| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Berikath
   |
Posted - 2008.12.10 21:15:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Pottsey
Payoff to me is the point when you have more useful skill points from adv5 over the adv4 path. I have given many examples where that happens in well under 3 years.
But they all ignore large chunks of skillpoints by calling them "worthless". So long as a skill affects some aspect of playing the game, it is still useful skillpoints. The ONLY skill points that are worthless are learning skills (and skills which do nothing since they've been removed from the game), and that is because the benefit comes ONLY from the bonus to an attribute, not from the skill itself. If you take 2 characters with everything exactly equal other than learning skills, and give one of them +5 implants but no adv. learnings, and give the other adv learnings to level 5 but no implants, they will do everything in game exactly the same.
Originally by: Pottsey
That's not what I mean at all, you still don't understand it.
adv5 does give you access to new skills faster and unplanned skills faster. I never said all skills trained without adv5 are useless or low value. I said when the skills you can train with adv4 instead of adv5 are low value or useless then adv5 can give more useful skillpoints. When the unplaned extra skills adv5 gives are are better vaule then what you would have if you trained sometime intread of adv4 then adv5 is better.
Again- having adv 5 learning skills does not give you access to any other skills. Any and all skills you can train with adv 4 learnings you can train with adv 5 learnings. What you don't seem to understand is that you can't just decide to say that stuff you trained is useless. If you could, then I could say "yeah, but when you change your mind 1 month from now to never fly capital ships again, then all those points you got in them from adv5 learnings are useless, so there's no reason to train adv 5s and you're wrong."
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 22:31:00 -
[92]
"Your example is flawed. There are always useful skills to train,"
If that's the case show me a useful skill I could have got instead of adv4 for the role my pilot does? Ooo look there aren't any. It was a choice of train some useless or very low value skills, or get adv5 and get high value skills faster. The better option is to get adv5. I am not saying the skills are useless in every situation, I am saying they are useless for my role.
"Again- having adv 5 learning skills does not give you access to any other skills. Any and all skills you can train with adv 4 learnings you can train with adv 5 learnings.!"
But that's not 100% true as adv5 has given me access to more skills for both of my accounts. I have skills that I could not have yet with adv4. In fact my clone is in precisely that situation as with adv4 she wouldn't have the skill to fly an Orca for a while as she would still be working towards the skills needed for it. My main account has months of skill training that I could not have if I had adv4. Yes technically adv4 gives you access to the same skills as adv5. But adv5 gets those skills much faster in some cases. Other cases adv5 is slower.
"Moreover, the point of this thread is not to discuss what the most efficient plan is for someone who has everything in the game trained, it is discussing whether it is better to train learning Vs before starting to train other skills."
Most of my posts have been about weather its better to train learning Vs before starting to train other skills. Instead of just saying adv4 is always better until 3 years have passed. I have been posting reasons and examples of when it's better to get adv5 and when it's not and when it's better in 1 year or 6 months.
Unlike your math which suggests adv5 is never worth it till 3 years. My posts answer the question of "I've got all my advanced learns to IV, what's the best path to get them to V?" and say when its worse and when it's better to get V in less then 3 years.
"If you take 2 characters with everything exactly equal other than learning skills, and give one of them +5 implants but no adv. learnings, and give the other adv learnings to level 5 but no implants, they will do everything in game exactly the same."
Of course those two are same we are not stupid. People don't normally go, hrrm is it worth getting adv5 and removing my implants. They normally keep the same implants and look at which is better adv4 or adv5. Some might downgrade implants due to PvP but still I dont think PvP go, hrrm adv 5 and no implants or adv0 and implants. Most people with plus +5 implants are smart enough to at least get adv3.
" So long as a skill affects some aspect of playing the game, it is still useful skillpoints."
I don't agree, just because a skill does something it doesn't mean it's useful skill points. If you're never going to use it then its effectively useless or low value. Having missiles skills when you only fly non missile ships = useless missiles skills. Some few skills are even worse at higher level. Tactical Shield Manipulation for example is technically not useful at lvl 5 as it makes your ship a very tiny bit weaker over lvl 4. It all comes down the value of the skills. If the skills you can train instead of adv5 are high value then sure, adv5 isn't as worth it.
But you sound like you're trying to argue that low or useless skills being trained instead of adv5 is the better option. It doesn't always take 3 years before adv5 is worth having as I have proven.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 22:33:00 -
[93]
"Skill points in learning skills are not useful. You can train useful skills while waiting. You cannot ignore those just because they prove you wrong."
But they don't prove me wrong and I didnt ingore them, I explained how they are useless for my role. Learning a skill that has zero impact or a very low vaule on a play style is not useful.
Let's try and simplify this for you. adv5 lets me fly an Orca which let my do my every day role better. adv4 doesn't let me fly an Orca yet, my every day role is worse. The skills I could train instead of adv5 don't add to my every day role. So I call those skills useless or low value as they give zero or almost zero benefit for what I am doing. This is based on my younger character, not old character.
Taking away adv5 and training something else instead of adv5 mean I wouldn't be able to fly an Orca so suddenly I become worse at my every day role. If I get worse at my every day role due to not having skills points in adv5 then it must mean skill points in adv5 are useful. The skill points in adv5 have caused me to be better at my every day role. How is a learning skill that's made me better at my every day role not classed as useful? There are zero skills that would be better to train for my clone instead of adv5 and getting and Orca.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 22:43:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Pottsey
Unlike your math which suggests adv5 is never worth it till 3 years. My posts answer the question of "I've got all my advanced learns to IV, what's the best path to get them to V?" and say when its worse and when it's better to get V in less then 3 years.
I've been the only one who actually answered the question. That was in the third post of this thread. The rest of the thread hasn't discussed the path but the usefulness.
FREE! jumpclone service |
Berikath
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 00:59:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Berikath on 11/12/2008 01:00:10
Originally by: Pottsey
But that's not 100% true as adv5 has given me access to more skills for both of my accounts. I have skills that I could not have yet with adv4. In fact my clone is in precisely that situation as with adv4 she wouldn't have the skill to fly an Orca for a while as she would still be working towards the skills needed for it. My main account has months of skill training that I could not have if I had adv4. Yes technically adv4 gives you access to the same skills as adv5. But adv5 gets those skills much faster in some cases. Other cases adv5 is slower.
Bolded portions are the important ones. You admit that you can train any skill with adv4s that you can with adv5s. Therefore, if you have something useful to train after getting adv5s, you could train them before getting adv5s.
Italicized portion is your bald-faced lie. Eve has been out 5 years. Adv learning skills take ~65 days to train. By your own admission you get ~15 extra days a year because of adv 5s. 15 per year * 5 years = 75 days - the 65 it took you to get them is 10 days, much less than multiple months.
Originally by: Pottsey
Of course those two are same we are not stupid. People don't normally go, hrrm is it worth getting adv5 and removing my implants. They normally keep the same implants and look at which is better adv4 or adv5. Some might downgrade implants due to PvP but still I dont think PvP go, hrrm adv 5 and no implants or adv0 and implants. Most people with plus +5 implants are smart enough to at least get adv3.
Be careful with that we. Maybe everyone else in the thread, but when you start including yourself....
I'll make it clearer for you, because you obviously completely missed the point, whether it was intentional or not. I was not suggesting that it would ever be a good idea to get +5s with no adv learnings. I was merely using it as an example to show that the SKILLS in adv learning are useless, the only benefit is the attributes.
Originally by: Pottsey
Unlike your math which suggests
deoesn't suggest, proves. Math is what it is, and math does not suggest that 2 + 2 = 4
Originally by: Pottsey
adv5 is never worth it till 3 years. My posts answer the question of "I've got all my advanced learns to IV, what's the best path to get them to V?"
No it doesn't. All you say is "train them". That doesn't say the best way to do so.
Originally by: Pottsey
and say when its worse and when it's better to get V in less then 3 years.
No you don't. You never say when it is worse to get Vs, and you give demonstrably false information on how long they take to pay off.
Originally by: Pottsey
If that's the case show me a useful skill I could have got instead of adv4 for the role my pilot does? Ooo look there aren't any. It was a choice of train some useless or very low value skills, or get adv5 and get high value skills faster. The better option is to get adv5. I am not saying the skills are useless in every situation, I am saying they are useless for my role.
Originally by: Pottsey
Most of my posts have been about weather its better to train learning Vs before starting to train other skills. Instead of just saying adv4 is always better until 3 years have passed. I have been posting reasons and examples of when it's better to get adv5 and when it's not and when it's better in 1 year or 6 months.
I will say it again for the I don't know how many'th time. Until you train for 3 years, you will have more skillpoints (discounting those in learning skills) if you forgo training learnings to 5. You will have more skill points. You will have more skill points. YOU WILL HAVE MORE SKILL POINTS. That is an undeniable fact. Dance around the issue all you want, you have never and will never address that because you can't come up with some ****amamie situation where it's false. Keep arguing that you're better off with less skill points, fine, whatever, I'm done talking to someone with the reasoning skills of a 4 year old.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 06:52:00 -
[96]
"if you forgo training learnings to 5. You will have more skill points."
If I forgo adv5 I would have month's worth of non learning skillpoints that are impossible to have with a adv4 skill training path. That is an undeniable fact. if I forgo adv5 I wouldn't be able to fly an Orca yet, undeniable fact.
"Keep arguing that you're better off with less skill points, fine, whatever, I'm done talking to someone with the reasoning skills of a 4 year old."
You fail to understand that I have 50 ish days worth of non learning skills points I would not have if I had adv4. That's an undeniable fact and you call me the one with the reasoning skills of a 4 year old.
Having adv4 gives me less useful skill points. Having adv4 means I have 50days of skills I cannot have if I have adv4.
"Bolded portions are the important ones. You admit that you can train any skill with adv4s that you can with adv5s. Therefore, if you have something useful to train after getting adv5s, you could train them before getting adv5s."
OK that proves your logic is extremely poor. No wonder you cannot understand me.
Are you even reading my posts? I posted in more than once place where I couldn't train a very useful skill with adv4 before getting adv5. I used a real in game character that's not super old. It was 100% impossible for adv4 to train the skill before adv5 in 6months. Yet you are still saying I am wrong with zero evidence on your part?
I used a real world example of where I had something useful to train for but couldn't train for faster with adv4. You have yet to show how adv4 could train that skill faster because it's impossible in some situations.
"Italicized portion is your bald-faced lie. Eve has been out 5 years. Adv learning skills take ~65 days to train. By your own admission you get ~15 extra days a year because of adv 5s. 15 per year * 5 years = 75 days - the 65 it took you to get them is 10 days, much less than multiple months."
How can you still not get it? Its 100% clear that I am 50ish days further down my skill training path. If I didn't train adv5 I would have month's worth of less skill over the training path I took in real life. That's months worth of skills I could train before getting adv4. Months worth of non learning skills if I had adv4 I wouldn't have now no matter what.
It's a simple fact if I had adv4 I wouldn't be able to do some of the things I can do now. No matter what. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Why can you not understand that if I had adv4 there are 50 ish days of skills I could not have by now. There is no skill plan with adv4 that would let me have those 50days of non learning skills by now. If you can find one that would work I will give you 5 million.
"deoesn't suggest, proves. Math is what it is, and math does not suggest that 2 + 2 = 4"
When you use 2+2=4 to work out times tables of 7x7 then the math is wrong. That's just what you have done. As before, if my real life game character examples are months further down the skill training path due to adv5. If with adv4 it is 100% impossible to have those months worth of skillpoints. Then your math is wrong in that you're using the wrong simplified math formulas.
If I am so wrong show me how in post 60, my real world example that adv4 can train for an Orca faster. It's impossible as adv5 is faster in 6 months. Every real game situation means adv5 get that Orca faster for that character. adv4 has less usefull skillpoints in 6 months.
"I will say it again for the I don't know how many'th time. Until you train for 3 years, you will have more skillpoints"
Right now due to adv5 my young character can fly an Orca, if she had adv4 she could not. You cannot suggest a real life alternative skill path with adv4 that would let her fly an Orca faster. So it's not 3 years. Its clear the adv5 path has more usefull skillpoints for her role. Adv5 is better at her role.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 07:04:00 -
[97]
"I will say it again for the I don't know how many'th time. Until you train for 3 years, you will have more skillpoints"
Right now due to adv5 my young character can fly an Orca, if she had adv4 she could not. You cannot suggest a real life alternative skill path with adv4 that would let her fly an Orca faster. So it's not 3 years. Its clear the adv5 path has more useful skillpoints for her role. Adv5 is better at her role.
EDIT: Another way to put it. The skills I could train instead of adv5 have a value of 3. The extra skills I get per year due to adv5 but couldn't have with adv4 have a value of 15. So adv5 gave me more useful skillpoints.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 10:48:00 -
[98]
I think the main thing to learn from this thread is not whether or not adv.Vs are worth training, but that Pottsey will never, ever concede that they are not, and can always be trolled into writing huge posts defending them.
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Euphoria Released
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 14:30:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Malcanis
I think the main thing to learn from this thread is not whether or not adv.Vs are worth training, but that Pottsey will never, ever concede that they are not, and can always be trolled into writing huge posts defending them.
LOL you're absolutely right there and with that in mind here's something I found which kind of reminds me of this!
Pottsey joking ofc!
|
Bethor Invictus
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 15:18:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Bethor Invictus on 11/12/2008 15:20:04
IMO there is one big flaw in your logic Pottsey.
The so called "useless skill" one would be training in the time that you are training learning v.
In the time IÆve played eve IÆve NEVER trained a useless skill. All skills I trained had a use. Some limited or for a short time. But still a use.
Even when changing career paths as you stated in an earlier post you dispose of the history by imagining that didnÆt happen. It did happen and it does have influence. It is true that for your new career you train skills faster.
In all examples you've given you've took in consideration that none of the prerequisite skills would have been trained in the time you trained level 5 learning. While that cannot be taken in consideration because you do not know what you would have trained in that time had you not trained level 5 learning. (time paradox thingy)
What Iria Ahrens is pure math. And just plain true. Specially if you would take in consideration that the character knew what he wanted to play and how to play (opposed to what you propose, that someone doesnÆt know what to play from the start and might want to change career paths halfway through) it from day 1 and thus has been train that from day 1. It would take you a bit over the time stated there before you would get any advantage of you learning V skills.
|
|
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 15:32:00 -
[101]
Woah. Wishful thinking >> Logic, it seems ><
For all adv. at 5 there is a payoff period and it's been established independently, multiple times, at roughly three years.
Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 15:33:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 11/12/2008 15:35:23
Originally by: Pottsey
"I will say it again for the I don't know how many'th time. Until you train for 3 years, you will have more skillpoints"
Right now due to adv5 my young character can fly an Orca, if she had adv4 she could not. You cannot suggest a real life alternative skill path with adv4 that would let her fly an Orca faster. So it's not 3 years. Its clear the adv5 path has more useful skillpoints for her role. Adv5 is better at her role.
Without level 5s it would have taken you..one whole day longer to fly the orca? Probably much less.
And no non-learning skills have learning skills as prerequisites so the whole T3 thing is rubbish. And since they changed the advanced learning skils to require only the regulars at 4 instead of 5, it's highly likely that if they ever introduce pro-learning skills, lvl 4 advanced will suffice, too.
Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 17:40:00 -
[103]
Bethor Invictus "IMO there is one big flaw in your logic Pottsey.
The so called "useless skill" one would be training in the time that you are training learning v.
In the time IÆve played eve IÆve NEVER trained a useless skill."
That's not a flaw in my logic, I already said if you have high value or just decent value useful skills to train instead of adv5 then in that case adv4 is the better path and it does take 3 years for adv5 to be worth it in that case.
You might never have had only low value or useless skills to train, but many of us who go down a few set roles do find our self in that situation.
Sokratesz said "And no non-learning skills have learning skills as prerequisites so the whole T3 thing is rubbish."
I didn't mean or say T3 skills would have learning skills as a prerequisite. I meant if I spend a year training T3 skills or prerequisites I would end up 15ish days further down the skill path in 1 year due to adv5.
Sokratesz said "Woah. Wishful thinking >> Logic, it seems ><"
Its not wishfully thinking it is a fact I am 50ish days further down my current training path due to adv5. There is no way, no other combination of training skills with adv4 that I would have had those 50days. If I never got adv5 I would not have those 50days worth of skills how ever you look at it.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 19:02:00 -
[104]
Yes but you spent 8 weeks traing those skills so in fact youre still a week behind.
Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 19:47:00 -
[105]
Sokratesz said "Yes but you spent 8 weeks traing those skills so in fact youre still a week behind."
Depends on how you define behind. The 7 weeks of skills I gained from adv5 I couldn't have if I had ad4. Those 7 weeks of skills are much higher value to me then the skills I could train instead of adv5. So from a useful skill point, point of view I am very far ahead.
Of course that's not always the situation. Sometime the 7weeks of skills you gain from adv5 are worth less than the 8 weeks of skills you would have with adv4. Then adv4 is better at least for a while.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 22:48:00 -
[106]
Wait. When you spend time training learning skills you suddenly value it lower because you didn't know what to do with that time anyway, and when it's become *slightly* faster training time due to lvl 5 skills it's suddenly more valuable?
Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 07:30:00 -
[107]
Sokratesz said "Wait. When you spend time training learning skills you suddenly value it lower because you didn't know what to do with that time anyway, and when it's become *slightly* faster training time due to lvl 5 skills it's suddenly more valuable?"
No, I give every skill a value based on how it effects my play style. For example
-Tactical Shield Manipulation lvl 5 has a value of -1
-Long Distance Jamming has a value of 0 as it has zero impact on my play style.
-Small Railgun Specialization lvl 5 has value of 0 as it has zero impact on my play style.
-Kinetic Armor Compensation lvl 5 has a value of +1 as I have one ship I fly for 1 or 2 weeks on average per year that's amour tanked.
-The skill for the Orca has a value or 4 or 5 on my main account due to using it a on regular basics.
-The skill for the Orca has a value of 10 on my 2nd account due to the amount she users it and the impact it has.
Then when possible I look at the value of skills that I get extra due to adv5 compared to what is the value of skills I would have with skills train instead of adv5. The point when adv5 has given better skills, adv5 has been paid off and worth it.
Looking back at both my accounts past history the adv5 path gave me higher value skills in far less then 3 years.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Gaius Sejanus
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 04:36:00 -
[108]
Don't you all see the futility of talking to Pottsey? Every time any point is made, he changes the entire basis for his arguement.
First total skillpoints, then useful skillpoints, and now its redefining what "useful" is with this bizarre number scale...like that scale would be even the tiniest fraction useful to anyone else.
You can't talk sense into him. Stop even trying.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 10:49:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Pottsey on 14/12/2008 10:54:29
Gaius Sejanus just because you have been proven wrong it doesn't mean you have to make such a silly troll like post. Anyone who can read can see I haven't changed my argument it's been the same since post 15 and before in older threads.
Can you point out where I changed the entire basis for my argument? I bet you cannot as its been the same since post 15. Just like you cannot show me how I am wrong because it's you who is wrong. A lot of what you have said is clearly wrong.
My bizarre number scale isn't bizarre if you think about it and understood it. If you understood it then you would realise it's much better then working out payoff as 3 years. The scale is very useful for most other people, you don't use my skill values for your skills you use your own values based on the roles you do in game.
I am not redefining what useful is. All I am doing is sorting skills by how useful they are. Then saying training the more useful skills is better than the less useful skills. Sometimes that means adv5 lets you train the more useful skills. The bizarre way is your way of training the less useful skills instead of adv5 then going, hey I have more useful skillpoints when clearly your worse off.
I know I shouldn't respond to your trolling post. But there you go I did it again.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 15:14:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Pottsey
My bizarre number scale isn't bizarre if you think about it and understood it. If you understood it then you would realise it's much better then working out payoff as 3 years. The scale is very useful for most other people, you don't use my skill values for your skills you use your own values based on the roles you do in game.
The problem with arbitrarily assigning values is that arbitrarily assigning other values will give different results.
The advantage of saying payoff is reached when "skillpoints spent training the skills" is equal to "skillpoints gained by training the skills (compared to not training them)" is that it is objective.
FREE! jumpclone service |
|
|
Simone Bataille
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 17:40:00 -
[111]
so what is the optimal order in which to train
Analytic Mind
Eidetic Memory
Instant Recall
Learning
Logic
to level V? I will have all of these at level IV in less than 2 hours. Tripoli's famous learning skill plan thread doesn't really tell you exactly when to train to level V if you plan to go 'all the way'
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 18:34:00 -
[112]
Estel Arador said "The advantage of saying payoff is reached when "skillpoints spent training the skills" is equal to "skillpoints gained by training the skills (compared to not training them)" is that it is objective."
But that leads to the problem of many people being told they are worse off and shouldn't train adv5 when they would be better off. What use is that so called objective way when the results it gives don't match what many players get in game?
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 19:45:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Simone Bataille
so what is the optimal order in which to train
Analytic Mind
Eidetic Memory
Instant Recall
Learning
Logic
to level V? I will have all of these at level IV in less than 2 hours. Tripoli's famous learning skill plan thread doesn't really tell you exactly when to train to level V if you plan to go 'all the way'
I believe it was learning first, then the skill affecting your highest attribute (then the next highest after that, etc). That's what I meant with "highest attribute first" in the third post 
Originally by: Pottsey
But that leads to the problem of many people being told they are worse off and shouldn't train adv5 when they would be better off. What use is that so called objective way when the results it gives don't match what many players get in game?
No, in your (very) subjective opinion it doesn't "match what many players get". You conveniently failed to address my point that the only objective way of calculating it should be preferable to any subjective way any day of the week.
FREE! jumpclone service |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 21:50:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Pottsey on 14/12/2008 21:53:29
Estel Arador said "No, in your (very) subjective opinion it doesn't "match what many players get"."
Yes it does match many players. Anyone who ends up with being able to do more usefull things with skills from adv5 then what they could train instead of adv5 fits into my idea of if learning skills are worth it. Clearly many players fall into this category so many players do fit my idea.
The very nature of the benefits of learning skills means you're better off with players using a subjective opinion. The only thing that matters to a player is if they end up better off or worse off due to adv5. That is a subjective opinion as the only person who can work out which skills are more important is the player them self.
You cannot use an objective way to measure skills as everyone has a different opinion and use for skills. What's a useful skill to one player is useless to another. If you use an objective way to measure skills you're giving a false reading that doesn't match the player. An example being the pilot from post 60, your objective way says they are worse off but the player is better off as they can do what they need to better with adv5. Meaning your objective way doesn't work.
If your objective way means the player can do less of what they want to do and are worse at what they do in game then the objective way is the wrong way to measure. Although it's not wrong for all pilots but it doesn't work for many pilots.
Estel Arador said " You conveniently failed to address my point that the only objective way of calculating it should be preferable to any subjective way any day of the week."
You never explained why the only way is to use the objective way, you just said it is. That is not a very good argument, when I listed problems with it. Not everyone is better off with adv5, not everyone is better off with adv4. So if any method always saying someone is better off with adv4 is bad method.
You conveniently failed to address my point that you're so called objective way of calculating learning skills says people are worse off when in actual fact they can be better off. If that is the case which it is for many pilots then the objective way you are using is wrong.
Estel Arador said "The problem with arbitrarily assigning values is that arbitrarily assigning other values will give different results."
But I am not arbitrarily assigning values; there is a meaning behind the values. The player assigns values based on how useful the skill is to them. They don't just pick a random number per skill. Different results per player is not a problem it's a benefit. Any method that always gives the same results for all players is not a good way as every player is different with a different value for each skill.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 22:25:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Pottsey
Anyone who ends up with being able to do more usefull things with skills from adv5 then what they could train instead of adv5 fits into my idea of if learning skills are worth it. (...)
If your objective way means the player can do less of what they want to do and are worse at what they do in game then the objective way is the wrong way to measure.
Let's not forget we're talking about relative advantages here. Anyone "ends up" with all skills, only thing different is the time it has taken. Your precious pilot from post 60 might've been in an Orca a few days earlier than without the skills the V, but those few days required an investment of a couple of months.
Originally by: Pottsey
You never explained why the only way is to use the objective way, you just said it is.
I did not say that. I said "the only objective way (...) should be preferable to any subjective way".
Originally by: Pottsey
So if any method always saying someone is better off with adv4 is bad method.
Well my method doesn't say that. It just says it takes over 3 years to be 'better off'.
Originally by: Pottsey
You conveniently failed to address my point that you're so called objective way of calculating learning skills says people are worse off when in actual fact they can be better off. If that is the case which it is for many pilots then the objective way you are using is wrong.
Oh, copying my rhetoric  Too bad the rhetoric can't hide the fact that your logic is circular. "Your way is wrong if you look at it my way so your way wrong."
FREE! jumpclone service |
Berikath
|
Posted - 2008.12.14 23:38:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Berikath on 14/12/2008 23:41:57
Lemmie see if I can summarize this Originally by: Pottsey
My logic has no flaws. Any skill that you could train except learning Vs is a low value skill that you'll never use- it doesn't matter what the skill is, it's worthless. Also, in addition to those skills being useless, I changed my mind right after finishing learning Vs and every skill that ever got trained, ever ever ever, before then immediately became useless, and so 100% of the training time after I changed my mind is bonus time that I wouldn't have gotten without learning Vs.
Finally, don't bother trying to persuade me with your "Math" or "Logic" about how a new character who isn't gonna be around for 3 years will get more useful points without training learning Vs. I have personal, completely unreproducable experience that learning Vs were the right choice for me, so everyone, everywhere, no exceptions should train advanced learning skills up to V.
Seriously though, Pottsey, question- How many people have argued this with you, and how many of them have you convinced? Secondly, how many guides follow your way of thinking, and how many follow ours? I can link a bunch that agree with me, if you like.
To paraphrase: there's only one thing in common with all your failed logic- maybe the problem isn't with us.
*EDIT* also, if anyone is going to keep arguing with him, there's a point you should keep in mind. When he argues against you, he'll say that you take the position that learning 4s are always better than learning Vs. Do me a favor and quote him saying that and quote yourself directly contradicting him- he can talk about how learning Vs were better for him and so you're wrong all he likes, but having quotes where he's just straight out wrong, no room for interpretation makes me giggle.
|
Gaius Sejanus
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 02:42:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Gaius Sejanus on 15/12/2008 02:43:37
I think you're setting the bar too high with asking if anyone has come to agree with him.
Try something more realistic: Has anyone ever said that Pottsey's way of thinking is even remotely valid, and not a self-delusionment in an attempt to make it seem like the Adv5s paid off much sooner than they will? The answer is still no.
It's pretty hard to argue with math. The only way to make it work is, well, what Pottsey does. Inserting arbitrary subjective measurements, confusing the issue with nonsensical topics like "not sticking to a skill plan makes Adv5s more worthwhile", and just plain lying about what the other side is trying to point out.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 06:12:00 -
[118]
I have all my learning skills maxed out except for the charisma ones. I don't regret it. I'm not going to fill a 4-page thread with defenses of why I maxed them out, either.
I like knowing that I learn skills as fast as I can possibly learn them. I intend to play this game for many years to come. That's pretty much it. Make of that what you will.
I've been playing for a little over a year and I have about 23 million skill points, so I think I'm doing alright.
|
KiwiMatt
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 07:10:00 -
[119]
Kiwimatt smiles to himself as he settles back in the station sipping his can of quafe. Training those advanced skills to lvl 5 as soon as they came out, means the fabled "3 - 3.5 yrs until payoff" has been and gone, about 6 months ago... and compared to those who haven't trained them, it's like having +6 implants plugged in...
Only one thing is guaranteed though - that in another 3 - 3.5 years the arguement's as to it's worth will still be bouncing around these message boards. Those with adv 5 skills will probably be arguing from within any shiny new ships in game, a day or two (or hour or two) before those without the adv 5 learning skills though...
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 08:17:00 -
[120]
Gaius Sejanus said "It's pretty hard to argue with math."
Yet that's just what you are doing. You are ignoring the math and numbers that show I have xx more useful skillpoints. People are saying things are impossible like me being 50days ahead in a skill training plan in less than 3 years when the math says it's not. You are ingnoring the math as it proves you wrong.
Gaius Sejanus said "Inserting arbitrary subjective measurements, confusing the issue with nonsensical topics like "not sticking to a skill plan makes Adv5s more worthwhile", and just plain lying about what the other side is trying to point out."
The numbers are not arbitrary. The skills need to be subjective as the skills have different values to different pilots. I am not lying. Just because you fail to understand something it doesn't mean it's nonsensical and meaningless. Skills values are subjective, yet you ignore that far to much.
The math used shows I am better off with 50ish days of very useful skills in less than 3 years but you like to ignore that. You like to say swapping those 50days of useful skill points for xx days of useless or low value skillpoints is better. That's what this all comes down to. You fail to see that skills have different values.
Estel Arador "Well my method doesn't say that. It just says it takes over 3 years to be 'better off'."
Precisely what I said before. Your method says someone is better off in over 3 years when they are really better off in under 3 years. How can you says someone is better off with adv4 until the 3 year mark when in game they can do less useful things, not fly the ships they need, not do their job as well and be over 1 month behind in their skill plan due to adv4? Yet somehow that turns out to be classed as better off. Thats my point, if your doing less at what you want to do due to adv4 then your not better off. How can less at what you want to do be better off?
Estel Arador said "Your precious pilot from post 60 might've been in an Orca a few days earlier than without the skills the V, but those few days required an investment of a couple of months."
Investment doesn't matter in that the only thing that matters is which path lets you do your job better in game. If investment makes you do your in game job better then you're better off with the investment. If investment doesn't make you better at your in game job then you're better off without investment. That's something many posters on here seem to struggle with. What about all the situations were the pilots ended up over 1 month ahead in the training plan in less than 3 years? You're ignoring all those situations where in under 3 years the adv5 path makes the pilot better at there job and better at what they want to do.
A group of people on here have the faulty logic of I can train some low value skills instead of adv5 and lose 1+month of high value skills due to adv5 and be better off. Some pilots following the advice of adv5 takes 3 years to be better off would end up worse off in game as they would be a month behind on the skills they need compared to adv4. What use is swaping low vuale skills with adv4 over higher vaule skills from adv5?
Estel Arador said "did not say that. I said "the only objective way (...) should be preferable to any subjective way".
Precisely as I said you never explained why the objective way should be preferable to the subjective way. Anyway your way isn't really objective as your ignoring the value of skills but assigning a value to learning skills based on feelings. Ignoring the value of skills is not really an objective way. Grouping all non learning skills as the same value is not the best as they clearly don't all have the same value.
____
Telltale sign of their presence is non-linear teleportation
(www.eve-online.com/races/theodicy/Theodicy_All.pdf)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |