Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You're jumping to conclusions - I don't see anything that identifies Sal as a Brit.

Brits only say "sod off" or "bugger off" when they're being polite. "**** off" is about as English as you can get (derived from Middle English, first recorded use 1503).

As for defending French-derived spellings, Brits don't have an inferiority complex regarding their history or ancestory. Maybe Americans would find retaining the French versions an unwelcome reminder of the eternal debt they owe to the French army for winning their revolution for them.

American English isn't even consistent. They have "armor", "color", "humor", etc, but still use "glamour". In a British court the accused is charged with an "offence" and "evidence" is given, but in an American court the accused is charged with an "offense" but still faces "evidence".

Having said all of that, I think there's undeniable evidence that the two versions of the language are merging rapidly, thanks first to movies, then tv and now the Internet. And it isn't one-way traffic - I've noticed several examples of British vocabulary in recent US tv shows.

Oh, and I know someone will not understand the whole concept given the limited character explanation, so I must add a second post even though its frowned upon.
-Fex in the new system if I had skills primarily on armor tanking I would by that skill-set be limited to armor tanking vessels, in practical terms not absolute terms. Since I could fly any ship very quickly, but to fly shield tanking ships with armor tanks are not very practical. The route for shield-tanking and armor tanking will be slightly longer, with the armor and shield resistance skills moved over to the ship sub-skills (they would replace the resistance skills of today. They only work when adding passive modules that increase resistance, also in the new system). And armor, shield and Hull HP moved to the ship sub-skills. armor-tanking ships will have far larger armor-bonus to armor-hp subskill than shield-tanking ships (so it wouldn't hurt a shield-tanker to not train armor HP subskill, and thus allowing more specialization). The point is to have to make the tough choice about what to NOT train, more so than what to train. Since the number of skills that take short are so high (I know I want to train all the skills I DONT EVEN USE to L3 or so before I go for 12D+ skills lol).
-Incase you misunderstood it, the drones would work like the turrets in skills. You can fly heavy drones almost right away, but you would need to upgrade the drone control ability and control range etc sub-skill for each ship you wish to fly drones with (not all ships can fly drones, carriers have multiple drone subskills).
-Oh, and all the skills everyone has to train now in order to do anything (science, electronics, engineering, mechanics, hull upgrades, navigation etc), go away in various ways and some transform into subskills, module specific skills, module type and size specific skills for modules with several size modules etc.
But certain things will remain as the core "identity" skills as it were.
-Industrial profession (mining skills, trading skills, manufacturing skills, invention skills).
-What sort of tank you use,
-what weapons type and size and variation (short or long range, energy/projectile/hybrid/missile, small/medium/large/capital, T1/T2, how much cargo space you require for ammo also impacts choice of ships) you use,
-drone skills (which type (size and damage type, drone tank type (drones tank like your ship does)),
-navigation skills (If you have trained AB or MWD most, 1MN, 10MN or 100MN size most),
-what modules you have trained most (Fex ECM is more caldari oriented perhaps),
-what rigging skills you have focused on (armor tanking, navigation, drones, gun rigs for your particular best-skilled guns, etc).
You will be able to train for the best possible fitting of one fit, lets say tachyon large T2 beam turrets on an apocalypse, with all the subskills and tank needed etc to have the ship as good as need be for it to be "maxed" in about half a year, a quarter year if you drop some things that in practice can be painfully not trained and still be quite useful in a fleet battle (like the two L5 gun skills, L5 resistance skills, L5 gun cap efficiency skill, L5 gun CPU efficiency skill, and a few other L4 and L5 efficiency skills that you don't need because you have just enough CPU and capacitor (cap rigs and one damage rig, with better efficiency skills almost right at the half-year mark you could have two damage rigs and even one cap rig (perfect calibration subskill), or so it would be balanced in my world).

Oh, and I have now spent 12 hours on this, please spend more than five seconds before figuring out if you have imagined the concept correctly and like it or not. I know we all like it the way it is, but that does not mean we can't like it in another way that allows new people to join the game without being forced to pay as much money as we have before they can fly what we can fly. We're afterall the ones who will sell stuff to them and earn our PLEX from their losses as they run about in low-subskilled ships (either because they're newbs, or because they can't bring themselves to specialize enough). Think about that before you think the new players will somehow get to play for way less investment, and that it is somehow unfair that they get to have it easier than we did.

Edit: And a lot will be balanced to reflect the new skills. Fex 1600mm armor plating will require more powergrid, even more so with T2 1600mm plating, but with the right efficiency skill focus you can put large passive and active tanks on battleships (you free powergrid with the powergrid efficiency skill on all the other modules also, improving tank ability, same is true for shield tankers who improve powergrid efficiency of low-slot modules etc). Same with 800mm plates for cruisers etc.Shield extenders will be affected by shield HP subskill, armor plates will be affected by armor HP subskill. Lots of specialization-friendly changes so that you can become better at your ship(s) of choice. Ships will to a larger extent be more specialized (so two frigs do two completely separate jobs very well instead of crossing each others task). But each ship will allow for a wider assortment of fits based on what you focus your skills on in terms of tank, weapons and efficiencies.
Edit2: To imagine how playing the game would be with the new system imagine this: Everything is way more difficult to fit due to powergrid, processing, capacitor and calibration points requirements of modules and weapons, but all weapons and modules have module type and size specific skills to improve these efficiencies. So even though you fly the same ship many others do, you can fit combinations of modules not many others can. And fex shield-tanking ships have more shield and way less armor HP (so armor HP subskill doesn't give a lot to them), and vice versa to armor tanking ships. Shield tanks can compete with armor tanks, passive can compete with active.

Good changes it is now much easier to understand.

If you must change Spaceship Command to make the skill category and skill different, leave the category named Spaceship Command, and change the skill to Spaceship Piloting, or even better, just Piloting.

Also, please "split" the infinitive. It's good English to do so.

Yesyes, but what do you think of it? Maybe you could reiterate the conceptual change in skills in fewer words?

PS: I have never seen reading as a drag, its the act of opening the book that makes me yawn.

This appears like more 'dumbing-down' of the game to me. The average EVE Online player is not stupid or ignorant and can work out what the current skill category names mean and relate to.

I and many other would much rather CCP STOP trying to fix things that are not broken & please start fixing things that ARE BROKEN!

The first one that springs to mind is Corporation/Alliance Roles & Permissions in conjunction with their use on Player Owned Stations. We know this needs fixing. You know this needs fixing. It may take some time but please fix this and not things that are not broken. I'd pull my hair out but I don't have that much left. Grrrr.

Everyone can learn one thing, yes. But new players are pushed into a whole (not half) universe of things to learn all at once without any clear indications of what to learn when.
If it isn't made easier it hurts CCP's bottom line (and the speed at which new features emerge). If it is not made easier then at least it should be clear in what order they need to learn things (and not just what order they need to DO things, but about what they should learn about first and second etc to have a good rate of growth for understanding the universe). Then they can learn early that they can ignore learning about POSes, planetary interaction, null-sec, capital ships etc until later.

But I can agree that on its own changing the names of the skills and the way they are grouped does little to add to the game. It does quite little to make it easier for new people.
It would be an easier system if you had three skill-sets,
-one set for the ships (1 ship-skill per ship to fly the ship, each ship with its set of sub-skills/secondary skills that don't transfer to other ships),
-one set for the modules (one skill per module, modules with more than one size has subskills, each module has its efficiency-skills (use less CPU, PG, cap etc)),
-one set for the profession-skills (science skills, planetary interaction skills, corp skills, fleet command skills, anchoring skills, manufacturing skills, social skills (skills to improve how well you can do missions and what you get paid)).
This would make it quite obvious what to learn first if you wish to improve an attribute on your ship (yield, dps, velocity, HP etc), and what to train if you wish to do something else than just fly. It could be explained with a few pictures instead of a tutorial if need-be. If you want to use a module, you train the module skill (no prerequisite skills), if you want to use a ship, you train that ship-skill, if you want to improve you train what you want to improve (tracking, PG use, cap use, CPU use, sig radius, HP, resistance, falloff, range, cycle time, drawbacks, damage multiplier etc).
(is this a short enough skirt Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris?)
EDIT: Oh, and on frigates most T1 frig-size modules fit without problems, so new people don't have to bother with sub-skills for their modules for basic frig fits. That means they only need to train the module skill, the ship skill, and then they can fly both. The point is to have them flying as they learn, not studying a curriculum before they are given the keys to the spaceship.

It looks like they are avoiding the real problems and fix everything around the broken things. I don't understand this... There a obvious things broken as hell and they do stuff like this... But what do you expect from a company that is unable to to unify the description of a few ships for YEARS.

It's because they don't know how or lack the skill to fix these problems at the current time. At least that's my guess. So they go about changing other things to make it look like they are doing work while they sit there twiddling their thumbs wondering how to fix the issues that plague the game. I mean they did an epic update, and now they are going back to doing dumb useless things.

also talking about missile skills.. its a little confusing if you look at the base missile stats before you put them in your ship the stats don't really take into account your missile skills ..

also since missile skills usually add upto 100% range and 50% on other stats like tracking its hard to understand looking at say a Heavy missile in eve what kind of performance you will get from them.

besides making these stats accurate with your skills added in game i would also suggest reducing the skills down to more conservative 5% a level .. and then apply the difference to the missiles themselves this would massively help new players understand what the missiles will actually do without having to load them into a ship or look at eve Hq or something.
Adding missile range in km would be nice instead of having to calculate velocity X flight time.

You shouldn't need 3rd party applications to understand and get accurate figures that the game should be doing already
perhaps also the descriptions of missiles in game could be more informative like the ammo for guns now have clear percentage stats on the descriptions.

also add a new skill called medium assault missiles and they could be a lower damage better tracking version of HAMS.
replace RML's with medium assault launchers that way you get better tracking against smaller ships but without the massive loss of dps and ofc using small missiles on a medium sized ship is out of whack really.