GǪapart from the whole GÇ£spent time on an advantage that doesn't existGÇ¥ GÇö i.e. all that time spent was for nothing. Some would call that a loss of time.

Except they already gained a profit.

You're trying to tell me a positive number minus a smaller positive equals zero.

Nope, nothing I said was wrong.

GǪwhich doesn't matter since what they were training for was a mechanical advantage over those who didn't train GÇö an advantage that is now gone.

Oh, and no, not everyone gained a profit.
Oh, and no, as Shan'Talasha points out: those GÇ£profitsGÇ¥ were equalised among all players and thus come out as a zero-sum gain.

No, I'm trying to tell you that losing an advantage you spent time on getting means the time you spent on getting that advantage is lost.

GǪaside from your insistence that having to pay more to get something makes it cheaper. That's not really a matter of viewpoint GÇö it's a matter of not understanding what the words GÇ£cheaperGÇ¥ and/or GÇ¥moreGÇ¥ mean. Oh, and aside from the fact that you think that keeping everything you have constitutes a loss. That's not really a matter of viewpoint either GÇö it's just plain old wrong.

If you have two apples and then you keep having two apples. How many apples have you lost?

Right now, the people who can at all activate an Orca have spent 2,168,008 SP on it and all the advantages surrounding it.
After the patch, people will have to spend 2,349,024 SP to gain the same advantagesGǪ which one is more?

In EVE, skill-points = time.

It just never occurs to you that sometimes neither side is wrong and its about weighing viewpoints, does it?

It wasn't equalized.

It isn't an advantage until there's a gain.

Once there's a gain, it remains an advantage forever. You can't tell me more is not an advantage. Again, you CANNOT say that's not an advantage.

Having to pay more than someone else DOES cheapen the value of what you spent.

Not really, there may be a linear correlation between the two. But every day I have more skill-points and less time. However, I can not freely exchange one for the other... (I could lose some skill-points in favour of a holiday)

Ahh, but they can pick and actually choose what they want after the patch.

if the goal is PURELY the Orca

If you lose skill points "in favour of a holiday", its because you didn't set a skill that trained over the holidays (which there are plenty of long time skills that can favor literally any pilot) or you didn't pay your sub during it.

Not being able to run faster than you is not an an advantage, no. So yes, I can say that with ease. The people who had their skilled-for advantage removed ended up with zero advantage over those who hadn't skilled for it..

yes hello

if i trained industrial command ships V under the current system, then got podded a lot and lost mining barge, could i still fly the orca?

Aren, are you in favour of the CCP-given solution on the Destroyer/Battlecruiser issue?

Honestly? Kiiiiind of, kind of not. Its the best solution for the situation (assuming they are adding more Destroyers and Battlecruisers to actually give a reason to split them up in the first place), but it does give an unfair advantage to older players, but at the same time, they can't just make people unable to fly the ships they have the ability to and obviously want to fly.

So you are okay with them handing out bonus-skillpoints here.

5 million SP over someone else as an example (perhaps a high one) is NOT zero advantage.

Just because you lost what allowed you to build that up in the first place doesn't mean its not an advantage.

Bonus?, what bonus are you talking about? We can fly the same ships and our clones get more expensive, not really what i will call a bonus.

If you want to play the "Stop living in the past"-card, then it should apply to both sides and the people that are debating to get their SP they trained back then but do not not need anymore "soonish" should also have a big sip of the "Stop-living-in-the-past"-potion. They made a choice back then, don't gripe about it now.

So you are okay with them handing out bonus-skillpoints here.

Yes it is. It can also be a disadvantage. It can also be an advantage. There's no correlation between the number and the advantage it provides.

Can you explain this in more detail? I do not quite get it.

It is my opinion that each time the skill tree changes in a way where the time invested into a path is being moved out shall a compensation be given. How it is given is as important as the choices every player makes when choosing a training path, because the players pay with their subscription in order to make these choices and it shall not be left with CCP alone where these points are moved to.

How would players, who are not affected by the skill changes, then become affected when those who are receive a compensation?

According to the current plan will a compensation be given simply moving the Mining Barge V path out of it and to make the invested time available separately where for some players it will be of no use. In other words, CCP's decision according to their current plan is to overrule the decisions made by the players even when CCP posses tools to hand the decisions back to us.

If you have Destroyer 4 and Caldari Frigate 3 and Gallente Frigate 2, you only get the Caldari bonus at four for the pirate ship that uses them both. But I can see why even that is shaky. Would make it sooooo easy to get into pirate destroyers at full bonus, but on the other hand, it'll already be that easy for some. If they don't plan on adding pirate ships of that class, or Navy or more T2 ships of those types though, I question splitting them in the first place entirely.

The fact that OP needed Barge 5 back then to train for Orca and will only need Barge 3 after the summer does not make Barge 5 obsolete and/or useless.

The only time reimbursement takes place is when the prune a dead branch from the tree.

Details. The point still stands. Barge 5 will not be an obsolete skill.

Nonsense! You are not CCP and you do not have the authority to make such a statement!!

I edited my previous post... but to those whose whole purpose was the Orca it is. To those specific people, the skill is essentially meaningless beyond getting them into the ship in the first place. Which is where viewpoints come in. It has its uses, but it really has little real use TO THEM. And given that this whole change is based around being able to get people into the ships they want primarily with skills that are mostly directly useful to the ship they want to fly, that kind of viewpoint holds some value at least.

I only really mention the learning skill example because I feel it demonstrates how still having something doesn't necessarily mean something isn't being lost somehow when you change how things work, which is kind of what they're doing here.

Obviously its an advantage to the people who trained the skill if you want more of it faster. The only disadvantage it provides is more expensive clones.

As for the rest of your logic, what about when someone gains an advantage over you? Because that's what's happening here.

Nonsense! You are not CCP and you do not have the authority to make such a statement!!

I edited my previous post... but to those whose whole purpose was the Orca it is. To those specific people, the skill is essentially meaningless beyond getting them into the ship in the first place. Which is where viewpoints come in. It has its uses, but it really has little real use TO THEM. And given that this whole change is based around being able to get people into the ships they want primarily with skills that are mostly directly useful to the ship they want to fly, that kind of viewpoint holds some value at least.