Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 22 post(s) |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Intrepid Crossing
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:34:00 -
[841] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
OK, with your first bullet I think this won't be a big deal at all. This is a good idea and I'm glad you are doing it. The tier system needed to be fixed.
For the skill progression, the change to the mining vessels is nice but one thing that limits people from using a covetor is not mining barge, it's astrogeology. That should also be considered here.
On Capitals, I really think it should be kept at 5. Although, that decision is with CCP and where they want their game. If you want more people to fly capitals, feel free to make this update. However, right now I have Gallente BS 5 so I could fly a thanatos. I really don't like the idea that I had to train that to 5 and now it's essentially worthless (yes, I get better gallente BS bonuses but it's not going to justify the 26days of training time). I did that to fly a carrier, nothing else. Now with this change I get to fly all carriers since I have all BS trained to 5. There are no bonuses for the BS skill applied to carriers.
So all of us that fly carriers, we wouldn't have trained to BS 5 with this proposed change. If you want to drop it to 4, will we get a refund? What about Dreds? Same issue? If you keep this change, I suggest a refund for BS 5 for all that trained it.
Finally, if you choose to keep this change (allow only BS 4) then I suggest changing carriers to reflect roles. Right now they are all essentially doing pretty much the same thing with minor changes. When you go to Supers you get a bit different but if I can fly all 4 carriers now, then give me a reason to train the others. Yes, this will be a big change as well since you are going to change the way ships are used - expensive ships - but I really think that flying cap ships should be a limited thing, not something everyone can do. The expense is a limiting factor but cap ships are special and I think it level 5 of BS is appropriate.
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Zaxix
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:35:00 -
[842] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Zaxix wrote: The training times for these is heinous, so we'd like to get as much lead time as possible to know how to address this.
Thanks
Everyone, please note that the very first post in this thread confirms that no one will be retraining. They will most likely be throwing skill points at you to grab the stuff you need to fly what you already have. And if everyone complains loudly enough, probably a few more. Just trying to keep down on the forum thread clutter, no sense going on and on about skill retraining if it there will be no disruptions in game play over it (and you may come out ahead depending on how the bribe goes!) I can and did read the first post. Please consider that not EVERYONE is talking about the same thing. I'm referring specifically to the related prerequisites that may or may not be affected (and there are many level 5's involved), to the need for training specific racial freighter skills (which ones will need to be 4 or 5 if JF is t2?), and to general information that pilots who are mid stream training up to join Black Frog might be interested in for planning purposes. If we're talking a lead time to this change on the order of several months, JF training pilots need to have an idea of how and what to prioritize for skill speccing, etc. Even more relevant, no one has actually specified that the JF skill will be treated in the same manner as the other generic skills. In an election season, you might also consider training Diplomacy to 11. Red Frog--Hisec Courier Black Frog--Losec/Nosec Courier
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Intrepid Crossing
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:37:00 -
[843] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:Creat Posudol wrote:Zaxix wrote:Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.
As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.
What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now... Jump Freighters will continue to require Level 5 because they are T2 (all T2 require now and will according to the devblog continue to require Level 5). The Question about freighters is relevant though (I personally don't care as I have the prerequisites). I personally think they should continue to require Level 5 as they are a significant step up from their "skill predecessor". There should be SOME commitment. It already only takes about a month to get into one anyway... Actually, it doesn't require a freighter V skill. Racial freighter 4 is all that is required. There are other level 5 skills required, but they aren't quite the same progression as other ships. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Nomad for example This is a valid concern I would like to see addressed as well as Jump Freighters are T2 Capitals. So this is kind of a blend between the two systems. Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Grimmash
Iron Preists Of the Imperium Ark of the Covenant
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:39:00 -
[844] - Quote
Proposal:
Make a generic skill for each hull class (Frig/destroyer/etc). Make a specialty skill for each race, which can only be trained as high as your core skill. Split hull bonuses between those two skills, for all ship types and classes.
It would let newer players try out more ships, and then decided which ones they really want to focus on. It would also "punish" players who fly fancy tech II ships w/o the racial stats to back them up. So you get both shorter and longer training times, and more/less effective pilots. Then when you implement the new system, give everyone the base skill at highest trained racial variant, and racial skills at the currently trained levels. Key the destroyer and BC specialty skills to what the player has ever flown. No one loses any ships they can fly, and the system (To me) makes more sense anyway.
|
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
113
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:40:00 -
[845] - Quote
Morwen Lagann wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:The skill requirement changes for destroyers and battlecruisers is very tricky to tackle indeed. We fully acknowledge having to re-train for ships you can already fly is not appealing at all.
As said in the blog, nothing is set in stone yet, we are considering various reimbursement options as this is still quite a high level change.
I understand the sentiment of wanting to streamline the skill trees, but if you're going to remove the generic Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills, for those of us who have trained both of them to 5, if we don't get *all four* of the racial skills reimbursed all the way to 5, you are going to have a very, very large and angry mob on your hands.
They will a very large mob of angry ex customers on their hands. |
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:43:00 -
[846] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:But we aren't talking about mallers and vagabonds here, we are talking about the 'linear approach' to skill training time also being applied to capital ships. A capital ship gets so much more: A jump drive, utility high slots, boatloads of EHP, massive increases in (remote) repair capabilities, and incredible drone capacity to further increase their usefulness. What I am trying to reason here is that the racial battleship V requirement for the capital ships is justified and there really is no reason to simplify it. I can't believe that you openly support two step but would gladly advocate for removing the single largest hurdle keeping people from training into capital ships. Also, because I was so nice, here's a graph for fitted EHP. Big ******* difference isn't it?
I wasn't arguing about the removal of racial battleship 5 from the capital ship requirements
Personally I don't mind it not being there as it just means easy kills off numptys who get into those ships long before they actually have the proper skills to fly them i.e. capital reps, capital rr, capital guns, siege mod, triage etc. etc. Getting into a ship =/= being able to use it.
No the issue I had was you using a graph of hp claiming that to be the perfect reason to increase training times on ships. It makes as much sense as claiming battlecruisers do more dps than hacs therefore they should cost more than hacs. Regardless of if what your arguing for is right or wrong your logic is just non-sense
Two Step for CSM |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:48:00 -
[847] - Quote
james1122 wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:But we aren't talking about mallers and vagabonds here, we are talking about the 'linear approach' to skill training time also being applied to capital ships. A capital ship gets so much more: A jump drive, utility high slots, boatloads of EHP, massive increases in (remote) repair capabilities, and incredible drone capacity to further increase their usefulness. What I am trying to reason here is that the racial battleship V requirement for the capital ships is justified and there really is no reason to simplify it. I can't believe that you openly support two step but would gladly advocate for removing the single largest hurdle keeping people from training into capital ships. Also, because I was so nice, here's a graph for fitted EHP. Big ******* difference isn't it? I wasn't arguing about the removal of racial battleship 5 from the capital ship requirements Personally I don't mind it not being there as it just means easy kills off numptys who get into those ships long before they actually have the proper skills to fly them i.e. capital reps, capital rr, capital guns, siege mod, triage etc. etc. Getting into a ship =/= being able to use it. No the issue I had was you using a graph of hp claiming that to be the perfect reason to increase training times on ships. It makes as much sense as claiming battlecruisers do more dps than hacs therefore they should cost more than hacs. Regardless of if what your arguing for is right or wrong your logic is just non-sense
It was a simplified and crude graph showing the justification of retaining the battleship V training. |
Xervish Krin
Shiva Furnace
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:48:00 -
[848] - Quote
This looks good. However much people whine about classes and everything being too fair, the fact is that redundant ships are bad. Right now the crappy ones are just not flown. They aren't an affordable-but-not-as-effective alternative with the advantages of price, they're just never used. The Harbinger isn't a level of progression over a Prophecy; you simply never see Prophecies at all because there's no reason not to take the Harb. Give every ship a viable purpose and you'll see more tactics, more skills, more fits and a better game. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Bringers of Death.
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:52:00 -
[849] - Quote
Thinking about my initial proposal on page 28, there is even a more elegant way:
Tech I - Generic Hull Size Skills: Frigates - Rank 1 Destroyers - Rank 2 Cruisers - Rank 2 Battlecruisers - Rank 3 Battleships - Rank 3
Tech I - Race Skills: Amarr Small Spaceships - Rank 1 Amarr Medium Spaceships - Rank 3 Amarr Large Spaceships - Rank 5
Tech II - Specialized Role Skills: Interceptors - Rank 3 Heavy Assault Ships - Rank 4 Logistics - Rank 4 Black Ops - Rank 7
Tech II - Racial Skills: Advanced Amarr Small Spaceships - Rank 1 Advanced Amarr Medium Spaceships - Rank 2 Advanced Amarr Large Spaceships - Rank 3
Each ship could have the bonuses tied directly to the skills like Vexor Cruiser Skill: +5% Hybrid Damage (more generic medium hull bonus) Gallente Medium Spaceships: 10% Drone HP & damage (Gallentean style bonus)
Ishtar Cruiser Skill: +5% Hybrid Damage Gallente Medium Spaceships: 10% Drone HP & damage Heavy Assault Ships: +5km Drone Control Range (special role bonus) Advanced Gallente Medium Spaceships: +50m-¦ Drone Bay
Conversion:
Much easier now. A racial Cruiser skill is just split up: Amarr Cruiser V becomes Amarr Medium Spaceships V + Cruisers V and so on...
If a character has trained more than one Cruiser skill, this will leave some free SP.
If someone has trained T2-skills, they are also split into a generic and a racial component:
Logistics V becomes Logistics V (now rank 3) + Advanced Amarr Medium Spaceships V. If a character could fly 2 different Logistics before the change, he'll need 2 Racial skills now. Which are in the sum more expensive.
But since every T2-ship requires the appropriate lvl V T1-skill, the exact same skill progress CAN ALWAYS BE BOUGHT WITHOUT EXTRA SKILL POINTS.
Example:
old: Amarr Cruiser V - 1.280.000 SP Gallente Cruiser V - 1.280.000 SP Logistics V - 1.536.000 SP total: 4.096.000 SP
new: Amarr Medium Spaceships V - 768.000 SP Gallente Medium Spaceships V - 768.000 SP Cruisers V - 512.000 SP Logistics V - 1.024.000 SP Amarr Advanced Medium Spaceships V - 512.000 SP Gallente Advanced Medium Spaceships V - 512.000 SP total: 4.096.000 SP
If a pilot has lower T2 than T1 skills, there will be unassigned SP left (but less than in my previous proposal). Cross-training T1 becomes easier while cross-training T2 becomes harder. The total number of skill ranks in Spaceship Command stays roughly the same (only Battlecruiser, Interdictors & Command Ship Skills would be easier to learn - they are not split up an would have a higher rank than their bigger counterparts which is not in line with the other skills). |
Morar Santee
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:53:00 -
[850] - Quote
Xervish Krin wrote:This looks good. However much people whine about classes and everything being too fair, the fact is that redundant ships are bad. Right now the crappy ones are just not flown. They aren't an affordable-but-not-as-effective alternative with the advantages of price, they're just never used. The Harbinger isn't a level of progression over a Prophecy; you simply never see Prophecies at all because there's no reason not to take the Harb. Give every ship a viable purpose and you'll see more tactics, more skills, more fits and a better game.
Yes. Except with the proposed changes, every ship will have one role, slot layout for one role, and therefore only one viable fit for its role.
You are advocating to fix a problem in diversity by by forcing everyone to fly one ship with one fit for one role. If you don't see the problem there, you can't be helped.
The solution is to apply a sensible fix to the ships that are currently not used because they are not in line with the other ships in their class. |
|
Texty
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:56:00 -
[851] - Quote
So, is it a good idea to skill up my BC3 and DD2 to V ASAP? >,> |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:58:00 -
[852] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote: Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: "It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example."
Oh snap. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
372
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:58:00 -
[853] - Quote
Let me ask a specific example.
I have BC trained to V. I fly Hurricane and Drakes perfectly.
Now, here comes the catch:
1) The dev blog has to be fallacious. How is it possible I get free SP reimbursement equivalent to 3 x BC V? I will only believe when I'll see it. If I get 4 x BC V "just because" then it's very discriminating to those who didn't train to BC V by the day the patch goes live.
2) If I don't get the reimbursement but just "the ability to fly" (free skill book + BC trained to 1?), then it's garbage. I fly my BCs perfectly I don't want to waste months just to fly again the same ships I own since years already with the same ability.
Also it clashes with the "you will still fly blah blah".
So, I'd like to know how do they plan to achieve fairness both in case 1 and 2. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave Blaumeise
The Executives Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:59:00 -
[854] - Quote
I don't like these changes very much.
It's the same as with the missile name change. Streamlining is clearly better to understand for new player, but a mix of names, usefullness and even messed up stuff is EVE making a game that has more "charme" as it feels more like reality. E.g. in RL we have the metric and the sae system for measurements, for nuts and bolts. We have different wieght systems. And so on. This is what reality makes.
Having everything streamlined is making EVE a bit sterile.
And like someone said already: isn't it OUR job to find a role for the ships?
|
SkyMeetFire
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:00:00 -
[855] - Quote
One issue I have with splitting the destroyer and battlecruiser skills up is that while every current player will likely be reimbursed fairly, you are making new players overcome a larger barrier to cross training then older players. I'm not sure I like the fact that you give older players an even greater advantage on newer players. I do feel that increasing the number of viable ship types per class might help alleviate the need to cross train however, and might make this disparity less noticeable. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
972
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:00:00 -
[856] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Let me ask a specific example.
I have BC trained to V. I fly Hurricane and Drakes perfectly.
Now, here comes the catch:
1) The dev blog has to be fallacious. How is it possible I get free SP reimbursement equivalent to 3 x BC V? I will only believe when I'll see it. If I get 4 x BC V "just because" then it's very discriminating to those who didn't train to BC V by the day the patch goes live.
2) If I don't get the reimbursement but just "the ability to fly" (free skill book + BC trained to 1?), then it's garbage. I fly my BCs perfectly I don't want to waste months just to fly again the same ships I own since years already with the same ability.
Also it clashes with the "you will still fly blah blah".
So, I'd like to know how do they plan to achieve fairness both in case 1 and 2.
They have already specifically stated how this will be handled. Stop the QQ and focus on real issues.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:01:00 -
[857] - Quote
In case this hasn't already been pointed out, I'll mention it here.
If indeed you are going to take players through each class of ship to level 4 before allowing them to train for the next class up, you're going to need more destroyers. A single hull just isn't going to cut it anymore |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:01:00 -
[858] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5. tbh, I don't want all four variations at 5. I only fly Minnie ships and they would be wasted skills. VoV
Nice devblog. only comment that I can think of is:
Keep the carrier skills at the high level. There are already too many carrier pilots in game and even cutting 30days off training time is too much. Besides, BS V should be a requirement to fly a massive ship like a carrier.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1119
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:03:00 -
[859] - Quote
Aside from the few legitimate issues (how Jump Freighters and BS 5 will be handled) this entire thread reads like "If illiteracy and deliberately obtuse had a love child, what would it look like?" When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Kagumichan
Deorbit Burners Broken Chains Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:03:00 -
[860] - Quote
This has probably already been mentioned/questioned/answered but (i'm too lazy to go through 40+ pages of shouting to find a legible answer :P) there's this one thing that's nagging me
I understand that the battlecruiser skill is breaking into 4 racial battlecruiser skills and anyone who has it trained will be reinbursed in some way (Only viable way I can foresee is that everyone who has it trained automatically get's all 4 racial versions pre-trained when the change comes in, at the level their original skill was at.
However, with the new 'streamlined' ship training including battlecruiser as a requirement for battleship piloting, then if some of us have not trained the battlecruiser skill at all or enough before the changes are made then the reinbursement would result in them not having the correct battlecruiser skill trained to use the battleship that they may have been flying for years
E.g: Current skill tree works as Amarr Frigate Amarr Cruiser Amarr Battleship With no battlecruiser skill trained the pilot can still fly an Abaddo
New skill tree would mean suddenly they couldn't fly that Abaddon, unless of course the reinbursement took into account that the pilot could already fly a ship larger than the new skill tree would allow and therefore reinburse that pilot with the minimum skill requirement for battlecruiser in order to continue to use their battleship.
This would mean that pilot would receive a large sum of free SP that others would not with the reinbursement
In closing though, the current skill tree does make sense to a certain degree, frigates and destroyers use small modules, the frigate skill would teach the pilot basic use of 'small' ship, so having to learn destroyer wouldn't really be needed to advance to a cruiser, in the same sense a battlecruiser is simply a cruiser with more armour and guns (hence *battle*cruiser), it's not necessarily a step up from a cruiser theoretically since it still uses the same modules. You need a basic driving licence to drive any car, be it a front wheel drive Toyota Prias or a 4 wheel drive Mitsubishi Shogun, but you need to gain a truck licence to drive a truck, so then frigate skill is learning to fly a little ship, and destroyer skill is getting a bit of a run-down on how to fly a little ship with a big engine
(sorry for the long message XD) |
|
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:08:00 -
[861] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Laura Dexx wrote: Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: "It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example."
Oh snap.
Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1126
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:11:00 -
[862] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Laura Dexx wrote: Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: "It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example."
Oh snap. Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't.
Last time I checked, Capital Ships were still ships.... When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Luvvin McHunt
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:11:00 -
[863] - Quote
CCP - The opposite direction would have been much better.
One frigate book, one cruiser book and one battleship book - Just how Destroyers and Battlecruisers are at the moment.
That would have been a progressive move, allowing people a greater choice of ships to choose and try before they dedicate their training to the relevant support skills for the one they decide to use in the end.
The way it is at the moment with Battleships as an example:
Train Amarr Frigs a few days , Amarr Cruisers a few days , Amarr Battlehips a few days only to realize - OMG the Abaddon is a bricky, slow piece of crap and my cap skills are too low for it to shoot for more than 2 minutes. One week wasted :(
OK Start again , NEXT - Gallente frigs, cruiser etc etc etc
How applying this bad idea to BC's and Destroyers can be perceived as a step in the right direction is beyond me.
This just creates the same skill training hurdles for new players that removal of learning skills was supposed to remove. Why are CCP countering their own change which was designed to help lessen the gap between older players SP and newer players catching up???? Remove training hurdle - add training hurdle. Think about it CCP. You are undoing previous work. |
Hanbali
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:12:00 -
[864] - Quote
Way too late in the game to be introducing crap like this. |
Chiralos
Merchant Princes
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:13:00 -
[865] - Quote
I salute your willingness to consider changes to old and deeply rooted game design. I really like that you are putting serious effort into making sure ships are not completely overshadowed by "higher level" ships. EVE is not a 60-hour single player game with multiplayer tacked on, so it shouldn't have the skill and gear progression of such.
I like the idea that T2 ships are about specialisation, not just about being "higher level". Ideally there should be occasions for choosing a T1 over T2 that are not just based on cost. That may be too hard though, given player's current expectations of T2 ships. |
Rogatien Soldier
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:14:00 -
[866] - Quote
Train BC V in 20 days now, or train 4x BC V in 80 days later...
Sucks4futureNoobs.
Know what's going in MY queue tonight. |
Rogatien Soldier
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:14:00 -
[867] - Quote
ALSO, need to refund all SP for any pre-req skills if they are removed from any ship's pre-req list. Even if the associated ship isn't trained.
So if SigAnalysis V is, hypothetically no longer a pre-req for Logi, then ANYBODY who has Sig Analysis V should be refunded those SP.
Or else the dude who just spent 6 months on an int-mem remap (ahem...) training pre-reqs for all sorts of ships is getting F'd. |
Cyprus Black
Cowboy Diplomacy
155
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:15:00 -
[868] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.
This bit of clarity was necessary. The dev blog sort of hinted at that, but it wasn't clear one way or another. CCP Ytterbium wrote: BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome. I'm all for these changes regarding freighters and jump freighters. I *would* be ok with this change for the capitals as well, however they're a problem in their current state. A handful of them aren't a concern, but the mass proliferation of them and the vast distances they can project themselves is. As it stands many nullsec alliances carry the stance of "Go capital or go home". Reducing the training required to fly one could reinforce this common stance.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up. I can only speak for myself, but the CSM is of no concern. They're made up of members voted in by nullsec power blocks. They represent nullsec and push issues that affect them. They pay little mind to how their issues will affect the rest of the universe. The CSMs speak for their voters, not for the general playerbase (and FYI yes I did vote last election).
Follow my EvE blog at: http://cyprusblack.blogspot.com/ |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:15:00 -
[869] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote: Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't.
"reducing training requirements for various ship classes is not a side-effect we are necessarily happy with. That is why we want to introduce new skills, tied with the new concept of ship lines."
Pretty sure that comment can only be directed and the one class that did have a major reduced training time. capitals. Woooooo |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
248
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:16:00 -
[870] - Quote
I officially name this: Skillgate Stuff Goes here |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |