Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1159
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 19:59:00 -
[61] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Ramona McCandless wrote:But I still think an SP refund is an unreasonable request that CCP should not agree to simply for PR. Why is it unreasonable though, and why, if there is no downside, shouldn't it be done for PR? Happy players is a good thing.
Following that logic, there would be no downside to granting 300 millon SP to all character because we need to be subbed to play the game anyway so there would be no loss of income for CCP.
"Good PR for little cost, only need to do a change to a bunch of line in a database with a script." |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
10834
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 21:11:00 -
[62] - Quote
Tippia wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Uh, no... people get SP refunded because of CCP's decisions, namely those to remove skills. Again, we're talking about them handing out refunds GÇ£for PRGÇ¥ just because people feel they don't need a skill any more. Read the argumentation from the start. You're confusing the current policy with what Gavin Dax suggest they should do. Quote:what's exploitable about them reimbursing the skillpoints to those characters that trained it? That's not a relevant example because you've misunderstood the argument. You said "because everything else (and even that one)" is exploitable, "that one" being in reference to how it's currently done. That's what I was responding to.
Tippia wrote:Rather, the scenario would be: a player feels he no longer uses Surgical Strike and petitions for a reimbursement on the grounds that the skill is useless, and because GÇ£the customer is rightGÇ¥ he gets the SP back. If they had that policy, we'd effectively have the skill remap, with all the brokenness that implies. You can't refund people just because they say that GÇ£they have no use forGÇ¥ a skill any more because it's such a meaningless reason that it would directly lead to the same effective removal of skills as ye olde skill remaps would. I agree but that's not quite what you seemed to be saying. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Pheusia
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
136
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 21:27:00 -
[63] - Quote
Look, just give us a 2% per level reduction in anchoring time and then everyone can go home. |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
64
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 22:31:00 -
[64] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Gavin Dax wrote:Ramona McCandless wrote:But I still think an SP refund is an unreasonable request that CCP should not agree to simply for PR. Why is it unreasonable though, and why, if there is no downside, shouldn't it be done for PR? Happy players is a good thing. Following that logic, there would be no downside to granting 300 millon SP to all character because we need to be subbed to play the game anyway so there would be no loss of income for CCP. "Good PR for little cost, only need to do a change to a bunch of line in a database with a script."
There would be a big downside if CCP did that. Specifically, many players would rage and simply stop playing. New players would be at such a disadvantage, combined with bad PR from existing players subs would almost certainly drop.
Changes that are good for the game and generally make players happy are usually good from a business standpoint as well, provided they aren't too costly (e.g. difficult) to do. Relating back to this - unless writing the reimbursement script is really difficult for some reason, there doesn't appear to be a significant downside here. |
Fourteen Maken
VipeRs Pit
136
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 23:36:00 -
[65] - Quote
What about people who train into a ship or weapon system, which is then nerfed or changed so it'is no longer any use to them? |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
65
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 00:57:00 -
[66] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:What about people who train into a ship or weapon system, which is then nerfed or changed so it'is no longer any use to them?
That's most likely too general to reimburse - CCP would need to make a blanket reimbursement (e.g. all skills related to missiles) for the very rare case that someone actually would not have trained those skills had they known about the upcoming changes.
Can you think of an example of this though - where the skill is actually not useful for your purposes at all anymore and shouldn't be reimbursed? If a change to a ship/weapon system is so bad that it makes your skills completely useless for the original purpose, I'd argue either against that change or in favor of some reimbursement.
Another example would be booster alts. If CCP eliminates off-grid boosting, they really should reimburse those pilots who trained into that. But, that's not easy to do because often booster alts are only booster alts, and how do you reimburse those characters in such a way that doesn't cause them to want to unsub the alt? That's one of the big problems with the removal of off-grid boosting. |
Glathull
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
495
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 04:18:00 -
[67] - Quote
Tippia wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Uh, no... people get SP refunded because of CCP's decisions, namely those to remove skills. Again, we're talking about them handing out refunds GÇ£for PRGÇ¥ just because people feel they don't need a skill any more. Read the argumentation from the start. You're confusing the current policy with what Gavin Dax suggest they should do. Quote:what's exploitable about them reimbursing the skillpoints to those characters that trained it? That's not a relevant example because you've misunderstood the argument. Rather, the scenario would be: a player feels he no longer uses Surgical Strike and petitions for a reimbursement on the grounds that the skill is useless, and because GÇ£the customer is rightGÇ¥ he gets the SP back. If they had that policy, we'd effectively have the skill remap, with all the brokenness that implies. You can't refund people just because they say that GÇ£they have no use forGÇ¥ a skill any more because it's such a meaningless reason that it would directly lead to the same effective removal of skills as ye olde skill remaps would.
You're arguing that so long as any skill provides some bonus, it is not deserving of a refund no matter how drastically it is changed by CCP, no matter how little the new bonus has to do with the reason people trained the skill in the first place. That's the general form of the argument you are making.
If that logic holds, then you should be fine with it if CCP changed, say Caldari Battlecruisers, to giving a bonus to mining yield. Hey! It still has a bonus! Just because you choose not to use it . . . .
The fact that CCP is never going to do that has no bearing on the logic you are presenting. It is a flawed concept.
I understand practical concerns, and I understand trying to keep people from gaming the system, and I understand not sucking up GM time with people whining about the fact that they didn't think of things in advance when they should have.
But the general "it still provides a benefit" argument is specious. Turrents |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8246
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 04:27:00 -
[68] - Quote
Glathull wrote: If that logic holds, then you should be fine with it if CCP changed, say Caldari Battlecruisers, to giving a bonus to mining yield. Hey! It still has a bonus! Just because you choose not to use it . . . .
Making an absurd argument via hyperbole does not hurt the case Tippia is making, nor does it strengthen your own.
Quote: But the general "it still provides a benefit" argument is specious.
No, it's not.
If an industry skill is changed, but remains a benefit to industry, then it is still valid.
If a navigation skill is changed, but remains a benefit to navigation, then it is still valid.
And so forth. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Glathull
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
495
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 04:36:00 -
[69] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Glathull wrote: If that logic holds, then you should be fine with it if CCP changed, say Caldari Battlecruisers, to giving a bonus to mining yield. Hey! It still has a bonus! Just because you choose not to use it . . . .
Making an absurd argument via hyperbole does not hurt the case Tippia is making, nor does it strengthen your own. Quote: But the general "it still provides a benefit" argument is specious.
No, it's not. If an industry skill is changed, but remains a benefit to industry, then it is still valid. If a navigation skill is changed, but remains a benefit to navigation, then it is still valid. And so forth.
It's called arguing by counterexample, and it's totally legit. You are saying that there is a a rule: if x (benefit) then y (no refund). I am providing an example of cases where that makes no sense. That is not hyperbole. It's just poking inconvenient holes in your reasoning. Turrents |
Glathull
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
496
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 04:38:00 -
[70] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:What about people who train into a ship or weapon system, which is then nerfed or changed so it'is no longer any use to them?
The fact that we don't have an efficient mechanism for handling grey area cases does not mean we should just decide that they don't exist and that we actually live in a completely black and white world. Turrents |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8246
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 05:18:00 -
[71] - Quote
Glathull wrote: It's called arguing by counterexample, and it's totally legit. You are saying that there is a a rule: if x (benefit) then y (no refund). I am providing an example of cases where that makes no sense. That is not hyperbole. It's just poking inconvenient holes in your reasoning.
No, it's hyperbole.
Changing Caldari Battlecruisers into a mining bonus is another order of magnitude to how Anchoring was changed.
They are absolutely nothing alike, and you were trying to equate his position with an absurdity to weaken it, since you cannot strengthen yours because it's not legitimate.
Anchoring was changed, slightly. Heck, not even Anchoring itself, but the requirements for a different skillbook.
That does not equate to changing a ship skill into a mining bonus.
You could use it before, you can use it now.
The end. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Glathull
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
502
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 05:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Glathull wrote: It's called arguing by counterexample, and it's totally legit. You are saying that there is a a rule: if x (benefit) then y (no refund). I am providing an example of cases where that makes no sense. That is not hyperbole. It's just poking inconvenient holes in your reasoning.
No, it's hyperbole. Changing Caldari Battlecruisers into a mining bonus is another order of magnitude to how Anchoring was changed. They are absolutely nothing alike, and you were trying to equate his position with an absurdity to weaken it, since you cannot strengthen yours because it's not legitimate. Anchoring was changed, slightly. Heck, not even Anchoring itself, but the requirements for a different skillbook. That does not equate to changing a ship skill into a mining bonus. You could use it before, you can use it now. The end.
You need to make up your mind what you are actually arguing. At the bottom of your post, you reaffirm a general statement, which is what I am saying is absurd.
You are telling me that pointing out that your general statement makes no sense is hyperbole.
And you offer support for that by pointing out the precise weakness in your argument: that you feel very strongly that your own logic would be broken if my counter example happened. Guess what, that situation is allowed by the rule you have proclaimed is the end of the story: that if you could use it before, you can use it now. There is nothing in that statement that prevents my "hyperbole."
There is only your blind assertion that things have always been this way and ever shall be, as though that has any relation to a reason for why they are. Turrents |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 06:01:00 -
[73] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Changing Caldari Battlecruisers into a mining bonus is another order of magnitude to how Anchoring was changed.
I don't agree. It's very similar to how anchoring was changed from the perspective of those who trained it to V only for pos gunning.
The argument was this: "if the skill still provides a benefit, even if it's *not what it was originally trained for*, then no reimbursement is warranted."
That exactly implies Glathull's example. If you don't want it to imply the Caldari battlecruiser example, then you need to add something else to the condition. E.g. "if the skill still provides a (reasonable) benefit..." or something like that. But then define reasonable... |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8246
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 06:31:00 -
[74] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote: But then define reasonable...
Changing a skill used to pilot combat ships into one to improve mining yield is not reasonable. In fact it's patently absurd.
Changing skill requirements for Starbase Defense Management is perfectly reasonable. They wanted to make it easier to access.
Now, if Anchoring V literally did not provide any access to anything else, you would have a case. But you can't just claim that because what it does provide after the change isn't exactly what you want that you should get a buttload of free skillpoints.
I honestly don't know why I'm bothering with you, since this won't happen. More extreme cases than this have gone by without reimbursement, and CCP stood firm on those as well. The game is full of stuff like that.
You can't just bleat "customer service means they should kowtow to my every demand!", either. That's just laughable.
You have no argument besides "skills changed and I don't like it so I should get free stuff", and that's transparently obvious to everyone here, including CCP. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8246
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 06:33:00 -
[75] - Quote
Glathull wrote: There is only your blind assertion that things have always been this way and ever shall be, as though that has any relation to a reason for why they are.
The thread is full of reasons why the current situation is, and remains, and will remain the status quo.
You have just ignored or spun past them because to acknowledge them is to acknowledge that your argument isn't valid. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4047
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 11:38:00 -
[76] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:
Another example would be booster alts. If CCP eliminates off-grid boosting, they really should reimburse those pilots who trained into that. But, that's not easy to do because often booster alts are only booster alts, and how do you reimburse those characters in such a way that doesn't cause them to want to unsub the alt? That's one of the big problems with the removal of off-grid boosting.
Off Grid Booster alts are a broken mechanic. We should welcome and expect a nerf to these changes. Furthermore, if your character can use links and fly t3/CS's, it is ridiculous to not train the weapon skills to fully utilize these ships on grid. No reimbursement should be given. If you unsub your alt account because it can no longer be easily used to abuse the game mechanics, oh well.
If this was truly why CCP was not fixing OGB's, then it shows a very flawed mentality where greed is dominating over game balance. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1447
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 12:54:00 -
[77] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Off Grid Booster alts are a broken mechanic. We should welcome and expect a nerf to these changes. Furthermore, if your character can use links and fly t3/CS's, it is ridiculous to not train the weapon skills to fully utilize these ships on grid. No reimbursement should be given. If you unsub your alt account because it can no longer be easily used to abuse the game mechanics, oh well.
If this was truly why CCP was not fixing OGB's, then it shows a very flawed mentality where greed is dominating over game balance.
Given how long it's been since CCP announced they want to do away with OGB but are working on the mechanics, I think it's safe to say CCP will laugh at anyone who tries for reimbursement when their boosts still are exactly as good on grid as they always were.
I buy CCP's claim that it's to avoid melting the hamsters personally. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
208
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 13:57:00 -
[78] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Also, I just want to reiterate this point: Anchoring V didn't become GÇ£uselessGÇ¥ to these people with the prereq change in Crius. It became GÇ£uselessGÇ¥ to them the instant they injected the SDM skillbook. Crius changed absolutely nothing for them.
If they wanted to complain about useless SP, they should have done it back then. Quoting for emphasis.
If Anchoring V is "useless" to a character now because they don't anchor bubbles or build outposts, then it was useless to them as soon as they injected the Starbase Defense Management skillbook. The outrage here isn't about their skillpoints spent on Anchoring V being "useless"; if it was, it would have started long before Crius. No, the outrage is about pilots being able to acquire the same skill for fewer invested skillpoints. It's the same outrage that industrialists with "perfect" blueprints experienced when they realized that upstart researchers could now do the same research in a fraction of the time. It's the same outrage that anchoring corps experienced when they realized that all that time grinding faction standings was no longer going to be necessary to anchor towers in hisec.
The new kids on the block have it easier than the old-timers, and that makes the old-timers mad.
This is jealousy, plain and simple.
Get over it.
EDIT: I say this as an old-timer with my fair share of "useless" skills. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:26:00 -
[79] - Quote
Still waiting for a good reason why these types of things shouldn't be reimbursed.
So far the reason appears to be because it will make people who complain happy or something.
And this is different from all those other cases (e.g. wasted time grinding standings for pos anchoring etc) because CCP sells SP.
If you buy something, and that is then given to others for free, that makes people angry. It is also clearly and fairly reimbutsable unlike a lot of other cases. So why not make some players happy at no expense to others? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
211
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:55:00 -
[80] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:And this is different from all those other cases (e.g. wasted time grinding standings for pos anchoring etc) because CCP sells SP. CCP does not sell SP. They sell game time. SPs are gained (or lost) based on what the players do with that game time. The only time CCP reimburses SPs is when they are lost through no fault of the player. Removing the Anchoring skill from the game would warrant SP reimbursement. Changing the benefits it provides does not. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4051
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 17:56:00 -
[81] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Still waiting for a good reason why these types of things shouldn't be reimbursed.
So far the reason appears to be because it will make people who complain happy or something.
And this is different from all those other cases (e.g. wasted time grinding standings for pos anchoring etc) because CCP sells SP.
If you buy something, and that is then given to others for free, that makes people angry. It is also clearly and fairly reimbutsable unlike a lot of other cases. So why not make some players happy at no expense to others?
If you buy a computer for $1000 today, and three month later it may sell for $750, you don't get reimbursed for that $250 price difference.
The increased price is what you paid for the convenience of having it early. The same goes for the skill prerequisite changes. |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:05:00 -
[82] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Gavin Dax wrote:And this is different from all those other cases (e.g. wasted time grinding standings for pos anchoring etc) because CCP sells SP. CCP does not sell SP. They sell game time. SPs are gained (or lost) based on what the players do with that game time. The only time CCP reimburses SPs is when they are lost through no fault of the player. Removing the Anchoring skill from the game would warrant SP reimbursement. Changing the benefits it provides does not. Dual character training. CCP very much sells SP. Also, why does changing the benefits not warrant reimbursement even if one of the benefits (unrelated to the other benefits offered by the skill) is completely removed? |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:11:00 -
[83] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Gavin Dax wrote:Still waiting for a good reason why these types of things shouldn't be reimbursed.
So far the reason appears to be because it will make people who complain happy or something.
And this is different from all those other cases (e.g. wasted time grinding standings for pos anchoring etc) because CCP sells SP.
If you buy something, and that is then given to others for free, that makes people angry. It is also clearly and fairly reimbutsable unlike a lot of other cases. So why not make some players happy at no expense to others? If you buy a computer for $1000 today, and three month later it may sell for $750, you don't get reimbursed for that $250 price difference. The increased price is what you paid for the convenience of having it early. The same goes for the skill prerequisite changes.
I responded to this earlier, I think page 2 with the same example but a phone. Mainly, there are economic factors that dont exist here - there is a big downside that makes reimbursing in your example bad but that downside does not exist for reimbursing SP - it makes people happy at no cost to CCP, which is a net win. Very differrnt from reimbursement in your example |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
211
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:26:00 -
[84] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Dual character training. CCP very much sells SP. Also, why does changing the benefits not warrant reimbursement even if one of the benefits (unrelated to the other benefits offered by the skill) is completely removed? Dual character training is not selling SP. It is selling the ability to train skills on two different characters on the same account simultaneously. The SPs gained (or lost) are still purely the result of player action (or inaction). In order for CCP to truly sell SPs, you would have to be able to redeem PLEX for SPs with no training time. I pray that never happens, but if it did, then CCP would be selling SP.
Let me ask you: did CCP reimburse all Interceptors that had been caught and killed in a bubble when they were granted bubble immunity? Did the reimburse every ship that was killed with the old Titan AoE Doomsday weapon? Did they reimburse all Marauders that were lost before the release of Bastion Modules? Or all ships that we lost to CONCORD/Faction Police before you could clearly see that you were flagged?
Where do you draw the line regarding changes and reimbursements?
I say the line is simple: reimburse what CCP removed from the game, not what they have changed. I think that's pretty much their policy.
EvE changes. Sometimes, those changes benefit some people more than others. Get over it. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1162
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:40:00 -
[85] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Still waiting for a good reason why these types of things shouldn't be reimbursed.
So far the reason appears to be because it will make people who complain happy or something.
And this is different from all those other cases (e.g. wasted time grinding standings for pos anchoring etc) because CCP sells SP.
If you buy something, and that is then given to others for free, that makes people angry. It is also clearly and fairly reimbutsable unlike a lot of other cases. So why not make some players happy at no expense to others?
Cool so we reimburse only the people who trained it in the last 15 days to work similar to purchase getting reimbursed? It's not like store will give you your money back after a year or something. Any reimbursement case that could be made similar to how purchasing an item IRL can get refunded over a price change is completely fitting within the timeframe from the change announcement to when it was implemented so anyone who trained anchoring V just for POS guns is either not paying attention to changes coming and thus is the type of folk who would never ask for refund because they would not know about it in the first place or are people who saw it coming and want to game some SP out of it because they are on a very specific remap and get full speed training and want to x-fer those SP to a non favored skill for their current remap.
Anyone else trained it too long ago to be able to apply for reimbursement just like I can't bring my x months old car for a price fix to the dealer because it's value dropped when the new model came out. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4051
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 18:55:00 -
[86] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Gavin Dax wrote:Still waiting for a good reason why these types of things shouldn't be reimbursed.
So far the reason appears to be because it will make people who complain happy or something.
And this is different from all those other cases (e.g. wasted time grinding standings for pos anchoring etc) because CCP sells SP.
If you buy something, and that is then given to others for free, that makes people angry. It is also clearly and fairly reimbutsable unlike a lot of other cases. So why not make some players happy at no expense to others? If you buy a computer for $1000 today, and three month later it may sell for $750, you don't get reimbursed for that $250 price difference. The increased price is what you paid for the convenience of having it early. The same goes for the skill prerequisite changes. I responded to this earlier, I think page 2 with the same example but a phone. Mainly, there are economic factors that dont exist here - there is a big downside that makes reimbursing in your example bad but that downside does not exist for reimbursing SP - it makes people happy at no cost to CCP, which is a net win. Very differrnt from reimbursement in your example
There are economic downsides to CCP in reimbursing SP too. Developer time for one. There are also game balance issues to consider: Giving you 500k SP to spend as you like provides you with large advantages over players that don't have them (examples: You can insta-train T3 Skills between AT matches so you can bring the same ship again at max skills. You could instatrain a brand new skill CCP introduces in the future so you can immediately take advantage the benefits it provides, etc).
Balancing regularly happens which regularly make certain things more accessible and others not. It is quicker to train into carrier now than it was before, should my capital pilot get Battleship V reimbursed? It is easier to train t2 large turrets now than it was before, should my Marauder pilot get Medium and Small Turret V and associted weapon spec skills reimbursed because we no longer need those skills to train Large Turret Spec skill?
The answer to all of the above is NO. The skills still have a purpose and provide my characters with abilities and benefits, even if I'm not planning to utilize them.
Anchoring V still provides you with the ability to Anchor Large t2 bubbles and more. Just because the skill prereq for SDM was lowered to Anchoring IV does not mean you deserve an SP refund.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8280
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 21:26:00 -
[87] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:Still waiting for a good reason why these types of things shouldn't be reimbursed.
That's ok, I'm still waiting for a good reason why they should be. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 00:43:00 -
[88] - Quote
wrote: Dual character training is not selling SP.
Yes it is. Just because there is a "forced shipping time" associated with it does not mean CCP isn't selling it. Just because you need to press a button to receive your package also doesn't somehow mean CCP didn't sell the SP to you. Also, re: where you draw the line - when a skill is *effectively* removed for a player it should be reimbursed. Your definition simply does not not include the *effectively* part which is where we disagree. I see the upside and can't think of a downside for adopting the former.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: There are economic downsides to CCP in reimbursing SP too. Developer time for one. There are also game balance issues to consider: Giving you 500k SP to spend as you like provides you with large advantages over players that don't have them (examples: You can insta-train T3 Skills between AT matches so you can bring the same ship again at max skills. You could instatrain a brand new skill CCP introduces in the future so you can immediately take advantage the benefits it provides, etc).
I'm pretty sure the development cost for SP reimbursement is insignificant. The problem you mention already exists for SP reimbursed with petitions, etc. anyway and it's easy to fix. Simply have a cooldown timer for applying SP to certain skills, or if you're lazy just make it a general timer where the SP is gradually allocated. I don't think players would really care if they have to wait an extra week to get their SP back.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The skills still have a purpose and provide my characters with abilities and benefits, even if I'm not planning to utilize them.
If you're not planning to utilize them, why should you care about this?
Frostys Virpio wrote: Cool so we reimburse only the people who trained it in the last 15 days to work similar to purchase getting reimbursed? It's not like store will give you your money back after a year or something. Any reimbursement case that could be made similar to how purchasing an item IRL can get refunded over a price change is completely fitting within the timeframe from the change announcement to when it was implemented(...)
SP doesn't lose value over time like that. 10 SP today is 10 SP tomorrow. It does suck more though if you just trained it. I don't think it should affect the SP value though, it just makes your case stronger if it was recent.
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: That's ok, I'm still waiting for a good reason why they should be.
Instead of pissed off players you have happy players. This means better word-of-mouth, more willingness to recommend the game, more pilots online, more money for CCP, more resources to improve the game, etc.
Granted, one case like this is not significant. But as an overall policy it is a bad one. Each time a skill is changed, you have a new group of people that gets pissed for no reason. Not sure why you can't see this. Or maybe you do, but you just don't care. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8293
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 02:34:00 -
[89] - Quote
Gavin Dax wrote:
Granted, one case like this is not significant. But as an overall policy it is a bad one. Each time a skill is changed, you have a new group of people that gets pissed for no reason. Not sure why you can't see this. Or maybe you do, but you just don't care.
It's the latter. This is so far beyond irrelevant.
Yes, a bunch of people get butthurt every time CCP rebalances skills. A bunch of people get butthurt every time CCP rebalances ANYTHING. Dinsdale started a thirty page threadnaught after the Marauder buff because some niche fit of his didn't work anymore. Two or three dedicated trolls tried to derail the Rattlesnake rebalance because they were pissed off. There was a hue and cry on the Gallente Battleship thread because they were retards and thought they were getting nerfed instead of being given the two best battleships in the game.
They don't matter. CCP doesn't grant exceptions for the special snowflakes.
You aren't the only one who had Anchoring trained to five. Shrug, move on, keep playing the game. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Gavin Dax
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
66
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 03:00:00 -
[90] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: It's the latter. This is so far beyond irrelevant.
Yes, a bunch of people get butthurt every time CCP rebalances skills. A bunch of people get butthurt every time CCP rebalances ANYTHING. Dinsdale started a thirty page threadnaught after the Marauder buff because some niche fit of his didn't work anymore. Two or three dedicated trolls tried to derail the Rattlesnake rebalance because they were pissed off. There was a hue and cry on the Gallente Battleship thread because they were retards and thought they were getting nerfed instead of being given the two best battleships in the game.
They don't matter. CCP doesn't grant exceptions for the special snowflakes.
You aren't the only one who had Anchoring trained to five. Shrug, move on, keep playing the game.
Well, you just admitted that you'd rather see people be unhappy than happy absent of any factors discouraging the latter, so I think that speaks for itself. Also you're deluding yourself if you think these kind of things don't impact community opinion of CCP and are "so far beyond irrelevant".
EDIT: For the record, I don't have anchoring to V. I just don't like it when people get shat on by CCP for no reason. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |