Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
466
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 17:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
During the mass test today, I noticed that the "Material Efficiency" (-5% material requirements per level) has been changed to "Advanced Industry" (-1% time per level).
I'm sorry, but what? I wouldn't have bothered training this to 5 if it had been like this originally. You've taken a skill that was absolutely necessary for manufacturing and turned it into something that's not worth training.
This skill is going to be refunded, right? Because this isn't an example of "skill's usage changing slightly," this is an example of "skill being removed and a new one added in its place." |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
196
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 17:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:During the mass test today, I noticed that the "Material Efficiency" (-5% material requirements per level) has been changed to "Advanced Industry" (-1% time per level).
I'm sorry, but what? I wouldn't have bothered training this to 5 if it had been like this originally. You've taken a skill that was absolutely necessary for manufacturing and turned it into something that's not worth training.
This skill is going to be refunded, right? Because this isn't an example of "skill's usage changing slightly," this is an example of "skill being removed and a new one added in its place."
Again someone who doesn't read dev blogs, or only skims them. ME has been changed because the entire underlying mess of waste has been changed. The ME-skill only affected the 10% extra waste and slowly reduced it to zero on level 5.
Now this extra waste doesn't exist anymore so reducing material requirements with a whopping 5% per level would be ridiculously strong. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
466
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 18:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote: Again someone who doesn't read dev blogs, or only skims them. ME has been changed because the entire underlying mess of waste has been changed. The ME-skill only affected the 10% extra waste and slowly reduced it to zero on level 5.
Now this extra waste doesn't exist anymore so reducing material requirements with a whopping 5% per level would be ridiculously strong.
I read the devblog.
Nowhere in the devblog did it say we were going to get a skill taken away without a refund. |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
197
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 18:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Owen Levanth wrote: Again someone who doesn't read dev blogs, or only skims them. ME has been changed because the entire underlying mess of waste has been changed. The ME-skill only affected the 10% extra waste and slowly reduced it to zero on level 5.
Now this extra waste doesn't exist anymore so reducing material requirements with a whopping 5% per level would be ridiculously strong.
I read the devblog. Nowhere in the devblog did it say we were going to get a skill taken away without a refund.
The skill was changed, not taken away. No refund. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
466
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 18:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
The skill was so substantially changed that it's more like it was completely taken away and a new one was given in its place. The new skill is completely different than the old one, and significantly less powerful/useful.
The learning skills were removed and refunded because their mechanic was removed from the game. So now that this wastage mechanic is being removed, why isn't the skill related to it being removed from the game? |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
197
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 18:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:The skill was so substantially changed that it's more like it was completely taken away and a new one was given in its place. The new skill is completely different than the old one, and significantly less powerful/useful.
The learning skills were removed and refunded because their mechanic was removed from the game. So now that this wastage mechanic is being removed, why isn't the skill related to it being removed from the game?
To haphazard a guess, maybe they wanted to create a new skill "advanced industry" anyway, but didn't want to force people to buy and learn the skill.
I mean, what is more sensible: Removing the old skill, refunding it and then having to go buy and learn the new skill yourself, or just changing the old skill?
Refunding ME would be needlessly complicated and insane. |
Kaaeliaa
Ministry of War
1989
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 18:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
Posting in this forums is supposed to be for useful feedback, not "QQ, something changed guys!" |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1224
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 20:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
From 25% material reduction to 5% time reduction.
...LOL.
Sure it wasn't removed, but it might as well have been, given the ridiculous bonus it provides. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking. Beware the french guy!
|
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
197
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 20:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Altrue wrote:From 25% material reduction to 5% time reduction.
...LOL.
Sure it wasn't removed, but it might as well have been, given the ridiculous bonus it provides.
I looked the Production Efficiency skill up, it worked like this:
Quote:Your base incompetence waste without this skill is 25%. Each level trained in this skill will reduce the skill based material multiplier of 1.25 by 4%, which effectively translates to a 5% reduction in materials used to manufacture items per skill level. If you intend to embark on a serious career in Industry, it is recommended that you train this skill as early as possible.
In other words, before you needed 25% more material then normal and PE just reduced this waste back to zero at level 5.
Now this stupid extra waste gets removed, so in effect you not only get the new skill trained to the same level as PE, your material requirements are still calculated as if you had Production Efficiency at level 5.
So no, there will be no refund, since people with that skill won't lose anything. You're actually better off then before. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
467
|
Posted - 2014.07.10 20:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
Except that I'm losing an advantage over players that decided not to train the skill. So, for example, if I have L5 in Widget Specialization, and CCP decides to rebalance Widgets so that everyone gets the benefit of Widget Specialization 5 without any training, and Widget Specialization 5 no longer affects Widgets at all.
It would be like if CCP decided to remove the mass penalty on armor plates from the game. Great, so now the skill "Armor Layering" is useless, so they remove it and refund it, right? Except, no, CCP decides to change the skill's name to "Shield Layering" and make it reduce the sig bloom penalty on shield extenders.
No refund because the skill didn't get removed, it got changed! Bull.
When a skill is changed so that it doesn't do anything that it did before and instead does something completely different, it's time to give an SP refund.
Adding a new skill for people to train isn't a big deal, they've done it multiple times in the last year. |
|
Ryuu Towryk
Reiuji Heavy Industries
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 02:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
Good grief. I'm glad I didn't queue that up to 5.
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 10:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP, since waste is no longer an issue, the skill related to it should be refunded.
-1% TE is in no way a comparable refund... and you know it. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 13:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
Also, don't forget that the time for production was changed in a few BPOs. For instance:
Before any skills or assembly line time reductions applied a single run of Archon BPC has the following times (rounded them for simplicity):
Current (TQ): 14 days Future(SISI): 17 days
Applying the new "wonderful" skill at level 5 (again not considering any other modifiers) it will take it down to 16 days!
So, we get a new time reduction skill that still puts us producing slower than before it existed???
On this note I would like to suggest the removal of weapon upgrades and advanced weapon upgrades as they are a major barrier to properly fitting a ship and all 1 week pilots should be able to fit optimal doctrine fits. |
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 19:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:During the mass test today, I noticed that the "Material Efficiency" (-5% material requirements per level) has been changed to "Advanced Industry" (-1% time per level). Wait, What! ... Hurries off to change skill queue for an alt ...
I had skimmed over this dev change because I assumed they were changing the skill is the same spirit as the Sentry drone change. I didn't realize they were changing a "Must Have Level V" skill to one that barely applies.
Thanks for the heads up. At least I saved 40% of the training time. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
468
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 20:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:On this note I would like to suggest the removal of weapon upgrades and advanced weapon upgrades as they are a major barrier to properly fitting a ship and all 1 week pilots should be able to fit optimal doctrine fits. That's an interesting point.
In Crius they're turning Refining into a profession that requires a significant amount of skill investment in order to be competitive. But, at the same time, they're changing Manufacturing into a profession that requires no skill investment to be competitive.
What? How does that make sense?
I would understand if they made a change similar to Drone Interfacing where they halved the benefit of the skill and rolled the rest of it into the base stats. That would be reasonable.
But the change they're making would be like taking Drone Interfacing and making it affect guns instead... |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
271
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 11:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
I completely agree.
For casual producers, Material Efficiency was still a very useful skill. Advanced Industry is useless for anyone who doesn't produce at full capacity. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
82
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 20:11:00 -
[17] - Quote
Well....crap.
Yeah, this change makes no sense. Would be nice to see a dev response as to the thinking for it. |
Darkblad
Hilfe is like Free Entertainment
342
|
Posted - 2014.07.12 22:47:00 -
[18] - Quote
Just for the record:
CCP Greyscale wrote:The Material Efficiency skill will be repurposed, stay tuned for more information on that in a future blog. in the Research Devblog. Thing is, though, I didn't find any devblog announcing the change of ME Skill to TE Skill EVE Infolinks -+-áOld and new-áPortraits |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
433
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 00:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
I realy hope this is a first iteration and it will be changed. I'm not saying that there should be a skill that unless trained to 5 You should not do industry like today ME (seriously - this is bad)
What I'm saying is that this skill alone is extremly weak and it should not be placed as replacement for ME and instead presented as new skill and old ME refunded as SP to all players Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Mardris Fol
Den Sorte Loge Redrum Fleet
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 08:06:00 -
[20] - Quote
Unfortunately there is far too much precedence for this sort of change.
Two cases:
Scanning skills - 50% of benefit moved from the advanced skill to the base skill. No change over all but I wouldn't have spent months getting the final level of those skills for half the benefit.
Drones - 50% of Interfacing bonus removed and built in to base stats. No change over all and I would still take that but the principle is that same. The benefit of the reduced skills over the baseline is much reduced.
In this case I took the skill because although it was expensive it was 'essential' and now those skill points are essentially wasted. There's no change over all but I don't do enough manufacturing to be affected about 1% or 2% faster production (for level 4/5) and those skill points are a complete waste for me now.
There are some business models where increased volume means increased profit but that's just the mass producers.
|
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
470
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 08:14:00 -
[21] - Quote
Mardris Fol wrote:Unfortunately there is far too much precedence for this sort of change.
Two cases:
Scanning skills - 50% of benefit moved from the advanced skill to the base skill. No change over all but I wouldn't have spent months getting the final level of those skills for half the benefit.
Drones - 50% of Interfacing bonus removed and built in to base stats. No change over all and I would still take that but the principle is that same. The benefit of the reduced skills over the baseline is much reduced.
In this case I took the skill because although it was expensive it was 'essential' and now those skill points are essentially wasted. There's no change over all but I don't do enough manufacturing to be affected about 1% or 2% faster production (for level 4/5) and those skill points are a complete waste for me now.
There are some business models where increased volume means increased profit but that's just the mass producers.
Your two examples are fundamentally different from this situation. In both of those cases, the skill was simply reduced in value by moving some of the benefit to either a lower rank skill or the basic stats. However, the skills still provided a benefit to the same stat.
In the Material Efficiency case, the skill is being completely changed into something entirely different that has nothing to do with the original skill outside of being in the same skill category.
I don't think there is any precedent for a skill being removed and another different skill added...and the SP from the first skill transferring to the second instead of being refunded. |
Zetaomega333
HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi
78
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 08:29:00 -
[22] - Quote
I have to say as someone who has trained upwards of 10 alts just to build capital parts and this skill being required, i do feel very cheated on the time wasted, as i would not be bothered by an extra 5% time on capital parts. This is a very very very bad change and needs to be looked into. |
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 08:49:00 -
[23] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:In Crius they're turning Refining into a profession that requires a significant amount of skill investment in order to be competitive. But, at the same time, they're changing Manufacturing into a profession that requires no skill investment to be competitive.
The really funny thing is the whole point of Crius was to give industrialists other options for being competitive that didn't rely on purely static, invariant stuff like this. In short, Crius was already turning this from a "must have at level 5" skill to a "useful to have at level 5 but if you only have level 4 you can still find profits by moving aggressively to other systems to balance system usage costs and chasing/leveraging teams to improve margins" skill.
I would MUCH rather have seen this take the route of Drone and other skills recently. Namely, in the same vein, just simply less powerful. What's wrong with a 0.2% reduction in material use per skill level? Just setting up a POS is a 2% reduction across the board. A potential total 1% reduction from skills (with 0.8% of that easily obtainable at level 4) seems like it would not make anyone cry foul while certainly leaving plenty of room for new industrialists to find good margins in the new, "lumpy" landscape. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1247
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 09:59:00 -
[24] - Quote
I support reimbursement - but only for people who can prove that they have never benefited from training the Material Efficiency skill.
|
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1300
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 10:00:00 -
[25] - Quote
1% build time reduction?
A skill which takes 9+ days when fully remapped is worth significantly more than 5% time reduction.
Unless you're suggesting the 8 days it takes to train V is worth a 14 minute saving.
Either improve the skill to 20% at V or refund it. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
271
|
Posted - 2014.07.15 14:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote: Either improve the skill to 20% at V or refund it.
I don't want any kind of TE effect, i specifically trained for a ME effect.
Or in other words, if I set up a 20min production run or two before i log off, i won't be able to even NOTICE any time adjustments on my next login.
|
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
102
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 04:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
I trained ME5 on 2 toons because it was essential and necesary to compete with T2 production, the replacing skill is neither.
If the replacement still gave a significant (read: 12.5% or better) reduction to materials I would agree no refund necesary.
refund it or fix it. |
Wocks Eh
Iskaholics Anonymous
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 05:53:00 -
[28] - Quote
This isnt a skill change at all, the only thing related is that they are both industry skills. If it was PE turning into this it would make more sense, but how does reduction of materials needed have anything to do with build time? Renaming skills is one thing, but this is removing of a skill and adding another, not a simple rework |
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
203
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 06:06:00 -
[29] - Quote
I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. EVE Down Under 2014 (Australia's very own fanfest) 21st to 23rd November 2014 in Sydney, Australia www.evedownunder.com |
Jon Illat
AA and MA
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 06:35:00 -
[30] - Quote
As someone who only dabbles in industry currently, having built some of my own ships as a goal, and producing items from BPCs gathered from exploration or LP, I found that training ME V was highly beneficial for the reduction in materials required, giving me that little extra ISK from production.
Changing this skill to a reduction in time means nothing to me, as I will very, very rarely have even one production line in use, let along all four that my skills allow me to use. I am fully for the SP to be refunded from the ME skill, as the casual industrialist (I fall into the very casual side of the spectrum) will likely find the new version of this skill to be nothing more than something that is nice to have trained to level III or IV but probably won't bother training to V. |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3681
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 06:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we?
Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
475
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. That assumes you can have your production lines running all the time, which isn't always practical or reasonable. Most people probably have their production lines set to end while they're asleep or while they're at work, and if they're building less than 20 things at a time (fairly common to have batches of less than 20 for things like ships, I suspect) they may not be able to take advantage of this skill at all.
Quote:This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Sometimes it's a waste, sometimes it isn't. If I (for example) primarily manufacture pirate faction ships from BPCs, 5% TE doesn't matter in the slightest.
The ME skill was useful to every manufacturer, no matter what you manufactured or how often you manufactured. This TE skill is, I suspect, only useful to a relatively small subset of very high throughput manufacturers. Really, that's my fundamental problem with this change.
Good to hear that this isn't the only option that's been considered, though. Hopefully this won't be the final iteration. |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:24:00 -
[33] - Quote
mynnna wrote:If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill
This, in and of itself, brings up a pont of conversation. The core of the problem is that expectations had been set and then reality changed in contravention of the initial expectations in a game setting. Am I annoyed at such a fundamental adjustment of a 'required' skill? Yes, but you won't find me crying about it. On the other hand, I can accept the additional reality that people who play a game should be allowed to make their builds however they like under the rules which are given to them as opposed to the rules of the future. Most people probably wouldn't enjoy most board games quite as much if a wizard periodically came in and changed the rules pamphlet before waving it in their faces.
In that vein of thought, what would you think would be the pros and cons of simply refunding SP's every time a skill is adjusted in any way? As for me, I don't agree that EVE should ever be a place where you can have a swiss army knife bucket of readjustable-on-demand skill points ... but customers should be given a nod where developmental preferences are concerned. I'm sure somebody could develop a bot which not only refunds SP's after changes are made, but also automatically sends an eve-mail detailing which skill had its SP's rolled back to 0 that month. |
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
204
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:31:00 -
[34] - Quote
mynnna wrote:If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill And if the circumstances are the same as they are in this case then those people would be perfectly entitled to whine about it. EVE Down Under 2014 (Australia's very own fanfest) 21st to 23rd November 2014 in Sydney, Australia www.evedownunder.com |
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:37:00 -
[35] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions.
Based on this logic, are you gonna propose to only manufacture in Amarr nullsec outposts next? Cause with the 30% decrease in manufacturing time the isk per time increases vastly.
Oh, the cost are also much higher? I bet that balances out! |
O'nira
United System's Commonwealth
18
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 08:56:00 -
[36] - Quote
you don't get refunds on changed skills, never have and never will. |
Ria Nieyli
12895
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 09:56:00 -
[37] - Quote
If the skill remains a prerequisite for Capital Ship Construction, which it probably will, refunding it will cause an ENORMOUS mess. So no, I can't see a refund coming. Do not remove a fly from your friend's forehead with a hatchet.
- Ancient Chinese Proverb |
Trademaster Rob
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:02:00 -
[38] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill
This is the most terrible response I ever heard from a csm member. Speculation.. tisk tisk. It's plain and simple. Skill A got removed, Skill B got added. Refund for skill A, let people decide if they want to train skill B. That's it. I know CCP can do this. |
Setsune Rin
Collapsed Out Overload Everything
205
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:05:00 -
[39] - Quote
this is just a completely different skill, in both name and function
transferring the skill points is not appropriate in this case
remove PE and add advanced industry it as a new skill
if industrialists wish to obtain this skill then they can invest the unallocated SP to do so |
Luscius Uta
91
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:36:00 -
[40] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. l
Except that's even less than 5 percent, since it's around 10 days of training just to get that last one percent. Even 2003 characters will have something better to train for, I am sure. CCP is literally trolling industrialists with this, as if they said "let's replace this skill bonus with something as useless as possible" (go find me another skill that gives 1% bonus per level to whatever it applies to, I know only that Exhumers had it after their tiercide but that got changed eventually). Five percent bouns per level would probably still be acceptable to most people, but 1% is a joke. This is like changing Rapid firing or Surgical Strike to give 1% bonus to Turret Falloff per level
Highsec is for casuals. |
|
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
This replacement is unacceptable. Refund SP. Let us choose if we want to use this heavily niched skill or not. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
501
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:48:00 -
[42] - Quote
I have to agree with the OP. The skill will be a complete waste for me now.
Material Efficiency is 768,000 skill points. I would give players who have points in it an equal amount of unallocated skill points.
Basically, if you have it maxed at 5, you are gaining an extra 768,000 unallocated skillpoints to assign.
If you don't have it at all, you don't gain any. You have it at 3, you gain sp's in comparison.
Its a completely different skill (and I mean completely different).
That would fix the issue and/or complaint for people. Its less than 1 million skillpoints so it shouldn't be that significant of an issue (hated the 15 day train for it). Yaay!!!! |
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:04:00 -
[43] - Quote
This is quite irritating - I've just started two alts and spent most of a plex training this skill up on them which I wouldn't have done otherwise. I think the people demanding a skill point refund are getting overly emotional however its certainly the case that the skill has gone from important to negligible. Industry V with a 5% reduction in build time is somewhat ignorable unless you need it for a particular BPO requirement so it will be the same for this skill as well. Even more so as it will take 5 levels of Advanced Industry to achieve the same as 1 level of Industry.
I think the best course here would be to bake in 5% waste to each blueprint then have this skill reduce the waste by 1% per level. That way it reduces the impact of the waste mechanic on newer players but still gives a meaningful improvement to efficiency. So its a nerf to this skill but less so. |
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:05:00 -
[44] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill 5% more isk/hour? I got ME 5 on two toons, and I can't say that I even have 1 queue going all the time... Where is my 5% more isk? Oh, you're only talking about those toons that are focused industrials, and do nothing else, they will have 5% more isk/hour.
I put just as many skillpoints into the skill, but now I get zero return because I'm not 100% dedicated to industry.
Casual players taking another hit... |
Lia' Vael
No More Ore Reclamation Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:23:00 -
[45] - Quote
I don't give a damn about time, I trained this because it was mandatory for production. I have like one or two manufacturing jobs a week so I'd prefer to have SP back. If it's not the case, I'll try to petition it and explain it there
I mean it might be good for guys who have only industry toons (or at least indy mains) and have dozens of jobs running all the time but for me this is a HUGE HUGE income loss as I manufacture local pirates' stuff. Now what do I say? Let me do it because I finish 5% faster'?
Not fair, please reconsider this. I'd be happy with the SP refund because people could chose to invest in the proposed skill (-1% manu time) if it's a equiement for cap ship production or something. I completely agree that the game should change to be more friendly towards new players, but in this way it's a pointless aggression to anyone who plays for more than 30 days and took industry seriusly. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:31:00 -
[46] - Quote
Sounds like a reasonable change. |
Von Reichenbach
Maraque Enterprises Brothers of Tangra
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:46:00 -
[47] - Quote
I would like to weigh in on this. Material Efficiency 5 took over 15 days to reach from brand new character. MANY of us have multiple build characters that each had to waste what equates to half a PLEX. Can anyone explain why a 3x skill that was mandatory is going to be replaced with a skill that no one would waste half a PLEX training to 5. Let alone across multiple build characters.
Just to highlight the issue, I am a small time builder with only 4 build toons. Basically I spent what equates to 2 PLEX, or 1.4 billion isk for my production lines.
This is a BAD change that has not been thought out. Make the change substantial... or give us back the skill points and see how many people spend it on this
"but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we?" - mynna
I am pretty sure 1.4 bil for skills that I will not train is pretty much the definition of waste...
Von
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:49:00 -
[48] - Quote
Von Reichenbach wrote:I would like to weigh in on this. Material Efficiency 5 took over 15 days to reach from brand new character. MANY of us have multiple build characters that each had to waste what equates to half a PLEX. Can anyone explain why a 3x skill that was mandatory is going to be replaced with a skill that no one would waste half a PLEX training to 5. Let alone across multiple build characters.
because the skill being mandatory was dumb as all hell and is thankfully being killed
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
and I say that as someone with fifteen characters with MEV |
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
Oh wow!
I've been following the updates pretty closely and missed this. As the leader of a small manu corp I think I've directed something like 20 characters to train this skill to 5. Sad to see that it's wasted SP for them.
Why not just remove this skill completely? 5% TE is pretty insignificant for most manufacturers, and I don't really see anyone training it past say 3 in its current form to get those extra 2% squeezed out.
This also shows that the changes need to be communicated to the community more clearly. I'm baffled that I'm finding this out about a week before the update when I've been watching things pretty darn closely. Similar situation seems to be recurring with the significant changes to bpo's research and build times that can only be found if you happen to download a .csv buried in a long technical discussion.
Anyway, refund please! |
|
Virgil Armstrong
Alice In Wonderlands
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:56:00 -
[51] - Quote
agreed, I never would have trained advanced industry to 5
either refund, or keep the base waste for production |
The Bazzalisk
Snuff Box
47
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:57:00 -
[52] - Quote
Not an industrial player but as far as I can tell this change seems really stupid. AFAIK ME5 was necessary for anyone who took manufacturing seriously. I agree with the removal of high skill investment to start manufacturing and being able to compete with people who already have it. However CCP should just replace ME with unallocated skillpoints and the new book because even I can see that the new skill is far less valuable than the old one. |
The Bazzalisk
Snuff Box
47
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:59:00 -
[53] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Von Reichenbach wrote:I would like to weigh in on this. Material Efficiency 5 took over 15 days to reach from brand new character. MANY of us have multiple build characters that each had to waste what equates to half a PLEX. Can anyone explain why a 3x skill that was mandatory is going to be replaced with a skill that no one would waste half a PLEX training to 5. Let alone across multiple build characters.
because the skill being mandatory was dumb as all hell and is thankfully being killed Yes I agree, but that doesn't address the lack of refund for players who have spent time training a now seemingly fairly crap skill.
|
Shade Millith
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:01:00 -
[54] - Quote
This new skill you've put in game is useless to me.
It doesn't matter if my build takes 10H or 9H 30M, I'm still only going to be able to produce 2 sets per 24H cycle.
And I'm going to have it to level V on 3 characters? No thank you.
Please give me the SP from the skill you've deleted. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:07:00 -
[55] - Quote
I'm going to chime in and agree with the people seeking a refund. I'm a small-time manufacturer. I don't (and with my work schedule, can't) keep my lines going 24/7. Heck, I generally only run manufacturing jobs once a week, at most, because it's a for-fun side-job.
Even for a small-time manufacturer, getting the 25% materials reduction was absolutely critical. Now? Getting 5% faster production is absolutely useless to me.
Give a refund, CCP. The extra 5% to time efficiency doesn't even come close to comparing to what we had before. It's 100% useless in too many cases, and unless you're a hard-core manufacturer, you have no need of it.
Edit :: This isn't a small skill, either. It's 768,000 SP that will now be 100% useless to me. End Edit |
Jeff Kione
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
Agreed, this is not a good change. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
133
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:10:00 -
[57] - Quote
This is going to seriously impact the pirate BPC contract market. Anyone who gets a random drop will be able to manufacture the things with perfect efficiency, so they won't have as much motivation to sell as opposed to build.
Just putting it out there. |
Amari Jackson
Aideron Robotics
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:18:00 -
[58] - Quote
Whilst I can understand the frustration of seeing a skill changing, this ME change is really, really good. And a lot of this is just bellyaching, because everyone is in the same boat. No longer do you NEED to train this skill up to 5 just to have a chance in hell of being competitive. Now you get to use your brain and strategize. Is that bad?
"What about time wasted???" - well, hopefully you got some usage out of it while it was more relevant, and after the changes, hopefully you'll get some usage out of the new benefits.
"What about the SP wasted???" - well, CCP doesn't refund skill points for things that are still in game and can still be useful. And if you are clever about it, you should be able to make more isk.
If you think having some time shaved off is a crappy skill, then you aren't looking closely. Between this thingie and that thingie and being a little clever, you can reduce say...72% of the build time off certain items? That's useful, isn't it?
Oh, you say it isn't? Whelp, what can I say? vOv |
Agent Blackbear
Emerald Inc. Easily Excited
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:24:00 -
[59] - Quote
So much wasted time. Thx cpp. |
Lairel Dallocort
West Research Air Atomic
16
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:26:00 -
[60] - Quote
I agree that this needs to be revisited. I literally just finished training it on an alt using half a PLEX because nothing in the dev blogs said specifically this was going to happen. If you respond to me with "yes they said that in a dev blog" then I'll expect to see a link citation for that included.
I won't be pants-on-fire mad about it if this goes through, but for fairness sake just refund the points. |
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
273
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:28:00 -
[61] - Quote
I'm not even sure what i find more outrageous, the change itself or the fact that 6 days before the patch going live, not a single dev answered those complaints.
Instead only a CSM member who just happens to be industrialist (i.e. the ONLY group not suffering from that change) chimes in with stupid arguments. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:31:00 -
[62] - Quote
Amari Jackson wrote:"What about time wasted???" - well, hopefully you got some usage out of it while it was more relevant, and after the changes, hopefully you'll get some usage out of the new benefits.
Training the learning skills was put to use, as well, when you had it. The skills were removed, and SP was refunded.
Amari Jackson wrote: "What about the SP wasted???" - well, CCP doesn't refund skill points for things that are still in game and can still be useful. And if you are clever about it, you should be able to make more isk.
That's the kicker: the skill doesn't exist any more. Previously, the skill gave a significant bonus to materials. That skill was removed. The new skill, Advanced Industry, has a very small bonus to time. They're completely different skills with a completely different purpose.
Amari Jackson wrote:And if you are clever about it, you should be able to make more isk. It's not about being clever, it's about functionality. I'm a small-time manufacturer. I enjoy doing it, but not so much that I want to make a career of it in EvE. It's a for-fun side-job that I only do occasionally, once I've built up enough materials from random collection or reprocessing. Even if I wanted to become a hard-core manufacturer, it would be impossible for me to keep my lines going 24/7 due to my job, which is what I would have to do in order to make use of this new skill.
Prior to Crius, the materials reduction was critical if you wanted to turn even a small profit on items. Post-Crius, a very small reduction in time won't be, so much so that I would have never put the SP into the skill (remember, this is 768,000 SP). |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
374
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:31:00 -
[63] - Quote
Mardris Fol wrote:Unfortunately there is far too much precedence for this sort of change.
Two cases:
Scanning skills - 50% of benefit moved from the advanced skill to the base skill. No change over all but I wouldn't have spent months getting the final level of those skills for half the benefit.
Drones - 50% of Interfacing bonus removed and built in to base stats. No change over all and I would still take that but the principle is that same. The benefit of the reduced skills over the baseline is much reduced.
In this case I took the skill because although it was expensive it was 'essential' and now those skill points are essentially wasted. There's no change over all but I don't do enough manufacturing to be affected about 1% or 2% faster production (for level 4/5) and those skill points are a complete waste for me now.
There are some business models where increased volume means increased profit but that's just the mass producers.
Bad analogy. With the scanning skills, you also unlock a T2 module that adds extra value to the same attribute. With the drone skills, the exact same attribute was being adjusted, not replaced with an attribute that is certifiably worthless to a great many pilots (myself included).
This is undeniably the wholesale removal of one skill, because the underlying reason for the skill was removed by CCP, and the addition of a new skill. If CCP removed fighter bombers from the game for balance reasons, players would expect a refund . . . Not for CCP to change the name of the skill to "Drone Shield Recharge" and end up with a skill that increases the recharge rate of your light drones' shields by 20% at level V.
I am not an alt of Chribba. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
561
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:37:00 -
[64] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:I'm not even sure what i find more outrageous, the change itself or the fact that 6 days before the patch going live, not a single dev answered those complaints.
Instead only a CSM member who just happens to be industrialist (i.e. the ONLY group not suffering from that change) chimes in with stupid arguments. this change ONLY affects industrialists not everyone but |
Amari Jackson
Aideron Robotics
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:38:00 -
[65] - Quote
Now that I think about it...why am i trying to convince my competition this is a good change?
CCP! REFUND SP NOW!!!!! |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3682
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:41:00 -
[66] - Quote
Trademaster Rob wrote:mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill This is the most terrible response I ever heard from a csm member. Speculation.. tisk tisk. It's plain and simple. Skill A got removed, Skill B got added. Refund for skill A, let people decide if they want to train skill B. That's it. I know CCP can do this.
Oh, what's that? You don't like speculation? Okay, facts it is then This has never happened, I'll eat my hat if it does happen, and this thread is full of whiners. But whiners or not I will still be nudging CCP to revisit the skill as I said, because the original change was more interesting, even though it had much of the same qualities that made them change ME in the first place. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Amari Jackson
Aideron Robotics
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:42:00 -
[67] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:Amari Jackson wrote:"What about time wasted???" - well, hopefully you got some usage out of it while it was more relevant, and after the changes, hopefully you'll get some usage out of the new benefits. Training the learning skills was put to use, as well, when you had it. The skills were removed, and SP was refunded. Amari Jackson wrote: "What about the SP wasted???" - well, CCP doesn't refund skill points for things that are still in game and can still be useful. And if you are clever about it, you should be able to make more isk.
That's the kicker: the skill doesn't exist any more. Previously, the skill gave a significant bonus to materials. That skill was removed. The new skill, Advanced Industry, has a very small bonus to time. They're completely different skills with a completely different purpose.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I think of it as a skill change. Others see it as a removal and addition. I can see it both ways. |
Gabriel Quill
The Majestic Duck
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
I can understand the argument to keep jimmies in order, but I don't understand what the argument is against refunding the SP. If this new skill is worth it then people will use those SP toward training it. There's no downside to refunding the SP, and doing so makes this issue go away. |
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:49:00 -
[69] - Quote
It's a change, but it's changing a very valuable skill to an indirectly related and arguably not very valuable skill.
If I do round the clock production, which I generally don't as I do T2 modules, I would save 1.5 days per month with the 5% time reduction, all other factors being equal.
However since this is a global savings (curren tproducers have it traind to 5, future producers maybe 3), the effect on extra income is pretty meh. Because everyone is producing at the same rate more or less, the amount earned from that production is going to normalize at market. If everyone is building faster, then no one is.
I'd say just remove this skill entirely and refund the SP. I can't think of a less exciting skill to max out. Unless you count the new 'refining skills' where I folks get to sit on the edge of their seat waiting for 'Veldspar 5' to complete.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3682
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:50:00 -
[70] - Quote
Gabriel Quill wrote:I can understand the argument to keep jimmies in order, but I don't understand what the argument is against refunding the SP. If this new skill is worth it then people will use those SP toward training it. There's no downside to refunding the SP, and doing so makes this issue go away.
We'd get ten times as many threads demanding refunds for every little skill change as we already do if CCP set the precedent; ISD would go mad from cleaning it all up and just delete the forums instead.
Actually, maybe that's an upside...
e:
Throwaway Sam Atild wrote: However since this is a global savings (curren tproducers have it traind to 5, future producers maybe 3), the effect on extra income is pretty meh. Because everyone is producing at the same rate more or less, the amount earned from that production is going to normalize at market. If everyone is building faster, then no one is.
Whiners take note, this is a much better refutation of "5% build time is still useful" than the "no your argument is bad and poopy" that was posted a little earlier. Hi-five to this guy. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:53:00 -
[71] - Quote
If CCP remove a skill they need to refund the skillpoints, not just replace it with something completely fkn useless. |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
632
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:59:00 -
[72] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Gabriel Quill wrote:I can understand the argument to keep jimmies in order, but I don't understand what the argument is against refunding the SP. If this new skill is worth it then people will use those SP toward training it. There's no downside to refunding the SP, and doing so makes this issue go away. We'd get ten times as many threads demanding refunds for every little skill change as we already do if CCP set the precedent; ISD would go mad from cleaning it all up and just delete the forums instead. Actually, maybe that's an upside... e: Throwaway Sam Atild wrote: However since this is a global savings (curren tproducers have it traind to 5, future producers maybe 3), the effect on extra income is pretty meh. Because everyone is producing at the same rate more or less, the amount earned from that production is going to normalize at market. If everyone is building faster, then no one is.
Whiners take note, this is a much better refutation of "5% build time is still useful" than the "no your argument is bad and poopy" that was posted a little earlier. Hi-five to this guy.
CCP Has refunded skills before, and you know it. Don't play stupid, we know you're not.
Changing it from 5% material waste reduction to 1% time reduction per skill level is pretty BS. Since they removed Material Waste, why don't we change it to a 5% reduction in production line costs per level? That way it stays a competitive (cost) advantage of the same nature it is now (if a lower magnitude one).
Nobody stacks jobs enough for 5% time bonus to be noticable outside of cap production. Making it save money on facility costs makes way more sense and benefits everyone who trained it. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1473
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:05:00 -
[73] - Quote
and nothing of value was lost GRRR Goons |
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:07:00 -
[74] - Quote
mynnna wrote:[...] This has never happened, I'll eat my hat if it does happen, and this thread is full of whiners. [...] Whiners? I see alot of discontent capsuleers that are voicing their concerns and offering a solution, but I wouldn't call them whiners for that. This is (sorta') constructive criticism with the odd overreaction - no reason for CSM member to start name-calling :)
mynnna wrote:[...] But whiners or not I will still be nudging CCP to revisit the skill as I said [...] Thank you :) |
Pie Napple
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:07:00 -
[75] - Quote
I have nothing against the new skill, but i agree that is not worth the train. Its simply too much sp for what it does.
I would prefer if the new skill was changed from a x3 skill to a x2 or even x1 skill, everyone should get the new skill at the same level as the old and the extra sp refunded.
That way there wont be as much wasted sp and no one have to go out and buy new skillbooks. |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
632
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:10:00 -
[76] - Quote
Pie Napple wrote:I have nothing against the new skill, but i agree that is not worth the train. Its simply too much sp for what it does.
I would prefer if the new skill was changed from a x3 skill to a x2 or even x1 skill, everyone should get the new skill at the same level as the old and the extra sp refunded.
That way there wont be as much wasted sp and no one have to go out and buy new skillbooks.
that is also a perfectly viable option Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:13:00 -
[77] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Throwaway Sam Atild wrote: However since this is a global savings (curren tproducers have it traind to 5, future producers maybe 3), the effect on extra income is pretty meh. Because everyone is producing at the same rate more or less, the amount earned from that production is going to normalize at market. If everyone is building faster, then no one is.
Whiners take note, this is a much better refutation of "5% build time is still useful" than the "no your argument is bad and poopy" that was posted a little earlier. Hi-five to this guy. How about the fact that it really isn't useful to everyone who had Material Efficiency skilled up?
I do manufacturing once a week, at most, from materials I gain through reprocessing. I generally only make things that I use myself, and my lines will run for four to six hours. For someone like me, the reduction in materials in a case like this was absolutely worth it, as otherwise, it would have been better to reprocess the junk and sell the materials, then buy what I wanted from the market.
With the new / changed skill, my six-hour lines would see a savings of 18 minutes. Considering that the manufacturing lines are generally the last thing I do before heading out for the night, 768,000 SP is absolutely not worth it to me to save three minutes per hour when I'll most likely be asleep when they finish (and even if I were online, I wouldn't have the materials to restart them).
Honestly, I'd much rather get the SP back and put it into my reprocessing skills, since those are changing, as well (and, in my case, once I have those maxed out for the upcoming changes, I'll actually be getting more converted-ISK-value than I was previously). |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3682
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:18:00 -
[78] - Quote
RavenNyx wrote:mynnna wrote:[...] This has never happened, I'll eat my hat if it does happen, and this thread is full of whiners. [...] Whiners? I see alot of discontent capsuleers that are voicing their concerns and offering a solution, but I wouldn't call them whiners for that. This is (sorta') constructive criticism with the odd overreaction - no reason for CSM member to start name-calling :) Thank you :) Yeah you're giving most of the people in this thread far more credit than they deserve. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Doug Dannger
Department of Public Works
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:25:00 -
[79] - Quote
At this point I don't care. They're taking a working established system their players have spent 1000s of hours iterating upon and making tools to share and use, and dumping it all on its head just to change it for the sake of changing it.
Making my skills useless is just the icing on the cake and adding insult to injury. |
Axe Coldon
46
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:29:00 -
[80] - Quote
I vote for a refund also. We are getting screwed enough on this change..don't add this to the list. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. |
|
Manfred Hideous
TOHOKU 9.0
71
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:31:00 -
[81] - Quote
I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if a dev has responded.
I don't have the time to treat eve as another job but I do produce stuff on a small scale via an alt. I see a real benefit when producing something if I have a skill that reduces the materials needed for the job. I do NOT receive benefit when I have jobs completing 5% faster.
Please refund the SP and allow people to buy this skill book. This would give the no-lifers a benefit they really want and will allow the rest of us to find another home for the orphaned SP. |
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:34:00 -
[82] - Quote
mynnna wrote:RavenNyx wrote:mynnna wrote:[...] This has never happened, I'll eat my hat if it does happen, and this thread is full of whiners. [...] Whiners? I see alot of discontent capsuleers that are voicing their concerns and offering a solution, but I wouldn't call them whiners for that. This is (sorta') constructive criticism with the odd overreaction - no reason for CSM member to start name-calling :) Thank you :) Yeah you're giving most of the people in this thread far more credit than they deserve. You're probably right. I've been away for a while (last time I visited the forums, they looked quite different). The last couple of threads I can remember reading from back then was along the lines of "omfg fix sov you cccp noobs!!1", or just "crime&punishment". These are well-written and constructive posts in comparison to what I remember... |
Erich Shephard
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:46:00 -
[83] - Quote
I'll try to be brief. I am a relatively new player, only in-game since October, 2013, and I have selected Industry with a couple alts as my primary ISK-making endeavor.
I feel like the change to the Material Efficiency skill, moving it from a material to a time efficiency effect, has virtually eliminated its value to me. I've worked for months training science and production skills, developing spreadsheets and bookmarked trade routes through hostile space, readying myself for running a T2 production and distribution line. Since I am so new, I don't have the connections yet to be part of a larger industrial network, and am striking it out on my own with myself, a couple alts, and a friend or two. I had no intention of trying to compete with the big boys in Jita or even Hek, nor am I selling capital components or T3 subsystems. I don't have the skills, networks, or knowledge for that kind of thing yet. But I am a hell of a lot more prepared and advanced than those noobs flipping T1 EANMs in Hek.
Except now I'm not. My Material Efficiency V skill no longer provides me any advantage (T2 modules and drones sold in markets that don't have the demand to accept 5% more without a 5% drop in prices). Access to copy and research slots is now (well, not now, but soon) blown wide open. Sure, I have the advantage of knowing to use buy orders, and I get some boost in invention chance, but the availability of copy/research slots and the Material Efficiency skill were really the only two things differentiating me from a month-old toon. I still have a lot that separates me from a seasoned T3 industrialist or a ship builder, but it seems like all the work that separated me from a T1 module builder has been for nothing.
I can see why the move from Material Efficiency to Advanced Industry would be worthwhile for ship builders and others in low-volume high margin production, but at the other end, it isn't worthwhile, and won't be for quite some time. All things being equal, I'd rather have the old barrier to competition back. Since that is not going to be an option, the skillpoints will be fine too. I'll probably end up training Advanced Industry V anyway, but in 2-3 years when I have an incentive to. Until then, I can think of a dozen skills I'd train first. |
Aloh
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Mordus Angels
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:55:00 -
[84] - Quote
Just my .02 isk
Respectfully to the CSM member the bonus you state as a replacement advantage only matters if you have your character building constantly. If you build to need or to replace losses it has zero effect on your bottom line. The numbers of characters that will see an actual benefit here will be few.
My take on this is that CCP sees training time as income. Refunding skill points would then be reducing possible income. It is my opinion they don't want to do that.
To the people that want skill refunds, (again my opinion ) not going to happen. Look at the leadership skills. I think it was race relations, the skill allowed you to have more members in your corp that were not the same race as you are. They nuked it just like they are nuking this one. Instead of refunding the skill points they changed it into a BS skill for dealing with concord agents or something like that.
You didn't get much warning that one was coming either.
I answered CCPs industry changes survey when they put it out, it seems I was in the minority. I have unsubbed my industry toon and unless I see that I am missing the point of the changes the only activity that account will have will be to plex the account and move him next door to hisec and sell off the ships and items he used for industry. Other then one break this is the first time since 2007 he has not been training.
It is a shame he has every industry skill in the game and the only things he can not build right now is a titan or the last level of a outpost upgrade. 90 odd million skill points is just too much for a cyno alt.... |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 13:55:00 -
[85] - Quote
Having Mat. Eff. at 5 never gave you a benefit but rather eliminated a penalty. Every serious producer has it at 5 already otherwise he couldnt compete. I also dont get why suddenly everyone is suprised about the change...it was outlined in the indy-devblog pack, 2 months ago, that the skill would be changed to something less powerful (devblogs said reduction in installation costs).
In its current iteration Mat. Eff. is a too powerful skill as was Drone interfacing. |
Claudius Dethahal
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:01:00 -
[86] - Quote
It's not just that it's a reduction in power, the change also only benefits a subset of producers.
To me the lack of communication seems to indicate that CCP knew it was a pretty unfair trade. |
Trademaster Rob
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:05:00 -
[87] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Trademaster Rob wrote:mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill This is the most terrible response I ever heard from a csm member. Speculation.. tisk tisk. It's plain and simple. Skill A got removed, Skill B got added. Refund for skill A, let people decide if they want to train skill B. That's it. I know CCP can do this. Oh, what's that? You don't like speculation? Okay, facts it is then This has never happened, I'll eat my hat if it does happen, and this thread is full of whiners. But whiners or not I will still be nudging CCP to revisit the skill as I said, because the original change was more interesting, even though it had much of the same qualities that made them change ME in the first place.
So you want this revisited before Crius? Or will they keep this and def change it after crius expansion? Because then speculation it's not but happen it will never (or at least not soon) Also if this happens maybe CCP should wait with the expansion, think about the consequences it has, act accordingly, have a role-out plan and then, but only then release the new expansion. |
Kage Kugisa
SpyderTech Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:10:00 -
[88] - Quote
First forum post ever, I just wanted to add that I too trained ME to V because it was required, and it was a long train. The replacement skill seems almost certain to bar nearly no one from effectively competing with me. Perhaps it will be substituted as a prereq where ME V was before? That would give individuals who trained this the leg up they thought they were investing in. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
32
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:16:00 -
[89] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Having Mat. Eff. at 5 never gave you a benefit but rather eliminated a penalty. Every serious producer has it at 5 already otherwise he couldnt compete. I also dont get why suddenly everyone is suprised about the change...it was outlined in the indy-devblog pack, 2 months ago, that the skill would be changed to something less powerful (devblogs said reduction in installation costs).
In its current iteration Mat. Eff. is a too powerful skill as was Drone interfacing. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with it being removed. but rather that our SP is being converted into a skill that isn't useful to an apparently-large number of people.
I keep using myself as an example, but it's only because I know what my play-time is like: I manufacture things I can put to use, but only do so from reprocessed materials. I usually do my runs at the end of the week, and set them up just before leaving for the night. I will have four or five manufacturing lines that run for four to six hours, and then sit idle until the next week.
Previously, a reduction in installation costs would have been fine. Something like that would still be a benefit to small-time manufacturers. This change, though, reducing manufacturing time by 5%, will reduce my longest manufacturing lines (about six hours) by 18 minutes.
I'm usually asleep when my lines stop, and even if I were awake, I wouldn't be putting anything else on them until the next week, once I had more materials from reprocessing junk loot.
Material Efficiency V was useful to me because it was a direct reduction in the cost of what I do, regardless as to whether it was a "benefit" or the "elimination of a penalty." Advanced Industry is useless to me because I don't keep my lines going 24/7. The skill is 768,000 SP. That's not an insignificant investment, especially considering it saves 72 minutes per day (per line) at level V. If you have any more down-time on a line than that, you've wasted the skill's benefit for that line on that day.
If the skill reduced the installation cost, I would be perfectly happy with it. A time reduction? I would have to turn my for-personal-use side-job in EvE into a full-time primary job to make use of it. I don't want to do that, and wouldn't have trained the skill if it had been like this in the beginning. |
Myxx
754
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:17:00 -
[90] - Quote
I have material efficiency to 5, on two characters. The skill you are proposing to replace it with does not do anything that I need it to do. Like others have said before me, I would caution you *not* to make this change, CCP. |
|
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:33:00 -
[91] - Quote
You, as a small-time producer building for personal use I would say MatEff 5 isnt of good use as you dont produce profit orientated. Lvl 3 or 4 wouldve been enough. A huge timesink for little benefit.
CCP wants the skill not to be a entry-level hurdle but a high-end bonus. |
Aerandria
Cerebus Syndrome
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:41:00 -
[92] - Quote
Just agreeing that for many people the new skill will show little if any benefit and would not have been trained to 5 if at all.
Refund would be nice. |
Sanyd Inyoface
Deep Discovery Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:55:00 -
[93] - Quote
Why not settting this skill V as a skill requirement for T2 T3 BPs in the bill of material ? This way you can : a) make sure new players have early access to the most common manufacture (T1) b) restrict access to difficult BPs (T2 T3) for new players (and untrained alts)
Everyone deserve to be happy. |
X ATM092
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
331
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 14:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
This was a ridiculously stupid skill that provided no advantage to training it beyond being able to keep up with everyone else who was also forced to train it. There was no tradeoff on those skill points, no decision to make, it was simply a "train this to V in order to function" skill, like JDO V. Honestly skills like that should be reworked. If you were paying 5-25% extra to make **** then you were losing money on manufacturing, the skill was nothing but a pointless barrier to entry. |
Naira Isimazu
Exiled Tech Space Monkey Protectorate
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 15:01:00 -
[95] - Quote
I agree with the point. If the new skill will be nearly useless for all but supercapital producers, the skillpoints should be reimbursed. |
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 15:11:00 -
[96] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Trademaster Rob wrote:mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill This is the most terrible response I ever heard from a csm member. Speculation.. tisk tisk. It's plain and simple. Skill A got removed, Skill B got added. Refund for skill A, let people decide if they want to train skill B. That's it. I know CCP can do this. Oh, what's that? You don't like speculation? Okay, facts it is then This has never happened, I'll eat my hat if it does happen, and this thread is full of whiners. But whiners or not I will still be nudging CCP to revisit the skill as I said, because the original change was more interesting, even though it had much of the same qualities that made them change ME in the first place.
Build time has no impact on me, it could be tripled and i would not care in the least. This change for me will be no different to the SP just getting deleted. Maybe you shouldn't just think about how you play the game and give a thought to others?
If this is how CSM think, no wonder this game is going to S*** |
Bocephus Morgen
The Suicide Kings Black Legion.
151
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 15:23:00 -
[97] - Quote
I trained Material Efficiency V on several characters in anticipation of these Industry changes. If I had known this change was happening I would have not bothered training it all. That is several combined weeks of wasted training, I believe asking for an SP refund is only fair here. |
War Fairy
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 15:25:00 -
[98] - Quote
If there were still slots this skill would be more useful.
As it stands unless you produce very large things or are at the ckmputer the moment a job finishes this skill is of extremely limited utility.
The simple fact is that a mandatory skill is changinv to a limited utility skill.
Refund it and let those who want it buy it with the points. |
Fix Lag
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
781
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 15:26:00 -
[99] - Quote
People who can't do math ITT CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude. |
Nuko Akato
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 15:50:00 -
[100] - Quote
Please refund us our sp and let us decide if we want to invest in this reworked skill. thank you in advance CCP |
|
Evan Giants
Plundering Penguins
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 15:54:00 -
[101] - Quote
Don't be dumb, CCP, just refund ME sp and let people decide whether to invest in this new skill or not. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2448
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:05:00 -
[102] - Quote
Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :) |
|
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
323
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:10:00 -
[103] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:- We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. Please see that you do. This is weapons grade BS. |
Nuko Akato
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:22:00 -
[104] - Quote
wow just wow |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:23:00 -
[105] - Quote
Harsh, but fair. I would have liked a refund of SP for the skill, but what I want in this case isn't necessarily the best course of action for the game. Compare the reduction in utility for this skill with a nerf to a particular ship in PvP -- people who had trained into that ship are not entitled to an SP refund; neither should we.
Look on the bright side -- there is no longer a mandatory 15 day skill train to bootstrap new industrial characters. For people just getting into industry, this is an unmitigated benefit. I'll probably still be training this skill to 4 on any new industrial-focused characters. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:23:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two
I know for me, this is a big part of it. I trained an ME skill, I want it to remain an ME skill. As I mentioned earlier, if I can drop a POS anywhere in hisec and get a 2% savings, I don't see how a 15 day train for a total 1% savings (0.2% per level) would be OP. THAT would be in line with the sort of change that happened to drone skills, etc.
Further, one would hope a new industrialist can use the "lumpy landscape" to make up the 0.2/0.4% diff (level 3/4 vs 5) through gameplay choices so that this doesn't remain a "must have level 5" skill but instead is just a small bonus for a long train. If the new "lumpy landscape" DOESN'T make it possible to be profitable without a 0.2% ME advantage, that'd be indicative of far bigger issues. |
X ATM092
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
332
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:26:00 -
[107] - Quote
You trained a mandatory skill, CCP decided mandatory skills are really dumb ideas from a game design perspective and made it not mandatory and you want them to replace it with a skill of equal value? I don't think you get the issue here. |
Ripard Teg
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
911
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:28:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:- We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops
CCP Greyscale wrote:- We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition...
These two statements are fundamentally incompatible. You want people to have to choose specializations... then you're choosing one of the specializations for us... so that you don't have to do a SP refund. That's just forcing players through a hoop whether we want to go through it or not.
aka Jester, who apparently was once entrusted to Wield The Banhammer to good effect. |
Ria Nieyli
13047
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:29:00 -
[109] - Quote
X ATM092 wrote:You trained a mandatory skill, CCP decided mandatory skills are really dumb ideas from a game design perspective and made it not mandatory and you want them to replace it with a skill of equal value? I don't think you get the issue here.
But what are they going to replace it with then? It's a prerequisite for cap ship construction, if it gets refunded people building the lower-end caps would just dump the points elsewhere. Do not remove a fly from your friend's forehead with a hatchet.
- Ancient Chinese Proverb |
Casey AtThe Bat
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:32:00 -
[110] - Quote
Change the skill to this:
1% reduction in manufacturing time, material research time, and productivity research time. Reduce all types of job installation costs by 1%. Effects are multiplicative with all structure, team, and skill bonuses.
This would mean that 5% on top of the normal 25% would give a 31% bonus instead of 30%. The effects would be even greater when you factor in the pos benefits. |
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
339
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:35:00 -
[111] - Quote
X ATM092 wrote:You trained a mandatory skill, CCP decided mandatory skills are really dumb ideas from a game design perspective and made it not mandatory and you want them to replace it with a skill of equal value? I don't think you get the issue here. I think people are miffed that it is being replaced with an unrelated effect. It's like replacing the turret tracking skill with a missile or drone skill and going 'meh whatever it's combat deal with it' |
Gaston Miromme
The Dromi Chain
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:36:00 -
[112] - Quote
I feel extra burned because I just trained up an industry character in preparation for Crius. If this change had been announced along with other Crius changes (While there were intimations that the skill would change, I didn't expect it to become such a niche skill.), I certainly wouldn't have spent the time to train ME to V.
A job queue, while an additional feature, would make this skill more palatable. |
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:37:00 -
[113] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
"- We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible"
Can you not see that you have just changed a skill that i paid money through subscription to get then made it completely useless.
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
64
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:38:00 -
[114] - Quote
Bocephus Morgen wrote:I trained Material Efficiency V on several characters in anticipation of these Industry changes. If I had known this change was happening I would have not bothered training it all. That is several combined weeks of wasted training, I believe asking for an SP refund is only fair here.
I hate to say it, but, if you were reading the industry blogs because you were excited about the industry changes, you should have seen the statement that ME was being changed. It was pretty clear that, since the skill was a stupid barrier to entry, they were going to nerf it into the ground... and speaking as someone who has trained it on two characters, I'm delighted to see it gone, because it was a really stupid barrier to entry.
As I recall, the original proposed implementation was going to be some sort of reduction in job installation cost, something that would mostly benefit people doing lots of building near trade hubs. Personally, I thought that was kind of interesting, although, as noted, almost certainly not going to save you very much money.
If I have a complaint, it's that 1% *feels* small. I'd rather have -5%/level installation costs over -1% time, even though, with the setup I'm expecting to be using, I'll almost certainly make more money with an extra 5% stuff than 25% less ISK flowing out for manufacturing costs. Call it "workforce management" or something... I'm not quite sure what jobs are actually going to cost, though, so I may be off on my numbers. |
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
205
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:38:00 -
[115] - Quote
I'll begrudgingly accept the technical and resource reasons you cited for ruling out the SP refund but this part of your explanation has me scratching my head:
CCP Greyscale wrote:We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time This entire issue here *is* essentially about the perception players have that their skill points are being devalued.
Ok, so refunding the SP is in the "too hard basket". You still need to find a way to make players feel as though the SP they invested in training ME has value because as it stands they're being short-changed.
By all means please take another look at how you're approaching these skill changes and find a solution that preserves the value of our SP which is your own stated priority. EVE Down Under 2014 (Australia's very own fanfest) 21st to 23rd November 2014 in Sydney, Australia www.evedownunder.com |
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:41:00 -
[116] - Quote
My miffing is partially from how the change wasn't communicated, like many Crius changes have not been.
I've been playing long enough that a few million SP here or there isn't the end of the world for me, but I also have a bunch of new players in my corp who have one skillset to their name at this point, that being production.
Should barriers to entry be removed to most things? Probably. Should people be able to fly capitals right out the gate too?
Is this specific case being handled pretty badly? Absolutely. I'm pretty sure this could have been addressed during the 10 week extension on the industry changes had it been communicated clearly earlier. Here's hoping that the response to this doesn't remain as, 'well it's too late to do anything about now' |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
205
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:42:00 -
[117] - Quote
afkboss wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :) "- We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible" Can you not see that you have just changed a skill that i paid money through subscription to get then made it completely useless.
The skill was useless before. You just couldn't notice this because CCP tricked you with extra waste added to the material requirements.
Reading this thread and weighing the number of people who want the skill to change and those who just want skill points, no matter how flimsy their demands, makes me depressed. So many dishonest people.
Please people, CCP isn't stupid. They know exactly what you express when talking about how you want that skill reimbursed with loads of skill points.
Not dissent, but pure greed.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
691
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:52:00 -
[118] - Quote
Given that the skill is required at 5 to inject Capital Construction, I am even less convinced that a refund is a good idea. The utility of the skill goes from "a hard requirement to compete in industry, period" to "the thing you need to train in order to get into capital construction." This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Radgette
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
80
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 16:59:00 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
blah blah same old crap about not having enough time to do what you should be doing with added we don't care how much this is ballocks HTFU /picard facepalm
Ye and you wonder why PCU is at it's lowest for a long time and industrialists are planning to mothball their characters
5% time reduction is not a good replacement for this skill. lets hope your next idea isn't so terribad. |
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:04:00 -
[120] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote:afkboss wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :) "- We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible" Can you not see that you have just changed a skill that i paid money through subscription to get then made it completely useless. The skill was useless before. You just couldn't notice this because CCP tricked you with extra waste added to the material requirements. Reading this thread and weighing the number of people who want the skill to change and those who just want skill points, no matter how flimsy their demands, makes me depressed. So many dishonest people. Please people, CCP isn't stupid. They know exactly what you express when talking about how you want that skill reimbursed with loads of skill points. Not dissent, but pure greed.
CCP forced us to train it, we had no choice in the matter and then they make the skillpoints we had no choice to spend 100% worthless.
Yeah totally no reason to be mad |
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
340
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:09:00 -
[121] - Quote
Querns wrote:Given that the skill is required at 5 to inject Capital Construction, I am even less convinced that a refund is a good idea. The utility of the skill goes from "a hard requirement to compete in industry, period" to "the thing you need to train in order to get into capital construction." Actually, the hoop you have to jump through to get into capital construction. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:12:00 -
[122] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Querns wrote:Given that the skill is required at 5 to inject Capital Construction, I am even less convinced that a refund is a good idea. The utility of the skill goes from "a hard requirement to compete in industry, period" to "the thing you need to train in order to get into capital construction." Actually, the hoop you have to jump through to get into capital construction. Pretty much every skill in the game is like this, though. If having to "jump through hoops" to get to a particular skill is distressing, how did you cope with training basically anything of interest before? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
501
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:13:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
Then don't refund it, reimburse it. Hand out skillpoints equal to the persons current material efficiency level as unallocated skill, but don't erase it from the char sheet. Keeps the skill, and the person doesn't feel like they got slapped in the face Yaay!!!! |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
83
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:14:00 -
[124] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote: This is like changing Rapid firing or Surgical Strike to give 1% bonus to Turret Falloff per level This. Sooo this.
Also, i would probly be more okay with this change if it didn't also mean that all items will increase by 25% in material costs (atleast), on top of it only saving 72 minutes a day, trained to lvl 5. Only saving 14 minutes a day more than it would at lvl 4. (at a cost of how long to train it to 5?)
How many industrialists actually keep all their lines running 23/7...? I know i sure don't. If this was changed to a more substantial bonus, then maybe i could get behind it.
And about 'specializing" through skills. How exactly does this accomplish that? Explain please. How is one more "specialized" by having trained this skill from 2% to 3%? |
Thoren Vaille
American Federation of Musicians Local 148-462
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:17:00 -
[125] - Quote
Actually, I'd prefer it if this skill ended up integrated into recruiting better manufacturing teams or reducing costs. Obviously, time is probably the least efficient way to convert SP into benefit in this case.
The problem for the most part, I think, is that the time invested in training ME5 doesn't really correlate to a 5% reduction in build time. So why not a 5% reduction in job cost? That solves two problems: there is no longer a week-long barrier to entry in manufacturing and the new skill would give you added leverage to NOT move your production from a system that suddenly has gotten quite a bit more active and expensive because the 5% reduction in job cost offsets some of the increase in team/slot cost.
Or you could make it so that people with the higher levels of the skill can recruit better teams or the same teams at lower cost. In any case, with all the emphasis on teams and slots, why not work it into one of those mechanics? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:17:00 -
[126] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Luscius Uta wrote: This is like changing Rapid firing or Surgical Strike to give 1% bonus to Turret Falloff per level This. Sooo this. Also, i would probly be more okay with this change if it didn't also mean that all items will increase by 25% in material costs (atleast), on top of it only saving 72 minutes a day, trained to lvl 5. The benefit currently being conferred by this skill is being "baked in" to the existing blueprints. Post-Crius, it will be as if everyone already had five ranks in the current implementation of the skill without having to train it. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
497
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:20:00 -
[127] - Quote
Was the manufacturing rebalance done by a completely different team than the refining/reprocessing rebalance?
For the manufacturing rebalance, it's all "it's too hard to be competitive and we're reducing the barrier for entry."
For the reprocessing rebalance, it's all "it's too easy to be competitive and we're INCREASING the barrier for entry."
I'm fairly certain that the train to get perfect refining in highsec was longer than the train to get no-waste manufacturing, but now manufacturing has a 0-day train to be competitive and refining has a 6-month train. How does this make sense?
EVE is hard and should stay that way. It's perfectly fine for there to be skills that are very beneficial, if not required, to have at 5 in order to compete, as CCP is proving with the reprocessing changes.
Honestly, just leave the ME skill as-is. I'm fine with that solution too. |
Poison Ivy Rorschach
The Surfin Dead
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:22:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
- We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
I am mostly bothered by the fact it's going from something I would train for (and had to at the time) to something that's only useful to dedicated no-lifers who watch their industry jobs all day.
If it was changed to a skill that saved me 1% mats per level I'd be much more OK with the change. I know 5% sounds big but let's face it; the cost of lowly cruisers has more than doubled in the last couple of years and insurance has become all but worthless since it doesn't adjust upwards as the cost of ships climbs. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
563
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:22:00 -
[129] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops CCP Greyscale wrote:- We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition... These two statements are fundamentally incompatible. You want people to have to choose specializations... then you're choosing one of the specializations for us... so that you don't have to do a SP refund. That's just forcing players through a hoop whether we want to go through it or not. no they're not
skills are about specialization, not jumping through hoops. an old hoop was changed to a specialization in the area its hoop used to be in. this is entirely compatable with "hoops are dumb kill them" and there's absolutely no fundamental incompatability here whatsoever |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
563
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:25:00 -
[130] - Quote
like seriously that's not what "fundamentally incompatable" means, please don't try to use phrases you don't understand
what you mean to say is "i don't like this for reasons that are not at all associated with any contradiction in what you said, here they are" |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
564
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:30:00 -
[131] - Quote
as for the merits of your argument: you already jumped through the hoop. ccp regrets the hoop and issues you:
1) sincere apologies 2) level v in the replacement skill
none of this is forcing you through a hoop again. you were already forced to prance through the hoop for the delight of the audience. now, what's being changed is merely the reward you get from that.
future people will not be forced through the hoop in order to stand on the stool while that jerk with a chair and a whip pokes at you, but you have already been through the hoop and we cannot undo your hoop-hopping
what you are arguing is what reward you are due for your hoop-hopping, something that is merely bargaining, not a matter of principle over the idea of hoops |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Imperium Fleet
260
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:45:00 -
[132] - Quote
The amount of pressure against making the ME skill useful but no longer a sine qua non of even reasonably doing industry strikes me as a common problem in EVE where veteran players who have vested interests resist changes that will benefit new players. Just like the resistances to having standings for placing a POS, these sorts of barriers keep new players from having a fighting chance at making profit or just not wasting their time, while veteran players are not actually losing anything because they benefited for years from having already jumped through these hoops.
I don't personally see a lot to complain about. |
Wolf Kraft
Underground Smellroad
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:50:00 -
[133] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions.
Mynna, your example (and this skill) are functionally useless because of all the other changes coming in Crius. There is very little point in having a 5% time reduction because you will literally be able to set up as many jobs as you want (though I'm sure there is a technical/code limit somewhere) in a single station since the production/research line limit is being removed from the game. Capital producers may enjoy getting products out marginally faster, but everyone else likely won't notice the difference.
However, I fully agree that the skill, in its current iteration, needs to be changed. Unfortunately, the proposed change is far from being a proper specialization skill that CCP is hoping for. |
Claudius Dethahal
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:55:00 -
[134] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:The amount of pressure against making the ME skill useful but no longer a sine qua non of even reasonably doing industry strikes me as a common problem in EVE where veteran players who have vested interests resist changes that will benefit new players. Just like the resistances to having standings for placing a POS, these sorts of barriers keep new players from having a fighting chance at making profit or just not wasting their time, while veteran players are not actually losing anything because they benefited for years from having already jumped through these hoops.
I don't personally see a lot to complain about.
Why don't we remove prequisites across the board and only have skills offer bonuses to performance. That would help the new players out as much or more (since it would let them specialize into something very quickly). |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
694
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:02:00 -
[135] - Quote
Wolf Kraft wrote:mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. Mynna, your example (and this skill) are functionally useless because of all the other changes coming in Crius. There is very little point in having a 5% time reduction because you will literally be able to set up as many jobs as you want (though I'm sure there is a technical/code limit somewhere) in a single station since the production/research line limit is being removed from the game. Capital producers may enjoy getting products out marginally faster, but everyone else likely won't notice the difference. However, I fully agree that the skill, in its current iteration, needs to be changed. Unfortunately, the proposed change is far from being a proper specialization skill that CCP is hoping for. I suppose, in your world, you have an unlimited number of characters.
The number of concurrent jobs per station is being removed, but the number of concurrent jobs a single character can run is still limited to 11. Reducing the time that a job takes allows you to cycle your ISK through the market that much faster. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Myxx
754
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:08:00 -
[136] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :) Quit your job. Dumbing industry down 'for the sake of newbies' is bad. Stop doing it. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:17:00 -
[137] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Quit your job. Dumbing industry down 'for the sake of newbies' is bad. Stop doing it. Removing an onerous requirement to perform in one of Eve's most fundamental activities is not "dumbing industry down."
Anyone who is sane supports the removal of Material Efficiency. The only issue here, and I'm being increasingly convinced it is a non-issue, is the replacement for the skill.
Granted, there were people who thought learning skills were good and should not be removed, too, I suppose. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Myxx
754
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:18:00 -
[138] - Quote
Querns wrote:Myxx wrote:Quit your job. Dumbing industry down 'for the sake of newbies' is bad. Stop doing it. Removing an onerous requirement to perform in one of Eve's most fundamental activities is not "dumbing industry down." Anyone who is sane supports the removal of Material Efficiency. The only issue here, and I'm being increasingly convinced it is a non-issue, is the replacement for the skill. Granted, there were people who thought learning skills were good and should not be removed, too, I suppose. its what... at most a 2 week skill?
That really isn't that bad. That's practically a non-existent barrier. |
Jedediah Arndtz
Warner Bros.
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:19:00 -
[139] - Quote
First you make Juryrigging a complete waste of SP, now this? Two skills made worthless in one patch... Nice one CCP. Keep up the great work, can't have people too happy about updates, amiright? |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:21:00 -
[140] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time
The value of this skill, at level V, is this: 72 minutes per day per line. If manufacturing lines are kept going 24/7, it's a valuable skill. For a small-time manufacturer who does not keep their lines going 24/7, the skill is already at zero value. Even at my peak, running my lines twice a day (once before work, and once after), this skill would have been utterly useless to me. Now, running a few lines once or twice a week? I am not exaggerating when I say that I believe it will be the most useless skill I have, because I will have zero utilization of it.
Querns wrote:Compare the reduction in utility for this skill with a nerf to a particular ship in PvP -- people who had trained into that ship are not entitled to an SP refund; neither should we.
Nerfing a ship isn't quite the same thing. A closer consideration, I think, would be the Navigation skill:
What if all ships of a similar type and class (attack BC's, EWAR Frigs, etc) were given the same speed as the rest in their type and class, and then the Navigation skill, which gives a 5% bonus to sub-warp velocity, were changed to give a 1% boost to warp speed?
Yes, the skill would still be useful, but only to a limited number of people, and in limited use. The mission-running pilot, for example, would have no use for it, as it wouldn't save them enough time to run an extra mission while they were online, but a capital pilot (including freighters) might find it incredibly useful.
Similarly, someone who generally flies smaller ships in a fleet would probably have no use for it, but the battleship pilots in that same fleet might enjoy having it, though it would only matter if they all had it.
It's a skill that, while still being useful, isn't going to be useful to everyone after the change, whereas everyone could put it to use previously. Some people who had Navigation to V when it affected sub-warp speed may have no need for it at all when it affects warp speed.
The change from Material Efficiency to Advanced Industry is similar: a person who has their lines going 24/7 will find it useful (as it saves 72 minutes per day per line), but a person who has any more down-time than that on their lines will see a greatly-reduced value in the skill, quickly trending towards having no real value at all. |
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
278
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:29:00 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: [...]refunds[...]requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors[...]
Wow, just wow.
As a DB Admin, i can't even put in words how deeply you just shamed your team.
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:31:00 -
[142] - Quote
Querns wrote:Anyone who is sane supports the removal of Material Efficiency. The only issue here, and I'm being increasingly convinced it is a non-issue, is the replacement for the skill. I agree that Material Efficiency needed to go with the coming of Crius, but having the skill "changed" into becoming something so vastly different is more than a non-issue. Prior to Crius, Material Efficiency was useful-enough that everyone had to train it, whether they were a 24/7 manufacturer, or a small-time manufacturer.
With the new / changed skill, it's only useful to people running their lines 24/7 (or close to it). It amounts to 72 minutes saved per day, per line. For people who don't keep their lines going constantly, the savings in time is meaningless: What do I care that my 360-minute job now only takes 342 minutes if I'm going to be asleep when it happens, anyway, and won't be starting my lines again for several days to a week? It's a skill that I would never train, given an actual choice.
CCP are essentially saying it would take too much time for too little return to reimburse the SP for it, and if it were only a single person taking issue with it, I would agree. This, however, has more than a single person taking issue with it.
If the skill were to affect something that everyone would find use from, such as reducing the install cost or taxes, even though it would be a fairly small gain overall, I would be perfectly happy with it, because it wouldn't be a complete waste of SP for me. As it stands, 5% faster manufacturing time is useless to me, and from the thread, to others, as well. |
The Piping Piper
We are Canadian -- I'm sorry
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
I've only been playing this game for 4 months. I spent the ~15 days it took to train this skill to V because it was MANDATORY. Sure, CCP wants to get rid of the mandatory skills for this type of thing, I get that. But you've essentially wasted 12.5% of my TOTAL playing time now. That's time I will never get back. This skill is absolutely USELESS for me as I am only able to play for a short amount of time during the week.
CCP, you complain about newbro retention. You want this game to thrive? Pulling this is kind of thing, then disregarding our concerns and frustrations with a TLDR "it takes a while and its hard" is absolutely unacceptable. This kind of attitude towards YOUR CONSUMERS is unacceptable, and will force me to quit. Sorry, but losing 12.5% of my total playtime into a skill that I DID NOT TRAIN FOR is ridiculous. |
Cekle Skyscales
The Scope Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:06:00 -
[144] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:For the reprocessing rebalance, it's all "it's too easy to be competitive and we're INCREASING the barrier for entry."
Increasing the barrier to entry by allowing every single station in the verse to have refining/reprocessing capability? Think before you post. They're increasing the barrier to perfect, not to entry. |
S'hiya
Cryotechnics
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:09:00 -
[145] - Quote
768,000 skillpoints is no small time investment. Considering the replacement skill is next to worthless I believe a refund would only be fair. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
463
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:22:00 -
[146] - Quote
As others have said, this is a retirement of an old skill considered a requirement for Industry. It is good that a "required" skill is being changed so that is no longer required. But it is being retired, not nerfed. There should therefore be a refund. The new skillbook should be seeded, and people can choose to use refunded SP on it, or spend the refunded SP elsewhere.
The technical arguments against a refund that CCP presented may have merit, though not for technical reasons; customer service in dealing with errors can be substantial, however. So if SP are not to be refunded, the skill should not be retired as it is currently planned, but instead changed to still interact with material costs for manufacturing items but to a lesser degree: 1% (0.2% per level) would be a minimum, but even that is a little low. Ab adjustment of 0.4% per level, for a total of 2%, would be a more appropriate change.
|
Kali Aldard
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:34:00 -
[147] - Quote
While I understand the concern surrounding a "mandatory skill to 5" that ME currently is, it is that undesired mandate that is why pilots trained to 5 in the first place. Removing the feature of a skill that reduces how much money it costs to build a single item should come with a compensation in SP spent on that feature.
Someone decided "I want to spend time reducing the materials that this blueprint needs" and acted upon it by training a skill. They didn't train to get their item faster. Faster build time doesn't reduce the amount cargo space I need to get my materials to my production home. Removing the feature of one player being able to perform actions that reduce the material cost for BPCs is just what it looks like: removing a feature. It's just the same as removing a feature that allows someone to perform actions that reduce the time it takes to train another skill.
I understand that reimbursing SP reduces the perceived value of SP. But you're completely removing a feature that had a skill associated with it. You're not devaluing this feature, you're eliminating it altogether. You're completely removing what used to be a motive to train a skill. The new "replacement" skill isn't anything close to the same thing, either.
I believe that with the removal of the feature to reduce material cost, skills trained to support that feature need to also be refunded. |
Hope Alar
Blue Tridents Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:52:00 -
[148] - Quote
I have an industry alt who has kept many of her lines busy on a daily basis. I would benefit from the new proposed skill, but no where near as much as the current Production Efficiency. I create a set of 21 hour jobs everyday. I have a 3 hour window incase I may end up be doing something in rl, or be busy doing something else in game. The new skill would benefit me but I would likely only train it to IV. I think such a mandatory skill being made into a trivial skill warrants a skill refund. I could put it into some refining skills instead =). |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
697
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:08:00 -
[149] - Quote
Kali Aldard wrote:Someone decided "I want to spend time reducing the materials that this blueprint needs" and acted upon it by training a skill. You "decide" to train Material Efficiency today as much as you choose to breathe. It's just not possible to compete without it today. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Valterra Craven
268
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:17:00 -
[150] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.
Do we need to start another thread[naught] somewhere else where it would be in scope for discussion?
CCP Greyscale wrote: - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't)
Then don't delay the release, and make the skill do nothing until such time as you can devote resources to solve the problem properly. Wan't that the very point of moving to the rapid release system? You're happy with making massive industry changes without doing any real work to invention and are instead working on that in the next release, so it would only make sense that you could do the same here as well. |
|
Claudius Dethahal
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:20:00 -
[151] - Quote
Could a replacement skill modify or interact with the multi-run discount to offer more options for competition there (ideally options that allowed casual industry to focus on per unit efficiency at a greater time cost and heavy industry to focus on throughput)? |
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:23:00 -
[152] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: [...]refunds[...]requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors[...]
Wow, just wow. As a DB Admin, i can't even put in words how deeply you just shamed your team.
Really? Even an almost trivial change can be a 1 or 2 day job when you factor in project management, testing, fixing any bugs, blah blah. |
Rena Senn
Resurrection Ventures Un.Bound
108
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:23:00 -
[153] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset
Problem is, the skill was mandatory. For all the people who already trained it, which is just about everyone who seriously devoted themselves to industry, having that skill forced upon them in its new form will still be mandatory.
CCP Greyscale wrote: - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops
As above, people have already jumped through hoops. Not refunding the SP is only going to force industrialists and bazaar traders to keep jumping through more hoops by playing SP catchup and re-adjusting sale values for a now far less useful skill. Skills are also supposed to be about player choice, not retroactively enforcing unwanted specialization.
CCP Greyscale wrote: - we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time
Repurposing skills into less worthy iterations also devalues the perceived value of skillpoints over time, especially when CCP is sending the message that any SP you already invested may suddenly change in operation and hence value with every new patch.
CCP Greyscale wrote: - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't)
Even so, this still demonstrates a highly flawed development and release schedule that did not properly accommodate for testing and customer feedback. Saying "We've already spent too much effort accelerating this car to 160 mph and it's going crash in the next minute regardless of whether we wanted to slow down or not (which we don't)" still makes you a reckless driver.
In short, an iterative and incremental development model is not a carte blanche excuse to do less planning and be more callous towards preventable product faults. Regardless of how you've shaken up your content release schedule to make it 'more agile' or what have you, if the result is a loss of customer satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong. |
Masao Kurata
Z List
57
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:40:00 -
[154] - Quote
Wow, the entitlement in this thread. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
697
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:41:00 -
[155] - Quote
Rena Senn wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time
Repurposing skills into less worthy iterations also devalues the perceived value of skillpoints over time, especially when CCP is sending the message that any SP you already invested may suddenly change in operation and hence value with every new patch. You speak of this as if it was a new thing. This has been the general contract between player and MMO designer since time immemorial. Things get nerfed. A line of acquisition or skill in which occurred heavy investment is suddenly for naught. There are precious few ways to make meaningful change in an MMO without this sort of potential. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
431
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:42:00 -
[156] - Quote
1% manufacturing time saving per level is pretty uninspiring and is really only useful for long jobs such as titans
Here are a few alternative ideas: - 2 or 3% manufacturing time saving per level - additional manufacturing slot per level - some kind of discount on job costs - some kind of discount on bidding on those team thingies |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
633
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:42:00 -
[157] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two
We're dissatisfied with how USELESS the skill is, unless you're building caps. For Level 5 in a Rank 3 skill I should get more. Furthermore since it is now impossible to saturate a facility a time reduction doesn't gang me anything, just increases the time in which my industry POS will be sitting idle.
Up thread I proposed an alternative repurposing of the skill to reduce the cost of lines, possible just production, possible all type.
Facility Efficiency - 5% reduction per level in research and production line costs per level.
this would be a meaningful reward - specialized industrialists can make a profit in more active systems (most likely closer to trade hubs) for example, or by specializing and staying in the boonies they see a lower (but still real) benefit from the skill.
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
697
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:47:00 -
[158] - Quote
It's very unlikely that CCP is going to agree to any sort of cost reductions as a potential replacement to this skill. At its core, Material Efficiency is a cost reduction skill, and the whole idea of removing its current effect is to reduce the number of mandatory skills needed to drive costs down. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Rena Senn
Resurrection Ventures Un.Bound
109
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:52:00 -
[159] - Quote
Querns wrote:Rena Senn wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time
Repurposing skills into less worthy iterations also devalues the perceived value of skillpoints over time, especially when CCP is sending the message that any SP you already invested may suddenly change in operation and hence value with every new patch. You speak of this as if it was a new thing. This has been the general contract between player and MMO designer since time immemorial. Things get nerfed. A line of acquisition or skill in which occurred heavy investment is suddenly for naught. There are precious few ways to make meaningful change in an MMO without this sort of potential. Of course it's not new, but it is hypocritical when CCP is using this line of reasoning to justify doing the exact opposite. If you don't want to devalue the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time, then don't rework old spent skillpoints in a way that makes them completely devalued. |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
633
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:53:00 -
[160] - Quote
Querns wrote:It's very unlikely that CCP is going to agree to any sort of cost reductions as a potential replacement to this skill. At its core, Material Efficiency is a cost reduction skill, and the whole idea of removing its current effect is to reduce the number of mandatory skills needed to drive costs down.
That's why i'm talking about production line costs, not material costs. This is exactly the same Skill as Broker Relations, except it applies to production and research lines instead of market orders. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:55:00 -
[161] - Quote
I am all for these new industry changes, but taking something as important as this skill was and making it a joke (99% of time) is seriously flawed. I think this is definitely a case where a skill refund is required. damn it is hard to delete my signature |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
697
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 21:02:00 -
[162] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Querns wrote:It's very unlikely that CCP is going to agree to any sort of cost reductions as a potential replacement to this skill. At its core, Material Efficiency is a cost reduction skill, and the whole idea of removing its current effect is to reduce the number of mandatory skills needed to drive costs down. That's why i'm talking about production line costs, not material costs. This is exactly the same Skill as Broker Relations, except it applies to production and research lines instead of market orders. Costs are costs are costs. It doesn't matter what "side" of the equation receives the levies; the levies themselves are being targeted. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Wolf Kraft
Underground Smellroad
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 22:08:00 -
[163] - Quote
Querns wrote:Wolf Kraft wrote:mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. Mynna, your example (and this skill) are functionally useless because of all the other changes coming in Crius. There is very little point in having a 5% time reduction because you will literally be able to set up as many jobs as you want (though I'm sure there is a technical/code limit somewhere) in a single station since the production/research line limit is being removed from the game. Capital producers may enjoy getting products out marginally faster, but everyone else likely won't notice the difference. However, I fully agree that the skill, in its current iteration, needs to be changed. Unfortunately, the proposed change is far from being a proper specialization skill that CCP is hoping for. I suppose, in your world, you have an unlimited number of characters. The number of concurrent jobs per station is being removed, but the number of concurrent jobs a single character can run is still limited to 11. Reducing the time that a job takes allows you to cycle your ISK through the market that much faster.
The only people that this skill will truly help, are those handful of individuals that run industry jobs 24/7 without interruption on all 11 jobs or if you produce capitals/supers. If you have more than an hour of dead time in between jobs each day (or 11hrs on a single job) on a single character, this skill very quickly becomes useless for the amount of SP required for V. Whereas with a single account, where you can have 33 jobs running, now that the line limit is being removed you can centralize all those characters into a single station of your choosing that has the necessary services. That itself is going to be a much more significant way to save time because now you're greatly simplifying the logistics of moving materials and products around while you're actually playing the game. Barring that, this allows industrial corporations to benefit from this centralization as well.
Like I said, this was a skill that needed to be changed. However, this is not a good way to change it. Especially considering they could have adjusted the skill to interact with the new team dynamic that's being introduced with the industry changes. |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 22:11:00 -
[164] - Quote
Gaston Miromme wrote:I feel extra burned because I just trained up an industry character in preparation for Crius. If this change had been announced along with other Crius changes (While there were intimations that the skill would change, I didn't expect it to become such a niche skill.), I certainly wouldn't have spent the time to train ME to V.
A job queue, while an additional feature, would make this skill more palatable.
If you would have read the indy devblogs you would have known that CCP will change the skill. So really its just your own fault. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1303
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 22:15:00 -
[165] - Quote
Greyscale, I'm afraid your list is complete rubbish. One can clearly see you're horrendously and depressingly detached from the things which actually matter to industrialists to even begin to think that a 25% ME upgrade is in any way comparable to saving 14 minutes per day per level from a build job.
Did someone accidentally delete the scripts you've used the past times you've removed (significantly more) skills than this?
It's a poor show all round. |
Winter Archipelago
Catastrophic Overview Failure Brave Collective
266
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 22:26:00 -
[166] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Gaston Miromme wrote:I feel extra burned because I just trained up an industry character in preparation for Crius. If this change had been announced along with other Crius changes (While there were intimations that the skill would change, I didn't expect it to become such a niche skill.), I certainly wouldn't have spent the time to train ME to V.
A job queue, while an additional feature, would make this skill more palatable. If you would have read the indy devblogs you would have known that CCP will change the skill. So really its just your own fault. Everyone knew it was going to be changed, but we thought it would be something that would still be relevant to everyone. As it stands, the current iteration is only useful to the most dedicated, and if you aren't running your lines 24/7, you aren't able to really put the skill to use (you save 72 minutes per day with the skill at level V). A small-time or casual industrialist won't be able to put the skill to use, so unless we ramp up our time on our industrialist (in lieu of other things we'd prefer to be doing), the skill is wasted SP for us. Ransoms are accepted in Isk, Ships, Mods, and Dolls. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
697
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 22:27:00 -
[167] - Quote
Wolf Kraft wrote:The only people that this skill will truly help, are those handful of individuals that run industry jobs 24/7 without interruption on all 11 jobs or if you produce capitals/supers. If you have more than an hour of dead time in between jobs each day (or 11hrs on a single job) on a single character, this skill very quickly becomes useless for the amount of SP required for V. Whereas with a single account, where you can have 33 jobs running, now that the line limit is being removed you can centralize all those characters into a single station of your choosing that has the necessary services. That itself is going to be a much more significant way to save time because now you're greatly simplifying the logistics of moving materials and products around while you're actually playing the game. Barring that, this allows industrial corporations to benefit from this centralization as well.
Like I said, this was a skill that needed to be changed. However, this is not a good way to change it. Especially considering they could have adjusted the skill to interact with the new team dynamic that's being introduced with the industry changes. Do they not have multiple runs where you live? Most of my jobs take five to seven days to run. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 22:29:00 -
[168] - Quote
I am amazed people are surprised that CCP Greyscale has done this - the guy has prior form - he's the dev that made all the shield compensation skills effectively useless except those few individuals who passive shield tank...
...and no there was no compensation that time either. |
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
207
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 22:44:00 -
[169] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:If you would have read the indy devblogs you would have known that CCP will change the skill. So really its just your own fault. "The Material Efficiency skill will be repurposed, stay tuned for more information on that in a future blog." From https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/researching-the-future/
and
"We're looking to cap the maximum bonus of this using the old Material Efficiency skill, which will no longer be affecting waste (see previous blog)." from https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/the-price-of-change/ where it was implied the change to ME would be to reduce the cost of installing subsequent jobs - nothing about production time.
As far as I can tell those are the only references to a change to the ME skill from the Crius-related dev blogs. Yes, they indicate a change is coming but exactly what that change was didn't emerge until the 11th hour when now it's too late to incorporate community feedback:
CCP Greyscale wrote:We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact ... *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release That said I'm happy to be corrected if this change was made explicit somewhere earlier. Just show me where. EVE Down Under 2014 (Australia's very own fanfest) 21st to 23rd November 2014 in Sydney, Australia www.evedownunder.com |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1900
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 23:06:00 -
[170] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties. Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
Menero Orti
Jedran Space Services Headshot Gaming
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 23:17:00 -
[171] - Quote
What i really hate about all of this is the fact that CCP changes stuff constantly without updating there blogs and stuff and when the expansion is about to hit you have all this conflict informations coming from all over the place. Seriously this is really bad. Wish you guys did a better job |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
3240
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 23:18:00 -
[172] - Quote
Good change for the game, bad change for me (as every one of my production characters has ME 5).
Still, I'm behind this change overall. My loss, the game's gain. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=346564 - a proposal to overhaul the Logistics skill https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 23:28:00 -
[173] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
You went a bit overboard. Much of what you removed was actually constructive. You would've done much better to wipe all the entries which said, "sp refund, plz," and nothing else in their posts and then to also make a list of those players' names in your own post as a matter of thread cleanup.
So, I'll say it again in a more concise manner: Refunding SP's for skills which are changed in contravention to the expectations of those who spent time adding them to their characters would be a good thing to consider changing as a matter of policy. There can certainly be a system scripted to handle this kind of thing in a nearly hands-free manner which would also notify players which skills had their SP's rolled back to 0 whenever it happens. Given that CCP expects to be online for another ten years, there's certainly some long-haul time savings to be had in making such a system. |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1900
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 23:35:00 -
[174] - Quote
As there seems to be a bit of confusion as to why certain posts get deleted even if they are perceived not to be rule breaking, a little bit of explanation might be in order. If a post is found to be rule breaking it either gets edited or it gets deleted. If the latter, all posts quoting them (or replying to them without direct quoting) AND all post reacting on those quotes/replies get deleted as well for thread consistency. Even if those posts are not rule breaking in and of themselves.
For example: Post A is rule breaking and gets deleted. B replies to A, C replies to A, D however replies to B and E to K reply to D. The entire string of posts gets deleted because A is the origin of that string of posts.
Please accept this explanation as is and do not reply to it. That would be off the topic of this thread. If you are perceiving a problem with ISD behaviour on the forum or are disagreeing with the way (your) posts are being moderated, please feel free to read the CCP policies and follow the procedure found under the header 'Complaints'. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 00:12:00 -
[175] - Quote
Follow-up after talking with my corp members about the Crius changes: At least one of my newbies is seriously considering not renewing his initial 6-month subscription because he feels like he's being screwed on this. Good on you (and I mean that), CCP Greyscale, for addressing this as a Dev, but I thought you should be aware. Please make your reconsideration a good one for the sake of new players who are much less tolerant of this kind of a change than are those of us who've been around for a while. |
Kahawa Oban
CompleXion Industries CompleXion Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 01:00:00 -
[176] - Quote
penifSMASH wrote:1% manufacturing time saving per level is pretty uninspiring and is really only useful for long jobs such as titans
Here are a few alternative ideas: - 2 or 3% manufacturing time saving per level - additional manufacturing slot per level - some kind of discount on job costs - some kind of discount on bidding on those team thingies
+1 to this.
I was just reading this thread and I can deal with the loss of the material % decrease, but I don't see that a 1% buff to reduced time enough of a trade off. 2-3% per level is something that can be more significant.
Keeping in mind that almost all indy characters have this skill trained up to 5 as a prerequisite to just manufacturing at cost effective margins. |
Shinzann
Dead poets society The Laughing Men
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 01:06:00 -
[177] - Quote
I'm not a very serious industrial type person, I'll be the first to admit that. I'm still a little frustrated that almost 3/4 of the SP I put into the production branch is going to go from "rather useful to have" to "useful as teats on a bull" though and I have to wonder if there wasn't some other, more useful, option that could have been chosen.
Just my 0.02ISK |
Rust Connor
Industrias PapaCapim
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 01:09:00 -
[178] - Quote
My biggest issue is: do we need more reduction on production time? tl;dr: we are increasing production output, but demand is the same. So nerf all bps! Or change the skill again.....
Mynnna said that 5% increase in production means 5% more isk... Actually "5% increase in production" means, prepare to be amazed, 5% increase in production! We would get more isk if market absorb this production increase. But does it? I dont think demand will be any higher, so if we increase supply but demand is the same what will we get?
And there is another thing: now it's easier to jump on board of the industrial train (or ship) so we can expect even more people producing and another increase in supply. And team is another source of time reduction...
So my incredible unpopular suggestion is: If you want to give us a new time reduction skill, first increase production time on all blueprints so that we get a similar level of industrial production output. =)
--- x ---
Other ideas that I would love do discuss: - I particulary hate ideas about install cost. Let it be. - ME bonus is always nice and benefits everybody. 1%/level sounds ok, right? Not powerful enough to be 'required' and not weak enough to be useless. Level 3 to 5 is the same benefit of a POS array.... Sounds fair. Better than current version that from level 0 to 5 is the same benefit of an implant..... Or a mediocre team.... - Team bonus sounds fun! 5% increase/level? - give production a chance to pop a t2 bpc... 1% chance/level to generate a t2 bpc if you are building a t1 item. (Crazy, huh?)
--- x ---
And as a diplomatic action, I would also give some skillpoints bonus to everyone with ME skill (10% the sp spent on ME). Is that easier? |
Gideon Enderas
Dirty Butt Pirates
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 01:12:00 -
[179] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops
That's cool that you're busy and everything, but it's a terrible excuse for not communicating changes such as this with your player base. When I trained ME 5 I was jumping through that hoop that you want to get rid of, now I'm stuck with a "specialization" I neither need nor want.
Quote: - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.)
You claim that you want to avoid devaluing skill points, however the last drone changes (which were communicated just as poorly) completely devalued the Combat Drone Operation Skill. "Repurposing" the skill comes across as a lazy band aid solution. I understand that it may not be easy to do, but why make a decision based on what is easy?
Quote: - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
Why am I finding out about such a big change from a post on Reddit that didn't link to a Dev Blog? Why is the ME skill being repurposed instead of done away with? Was the CSM aware of these changes? |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 01:51:00 -
[180] - Quote
Rust Connor wrote: - ME bonus is always nice and benefits everybody. 1%/level sounds ok, right? Not powerful enough to be 'required' and not weak enough to be useless. Level 3 to 5 is the same benefit of a POS array.... Sounds fair. Better than current version that from level 0 to 5 is the same benefit of an implant..... Or a mediocre team.... Even 1% per level would be too strong, and would become another required skill. There are plenty of T1 items out there whose margins are within 1%, and probably the overwhelming majority are within 10%, so in order to be competitive, a person would absolutely have to train the skill, even if it were a 1% / level material reduction.
I'm actually very happy to see ME get axed, and would hate to see another skill (even a much weaker version) be put up in its place.
My gripe with Advanced Industry still remains that it's only the most active industrialists who can put it to use.
A 1% / level reduction in install cost would be perfectly nice. So would a 1% / level increase in time that teams are available. Changing the skill and "giving" it to players who had ME is fine, just make it a skill all of them would actually be able to put to use, as opposed to only the most active. |
|
Josh Cox
FC Build 'n Trade
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 02:07:00 -
[181] - Quote
I'd like to add my voice into the group of folks requesting a skillpoint refund for this.
As it standands now, Material Efficiency affects everyone who does industry. Even if this bonus were reduced and not removed, it would still affect everyone equally. By removing this skill and replacing it with the new skill at level V, you've handed an advantage only to the minority of players who scale their industry very large (ie. running lines 24/7); the rest of us (who do not run lines 24/7) are given a bunch of wasted time/skillpoints instead.
I say you refund it, and those who would actually use the new skill properly will put all their points into it. The rest of us will put them towards something for useful than saving 5% of the time that we weren't using to begin with. |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 02:13:00 -
[182] - Quote
Hi CCP,
To me, reassignment of SPs to a lesser skill has more of a devaluing effect in my mind than reimbursement. We've lived through both - reimbursement for learning skills (so we know it's possible), and drone skill nerfs that just happened.
I think you'll find it more palatable for us (me..) if the skill does a 2-3% time reduction per level. The ME skill gave a guaranteed performance adjustment - even if the TE skill is not able to make it guaranteed, it should allow a decent enough window to take advantage of it. |
James Dean Rockafella
Catastrophic Operations Black Pearl Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 02:50:00 -
[183] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone, - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops
Why is it being mandatory a problem? Are all industry skills going to be reshuffled when they become proliferated to an extent that allows a majority of the market to sell at lower price?
|
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 02:50:00 -
[184] - Quote
Rust Connor wrote:My biggest issue is: do we need more reduction on production time?
...
So my incredible unpopular suggestion is: If you want to give us a new time reduction skill, first increase production time on all blueprints so that we get a similar level of industrial production output. =)
This man has it right!
T2 production times on modules have been cut in Crius by 50% or more. There's not enough work to go around as it is, and chopping off an additional 5% of that work is a terrible idea.
You can't remove all the barriers to production while simultaneously reducing the amount of production to be done! It's a shame that this is happening in the first place and that it's all 'too late to change', and hacking off another 20th is only going to make it worse. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 04:00:00 -
[185] - Quote
Querns wrote:Given that the skill is required at 5 to inject Capital Construction, I am even less convinced that a refund is a good idea. The utility of the skill goes from "a hard requirement to compete in industry, period" to "the thing you need to train in order to get into capital construction."
Oh, I get it! You're saying it's the Advanced Spaceship Command of the industrial field. |
Ohemgeez MyNameWontFi
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 04:11:00 -
[186] - Quote
Rapscallion Jones wrote:Querns wrote:Given that the skill is required at 5 to inject Capital Construction, I am even less convinced that a refund is a good idea. The utility of the skill goes from "a hard requirement to compete in industry, period" to "the thing you need to train in order to get into capital construction." Oh, I get it! You're saying it's the Advanced Spaceship Command of the industrial field.
or the removal of combat drones operation + scout drone operation changed to drone avionics + scout drone opeeration + medium drone operation.
don't hold you're breath guys, no SP will be refunded and/or reimbursed. don't be selfish, your advantage is less important to the betterment of the game. |
Wolf Kraft
Underground Smellroad
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 04:18:00 -
[187] - Quote
Querns wrote:Wolf Kraft wrote:The only people that this skill will truly help, are those handful of individuals that run industry jobs 24/7 without interruption on all 11 jobs or if you produce capitals/supers. If you have more than an hour of dead time in between jobs each day (or 11hrs on a single job) on a single character, this skill very quickly becomes useless for the amount of SP required for V. Whereas with a single account, where you can have 33 jobs running, now that the line limit is being removed you can centralize all those characters into a single station of your choosing that has the necessary services. That itself is going to be a much more significant way to save time because now you're greatly simplifying the logistics of moving materials and products around while you're actually playing the game. Barring that, this allows industrial corporations to benefit from this centralization as well.
Like I said, this was a skill that needed to be changed. However, this is not a good way to change it. Especially considering they could have adjusted the skill to interact with the new team dynamic that's being introduced with the industry changes. Do they not have multiple runs where you live? Most of my jobs take five to seven days to run.
Over the course of those 5-7 days, you are saving a whopping ~6-8hrs. Presuming your industry jobs aren't already sitting idle for that amount of time during the week, under what circumstances is that marginally faster build time going to make or break your industry character(s)? How does a quarter of a day faster production time during a week give you an advantage that can't be easily done done by some other means? Going a step further. With that amount of time saved, for the jobs you run, you only gain 2-3 extra completed jobs over the course of a year. You could train basic industrial skills in a day on a PvP character, jump clone to your industrial station to run a single job a month for a year and receive a much greater return on the SP invested.
To touch back on your previous comment though, just because you can get products to market marginally faster doesn't mean the product itself is actually going to sell faster. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 04:23:00 -
[188] - Quote
Ohemgeez MyNameWontFi wrote:Rapscallion Jones wrote:Querns wrote:Given that the skill is required at 5 to inject Capital Construction, I am even less convinced that a refund is a good idea. The utility of the skill goes from "a hard requirement to compete in industry, period" to "the thing you need to train in order to get into capital construction." Oh, I get it! You're saying it's the Advanced Spaceship Command of the industrial field. or the removal of combat drones operation + scout drone operation changed to drone avionics + scout drone opeeration + medium drone operation. don't hold you're breath guys, no SP will be refunded and/or reimbursed. don't be selfish, your advantage is less important to the betterment of the game.
No. those were a name change and skill split, nothing like this. Advanced Spaceship Command confers no bonus to capital ships at levels below 5 because it must be at level 5 to fly them. our Goonly friend insists that it can't be changed because its mandatory at 5 for Capital Ship Construction. I do see a theme here, apparently anything related to capitals requires a skill at level 5 that confers no value at levels 1-4. |
Laendra
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
51
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 04:47:00 -
[189] - Quote
CCP really knows how to **** up this game. I mean really, what is the driver for making Refining a very specialized, time-intensive profession, yet Manufacturing is so easy that a two year old ******** child could do it on day 1 of playing EVE?
CCP, you really need to pull your heads out of your asses...they're not hats... |
Klyith
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 05:04:00 -
[190] - Quote
If you can't think of anything better to do, a possible compromise solution might be to lower Material Efficiency / Advanced Industry's rank to 2 and refund the difference in SP. You wouldn't even need to do it at Crius release, just announce it as a planned change for an intermediate patch or the next 6 week content patch. It would be some sort of sop for the players who trained it recently in anticipation of playing with the new industry. Still not at all worth the SP for many of them, but they get a little something.
The other possibility would be to swap out the bonuses from Industry and Advanced Industry (maybe 2% and 3% respectively), because that 1% per level is kinda insulting. That one you'd need to get into Crius immediately though.
This is the first Crius Complaint (tm) that has some real weight to it, not just the fretting of players who never dealt with change before. You may hate giving out SP refunds, but this is a case that comes closer to Learning (giant rebalance of old systems, a skill left with no real purpose or value) than anything since. It deserves consideration. |
|
Khori Renalard
Those Once Loyal
17
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 05:38:00 -
[191] - Quote
Bloody hell.
I'm on board with getting rid of a mandatory skill, lowering the barrier of entry and all that. I'm cool with it.
This 5% time reduction as a replacement for what is currently a mandatory skill point investment, and to call it equal, is ******* ********. No one, save capital/supercapital builders are going to give two fucks about a 5% build time reduction until it's possible to queue up a hundred jobs and have them execute in batches of 10/11/howeverthefuckmanyslots.
This just reeks of half assing things. If something reasonably useful can't be thought of to replace it, delete the ******* skill and be done with it. I don't care about a skill point reimbursement at this point. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 06:31:00 -
[192] - Quote
TLDR: CCP has got to fix its communication problem on this expansion.
In my opinion, CCP has lost sight of the importance of clear communication. This expansion has experienced poor communication from the very beginning with the two+ week series of staged proposals that served to only to frustrate a very large number of people. The most recent example is this 11th hour change to the Material Efficiency skill.
Yes, there have been several Dev Blogs that glossed over the upcoming expansion, but they have not touched on the root CHANGES that are being made, instead concentrating only on the shiny new interface. Don't get me wrong, I love the new UI, but the dev blogs have barely touched on these core game play changes in any detail.
A quality big change dev blog should be like this: Quality Dev Blog by CCP Fozzie in 2012. It should be posted early, updated when changes are made and always posted in the DevBlogs section where the information can be easily located.
Instead we've had:
- Yo-yoing on stacking of labs and arrays only to say "nah it's too hard." Its buried on page 12 of 18 here.
- Material Efficiency - people are right to be upset about this change. Its a radical change to a long training time skill that confers no value to 95% of those who are being stuck with it. This one wasn't even announced, just quietly slipped in and noticed by an astute player.
- Scientific Networking - This skill change makes little sense based on the devs on statements of intent. According to the devs plan, high value BPOs (battleships, capitals, etc.) are not expected to be researched in a POS lab, yet these BPOs are the very ones that most benefit from the time bonuses conferred by a POS lab. While this was communicated upfront in April, its implementation conflicts with the devs stated goal.
- Arrays/Labs/Large Towers - there's going to be a glut in this market of epic proportions, the devs realize this and yet we still have not seen a solution or even a proposal to deal with this. The devs recognize a solution is necessary as stated here.
I was around for the Learning skills reimbursement. I don't recall a single player feeling their skills were devalued by the reimbursement, there were several other small reimbursements later on and the same can be said for them. If anything, reimbursement communicates value to the players. This draconian, live-with-it attitude does not. In my opinion reimbursement is in order in this instance unless you intend to provide a meaningful benefit to the re-purposed skill. I can accept, we don't have time to fix this before next week. I get that, if so postpone the reimbursement for a later date, do what needs to be done and communicate it up front.
The rationale of "we don't want to do that" and "it's too late" is not going to go over well. It's been my observation over six+ years of playing this game that less than 10% (an uneducated guess) read the forums and even fewer read the F&I sub-forum. When the changes hit Tranquility there are going to be a lot of dumbfounded players.
I love this this game, and I miss the open communication we had as recently as a year ago. Go back to clear communication, quit hiding changes deep in one of the numerous threads of the Test Server sub-forum. Communicate upfront with us, stop waffling on issues and then saying, 'its too difficult so never mind' or 'live with it.' I really liked the Inferno era CCP that communicated clearly and consistently with its players, stop drifting into Incarna territory. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
106
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 07:11:00 -
[193] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
Since I don't produce capitals or capital parts or produce 24/7, this skill becomes utterly and completely useless to me.
Derail crius if you have to but your response is unacceptable.
and get your boss involved in this thread. |
Trademaster Rob
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 07:44:00 -
[194] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
This is like saying: "We don't care much about what the community thinks, we are going to-do what we want to-do anyway. Maybe, but probably not, we will fix it or if we wait long enough the problem will go away" I also understand deadlines and the pressure it brings (I have an IT job). But if something is fundamentally wrong, and I would just go ahead and release it anyway.... Well lets just say my boss wouldn't be happy to say the least. |
Setsune Rin
Collapsed Out Overload Everything
207
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 09:12:00 -
[195] - Quote
Trademaster Rob wrote:This is like saying: "We don't care much about what the community thinks, we are going to-do what we want to-do anyway. Maybe, but probably not, we will fix it or if we wait long enough the problem will go away" I also understand deadlines and the pressure it brings (I have an IT job). But if something is fundamentally wrong, and I would just go ahead and release it anyway.... Well lets just say my boss wouldn't be happy to say the least.
i don't like it any more then you do, but this is something that can be put off for later
crius overall is more important then this silly skill
but it will need to get fixed in the first point release |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1371
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 09:14:00 -
[196] - Quote
No SP refund. Their was no refunds during ship balancing. HTFU themepark carebears! The Tears Must Flow |
Setsune Rin
Collapsed Out Overload Everything
207
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 09:20:00 -
[197] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:No SP refund. Their was no refunds during ship balancing. HTFU themepark carebears!
none of the battleships were turned into shuttles either, which is the comparative equivalent in this case.
get out with your horrible attempts to compare to previous cases |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 10:34:00 -
[198] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Luscius Uta wrote: This is like changing Rapid firing or Surgical Strike to give 1% bonus to Turret Falloff per level This. Sooo this. Also, i would probly be more okay with this change if it didn't also mean that all items will increase by 25% in material costs (atleast), on top of it only saving 72 minutes a day, trained to lvl 5. Only saving 14 minutes a day more than it would at lvl 4. (at a cost of how long to train it to 5?) How many industrialists actually keep all their lines running 23/7...? I know i sure don't. If this was changed to a more substantial bonus, then maybe i could get behind it. And about 'specializing" through skills. How exactly does this accomplish that? Explain please. How is one more "specialized" by having trained this skill from 2% to 3%?
I agree, at least make it more substantial like 5 to 10% time reduction per level so that we end up with NPC station production times lower than we actually have, not higher. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 11:08:00 -
[199] - Quote
I agree with the sentiment expressed here. 1% per level seems like it was just added as an afterthought.
How about Industry gives 3% per level, then advanced industry gives 2% per level.
Current @ Lvl V = 0.8
New @ Lvl V = 0.85 * 0.9 = 0.765
It's a slight buff to production time, and both skills are more worthwhile for a dedicated industrialist.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2452
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 11:40:00 -
[200] - Quote
Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. |
|
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
287
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 11:47:00 -
[201] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote: It's a slight buff to production time, and both skills are more worthwhile for a dedicated industrialist.
That's the point though, isn't it? Not everyone who trained ME is a dedicated industrialist.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
Well, at least it seems you finally realized you have to operate on the same parameter, cost reduction, instead of changing it to time reduction.
10% installation cost reduction for a whooping 768k SP still seems kind of underwhelming, though. Why not make it 25%, 5% per level is rather standard for skills. |
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 11:51:00 -
[202] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
Tough to say without the numbers at my fingertips.
Am I close to right if I were to say:
1. The busiest hubs would see a 10-15% * price = install cost 2. Price is tied to market value and is very loosely comparable to 1.4x mat value 3. Salary for teams gets up to 10%
So a 10% reduction of the 10% increase in cost works out to ~ a 1% reduction in total cost?
Fix me if I'm wrong here. Seems very thin.
I'd say just remove the skill entirely from the game if you can't figure out what to do with it? Deciding how to repurpose the skill to appease the masses doesn't seem like a great way to go, even though you're taking tons of flak a the moment.
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 11:53:00 -
[203] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
why don't you just drop the idea and consider your players that did not even ask for this teams mess,
I honestly prefer having a skill that reduces materials requirements over time production install cost reduction fee skill? you already waving an oops its expensive for everyone out there regardless how you work your magic and attempt to force this teams mess.
bad call greyscale.. bad call |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 11:54:00 -
[204] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
I'd have to say that for the SP put into the skill I'd also say that 10% total bonus is too low. I know that the skills are different, but for the base Industry skill (1x) you get a 4% per level reduction and for the Advanced Industry (3x) you get a 2% reduction per level. Doesn't quite make sense. I would say it should be at least 4% per level. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2452
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 11:57:00 -
[205] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. I'd have to say that for the SP put into the skill I'd also say that 10% total bonus is too low. I know that the skills are different, but for the base Industry skill (1x) you get a 4% per level reduction and for the Advanced Industry (3x) you get a 2% reduction per level. Doesn't quite make sense. I would say it should be at least 4% per level.
They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master. |
|
Trademaster Rob
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:02:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
tbh this is a great response. If a skill was to powerful to begin with and it's somewhat tweaked with the new skill, that would be better then to replace it with something completely different. Also it being communicated is a big plus ;)
How this will pan out I don't know, but at least it's something to start with and only time will tell. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
287
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:05:00 -
[207] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Yet that's 10% on top of the TOTAL damage - and even then most players will not prioritize IV -> V over other things.
I'm not sure if you read my earlier post after my edit, but with your new skill at 10% we are - using you average from the dev blog of 2% - talking about a 0.2% reduction in total build cost for 768k SP invested, with the step from IV -> V being a 0.04% cost reduction.
You really think players would prioritize that skill? |
Trademaster Rob
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:06:00 -
[208] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. why don't you just drop the idea and consider your players that did not even ask for this teams mess, I honestly prefer having a skill that reduces materials requirements over time production install cost reduction fee skill? you already waving an oops its expensive for everyone out there regardless how you work your magic and attempt to force this teams mess. bad call greyscale.. bad call
Sorry but I don't agree. Games need to move forward be it good or bad they still need to move forward. They have an idea which is almost untested in practice. Let's first give it a try and keep CCP warm for future expansions. These changes are prob also with future in mind. But that's speculation ;) |
Claudius Dethahal
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:22:00 -
[209] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
I'd personally like to see higher levels of the skill allow more change how the installation cost works. Something that allows capital limited producers to trade a lot of time for cost efficiency, high volume users could see a small effect on cost for scale, and there be a way to rush orders at a higher cost (something akin to paying overtime and wasting materials) for times when a major alliance changes doctrine and makes thousands of new hulls/buys out half of Jita.
That seems like it fits with the goals of the expansion and offers a rich array of choices to manufacturers to balance with the push pull mechanics. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
85
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:22:00 -
[210] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. This is better, but it still needs to be something WORTH the train from 4-5. Others have shown you the math, look hard at it and think "is that something most current industrialists would choose to train from 4 to 5?)
CCP Greyscale wrote:
They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
But the 2% from AWU is 2% extra...not 2% of 10% of something else. You try to use logic, but then don't look at the facts of it. |
|
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
466
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:23:00 -
[211] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Yet that's 10% on top of the TOTAL damage - and even then most players will not prioritize IV -> V over other things. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post after my edit, but with your new skill at 10% we are - using you average from the dev blog of 2% - talking about a 0.2% reduction in total build cost for 768k SP invested, with the step from IV -> V being a 0.04% cost reduction. You really think players would prioritize that skill? With the margins I deal with, I wouldn't notice 0.04% cost reduction. It's less than an rounding error. I would barely notice 5-10% cost reduction. What will happen to those margins come Crius remains to be seen, obviously.
I would certainly train this skill to 4, but never to 5. I would even go so far as to laugh at people who trained it to 5, it's so underwhelming.
It really sounds like you guys are grasping for something, anything, to avoid reimbursing the skill. An aspect of the game that used to exist,for which this skill was trained, no longer exists. Just reimburse the skill. If it's too late to get it into Crius release, do it in a point release.
Sometimes you do have to HTFU and make changes that you may not want to make and deal with customer support responses for the few issues that arise, not necessarily because it makes everyone happy, but because it's the proper and correct thing to do. Getting rid of the mandatory skill is the right thing to do. Reimbursing for its removal is also the right thing to do.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2452
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:26:00 -
[212] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Yet that's 10% on top of the TOTAL damage - and even then most players will not prioritize IV -> V over other things. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post after my edit, but with your new skill at 10% we are - using you average from the dev blog of 2% - talking about a 0.2% reduction in total build cost for 768k SP invested, with the step from IV -> V being a 0.04% cost reduction. You really think players would prioritize that skill?
Depends what you're building where. If you're building ammo in the back of beyond it'll basically make no difference. If you're building components for a dread (let's say ~2bn worth) for sale in a major hub and you want to build in-system, you might be looking at a 10% base rate, so 200m, then 10% reduction on that is saving you 20m per ship (ie 1% of build cost). |
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
502
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:26:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. I'd have to say that for the SP put into the skill I'd also say that 10% total bonus is too low. I know that the skills are different, but for the base Industry skill (1x) you get a 4% per level reduction and for the Advanced Industry (3x) you get a 2% reduction per level. Doesn't quite make sense. I would say it should be at least 4% per level. They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Don't potentially unbalance your game trying to mix and match the market based on the skill chain. You are almost at a good part but by changing the skill as listed here will break your strategy of it not being a requirement.
Give the skillpoints that would have been used to refund the skill and hand it out as unallocated skill points, then leave the people who trained the skill with the skill. My concern with the change is that I trained the original skill up because that meant I would have to haul less material to make what I wanted. Now that is not an issue anymore.
That is the only thing that will make people feel better. This isn't a minor change, this is a completely different skill. Yaay!!!! |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1904
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:29:00 -
[214] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:33:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master. I still like the logic of having industry, and then advanced industry skill giving a slightly lower bonus to time efficiency. That makes a lot of sense. I just think the 1% bonus originally proposed per level is laughable.
Cost bonus is ok though, but I'd prefer it to give 2% bonus to manufacture time still. There are already enough things affecting install cost without adding another skill to the equation. |
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
36
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:34:00 -
[216] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:No SP refund. Their was no refunds during ship balancing.
And there were no eliminations of a skills purpose. The earlier analogy made by someone else of taking Surgical Strike, which confers a significant bonus to all turret based systems, and re-purposing it confer a marginal valued fall off bonus, is an apt analogy. Give me one concrete example where this kind of thing happened and I'll agree with you.
Yes, ship balancing changed ships bonuses, but no skills were changed.
|
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
466
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:38:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Depends what you're building where .... If you're building components for a dread That's just the thing. This is a skill everyone had to train. The only reasonable changes only benefit a small subset of people.
I do T2 production. Anything under 100% profit margin is too small for me to worry with, unless the market is completely saturated. I still remember how I started and what I was thinking about at the time as well: If I use this particular (T1) module, I'm sure others do as well, so it may be profitable to make some of these and sell them. And it was.
That's how your new, prospective industrialists are going to get into industry, and what many people who have this skill trained are still currently thinking. They're not going to build Titans. |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
85
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:39:00 -
[218] - Quote
CCP, look at your other market related skills that effect a % of another % based cost
Accounting: 10% per level Reduction in transaction tax. (3x skill)
Broker Relations: 5% per level Reduction in market order costs. (2x skill)
Now look at your new idea....it just doesn't hold water. |
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:39:00 -
[219] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Yet that's 10% on top of the TOTAL damage - and even then most players will not prioritize IV -> V over other things. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post after my edit, but with your new skill at 10% we are - using you average from the dev blog of 2% - talking about a 0.2% reduction in total build cost for 768k SP invested, with the step from IV -> V being a 0.04% cost reduction. You really think players would prioritize that skill? Depends what you're building where. If you're building ammo in the back of beyond it'll basically make no difference. If you're building components for a dread (let's say ~2bn worth) for sale in a major hub and you want to build in-system, you might be looking at a 10% base rate, so 200m, then 10% reduction on that is saving you 20m per ship (ie 1% of build cost).
This is in line with my thinking, and almost certainly too thin to be of any worth to anyone. You're saving 20M per ship if you train the skill all the way to the top. Training it 4 -> 5 is going to save you 4M per ship. Training it 3->5 8M per ship.
At a glance, you'd be using all 10 lines for at the very least 3 days. So you'd be saving 8M per 3 days doing dread construction.
My wild guess would be that there is no question that someone building at this scale isn't going to care about 3M per day. I don't see any compelling reason for someone to train this skill to V under any circumstances.
Also this is a pretty extreme case. The argument you seem to be making is that a very small portion of the population may find some benefit in this skill. That's great, but the problem that we started with is that a very large portion of the population has already trained this skill when it did something entirely different.
|
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
86
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:53:00 -
[220] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Depends what you're building where. If you're building ammo in the back of beyond it'll basically make no difference. If you're building components for a dread (let's say ~2bn worth) for sale in a major hub and you want to build in-system, you might be looking at a 10% base rate, so 200m, then 10% reduction on that is saving you 20m per ship (ie 1% of build cost).
But if you are building your cap parts in a system with low cost....how much more are you saving? If someone is sooo concerned about saving .04% of their install costs, they will likely be the ones moving their 'home base' to the systems that yield the best rates... |
|
X ATM092
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
337
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:53:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Yet that's 10% on top of the TOTAL damage - and even then most players will not prioritize IV -> V over other things. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post after my edit, but with your new skill at 10% we are - using you average from the dev blog of 2% - talking about a 0.2% reduction in total build cost for 768k SP invested, with the step from IV -> V being a 0.04% cost reduction. You really think players would prioritize that skill? Depends what you're building where. If you're building ammo in the back of beyond it'll basically make no difference. If you're building components for a dread (let's say ~2bn worth) for sale in a major hub and you want to build in-system, you might be looking at a 10% base rate, so 200m, then 10% reduction on that is saving you 20m per ship (ie 1% of build cost). I think this is an excellent compromise. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1303
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 12:59:00 -
[222] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Advanced weapon upgrades is maybe a bad example. Weapon Upgrades deals with 5% CPU which first and foremost tends to effect your ability to wedge in the tanking modules which consume heavy CPU. Advanced Weapon Upgrades deals with something different, the power grid of weapons, which allows you to have the extra fitting stats to add the T2 weapons with their greater requirements. Most people don't need that level V for it, except as a barrier to something completely different, siege mode and marauders.
The main problem is that it's an awful lot of skill points to go from level IV to V. For an optional, specialist skill, such as a time reduction, most people would only train it to IV. This is due to training it to V being sp-inefficient, and industrialists do love their efficiency.
There are plenty of options available for interesting specialized skills, but not ones people would, en-mass, willingly invest 750,000+ skill points in training to V, and there in lays the problem.
I liked the idea of a time reduction, although I think the percentage offered was underwhelming and definitely put it in the "Not worth Ving" category.
Reducing installation cost, it's certainly an idea, but like you mentioned, it would disproportionately benefit people who build in major trade hubs, which is the opposite of what should be encouraged. I fully expect Jita to simply buy up every single team every time, I don't think a reduction in costs there would be a good thing.
I'm suck for solutions. Now the skill is no longer essential, I think the only way you're going to come around a way of making something worth level Ving, is to have the bonus be an exponent to give the higher level, higher SP investment more of an impact, which I can't see happening. |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:02:00 -
[223] - Quote
X ATM092 wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Yet that's 10% on top of the TOTAL damage - and even then most players will not prioritize IV -> V over other things. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post after my edit, but with your new skill at 10% we are - using you average from the dev blog of 2% - talking about a 0.2% reduction in total build cost for 768k SP invested, with the step from IV -> V being a 0.04% cost reduction. You really think players would prioritize that skill? Depends what you're building where. If you're building ammo in the back of beyond it'll basically make no difference. If you're building components for a dread (let's say ~2bn worth) for sale in a major hub and you want to build in-system, you might be looking at a 10% base rate, so 200m, then 10% reduction on that is saving you 20m per ship (ie 1% of build cost). I think this is an excellent compromise.
A compromise to what?
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:08:00 -
[224] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Yet that's 10% on top of the TOTAL damage - and even then most players will not prioritize IV -> V over other things. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post after my edit, but with your new skill at 10% we are - using you average from the dev blog of 2% - talking about a 0.2% reduction in total build cost for 768k SP invested, with the step from IV -> V being a 0.04% cost reduction. You really think players would prioritize that skill? Depends what you're building where. If you're building ammo in the back of beyond it'll basically make no difference. If you're building components for a dread (let's say ~2bn worth) for sale in a major hub and you want to build in-system, you might be looking at a 10% base rate, so 200m, then 10% reduction on that is saving you 20m per ship (ie 1% of build cost).
So you are essentially trying to push all big Industrialists to manufacture in the main trade hubs then? Surely that's not a good idea as most if not all of the teams will end up being in the trade hubs, leaving none for those of us who manufacture away from them.
Also if no-one is manufacturing outside of trade hubs, cause that's where the best teams are and where you get the most out of this skill. Then there will be a drastic reduction in the amount of hauling required. Freight companies will suffer and dare I even say gankers, as most people will just be flying from their POS to the station in the same system.
I could be completely wrong on the 2nd part... |
Poison Ivy Rorschach
The Surfin Dead
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:12:00 -
[225] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
Nice start, though I think a bit more per level would make it worth training to level 5 so that the people working underutilized systems should benefit as well. Part of your intent in this expansion was to give people another reason to spread out, right? |
Kyoso Shintaro
THI Command Templis Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:27:00 -
[226] - Quote
I may be insane, but what about a 1% per level me reduction. New characters can still compete at smaller items where the effect of this skill would be more pronounced while larger items would require this skill to compete.
This would probably also fix the cap issue where once perfect bpo are now far from perfect |
Casey AtThe Bat
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:31:00 -
[227] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: They're both affecting different things though - and the general pattern in EVE skills (that we are trying to adhere to more closely whenever we touch skill bonuses) is that more advanced skills take longer and give lower bonuses. That's why f.ex the advanced weapon skills only give 2%/level - quick to learn, slow to master.
Yet that's 10% on top of the TOTAL damage - and even then most players will not prioritize IV -> V over other things. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post after my edit, but with your new skill at 10% we are - using you average from the dev blog of 2% - talking about a 0.2% reduction in total build cost for 768k SP invested, with the step from IV -> V being a 0.04% cost reduction. You really think players would prioritize that skill? Depends what you're building where. If you're building ammo in the back of beyond it'll basically make no difference. If you're building components for a dread (let's say ~2bn worth) for sale in a major hub and you want to build in-system, you might be looking at a 10% base rate, so 200m, then 10% reduction on that is saving you 20m per ship (ie 1% of build cost).
2% per level of ALL manufacturing and research/science jobs. Also improves effects of teams by 2% per level.
I'd still prefer you refund the skillpoints as you're gutting one skill and replacing it completely. |
Arec Bardwin
1461
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:31:00 -
[228] - Quote
Welcome to 'Tactical Shield Manipulation V' - land
That skill does absolutely nothing and the prerequisite for capital shield boosters was removed, leaving them who trained it prior to that with around 1mill useless sp invested in the training of that skill. |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:34:00 -
[229] - Quote
Kyoso Shintaro wrote:I may be insane, but what about a 1% per level me reduction. New characters can still compete at smaller items where the effect of this skill would be more pronounced while larger items would require this skill to compete.
This would probably also fix the cap issue where once perfect bpo are now far from perfect
There is no chance at all they will make a skill have a ME reduction, otherwise they wouldn't have changed the skill in the first place.
Also once perfect BPOs are still perfect under the new rules as they will be converted to the highest levels of reduction you can have. It's just that if you spent a year researching them, they will be the same as if you had only researched them to 10 ME |
Valterra Craven
268
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 13:54:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
Or... how about this: You listen to your paying customers. I know its a crazy concept and a tiny bit radical, but hey, trying new things isn't that scary!
(Sorry for the heavy sarcasm) I just don't understand how CCP can be so reasonable on some things and be so off the mark on others.
Eve is not like most games, there is no "passive" learning to them. You pay to play them and you only grow in the time that you play them. But in Eve your paying to play and you are paying for that passive growth.
Think about it this way: How many accounts do you think CCP would lose over night if players couldn't passively grow their characters without playing the game. I know that you have 3 of my subs right now that you wouldn't without this feature. In other words, I'm passively growing my accounts for later play, but I'm not actually actively playing the game to do so. So if I couldn't passively grow my characters and I'm not actively playing the game, then why on earth would I give you my money?
That's why SP value is SOOO important and it is so crucial that you guys act responsibly toward it. |
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
44
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:08:00 -
[231] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. Or... how about this: You listen to your paying customers. I know its a crazy concept and a tiny bit radical, but hey, trying new things isn't that scary! (Sorry for the heavy sarcasm) I just don't understand how CCP can be so reasonable on some things and be so off the mark on others. Eve is not like most games, there is no "passive" learning to them. You pay to play them and you only grow in the time that you play them. But in Eve your paying to play and you are paying for that passive growth. Think about it this way: How many accounts do you think CCP would lose over night if players couldn't passively grow their characters without playing the game. I know that you have 3 of my subs right now that you wouldn't without this feature. In other words, I'm passively growing my accounts for later play, but I'm not actually actively playing the game to do so. So if I couldn't passively grow my characters and I'm not actively playing the game, then why on earth would I give you my money? That's why SP value is SOOO important and it is so crucial that you guys act responsibly toward it.
but didn't you get the memo?? A phantom dev blog will some how appear stating that they're removing all SP's and instead implementing the sequel to teams... we'll have to bid for TEACHERS to train us in order to obtain levels. sounds fun right? sign right on up.. 14 day trial buy a plex for a tutor.
I agree with your comment.
|
James Dean Rockafella
Catastrophic Operations Black Pearl Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:13:00 -
[232] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
How will this affect nullsec industry systems where fees are set to zero? |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:16:00 -
[233] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. I would be happy with something like this. It's something that everyone is able to put to use, not just the most active, which has been my point of contention with the time reduction since the beginning. |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:19:00 -
[234] - Quote
Greyscale, has your team considered changing the skill to 1% absolute reduction of baserate per level? So from 10% -> 5% at lvl5. or 0.75% or somewhere there
Would that be a too big a bonus again? |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2454
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:20:00 -
[235] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:I agree with the sentiment expressed here. 1% per level seems like it was just added as an afterthought.
How about Industry gives 3% per level, then advanced industry gives 2% per level.
Current @ Lvl V = 0.8
New @ Lvl V = 0.85 * 0.9 = 0.765
It's a slight buff to production time, and both skills are more worthwhile for a dedicated industrialist.
Anyone have an opinion on this as an option? Feels a little thin to me but it's entirely doable.
James Dean Rockafella wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. How will this affect nullsec industry systems where fees are set to zero?
Taxes are zero, fees are still present :)
[edit] Also, what are opinions on doing something now vs leaving this for the initial Crius release and having a proper discussion now about potential longer-term solutions? |
|
Valterra Craven
269
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:24:00 -
[236] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:I agree with the sentiment expressed here. 1% per level seems like it was just added as an afterthought.
How about Industry gives 3% per level, then advanced industry gives 2% per level.
Current @ Lvl V = 0.8
New @ Lvl V = 0.85 * 0.9 = 0.765
It's a slight buff to production time, and both skills are more worthwhile for a dedicated industrialist.
Anyone have an opinion on this as an option? Feels a little thin to me but it's entirely doable. [edit] Also, what are opinions on doing something now vs leaving this for the initial Crius release and having a proper discussion now about potential longer-term solutions?
Its still not worth the SP investment compared to what the skill did before like not even in the same ballpark.
Delay this like you did the industry changes. |
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
21
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:31:00 -
[237] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:If the skill remains a prerequisite for Capital Ship Construction, which it probably will, refunding it will cause an ENORMOUS mess. So no, I can't see a refund coming.
If CCP keeps the mentality of "If you could fly it then you can fly it now" then everything would work out fine with a refund. Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Kyoso Shintaro
THI Command Templis Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:35:00 -
[238] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:
Also once perfect BPOs are still perfect under the new rules as they will be converted to the highest levels of reduction you can have. It's just that if you spent a year researching them, they will be the same as if you had only researched them to 10 ME
You obviously don't build caps. Carriers used to be perfect at an me of 7 or 8. These once perfect bpo are becoming me9%. Coupled with the rest of the changes, it now means that a those once perfect bpo are now only 40% of the way to perfect.
As for the rest, what if it was decreased to say .5% me decrease. This is still an me skill but nowhere near required. The skill would benefit about as much as a POS then
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:39:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:I agree with the sentiment expressed here. 1% per level seems like it was just added as an afterthought.
How about Industry gives 3% per level, then advanced industry gives 2% per level.
Current @ Lvl V = 0.8
New @ Lvl V = 0.85 * 0.9 = 0.765
It's a slight buff to production time, and both skills are more worthwhile for a dedicated industrialist.
Anyone have an opinion on this as an option? Feels a little thin to me but it's entirely doable. If it is on the table, then keep Industry at 4%, and then advanced industry could give 3%. I just thought that might be too much of a reduction in manufacture time, as ends up as a possible 0.68x reduction.
I definitely think that would be nice though. Obviously it is not as good as 25% reduction in material costs, so most people are still going to complain whatever you change it too.
CCP Greyscale wrote:[edit] Also, what are opinions on doing something now vs leaving this for the initial Crius release and having a proper discussion now about potential longer-term solutions? I wouldn't mind this, although 2 % or 3 % TE per level would be fine for me. It makes logical sense to have advanced industry allowing you to specialise from the industry skill. I just don't think it is good to make it 1%, as then the skill isn't worth training. |
Poison Ivy Rorschach
The Surfin Dead
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:40:00 -
[240] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:I agree with the sentiment expressed here. 1% per level seems like it was just added as an afterthought.
How about Industry gives 3% per level, then advanced industry gives 2% per level.
Current @ Lvl V = 0.8
New @ Lvl V = 0.85 * 0.9 = 0.765
It's a slight buff to production time, and both skills are more worthwhile for a dedicated industrialist.
Anyone have an opinion on this as an option? Feels a little thin to me but it's entirely doable. James Dean Rockafella wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. How will this affect nullsec industry systems where fees are set to zero? Taxes are zero, fees are still present :) [edit] Also, what are opinions on doing something now vs leaving this for the initial Crius release and having a proper discussion now about potential longer-term solutions?
Delay and do it right for the long term... if you don't mean CCP sits on this for two years before a revisit.
Stil... I think a refund is a better idea, especially if there's going to be a wait. You'll have the time you said you needed and we would be able to choose our replacement skills (which may be this one if you guys fix it right). I don't buy the value loss to SP since this is already going to lower the value of our characters. |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:42:00 -
[241] - Quote
Kyoso Shintaro wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:
Also once perfect BPOs are still perfect under the new rules as they will be converted to the highest levels of reduction you can have. It's just that if you spent a year researching them, they will be the same as if you had only researched them to 10 ME
You obviously don't build caps. Carriers used to be perfect at an me of 7 or 8. These once perfect bpo are becoming me9%. Coupled with the rest of the changes, it now means that a those once perfect bpo are now only 40% of the way to perfect. As for the rest, what if it was decreased to say .5% me decrease. This is still an me skill but nowhere near required. The skill would benefit about as much as a POS then
No I don't build caps, but I now see what you mean.
Is that a POS before or after they decided to remove the stacking bonus for arrays? |
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:44:00 -
[242] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Just for the record: CCP Greyscale wrote:The Material Efficiency skill will be repurposed, stay tuned for more information on that in a future blog. in the Research Devblog. Thing is, though, I didn't find any devblog announcing the change of ME Skill to TE Skill
So here is this elusive mentioning of a skill change I keep hearing of on reddit. Literally one line in a dev blog from 3 months ago, never mentioned again in any dev blog, and originally written for an expansion which was then delayed. Good job CCP. Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:45:00 -
[243] - Quote
Poison Ivy Rorschach wrote:Stil... I think a refund is a better idea, especially if there's going to be a wait. You'll have the time you said you needed and we would be able to choose our replacement skills (which may be this one if you guys fix it right). I don't buy the value loss to SP since this is already going to lower the value of our characters. Your not getting an SP refund, just as everyone else who has complained in the past about skill changes, some a lot worse than this one, have also not got a SP refund.
The sooner people suck it up and accept that fact then the sooner we can get a reasonable suggestion implanted.
|
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:45:00 -
[244] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we?
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
This only benefits people who can keep their buildlines fully utilized ~100% of the time, thus only that '1%' of EVE players will benefit. I'm shocked that you apparently don't understand/see this Mynnna. Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:49:00 -
[245] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Owen Levanth wrote: Again someone who doesn't read dev blogs, or only skims them. ME has been changed because the entire underlying mess of waste has been changed. The ME-skill only affected the 10% extra waste and slowly reduced it to zero on level 5.
Now this extra waste doesn't exist anymore so reducing material requirements with a whopping 5% per level would be ridiculously strong.
I read the devblog. Nowhere in the devblog did it say we were going to get a skill taken away without a refund. The skill was changed, not taken away. No refund.
When something is drastically altered to the point it no longer resembles its former self it is now something new. Not to mention 'previously' its purpose was to reduce build cost (aka the barrier of entry) and 'now' its purpose is to reduce build time (ideally more isk/hour, which it fails at). There are very few builders in EVE that care about reducing the build time of a 12 hour job when they are going to install the job, go to bed for 8 hours, go to work for 8 hours, and then get home and log in. This new skill would only be relevant if CCP introduced a manufacturing build queue. Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:53:00 -
[246] - Quote
Suzuka A1 wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Chris Winter wrote:Nowhere in the devblog did it say we were going to get a skill taken away without a refund. The skill was changed, not taken away. No refund. When something is drastically altered to the point it no longer resembles its former self it is now something new. Not to mention 'previously' its purpose was to reduce build cost (aka the barrier of entry) and 'now' its purpose is to reduce build time (ideally more isk/hour, which it fails at). There are very few builders in EVE that care about reducing the build time of a 12 hour job when they are going to install the job, go to bed for 8 hours, go to work for 8 hours, and then get home and log in. This new skill would only be relevant if CCP introduced a manufacturing build queue. You must be new here.
2% bonus per level is very nice in my opinion, it is still very useful to anyone decent at industry, and not just 1% of industrialist as you claim. I'm guessing you don't know much about industry.
A 3% bonus would be even better, although would have to be careful that it would not break anything. |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:57:00 -
[247] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:I agree with the sentiment expressed here. 1% per level seems like it was just added as an afterthought.
How about Industry gives 3% per level, then advanced industry gives 2% per level.
Current @ Lvl V = 0.8
New @ Lvl V = 0.85 * 0.9 = 0.765
It's a slight buff to production time, and both skills are more worthwhile for a dedicated industrialist.
Anyone have an opinion on this as an option? Feels a little thin to me but it's entirely doable. If it is on the table, then keep Industry at 4%, and then advanced industry could give 3%. I just thought that might be too much of a reduction in manufacture time, as ends up as a possible 0.68x reduction. I definitely think that would be nice though. Obviously it is not as good as 25% reduction in material costs, so most people are still going to complain whatever you change it too. CCP Greyscale wrote:[edit] Also, what are opinions on doing something now vs leaving this for the initial Crius release and having a proper discussion now about potential longer-term solutions? I wouldn't mind this, although 2 % or 3 % TE per level would be fine for me. It makes logical sense to have advanced industry allowing you to specialise from the industry skill. I just don't think it is good to make it 1%, as then the skill isn't worth training.
Agreed. Leave the premise of the skill for now, but up it to 3%.
5 days before release is too close to have a proper discussion about this, if you can get past all the people whining for SP refunds, as long as it's discussed for the next update rather than being swept under the carpet |
Kyoso Shintaro
THI Command Templis Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:57:00 -
[248] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote: Is that a POS before or after they decided to remove the stacking bonus for arrays?
After. At a 0.5% me bonus per level you are looking at 2.5% at level 5. This is comparable to a single pos factory at 2%.
|
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 14:57:00 -
[249] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Medalyn Isis]
[edit] Also, what are opinions on doing something now vs leaving this for the initial Crius release and having a proper discussion now about potential longer-term solutions?
Do it this way. Everyone will be in a better place to evaluate Crius and what a 'new' skill should do in a month.
Please be sure to also address the more fundamental issue that caused all this, which was the failure to communicate clearly the upcoming changes to the community. Unless you happen to have the time and energy to wade through multiple hundred post dev blogs, many of these Crius changes will come as a surprise.
I'm betting that this change and others is going to blindside many people who don't follow reddit or the forums as well. I know you guys recently released an info sheet of some sort that had some of the broad changes on it, but it read more like an advertisement/hype than an informational document. |
Kale Freeman
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 15:01:00 -
[250] - Quote
Kyoso Shintaro wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:
Also once perfect BPOs are still perfect under the new rules as they will be converted to the highest levels of reduction you can have. It's just that if you spent a year researching them, they will be the same as if you had only researched them to 10 ME
You obviously don't build caps. Carriers used to be perfect at an me of 7 or 8. These once perfect bpo are becoming me9%. Coupled with the rest of the changes, it now means that a those once perfect bpo are now only 40% of the way to perfect. As for the rest, what if it was decreased to say .5% me decrease. This is still an me skill but nowhere near required. The skill would benefit about as much as a POS then
Regarding the perfect BPO... everyone's BPO are going to have this problem right? So you actually no worse off that you were. Except that you can't claim the gold star for perfectness.
|
|
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 15:01:00 -
[251] - Quote
There are a few options I see to allow this to 'work':
1) Give SP refunds and allow the players to choose what they think is important.
2) Make the new skill relevant. 1% per level is basically a joke and the only people that truly benefit from it would be those who maintain near 100% utilization of their buildlines.
3) Reduce the training time multiplier. I've seen many people say the skill in its current form is a barrier (17 day train for my cyno alt)... so why not make it less of a barrier instead of removing the ME bonus from the game, a game where specialization is promoted and expected.
4) Reduce the current bonus to 2% per level or something.
I feel all of these alternatives can be seen as reasonable to both CCP and the community. Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626 |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 15:28:00 -
[252] - Quote
Suzuka A1 wrote:There are a few options I see to allow this to 'work':
1) Give SP refunds and allow the players to choose what they think is important.
2) Make the new skill relevant. 1% per level is basically a joke and the only people that truly benefit from it would be those who maintain near 100% utilization of their buildlines.
3) Reduce the training time multiplier. I've seen many people say the skill in its current form is a barrier (17 day train for my cyno alt)... so why not make it less of a barrier instead of removing the ME bonus from the game, a game where specialization is promoted and expected.
4) Reduce the current bonus to 2% per level or something.
I feel all of these alternatives can be seen as reasonable to both CCP and the community.
I'm always prepared to be wrong
1) Not gonna happen
2) As installation cost is going to be based on the time the manufacturing takes, everyone will still benefit from the skill
3) 3x isn't that bad, why would your cyno alt train it though
4) not sure what current bonus you mean, so I'll leave this one hehe |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
698
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 15:30:00 -
[253] - Quote
Trading the old Material Efficiency skill for yet another cost reduction skill seems a bit incongruous. Granted, the cost reduction proposed with Advanced Industry is much, much lower, but it still smacks of another mandatory skill to train in order to compete. The time reduction proposal seems better to me; it offers an advantage to some types of industry without being a 100% requirement. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 15:50:00 -
[254] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
That's what I was proposing, but weaker. i still think it should be 5% like Broker Relations. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2455
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 15:59:00 -
[255] - Quote
OK, so it seems like the best course of action right now is to leave the skill in its current state for now, and commit to re-evaluating it once Crius has settled? I'm likely on holiday for most of August, so I can book myself an appointment in the first week of September to start a discussion thread and figure out what sensible thing we can do with this skill once we all find out the emergent properties of Crius? This will be on a "if I don't post it within a week of when I say I will, you have my permission to make a big fuss" understanding.
Throwaway Sam Atild wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Medalyn Isis]
[edit] Also, what are opinions on doing something now vs leaving this for the initial Crius release and having a proper discussion now about potential longer-term solutions? Do it this way. Everyone will be in a better place to evaluate Crius and what a 'new' skill should do in a month. Please be sure to also address the more fundamental issue that caused all this, which was the failure to communicate clearly the upcoming changes to the community. Unless you happen to have the time and energy to wade through multiple hundred post dev blogs, many of these Crius changes will come as a surprise. I'm betting that this change and others is going to blindside many people who don't follow reddit or the forums as well. I know you guys recently released an info sheet of some sort that had some of the broad changes on it, but it read more like an advertisement/hype than an informational document.
So there's two separate communication issues.
The first is messaging to people who want input into the changes so we can make adjustments before release. This is a thing that we (at least, I) have been doing suboptimally through forum threads, due to a combination of having a lot of plates spinning at once and placing insufficient emphasis on reaching out to everyone (my approach has generally been focused around feeling I have sufficient feedback rather than around ensuring everyone who wants to give feedback has had the opportunity to).
The second is ensuring that everyone knows what is going to happen on patch day. This has been insufficient to date because the blog that covers all that is going out in the next couple of hours, and the patchnotes will be out in the very near future to cover it in even more detail. We've been holding this blog in particular back so that we can post *actual final* information the first time round (most people only read a blog once, even if we update it) to maximize the number of people that have a complete picture on Tuesday. |
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 15:59:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:I agree with the sentiment expressed here. 1% per level seems like it was just added as an afterthought.
How about Industry gives 3% per level, then advanced industry gives 2% per level.
Current @ Lvl V = 0.8
New @ Lvl V = 0.85 * 0.9 = 0.765
It's a slight buff to production time, and both skills are more worthwhile for a dedicated industrialist.
Anyone have an opinion on this as an option? Feels a little thin to me but it's entirely doable.
The issue with having Advanced Industry give a time bonus is that it only helps those who have their lines going 24/7. It would have no affect on a small-scale manufacturer, and considering it's a skill that the overwhelming majority of manufacturers already have, changing it so that it only helps the most active is a slap to the face for those who are less active.
Advanced Industry could give a 10% per level reduction in manufacturing time, but it still won't matter if you aren't keeping your lines going often-enough to make use of it.
This was my issue with the original 1%, and will remain my issue with the above 2%: It's wasted SP for small-scale manufacturers who don't keep their lines going constantly. A 2% boost saves 144 minutes per line per day, but again, the only way to make use of that is if you already have your lines going constantly. Not all manufacturers do that, nor do we all want to do it. Changing a required skill that we had to have to do anything at all into a skill that we can make no use of is bogus.
Make the previously-required skill that everyone already has something that everyone can still use, or refund the SP. ANY type of time reduction only favors those who are very active. |
Kivena
EVE University Ivy League
41
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:01:00 -
[257] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. I particularly like this idea, as it's basically what I had expected the skill to be changing to anyway. Call it "Industrial Acumen" or something.
The point of the skill in the first place was simply reducing costs, only it did it in a very powerful way. Now the concept of waste doesn't even exist anyway, having the skill still be a cost reduction skill does makes sense - and it needs to not be too powerful to be essential, but powerful enough to be beneficial and worth training (for a x3 rank skill).
I don't have any numbers, but 2, 3 or 4% per level seems reasonable. Would it apply to all industry jobs, or only manufacturing? Teaching Manager EVE University
Follow me on Twitter: @eveKivena |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:18:00 -
[258] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so it seems like the best course of action right now is to leave the skill in its current state for now, and commit to re-evaluating it once Crius has settled? I'm likely on holiday for most of August, so I can book myself an .
by "current state" you mean 1% per level time reduction?
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Turn it into the installation cost reduction per level skill like I proposed, and you proposed a weaker version of. We can debate about if it is strong enough later, but it absolutely should not be the 100% worthless time reduction skill.
I might think that 2%/level cost reduction isn't strong enough, but at least it is useful. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2826
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:27:00 -
[259] - Quote
I'm not a big time manufacturer, but I do some, and a time bonus would help, a little. I tend to set jobs that run for a little less than a week. One day a week is "industry night" when I deliver jobs and set new ones based on what sold out over the last week. Usually I do not have all my slots used up. With a time bonus I would set larger quantities. Each batch would be larger, so my sell orders would be larger. This means they would take longer to sell, and I would have fewer sell out at the end of the week. Result: less effort each week setting jobs and orders. So even if you do not have all your slots running 24/7, a time bonus is useful.
Now if we go the cost reduction route, I suggest:
1) Even without skill there should be a plethora of items you can make and locations you can sell at and make ISK. This is so new players can get into industry. The places where competition is not so fierce that you can make ISK should not be few and far between, as then a new player cannot find them.
2) Getting to L3 is fast. At a skill level of 3 you should be able to make ISK most anywhere. That is, given the profit margin at the major trade hubs, those last two levels should not be a requirement for making ISK. Those last two levels should be an investment for those who wish to specialize.
So if we expect, say, a 5% profit margin at the hubs, then a skill that reduces costs by 1% per level (1% of the total cost, including material cost) would be acceptable. 1% of the total cost would be actually achieved by a 10% change to the install fee. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:33:00 -
[260] - Quote
Can we at a minimum get the skill conferring a 2% time bonus per level for the new expansion. Then if numbers need tweaking that could be done at a later time. |
|
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
88
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:38:00 -
[261] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:(my approach has generally been focused around feeling I have sufficient feedback From exactly how much feedback? You mean the feedback from this young threadnaught that just barely got started last week? And you've known about you changing this skill for how long? It would be interested to know where you had gathered your 'sufficient feedback' from before last week, when you decided to go ahead and push the change to SiSi.
CCP Greyscale wrote: I'm likely on holiday for most of August Just for giggles, exactly how many of the dev's involved in this MASSIVE overhaul of how ALL industry and research funchtions, are going on vacation immediately after they push this change onto TQ? Noting how much of the more final changes have even been tested by the players yet, given that SiSi has been for how many days? (No, Dev's internal testing does not count, as there have been LOTS of things already discovered that the dev's who apparently don't play Eve never even considered before, that were nearly game breaking)
How does this sound like a good system? Push out a very buggy patch that effects all of indy, then go on vacation for a month while everything is bassackwards on your live server for your paying customers? CCP will deserve every bit of poor press and loss of subscriptions when this whole thing hits the fan next week.
Just delay the whole thing till after everyone has come back from vacation and is ready to work again. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 16:55:00 -
[262] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I'm not a big time manufacturer, but I do some, and a time bonus would help, a little. I tend to set jobs that run for a little less than a week.
...
So even if you do not have all your slots running 24/7, a time bonus is useful.
Your lines aren't running 24/7, but they do seem to be running 24/6, which can still get a pretty major boost out of the 5% reduction (432 minutes per line over the course of six days), but what about manufacturers who aren't running their lines even 24/1? My lines run 4-6 hours once, sometimes twice a week. I set them up right before logging out for the night, so the 12-18 minutes' time I would save on each line wouldn't matter in the slightest. I manufacture things that I put to use for myself (mods and ammo, very occasionally a rig or two), and do so from reprocessed junk.
A manufacturer like this would have to vastly scale their production up to make use of the skill, which would mean they would either have a huge stockpile of things they aren't able to use fast enough, or they have to get involved in the market (which not everyone has the desire or time to do).
Sure, I could sell directly to buy orders, but I would still need to have the resources from somewhere, which means I'd have to start buying from the market, as well, and if you're buying from sell orders, manufacturing, then selling to buy orders, in most cases, you're either barely breaking even, or you're losing ISK.
Previously, ME was a skill that was a benefit to everyone. The new skill is only helpful for people who have their lines going pretty much continuously. A skill that was once a benefit to everyone before a change still needs to be a benefit to everyone after a change, otherwise it's just a waste of SP for those who have no use of it. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
290
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:05:00 -
[263] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so it seems like the best course of action right now is to leave the skill in its current state for now, and commit to re-evaluating it once Crius has settled?
If 'current state' means your latest proposal regarding installation cost, that could be a working proposition.
I'd rather not have anything to do with the time saving skill. |
Tinman Spectacular
EVE University Ivy League
23
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:23:00 -
[264] - Quote
+1 for the reduction in install cost vs reduction in production time. It seems like that would fit into the "lumpy landscape" better than a flat reduction in production. It allows massive producers to min/max in busy systems, and little guys like me to pump out product in our backwater systems with a bit more leeway in regards to profitability. In other words, while it would be a huge boon to people running dozens of lines across multiple alts in a high traffic system, it's still a significant boost to small time producers looking to move away from the busy hubs and just manufacture locally with imported resources in systems with few stations. A nice edge... but not a pre-req ala ME skill.
Re: SP reimbursement. My alt wouldn't have anyplace to put them, and I know I'm not the only one. I think the most fair and equitable solution is to simply adjust Advanced Industry into a useful skill for the majority, such as the proposed cost reduction, rather than the minority, such as the implemented time reduction.
2.5 ISK. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2455
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:25:00 -
[265] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so it seems like the best course of action right now is to leave the skill in its current state for now, and commit to re-evaluating it once Crius has settled? If 'current state' means your latest proposal regarding installation cost, that could be a working proposition. I'd rather not have anything to do with the time saving skill.
Current state means the time saving thing, as that's what we have actually implemented right now. I think we're all in agreement that this is not a good solution, but if we are going to resolve this in a better way post-release, we're not currently seeing it as a high priority to do a last-minute change now. September is a good time if we want to let things settle first, but if there's a feeling among you all that we'd rather do something sooner based on a preliminary assessment, we could potentially have something sorted within a week or so of launch (ie early in the week of the 28th July).
As is hopefully clear from my posts in this thread, we're committed to having an ongoing, reasonable discussion about this issue until we've found a solution that you all are as happy as possible with, within the constraints of our design goals, and we are prepared to modify those goals if we see sufficient reason to. |
|
Jeff Kione
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:27:00 -
[266] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so it seems like the best course of action right now is to leave the skill in its current state for now, and commit to re-evaluating it once Crius has settled? I'm likely on holiday for most of August, so I can book myself an appointment in the first week of September to start a discussion thread and figure out what sensible thing we can do with this skill once we all find out the emergent properties of Crius? This will be on a "if I don't post it within a week of when I say I will, you have my permission to make a big fuss" understanding.
So we're talking not the next release but the release after that for potential changes? |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:38:00 -
[267] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so it seems like the best course of action right now is to leave the skill in its current state for now, and commit to re-evaluating it once Crius has settled? If 'current state' means your latest proposal regarding installation cost, that could be a working proposition. I'd rather not have anything to do with the time saving skill. Current state means the time saving thing, as that's what we have actually implemented right now. I think we're all in agreement that this is not a good solution, but if we are going to resolve this in a better way post-release, we're not currently seeing it as a high priority to do a last-minute change now. September is a good time if we want to let things settle first, but if there's a feeling among you all that we'd rather do something sooner based on a preliminary assessment, we could potentially have something sorted within a week or so of launch (ie early in the week of the 28th July). As is hopefully clear from my posts in this thread, we're committed to having an ongoing, reasonable discussion about this issue until we've found a solution that you all are as happy as possible with, within the constraints of our design goals, and we are prepared to modify those goals if we see sufficient reason to. As long as it gets revisited. It's silly that a skill that was required and useful to everyone is becoming a skill that can only be utilized by a specific group (the most active). |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
435
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:40:00 -
[268] - Quote
Denidil wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so it seems like the best course of action right now is to leave the skill in its current state for now, and commit to re-evaluating it once Crius has settled? I'm likely on holiday for most of August, so I can book myself an . by "current state" you mean 1% per level time reduction? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Turn it into the installation cost reduction per level skill like I proposed, and you proposed a weaker version of. We can debate about if it is strong enough later, but it absolutely should not be the 100% worthless time reduction skill. I might think that 2%/level cost reduction isn't strong enough, but at least it is useful.
This.
Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 17:52:00 -
[269] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit.
This concept might actually be feasible, but I don't know about the power balance of it overall. Nullsec would probably see the highest benefit from this since 0.0 manufacturing is centralized out of necessity, but null needs it the least because of their immense ability to toss hundres of billions of isk around like play money. Manufacturers in highsec will almost certainly spread themselves thin and jump in a freighter to move their products just like they're already doing. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
467
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:08:00 -
[270] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:OK, so it seems like the best course of action right now is to leave the skill in its current state for now, and commit to re-evaluating it once Crius has settled? These other skills you're talking about are great ideas. Some will find them more useful than others, and some will train them to different levels than others. They should all be added, as they would provide tremendous benefit to the game overall, and, as you guys have suggested, would allow industrialists to specialize in particular aspects of their profession.
Re-tooling a skill designed for a now-extinct game feature into one of those very interesting and variably useful skills is rather obtuse, and no matter which skill you choose, you are forcing the majority of your industrialist customer base into specializing in that particular way. You're not creating choice, you're eliminating choice.
An option might be to use the current SP count in the current skill to be duplicated across all of the new skills that have been proposed and/or discussed in the course of this thread. This is similar to what you guys have done before with Battlecruisers, Destroyers, and most recently with the drone skills.
But that begs the question: if you are able to take the highest SP count in either of two drone skills and apply that to a new skill, how is taking one single SP count and incrementing a single number that much more complex?
It's a skill that was mandatory but no longer has any use or meaning whatsoever following the changes. Like the Learning skills. This means just about everyone who does industry will have it. None of these new skills are mandatory. There won't be a fair and equitable way to distribute the SP from this skill except to give extra SP to all players by duplicating the SP multiple times across multiple new skills, just because of the "mandatory" status of the previous skill.
Compared to refunding the SP -- and refunded SP are VERY valuable, especially if it's likely they were trained at or near max SP/hr -- continually gifting free SP is what devalues SP.
The real danger of going ahead with the changes as currently planned is that you are guaranteeing that nothing more will be done with the skill. At that point, the new behaviour is already in the game -- remember, this is behaviour that the majority seem to think is useful to some degree, so it is likely to remain in the game. Since the skill will then already exist and be in use, there is greater momentum behind not doing anything else to it. So you will implement what was planned, no extra dev time will be required, customers be damned. Most of us work under management who place demands on us too, not just you guys, so this is not an unrealistic scenario.
Until a real solution is determined, please don't push the skill change but instead let the current skill sit useless and untrainable. This will ensure that something happens to it in an iteration.
(Nullsec Titan builders will be okay without the immediate time boost. Really they will.)
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2456
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:20:00 -
[271] - Quote
If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th. |
|
Valterra Craven
269
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:33:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
I'm ok with that. I also think that the job install cost would be better than the time savings, if even only marginally so. But again, my vote is still that either way this is a huge waste of SP given the previous bonus. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement and that should matter more than what you would "like to do" and what your design goals are. Right answers usually take more time and effort, there's usually a reason for that. |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:35:00 -
[273] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
I think we should change it now, before release.. I think the Installation Cost [both research and production IMO] reduction solution is the right one - but we need to do some discussing of if 2% or 5% (or somewhere between) is the right amount.
I side with 5% because that makes this skill the research version of Broker Relations, same strength. Broker Relations is a Rank 2 skill, Material Efficiency is a Rank 3 skill.
Valterra Craven wrote:. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement t.
No. That's completely unrealistic and simply IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Valterra Craven
269
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:44:00 -
[274] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement t. No. That's completely unrealistic and simply IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
No, it isn't unrealistic. CCP has shown previously that not only is this realistic that its possible for them to do and possible with a good deal of accuracy.
|
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:02:00 -
[275] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Denidil wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement t. No. That's completely unrealistic and simply IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. No, it isn't unrealistic. CCP has shown previously that not only is this realistic that its possible for them to do and possible with a good deal of accuracy.
did you even read this thread?
Greyscale covered it earlier why at this point is impossible to happen on Crius release, and as a software engineer I find his explanation not only reasonable but entirely the likely situation. Go read the thread. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Valterra Craven
269
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:07:00 -
[276] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Denidil wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement t. No. That's completely unrealistic and simply IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. No, it isn't unrealistic. CCP has shown previously that not only is this realistic that its possible for them to do and possible with a good deal of accuracy. did you even read this thread? Greyscale covered it earlier why at this point is impossible to happen on Crius release, and as a software engineer I find his explanation not only reasonable but entirely the likely situation. Go read the thread.
Oh I've read the thread, I have no problem with the reasons why its not realistic for the 22nd. What I have a problem with is his reasons why it can't happen period. I'm fine with waiting for the reimbursement to happen in the next release 6-8 weeks from now. I work in IT as well and I have a lot of patience. I think you merely misunderstood the intent of my post. |
Luscius Uta
93
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:11:00 -
[277] - Quote
I think that changing the skill to give 2% time reduction of all Industry jobs per level would be most fair - it would be less powerful than original skill, while still not being a worthless train from IV to V. Highsec is for casuals. |
Lion El'Johnson
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:12:00 -
[278] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:During the mass test today, I noticed that the "Material Efficiency" (-5% material requirements per level) has been changed to "Advanced Industry" (-1% time per level).
I'm sorry, but what? I wouldn't have bothered training this to 5 if it had been like this originally. You've taken a skill that was absolutely necessary for manufacturing and turned it into something that's not worth training.
This skill is going to be refunded, right? Because this isn't an example of "skill's usage changing slightly," this is an example of "skill being removed and a new one added in its place."
Crius ( and many of the older patches for that matter ) are full of these proofs that CCP does not value veteran players anymore. How about those who have trained anchoring to 5 in order to get starbase control skill and now they find out that anyone can reach that 2 weeks earlier ? |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:21:00 -
[279] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
I don't see the issue. Just do the following
1) change the skill as you originally planned (no problem) 2) TOMORROW, add skillpoints to every character who has at least trained that skill to 1, equal to the skill level, and grant it as unallocated skillpoints.
No issue with people mass training that skill just to get a few extra skillpoints (which wouldn't amount to anything except joy in the players who have trained it.
Yes people will moan, but will be the vocal minority. Don't do a 3 week notice on skill change, or give people a chance to train it if they had no intention to. Tomorrow, allocate skillpoints equal to the skillpoints in that one skill, grant it to the people who trained into it.
You will be giving 15 days back to the people who trained into it, and a 15 day boost to both budding and experienced builders. Heck if your that worried create a mega lab technician skill, granting an extra 5 slots for people. Yaay!!!! |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:30:00 -
[280] - Quote
If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. damn it is hard to delete my signature |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2457
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:33:00 -
[281] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases.
Open to suggestions :) |
|
Avacore Estemaire
The Scope Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:36:00 -
[282] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th. If it is anything but a decent cost reduction most people will demand an SP refund. Time reductions and cost reductions are VERY different things. |
Rust Connor
Air Traffic Control
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:36:00 -
[283] - Quote
Math told me that install cost reduction is bad....
If you spend 1B material everyday on production on a good system (0.1% cost index) you will safe amazing 36M on a year if the skill grants 10% on lvl5. Thats 36M.... or 2 geckos. You remember? The drone you got as a gift...Oh wait, we got 7 drones so thats better than 3 years of benefit of that skill...
And don't tell me that you dont run 24/7 but you spend way over 1B everyday on production?
Of course, if you produce on "bad system" you will get a much bigger benefit (10-100 times better). So that is good to people that dont want to maximize profit as moving to another system would bring a better benefit....
Why can't we get ME bonus? 0.5%-1% per level? The new system is much easier to give that kind of bonus. I mean, you introduced teams with ME bonus! You gave it to POS arrays. Why not to the skill? |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:06:00 -
[284] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :)
I have a few ideas
Idea 1: we stay with the "Installation Cost Reduction" idea but make each rank worth more. 15% total reduction split 1%/2%/3%/4%/5% per level. So Level is a 1% reduction in cost, Level 2 gives a total of 3%, Level 4 a total of 6%, Level 4 a total of 10%, Level 5 a total of 15%. This give a middle ground between my original 5% idea and your 2% idea, and makes each rank worth more making it worthwhile to Train level V
Idea 2: We make it so we can have "active jobs" and "queued jobs". Repurposed ME job gives us 2 Research Queue slots and 2 Production Queue Slots per level. A queue slot is used when we install a job, but have no more available active job slots. Soon as the active job finishes the queued job starts. [this requires code changes that probably cannot be done by July 22nd] Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
508
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:10:00 -
[285] - Quote
10%/level job cost reduction.
People who max it can more easily produce in busy systems. People who want to do industry more casually can do it someplace less busy and can easily end up with less overhead than the guy in the busy system, even if the casual guy has 0 in the skill and the "professional" has 5.
It's not required for industry and it's still a fairly hefty "nerf" to how powerful the skill is (from 25% reduction as current with ME down to at most 5-7% reduction in the busiest systems).
"Reduce install cost by 50%" at level 5 sounds like a lot, but it really isn't, since it's at most 50% of 14% or whatever in busy systems, down to 50% of .5% or whatever in slow systems. |
Kaija Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:22:00 -
[286] - Quote
Just finding out about the Material Efficiency nerf from today's devblog. And I HAVE been trying to keep up with all the changes by reading the industry articles, and this announcement still left me dumbfounded. Spent the last 2 hours reading up on all the threads and found this one. So take that as some feedback that the changes weren't clear and centralized since I'm still having to dig through Test Server Feedback threads to find the meaningful discussions. Thanks for linking this thread in some of the other discussions though - made it a little easier to find.
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
I am fine with having the weekend to have a meaningful discussion around the Material Efficiency change skill. Waiting a week after Crius release to change it is fine. Waiting until September to change this would be unacceptable. Thank for you committing to fxiing this quickly- as development time for promised changes "SoonTM" can sometimes disappear. For example, still waiting for CCP Rise to fix the Rapid Missile Launcher ammo type swap mechanic from the 200+ page threadnaught.
You've said clearly that the skill on Tranquility is currently too powerful, and needs to be brought back a bit, and that's fine. But lets approach the change clearly. From reading all this, I feel like we're arguing the Meta around a skill change, and not the change itself.
The final change needs to be considered in two ways:
1. The skill must still apply to material requirements/job cost reduction. Anyone who trained a character to Material Efficiency 5 intended to specialize the character to manufacturing with the least amount of waste. Material/Job cost reduction is much more valuable than a time savings, because we don't all play 24/7 and without being able to queue more than 11 jobs at once, the extra time is a significantly diminished benefit. The material reduction plays out in having to purchase and haul around less materials to build with - and that saves us time (and ISK) inherently anyway. I think most of us have expressed how poorly thought out this idea was, and you've heard us.
2. The skill must have an equal value as before and have a significant benefit to be attractive to train to Level 5, especially as a 3x skill. My problem with renaming "Material Efficiency" to "Advanced Industry", and then claiming it is okay for it to be have diminished value because it's an "Advanced" skill is framing the discussion (and poorly) from the start. Material Efficiency is a 3x skill, and most "Advanced" skills (at least in industry research terms) are 8x. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
108
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:32:00 -
[287] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :)
Actually I like alot of the suggestions made in the thread so far. My issue isn't with what skill is replacing the exsisting but that a core required skill to compete is bieng replaced with an edge scenario skill. If the replacing skill isn't of similar value to the previous then it's a ripoff.
+1 industry slot per rank would be acceptable and carry equal value. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
108
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:35:00 -
[288] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:10%/level job cost reduction.
People who max it can more easily produce in busy systems. People who want to do industry more casually can do it someplace less busy and can easily end up with less overhead than the guy in the busy system, even if the casual guy has 0 in the skill and the "professional" has 5.
It's not required for industry and it's still a fairly hefty "nerf" to how powerful the skill is (from 25% reduction as current with ME down to at most 5-7% reduction in the busiest systems).
"Reduce install cost by 50%" at level 5 sounds like a lot, but it really isn't, since it's at most 50% of 14% or whatever in busy systems, down to 50% of .5% or whatever in slow systems.
not a bad idea but when those of us with it already trained are getting force-fed that we have no option to decide wether we want the skill is an issue. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:47:00 -
[289] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :)
Here it is, grant the people who trained this skill they no longer want equal skill points to what they have in the skill as unallocated skill points. Don't "refund" the skill, let them keep it, just grant them SP equal to where they have the skill currently. They can recover the two weeks of their life they spent training this for minimizing waste and reducing time shipping the crap back and forth.
The people can decide what they want to do or go afterwards with no ill will.
Leave the skill as you originally balanced it at, and don't recreate the math trying to find some completely backwards way of appeasing people.
That is by FAR the easiest and simplest solution. Yaay!!!! |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
358
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:58:00 -
[290] - Quote
I am left after reading this thread with the opinion that we are trying to fit the square peg in the round hole.
We are taking what CCP agrees with is a 'mandatory skill' for any industrialist....removing its entire reason for existence....ie: no more artificial waste.
Then the next step has been to apply entirely new logic to this ... and say we dont want to have any mandatory type skills .... so we are taking the time and effort you 'had' to invest and repurpose this to some 'other' skill which will by definition not be mandatory or have the same value as the one it had before.
This is not a nerf of the existing skill...that would be leaving what it affected and then modifying the values. This is a direct and entirely new skill that CCP admits is not as valuable as what the old skill did before.
It seems to me that the easiest solution here is that since the skill is no longer required/needed that you simply delete it and refund the SP. When skills are removed from the game you have done this in the past ie: learning skills. You are doing the same thing here which is removing a skill from the game...we dont need to remove the waste anymore.
You could save soooo much time doing the simple refund here. Why try and repupose this artifically to something that many people will never accept as being equal in value? From a customer service and development point of view it is lose lose to try and force the square peg in the round hole.
For the record...the time saving of 1% is of little value to me or my alts....we talking about at lvl 5 saving me 3 minutes on an hour job which I will tell you is a joke, compared to the value of what the skill brought before.
So there is a choice right now to save time and effort here...refund it..and remove the advanced industry skill. |
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:00:00 -
[291] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th. Just so long as the solution is something that's viable for everyone, and not just the edge-cases who keep things going 24/7.
How about a reduction in team cost increase? I'm not tossing out any specific numbers, as I don't know how the percentages from teams will work, but lowering their percentage cost would be something that would be useful for everyone without necessarily making it a barrier for entry. |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:14:00 -
[292] - Quote
I can agree with the sentiment that the only way the currently-planned 1% time reduction per skill level would be even remotely relevant to most people is if we're allowed to queue jobs beyond our actual active-job limits of 11 per toon ... but think of the glut of products (especially T2's and T3's from mass-queued jobs) which would effectively drive people away from industry under the premise of there being zero profit to be made in a profession which would be overflooding the market within a week.
No, no that cant be allowed to happen. No queues beyond 11 per toon.
Instead, I think Greyscale's initial response of cutting fees has the most merit of all the ideas posted here. It's not a lot of cash the way he posted it, but we should also consider cranking that % up a bit to be around the 5%-10%/level area. The fee reduction should be scaled around with respect to just how much of an isk sink it's expected to be on EVE as a whole. None of us except one of CCP's economists can really say for sure how much that value should be, but I believe that it should for sure be more than 2% per level. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:24:00 -
[293] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:As long as it gets revisited. It's silly that a skill that was required and useful to everyone is becoming a skill that can only be utilized by a specific group (the most active). Don't be silly. This is the kind of self entitled whining that makes me facepalm. The skill is still useful, it will cut back on the time it makes for you to make an item. That is still completely relevant to anyone who partakes in industry, particularly if as Greyscale suggest, this could be increased to a 2%/3% bonus.
As others have said, a TE bonus is the best way to go with this. Reducing install costs defeats the purpose of the change. People who are arguing for that would probably still like the skill to offer an ME advantage. The whole point is everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to material efficiency, and then your choice is what matters. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:30:00 -
[294] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Summer Isle wrote:As long as it gets revisited. It's silly that a skill that was required and useful to everyone is becoming a skill that can only be utilized by a specific group (the most active). Don't be silly. This is the kind of self entitled whining that makes me facepalm. The skill is still useful, it will cut back on the time it makes for you to make an item. That is still completely relevant to anyone who partakes in industry, particularly if as Greyscale suggest, this could be increased to a 2%/3% bonus. As others have said, a TE bonus is the best way to go with this. Reducing install costs defeats the purpose of the change. People who are arguing for that would probably still like the skill to offer an ME advantage. The whole point is everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to material efficiency, and then your choice is what matters.
Everyone, eh? So the people whose lines only run for a few hours a day, a few times a week, are going to save all of 10 minutes per line, despite those lines sitting idle for a few days longer?
The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day. If you have any more down-time on a line than that each day, you've essentially wasted the bonus for that day. Not every person who manufactures wants to do that, nor do all those who manufacture have the resources or RL time to do so.
Personally, I couldn't care less if my 6-hour line ends in 360 minutes or 342 minutes because it's the last thing I do before logging out for the night. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:40:00 -
[295] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th. I think this would be the best solution, as I don't see how extra time to consider will make much difference to the end solution.
Luscius Uta wrote:I think that changing the skill to give 2% time reduction of all Industry jobs per level would be most fair - it would be less powerful than original skill, while still not being a worthless train from IV to V. I would go with this, or 3% if it is possible.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :) I hope you do not go with an install cost reduction, as it defeats the purpose of the change. Either the install cost reduction will be so minimal it has no effect, and therefore worthless. Or alternatively, it will be a worthwhile train, and therefore act as a barrier to entry.
Making the skill worthwhile to train, and at the same time not be a barrier to entry, is logically impossible, as by definition they are mutually exclusive of each other.
I'd like to ask though, what exactly do we have to play around with in terms of production efficiency? Because, optimally I would like to see Industry confer 4% per level, and Advanced industry confer 3% per level. Overall that would give a 0.68 reduction to time, which is definitely something worth having.
If this is not possible, then I would go with 4% and 2% respectively. Overall that would give a time saving of 0.72. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
144
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:56:00 -
[296] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :)
Since the original skill ultimately effected the cost of the item (reduced mineral needs = cost savings) it would make sense that the cost of producing the item is somehow effected. It most likely should effect fees as our skills and knowledge in manufacturing techniques lower labor costs by requiring less labor.
edit to add: the cost benefit in lowered fees should be proportional to the cost benefit we have been receiving from reduced mineral costs. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
806
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:06:00 -
[297] - Quote
A reduction in job cost (anywhere between 2 and 5% per level) seems like a perfectly reasonable and logical use of this skill. In fact, the only counter arguments I see in this thread are 'it isn't as good as it used to be'. Well sh*t, if that's the standard we're going by we might as well go back to 2003. Yes the current iteration of the skill is a little off. Doesn't mean there should instantly be refunds and crying.
The entitlement train is steamrolling through this thread, it's completely pathetic to be honest. Things change, things get nerfed. Deal with it. This trend of crying for refunds and reimbursements any time you're negatively affected by a change really needs to STOP. Not just tone down, it needs to completely 100% STOP. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:14:00 -
[298] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day. Taken in isolation, at 1% that equals 72 minutes * 11 (number of lines) = 13.2 hours of time saving per day.
If you bump that up to 3% per level, which is what CCP Greyscale seems to be looking at, then that would equal 3.6 hours saved per day per line. Much much better than a tiny job install reduction. If you are sensible you will stick with the PE bonus which is being offered. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1306
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:25:00 -
[299] - Quote
Delay it a shade so it doesn't feel rushed? Good idea CCP
Suggest possible other iterations more in keeping with the orignal skill. Good job players
Continually ask for sp rebates when Greyscale already said (and I quote)
Quote:- We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.)
No a good idea
Personally I think that if they make the skill relevant AND advanced 8x training then you get your skill prorated by the sp you have spent so far. So yoiu may be skill level 2 after the transfer
It may be a step back but if everybody who trained it gets the same step back then we are fighting mudflation, not causing you to lose. You will still be in the same place relative to everybody else in the marketplace, no?
One complaint a few pages back I REALLY want to get behind. We need a common spot where ALL changes are listed. Not some in dev blogs, some in test feedback, some on the back of envelopes.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:42:00 -
[300] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Personally I think that if they make the skill relevant AND advanced 8x training then you get your skill prorated by the sp you have spent so far. So yoiu may be skill level 2 after the transfer
It may be a step back but if everybody who trained it gets the same step back then we are fighting mudflation, not causing you to lose. You will still be in the same place relative to everybody else in the marketplace, no?
Not to burst your bubble, but this would be on the other end of the scale of refunding SP's due to a skill multiplier reduction for what's perceived to be a lesser skill - and you just said that kind of thing is a no-go. You shouldn't consider one without being willing to consider the other in equal measure. So ... no. I'm sorry, but no. |
|
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:43:00 -
[301] - Quote
For me, a time reduction is an insult compared to the old skill. If you only log in once or twice a day, that time saved is 100% wasted, and CCP knows that. And, some don't even log in that often.
Frankly I see nothing wrong with a small barrier to entry. EVE constantly gets mentioned in threads related to economy and crafting (industry) on various MMO related sites. So I'm sure they don't want those people to get discouraged. But if they make everyone basically equal (10% is not alot), and have zero barriers to entry, then the margins quickly go to zero. Everyone stops doing industry and leaves anyways.
I am all for change, and looking forward to seeing how the new system works out. But there are possible gotchas out there. Let not trivialize industry. Keep it a valid profession with some need to have skills. damn it is hard to delete my signature |
RonPaul Rox
Justified Chaos
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 23:20:00 -
[302] - Quote
So we don't want a skill that is as important to have as ME 5, but we want it replaced with a skill that is as important to have as ME 5, else we'll feel cheated. quite a conundrum.
As a player thats been training ME 5 on all his characters in anticipation of the patch, I strongly vote for a skill point refund. just hire some temp worker to do the gruntwork and yall check it when he's done. http://imgur.com/EGjYLSL
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
38
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 23:45:00 -
[303] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Summer Isle wrote:The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day. Taken in isolation, at 1% that equals 72 minutes * 11 (number of lines) = 13.2 hours of time saving per day. If you bump that up to 3% per level, which is what CCP Greyscale seems to be looking at, then that would equal 3.6 hours saved per day per line. Much much better than a tiny job install reduction. If you are sensible you will stick with the PE bonus which is being offered. That's only if your lines are going continuously, though. I'm trying to look at things from the other side, as well, as a manufacturer who doesn't have her lines going all the time.
If your lines aren't running back-to-back, the actual value of the skill is greatly diminished, and if your jobs don't last long enough, the actual value of the skill quickly approaches zero.
RonPaul Rox wrote:So we don't want a skill that is as important to have as ME 5, but we want it replaced with a skill that is as important to have as ME 5, else we'll feel cheated. quite a conundrum. As a player thats been training ME 5 on all his characters in anticipation of the patch, I strongly vote for a skill point refund. just hire some temp worker to do the gruntwork and yall check it when he's done.
I can't speak for others, but at least for myself, it's not that I want a skill that's as important to have as ME was, but rather I want the skill to not have zero value to a chunk of the players who will be receiving it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, a time reduction is meaningless if your lines aren't consistently running. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
65
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 23:50:00 -
[304] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:A reduction in job cost (anywhere between 2 and 5% per level) seems like a perfectly reasonable and logical use of this skill. In fact, the only counter arguments I see in this thread are 'it isn't as good as it used to be'. Well sh*t, if that's the standard we're going by we might as well go back to 2003. Yes the current iteration of the skill is a little off. Doesn't mean there should instantly be refunds and crying.
The entitlement train is steamrolling through this thread, it's completely pathetic to be honest. Things change, things get nerfed. Deal with it. This trend of crying for refunds and reimbursements any time you're negatively affected by a change really needs to STOP. Not just tone down, it needs to completely 100% STOP.
This is pretty much exactly my position. Material Efficiency needed to be taken out back and shot. Meanwhile, it's actually sorta stuck in the middle of a skill tree, and there's even a precedent for this kind of whole-functionality transplant. (Did you know there used to be a racial-integration corp management skill? Now it reduces the cost of hiring allies in a war.) Whatever skill was going to replace it would be guaranteed to be less useful.
The installation fee approach seems pretty reasonable to me. Level 5 might not be very worthwhile anymore, but ME 4->5 used to be the difference between profit and not, often enough. I'm okay with it only increasing your profits by about 20% and only when you're doing high-intensity industry, even though I'm thinking about bringing my manufacturing alt out to the back of beyond where it will be useless. Besides, is there anyone out there doing high-intensity trading (for a point of comparison) who doesn't train Accounting V eventually for the last bit of tax reduction? I admit the casual industrialists operating in backwater systems will still get particularly screwed, but a cost reduction instead of a time reduction changes it from "never relevant" to "sorta relevant".
Frankly, the people who are complaining that now they'd only train it to 4 can throw a pity party with the people who just finished Anchoring 5 just to get access to POS gunning. The things that final level get you are a bit of a booby prize now, but it's not completely useless. Reducing installation fees would be better than time reduction, though. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 00:00:00 -
[305] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Summer Isle wrote:The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day. Taken in isolation, at 1% that equals 72 minutes * 11 (number of lines) = 13.2 hours of time saving per day. If you bump that up to 3% per level, which is what CCP Greyscale seems to be looking at, then that would equal 3.6 hours saved per day per line. Much much better than a tiny job install reduction. If you are sensible you will stick with the PE bonus which is being offered. That's only if your lines are going continuously, though. I'm trying to look at things from the other side, as well, as a manufacturer who doesn't have her lines going all the time. If your lines aren't running back-to-back, the actual value of the skill is greatly diminished, and if your jobs don't last long enough, the actual value of the skill quickly approaches zero. I understood your point there. What I was trying to illustrate though was that at 3% TE you would be saving 3.6 hours per line per day. So lets say you put in a 12 hour job, that's now been reduced to by almost 2 hours, meaning it takes only ten hours. Then multiply this by every line you have. That is quite a convenient saving even if you aren't looking to optimise your lines.
Lets take something like a battleship, you want ten runs for your corp. That is going to take 50 hours with no TE, taking the skill in isolation, means that your job is finishing 7.5 hours earlier, meaning your corp can jump into those BS and pvp 7.5 hours earlier than if you didn't have the skill.
Also another point I actually forgot about, but is worth to keep in mind, is the longer your job is running, the higher your installation costs are going to be. So increasing PE will actually give you a reduction in your install costs anyway. This may be minimal, I'd have to do the maths, but combined with the convenience of being able to get more from your production lines, makes the skill much better than a simple reduction from install costs. |
Erich Shephard
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 01:25:00 -
[306] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
We're throwing around ideas for better bonuses for this skill that we can get implemented for the initial Crius release. How does say 2%/level install cost reduction feel? It ends up being most advantageous in major industry hubs or when using teams, but new players can still compete on price by building in less busy systems.
It is of course not as powerful as the current TQ version of this skill, but the whole point of this change is that it's currently *too* powerful, so we're deliberately trying to tone it down a bit. Yup. That's exactly along the lines I was thinking of. It still produces an advantage that reduces the cost of a job over competitors who haven't trained the skill, but it is reduced in power such that it remains to some extent optional. As you say, you can always build in cheaper systems instead of training the skill. This solution would suit me just fine. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 01:52:00 -
[307] - Quote
The original skill was also a pre req to Capital production, which is seemingly very out of place now
Unless this skill turns into something worthwhile, just refund it and get on with life
5% TE is next to worthless
On second thought, just refund it and the pink elephant in the room just goes out the service entrance |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
163
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 01:59:00 -
[308] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:2) Getting to L3 is fast. At a skill level of 3 you should be able to make ISK most anywhere. That is, given the profit margin at the major trade hubs, those last two levels should not be a requirement for making ISK. Those last two levels should be an investment for those who wish to specialize.
I liked the rest of your post, but this idea I quoted above is just plain wrong. High skills should never guarantee a profit at anything, especially market activities.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 02:03:00 -
[309] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
Ok, after reading the blue posts, refund aint gonna happen
Maybe if the skill applied to everything: ME research TE research Production Invention Copying
5% to each time based modifier for all industry would make it pretty powerful if you do all things with your pilot, but would require tons of SP
"Most" pilots will only use the skill for 1-2 of that list and that would have the skill in a good place as far as strength i think |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
378
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 02:45:00 -
[310] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Delay it a shade so it doesn't feel rushed? Good idea CCP Suggest possible other iterations more in keeping with the orignal skill. Good job players Continually ask for sp rebates when Greyscale already said (and I quote) Quote:- We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) No a good idea Personally I think that if they make the skill relevant AND advanced 8x training then you get your skill prorated by the sp you have spent so far. So yoiu may be skill level 2 after the transfer It may be a step back but if everybody who trained it gets the same step back then we are fighting mudflation, not causing you to lose. You will still be in the same place relative to everybody else in the marketplace, no? One complaint a few pages back I REALLY want to get behind. We need a common spot where ALL changes are listed. Not some in dev blogs, some in test feedback, some on the back of envelopes. m
Hey, it's great that you're stepping up into the proud tradition of the CSM just apologizing for CCP's decision to radically depart from prior, fair practices, it really is, but the rest of the community isn't as bound by your honor code. So here's the situation:
This is the first time that CCP has removed a skill (not nerfed, removed) and openly admitted it would not refund SP because they can't be bothered to put forth the effort. This, in a game where a lot of the most meaningful choices a player can make - the reason many keep subscribing month after month - revolves directly around the trade offs that everyone makes in their skill queue. That's a pretty ******* important aspect to one of the most unique features of EVE.
I was pissed when recent announcements made my decision to train up Scrapmetal Processing largely worthless, but didn't expect a skill point refund, because the skill still existed - it got nerfed. It happens, and because of how the skill queue works in EVE these types of nerfs suck more than in other MMOs, but hey, it happens.
This is the complete removal of a skill. Go ahead, try and deny it.
It's simply because CCP can't be arsed to put forth the effort to perform the traditional refund for removed skills that we are in this dumb situation where the forums are spitballing replacement skill ideas. Why didn't they just invent a bunch of new skills when they replaced the learning skills? Because that's dumb, counter-intuitive, and unfair. What changed between then and now?
That's the question the CSM should be asking, not demanding the player base toe the line. What changed between then and now? Is this what we can expect going forward whenever CCP removes a skill that players deliberately chose to train over any other skill, for very specific reasons?
So, thanks again, but I think people are going to rightly continue to remind CCP that a refund is the right way to handle skill removal.
I am not an alt of Chribba. |
|
Dyscordia
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 02:56:00 -
[311] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
One complaint a few pages back I REALLY want to get behind. We need a common spot where ALL changes are listed. Not some in dev blogs, some in test feedback, some on the back of envelopes.
This times 1000. Thank you.
This is entire thread is an example of knowledge transfer happening way too late. I believe I spent an inordinate amount of time following discussion and changes and did not see this skill point issue until a few days before the release.
If you have a new aggressive 6 week release cycle, you should consider aggressive documentation and knowledge transfer since players have far less time to get a grasp on all the changes that are happening that affect their in-game livelihood or play style. |
Malice Redeemer
Redeemer Group
151
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 03:20:00 -
[312] - Quote
I won't be happy unless this is is refunded or made in to the must have at 5 to play that it was. I would not have wasted time training it to 5 if it was not. |
EvilIsMyName
Exploitation Industrial Group Gold Star Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 03:23:00 -
[313] - Quote
If the idea is to take a now useful skill and turn it, post-patch, into a useless skill, and to lower the barrier to entry into industry, you'll succeed. Since so many of us will have this, post-patch useless skill trained to level 5, and its obvious a SP refund wont happen, a logical compromise may be to make make level 5 a required skill in order to do any higher level industry. In its current state, Material Eff 5 is required to train Capital Ship construction, so post patch add the requirement to have the new Advanced Industry to lvl 5 to train Industrial, cruiser, frigate, battleship, outpost, & Drug Manufacturing.
You still lower the entry barrier but make the new industrialists suffer the same wasted skill training as us vets to do any T2 or T3 manufacturing. |
Culprit Renalard
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 03:29:00 -
[314] - Quote
So um - yeah. Still consider myself a new pilot. Wanted to get into Industry. Been training Material Efficiency the last umpteen days cause it sure seemed pretty important. Read the devblog and this thread tonight and finding that a pretty much mandatory skill for an industry pilot is now worthless.
Its not like this was an easy to find change, nor did I get a little pop up on my screen telling me I may want to rethink my training plan as the skill I intended to train was going to be removed from the game.
For a new toon like me, none of the proposed changes would have caused me to train this skill at such an early stage in my career.
I am glad I read about it tonight though. Removed the skill from queue with 8 days left to level 5 |
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 05:09:00 -
[315] - Quote
SP refund please. There's simply no way ME can be "replaced" with another skill that is Rank 3, a "must have" skill to V that imparts real benefits (e.g. not a blank prerequisite skill) and yet presents no barrier to entry for newer players. The market will almost certainly make it into said barrier. |
Muninn Ogeko
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 06:40:00 -
[316] - Quote
The old Material Efficiency skill was incredibly important to get to 4 and had enough of a benefit at 5 to make it worth taking the extra time to get that level.
What about making this bonus a bit like the Logistics skill, where that last level is still quite important, by providing a 15% discount per level to the production fees. This moves the baseline for established producers to be 25% of the production fees, so you might want to multiply the production fees for everyone by somewhere between 2 and 4 to counter this (assuming you'll want 4, since you want the production fees to be high).
A more moderate solution (which does not make level 5 very attractive) is a 10% per level reduction paired with a doubling of base production fees.
Assuming the 15% / level, a 4x base cost multiplier, and a 10% (multiplied to 40%) fee, you are looking at a production cost of 110% the material costs for someone with level 5, and 140% for someone without the skill. This basically means a 28% cheaper production for someone with level 5, which is close to the benefit provided by the Kronos version. |
Gaius Clabbacus
Trans-Solar Works Terrible Space Warriors
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 06:42:00 -
[317] - Quote
My preference: 1> Reduce waste (reduction) to 2%/level. This makes the barrier to entry caused by waste for new industrialists comparable to not having fully researched BPOs (and 3d *40 for researching ME 10 on a battlship BPO is also a significant barrier!) 2> Waste only affects minerals and not T2 or PI materials.
I realize timelines may be too short to implement this for Crius. It would be fine if we temporarily get the worthless time reduction until next release. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
294
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 07:52:00 -
[318] - Quote
Muninn Ogeko wrote:The old Material Efficiency skill was incredibly important to get to 4 and had enough of a benefit at 5 to make it worth taking the extra time to get that level.
What about making this bonus a bit like the Logistics skill, where that last level is still quite important, by providing a 15% discount per level to the production fees. This moves the baseline for established producers to be 25% of the production fees, so you might want to multiply the production fees for everyone by somewhere between 2 and 4 to counter this (assuming you'll want 4, since you want the production fees to be high).
A more moderate solution (which does not make level 5 very attractive) is a 10% per level reduction paired with a doubling of base production fees.
Assuming the 15% / level, a 4x base cost multiplier, and a 10% (multiplied to 40%) fee, you are looking at a production cost of 110% the material costs for someone with level 5, and 140% for someone without the skill. This basically means a 28% cheaper production for someone with level 5, which is close to the benefit provided by the Kronos version.
Could we please keep in mind that the skill is NOT supposed to be mandatory again?
Something like 5-10%/level should be sufficient incentive to train it to IV. Balancing it for perfect value at V and keeping the 'not mandatory' policy might be aiming too high.
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 08:49:00 -
[319] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Summer Isle wrote:The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day. Taken in isolation, at 1% that equals 72 minutes * 11 (number of lines) = 13.2 hours of time saving per day. If you bump that up to 3% per level, which is what CCP Greyscale seems to be looking at, then that would equal 3.6 hours saved per day per line. Much much better than a tiny job install reduction. If you are sensible you will stick with the PE bonus which is being offered. That's only if your lines are going continuously, though. I'm trying to look at things from the other side, as well, as a manufacturer who doesn't have her lines going all the time. If your lines aren't running back-to-back, the actual value of the skill is greatly diminished, and if your jobs don't last long enough, the actual value of the skill quickly approaches zero.
I think you also have to remember that while it may not help everyone massively, the install costs of a job are directly related to the length of time it takes to manufacture. So a time reduction will also give a, smaller, cost reduction, therefore it does apply to everyone.
Medalyn Isis wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:I think that changing the skill to give 2% time reduction of all Industry jobs per level would be most fair - it would be less powerful than original skill, while still not being a worthless train from IV to V. I would go with this, or 3% if it is possible.
I'd agree with this. 3% time reduction to all industry jobs per level |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 09:00:00 -
[320] - Quote
At least the skill rank isn't as high as Research Project Management. They didn't touch that skill, but instead killed what it was used for.
I have 18 chars with Prod Eff V, Needless to say that this "new" skill would likely only be trained to level 2 or 3.
I am fairly sure that people are not going to be building Caps in Jita, so the savings from building major parts in major hubs is moot.
The skill was removed, and under the new wastage system then i think that's fine. My guess here is that they don't want to refund because it would just mean way too many free points getting handed out. For those who say "but it is a industry skill, and it still is", meh.... Would you be happy if they changed the navigation skill to give an agility bonus instead of a speed bonus?
(there's 10% waste now too for those of you who say there's now no waste, I mean, THINK about it...)...
The previous skill was not overpowered but it was required for those who specialized in production. Level3 was ample for most people who used it for ammo and perhaps their own drones. Under the new system the skill has no use, I understand that. But re-tasking a skill to do something not even closely related to the first skill is just lame.
As for us leaving it too long to raise the issue with you guys.. Well the last "statement" that was made in a dev blog was that you had not decided what to do... So don't blame the players for waiting to long to tell you we don't like it, blame yourselves for keeping it hidden beyond the point of it being actionable.
I don't know who spent the time dealing with R.A.M. and R.Db conversions (To make sure players like me wouldn't "exploit" it on patch day), but that's the same level of competence that should have been used in designing this skill change.
This is about the 4th major "industry" nerf that has happened since I started playing. I really get the impression you guys dont want it. All of these changes your making only ends up with one major change anyhow, It's a HUGE isk sink. I cant help but think all of the changes (Including the idiotic move over this skill) was just to suck isk out of eve. |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 09:36:00 -
[321] - Quote
DeODokktor wrote:The previous skill was not overpowered but it was required for those who specialized in production. The skill was too powerful. 5% reduction in material requirements per level, and you don't think that was too powerful.
Also you contradict yourself, apparently the skill was only required for those who specialise in production. But then apparently TE is useless except for those that specialise in production...
That voids your entire argument regarding the skill change. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2465
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 11:25:00 -
[322] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Delay it a shade so it doesn't feel rushed? Good idea CCP Suggest possible other iterations more in keeping with the orignal skill. Good job players Continually ask for sp rebates when Greyscale already said (and I quote) Quote:- We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) No a good idea Personally I think that if they make the skill relevant AND advanced 8x training then you get your skill prorated by the sp you have spent so far. So yoiu may be skill level 2 after the transfer It may be a step back but if everybody who trained it gets the same step back then we are fighting mudflation, not causing you to lose. You will still be in the same place relative to everybody else in the marketplace, no? One complaint a few pages back I REALLY want to get behind. We need a common spot where ALL changes are listed. Not some in dev blogs, some in test feedback, some on the back of envelopes. m
- Bumping the rank up without changing accumulated skillpoints is actually probably way easier than removals or wholesale adjustments; the biggest hurdle from a DB-stuff point of view is the skill queue, and in this scenario we would probably just pause the skill, remove it from queues and then make the change. - Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything.
Some more general things: - A big part of the reason why we're pushing back on a reimbursement here is that it's a thing that is becoming a habit and we want to push back against it being the default option. There's a lot of things feeding into this, but a major part of it is the model of the value of skill training that considers skills as an ongoing cycle of anticipation and accomplishment, and the way that (for many people, we understand how skill plans work) future training goals more more defined as longer-term skills get close to finishing. By giving people windfalls of skillpoints, we a) suddenly cut short the anticipation, which is expected to also reduce the feeling of accomplishment, and b) break the natural cycle of goal-setting by completing goals unexpectedly early and without the lead-in time to consider and select new ones. We understand that the psychological value that this sets up is not considered relevant by some of our players, but we have to also consider the ones who do derive satisfaction from this sort of system, and skillpoint windfalls can be self-defeating for them. This is a much larger, more extended discussion that there isn't really scope for here, I just want to highlight some of the things we're thinking about to give you a better sense of why we're pushing back on a reimbursement. We do of course recognize that removal and reimbursement works here from a very rational perspective, but not everyone gains value from strictly rational calculation. - A general percentage reduction to *all* jobs would (perversely) probably actually be less troublesome to push higher; the 1% is somewhat constrained by our desire not to push build times below copy times, so if we did a skill that affected copy and build equally (along with research, which is clearly a pretty valuable bonus for people researching in the new system), we would probably push it up to the 3-5%/level range. - Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want. |
|
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
379
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 11:50:00 -
[323] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:DeODokktor wrote:The previous skill was not overpowered but it was required for those who specialized in production. The skill was too powerful. 5% reduction in material requirements per level, and you don't think that was too powerful. Also you contradict yourself, apparently the skill was only required for those who specialise in production. But then apparently TE is useless except for those that specialise in production... That voids your entire argument regarding the skill change.
I think CCP just decided to keep the core purpose of the skill, and just nerfed it. If I'm reading that right, it's a sucky nerf, but understandable, and no SP refund needed.
Misread something, my bad. I am not an alt of Chribba. |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 11:55:00 -
[324] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:- A general percentage reduction to *all* jobs would (perversely) probably actually be less troublesome to push higher; the 1% is somewhat constrained by our desire not to push build times below copy times, so if we did a skill that affected copy and build equally (along with research, which is clearly a pretty valuable bonus for people researching in the new system), we would probably push it up to the 3-5%/level range.
I would be happy with this. We have suggested 3% already, but obviously if you would be prepared to go to 5% per level then that would be great. As was suggested by someone earlier you could make the bonuses incremental so either 1%/2%/3%/4%/5% for 15% bonus or 1%/3%/5%/7%/9% for 25% bonus. I like the idea of the second as then training from level 4 > 5 will grant a 9% bonus, which is quite substantial.
Quote:- Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want.
Obviously it would depend on what the skills would be. Did you have anything in mind, even if it's just an idea? |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 11:55:00 -
[325] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:- A general percentage reduction to *all* jobs would (perversely) probably actually be less troublesome to push higher; the 1% is somewhat constrained by our desire not to push build times below copy times, so if we did a skill that affected copy and build equally (along with research, which is clearly a pretty valuable bonus for people researching in the new system), we would probably push it up to the 3-5%/level range.
- Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want.
I really like both of these options. The first option would be great, and the second option would make an nice addition although not essential.
I do think this would entail a wider change of all the skills though related to industry and science, things already are overlapping with industry being required for material efficiency for example. If industry and science skills as a whole were more linked that would make a lot of sense.
Perhaps something like this:
Industry = 5% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Manufacture (previously material efficiency) = 4% reduction to manufacture jobs per level Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
This would mean all jobs could get a skill based time multiplier of 0.6x, which would hopefully keep everything equal. Skill progression would make a lot more sense also. |
Setsune Rin
Collapsed Out Overload Everything
209
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 11:56:00 -
[326] - Quote
Quote:- Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want.
while i feel the idea behind it isn't bad at all, and it instills a bit more value into the skill i'd still like to see it's standalone value adjusted to more acceptable levels
it will never really match up to it's current tq value, but a less OP skill with some new shinies branching off from it will go a long way to alleviate some of the sting, even if it does requiire some extra training to fully utilize
but to emphasize: it can't be 1% production time it has to be something that directly saves you isk, like a % per level install cost reduction like was mentioned earlier or something along those lines
otherwise you're just swapping and old skill for a completely new one that doesn't match any of it's old value in the slightest |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2465
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 11:56:00 -
[327] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- A general percentage reduction to *all* jobs would (perversely) probably actually be less troublesome to push higher; the 1% is somewhat constrained by our desire not to push build times below copy times, so if we did a skill that affected copy and build equally (along with research, which is clearly a pretty valuable bonus for people researching in the new system), we would probably push it up to the 3-5%/level range. I would be happy with this. We have suggested 3% already, but obviously if you would be prepared to go to 5% per level then that would be great. As was suggested by someone earlier you could make the bonuses incremental so either 1%/2%/3%/4%/5% for 15% bonus or 1%/3%/5%/7%/9% for 25% bonus. I like the idea of the second as then training from level 4 > 5 will grant a 9% bonus, which is quite substantial. Quote:- Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want. Obviously it would depend on what the skills would be. Did you have anything in mind, even if it's just an idea?
We're unlikely to go with a non-linear bonus because it goes completely against how the skill system is (very deliberately) set up to give diminishing returns over time.
As to what skills, the floor's wide open on that. Some more advanced industry skills would probably be a reasonable idea generally, and anything that is a number in the game we can affect with skills without a whole lot of effort. |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 12:05:00 -
[328] - Quote
Or alternatively:
Industry = 4% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
[Pre req Industry V] Advanced Industry = 3% reduction to manufacture and science jobs per level
This would confer a larger advantage to science, which seems in line with your goal of keeping copy times under build times. And also would slightly offset the massive increase in time required to get a perfect BPO under the new system.
Manufacture time reduction would be = 0.68x Science time reduction would be = 0.544x |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
294
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 12:58:00 -
[329] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: We're unlikely to go with a non-linear bonus because it goes completely against how the skill system is (very deliberately) set up to give diminishing returns over time.
Thanks for clarifying that (again). It's amazing how many people don't get that.
That said, the '5%/lvl time reduction on everything' - approach sounds interesting, even though i won't profit too much from it. It's still appealing due to its elegance.
The change would also be very similar to the scanning changes, where the mandatory skill (astrometrics) got 5% of everything scanning related. |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 12:58:00 -
[330] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Or alternatively:
Industry = 4% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
[Pre req Industry V] Advanced Industry = 3% reduction to manufacture and science jobs per level
This would confer a larger advantage to science, which seems in line with your goal of keeping copy times under build times. And also would slightly offset the massive increase in time required to get a perfect BPO under the new system.
Manufacture time reduction would be = 0.68x Science time reduction would be = 0.544x
Can I just check something out of interest?
Are you saying that Science would have a pre req of Industry IV? and What is the reason for lowering the M,R,S skills from 5% to 4%? |
|
Mardris Fol
Den Sorte Loge Redrum Fleet
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:20:00 -
[331] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything.
Patch notes are too late.
You (collectively) write blogs and make postings telling people what's coming in the next patch. Players start making decisions - switch training plans, switch what they're building/selling in anticipation.
Your ideas change over time, which is fine but what's not fine is you leave the old blogs up there.
CCP has just re-publicised the next patch and point players at the original blogs, for example:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/
This still states:
Quote:To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower," when we know this idea has been canned. I expect ideas to develop over but CCP could do a better job of removing or correcting the misleading information, or caveat it at least - the starbase blog ends:
Quote:We hope this will shed some light on the various changes coming to Starbases in the Crius release on July 22nd and help you make the right industrial decisions before its goes live. The Community site is a good place to make players who don't have time to scan the forums or play-test sisi, aware of upcoming changes. But it needs to be kept (reasonably) up to date and include significant changes - like completely changing a skill!
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:21:00 -
[332] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Or alternatively:
Industry = 4% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
[Pre req Industry V] Advanced Industry = 3% reduction to manufacture and science jobs per level
This would confer a larger advantage to science, which seems in line with your goal of keeping copy times under build times. And also would slightly offset the massive increase in time required to get a perfect BPO under the new system.
Manufacture time reduction would be = 0.68x Science time reduction would be = 0.544x Can I just check something out of interest? Are you saying that Science would have a pre req of Industry IV? and What is the reason for lowering the M,R,S skills from 5% to 4%? Yes, under my suggestion Industry would encompass all of the science and manufacture skills. Right now ME research requires Industry, but the others don't, so it doesn't follow much of a logical progression.
Also the reason I reduced them by 1% in that proposal was because higher level skills should give equal or less benefit than the base skill, and also the cumulative bonus may be too high if they are at 5% reduction per level still.
I guess you could keep them at 5% though, but then you would have a science reduction of 0.51x, so am not sure if that is feasible. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2465
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:27:00 -
[333] - Quote
Mardris Fol wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything. Patch notes are too late. You (collectively) write blogs and make postings telling people what's coming in the next patch. Players start making decisions - switch training plans, switch what they're building/selling in anticipation. Your ideas change over time, which is fine but what's not fine is you leave the old blogs up there. CCP has just re-publicised the next patch and point players at the original blogs, for example: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/This still states: Quote:To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower," when we know this idea has been canned. I expect ideas to develop over but CCP could do a better job of removing or correcting the misleading information, or caveat it at least - the starbase blog ends: Quote:We hope this will shed some light on the various changes coming to Starbases in the Crius release on July 22nd and help you make the right industrial decisions before its goes live. The Community site is a good place to make players who don't have time to scan the forums or play-test sisi, aware of upcoming changes. But it needs to be kept (reasonably) up to date and include significant changes - like completely changing a skill!
Yeah ok, this is a reasonable criticism. I'm making a note to discuss this with the rest of the design department regarding future releases. |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 13:34:00 -
[334] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Or alternatively:
Industry = 4% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
[Pre req Industry V] Advanced Industry = 3% reduction to manufacture and science jobs per level
This would confer a larger advantage to science, which seems in line with your goal of keeping copy times under build times. And also would slightly offset the massive increase in time required to get a perfect BPO under the new system.
Manufacture time reduction would be = 0.68x Science time reduction would be = 0.544x Can I just check something out of interest? Are you saying that Science would have a pre req of Industry IV? and What is the reason for lowering the M,R,S skills from 5% to 4%? Yes, under my suggestion Industry would encompass all of the science and manufacture skills. Right now ME research requires Industry, but the others don't, so it doesn't follow much of a logical progression. Also the reason I reduced them by 1% in that proposal was because higher level skills should give equal or less benefit than the base skill, and also the cumulative bonus may be too high if they are at 5% reduction per level still. I guess you could keep them at 5% though, but then you would have a science reduction of 0.51x, so am not sure if that is feasible.
OK that all makes sense and I could agree with this idea. One thing that strikes me though is what about all of the skills that Science unlocks, particularly in the first 2 and some of level 3? They are not related to Industry and so would not fit in, would you propose to just remove Science as a Pre Req for those skills? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 14:53:00 -
[335] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mardris Fol wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything. Patch notes are too late. You (collectively) write blogs and make postings telling people what's coming in the next patch. Players start making decisions - switch training plans, switch what they're building/selling in anticipation. Your ideas change over time, which is fine but what's not fine is you leave the old blogs up there. CCP has just re-publicised the next patch and point players at the original blogs, for example: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/This still states: Quote:To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower," when we know this idea has been canned. I expect ideas to develop over but CCP could do a better job of removing or correcting the misleading information, or caveat it at least - the starbase blog ends: Quote:We hope this will shed some light on the various changes coming to Starbases in the Crius release on July 22nd and help you make the right industrial decisions before its goes live. The Community site is a good place to make players who don't have time to scan the forums or play-test sisi, aware of upcoming changes. But it needs to be kept (reasonably) up to date and include significant changes - like completely changing a skill! Yeah ok, this is a reasonable criticism. I'm making a note to discuss this with the rest of the design department regarding future releases.
With higher tempo releases the amount of misinformation will be much higher as it will come faster and faster, although volume will probably be much lower.
That being said it wouldn't be the end of the world to put out patch notes for the next expansion the day after Crius ships and use the one line method to show how things have changed since the beginning. Dev-blogs are nice but more for the general feel of what is coming and specific numbers etc, but the general patch notes should be available a lot sooner. That also allows people to see the progression of the patch notes over time.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2467
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 14:57:00 -
[336] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Mardris Fol wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- Common spot for all changes is the patchnotes; I don't want to talk about exact times because Community is co-ordinating when they're released, but they're a shade under 6000 words and should cover everything. Patch notes are too late. You (collectively) write blogs and make postings telling people what's coming in the next patch. Players start making decisions - switch training plans, switch what they're building/selling in anticipation. Your ideas change over time, which is fine but what's not fine is you leave the old blogs up there. CCP has just re-publicised the next patch and point players at the original blogs, for example: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/starbase-changes-for-crius/This still states: Quote:To counteract this point, we are going to give specific bonuses when Starbase structures of the same type are stacked together at the same control tower," when we know this idea has been canned. I expect ideas to develop over but CCP could do a better job of removing or correcting the misleading information, or caveat it at least - the starbase blog ends: Quote:We hope this will shed some light on the various changes coming to Starbases in the Crius release on July 22nd and help you make the right industrial decisions before its goes live. The Community site is a good place to make players who don't have time to scan the forums or play-test sisi, aware of upcoming changes. But it needs to be kept (reasonably) up to date and include significant changes - like completely changing a skill! Yeah ok, this is a reasonable criticism. I'm making a note to discuss this with the rest of the design department regarding future releases. With higher tempo releases the amount of misinformation will be much higher as it will come faster and faster, although volume will probably be much lower. That being said it wouldn't be the end of the world to put out patch notes for the next expansion the day after Crius ships and use the one line method to show how things have changed since the beginning. Dev-blogs are nice but more for the general feel of what is coming and specific numbers etc, but the general patch notes should be available a lot sooner. That also allows people to see the progression of the patch notes over time.
Interesting suggestion, thanks :) |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:05:00 -
[337] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:OK that all makes sense and I could agree with this idea. One thing that strikes me though is what about all of the skills that Science unlocks, particularly in the first 2 and some of level 3? They are not related to Industry and so would not fit in, would you propose to just remove Science as a Pre Req for those skills? I don't think that would be a problem, as industry is a low ranking skill, and so it would be neglible to get it to level IV, it takes around 20 hours only . And also due to nested skill requirements those who for whatever reason don't have industry to IV, would still have the science skills. |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:12:00 -
[338] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- A general percentage reduction to *all* jobs would (perversely) probably actually be less troublesome to push higher; the 1% is somewhat constrained by our desire not to push build times below copy times, so if we did a skill that affected copy and build equally (along with research, which is clearly a pretty valuable bonus for people researching in the new system), we would probably push it up to the 3-5%/level range.
- Adding some new skills with this skill at 5 as a prerequisite is something we could definitely look into; is this something that would make people feel better about having it at 5? They would then likely be "advanced", optional skills targeted at specific niches and very much not required to compete, but we could probably pick a handful such that everyone has at least one they'd want. I really like both of these options. The first option would be great, and the second option would make an nice addition although not essential. I do think this would entail a wider change of all the skills though related to industry and science, things already are overlapping with industry being required for material efficiency for example. If industry and science skills as a whole were more linked that would make a lot of sense. Perhaps something like this: Industry = 5% reduction to science and manufacture jobs per level
[Pre req Industry IV]
Manufacture (previously material efficiency) = 4% reduction to manufacture jobs per level Metallurgy = 4% reduction to ME research per level Research = 4% reduction to PE research per level Science = 4% reduction to Copy research per level
This would mean all jobs could get a skill based time multiplier of 0.6x, which would hopefully keep everything equal. Skill progression would make a lot more sense also.
I would add two more to this list
Facility Efficiency, Pre Requisite Industry V, 3% Reduction in Research and Manufacturing Installation Costs per level Industrial Relationsp, Pre Requisite Industry, 5% Reduction in NPC Facility taxes on Research and Manufacturing Installation Costs per level.
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2467
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:18:00 -
[339] - Quote
If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? |
|
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:22:00 -
[340] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
I'm dead set against time bonuses being the ONLY bonuses.
I'd be definitely cool with what Medalyn Isis' proposal with the two skills I added to it, and Facility Efficiency being the replacement for Material Efficiency. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:22:00 -
[341] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
3-5% reduction across all Industry jobs |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:23:00 -
[342] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:OK that all makes sense and I could agree with this idea. One thing that strikes me though is what about all of the skills that Science unlocks, particularly in the first 2 and some of level 3? They are not related to Industry and so would not fit in, would you propose to just remove Science as a Pre Req for those skills? I don't think that would be a problem, as industry is a low ranking skill, and so it would be neglible to get it to level IV, it takes around 20 hours only . And also due to nested skill requirements those who for whatever reason don't have industry to IV, would still have the science skills. Also science skills aren't related to there pre reqs in most circumstances already. Mechanics, elecontrics, engineering are all not related but still pre reqs.
Yep fair enough, gets a +1 from me.
|
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:26:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: - A big part of the reason why we're pushing back on a reimbursement here is that it's a thing that is becoming a habit and we want to push back against it being the default option. There's a lot of things feeding into this, but a major part of it is the model of the value of skill training that considers skills as an ongoing cycle of anticipation and accomplishment, and the way that (for many people, we understand how skill plans work) future training goals more more defined as longer-term skills get close to finishing. By giving people windfalls of skillpoints, we a) suddenly cut short the anticipation, which is expected to also reduce the feeling of accomplishment, and b) break the natural cycle of goal-setting by completing goals unexpectedly early and without the lead-in time to consider and select new ones. We understand that the psychological value that this sets up is not considered relevant by some of our players, but we have to also consider the ones who do derive satisfaction from this sort of system, and skillpoint windfalls can be self-defeating for them.
OK dude, but you gotta reconcile this philosophy with paying customers who spent money for the SP that you're re-purposing into something they may not want. For example, I can't use a time efficiency bonus like what is being suggested in this thread because I don't run jobs continuously. I certainly wouldn't take such a skill to V. I skilled ME to get into booster manufacturing. The manufacturing stage already runs faster than the POS reaction upstream from it, so this time bonus idea is completely useless to me. Job install cost bonus would be better but still not something I would take to V for a Rank 3 skill.
Eve is about choice but that's also the problem: i.e. you want a new bonus for this skill that you want everyone to be happy with but everyone has made different choices in the game leading up to the decison to skill ME V and so it is Mission Impossible to please everyone with this or that "other" bonus to replace it.
If an SP refund is off the table for philosophical reasons fine. Let me suggest an alternative option. You know the Cerebral Accelerator that you have available for new pilots? You guys should design one to distribute as compensation to customers who are negatively impacted by major skill changes. Not exactly the same as the Cerebral Accelerator, but lets say this implant will allow you to train SP at the maximum rate that TQ allows currently if you were perfectly mapped for the skill in the queue and with 5% attribute implants. This would be highly valuable because everyone needs to train skills quite often that are outside their current neural map. The implant would last for a set amount of time or a set amount of SP, say the difference between your prior SP gain rate and the max rate would drain the SP value loaded on the implant. The item could also perhaps be transferred to alts on the same account, but otherwise could not be traded or sold
This form of compensation for skill changes fits better with your philosophy of not "devaluing" the satisfaction of progressing your character by a flat SP refund. It also keeps players subscribing so they can benefit from this form of compensation, which is good for your company's bottom line. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
294
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:28:00 -
[344] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
The second solution again sounds like it only benefits hardcore industrialists.
Since time reduction translates into cost reduction with the new system, it would be closer to what people originally intended with training that skill, no? |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
635
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:30:00 -
[345] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? The second solution again sounds like it only benefits hardcore industrialists.?
... that's the point of specialization Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2467
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:40:00 -
[346] - Quote
Maduin Shi wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - A big part of the reason why we're pushing back on a reimbursement here is that it's a thing that is becoming a habit and we want to push back against it being the default option. There's a lot of things feeding into this, but a major part of it is the model of the value of skill training that considers skills as an ongoing cycle of anticipation and accomplishment, and the way that (for many people, we understand how skill plans work) future training goals more more defined as longer-term skills get close to finishing. By giving people windfalls of skillpoints, we a) suddenly cut short the anticipation, which is expected to also reduce the feeling of accomplishment, and b) break the natural cycle of goal-setting by completing goals unexpectedly early and without the lead-in time to consider and select new ones. We understand that the psychological value that this sets up is not considered relevant by some of our players, but we have to also consider the ones who do derive satisfaction from this sort of system, and skillpoint windfalls can be self-defeating for them.
OK dude, but you gotta reconcile this philosophy with paying customers who spent money for the SP that you're re-purposing into something they may not want. For example, I can't use a time efficiency bonus like what is being suggested in this thread because I don't run jobs continuously. I certainly wouldn't take such a skill to V. I skilled ME to get into booster manufacturing. The manufacturing stage already runs faster than the POS reaction upstream from it, so this time bonus idea is completely useless to me. Job install cost bonus would be better but still not something I would take to V for a Rank 3 skill. Eve is about choice but that's also the problem: i.e. you want a new bonus for this skill that you want everyone to be happy with but everyone has made different choices in the game leading up to the decison to skill ME V and so it is Mission Impossible to please everyone with this or that "other" bonus to replace it. If an SP refund is off the table for philosophical reasons fine. Let me suggest an alternative option. You know the Cerebral Accelerator that you have available for new pilots? You guys should design one to distribute as compensation to customers who are negatively impacted by major skill changes. Not exactly the same as the Cerebral Accelerator, but lets say this implant will allow you to train SP at the maximum rate that TQ allows currently if you were perfectly mapped for the skill in the queue and with 5% attribute implants. This would be highly valuable because everyone needs to train skills quite often that are outside their current neural map. The implant would last for a set amount of time or a set amount of SP, say the difference between your prior SP gain rate and the max rate would drain the SP value loaded on the implant. The item could also perhaps be transferred to alts on the same account, but otherwise could not be traded or sold This form of compensation for skill changes fits better with your philosophy of not "devaluing" the satisfaction of progressing your character by a flat SP refund. It also keeps players subscribing so they can benefit from this form of compensation, which is good for your company's bottom line.
Trying to reconcile those things is exactly why we're having this conversation.
As to the idea of a time-limited booster as compensation, that is a very interesting suggestion that I will take up with people. Thanks :) |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
290
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 15:48:00 -
[347] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? 3-5% reduction across all Industry jobs, for now. Then a proper solution can be worked out for the next patch I'd agree. Give a bonus across industry and science jobs for now, and then perhaps after the patch look at a more thorough overhaul of the science and manufacturing related skills. |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
327
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 16:27:00 -
[348] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? 3-5% reduction across all Industry jobs, for now. Then a proper solution can be worked out for the next patch I'd agree. Give a bonus across industry and science jobs for now, and then perhaps after the patch look at a more thorough overhaul of the science and manufacturing related skills. +1'd
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
340
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 16:28:00 -
[349] - Quote
I really don't see how refunds is worse for the "perceived value" of skillpoints than is an arbitrary re-purposing of a skill people have already sunk their time into.
And if there are some people out there who gets satisfaction from the skill queue management experience, they can just go ahead and not spend the unallocated skillpoints. |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
145
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 17:20:00 -
[350] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
Well option 1 is getting close to something useful. But I have actually not dealt with the upcoming work flows, so I sure don't feel comfortable in saying yup that's the one. But with it being across all industy jobs, something has be of benefit? And these are 3-5% per level, correct?
And option 2 is rather vague to me. So with my wild imagination, I best leave it alone.
damn it is hard to delete my signature |
|
Cyno Alt II
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 17:26:00 -
[351] - Quote
Will the Capital Ship Construction skill still require the Advanced Industry (former Material Efficiency) skill as a prerequisite? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 17:47:00 -
[352] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
I kind of like the 3-5% TE reduction for ALL jobs
If that one does go in, it probably oesn't NEED to be a pre req for Capital Construction, because then you would jack up Cap build time by 20% to make the 25% reduction the same as it is nowGǪinstead of all those changes, just eliminate it as a pre req and be done.
Personally, I haven't looked at the numbers, but 3% (15% total) seems like a nice balance for a rank 3 skill. Especially with the chance of an advanced skill giving like 2% per level in the future maybe |
Obunagawe
377
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 17:48:00 -
[353] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: As to the idea of a time-limited booster as compensation, that is a very interesting suggestion that I will take up with people. Thanks :)
What do people whose accounts were inactive when the changes were made get? |
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 18:03:00 -
[354] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
Why can you not see that time reduction means nothing when most people do not build things 24/7. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2470
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 18:10:00 -
[355] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Well option 1 is getting close to something useful and level 5 worthy. But I have actually not dealt with the upcoming work flows, so I sure don't feel comfortable in saying yup that's the one. But with it being across all industy jobs, something has be of benefit? And these are 3-5% per level, correct? And option 2 is rather vague to me. So with my wild imagination, I best leave it alone.
Per level is what we're discussing, yes.
Cyno Alt II wrote:Will the Capital Ship Construction skill still require the Advanced Industry (former Material Efficiency) skill as a prerequisite?
Up for discussion.
Obunagawe wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: As to the idea of a time-limited booster as compensation, that is a very interesting suggestion that I will take up with people. Thanks :)
What do people whose accounts were inactive when the changes were made get?
There are ways we could deal with that, I think, but it's just an idea at this point :)
afkboss wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Why can you not see that time reduction means nothing when most people do not build things 24/7.
People do research things 24/7, though, which this would also apply to. Again though, the discussion is still open, some people are advocating this option, I see upsides and downsides, I'm happy to discuss further :)
Do I take it from your comment that you would prefer the second option? |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 18:23:00 -
[356] - Quote
afkboss wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Why can you not see that time reduction means nothing when most people do not build things 24/7.
Once again don't forget that in Crius installation costs are directly linked to the time the job takes. So anyone who starts a job of any kind will benefit from it, though it may not be all that much. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2826
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 18:31:00 -
[357] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? How about the lower limit, 3%, AND additional skills?
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kale Freeman
Dirt 'n' Glitter I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 19:01:00 -
[358] - Quote
I vote for the time bonus.
The only people who won't benefit from it are the people who choose to run small runs of small things. Anyone manufacturing seriously will be attempting to get maximum use out of each slot, so they are probably already running n*24 + 22 hour jobs. These are also the people who would have invested the time into training the skill previously, because it was pretty much a hard rule that it was required for serious manufacturing.
This will also provide some reprieve for the newbie manufacturers who face the research mountain. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 19:32:00 -
[359] - Quote
Kale Freeman wrote:I vote for the time bonus.
The only people who won't benefit from it are the people who choose to run small runs of small things. Anyone manufacturing seriously will be attempting to get maximum use out of each slot, so they are probably already running n*24 + 22 hour jobs. These are also the people who would have invested the time into training the skill previously, because it was pretty much a hard rule that it was required for serious manufacturing.
ME 5 was critical to anyone who manufactured, big- or small-time, as otherwise, it would make better financial sense to sell your resources and buy what you wanted from the market. Even small-time manufacturers (the ones like myself who don't have their lines going continuously) were able to see a huge benefit from having ME to 5.
Anyway, I still don't want the skill to apply to only manufacturing, if it has to remain as a time bonus. If it is staying that way, having a higher percentage would at least make the per-time cost savings more than a few ISK on shorter runs. Having the skill affect all industry and science jobs (even at a lower percentage) would be preferable, as it would actually have a solid use for people who don't keep their lines going back-to-back as it would reduce costs across the board. |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 19:46:00 -
[360] - Quote
I pay a monthly subscription so my indy alt can train. If you take away a skill you should refund either the skillpoints or the game time.
Please see this from your Customers point of view and understand why people are angry. |
|
Etara Silverblade
Cynosural Edge Yulai Federation
23
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 20:27:00 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
If the choice has to be made then the first one (3-5% all jobs time reduction) but you have to promise to fix this in the next patch and give us back a skill that is more like the original. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 20:37:00 -
[362] - Quote
Etara Silverblade wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? If the choice has to be made then the first one (3-5% all jobs time reduction) but you have to promise to fix this in the next patch and give us back a skill that is more like the original. The original (ME) was too strong. Having a weaker skill is fine, just so long as it's actually useful for everyone, and not just the most active manufacturers. Material Efficiency had to go, there's no two ways to look at that, and having a skill put back in that's "like the original" would make it too strong, as well. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
65
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 21:08:00 -
[363] - Quote
I was pushing for fee reduction earlier, but I'd take a time bonus on all S&I jobs as well. It'd particularly benefit people who went full everything S&I on one character which, well, I didn't, but it would definitely be both less mandatory than the material skill (which is important) and still useful. I haven't trained Rapid Firing to V, for example, but I can see where its last 3% could be useful.
On the other hand, I'm not keen on the idea of increasing the rank but leaving the SP constant. That would bother me for reasons I'm not sure I can articulate well. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
470
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 21:32:00 -
[364] - Quote
The problem is that you want to take a skill that was mandatory and very powerful and turn it into something insignificant. It's just not going to work, and you're not going to make people happy. It's a pretty crap move on your part, really, and you know it. You also seem hell-bent on propping up nullsec industry with this skill, which is also a crap move though forgiveable if you consider the makeup of the CSM.
If you don't want to refund, for whatever reason it is -- and none of the explanations given have any chance of actually holding water -- then you need to do something you don't want to do: make this a mandatory skill but with lesser impact. Not only should it open the gateway to more skills as in your "#2 option", but it should also give the players something extra as well.
Call it Industry Specialization (3x), and let it reduce installation costs by 5% per level. It would be more useful to more customers than a time bonus would, since it helps hisec more than it helps nullsec (instead of the other way around). It can give people a little more option in deciding how far to move away from Jita vs the cost of training this skill; those who trained it early would be able to absorb the costs of being closer to Jita more than someone without it. You cold also choose to ignore this skill and relocate your industry to a quiet, backwater system.
Then add skills (8x ?) that further reduce various industry times (Copy, Invention, Reverse Engineering, Manufacturing, ME Research, TE Research), skills that increase effectiveness of teams in varying ways, skills that reduce team costs ... all reductions should be some minor-but-not-insignificant amount that require this Industry Specialization skill at level 5.
These would be specialisation skills; you want them all, but you only have reason to train for the aspects of industry that you actually use.
|
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
811
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 22:29:00 -
[365] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
Is the reduction in job cost completely off the table now? Because that's the kind of thing you'd expect there to be a skill for honestly.
But between those two choices I'd pick the additional skills. More ways to specialize in this game is always good IMO (without creating a skill tree the size of Texas). My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
48
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 23:10:00 -
[366] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Now you are asking a hard question. I see it as such, the 3-5% all jobs time reduction is the minimal that needs to be done.
The additional specialism skills (such as Facility Efficiency, Industrial Relations, etc) with Industry or Advanced Industry as prereq must also be done, but that can wait for next month or next release. You will need the feedback from the community and the emergent results from Crius to make proper decision for the industrial skill tree. You should make F&I tread for this next week. |
Sjaandi HyShan
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 00:07:00 -
[367] - Quote
- If I had to pick one, I'd go with the TE bonus instead of the new skills: we already have a lot of skills prereqs, and we already have skills like ship construction that give no benefit per level other than unlocking ships at arbitrary levels (and often with gaps in-between). I might be ok with it if you also did a production skill revamp and made this skill flow better with those (because let's face it, the tieracide of the production skills hasn't happened yet).
- You might take a look at the accelerator thing. I don't know if it would work, but it would be nice for things that have many prereqs in one remap, but take another to realize (like Light Interdictors, all the prereqs take Int/Mem, except for racial destroyer V. Allowing the train for Destroyer V at max speed would be great for those training up the Int/Mem requirements for it.
- Another thought, what if we could pay for rush jobs, and this would reduce the cost of that? That way, if we needed components for a ship quicker, or were trying to beat a competitor, we could pay an "overtime" fee to our workers, and this skill would reduce the cost of that. This would be more in the spirit of providing more diversity and not using SP as the primary factor in succeeding in Industry.
|
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
137
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 00:52:00 -
[368] - Quote
I'd vote for option 2 -- under the assumption that the specialization skills would be desirable.
As an aside: ME 5 will no longer be a requirement, but haven't most manufacturers recouped their time investment from having ME 5 for the last X years?
|
Manfred Hideous
TOHOKU 9.0
72
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 01:14:00 -
[369] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
Are we back to this? Part time producers don't get much from this skill. A reduction in job cost or an additional slot per level might be good but if the time reduction is pushed, I'd hope you give us the ability to move our SP elsewhere. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
85
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 01:15:00 -
[370] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:I'd vote for option 2 -- under the assumption that the specialization skills would be desirable.
As an aside: ME 5 will no longer be a requirement, but haven't most manufacturers recouped their time investment from having ME 5 for the last X years?
What if i finished training a capital alt last week?? |
|
Sjaandi HyShan
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 01:28:00 -
[371] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:I'd vote for option 2 -- under the assumption that the specialization skills would be desirable.
As an aside: ME 5 will no longer be a requirement, but haven't most manufacturers recouped their time investment from having ME 5 for the last X years?
If you count a grand total of 10 production jobs and a month of having it, sure. Remember, there are a lot of new players to the game too. 750K experience is a lot to me ATM. In 3 years, maybe not too much. |
Sjaandi HyShan
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 01:34:00 -
[372] - Quote
Manfred Hideous wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Are we back to this? Part time producers don't get much from this skill. A reduction in job cost or an additional slot per level might be good but if the time reduction is pushed, I'd hope you give us the ability to move our SP elsewhere.
Well, with the changes it would save money from less time installed, and don't forget, manufacturing is not the bottleneck. It's research, invention, copying. It's much easier to keep those research slots filled up 24/7 then production, since production hardly takes any time at all (I can produce a BS in 3 hours, but researching one ME of a frigate takes over a day). |
Kuroi Aurgnet
Celestial Phoenix Industries
15
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 02:01:00 -
[373] - Quote
--TL;DR at bottom--
Okay, so.... I'm not going to lie- reading this thread has been as painful as removing teeth.
Lets have a small summation here:
CCP made a mistake. Oops. Mistakes happen. But this was a pretty big mistake and should never happen again.
Lots of hot air from all sides. People who are angry that something that they spent tons of time training has become invalid- this is by far not the first time it has happened (and frankly it SHOULDN'T EVER HAPPEN, but sometimes choices are made that the consequences arent clear until its too late- i.e. designing the skills this way), and it probably won't be the last time. At the same time we have a ton of people snapping at them saying "grow up and get over it". None of this is helping the problem at hand. We ALL want eve to be a good experience for everyone- so strive for that shall we?
Greyscale has gone from being kinda.... not so here on the issue to being actively in this thread. Hopefully the latter becomes the norm because I went from unimpressed to impressed as he started really actively talking to players. It was a bit late, truthfully- this kind of interaction should be the NORM with a game this big- but I really appreciate the effort he has begun to put into this thread. So thank you.
NOW, on to the meat and bones- as someone who joined this game several years ago on the premise of industry (shocker, aint it?), I too think that the 1% time reduction is a bit underwhelming (read: frankly ridiculous) . While I don't understand the issue with "mandatory skills" as there are plenty of skills that do a lot for players in many departments and are mandatory to use well (thankfully most of them that are left are 1x skills which is a lot more acceptable), I do understand that the ME skill was a bit.... powerful. That being said, here's what I personally think would be best:
1. Keep it as a ME based skill, lower the percentage per level to around 1%. sure, "waste" as a mechanic is being removed, but iirc you are bumping up build materials to compensate- meaning that you aren't ACTUALLY removing waste. you are just re-branding it as the norm. So, a small materials bonus wouldnt be that ridiculous because it wouldnt be changing too much from what the system currently is, in my honest opinion. I know this mechanic is changed up with teams- but that's what happens when you randomly introduce new mechanics. But a ME based skill FEELS the best, even if the amount is a bit more marginal. EVERYONE benefits from it in a completely balanced way- whether they only manufacture a few things here or there, or manufacture EVERY DAY- a materials decrease is the most tangible benefit, so why remove it. just tone it down.
2. If you are REALLY adamantly against it- then the next best idea is the aforementioned idea of changing industry and this new "advanced industry" to affect install costs of ALL jobs, and then later on adding skills (or modifying the existing ones) to specialize in each field. While this would still be a small kick in the shins for all of us industrial players who trained ME5 (which is basically EVERY serious industrialist)- this is a buff to the industry skill and if you make the advanced version at least 3-5%, then it would almost compensate for the change- especially if you add in some new ways to further drive down costs (especially if theyre just buffing some of the old skills that are only borderline useful).
Remember that industry is a REALLY delicate and important part of eve- and as much as there are some people who wouldnt like to admit it, industry is just as as important as PvP if not more. Those ships and ammo and drones and modules etc dont just build themselves. So be careful on this CCP. We all want to give you our trust- but lately we've been blindsided a lot and we're all a bit confused and hurting from the wave of changes that many of us still aren't truly prepared for (the details of which have been changing almost every week). So lets just all work together on getting this done ASAP =) I want to continue to have faith in the longevity of this game, and the work of the devs- lets make that happen! =)
--TL;DR--
summary of thread, personal opinion agreeing with general consensus of 1% being underwhelming. two proposed ideas: keep ME just nerf percentages, or change industry and advanced industry to buff costs for all jobs- not just manufacturing. then add specialization capabilities to further reduce costs (as the new cost system kinda really sucks in all honesty.)
Just that hint of cynicism the world needs now and then. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 04:30:00 -
[374] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
I'd put my vote on the all jobtime reduction. |
Orin Solette
Omamori Himari Pandora Hearts
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 04:44:00 -
[375] - Quote
I was training a manufacturing alt. Then the dev blogs got released.
I sure wish I didn't waste that plex on something I could've done almost just as good with a fresh toon.
Thanks for the bait and switch I guess. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
517
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 04:55:00 -
[376] - Quote
People who are saying that install cost is based on job run time...what? In Crius I thought job install cost was going to be based on the market value of the materials?
I said it before in the thread and it got ignored, I'll say it again.
The skill should reduce the job install cost by 25 or 50% total at level 5. This ends up being a less significant improvement than the ME skill (up to something like 7% in very busy systems) and it's not mandatory since people without the skill can save even more than that by moving to a different, less busy system.
It's a win-win. The skill continues to do kind of the same thing as no (reduce cost of manufacturing), is fairly powerful but nowhere near as powerful as the current iteration, and isn't mandatory. |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 05:09:00 -
[377] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:People who are saying that install cost is based on job run time...what? In Crius I thought job install cost was going to be based on the market value of the materials?
I said it before in the thread and it got ignored, I'll say it again.
The skill should reduce the job install cost by 25 or 50% total at level 5. This ends up being a less significant improvement than the ME skill (up to something like 7% in very busy systems) and it's not mandatory since people without the skill can save even more than that by moving to a different, less busy system.
It's a win-win. The skill continues to do kind of the same thing as no (reduce cost of manufacturing), is fairly powerful but nowhere near as powerful as the current iteration, and isn't mandatory.
This kind of thing is what I was thinking when I suggested somewhere between 5% and 10% per level job cost reduction. I didn't have the actual savings laid out, so it's nice that somebody does. It'd help people in nullsec most, but the blocs are already rich as hell so that part doesn't really matter much to me. What this kind of thinking *does* do is encourage people to feel more free to manufacture closer to hubs and would create some potential for a little emergent gameplay where those who choose not to learn it could actually benefit MORE than those who do learn the skill by going into nowhere to make their products because they're willing to travel significantly longer distances, maybe even collecting their entire infrastructure and moving it from time to time so they can save a couple %. |
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 06:01:00 -
[378] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:People who are saying that install cost is based on job run time...what? In Crius I thought job install cost was going to be based on the market value of the materials?
I said it before in the thread and it got ignored, I'll say it again.
The skill should reduce the job install cost by 25 or 50% total at level 5. This ends up being a less significant improvement than the ME skill (up to something like 7% in very busy systems) and it's not mandatory since people without the skill can save even more than that by moving to a different, less busy system.
It's a win-win. The skill continues to do kind of the same thing as no (reduce cost of manufacturing), is fairly powerful but nowhere near as powerful as the current iteration, and isn't mandatory.
Yeah, unfortunately it will do next to nothing for pilots who currently do their manufacturing in w-space. But I guess I'm in the minority. That's why I proposed a Cerebral Accelerator type solution (in lieu of an SP refund). |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 06:02:00 -
[379] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq?
I would say 5% per level would be nice. But I wouldn't exclude additional skills having this one as prerequisite.
One idea for the new skills would time reductions that only affect specific products (something like gun assembly expertise or (Jump) freighter construction management). These would allow for serious producers to specialize on specific market segments through mass production.
(I would like to see skills that would increase the number of lines per character further but I do understand why that wouldn't be desirable)
On the topic of jump freighters, I noticed that with the changes the JF BPCs invented using accelerant decryptors went from 15 days build time to 25 days. Before Crius there was the option of sacrificing some margin (read 30% to 60% depending on market fluctuations) per ship to be able to almost double the monthly production and reduce the risk of said market fluctuations. Is this something that is going to be addressed in the invention changes? If not, are you planning on addressing to this situations? ( I know this is a bit off topic but it would be interesting to have some light shed over this). |
iovi Hashur
Genyosha Unlimited
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 08:34:00 -
[380] - Quote
wow really. Tbh i hadn't read any news the last 2-3 weeks but that post was unexpected. As someone stated above, eve time = sp. So i get it if CCP wants to stop this whole sp reimbursement thing but tbh I wouldn't have spend 11 days in that at all if it was any different skill.
With the crius, what i understand so far is that either you are a big time industrialist so you can make deals with others ang get teams on your area often, or you will have to move your setups (POSes etc) every once in a while. Mat efficiency was the skill that gave ppl like me a chance to build something small scale, even without having access to researched BPOs.
Now i get it you don't wanna give sp back, but seriously i expect to get a skill of the same importance. time aint important for me in manufacturing. Nor i wanna manufacture 24/7. That's it I am NOT interested in 24/7 production.
What i can propose is if you wanna make the skill about time efficiency, then lower its rank and don't give me the rest sp as reimbursement. Just add more skills and put them there in a next update. But i guess that query is gonna be lot more "stupid" than just giving sp back.
Or worst case scenario, give us a skill related to invention. cause i still cant really understand how i can compete with t2 BPOs that have + ML while i have to start at -4 |
|
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
294
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 09:33:00 -
[381] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:I said it before in the thread and it got ignored, I'll say it again.
The skill should reduce the job install cost by 25 or 50% total at level 5. This ends up being a less significant improvement than the ME skill (up to something like 7% in very busy systems) and it's not mandatory since people without the skill can save even more than that by moving to a different, less busy system. I disagree with what you suggest here. The main reason is it rewards players who make bad choices, and has minimal effect on those players who make the right choice.
Industry is all about making good choices now, and so to implement a skill which circumvents the folly of someone building in the wrong location seems contrary to the aims of these changes, and will not make for the good gameplay which crius is trying to implement into industry. |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
209
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 10:13:00 -
[382] - Quote
iovi Hashur wrote:
Or worst case scenario, give us a skill related to invention. cause i still cant really understand how i can compete with t2 BPOs that have + ML while i have to start at -4
I don't know how you overlooked this, but after Crius you won't start at -4 ME anymore. (For one thing, ME isn't calculated like that anymore, and new T2 BPCs get positive values from now on. There was even something about how all existing T2 BPCs at the point of conversion will get a one-time extra boost to make the numbers less awkward. The formula was something like ME -4 turns into ME 2, which is then converted into the new system. For some reason this will result in ME -7% BPCs. ) |
Avacore Estemaire
The Scope Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 12:13:00 -
[383] - Quote
I feel that the most flexible option is to introduce new high rank skills that require the Advanced Industry skill to 5. They don't have to do a lot but they would also fix the annoyance that you can have an almost perfect manufacturing toon in like a month or two for all but T2 ships. This is your big chance to introduce all those high SP fringe skills that people have thought of through the ages. I would say that the total time-reduction for manufacturing (or cost reduction or whatever) could total to 25% (as 5% per level would) but I think it should require exponentially more skillpoints, use the refining skilltree as a point of reference.
Also make sure the skill in itself isn't worthless so make it 2% for all or something like that and make capital construction require it to 5.
tl;dr option 2 |
iovi Hashur
Genyosha Unlimited
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 12:58:00 -
[384] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote:iovi Hashur wrote:
Or worst case scenario, give us a skill related to invention. cause i still cant really understand how i can compete with t2 BPOs that have + ML while i have to start at -4
I don't know how you overlooked this, but after Crius you won't start at -4 ME anymore. (For one thing, ME isn't calculated like that anymore, and new T2 BPCs get positive values from now on. There was even something about how all existing T2 BPCs at the point of conversion will get a one-time extra boost to make the numbers less awkward. The formula was something like ME -4 turns into ME 2, which is then converted into the new system. For some reason this will result in ME -7% BPCs. )
I did see the negative ME change. What i meant was that even if ME now is 0 or positive, there are still ppl that have researched t2 BPOs which they can copy. And I hope i have missed a post or something, but i didn't see any exact date when t2 BPOs will be removed.
Tbh i didn't read how the transition for existing BPCs will be, but I hope they have taken into account the fact that most t2 BPO owners already have made lots of BPCs in case they lose the originals.
Anyway the thing is that i changed my plan when i trained this skill just to be able to make my own stuff and possibly make some profit. So I'm not really a hardcore industrialist. Thus time efficiency in industry really is of no interest to me atm. I just feel like this change is happening really fast and i don't remember anything being mentioned in the fanfest or till kronos release. I hope they wont go on and make hasty changes. Cause afterall its 11days worth of sp. if it was rank 1 it wouldn't be so big deal |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2473
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 13:25:00 -
[385] - Quote
Kale Freeman wrote:I vote for the time bonus.
The only people who won't benefit from it are the people who choose to run small runs of small things. Anyone manufacturing seriously will be attempting to get maximum use out of each slot, so they are probably already running n*24 + 22 hour jobs. These are also the people who would have invested the time into training the skill previously, because it was pretty much a hard rule that it was required for serious manufacturing.
This will also provide some reprieve for the newbie manufacturers who face the research mountain
EDIT: As an aside, a more equitable solution for migrating the already researched blueprints would have been to preserve the hours of research put in. If I've put in 28 days of research into my blueprint, to get it to whatever ME/PE it is, then set my blueprint at such a level that it still represents 28 days of research.
The only downside is that the blueprint that used to be perfect, isn't perfect any more, but all the blueprints that used to be perfect would suffer the same fate, so any individual manufacturer would not be negatively affected because everyone would be in the same boat.
The current solution is allowing the existing veteran manufactuers to acquire blueprints that are effectively impossible (or totally impractical) for a new manufacturer to aim at. That last 1% ME is awesome, it simply 1% extra profit forever and ever, because only the grissly veterans who got it pre crius will ever have it. anyone who starts after crius will have missed the chance because now it is totally impractical to research to that level.
Anyway, I'll just quit now, coz my foot note is longer than my post!
With the constant-time approach, the player perspective that we're concerned about is "hey, I finish researching that blueprint and now I have to do a bunch more research to get back to where I was when I started", which we'd anticipate would cause a lot more uproar as we're taking absolute rather than comparative advantage away, and we lose the ability to say "yes, everyone caught up, but your blueprint still got a little bit better" (applies to most but not all cases). Yes, everyone would be affected the same, but everyone would need to research back up in order to catch up. It'd also presumably cause a huge output slowdown as people did so, and while we're expecting a fairly large market disruption anyway, this could end up being strongly counterproductive.
twit brent wrote:I pay a monthly subscription so my indy alt can train. If you take away a skill you should refund either the skillpoints or the game time.
Please see this from your Customers point of view and understand why people are angry.
We absolutely understand why people are angry, and it legitimately makes us sad to see everyone posting about it, but we need to balance that against the long-term health of the game, which sometimes forces us to make difficult decisions.
TigerXtrm wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Is the reduction in job cost completely off the table now? Because that's the kind of thing you'd expect there to be a skill for honestly. But between those two choices I'd pick the additional skills. More ways to specialize in this game is always good IMO (without creating a skill tree the size of Texas).
The problem with job cost reductions is that the job costs are already trying to be as small as possible without being irrelevant, and a 50% reduction pushes them way too far into the irrelevant direction. We could artificially increase the costs so that the skill brings them back down again, but that feels deeply artificial (and to some degree puts us back in the hole we started in, although not completely due to system-variable costs).
Shin Dari wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? Now you are asking a hard question. I see it as such, the 3-5% all jobs time reduction is the minimal that needs to be done. The additional specialism skills (such as Facility Efficiency, Industrial Relations, etc) with Industry or Advanced Industry as prereq must also be done, but that can wait for next month or next release. You will need the feedback from the community and the emergent results from Crius to make proper decision for the industrial skill tree. You should make F&I tread for this next week.
That is a pretty reasonable suggestion.
Shiloh Templeton wrote:I'd vote for option 2 -- under the assumption that the specialization skills would be desirable.
As an aside: ME 5 will no longer be a requirement, but haven't most manufacturers recouped their time investment from having ME 5 for the last X years?
Most but not all, yes, insofaras it is an investment and not simply a barrier to entry. That said, the bulk of this discussion is not rooted in raw numbers, so it's not a driving factor in the decision.
Kuroi Aurgnet wrote:--TL;DR at bottom--
Okay, so.... I'm not going to lie- reading this thread has been as painful as removing teeth.
Lets have a small summation here:
CCP made a mistake. Oops. Mistakes happen. But this was a pretty big mistake and should never happen again.
Lots of hot air from all sides. People who are angry that something that they spent tons of time training has become invalid- this is by far not the first time it has happened (and frankly it SHOULDN'T EVER HAPPEN, but sometimes choices are made that the consequences arent clear until its too late- i.e. designing the skills this way), and it probably won't be the last time. At the same time we have a ton of people snapping at them saying "grow up and get over it". None of this is helping the problem at hand. We ALL want eve to be a good experience for everyone- so strive for that shall we?
Greyscale has gone from being kinda.... not so here on the issue to being actively in this thread. Hopefully the latte... |
|
Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE Rim Worlds Protectorate
48
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 16:05:00 -
[386] - Quote
Rena Senn wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset
Problem is, the skill was mandatory. For all the people who already trained it, which is just about everyone who seriously devoted themselves to industry, having that skill forced upon them in its new form will still be mandatory. CCP Greyscale wrote: - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops
As above, people have already jumped through hoops. Not refunding the SP is only going to force industrialists and bazaar traders to keep jumping through more hoops by playing SP catchup and re-adjusting sale values for a now far less useful skill. Skills are also supposed to be about player choice, not retroactively enforcing unwanted specialization. CCP Greyscale wrote: - we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time
Repurposing skills into less worthy iterations also devalues the perceived value of skillpoints over time, especially when CCP is sending the message that any SP you already invested may suddenly change in operation and hence value with every new patch. CCP Greyscale wrote: - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't)
Even so, this still demonstrates a highly flawed development and release schedule that did not properly accommodate for testing and customer feedback. Saying "We've already spent too much effort accelerating this car to 160 mph and it's going crash in the next minute regardless of whether we wanted to slow down or not (which we don't)" still makes you a reckless driver. In short, an iterative and incremental development model is not a carte blanche excuse to do less planning and be more callous towards preventable product faults. Regardless of how you've shaken up your content release schedule to make it 'more agile' or what have you, if the result is a loss of customer satisfaction, then you're doing it wrong.
THIS!
CCP Greyscale - your responses and attitude towards customer service make me want to unsubscribe from EVE and try any number of other games. Quit being so flippant and emo. It makes me want to cuss at you (which isn't allowed here). |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 16:46:00 -
[387] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: *stuff*
The amount of stuff kicking around the thread is interesting but all 11th hour and likely not to be implemented before December or sometime later than that. This thread needed to be started right after Kronos not right before the skill goes live. AND you're going on vacation after the patch and leaving us hanging for how long?!?!!
In american football we'd have backed up and punted already hoping for better field position next time. Just do the damn refund and next trip remember and utilize the fact you've got the smartest playerbase of any MMO. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2473
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 17:26:00 -
[388] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: *stuff*
The amount of stuff kicking around the thread is interesting but all 11th hour and likely not to be implemented before December or sometime later than that. This thread needed to be started right after Kronos not right before the skill goes live. AND you're going on vacation after the patch and leaving us hanging for how long?!?!!In american football we'd have backed up and punted already hoping for better field position next time. Just do the damn refund and next trip remember and utilize the fact you've got the smartest playerbase of any MMO.
We had a separate plan for the skill relating to the bulk discount that didn't work out (ie we cut the discount a few weeks ago based on feedback and internal discussion), so we're looking around for alternatives. I fully support your right to be skeptical, but all I can do in the face of that is reiterate that we want to solve this as soon as possible, and we are looking to make changes next week to be shipped the week after.
Furthermore, I'm taking my vacation "in August" because I pushed it back from July so that I'd be on hand for the pre- and post-release period, and I'm not expecting to lock in final dates until the release is in a good state on TQ and I'm comfortable that it's safe to leave it for a few weeks. This is the last discussion I'm expecting to hear regarding when I choose to take my summer vacation and I'd thank you all for understanding that a) I've already moved it about considerably and cancelled earlier plans to ensure that this patch goes off without a hitch, b) we've done this for many years and we have a very clear understanding internally about how to handle vacation time as it relates to game coverage and c) this is only being discussed because I'm trying to be as open as possible about what's going on, and if the consequence of that is that people are going to second-guess whether or not they think I'm allowed to have a vacation this year based on an extremely thin understanding of the facts involved I am going to choose to be less open in future |
|
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 18:13:00 -
[389] - Quote
After reading all the suggestions and goals (specialization vs hoops), I've changed my mind on this skill entirely. Here is what I would like to see it become:
Have the skill apply a bonus to team efficiency.
Tentatively I would say a 10% bonus per level to team efficiency. A team with a 2% ME benefit would have a 3% ME benefit for someone with level 5 of adv industry. Even better since teams are new, base team values can be tweaked around this bonus and no one has to know :)
"reasons":
1) Teams are specialization incarnate. People that want a TE benefit can pick those teams and people that want ME benefit pick those teams and this skill benefits BOTH by ampifying team effects. 2) Keeps this away from affecting install costs which sounds like it's on a knife-edge already. 3) Teams are, to me, very much an "advanced industry" feature that many newer indy types may not bother with initially (making this very much a specialization path) 4) I hope level 5 remains a pre-req for capital industry (I've seen conflicting info so far and haven't checked if sisi is up yet today to verify) 5) It sounds as though teams will be most beneficial to capital ship industry. Leaving it as a pre-req for cap production while tying it to team benefits reinforces this connection. It also puts cap builders on a more level field wrt team bonuses, leaving the driving factors for cap production in the hands of things like the thukker module so cap production can be squeezed out of hisec (which seems like an unstated gosl, but one I'm fine with anyway) |
Kuroi Aurgnet
Celestial Phoenix Industries
15
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 18:23:00 -
[390] - Quote
Mackenzie Nolen wrote:After reading all the suggestions and goals (specialization vs hoops), I've changed my mind on this skill entirely. Here is what I would like to see it become:
Have the skill apply a bonus to team efficiency.
Tentatively I would say a 10% bonus per level to team efficiency. A team with a 2% ME benefit would have a 3% ME benefit for someone with level 5 of adv industry. Even better since teams are new, base team values can be tweaked around this bonus and no one has to know :)
"reasons":
1) Teams are specialization incarnate. People that want a TE benefit can pick those teams and people that want ME benefit pick those teams and this skill benefits BOTH by ampifying team effects. 2) Keeps this away from affecting install costs which sounds like it's on a knife-edge already. 3) Teams are, to me, very much an "advanced industry" feature that many newer indy types may not bother with initially (making this very much a specialization path) 4) I hope level 5 remains a pre-req for capital industry (I've seen conflicting info so far and haven't checked if sisi is up yet today to verify) 5) It sounds as though teams will be most beneficial to capital ship industry. Leaving it as a pre-req for cap production while tying it to team benefits reinforces this connection. It also puts cap builders on a more level field wrt team bonuses, leaving the driving factors for cap production in the hands of things like the thukker module so cap production can be squeezed out of hisec (which seems like an unstated gosl, but one I'm fine with anyway)
the thing about this is that until teams hit tranquility- we can't tell how this would balance out. furthermore, this would end up being a skill favoring only those who manufacture in areas with teams. wormhole players, people in the middle of nowhere, etc might not benefit from it as much- and that won't fly with something that used to be such an important skill.
Just that hint of cynicism the world needs now and then. |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3686
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 18:39:00 -
[391] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: *stuff*
The amount of stuff kicking around the thread is interesting but all 11th hour and likely not to be implemented before December or sometime later than that. This thread needed to be started right after Kronos not right before the skill goes live. AND you're going on vacation after the patch and leaving us hanging for how long?!?!!In american football we'd have backed up and punted already hoping for better field position next time. Just do the damn refund and next trip remember and utilize the fact you've got the smartest playerbase of any MMO. You're an awful person. hth.
Mackenzie Nolen wrote:teams suggestion
I'm pretty sure teams are intended to be something anyone might consider as an option regardless of what they're building rather than just a capitals oriented thing. That would be why there are bonuses to virtually everything
Still, I like your idea. Not 100% sure on the specifics but in the general concept of "train it to get a little more out of teams" it's good...got my support for it.
Kuroi Aurgnet wrote:
the thing about this is that until teams hit tranquility- we can't tell how this would balance out. furthermore, this would end up being a skill favoring only those who manufacture in areas with teams. wormhole players, people in the middle of nowhere, etc might not benefit from it as much- and that won't fly with something that used to be such an important skill.
Teams can be hired to literally anywhere and if there isn't a team someone else brought there then you could hire one for yourself, since there will be plenty of new ones spawning all the time. They're not exactly going to be a limited resource. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 18:43:00 -
[392] - Quote
Kuroi Aurgnet wrote:the thing about this is that until teams hit tranquility- we can't tell how this would balance out. furthermore, this would end up being a skill favoring only those who manufacture in areas with teams. wormhole players, people in the middle of nowhere, etc might not benefit from it as much- and that won't fly with something that used to be such an important skill.
WH dwellers can use teams just like anyone else (from Crius patch notes -- "note that teams are never created in wormhole systems, although they may be chartered to move there".)
This is a skill that WILL be nerfed in comparison to the old. NO ONE is going to be happy with its new role as compared to its old role because they specifically want to turn it into something optional rather than necessary for industry. Which is fine, I get that, I support that.
This change means it amplifies your OWN choices, rather than havin a choice foisted upon you. That's the very essence of specialization and the crux of what many people have problems with. We ALL accept the skill is getting nerfed; we just want it to still be USEful to our own choices for industry. People picked an ME skill, they don't want a TE skill, no matter how awesome. Having it amplify team effects puts that choice back in the player hands.
As for "not everyone will use teams", yes, that's true. But I believe the set of people who ignore teams entirely is probably smaller than the set of people who won't benefit from a flat TE bonus, or ANY specific change made to this skill. Putting the change on team bonuses emphasizes that this is an advanced specialization skill WITHOUT forcing any specific benefit on people.
Also remember that the beauty of teams is that it can be iterated. While there may be no teams right NOW you want to take advantage of for your type of industry, there might be some introduced in the future that ARE helpful. And this skill will benefit you in that case. With a team bonus the skill becomes a LOT more flexible now and in the future than any specific fixed bonus, particularly TE bonus, that CCP could change it to. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 19:07:00 -
[393] - Quote
CCP Greyscale:
I love that you're in here and getting involved, even though it might not appear so. (I'm nailing a note to my monitor to remind myself not to post before breakfast/1st smoke of the day) Also helps ease the mind that you're willing to delay a bit further to make things right. Unfortunately the list of promise/fail that has come before keeps me wondering if you'll be the one to break the cycle (hope!).
Mynna:
*hands mynna a mirror* nuff said |
Kuroi Aurgnet
Celestial Phoenix Industries
15
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 19:27:00 -
[394] - Quote
Mackenzie Nolen wrote:Kuroi Aurgnet wrote:the thing about this is that until teams hit tranquility- we can't tell how this would balance out. furthermore, this would end up being a skill favoring only those who manufacture in areas with teams. wormhole players, people in the middle of nowhere, etc might not benefit from it as much- and that won't fly with something that used to be such an important skill. WH dwellers can use teams just like anyone else (from Crius patch notes -- "note that teams are never created in wormhole systems, although they may be chartered to move there".) This is a skill that WILL be nerfed in comparison to the old. NO ONE is going to be happy with its new role as compared to its old role because they specifically want to turn it into something optional rather than necessary for industry. Which is fine, I get that, I support that. This change means it amplifies your OWN choices, rather than havin a choice foisted upon you. That's the very essence of specialization and the crux of what many people have problems with. We ALL accept the skill is getting nerfed; we just want it to still be USEful to our own choices for industry. People picked an ME skill, they don't want a TE skill, no matter how awesome. Having it amplify team effects puts that choice back in the player hands. As for "not everyone will use teams", yes, that's true. But I believe the set of people who ignore teams entirely is probably smaller than the set of people who won't benefit from a flat TE bonus, or ANY specific change made to this skill. Putting the change on team bonuses emphasizes that this is an advanced specialization skill WITHOUT forcing any specific benefit on people. Also remember that the beauty of teams is that it can be iterated. While there may be no teams right NOW you want to take advantage of for your type of industry, there might be some introduced in the future that ARE helpful. And this skill will benefit you in that case. With a team bonus the skill becomes a LOT more flexible now and in the future than any specific fixed bonus, particularly TE bonus, that CCP could change it to.
the point that I was trying to mainly make is an ME skill would make more SENSE. even if it became less than necessary. to be fair, no matter what they change it to INDUSTRY SKILLS WILL ALWAYS BE NECESSARY if you want to be a hard core industrialist. you are not going to make any profit if you think you can get away with not training a skill that would increase team benefits, nor materials benefits. the ONLY skill that could be negligible would be time, and once that became true, then people would start producing to the point where time WOULD be important and then you would NEED to train that.
lets step back for a minute and stop with this idea of "no mandatory skills." Suck it up. Its going to happen. If you want to be competitive on a large scale, you are going to need to train whatever industry skills there are- thats just the facts. same goes for PvP. In the end, you might be able to fight other people your skill level, but assuming equal skill- the person with more skills is probably going to win BECAUSE THATS HOW THE GAME WORKS. Honestly- trying to make skills to the point that they aren't "mandatory" is devaluing SP in and of itself, because its saying "now you dont have to train that much to be competitive!" and while I understand that eases the burden of breaking into the game, it doesnt really set up as much for getting better, and it makes skills feel less of an accomplishment.
I really do understand how "broken" the ME skill was, but, we need to stop saying "this skill can't be mandatory" because if it has any REAL affect on industry at ALL it's going to be mandatory to be competitive in the grand scheme. end of story.
..... back on topic- I suggested ME makes more sense is because it would be balancing a mechanic we already have as opposed to balancing a mechanic that we aren't certain how it would affect the game as a whole yet. I think it would be a bit rash to change it to cater to a mechanic that hasnt even gone live on tranquility yet
Just that hint of cynicism the world needs now and then. |
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 19:35:00 -
[395] - Quote
If Greyscale can ensure there will be some pretty cool w-space manufacturing oriented teams, like for booster production, T3 subsystems, hulls, and something for POS reactions - especially w-space polymers, then I'd be on board with a skill that bonuses teams somehow. Like a bonus to the hiring cost or a bonus to the benefits (or both). And yes I expect teams to eventually play a role in POS reactions, that would be awesome if I can compete in that environment.
But I'm not sure teams are programmed to be helpful to the little guy who does manufacturing out in the sticks. Are teams going to be less costly in less busy systems?
If not, there should be something built into the mechanics of how they work to make them more available to pilots like me who essentially do all the industry in their wormhole system. For example, I can't really compete on bidding for a team with a nullsec bloc or a highsec industrial alliance.
Could Advanced Industry be re-purposed to amplify my bid for a team such that I would be more likely to get the team that I want to work in my wormhole? I would also like there to be some teams spawned in the game that are specifically catered to w-space and other less busy systems. Like, the team would have an attribute attached that would only allow bids from players from systems that have less than a certain number of job hours or w-space only teams, etc. I would obviously prefer w-space only teams but I'll take what I can get. |
Khiluale Zotakibe
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 19:45:00 -
[396] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: *stuff*
The amount of stuff kicking around the thread is interesting but all 11th hour and likely not to be implemented before December or sometime later than that. This thread needed to be started right after Kronos not right before the skill goes live. AND you're going on vacation after the patch and leaving us hanging for how long?!?!!In american football we'd have backed up and punted already hoping for better field position next time. Just do the damn refund and next trip remember and utilize the fact you've got the smartest playerbase of any MMO.
CCP employees are real people too you know? Don't use the right that CCP Greyscale has to have his annual break to make personal attacks or question his professionalism.
If much ask who is going to be covering for his absence and if that CCP member can get involved in this thread so he/she is up to speed with the issue here. |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
146
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 20:58:00 -
[397] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: *stuff*
The amount of stuff kicking around the thread is interesting but all 11th hour and likely not to be implemented before December or sometime later than that. This thread needed to be started right after Kronos not right before the skill goes live. AND you're going on vacation after the patch and leaving us hanging for how long?!?!!In american football we'd have backed up and punted already hoping for better field position next time. Just do the damn refund and next trip remember and utilize the fact you've got the smartest playerbase of any MMO. We had a separate plan for the skill relating to the bulk discount that didn't work out (ie we cut the discount a few weeks ago based on feedback and internal discussion), so we're looking around for alternatives. I fully support your right to be skeptical, but all I can do in the face of that is reiterate that we want to solve this as soon as possible, and we are looking to make changes next week to be shipped the week after. Furthermore, I'm taking my vacation "in August" because I pushed it back from July so that I'd be on hand for the pre- and post-release period, and I'm not expecting to lock in final dates until the release is in a good state on TQ and I'm comfortable that it's safe to leave it for a few weeks. This is the last discussion I'm expecting to hear regarding when I choose to take my summer vacation and I'd thank you all for understanding that a) I've already moved it about considerably and cancelled earlier plans to ensure that this patch goes off without a hitch, b) we've done this for many years and we have a very clear understanding internally about how to handle vacation time as it relates to game coverage and c) this is only being discussed because I'm trying to be as open as possible about what's going on, and if the consequence of that is that people are going to second-guess whether or not they think I'm allowed to have a vacation this year based on an extremely thin understanding of the facts involved I am going to choose to be less open in future
I would not worry too much, I would say you are going above and beyond. Sounds like you moved your holidays just for this release. I may not 100% agree with all the decisions you (and CCP) are making. But you are engaging in constructive conversation. What more can one ask for. damn it is hard to delete my signature |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
294
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 21:10:00 -
[398] - Quote
Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: *stuff*
The amount of stuff kicking around the thread is interesting but all 11th hour and likely not to be implemented before December or sometime later than that. This thread needed to be started right after Kronos not right before the skill goes live. AND you're going on vacation after the patch and leaving us hanging for how long?!?!!In american football we'd have backed up and punted already hoping for better field position next time. Just do the damn refund and next trip remember and utilize the fact you've got the smartest playerbase of any MMO. CCP employees are real people too you know? Don't use the right that CCP Greyscale has to have his annual break to make personal attacks or question his professionalism. If much ask who is going to be covering for his absence and if that CCP member can get involved in this thread so he/she is up to speed with the issue here. He's just throwing his toys out the pram because he couldn't get a SP refund. |
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
137
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 22:05:00 -
[399] - Quote
Ms Michigan wrote:CCP Greyscale - your responses and attitude towards customer service make me want to unsubscribe from EVE and try any number of other games. Quit being so flippant and emo. It makes me want to cuss at you (which isn't allowed here). CCP Greyscale: Let me offer a counter opinion that I've been very impressed with your efforts to be responsive - and diplomatic - over the last couple of weeks -- despite dealing with people that sometimes don't respond in kind.
To frame my opinion: I've been playing Eve for less than a year. 1 character has had ME 5 for 2 months, 1 for 2 weeks, and one was 60% done with the skill when I took it out of the queue a few days ago. I appreciate your sincere communication in this thread, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you'll rework the skill into something useful.
TL;DR: A pat on the back for your hard work heading into the release next week. |
Biscotto
Serene Vendetta Brawls Deep
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 00:32:00 -
[400] - Quote
Thank you to CCP GreyScale for replying to the thread and players comments.
My apologies if this has been mentioned previously I have read a few pages and could not find this specifically. Obviously mat eff V is currently mandatory for any serious producer so I make a choice that to compete I will invest sp into it. After the patch it confers a different bonus. Yet I am not asked whether I think 768,000sp is worth 5% manufacturing time reduction. A choice has not been made in a game about choices. I am the player is it up to me to decide whether 5% bonus is in my interest.
I appreciate Eve may be an old game and some changes be hard to implement, but this feels like a plaster(bandaid?) to a problem and I hope it is.
Perhaps this bonus could be added as "Timekeeping" or "Industrial Project Management". While the Mat Eff skill be deactivated and a replacement rolled out next patch or not at all. As long as the player decides.
TL:DR Give us a choice into our characters specializations. |
|
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 00:57:00 -
[401] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Khiluale Zotakibe wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: *stuff*
The amount of stuff kicking around the thread is interesting but all 11th hour and likely not to be implemented before December or sometime later than that. This thread needed to be started right after Kronos not right before the skill goes live. AND you're going on vacation after the patch and leaving us hanging for how long?!?!!In american football we'd have backed up and punted already hoping for better field position next time. Just do the damn refund and next trip remember and utilize the fact you've got the smartest playerbase of any MMO. CCP employees are real people too you know? Don't use the right that CCP Greyscale has to have his annual break to make personal attacks or question his professionalism. If much ask who is going to be covering for his absence and if that CCP member can get involved in this thread so he/she is up to speed with the issue here. He's just throwing his toys out the pram because he couldn't get a SP refund.
Not quite, just highly irritated at getting force fed a skill that isn't what I trained for or directly related to what it was. If it were still an ME related skill I probably wouldn't even be posting to the thread. |
Evan Giants
Plundering Penguins
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 03:48:00 -
[402] - Quote
So, now all skills could turn into something else for better or worse instead of buff/nerf to balance it out?
Great, nice to know that it doesn't matter what skills to train for anymore, they'll probably turn into something useless and you waste your time training for it. |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 06:08:00 -
[403] - Quote
"We absolutely understand why people are angry, and it legitimately makes us sad to see everyone posting about it, but we need to balance that against the long-term health of the game, which sometimes forces us to make difficult decisions."
You obviously do not understand it. I paid money to get something than you change it so it has no value for me.
Where i live that would be against the law, I don't know how you think treating your customers like **** is good for the long-term health of the game. |
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 06:14:00 -
[404] - Quote
I'm wondering if we can just get the SP refund but have it so that it accelerates our SP gain rate to something like 3,600 SP per hour (1 per second) instead of just letting players apply it all immediately, that would address Greyscale's concerns about the psychological satisfaction aspect of progressing your character over time. You'd just run the math so that the refunded SP would drain off depending on the difference between the 3,600 SP/hr max rate and the rate you would otherwise gain SP with your current neural map, implants, skill attributes etc.
Players would have to wait awhile to get their SP refund but it gives an incentive to continue subscribing to obtain all the benefits. Then CCP can just remove this ME skill wholesale and replace it with nothing and we can be done with this whole charade. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3901
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 08:54:00 -
[405] - Quote
For what it is worth, I like the skill Advanced Industry, however I do think that it shouldn't be introduced in this manner.
I think a refund is in order, as the skill isn't the same as what people trained.
I however will be investing skill points from such a refund into Advanced Industry. |
Pixi Potts
Perkone Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 15:05:00 -
[406] - Quote
Maduin Shi wrote:I'm wondering if we can just get the SP refund but have it so that it accelerates our SP gain rate to something like 3,600 SP per hour (1 per second) instead of just letting players apply it all immediately, that would address Greyscale's concerns about the psychological satisfaction aspect of progressing your character over time. You'd just run the math so that the refunded SP would drain off depending on the difference between the 3,600 SP/hr max rate and the rate you would otherwise gain SP with your current neural map, implants, skill attributes etc.
Players would have to wait awhile to get their SP refund but it gives an incentive to continue subscribing to obtain all the benefits. Then CCP can just remove this ME skill wholesale and replace it with nothing and we can be done with this whole charade.
Also same for the Rigs, people wasted time to train them to be able to use T2 rigs, ccp should at least refund the SP or the time spent on training to what ever skill they change, as people are paying Subscriptions
|
LiKuei
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 17:35:00 -
[407] - Quote
I for one would like me skills reimbursed ... I picked them for specific reasons and I do not want them changed. Give me back points for ME and Rigs since you have invalidated those skills. |
Kuroi Aurgnet
Celestial Phoenix Industries
15
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 18:04:00 -
[408] - Quote
guys. please. We are all visibly upset- but STOP ASKING FOR SP REFUNDS. It's already been stated that it WON'T happen- and you are greyscale's time when he kindly said he would take the time to address our concerns before crius. Be a little constructive, please. I, Too, feel an outrage about a lot of my skills being invalidated- but we can either waste time crying about it and telling them we want something that isn't going to happen, or we can put our heads together and think of an effective solution that doesn't involve things CCP says they aren't going to do.
There have already been some great ideas in this thread. Lets elaborate on those, and maybe throw around some support on THOSE instead, so we can get something accomplished before this just becomes another trainwreck. We are screaming at the devs that theyre doing their job wrong- but we arent really being that good of a customer base right now, either.
Constructivism, please.
Just that hint of cynicism the world needs now and then. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
86
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 18:24:00 -
[409] - Quote
Pixi Potts wrote:Maduin Shi wrote:I'm wondering if we can just get the SP refund but have it so that it accelerates our SP gain rate to something like 3,600 SP per hour (1 per second) instead of just letting players apply it all immediately, that would address Greyscale's concerns about the psychological satisfaction aspect of progressing your character over time. You'd just run the math so that the refunded SP would drain off depending on the difference between the 3,600 SP/hr max rate and the rate you would otherwise gain SP with your current neural map, implants, skill attributes etc.
Players would have to wait awhile to get their SP refund but it gives an incentive to continue subscribing to obtain all the benefits. Then CCP can just remove this ME skill wholesale and replace it with nothing and we can be done with this whole charade. Also same for the Rigs, people wasted time to train them to be able to use T2 rigs, ccp should at least refund the SP or the time spent on training to what ever skill they change, as people are paying Subscriptions
Nah, people just had alliance or corp mates plug rigs in for them
this has been exploited over the years
Having the skill up still reduces drawbacks, which they said may increase or having the skill may decrease them further.. |
Scout Vyvorant
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.20 22:17:00 -
[410] - Quote
Why don't you turn the skill, in addition to the 1-5% faster manufacturing, to something similar to custom code expertise?
"Reduce the influence of the system activity index on your jobs by 1-5% if you are building on a pos."
It wont make the skill "a must have" for a novice industrialist, but specialized industrialists that build stuff in their station will want it to 5 for sure. |
|
Dyscordia
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
21
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 00:06:00 -
[411] - Quote
Kuroi Aurgnet wrote:guys. please. We are all visibly upset- but STOP ASKING FOR SP REFUNDS. It's already been stated that it WON'T happen
Honestly, everyone here is entitled to their opinion and telling people not to say or do something inhibits important discussion.
Also, never say never. If enough people voice their concerns CCP will evaluate ALL options, which inclueds SP REFUNDS. If you want I can list all the things they started off doing/saying then ended up changing due to Player discussion. I happen to agree that a refund is in order. Let's hope they do the right thing.
It's also great that people have come up with some interesting options and people should expand on those. Hopefully players can reinvest their refunded SP into these new options and see if it pans out with all the massive changes to Industry. EVE is better when players can make their own training decisions. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1433
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 01:28:00 -
[412] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If we had to choose one solution, which are people favoring more - 3-5% all jobs time reduction, or additional skills with this skill at 5 as a prereq? If I had to pick just one of these, the job time reduction. I'd err on the low end as otherwise you could end up with unintended consequences around null sec outposts with their very high time reductions already. It won't personally do much to me, as I don't have any BPO's researching atm due to the capital cost of getting new BPO's. But when I do get new BPO's it will be significant then.
Industry already has a very large number of skills around invention, so unless this number is getting reduced with the Invention overhaul I'd be wary of adding in more skills to the industry tree. So any additional skills I feel should only be looked at along side the invention overhaul to ensure that Industrialists aren't getting overloaded with so many specialist skills it takes forever to break into a specialist market. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2481
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 11:47:00 -
[413] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:Unfortunately the list of promise/fail that has come before keeps me wondering if you'll be the one to break the cycle (hope!).
We're *all* hoping that this new release schedule helps us break lots of old unwanted cycles, don't worry :)
What we are currently leaning towards is: - Adjusting the Advanced Industry skill to be a ~3-5%/level reduction to the time of all industry jobs, targeting (but *not promising*, to be clear) a July 29th update. - Adding some additional industry-specialization skills requiring this skill at 5 once the release has settled out and there's some consensus on what would be valuable bonuses.
This is not final and we're soliciting further discussion still :)
|
|
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 12:06:00 -
[414] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:Unfortunately the list of promise/fail that has come before keeps me wondering if you'll be the one to break the cycle (hope!). We're *all* hoping that this new release schedule helps us break lots of old unwanted cycles, don't worry :)
What we are currently leaning towards is: - Adjusting the Advanced Industry skill to be a ~3-5%/level reduction to the time of all industry jobs, targeting (but *not promising*, to be clear) a July 29th update. - Adding some additional industry-specialization skills requiring this skill at 5 once the release has settled out and there's some consensus on what would be valuable bonuses. This is not final and we're soliciting further discussion still :)
Sounds good, much better than hoped. Once the release hits TQ I'll start doin some brainstorming to that end as well. (don't have the room to add another copy of eve atm) |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 13:17:00 -
[415] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:What we are currently leaning towards is: - Adjusting the Advanced Industry skill to be a ~3-5%/level reduction to the time of all industry jobs, targeting (but *not promising*, to be clear) a July 29th update. - Adding some additional industry-specialization skills requiring this skill at 5 once the release has settled out and there's some consensus on what would be valuable bonuses.
This is not final and we're soliciting further discussion still :)
Just to be clear. Tomorrow the skill will go in at 1% time reduction to manufacturing per level, then on the 29th (finger's crossed) it will be upped to 3-5% across all Industry jobs?
If I have that correct and you can provide the Advanced Industry skill change in a week, then I will be happy with that. I think the earlier poster who said that you should start a new thread based on what the new skills may be, as soon as Crius is released has a good idea. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2481
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 13:23:00 -
[416] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:What we are currently leaning towards is: - Adjusting the Advanced Industry skill to be a ~3-5%/level reduction to the time of all industry jobs, targeting (but *not promising*, to be clear) a July 29th update. - Adding some additional industry-specialization skills requiring this skill at 5 once the release has settled out and there's some consensus on what would be valuable bonuses.
This is not final and we're soliciting further discussion still :)
Just to be clear. Tomorrow the skill will go in at 1% time reduction to manufacturing per level, then on the 29th (finger's crossed) it will be upped to 3-5% across all Industry jobs? If I have that correct and you can provide the Advanced Industry skill change in a week, then I will be happy with that. I think the earlier poster who said that you should start a new thread based on what the new skills may be, as soon as Crius is released has a good idea.
Yup, that's my current thinking. |
|
Bitter Fremlin
Heimatar Enhanced Fleet Industries
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 13:40:00 -
[417] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:- Adjusting the Advanced Industry skill to be a ~3-5%/level reduction to the time of all industry jobs, targeting (but *not promising*, to be clear) a July 29th update.
Time reduction is all well and good but it mainly helps those who can choose their number of runs (eg. T1 BPOs) or whose jobs take a long time -- or both! Otherwise the lack of control/short build time means it is wasted unless you can be at the keyboard when the job finishes. The difference between 4 hours or 3 to make 10 150mm Light Autos is meaningless if you aren't available for 5 hours ;-)
Instead, as suggested above, how about something that adjusts workforce costs? "Employee Relations", adjusting all base job costs (manufacture, copying, research, etc) by x% per level. x should be small enough that it doesn't overwhelm the new SCI, but large enough that it makes a meaningful difference.
That gives the Industrialists yet another choice -- more training time would mean they could use a more convenient, busier, system for the same costs as the lesser-trained competitors. And since it would apply equally to every job, regardless of length, it would be useful to both the casual and the hardcore Industrialist. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2481
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 13:54:00 -
[418] - Quote
Bitter Fremlin wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- Adjusting the Advanced Industry skill to be a ~3-5%/level reduction to the time of all industry jobs, targeting (but *not promising*, to be clear) a July 29th update.
Time reduction is all well and good but it mainly helps those who can choose their number of runs (eg. T1 BPOs) or whose jobs take a long time -- or both! Otherwise the lack of control/short build time means it is wasted unless you can be at the keyboard when the job finishes. The difference between 4 hours or 3 to make 10 150mm Light Autos is meaningless if you aren't available for 5 hours ;-) Instead, as suggested above, how about something that adjusts workforce costs? "Employee Relations", adjusting all base job costs (manufacture, copying, research, etc) by x% per level. x should be small enough that it doesn't overwhelm the new SCI, but large enough that it makes a meaningful difference. That gives the Industrialists yet another choice -- more training time would mean they could use a more convenient, busier, system for the same costs as the lesser-trained competitors. And since it would apply equally to every job, regardless of length, it would be useful to both the casual and the hardcore Industrialist.
- We fully understand the issue about short jobs; the reason an "all industry jobs" skill seems more universally valuable is that it includes blueprint research, which at higher levels offers a fairly clear benefit for everyone on the vast majority of blueprints. - The problem with a workforce cost reduction is finding x that satisfies both constraints you mention - the costs are already pitched at "as low as we can make them while remaining relevant", so reducing them further is a difficult thing to balance. |
|
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 15:37:00 -
[419] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: - We fully understand the issue about short jobs; the reason an "all industry jobs" skill seems more universally valuable is that it includes blueprint research, which at higher levels offers a fairly clear benefit for everyone on the vast majority of blueprints.
....Except for those that manufacture stuff for which there is no BPO
CCP Greyscale wrote: - The problem with a workforce cost reduction is finding x that satisfies both constraints you mention - the costs are already pitched at "as low as we can make them while remaining relevant", so reducing them further is a difficult thing to balance.
So you can up the cost next patch and then knock it down with this new skill. Yeah its artificial but so is the whole game, we'll get over it. BTW, as a side note, you should assign Teams to factions and have them charge some LP in addition to ISK. Give mission runners something more to do after removal of all these POS standings requirements.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2486
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 15:49:00 -
[420] - Quote
Maduin Shi wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - We fully understand the issue about short jobs; the reason an "all industry jobs" skill seems more universally valuable is that it includes blueprint research, which at higher levels offers a fairly clear benefit for everyone on the vast majority of blueprints.
....Except for those that manufacture stuff for which there is no BPO CCP Greyscale wrote: - The problem with a workforce cost reduction is finding x that satisfies both constraints you mention - the costs are already pitched at "as low as we can make them while remaining relevant", so reducing them further is a difficult thing to balance.
So you can up the cost next patch and then knock it down with this new skill. Yeah its artificial but so is the whole game, we'll get over it. BTW, as a side note, you should assign Teams to factions and have them charge some LP in addition to ISK. Give mission runners something more to do after removal of all these POS standings requirements.
...and are eg inventing things with very short invention times, yeah, at that point it gets pretty flaky. We are intending to catch at least the invention case in the near future, by allowing you to do multiple consecutive invention jobs, but I doubt that catches all the edge cases. If there are others, I'd be happy to have a look at them and see if we can mitigate that if people can list them out.
And yes, we can fake cost shifts, but that will need a bit more time to think through and manage nicely. Might well come with the advanced skills we're looking into! |
|
|
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 16:21:00 -
[421] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Maduin Shi wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - We fully understand the issue about short jobs; the reason an "all industry jobs" skill seems more universally valuable is that it includes blueprint research, which at higher levels offers a fairly clear benefit for everyone on the vast majority of blueprints.
....Except for those that manufacture stuff for which there is no BPO CCP Greyscale wrote: - The problem with a workforce cost reduction is finding x that satisfies both constraints you mention - the costs are already pitched at "as low as we can make them while remaining relevant", so reducing them further is a difficult thing to balance.
So you can up the cost next patch and then knock it down with this new skill. Yeah its artificial but so is the whole game, we'll get over it. BTW, as a side note, you should assign Teams to factions and have them charge some LP in addition to ISK. Give mission runners something more to do after removal of all these POS standings requirements. ...and are eg inventing things with very short invention times, yeah, at that point it gets pretty flaky. We are intending to catch at least the invention case in the near future, by allowing you to do multiple consecutive invention jobs, but I doubt that catches all the edge cases. If there are others, I'd be happy to have a look at them and see if we can mitigate that if people can list them out. And yes, we can fake cost shifts, but that will need a bit more time to think through and manage nicely. Might well come with the advanced skills we're looking into!
<--- "brews" boosters in wormholes, how's that for an edge case? |
Bitter Fremlin
Heimatar Enhanced Fleet Industries
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 16:53:00 -
[422] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[quote=Bitter Fremlin]- We fully understand the issue about short jobs; the reason an "all industry jobs" skill seems more universally valuable is that it includes blueprint research, which at higher levels offers a fairly clear benefit for everyone on the vast majority of blueprints. Assuming that every character who has the skill is also going to be conducting research. And of the kind, and at the level, of which will benefit from those time reductions. Which, I'd hazard, is nowhere near every character who currently benefits from the ME skill.
Quote:- The problem with a workforce cost reduction is finding x that satisfies both constraints you mention - the costs are already pitched at "as low as we can make them while remaining relevant", so reducing them further is a difficult thing to balance. You can obviously better estimate the impact of SCI on TQ than we can from playing on the test server with its highly skewed numbers. All I would say is that any reduction in job costs needn't be large to be significant to the players and that, as a cumulative modifier, a 5% reduction would be worth a lot less in real ISK in a sleepy backwater than in a busy industrial hub and so shouldn't tilt the market too much.
I thought about suggesting batch jobs, but that smacks too much of EVE-offline for my taste...
I'm not sure what the problem with faking cost shifts is? The vast majority of people already doing Industry will have ME5 right now, so upping the job cost by 5% and giving a 1%-per-level discount will leave New Eden just as is, minus (most of) the torches and pitchforks :-) And should be relatively trivial to do by altering the "adjusted material cost" used in the calculation (so you don't have an ugly "1.05" in the formula). That 5% will hardly be a bar to new Industry entrants without the skill -- they can easily cover that by shopping around for materials, picking a cheaper manufacturing base, or selling smarter.
There should be a skill that takes appreciable time to learn from 4 to 5, that differentiates the professional Industrialist from the hobbiest, and gives significant benefit to those who spend the time. ME was that skill, its replacement isn't.
Oh, and if that sounds too much like a giant whine -- looking forward to tomorrow. Interesting times (urinating dog). |
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 17:28:00 -
[423] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Yup, that's my current thinking.
I still think it's a mistake to force the TE choice into this skill. Even moreso when it's going to be for non-mfg purposes which gets really muddy (all my bp research/copy alts certainly aren't happy about having to cross train this).
I still prefer my idea from a page or two back; have this skill amplify the bonuses received from teams (10% per level). That's the best generalized-specialized outcome you could ask for. A general skill we all have to V that amplifies the specialized choices we each make via teams is far more appealing to me than a forced TE bonus I still don't want :) Yet at the same time it doesn't need to be at level 5 for a new indy type to compete with careful team/system selection.
Also, anything that goes wrong with it you can blame on teams rather than the changed skill and, as teams are new and shiny, you'll have a lot of lattitude to tweak those values later without outrage. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 22:09:00 -
[424] - Quote
Mackenzie Nolen wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Yup, that's my current thinking. I still think it's a mistake to force the TE choice into this skill. Even moreso when it's going to be for non-mfg purposes which gets really muddy (all my bp research/copy alts certainly aren't happy about having to cross train this). I still prefer my idea from a page or two back; have this skill amplify the bonuses received from teams (10% per level). That's the best generalized-specialized outcome you could ask for. A general skill we all have to V that amplifies the specialized choices we each make via teams is far more appealing to me than a forced TE bonus I still don't want :) Yet at the same time it doesn't need to be at level 5 for a new indy type to compete with careful team/system selection. Also, anything that goes wrong with it you can blame on teams rather than the changed skill and, as teams are new and shiny, you'll have a lot of lattitude to tweak those values later without outrage.
By the same token a team bonus is going to mean very little to people in systems that don't have enough going on to attract a team to begin with. |
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 23:44:00 -
[425] - Quote
I find it disgusting that CCP are giving industrialists a half-assed excuse as a replacement for a skill which was an absolute pinnacle for any successful industrialist to train with barely any say in the matter whatsoever.
The flow of industry is being messed with by CCP, and whilst i along with many others welcome many of these changes with open arms (which are along time in coming i might add). CCP need to recognize that the disruption of a potential 'skillpoint reimbursement' is nothing but a flow on effect of the changes that they are making to skills that we all trained in good faith.
It is mentioned earlier that CCP do not like refunding skillpoints because it messes with the 'flow' of the goal reaching aspect of the game. This is flawed in that :
- Any 'break' in the flow of skillpoint re-allocation is all equalized over time. 40 days is all it would take for anyone to catch up to wherever these reimbursed points are reallocated.
- We have already spent the money/time/ISK to train the 40 odd days to get this skill to level 5, so we have already 'done the time' as such. Since we have already reached this 'goal', we are actually having it removed and replaced by the changes CCP are making to industry as a whole.
- Every single char that spent the time training this skill to level 5 CHOSE to do it because level 5 in Material Efficiency skill was imperative in order to have any chance of scraping any profit in manufacturing.
Now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that removing this lvl5 ME skill 'hurdle' is a bad thing to do, in fact, i actually think it is a great thing to do in light of not having a specific skill being relatively useless anywhere under level 5 but replacing this skill with another skill that may break all your hard work in removing it is not the way to do it.
Don't undo all the hard work you have done in removing the Material Efficiency skill by replacing it with another skill which is just as evil.
Bite the damn bullet, accept that the changes CCP are making to industry have no room for this skill, and refund the skillpoints. As it has been mentioned before by numerous people in this thread, it may not be the easy thing for CCP, but it is definitely the right thing to do.
Give us back our skillpoints and let us choose if any new skill that you want to implement is worth throwing our 40 odd days of training into. If CCP make it worthwhile, they will have no problem in getting every industrialist to throw their precious skillpoints into it themselves anyway.
I challenge you to make it so without undoing your hard work... but let us make our own choice in the matter not just the choice of a few who are active in the forum. |
DGDragon
Rotten Kimchi Squadron Brothers of Tangra
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 23:59:00 -
[426] - Quote
How about give bonus to team?
Change name to Team Efficiency skill,
give bonus 10% / level to all team in system when character set job, example. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 01:44:00 -
[427] - Quote
DGDragon wrote:How about give bonus to team?
Change name to Team Efficiency skill,
give bonus 10% / level to all team in system when character set job, example.
I'd still want my SP back if this were the case, where I operate will be lucky to attract the teams nobody wants. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
519
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 03:03:00 -
[428] - Quote
Even 5% time bonus to all industry activities isn't useful and isn't what I trained the skill to have. The majority of my production was done by buying pirate BPCs and manufacturing them. They're all 1-run BPCs, so I can't finish more in a given amount of time with a TE reduction.
This is a really poor replacement for the skill. If I was still paying for subscriptions I'd be cancelling them in light of this absurd treatment/disrespect of customers by CCP. I trained the skill to have a cost reduction. If the new skill isn't reducing costs then the old SP need to be refunded. I get that you don't like SP refunds on principle, but this is a rather more egregious example of a skill change (removal and new one added) than anything else recently. |
Mackenzie Nolen
XYJAX
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 03:26:00 -
[429] - Quote
Mhari Dson wrote:By the same token a team bonus is going to mean very little to people in systems that don't have enough going on to attract a team to begin with.
As others here have explained (even to me :), everything to date suggests the intention is for teams to be widely available and accessible to many. Sure you might not get the best or most perfect team to your system, but very few people should be locked out of teams completely except by choice. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 04:01:00 -
[430] - Quote
Mackenzie Nolen wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:By the same token a team bonus is going to mean very little to people in systems that don't have enough going on to attract a team to begin with. As others here have explained (even to me :), everything to date suggests the intention is for teams to be widely available and accessible to many. Sure you might not get the best or most perfect team to your system, but very few people should be locked out of teams completely except by choice.
heh... you must live somewhere busy, there's only 1 other industrialist insys where I do my manufacturing. |
|
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 06:24:00 -
[431] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Bitter Fremlin wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- Adjusting the Advanced Industry skill to be a ~3-5%/level reduction to the time of all industry jobs, targeting (but *not promising*, to be clear) a July 29th update.
Time reduction is all well and good but it mainly helps those who can choose their number of runs (eg. T1 BPOs) or whose jobs take a long time -- or both! Otherwise the lack of control/short build time means it is wasted unless you can be at the keyboard when the job finishes. The difference between 4 hours or 3 to make 10 150mm Light Autos is meaningless if you aren't available for 5 hours ;-) Instead, as suggested above, how about something that adjusts workforce costs? "Employee Relations", adjusting all base job costs (manufacture, copying, research, etc) by x% per level. x should be small enough that it doesn't overwhelm the new SCI, but large enough that it makes a meaningful difference. That gives the Industrialists yet another choice -- more training time would mean they could use a more convenient, busier, system for the same costs as the lesser-trained competitors. And since it would apply equally to every job, regardless of length, it would be useful to both the casual and the hardcore Industrialist. - We fully understand the issue about short jobs; the reason an " all industry jobs" skill seems more universally valuable is that it includes blueprint research, which at higher levels offers a fairly clear benefit for everyone on the vast majority of blueprints. - The problem with a workforce cost reduction is finding x that satisfies both constraints you mention - the costs are already pitched at "as low as we can make them while remaining relevant", so reducing them further is a difficult thing to balance.
Why can't you see time efficiency means nothing to everyone who doesn't build on all their lines. |
Scarlet Bear
Alliance Mining Operations Command Space Warriors
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 08:49:00 -
[432] - Quote
DooDoo Gum wrote:I find it disgusting that CCP are giving industrialists a half-assed excuse as a replacement for a skill which was an absolute pinnacle for any successful industrialist to train with barely any say in the matter whatsoever. The flow of industry is being messed with by CCP, and whilst i along with many others welcome many of these changes with open arms (which are along time in coming i might add). CCP need to recognize that the disruption of a potential 'skillpoint reimbursement' is nothing but a flow on effect of the changes that they are making to skills that we all trained in good faith. It is mentioned earlier that CCP do not like refunding skillpoints because it messes with the 'flow' of the goal reaching aspect of the game. This is flawed in that :
- Any 'break' in the flow of skillpoint re-allocation is all equalized over time. 40 days is all it would take for anyone to catch up to wherever these reimbursed points are reallocated.
- We have already spent the money/time/ISK to train the 40 odd days to get this skill to level 5, so we have already 'done the time' as such. Since we have already reached this 'goal', we are actually having it removed and replaced by the changes CCP are making to industry as a whole.
- Every single char that spent the time training this skill to level 5 CHOSE to do it because level 5 in Material Efficiency skill was imperative in order to have any chance of scraping any profit in manufacturing.
Now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that removing this lvl5 ME skill 'hurdle' is a bad thing to do, in fact, i actually think it is a great thing to do in light of not having a specific skill being relatively useless anywhere under level 5 but replacing this skill with another skill that may break all your hard work in removing it is not the way to do it. Don't undo all the hard work you have done in removing the Material Efficiency skill by replacing it with another skill which is just as evil. Bite the damn bullet, accept that the changes CCP are making to industry have no room for this skill, and refund the skillpoints. As it has been mentioned before by numerous people in this thread, it may not be the easy thing for CCP, but it is definitely the right thing to do. Give us back our skillpoints and let us choose if any new skill that you want to implement is worth throwing our 40 odd days of training into. If CCP make it worthwhile, they will have no problem in getting every industrialist to throw their precious skillpoints into it themselves anyway. I challenge you to make it so without undoing your hard work... but let us make our own choice in the matter not just the choice of a few who are active in the forum.
we have many more mini updates to come, hate to think what will be changed to good to worse, just hope ccp do not mess about with the skills too much, |
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 10:44:00 -
[433] - Quote
Well I for one am eagerly waiting to see what (if anything) the new Teams feature is gonna bring to folks who build stuff out in the boondocks once the patch hits TQ. I'll at least be able to say for certain whether I can get behind making Advanced Industry bonus Teams somehow, because the bonus to job time (regardless of magnitude), definitely isn't gonna cut it for me.
I'm definitely looking to bring more industry to wormhole space specifically, but a bonus to job time actually makes w-space industry harder due to the increased hauling frequency needed to keep up with the manufacturing lines for that small subset of items that still make some sort of sense to build against the mass limitations. I really don't want the market to price in a faster turn-around time and narrow profit margins accordingly. I basically would not be able to compete with Empire industrialists outside of sec status restricted production. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 11:30:00 -
[434] - Quote
I open the industry panel for the first time and I see over 2,000 1cm entries that are paying no attention to the fact they're neatly compartmentalized in their own inventory containers. |
Alenn G'kar
Temet Nosce Ex Astra
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 12:47:00 -
[435] - Quote
I would never skilled this skill at V omg 1%/l Pls lower the rank at least! |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 12:56:00 -
[436] - Quote
Alenn G'kar wrote:I would never skilled this skill at V omg 1%/l Pls lower the rank at least!
Read the thread |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 13:02:00 -
[437] - Quote
for those of you joining this thread late, I'd suggest starting at post #1 and reading before you go OMGWTFBBQ. This skill change is slated for further iteration. |
Triturus Alpestris
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 13:50:00 -
[438] - Quote
I am so pissed right now. Why was ME such problem? So are you going to remove +dmg% skills bc you know they are mandatory, then remove per lvl bonuses on ships bc again they are mandatory! And give us more +1% velocity and +1% cargohold bonuses on battleships.
I dont know who designed this game but Im sure he is long gone. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 14:46:00 -
[439] - Quote
This thread has gotten rather out-of-hand. The shorter "science" time is good for the very reason that it would affect everything, which does indeed relate to a reduced cost (it's a fairly small reduced cost, but it still reduces installation fees). When it affected only production time, the savings would have been significantly lower. With it affecting everything, though, well, the savings are much better as you're getting a universal savings.
Saving 5% on a pack of chips at the store is pretty meaningless, especially if you only get said pack of chips once in a great while. But if you got to save 5% of all of your groceries, the savings are significantly higher more worth it.
My vote is absolutely for changing it to affect all science- and industry-related jobs.
Triturus Alpestris wrote:I am so pissed right now. Why was ME such problem? So are you going to remove +dmg% skills bc you know they are mandatory, then remove per lvl bonuses on ships bc again they are mandatory! And give us more +1% velocity and +1% cargohold bonuses on battleships.
I dont know who designed this game but Im sure he is long gone.
Comparing the old ME to the +% damage skills isn't exactly a fair comparison, as you can still be effective without any of the extra Gunnery skills trained. With the old ME, if you didn't have it to V, you wouldn't be able to compete at all on the markets, and would be losing ISK on everything you sold. You would be better-off simply selling the minerals. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
111
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:22:00 -
[440] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:This thread has gotten rather out-of-hand. The shorter "science" time is good for the very reason that it would affect everything, which does indeed relate to a reduced cost (it's a fairly small reduced cost, but it still reduces installation fees). When it affected only production time, the savings would have been significantly lower. With it affecting everything, though, well, the savings are much better as you're getting a universal savings. Saving 5% on a pack of chips at the store is pretty meaningless, especially if you only get said pack of chips once in a great while. But if you got to save 5% of all of your groceries, the savings are significantly higher more worth it. My vote is absolutely for changing it to affect all science- and industry-related jobs. Triturus Alpestris wrote:I am so pissed right now. Why was ME such problem? So are you going to remove +dmg% skills bc you know they are mandatory, then remove per lvl bonuses on ships bc again they are mandatory! And give us more +1% velocity and +1% cargohold bonuses on battleships.
I dont know who designed this game but Im sure he is long gone. Comparing the old ME to the +% damage skills isn't exactly a fair comparison, as you can still be effective without any of the extra Gunnery skills trained. With the old ME, if you didn't have it to V, you wouldn't be able to compete at all on the markets, and would be losing ISK on everything you sold. You would be better-off simply selling the minerals.
The reason why the comparison is valid is because this establishes a precedence where any skill = any other skill. A terrible precedence to set. |
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
519
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:27:00 -
[441] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:Saving 5% on a pack of chips at the store is pretty meaningless, especially if you only get said pack of chips once in a great while. But if you got to save 5% of all of your groceries, the savings are significantly higher more worth it. Except that with Advanced Industry I'm not saving 5% on everything. I'm saving 5% on the time it takes to get through the checkstand at the store.
If I was actually saving 5%, I'd be totally okay with that. The skill used to save me 25% on everything, and now it saves me 0%, but CCP is sitting here telling us "oh yeah it's totally the same kind of skill even though it doesn't do remotely the same thing it used to, so there's no SP refund."
That's not what I paid for. I "pay" for skills in the amount of time it takes to train them, and I "paid" ~15 days to get this skill to 5 in order to save money (indirectly by reducing minerals) when I build things. In any other business, changing my product after I paid for it would be a "bait and switch" and would very possibly be illegal. Switching this skill to do anything other than save money is a bait and switch, and saving time isn't the same thing. It might be just as good (or even better) for some subset of manufacturers, but not for everyone.
Please, CCP. Your customers are smarter than that, and treating them like they aren't is just disrespectful. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
40
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:48:00 -
[442] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Summer Isle wrote:Saving 5% on a pack of chips at the store is pretty meaningless, especially if you only get said pack of chips once in a great while. But if you got to save 5% of all of your groceries, the savings are significantly higher more worth it. Except that with Advanced Industry I'm not saving 5% on everything. I'm saving 5% on the time it takes to get through the checkstand at the store. If I was actually saving 5%, I'd be totally okay with that. The skill used to save me 25% on everything, and now it saves me 0%, but CCP is sitting here telling us "oh yeah it's totally the same kind of skill even though it doesn't do remotely the same thing it used to, so there's no SP refund." That's not what I paid for. I "pay" for skills in the amount of time it takes to train them, and I "paid" ~15 days to get this skill to 5 in order to save money (indirectly by reducing minerals) when I build things. In any other business, changing my product after I paid for it would be a "bait and switch" and would very possibly be illegal. Switching this skill to do anything other than save money is a bait and switch, and saving time isn't the same thing. It might be just as good (or even better) for some subset of manufacturers, but not for everyone. Please, CCP. Your customers are smarter than that, and treating them like they aren't is just disrespectful.
its not going to change we are just going to have to suck it up. Like what they did with the Diplomatic Relations skill.
Also to everyone saying that they will reiterate on the skill, this is ccp until they do it everything they say is vapour ware and should be treated as so. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
520
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:56:00 -
[443] - Quote
Heck, I'd also be totally okay with getting SP partially refunded at a lower rate depending on training speed. Determine how long it would take to train the skill if I were fully mapped for it with +5 implants or whatever, and then give me that much time worth of SP in my current attribute map with my current implants. So if (for example) the "max" speed of training was 2600, and I'm currently completely off remap for this so a training speed of 1860 or whatever, I'd only receive 768000/2600 * 1860 = 550k SP or so. Drop Advanced Industry to a rank 2 (which it should be anyway with this bonus), and then everyone can fully train the new skill back to 5 if they want to, or go do something more useful if they prefer. |
Colten Tokila
Blitzkrieg. Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 15:58:00 -
[444] - Quote
As a small time indy guy I just want to throw in that that this change has done nothing to help the little guy and it feels like CCP knew this replacement was a joke. The skill is nearly 10% of my total sp...and is useless to me. I choose to train a skill that would be useful for my corp, spent a significant amount of time training it that could have been used for something I actually enjoyed.
If CCP really feels that SP is more devalued more by doing a refund then showing that they will switch whatever skill you decide to train into with something completely different on a whim, then that just shows how woefully out of touch they are with their player base they are.
Subs are decreasing enough already, do you really need all the indy alts dropping accounts too? Do you really hate money that much? |
Bitter Fremlin
Heimatar Enhanced Fleet Industries
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 16:19:00 -
[445] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:Saving 5% on a pack of chips at the store is pretty meaningless, especially if you only get said pack of chips once in a great while. But if you got to save 5% of all of your groceries, the savings are significantly higher more worth it. But if the only thing you buy, or ever want to buy, at that store is chips then it is back to being pretty meaningless.
You're talking like every single ME5-ed Industrialist is also a fully-qualified Research Scientist who already keeps all their Manufacturing and Lab slots busy 24/7/365. It may be worth it for them, but for us mere mortals it just means more downtime between jobs. |
Sjaandi HyShan
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 01:46:00 -
[446] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time But refunding SP doesn't devalue SP. If anything, what devalues SP is CCP taking my skillpoints out of a skill that I intentionally chose to train because it was useful to me and putting them into a skill that is literally useless to me. In fact, allowing SP reassignment when removing a skill and adding a new one enhances the value of SP earned over time, because I know that if at some point in the future CCP decides to "change" a skill into a completely different one I'll still be able to get some use out of those SP by putting them into something useful for me. I agree that refunding SP when making changes to skills is a bad idea in general. But there's no precedent for this big of a change to skills without refunds. All of the other skill changes that have happened since I started playing merely "tweaked" the skills, but they still affected the same aspects of the game. This isn't a skill change...it's a skill removal because a feature no longer exists, similar to the learning skills, combined with a skill addition, and forcing people to get the new skill at level 5 even if they don't want it.
I agree with the above part of the comment.
That being said, however, since new Advanced Industry skills are being planned, how about changing the idea of Industry->Advanced Industry->New Skills (which is already a medium train ~13 days to unlock new skills, with the first two maybe being useful compared to the unlockable ones), Advanced Industry is instead split into the new ones and let the players decide which one to have at V? I'm not sure if this is feasible technically, but this would allow the new (to-be-discussed-bonused) skills to have less prereqs, allow players to train the one they want, and give a good way to introduce Advanced Industry, Team Connections or Invention Precision, for example.
|
Angela Channing
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 03:52:00 -
[447] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
|
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 05:44:00 -
[448] - Quote
"devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time"
This has to be one of the worst things a GM has said ever. You are changing a skill from mandatory to 100% useless and your worried about devaluing skillpoints.
I paid a subscription for those skillpoints and anything less than a refund is CCP ripping off its own customers. |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 10:12:00 -
[449] - Quote
Mr Greyscale.
Have you started a new thread yet about what to do with the Advanced Industry skill and potential additional skills? I cannot see one, so could you either tell me which forum to start it in or link to one you have started please? |
Kivena
EVE University Ivy League
43
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 11:14:00 -
[450] - Quote
Disregard, I suck at reading threads. Director of Education EVE University
Follow me on Twitter: @eveKivena
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2491
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 12:58:00 -
[451] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:Mr Greyscale.
Have you started a new thread yet about what to do with the Advanced Industry skill and potential additional skills? I cannot see one, so could you either tell me which forum to start it in or link to one you have started please?
Not yet, it's on my to-do list for today :) |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 13:08:00 -
[452] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Celor Ma'fer wrote:Mr Greyscale.
Have you started a new thread yet about what to do with the Advanced Industry skill and potential additional skills? I cannot see one, so could you either tell me which forum to start it in or link to one you have started please? Not yet, it's on my to-do list for today :)
OK ta |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2491
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 15:44:00 -
[453] - Quote
Just implementing the changes to advanced industry now, is 3%/level sufficient? I'm wary of making the bonus too big as we're essentially speeding up *everything* here, at least where it's throughput-limited rather than playtime-limited. |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 15:49:00 -
[454] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Just implementing the changes to advanced industry now, is 3%/level sufficient? I'm wary of making the bonus too big as we're essentially speeding up *everything* here, at least where it's throughput-limited rather than playtime-limited.
I would be happy with that.
And an official thread once this goes out would be good to discuss what to do in the future. Thanks a lot |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2491
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 15:59:00 -
[455] - Quote
Celor Ma'fer wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Just implementing the changes to advanced industry now, is 3%/level sufficient? I'm wary of making the bonus too big as we're essentially speeding up *everything* here, at least where it's throughput-limited rather than playtime-limited. I would be happy with that. And an official thread once this goes out would be good to discuss what to do in the future. Thanks a lot
Yup, I'll make a "future" thread as soon as I've got this skill working. |
|
Kora Ethereal
Empire of the Forsaken Gentlemen's.Club
40
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 16:34:00 -
[456] - Quote
Just spitballing here, but the New Teams thing seems pretty useful, what if the skill or a new skill acted as a multiplier or a bonus to what efficiency and time requirements the usage of a team would get you? This would literally more bang for your buck when bidding and utilizes the brand new feature. Another skill Could lower the costs associated with bidding for a team (I.E. Artificially inflating bids or generally making their use cost less somehow).
Remember these are just Ideas. I'm liking the changes to industry, just not the sudden loss of my old ME bonus on my indy. Cool to see some progress is being made |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
1310
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 16:39:00 -
[457] - Quote
3% per level is sufficient if you're going to back it up with more specialized skills with pre-req V a month down the line. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
436
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 16:47:00 -
[458] - Quote
Kora Ethereal wrote:Just spitballing here, but the New Teams thing seems pretty useful, what if the skill or a new skill acted as a multiplier or a bonus to what efficiency and time requirements the usage of a team would get you? This would literally more bang for your buck when bidding and utilizes the brand new feature. Another skill Could lower the costs associated with bidding for a team (I.E. Artificially inflating bids or generally making their use cost less somehow).
Remember these are just Ideas. I'm liking the changes to industry, just not the sudden loss of my old ME bonus on my indy. Cool to see some progress is being made
or reduce the additional cost of hiring team by x% per level?
Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Sjaandi HyShan
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 17:28:00 -
[459] - Quote
Mr. Greyscale, can you post a link to the new thread once you've got it going? I'm curious to see what ideas for the new skills players will come up with! |
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 17:53:00 -
[460] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Just implementing the changes to advanced industry now, is 3%/level sufficient? I'm wary of making the bonus too big as we're essentially speeding up *everything* here, at least where it's throughput-limited rather than playtime-limited.
Just a couple of other things?
When are you aiming to change the skill?
I'm sure they won't but just to clarify, jobs that are already underway will not be affected by the change. |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2496
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 18:05:00 -
[461] - Quote
OK, new skill is set up internally, hoping to ship it next week. And yes, it'll only apply to new jobs. New thread incoming in F&I, will link in a sec.
[edit] https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4834965#post4834965 |
|
Celor Ma'fer
Jouhinen Inc
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 18:19:00 -
[462] - Quote
I was hoping for a day but next week is fine. Thank you for the replies and the link |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
112
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 19:49:00 -
[463] - Quote
Ok, where'd they find you? wait, not allowed to ask that so how about why haven't you assimilated everyone at the office so that things get done with alacrity!
I wouldn't be too worried on the throughput, invention choke starts early enough in the scheme of things it'll hold most everything to pre crius or slower production rates. I wouldn't add another time reducer in the scheme though. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
521
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 20:37:00 -
[464] - Quote
Thanks for the quick turnaround, but I'm still severely disappointed at how this all turned out. A 300% increase to a useless skill is still useless, and the only consolation we get is that we'll have the opportunity to dump EVEN MORE time into training skills that might maybe possibly (but probably not) help us at some undefined point in the future.
Just so CCP can go and change those skills to do something completely different anyway. |
Triturus Alpestris
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 21:38:47 -
[465] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:Triturus Alpestris wrote:I am so pissed right now. Why was ME such problem? So are you going to remove +dmg% skills bc you know they are mandatory, then remove per lvl bonuses on ships bc again they are mandatory! And give us more +1% velocity and +1% cargohold bonuses on battleships.
I dont know who designed this game but Im sure he is long gone. Comparing the old ME to the +% damage skills isn't exactly a fair comparison, as you can still be effective without any of the extra Gunnery skills trained. With the old ME, if you didn't have it to V, you wouldn't be able to compete at all on the markets, and would be losing ISK on everything you sold. You would be better-off simply selling the minerals.
Thats bullshit excuses, maybe not in Jita but in other systems you could still compete... or buy cheap faction bpcs. Now take lvl1 BS with lvl1 guns and show me how effectively you can do lvl4 missions or incursions or pvp.... lol. |
Maduin Shi
Perkone Caldari State
114
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 03:30:22 -
[466] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Thanks for the quick turnaround, but I'm still severely disappointed at how this all turned out. A 300% increase to a useless skill is still useless, and the only consolation we get is that we'll have the opportunity to dump EVEN MORE time into training skills that might maybe possibly (but probably not) help us at some undefined point in the future.
Just so CCP can go and change those skills to do something completely different anyway.
Completely agree after doing some post-patch industry on TQ. A TE skill, regardless of magnitude, is completely useless to my manufacturing - at least for boosters the production time at the drug lab is already way faster than it was pre-patch. And with infinite slots I can just buy another BPC and use another concurrent slot if I put up more POS reaction lines. So for this line of industry TE = useless.
TE is only going to matter if I get into high-end BPO research, it would seem. Given the new infinite slots regime. But with what happened on the conversion to the new ME/TE numbering system and people gaming the patch conversion to get 10% ME BPOs and circumvent the current post-patch ridiculous research times and insane costs, its going to be a long time before that ever happens. Maybe never. Can't compete with pre-patch 10% ME BPOs. |
Pixi Potts
Perkone Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 15:22:35 -
[467] - Quote
Colten Tokila wrote:As a small time indy guy I just want to throw in that that this change has done nothing to help the little guy and it feels like CCP knew this replacement was a joke. The skill is nearly 10% of my total sp...and is useless to me. I choose to train a skill that would be useful for my corp, spent a significant amount of time training it that could have been used for something I actually enjoyed.
If CCP really feels that SP is more devalued more by doing a refund then showing that they will switch whatever skill you decide to train into with something completely different on a whim, then that just shows how woefully out of touch they are with their player base they are.
Subs are decreasing enough already, do you really need all the indy alts dropping accounts too? Do you really hate money that much?
Additionally, the old Material Efficiency skill has been renamed to Advanced Industry, and gives a build time reduction of 1% per level. We are not totally happy with the reduction in skill value thatGÇÖs happened here, and we are committing to revisiting this skill post-Crius to evaluate how to meet our overall goals here in a less dramatic fashion.
|
Intermittent Fault
Astroturf Solutions
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 16:43:46 -
[468] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Just implementing the changes to advanced industry now, is 3%/level sufficient? I'm wary of making the bonus too big as we're essentially speeding up *everything* here, at least where it's throughput-limited rather than playtime-limited.
No, 3%/level isn't a fix. It just makes the skill marginally less useless.
The old skill was pretty much essential (and to level 5) for anyone who did any manufacturing on a regular or semi-regular basis. The new skill is only of any use to someone who is running lots of manufacturing jobs more or less constantly. The 1%/level makes it equivalent to level 6 Advanced Mass Production.
3%/level means you can run nearly 12 jobs in the time it would take to run 10 without the skill. If you have MP and AMP to level 5 and are running 10 jobs, that's probably useful, though I doubt many characters would choose to train it to level 5. I certainly, as an occasional manufacturer for whom material efficiency is important and time efficiency isn't, would not choose to train the skill at all in its new form.
While you're throwing free skill points at people who hadn't trained drone skills (and missing), I feel like 768,000 SPs have been stolen from me. |
EnacheV2
Letitia Dream
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 21:20:00 -
[469] - Quote
CCP you stole from me cca 60$ , 750k useles SP now
refund the skill for fucks sake |
EnacheV2
Letitia Dream
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 21:20:56 -
[470] - Quote
CCP you stole from me cca 60$ , 750k useles SP now
refund the skill SP ffs , and let people choose if they want to spend on a new skill or not. |
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
547
|
Posted - 2014.07.24 22:04:57 -
[471] - Quote
The whole "we avoid refunding SP whenever possible" seems a bit silly now that drone skills are getting refunded for even less of a change than this.
|
Ivorcya Yvormes
Scope Works
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 15:14:36 -
[472] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Having Mat. Eff. at 5 never gave you a benefit but rather eliminated a penalty. Every serious producer has it at 5 already otherwise he couldnt compete. I also dont get why suddenly everyone is suprised about the change...it was outlined in the indy-devblog pack, 2 months ago, that the skill would be changed to something less powerful (devblogs said reduction in installation costs).
In its current iteration Mat. Eff. is a too powerful skill as was Drone interfacing.
Sorry to pick that up that late, but that's a real lame argument m8. Just been reading up this thread out of curiosity what happend to my ME skill.
If you take PVP for example, everybody has to train several gun skills / missile skills whatever to be able to compete with others. If i use your argument here, those skills would need to be removed too, to lower the entry barrier. Lets give every player the same chance, shall we? Wouldn't that be a good decision? Or even better, lets remove all skills, as it's always an entry barrier if you have to spend time and effort to be able to compete with others. Lets just make it a money decision! The one person spending the most money to fit the most awesome modules on his ships and buying the best ships will win! Then again we have the next barrier ... money, lets remove that, lets make it all free! Welcome to the barrierless world!
/o\ ... just not a good argument you used there. Really bad argument. (Not defending the ME skill in particular btw, i don't care about it that much, just your way of argumentation got me) |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
381
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 20:03:00 -
[473] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote: But refunding SP doesn't devalue SP. If anything, what devalues SP is CCP taking my skillpoints out of a skill that I intentionally chose to train because it was useful to me and putting them into a skill that is literally useless to me. In fact, allowing SP reassignment when removing a skill and adding a new one enhances the value of SP earned over time, because I know that if at some point in the future CCP decides to "change" a skill into a completely different one I'll still be able to get some use out of those SP by putting them into something useful for me.
I agree that refunding SP when making changes to skills is a bad idea in general. But there's no precedent for this big of a change to skills without refunds. All of the other skill changes that have happened since I started playing merely "tweaked" the skills, but they still affected the same aspects of the game. This isn't a skill change...it's a skill removal because a feature no longer exists, similar to the learning skills, combined with a skill addition, and forcing people to get the new skill at level 5 even if they don't want it.
In other news, congrats on a smooth launch of Crius.
Not empty quoting . . .
I am not an alt of Chribba. |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
386
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 20:03:05 -
[474] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote: But refunding SP doesn't devalue SP. If anything, what devalues SP is CCP taking my skillpoints out of a skill that I intentionally chose to train because it was useful to me and putting them into a skill that is literally useless to me. In fact, allowing SP reassignment when removing a skill and adding a new one enhances the value of SP earned over time, because I know that if at some point in the future CCP decides to "change" a skill into a completely different one I'll still be able to get some use out of those SP by putting them into something useful for me.
I agree that refunding SP when making changes to skills is a bad idea in general. But there's no precedent for this big of a change to skills without refunds. All of the other skill changes that have happened since I started playing merely "tweaked" the skills, but they still affected the same aspects of the game. This isn't a skill change...it's a skill removal because a feature no longer exists, similar to the learning skills, combined with a skill addition, and forcing people to get the new skill at level 5 even if they don't want it.
In other news, congrats on a smooth launch of Crius.
Not empty quoting . . .
I trained ME and Metallurgy to V on an Int/Mem remap that was primarily focused on support skills for a WH alt. Knew I'd want to do some manufacturing at some point, and knew that I also wanted to be able to perfect refine modules (Metallurgy V is a prereq for Scrapmetal Processing). I specifically knew the ME skill was regarded as "indispensable," and so made the conscious decision to set back my training plan by several weeks, expecting the payoff in the future. I did this knowing that CCP sometimes nerfs skills, and sometimes removes skills outright, but that they have a track record of compensating players when they straight up pull a skill of the shelf like they did with ME V.
I was pissed when Scrapmetal Processing got the nerf bat, but didn't expect a SP refund, because it was a nerf, not outright removal of the skill. It sucked, but CCP's argument as to why they were nerfing reprocessing made sense.
I was pissed when they removed ME from the game - again, it sucked, but CCP's argument as to why they were removing it made sense. What did not make sense - what will never make sense - is having the balls to straight up delete the weeks I spent training a certain skill, and then turn around and tell me with a straight face that they're doing it to protect the integrity of the skill queue system. Saying the opposite of the truth does not make it the truth, even if you have a dev tag on your portrait.
Waiting for CCP's next step, like deciding that Heavy Interdictor Cruisers are bad for the meta and need to be removed, and then just transforming the HIC skill into a skill that decreases the time spent in warp between systems because refunds "devalues" player decisions.
The decision not to refund SPs in this situation is not just a bad decision because its counterintuitive and unfair. It's a bad decision because it is a bad precedent, and does exactly what CCP should never want to do - it completely devalues the concept of SP earned over time.
I am not an alt of Chribba.
|
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
386
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 20:20:14 -
[475] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:The whole "we avoid refunding SP whenever possible" seems a bit silly now that drone skills are getting refunded for even less of a change than this.
Can you explain what you're talking about?
I am not an alt of Chribba.
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
547
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 20:40:49 -
[476] - Quote
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:Chris Winter wrote:The whole "we avoid refunding SP whenever possible" seems a bit silly now that drone skills are getting refunded for even less of a change than this.
Can you explain what you're talking about? Players who had Combat Drone Operation at 5 but Scout Drone Operation less than 5 prior to Kronos received Drone Avionics at less than 5 at Kronos.
Yesterday during downtime, CCP tried to bump their Drone Avionics to 5 and refund any 'extra' SP (that they had earned by training Drone Avionics in the meantime), but failed miserably and ended up reducing their Drone Avionics skill down to whatever it was a few months ago and not actually refunding any SP. |
Venirious
Do It For The Lobster
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 11:52:56 -
[477] - Quote
Intermittent Fault wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Just implementing the changes to advanced industry now, is 3%/level sufficient? I'm wary of making the bonus too big as we're essentially speeding up *everything* here, at least where it's throughput-limited rather than playtime-limited. No, 3%/level isn't a fix. It just makes the skill marginally less useless. The old skill was pretty much essential (and to level 5) for anyone who did any manufacturing on a regular or semi-regular basis. The new skill is only of any use to someone who is running lots of manufacturing jobs more or less constantly. The 1%/level makes it equivalent to level 6 Advanced Mass Production. 3%/level means you can run nearly 12 jobs in the time it would take to run 10 without the skill. If you have MP and AMP to level 5 and are running 10 jobs, that's probably useful, though I doubt many characters would choose to train it to level 5. I certainly, as an occasional manufacturer for whom material efficiency is important and time efficiency isn't, would not choose to train the skill at all in its new form. While you're throwing free skill points at people who hadn't trained drone skills (and missing), I feel like 768,000 SPs have been stolen from me.
+1. I trained P.E. to 5 even though I didn't intend to invest myself into industry because it was still useful in small/occasional production. I only produce what I and a couple corpmates need, when we happen to need it. This skill update does nothing for me and other people in similar situations. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3585
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 13:46:55 -
[478] - Quote
Update for those keeping track, most of the changes for this skill should now be live, but the invention and reverse engineering bonuses will not be hooked up until tomorrow's downtime, sorry. Thanks for your patience! |
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 15:57:13 -
[479] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Update for those keeping track, most of the changes for this skill should now be live, but the invention and reverse engineering bonuses will not be hooked up until tomorrow's downtime, sorry. Thanks for your patience!
don't you think you could have completed your "polish" by adding that note to the friggin patch notes!
what Is it with you guys and total oblivious methods of proper communication to the community.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
3585
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 16:32:18 -
[480] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Update for those keeping track, most of the changes for this skill should now be live, but the invention and reverse engineering bonuses will not be hooked up until tomorrow's downtime, sorry. Thanks for your patience! don't you think you could have completed your "polish" by adding that note to the friggin patch notes! what Is it with you guys and total oblivious methods of proper communication to the community.
It was intended to go out tomorrow (and will be patchnoted accordingly). I would've probably added something to the notes today but I was out sick this morning (undercooked chicken, I think) so I missed the deployment. |
|
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
92
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 16:54:31 -
[481] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Update for those keeping track, most of the changes for this skill should now be live, but the invention and reverse engineering bonuses will not be hooked up until tomorrow's downtime, sorry. Thanks for your patience! don't you think you could have completed your "polish" by adding that note to the friggin patch notes! what Is it with you guys and total oblivious methods of proper communication to the community.
get use to it. It's the way they roll. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 18:44:31 -
[482] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Milla Goodpussy wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Update for those keeping track, most of the changes for this skill should now be live, but the invention and reverse engineering bonuses will not be hooked up until tomorrow's downtime, sorry. Thanks for your patience! don't you think you could have completed your "polish" by adding that note to the friggin patch notes! what Is it with you guys and total oblivious methods of proper communication to the community. It was intended to go out tomorrow (and will be patchnoted accordingly). I would've probably added something to the notes today but I was out sick this morning (undercooked chicken, I think) so I missed the deployment.
maybe you should have included your time efficiency skills in your cooking you wouldn't be sick right now. :)
hope you get well soon sir..your comment made me laugh. |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:05:49 -
[483] - Quote
Taking a critically important skill and making it almost useless for those who dabble in industry but aren't 'builders' isn't fair and it isn't EVE.
EVE is about punishing people for bad decisions and rewarding them for good decisions. Not punishing them for good decisions by drastically changing the effect of the skills they've trained.
Advanced Industry SP should be refunded.
Failing that, there should be an optional refund for those who petition. 50% of the SP and the skill removed from that char.
Failing that, people should at a bare minimum have the option of petitioning and having the skill removed with no refund. |
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
321
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:17:52 -
[484] - Quote
Hell, it turned out an additional -15% to build times can be critically important. Yesterday I ****** up the timer for refueling my alt's tower and had to rush in to manufacture more fuel blocks.
Without that bonus from my Advanced Industry Skill, or even with that paltry 1%/level bonus it was before now, I wouldn't have completed my fuel run in time. Which would have been bad, since I also ****** up with holding enough fuel blocks in reserve and this happened just before I wanted to go to bed. So I didn't have the time to get more fuel blocks and the tower would have gone out of fuel deep in the night.
But I have to say, altering the skill to 3%/level really saved me a lot of headaches, here.
Also with all my skills, I shave off more then a third on build time. This is a shitload even if you just build small stuff. With larger crap like T2-ships, it's a godsend: I had a lot of ships before Crius who would have built for something silly like a day + few hours. Now all those blueprints allow me to manufacture my ships in under a day. Quite important when you build stuff in a POS.
Overall, good work CCP. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
92
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:07:41 -
[485] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote:Hell, it turned out an additional -15% to build times can be critically important. Yesterday I ****** up the timer for refueling my alt's tower and had to rush in to manufacture more fuel blocks.
Without that bonus from my Advanced Industry Skill, or even with that paltry 1%/level bonus it was before now, I wouldn't have completed my fuel run in time. Which would have been bad, since I also ****** up with holding enough fuel blocks in reserve and this happened just before I wanted to go to bed. So I didn't have the time to get more fuel blocks and the tower would have gone out of fuel deep in the night.
But I have to say, altering the skill to 3%/level really saved me a lot of headaches, here.
Also with all my skills, I shave off more then a third on build time. This is a shitload even if you just build small stuff. With larger crap like T2-ships, it's a godsend: I had a lot of ships before Crius who would have built for something silly like a day + few hours. Now all those blueprints allow me to manufacture my ships in under a day. Quite important when you build stuff in a POS.
Overall, good work CCP.
CCP I'm bad at planning so good skill change. Also time doesn't matter when not building 24/7 |
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
321
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:16:55 -
[486] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Hell, it turned out an additional -15% to build times can be critically important. Yesterday I ****** up the timer for refueling my alt's tower and had to rush in to manufacture more fuel blocks.
Without that bonus from my Advanced Industry Skill, or even with that paltry 1%/level bonus it was before now, I wouldn't have completed my fuel run in time. Which would have been bad, since I also ****** up with holding enough fuel blocks in reserve and this happened just before I wanted to go to bed. So I didn't have the time to get more fuel blocks and the tower would have gone out of fuel deep in the night.
But I have to say, altering the skill to 3%/level really saved me a lot of headaches, here.
Also with all my skills, I shave off more then a third on build time. This is a shitload even if you just build small stuff. With larger crap like T2-ships, it's a godsend: I had a lot of ships before Crius who would have built for something silly like a day + few hours. Now all those blueprints allow me to manufacture my ships in under a day. Quite important when you build stuff in a POS.
Overall, good work CCP. CCP I'm bad at planning so good skill change. Also time doesn't matter when not building 24/7
Nice to see you didn't read the rest of my post. A reduction in time for about 15% is important for me and a lot of other people who don't want to see their materials evaporate if they get hit by an inconvenient wardec.
So yes, time does matter, even if you just get a few extra hours. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: [one page] |