| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
180
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:15:00 -
[301] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:i think you guys should review the complete set of drone skills.
Just took another quick look and its full inconsistencies.
example: scout drone operation -> (scout?) drone range (is the description even correct? doesn't count for heavies?) combat drone operation -> light + medium dps (heavy drones are no combat drones?) heavy drone operation -> dps sentry drone interfacing -> dps electronic warfare drone interfacing -> drone range for all drones
thanks for listening, much appreciated
there are loads of inconsistencies with skills names and effects. Drone skills need a good re balance and new ones added Guns need sorting out needing small specs in order to train large specs make no sense. missiles skills need reducing from 10% to 5% to be brought back into line with the rest of the skills. T3 subs should take longer to train and remove SP loss T3 ships shouldn't need cruiser lv5 as a pre-req to train add a shield extender efficiency skill that reduces sig rad penalty by 5% on shield extenders Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767
Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |

Akiko Sciuto
Cold Nova Industries
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:29:00 -
[302] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I give them kudos for fixing a system that is clearly broken and im an existing and paying customer.
Please explain to me how the names are broken? Might it be a little confusing? Yeah, but I don't see how it's broken, I can still train the skills just fine. I personally don't see how having to read the description means its broken.
As for fixing things, really? Sure they're renaming a few things to become easier to understand, great makes sense no arguements here, doesn't effect me in the slightest, but I can't really argue about the change when it makes sense. But take for example the PI skills they're scattering them across multiple catagories. How is this helpful or useful?
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Planetology and Subsystem groups:
If possible we would like to separate skills by purpose, not feature. For instance we are not splitting Sience skills if they are based on Tech2 Invention or Tech3 reverse engineering.
I'm fairly sure the purpose of the Planet Management skills is to manage planets, they don't do anything else so why shove them into a bunch of different catagories? Your just undoing the work this change is meant to be doing. Sure I get you want to put all the scanning skills together but when the scanning skills only reflect one catagory just leave it in said catagory. The PI scanning and managemeant is all handled by the same UI so the skills should also stay in the same catagory. It's not as if I have to jump in a scanning ship to do this, its just pulling a slider left and right so its not even really scanning per se, more so a feature on the planet management UI.
As for the subsystem skills I do think it would be wise to leave them in their seperate catagory, due to the special circumstances regarding the skill loss on ship loss. |

Garth Pollard
Spirits of Essence
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:30:00 -
[303] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: [list] Starship Piloting instead of Starship Command:
For this particular point we wanted to distinguish the skill and the group so they do not overlap - it also ties on other plans we have on the future. However, we hear you, agreed it sounds less appealing than the one we have currently - we'll discuss this point internally again.
Starship Administration or even Starship Operation, while not as dominating as "Starship Command", might work. |

IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:35:00 -
[304] - Quote
Overall this is a horrible idea.
Nanite Control renamed Neurotoxin Control... Okay got it maybe that one might not make sense but some of these seem to be renaming stuff because of people not wanting to spend time to lean the game.
How hard is it to figure out everything under Electronics is either for CPU or other electronic application. This change seems to cater to the "I want it spoon fed to me" crowd. Eve is about spending time learning about the game while your pilot slowly learns skills as well.
The new skill names don't even sound good to me. Spaceship Command to Spaceship Piloting. Missile Launcher Operation to Missiles And my favorite "I'm too lazy to look up what the skill does" Targeting to Multiple Targeting
CCP please rethink this! |

Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 14:55:00 -
[305] - Quote
Haven't read through it but off the top of my head I can mention that electronic warfare drone interfacing should be split into two skills, one for increasing control range that does not require electronic warfare skill but instead drones level 5. And another skill for controlling electronic warfare drones, that require drones level 5 and electronic warfare level 4.
And many skills, fex target painting, is rather backwards. Target painting skill should improve target painter effectiveness, and another skill should decrease its cap use ("Efficient target painting" lets say, and variations on that name for the rest of the equipment). The target painting skill would then be in electronics and efficient target painting would be in engineering along with the rest of the efficient cap use skills. Similar skills should be for afterburners, microwarpdrives, microjumpdrives respectivlely. Spin-up time improves in MJD skill, cap use in its engineering skill, speed increases in AB skill, cap use in its engineering skill, microwarpdrive can have a signature radius decrease while MWD is active as a skill that requires L5 MWD skill, and the MWD skill increases speed, its engineering skill decreases cap use, or perhaps just it just reduces cap size penalty, or both, or two skills, one for each. Each skill should be more singular in purpose and effect, but without being just stacked mile high in sequential skill requirements. Because the whole point of Eve is that we can't train Everything, and have to specialize in what we train. But we can't specialize enough because skills have too many effects per skill (the more effects they have the longer it takes to train them, and that limits specialization. Its like if every biologist had to take three engineering PhD's before becoming a biologist because the curriculum happens to have 3 times more engineering than biology).
Just my five kroners on the subject. |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:07:00 -
[306] - Quote
Ronny Hugo wrote:Haven't read through it but off the top of my head I can mention that electronic warfare drone interfacing should be split into two skills, one for increasing control range that does not require electronic warfare skill but instead drones level 5. And another skill for controlling electronic warfare drones, that require drones level 5 and electronic warfare level 4.
And many skills, fex target painting, is rather backwards. Target painting skill should improve target painter effectiveness, and another skill should decrease its cap use ("Efficient target painting" lets say, and variations on that name for the rest of the equipment). The target painting skill would then be in electronics and efficient target painting would be in engineering along with the rest of the efficient cap use skills. Similar skills should be for afterburners, microwarpdrives, microjumpdrives respectivlely. Spin-up time improves in MJD skill, cap use in its engineering skill, speed increases in AB skill, cap use in its engineering skill, microwarpdrive can have a signature radius decrease while MWD is active as a skill that requires L5 MWD skill, and the MWD skill increases speed, its engineering skill decreases cap use, or perhaps just it just reduces cap size penalty, or both, or two skills, one for each. Each skill should be more singular in purpose and effect, but without being just stacked mile high in sequential skill requirements. Because the whole point of Eve is that we can't train Everything, and have to specialize in what we train. But we can't specialize enough because skills have too many effects per skill (the more effects they have the longer it takes to train them, and that limits specialization. Its like if every biologist had to take three engineering PhD's before becoming a biologist because the curriculum happens to have 3 times more engineering than biology).
Just my five kroners on the subject.
CCP Ytterbium must be thinking he has opened a can of worms about now :) when all he was asking was about renaming and grouping ... but it shows how much work is needed in improving skills and sorting them out so they make sense and are greater encompassing and better balanced. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767
Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |

Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
80
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:10:00 -
[307] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:you forgot "Electronic Warfare Drone Interfacing". It has nothing to do with ewar or even with the other interfacing skills, it adds drone control range.
EWAR Drone Interfacing IS a pre-req for EWAR drones (which happens to add control range as a side effect). |

Victor Deveron
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:14:00 -
[308] - Quote
Hmmm...yes this is a new alt...But I remember my newbie 3 years ago.....I received lots of assistance from older veteran players back then to fit my ships, learn what skill is for what.
All I can say now is seriously?? A noob player should be taught in game first and foremost by those he/she meets in game....and for better understanding as they are being taught given home work so to speak by reading the attributes and descriptions of skills and what not.
I agree only with the name changing that it might make sense a little bit for some of it....but what i dont agree with is the fact this opens the door a little wider for dumbing down EVE. I play EVE because you need some kind of wit, intelligence to play let alone figure things out....making everything player noob friendly is just wrong.
If i wanted to play such a game I would go play WoW and spend my money at Blizzard....forcing noobs to read and learn their skills and what works or doesnt work is a very good part of what makes eve interesting....plus it help older players to weed and cull out the undesirables *ie:to stupid/young/immature* from being part of a group.
Really let the players control the training of their newbs its better that way and has worked that way for a long time. maybe the guy proposing this...should weed himself out of the game. |

Andrew Alancourt
Titanomachy Manufacturing and Research
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:38:00 -
[309] - Quote
I don't really like the idea of renaming the core skills like Navigation, Mechanics, Engineering, Electronics etc. to refer to their specific effects. The reason is that those skills play a role much larger than just directly increasing abilities. They are the gateway to skills in their groups -- you generally have to train them first to start unlocking other skills. The way they are named now, it's obvious that they're the "core" skills (they are even called such by players) and you should start there in order to be able to branch out. If they're labeled more specifically then it doesn't make sense that you have to train then first.
The opposite problem is true for EWAR Drone Interfacing; yes, that is a terrible name for what it does and it should be changed. But once the name is changed there will make even less sense for it to have a prerequisite of EWAR IV. I think if the name is changed, the prerequisite should be changed too. |

Lilliana Stelles
815
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 15:58:00 -
[310] - Quote
This thread is so casual.
Don't like technoblabber? Don't play eve. It's part of the game flavor.
I don't really approve of any of these changes. Incarna from 2009. 3 Years later and what we have doesn't look half as good as this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n41s1Iox18A |

Ezek Price
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 16:03:00 -
[311] - Quote
Electronics/Engineering was fine. As was Spaceship Command.
Nothing is broken here. War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.
My blog, Civire Commander: http://civre.blogspot.co.uk/ |

Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
68
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 16:11:00 -
[312] - Quote
Good idea to go over this stuff CCP. The learning curve for new players is high enough already  Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/1a5dQGs |
|

ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
155

|
Posted - 2013.07.05 16:29:00 -
[313] - Quote
Off topic post removed. Please do not post non-eve related videos.
ISD Cura Ursus Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|

Albert Spear
meadhan oidhche cinneach HELM Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 16:53:00 -
[314] - Quote
As to subsystems and T3 ships -
It may or may not make sense to group all of the skills in one group - for lack of a better name right now "Advanced Technology" and include the ship command skills with the subsystem skills, since they are intertwined and they only impact each other. |

Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
762
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 16:56:00 -
[315] - Quote
ISD Cura Ursus wrote:Off topic post removed. Please do not post non-eve related videos.
I guess CCP is working with the reptilians. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1821
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:07:00 -
[316] - Quote
Syri Taneka wrote:Bienator II wrote:you forgot "Electronic Warfare Drone Interfacing". It has nothing to do with ewar or even with the other interfacing skills, it adds drone control range. EWAR Drone Interfacing IS a pre-req for EWAR drones (which happens to add control range as a side effect).
which makes it even worse eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |

MrZany
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
56
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:12:00 -
[317] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium,
with respect to skill names particularly the lower ranked "core" skills I think you should choose names that are both descriptive and exciting. This may keep newer players interested and immersed in the game.
there is nothing exciting about training "Navigation" skill but what about "engine overcharge" or "engine tuning"
"Electronincs" boring "CPU overclock" a bit more exciting etc. etc.
So the new guys in the corp are talking about their skills, now when asked what they are doing they might reply "I'm over charging my engines, I want a bit more velocity".
thanks for reading
P.s. if you can't keep "spaceship command" would you consider "starship command" or "starship piloting"? "Spaceship piloting" sounds a bit drab.
|

Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
182
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:24:00 -
[318] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Update based on what we have seen so far. Starship Piloting instead of Starship Command:
- For this particular point we wanted to distinguish the skill and the group so they do not overlap - it also ties on other plans we have on the future. However, we hear you, agreed it sounds less appealing than the one we have currently - we'll discuss this point internally again.
How about you simply switch them around. 'Starship Command' for the name of the group and 'Starship Piloting' for the individual skill. The skill gives a bonus to a ships agility and that makes me think about piloting. Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |

Thorian Crystal
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:32:00 -
[319] - Quote
You should also unify the way the names are. For example you have groups Armor and Shields. Why shields is plural here?
Also Electronic System but Missiles. Why missiles is plural?
"Multiple Targeting"? You actually mean multitargetting?
CPU management and Power grid management groups will be far away from each other now... They used to both start with an E.
Why "CPU managementGĒ„" but "Neurotoxin Control"? Should unify capitalization.
"Scoial" -> Social
"Skill Harviring" you guess this one? |

Zaxix
Long Jump.
146
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:34:00 -
[320] - Quote
Galen Dnari wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Oraac Ensor wrote:Systems Online wrote:I do not like a skill name starting with an acronym. Pronouncing "SEE PEE YOU" Management. is just awkward. CPU is not an acronym. If it were, it would be pronounced "c'pew". If CPU isnt acronym for Central Processing Unit then what is? He's right. An acronym is, by definition, an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word. CPU is an abbreviation. The technical term is "initialism." ***Prodigal Frog***
|

Thorian Crystal
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:37:00 -
[321] - Quote
Still, an abbreviation as part of the name feels odd. |

Zaxix
Long Jump.
146
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 17:45:00 -
[322] - Quote
Phoenus wrote:Please for the love of christ Ytterbium, learn how to spell armour properly.
You don't need to encourage the savages who have decimated the second most widely spoken language in the world. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/colour#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour#Etymology
It's funny that a Brit would attempt to defend his native tongue by choosing words that have a French origin for that particular variant of spelling. You're also mispronouncing it for that particular spelling. We took the liberty of correcting the spelling and maintaining the correct pronounciation.
Your empire had its day. The language is OURS now! ***Prodigal Frog***
|

Alexila Quant
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
97
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:06:00 -
[323] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:Syri Taneka wrote:Bienator II wrote:you forgot "Electronic Warfare Drone Interfacing". It has nothing to do with ewar or even with the other interfacing skills, it adds drone control range. EWAR Drone Interfacing IS a pre-req for EWAR drones (which happens to add control range as a side effect). which makes it even worse
That skills is a little convoluted, I agree. |

Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:00:00 -
[324] - Quote
I say instead of improving the skill names now, just add it to the to-do list for 1.2 or even the next expansion, and do the rest that was suggested also. -dividing up skill effects into more specialized skills with smaller training time multipliers. -A few more exciting names sprinkled where it makes sense (fex afterburner skill that increase AB speed should perhaps be something exciting sounding, like something Scotty would do just before he says "I'm giving it all she's got captain!"). -I agree with much of what the opposition say about changing grouping etc, but many things will make far more sense to regroup when the effects from skills are split up into individual skills. So as is now, I would say regrouping is not strictly necessary, but will be required after splitting skill effects into their own skills. So no point bothering with grouping and renaming it now only to have to do it all again later. But before the skill effects can be divided up the new skills and their effects must be written down, that's a few days work at least (they also need to specify how existing skills transfer into the new skills). So get cracking on that and post a draft for review and I'm sure we'll try to be as helpful and constructive as possible.
PS: There's probably a few other good points, but these are the three that stuck out as tangible improvements.
PPS: Electricians use high current and low current to distinguish between powergrid stuff and electronics stuff. Maybe this could be a useful distinction in Eve void of abbreviations? |

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 19:48:00 -
[325] - Quote
another thing i find odd is that the curse needs 3 lv5 skills aswell as cruiser lv5 to fly why does it need sig analysis and electronic upgrades lv5? Also a fair amount of T2 ships need spaceship command lv5 why? its making you train more lv5 skills to use other lv5 skills surely the point of T2/lv5 is for specializing in something you want to do but why would you force this when its unnecessary? considering you changed the pre-reqs on CS and the other T2 ships so you didn't have to train long lv5 skills or things like logi cruisers you wouldn't otherwise use.. i mean who trains electronic upgrades lv5 ?? Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |

Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
202
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 21:02:00 -
[326] - Quote
I am *so* glad that CCP has the developer resources available to devout to such EXTREMELY pressing issues as skill naming.
In light of the inter-relationships of the various skills, and CCP's continued typo's and errors which *still exist before this effort (for the last 10 years)*, I only imagine the can of worms that will be unleashed by scrambling the names and groups. And, so, again, I am *so* glad that CCP has the developer resources available to devout to these pressing issues.
Just takes a load off my mind, knowing that my subscription funds such efforts. Thanks CCP! |

Keldor Eternia
Multnomah Interstellar Holdings Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 21:36:00 -
[327] - Quote
This is a great change. When we look back after changes like this it's hard to believe how much crap we had to sift through for ten years. |

Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 22:13:00 -
[328] - Quote
quote=Zaxix]Phoenus wrote:Your empire had its day. The language is OURS now! **** off. |

Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS strain SELKURK
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 23:12:00 -
[329] - Quote
Akiko Sciuto wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:I give them kudos for fixing a system that is clearly broken and im an existing and paying customer. Please explain to me how the names are broken? Might it be a little confusing? Yeah, but I don't see how it's broken, I can still train the skills just fine. I personally don't see how having to read the description means its broken. As for fixing things, really? Sure they're renaming a few things to become easier to understand, great makes sense no arguements here, doesn't effect me in the slightest, but I can't really argue about the change when it makes sense. But take for example the PI skills they're scattering them across multiple catagories. How is this helpful or useful?
1. please quote my post where i make a claim that 'scattering PI" all over the place is a good idea.
2. I'll clarify the problem with your acceptance that reading the descriptions is good enough and yes i will exaggerate here to emphasis my point and make no claim that your beliefs are this extreme.
Skill One.
Skill two.
Skill Three.
Um, what do they do Maldiro? Go read the descriptions!
3. The current skills are, in some cases at least, placed in confusing locations the prime example would be Weapon Upgrades being found under 'turrets' when it is a skill that also applies to missile launchers.
There are more problems with the current skill listings and namings but this should get you thinking about why i feel they are broken and need of a fixing.
|

coldkill
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 01:12:00 -
[330] - Quote
It's already been mentioned, but: Spaceship Piloting is a bit of a naff name and doesn't accurately reflect what happens (from an RP sense) with larger ships. Understandably, frigates due to capsule technology only contain a pod pilot, however, cruiser, possibly destroyer, upwards all contain crew, therefore the capsuleer is commanding that vessel, not just piloting it. In fact, they may well not be 'piloting' it at all, but giving commands to the crew instead. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |