game skills. Also, missions, ships, equipment, solar systems, wormholes, stations, agents, etc. are content. I don't think it's fair to the rest of the game's content to call the Learning skills "content". Has nothing to do with being fair or not, if it's a feature that a player uses in game, it can be considered content. Content is the substance which is created and installed into the game on a level of interaction that allows a player to manipulate it's condition. If I can interact with something in game, that something is content regardless of it's depth or lack ther of.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 20:05:00 - [39] Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 20:15:38 Originally by: Tippia No, the only reason one would be willing to wait was that one made the decision to do so to begin with. Now you can get more useful stuff in there as a bonus. Like I have already stated, The wait is part of a planned progression that doesn't exist when part of the plan has been removed. The only stuff that you can get in there is stuff that wasn't planned to be in there in the first place and would only be a bonus if it was or if the attributes reflect this. Originally by: Tippia And as everyone keeps pointing out: they weren't really a choice. As logic will tell you, there were many other skills that put you right into the meat of the game. If you chose to do some meta gaming while those first few months of learning skills accrued than that was a choice you made and a choice that would pay off twofold later on down the road. Originally by: Tippia àthere is a huge difference in what they affect: Learning skills affect meta-mechanics; all other skills affect mechanics. Doesn't matter what they affect, skills are passive and therfore meta. plain and simple. Originally by: Tippia There was no choice. Removing them adds choice since people can now free to pick their path with far more freedom and with less things making everyone same:y. Your statement couldn't be more a$$ backwards if you tried. Skills are choice by their very nature. Choices are freedom and Identity. Get a clue. Originally by: Tippia Yes: changes in the game ù a move away from stagnation. It is the thing that has always brought people back. People come and go, if they come back it's more likely they came back because the game provided something that they had been missing. This means that there was something in the game before that they enjoyed and are coming back to experince again. But then again there are other reasons why people come back to something and because that something is nothing like it used to be, would rarely be the case. Originally by: Tippia No. It's safe to say that, since CCP have been wanting them gone for the last four years, it's about time they actually do that and move on to fixing the next problem holding the game back. You say this like their hands were tied until it was resolved or simply out of the way. Like there was nothing else that could be done until this one crux of a problem was circumvented. Who are you trying to fool ? Certainly not yourself that was accomplished a long time ago. Originally by: Tippia The reason may still be there (or not ù one stated reason has been removed), but there are now far better ways of solving that problem. Learning skills were never a good solution to begin with, and now they have been replaced by something better. There you go again with more of your abstract bull$****. You call learning skills a "solution" ? to what ? They were a feature that allowed players to skill at a higher rate of speed for as long as they retained their subscription. There was no chance of ever losing them from being podded or seeing them diminish in value. Once they were achieved they remained and gave the player exactly what they were intended to provide.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 20:08:00 - [40] Edited by: Rupicolous on 29/11/2010 20:12:54 Originally by: Tippia Not even close. You still think it's about locus and control, when it is about level of reference and about effect. You couldn't be further off the mark if you tried, It's an issue of passive interaction or continuous regulation with mouse clicking. If it's passive it's out of game and meta. There couldn't be a simpler way of explaining it to you.

Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 20:13:00 - [41] Originally by: Ranka Mei Uh-huh. :) As for meta stuff, what can I say? The fool persists in his folly. Nothing new there. I commend Tippia for carrying you round after round; especially since you're probably the single person in the entire game who doesn't grasp the fairly simple meta-concept of the learning skills. And I'm not sure whether that funny or sad; but I'm going with funny for the time being, LOL. You're so lost you couldn't find your way out of a paper bag. All you can do is chime in anyways. Stick with what your good at and leave the serious business to the ones that understand.
Rupicolous Higher Ground	Posted - 2010.11.29 20:27:00 - [42] Originally by: Ranka Mei True enough, I just chime in every now and then, as I can't really bring myself to take your stuff seriously. Sorry, mate. I just take what I can get: the occasion chuckle and a head-shake. If you want a larger committment, try saying something sensible every now and then, k? Well i'm certainly not trying to impress you if that's your notion. I've better things to do than entertain your whims. If you need someone to help you figure it out, get a shrink.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.