EVE General Discussion

Who said that you can't train other skills simply because you are remapped to Per and Will for example? That is just an illusion which people put in their mind which is untrue. You are still gaining SP at a tangible rate even if you have the worst remap and worst implants for the skill your training.

And as long as you spend a portion of your time training the skills for which you remapped, you will still be better off than not having had remapped at all.

Well, that's forethought and planning for you. Do you want to commit to that single focus for that long, or do you want to spec up for more freedom and being ready for any eventualities? Or do you realise that it won't matter because the adjustments are only going to change by a couple of hours anyway?

Getting the basics done on a flat remap (or, if it's a new character, using those free remaps in full) and then going for the more focused stuff still lets you avoid the uselessness problem. At the same time, it allows your industry character to do just that: only industry (and science), and become useful faster.

3. Mix the two, depending on your need, when, and what you want to achieve.
4. Suck it up and train off-respec when needed because it makes very little difference for the occasional skill.

The learning skills were horrid in every way since it was a pointless meta-mechanic that forced you into one of two equally awful choices: do nothing for long stretches of time, or suffer from appallingly slow skill progression. It served absolutely no useful purpose for the game (not even from the perspective of adding choice since there was none in any meaningful way).

Pay-for-respecs will never happen because it's such a terminally bad design, and attributes offer an interesting puzzle to solve that isn't likely to go away any time soon since it actually offers a meaningful choice.

It's always been discussed. It's been dismissed for about as long as well. All that's happening is that more players are coming in from other MMOs with preconceptions about how the system does (or should) work than need to be corrected.

Any particular reason? What with?
The list is a matter of fact, not opinion, by the way. The only way for it not to be is if it was limited in such a way that it might as well not be implemented at all.

Without typing everything out again, no. All of it, except one paragraph.

And it's not fact at all, it's your opinion, which is no more valid than anyone else's.

Exactly my point. The idea that you can only train Per and Will based skills because you have that remap is the hallmark of a min maxing munckin as you put it. :) As you agree with me above in the fact that you will still gain benefit over the year even if you only train those skill for which you are remapped for a portion of it.

Remaps are good and make for some interesting decisions. But the mechanic can be ignored and people will still get by just fine, albeit with a slightly less optimised and slower training plan than other might have. Sounds like perfectly balanced and good gameplay mechanics to me.

Would the game be broken if attributes were fixed-value and remaps were removed? Apparently so for some people who perceive incrementing values on their character sheet as more important than playing the game.

Remaps are a needlessly complicated mechanic which just adds to the burden of how much a new player has to learn to be effective in the game. A mistake in a remap can penalise a character for 12 months. It takes a lot of explaining to carry across the purpose of attributes and remaps, and player and their characters can actually be functional without worrying about remaps at all: this indicates to me that remaps are an ideal candidate for removal.

The skill training system already provides sufficient complexity and room for specialisation and minmaxing (the ongoing discussion about Drone Navigation 4 vs 5, Tactical Shield 4 vs 5, etc).

Hmm I disagree, the added complexity is good in my opinion, I personally find it quite enjoyable creating skill plans and having to plan things in advance to optimise them. And the great thing is you can simply ignore the whole mechanic if you wish and still progress at an adequate pace as CCP has given everyone a good starting position no matter what they wish to train.

This is the essence of my disagreement with your viewpoint. I do not view minmaxing as "interesting".

It's one of those systems where, were it my responsibility to maintain the software, the first time it caused problems I'd be pulling it out.

No. It still suffers all the problems Tippia listed.

Also, camel's nose under the tent . . .

I do agree that spending months training ships you'll never fly is dumb, but people have 100M+ SP characters that can fly a covops, HAC, marauder, freighter, T3 and carrier because their playstyles change over the years. Unless you're a goon or a bort, you'll probably spend a significant amount of time in highsec, where you might end up flying a freighter. Let's say you then start doing some exploration in lowsec and you probe with a covops before running the site with a different ship. You also train a HAC and go on roams. Then you might move to nullsec, and you use a marauder to make some ISK in anomalies. Then you might train a carrier so you can move your ships more easily.

It's not munchkinism, it just accumulates over the years. Sure, you can stop training every character once you reach 40M SP and then train a new one, along with all of the missile/gunnery, mechanics, navigation, drones, engineering and electronics support skills. That, uh, doesn't really make sense.

Not that I disagree that "respecs" or "remaps on demand" are dumb ideas, mind you.