These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[February] Force Auxiliary Skills

First post First post
Author
Hound Halfhand
Repo Industries
#241 - 2016-02-09 16:44:42 UTC
The tears are so delicious I'm skipping dessert tonight.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#242 - 2016-02-09 16:49:27 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:



You appear to be being willfully obtuse.

Explain why a new hull and rebalance of texting old is insufficient to correct them.


I don't know the real answer but if I have to make a guess on why they did it, I'd say it's because they want each capital hull your train for to be a meaningful choice with the associated time sink.



And yet it's ill thought out as the x14 and costs are because it also was for supers. Not so much with these.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#243 - 2016-02-09 17:00:53 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:



You appear to be being willfully obtuse.

Explain why a new hull and rebalance of texting old is insufficient to correct them.


I don't know the real answer but if I have to make a guess on why they did it, I'd say it's because they want each capital hull your train for to be a meaningful choice with the associated time sink.



And yet it's ill thought out as the x14 and costs are because it also was for supers. Not so much with these.


I'm pretty sure they made it 14x because they don't want people to have overflowing SP after re-speccing into FAX from carrier. Unless everyone speccing into FAX is willing to burn those SP? It's not gonna happen and I already hear the 'I trained those SP!!!" warcry...
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#244 - 2016-02-09 17:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Frostys Virpio wrote:


I'm pretty sure they made it 14x because they don't want people to have overflowing SP after re-speccing into FAX from carrier. Unless everyone speccing into FAX is willing to burn those SP? It's not gonna happen and I already hear the 'I trained those SP!!!" warcry...


Nope, they did it as leverage for their new SP extractor. Just because you dont believe CCP could be that cynical doesnt change the fact they are.

I present monocle-gate as all the evidence i need. With the CEO of CCP calling eve subscribers a 'cash cow', as if any further evidence was needed.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#245 - 2016-02-09 17:05:41 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


I'm pretty sure they made it 14x because they don't want people to have overflowing SP after re-speccing into FAX from carrier. Unless everyone speccing into FAX is willing to burn those SP? It's not gonna happen and I already hear the 'I trained those SP!!!" warcry...


Nope, they did it as leverage for their new SP extractor. Just because you dont believe CCP could be that cynical doesnt change the fact they are.

I present monocle-gate as all the evidence i need. With the CEO of CCP calling eve subscribers a 'cash cow', as if any further evidence was needed.


Why didn't they make it 16x then if it's only to milk the SP trade?
D3m0n sam
Mea Culpa.
#246 - 2016-02-09 17:08:19 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:



You appear to be being willfully obtuse.

Explain why a new hull and rebalance of texting old is insufficient to correct them.


I don't know the real answer but if I have to make a guess on why they did it, I'd say it's because they want each capital hull your train for to be a meaningful choice with the associated time sink.



And yet it's ill thought out as the x14 and costs are because it also was for supers. Not so much with these.


I'm pretty sure they made it 14x because they don't want people to have overflowing SP after re-speccing into FAX from carrier. Unless everyone speccing into FAX is willing to burn those SP? It's not gonna happen and I already hear the 'I trained those SP!!!" warcry...



Easier way around. How about mirror the skills from Carrier to FAX, No floating SP whatsoever

Oh wait i forgot CCP need a way to market there extractor's
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#247 - 2016-02-09 17:08:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Why didn't they make it 16x then if it's only to milk the SP trade?


Ill answer that as though its a serious question and not just senseless argumentation.

Why did they introduce a new skill at all when all other T1 ship classes that have DPS and RR roles are covered under one skill?

As per racial frigate and racial cruiser skills.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#248 - 2016-02-09 17:12:04 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Why didn't they make it 16x then if it's only to milk the SP trade?


Ill answer that as though its a serious question and not just senseless argumentation.

Why did they introduce a new skill at all when all other T1 ship classes that have DPS and RR roles are covered under one skill?

As per racial frigate and racial cruiser skills.


Capital exception is my guess.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#249 - 2016-02-09 17:14:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Capital exception is my guess.


Is that your final answer?

Seems vacuous and arbitrary at best.

Does that seem like a good reason for you?

How would you justify a 'capital exception' policy?

Would you support a 'frig exception' or 'cruiser exception' policy if they decide to split DPS and RR roles in those classes?

Does it seem more likely than CCP trying to leverage their SP extractors on older players?

Rather than playing a bad devils advocate why dont you stick to what you know?
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
#250 - 2016-02-09 17:20:41 UTC
Also what about people who aren't subbed during this entire ordeal? They come back to the game later and plug force aux skills after the patch and what happens to tactical logistics reconfiguration?

Again, maybe if you told us more than a day in advance we could have hashed out some of this stuff but I guess it's too late now.

Not today spaghetti.

D3m0n sam
Mea Culpa.
#251 - 2016-02-09 17:20:42 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Capital exception is my guess.


Is that your final answer?

Seems vacuous and arbitrary at best.

Does that seem like a good reason for you?

How would you justify a 'capital exception' policy?

Does it seem more likely than CCP trying to leverage their SP extractors on older players?

Rather than playing a bad devils advocate why dont you stick to what you know?



Sitting at 117m SP the extractor are pointless for me. If i would actually get a decent amount of SP for the price of them then they may be worth it. Currently it just like throwing money away.

Already un-subbed my accounts because of the way this crap was handled.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#252 - 2016-02-09 17:28:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Capital exception is my guess.


Is that your final answer?

Seems vacuous and arbitrary at best.

Does that seem like a good reason for you?

How would you justify a 'capital exception' policy?

Would you support a 'frig exception' or 'cruiser exception' policy if they decide to split DPS and RR roles in those classes?

Does it seem more likely than CCP trying to leverage their SP extractors on older players?

Rather than playing a bad devils advocate why dont you stick to what you know?


I personally would not care if they split the cruiser and frigate skills but how many people share my vision this I cannot know. All I can tell is capitals are riddled with exceptions so one more on top of it is not that much of a stretch.

Oh and rather than playing the conspiracy alarmist, how about you stick to what you know? Oh right, it's a forum and we both can express our opinion...
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#253 - 2016-02-09 17:31:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I personally would not care if they split the cruiser and frigate skills but how many people share my vision this I cannot know. All I can tell is capitals are riddled with exceptions so one more on top of it is not that much of a stretch.


Please elaborate on these exceptions. Im sure if they are 'riddled' with undesirable exceptions you can name a few.

Because seems to me, with regards to other T1 ship classes, CCP just introduced one by splitting up the DPS and RR roles and threw a lot of players under the bus in doing so.

Luckily, we dont have to worry because we can just spend real life money to rectify this with a convenient new item.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#254 - 2016-02-09 17:38:01 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I personally would not care if they split the cruiser and frigate skills but how many people share my vision this I cannot know. All I can tell is capitals are riddled with exceptions so one more on top of it is not that much of a stretch.


Please elaborate on these exceptions. Because seems to me, with regards to other T1 ship classes, CCP just introduced one by splitting up the DPS and RR roles.


Can't enter high sec, have different effect when a HIC focused point is on them like gate jumping, some of them can't dock while others can, cannot be built in the same facility, T1 hulls not build out of minerals,... Adding one of top of that for logistic ship have their one separate racial skill is not all that much of a stretch.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#255 - 2016-02-09 17:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Can't enter high sec, have different effect when a HIC focused point is on them like gate jumping, some of them can't dock while others can, cannot be built in the same facility, T1 hulls not build out of minerals,... Adding one of top of that for logistic ship have their one separate racial skill is not all that much of a stretch.


Those are balancing issues. Are you suggesting that any of those should also be 'fixed'?

Also, as i have said, splitting up DPS and RR roles inside a class of ship is a NEW and fairly unique exception.

It used to be based on the same ship skill, and in other T1 ships it is still based on the same ship skill.

Try again.

Interesting fact, At current rates, it will cost me 16 billion isk to buy the counterpart to which ever skill i dont opt to keep so that i can retain my current functionality with the role specific ships.

I will need to do that for 2 races on one account and a single race on the other (assuming i want to keep my current racial choices of which i have no choice going forward).

So, while i can afford 48bn, im not sure its fair considering all the other facts.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#256 - 2016-02-09 17:50:06 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Can't enter high sec, have different effect when a HIC focused point is on them like gate jumping, some of them can't dock while others can, cannot be built in the same facility, T1 hulls not build out of minerals,... Adding one of top of that for logistic ship have their one separate racial skill is not all that much of a stretch.


Those are balancing issues. Are you suggesting that any of those should also be 'fixed'?

Also, as i have said, splitting up DPS and RR roles inside a class of ship is a NEW and fairly unique exception.

It used to be based on the same ship skill, and in other T1 ships it is still based on the same ship skill.

Try again.


The fact that exceptions were made for balance does not render them moot. It shows that making special rules for capital is not something new at all and is in fact something that has been accepted by the player base for a long time.

Every single exceptions for capitals started as "new" and "fairly unique".
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#257 - 2016-02-09 17:57:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The fact that exceptions were made for balance does not render them moot. It shows that making special rules for capital is not something new at all and is in fact something that has been accepted by the player base for a long time.

Every single exceptions for capitals started as "new" and "fairly unique".


It actually does render them mute. By definition.

If you chose to use the word exception to describe both desirable and undesirable aspects of a design then the word becomes meaningless. Why arnt you arguing for caps in high sec etc?

The balance 'exceptions' you listed are desirable and there for obvious reasons.

The splitting of RR and DPS does not FIX a previously existing 'exception' it creates a new one. Nor does it provide any balancing effect like the other 'exceptions' you listed.

All it accomplishes is the creation of an arbitrary and unnecessary SP gulf from where we are now to where we will be come patch day.

CCP has the solution to this. Its called money. I would need to buy 37 plexes to pay the 48 billion isk id need to cover the skill injectors (if i didnt already have the isk) to get to where i am now capability-wise, or somewhere in the region of 600GBP.

Alternatively, i could train 5 months.

Neither of these scenarios consider the new fighter skills. Theyre extra.

You have chosen a very hard path playing devils advocate for this change, so props for that.
Alex Harumichi
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#258 - 2016-02-09 19:01:46 UTC
Hound Halfhand wrote:
The tears are so delicious I'm skipping dessert tonight.


Looking at some of the whining here, I'm with this guy. I've said my piece Big smile

Already training fax skill, light fighter and support fighters as we speak, so I'm all set. As a pilot with Carrier V and triage V, I'm pretty much ok with all this. And since my tinfoil hat is on the blink today, I'll just skip the "this is an evil plot from CCP just to grab some more cash from us!!11!11!!!" stupidity and get on with waiting for the actual fax / carrier / dread new stats. Which I am interested in.

The new carrier tactical battlemap thingy looks cool.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#259 - 2016-02-09 19:06:56 UTC
Alex Harumichi wrote:
Hound Halfhand wrote:
The tears are so delicious I'm skipping dessert tonight.


Looking at some of the whining here, I'm with this guy. I've said my piece Big smile

Already training fax skill, light fighter and support fighters as we speak, so I'm all set. As a pilot with Carrier V and triage V, I'm pretty much ok with all this. And since my tinfoil hat is on the blink today, I'll just skip the "this is an evil plot from CCP just to grab some more cash from us!!11!11!!!" stupidity and get on with waiting for the actual fax / carrier / dread new stats. Which I am interested in.

The new carrier tactical battlemap thingy looks cool.


57 kills in 11 years. Does it really matter what skills you have trained?

TBH, im more annoyed at the idea that CCP make the new camera compulsory in 30 days while its in a state thats no where near as practical as the current one.

But that doesnt change the fact that this whole skill thing could have been seamless if it wernt for a cash grab.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#260 - 2016-02-09 19:43:27 UTC
It seems to me that ccp has not really thought this through very well on many levels.

I still do not understand why I need to have Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration in order to get my carrier sp refunded.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815