These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mining Barge SP Reimbursement

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#321 - 2013-02-13 00:33:53 UTC
So everyone take their **** off the table.

Before you train a skill you have an opportunity. At that moment you can train any skill that you have the prerequisite for. Agreed?

The second you begin training a skill you start incurring an opportunity cost. Mainly that the time you spend training that skill can now no longer be used to train another skill. Are we still on the same page?

Where people diverge is the perceived benefit received for the cost. This can be based upon a million different factors. I hope we can all agree that we are individuals. Given this it is very unlikely CCP can make a decision that will please everyone. I accept this.

But at the same time I would like CCP to recognize that an opportunity cost was incurred. And as part of that recognition I would like them to give everyone, future and past, who trains mining barge V a benefit if they also pilot an Orca, such as a ship ability tied to the skill even though it is not going to be a prerequisite. In that way future and past both gain utility from the opportunity cost.

Full disclosure: I am 2 days away from my Orca and I have no intention of using it for mining.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#322 - 2013-02-13 00:39:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
Nexus Day wrote:
e I would like CCP to recognize that an opportunity cost was incurred. And as part of that recognition I would like them to give everyone, future and past, who trains mining barge V a benefit if they also pilot an Orca, such as a ship ability tied to the skill even though it is not going to be a prerequisite. In that way future and past both gain utility from the opportunity cost.

Full disclosure: I am 2 days away from my Orca and I have no intention of using it for mining.



Exactly, if mining barge was somehow linked to an attribute on then Orca then the anomaly would not have occured, and we would still have a benefit tied to the inital reason for training the skill. Perhaps Mining Barge skill could increase the ore capacity of the Orca for example.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#323 - 2013-02-13 00:42:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nexus Day wrote:
But at the same time I would like CCP to recognize that an opportunity cost was incurred. And as part of that recognition I would like them to give everyone, future and past, who trains mining barge V a benefit if they also pilot an Orca, such as a ship ability tied to the skill even though it is not going to be a prerequisite. In that way future and past both gain utility from the opportunity cost.
…and that's just it: they are.

That's why (and how) the whole “if you could fly it before” scheme is applied: so that the opportunity cost you incurred has the expected pay-off. They've even gone through extra hoops to maintain that cost-benefit ratio and ensure that you do not lose the advantages you train for. Hell, in some cases they have decided to give you even more advantages than you trained for, just for good measure.

The thing about reimbursements is that they happen when this kind of assurance becomes straight up impossible, because the rewards in question are simply gone — when the opportunity cost incurred by training the skills is dumped into a black hole of now-missing mechanics. At that point (and only at that point) do they give us our training time back.

Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
I thought the answer was obvious in the above example.
Since we're talking about two different threads with different topics, and you keep referring to the other thread to support a point made about this thread, it's neither obvious nor logical. Good to see that you still have to rely on fallacies to (not at all) support your complete lack of a proper argument. Ooh, so now we're up to at least eight…

Quote:
We both agreed the DI skill should be reimbursed, yet disagreed on the mining barge skill. There was one difference between those two examples.
Eh, no. There was one similarity between those examples — skills being changed — everything else was different. So I suppose that's actually a seventh point of disagreement right there, and it certainly isn't the root cause of the other points of disagreement.

Quote:
The truth is both of us don't actually know what the Devs true intention is, and we are just guessing so cannot claim certainty, and to do so would be foolish of both of us.
…except that their intentions have been made very explicit and very clear ever since SP reimbursements were first implemented: they don't happen unless skills are outright removed, and the Orca change most certainly does not apply since the total change for the player is nil.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#324 - 2013-02-13 01:51:01 UTC
Of course it would put extra strain on the system to check all the skills in the skill set everytime you jumped in a ship. Granted you can argue how much strain this would cause, but you can't argue that it would make programming sense to just check the final skill in the tree seeing as programming is all about making the programmes run as efficiently as possible.

And anyway, this whole argument is academic because neither of us know fully how the servers handle skill request when a pilot jumps into a ship. And neither of us know what the devs intention was or is enless they explicitly state it. We are just arguing over assumptions here.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#325 - 2013-02-13 02:18:40 UTC
Yes, I agree, it makes sense to check the skills for which the ship gets bonuses from. But the whole skill set?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#326 - 2013-02-13 02:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Yes, I agree, it makes sense to check the skills for which the ship gets bonuses from. But the whole skill set?


Almost every skill in the game can potentially impact the stats of a ship. Adding up to 10-ish more (most of which would already have to be checked anyway) would almost certainly be trivial.

But as I explained last page, there is a much better reason than "ouch, my server" for only checking the final pre-req. CCP didn't want you to lose access to ships for long periods of time just because you got podded.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#327 - 2013-02-13 02:42:56 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Yes, I agree, it makes sense to check the skills for which the ship gets bonuses from. But the whole skill set?


Almost every skill in the game can potentially impact the stats of a ship. Adding up to 10-ish more (most of which would already have to be checked anyway) would almost certainly be trivial.

But as I explained last page, there is a much better reason than "ouch, my server" for only checking the final pre-req. CCP didn't want you to lose access to ships for long periods of time just because you got podded.


Yes, the point was acknowledged despite me not replying to it. I guess you could be correct, although I have a feeling the Devs intention was to require the skills trained for a ship to be part of the skill set to fly it as that makes sense to me. I mean why would CCP need us to train skills for a ship which you don't actually need to fly the ship? After all that is the whole purpose of this change, so that the skills you train for are actually useful skills for the ship your intending on flying.

Even if the skill is simply a timesink to get to the next skill, then it seems fair if that time sink is removed in the future that those who sunk their time into training for the skill should get something back for that. After all the skill was a time sink, and now the time sink aspect of it has been removed. But that is a whole other argument which we have already had.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#328 - 2013-02-13 02:48:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
I have a feeling the Devs intention was to require the skills trained for a ship to be part of the skill set to fly it as that makes sense to me.
Then why have they at every opportunity developed the game further and further in the opposite direction?

Quote:
I mean why would CCP need us to train skills for a ship which you don't actually need to fly the ship?
As already explained: progression. Also, just because you don't strictly need the skills to fly the ship doesn't mean that they don't help you, so there's that part as well: to support your choice. You do need them, just not for the simple task of activating the ship.

Quote:
After all that is the whole purpose of this change, so that the skills you train for are actually useful skills for the ship your intending on flying.
Yes, useful. Not required. Again, welcome to RPG tropes.

Quote:
Even if the skill is simply a timesink to get to the next skill, then it seems fair if that time sink is removed in the future that those who sunk their time into training for the skill should get something back for that.
They are already getting exactly what they spent all that time to get, so there's no additional stuff to “get back” — you already have it all.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#329 - 2013-02-13 03:00:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:

[quote]Even if the skill is simply a timesink to get to the next skill, then it seems fair if that time sink is removed in the future that those who sunk their time into training for the skill should get something back for that.
They are already getting exactly what they spent all that time to get, so there's no additional stuff to “get back” — you already have it all.


But using the previous example, everyone else is getting it also. As with the drone example, you are not losing anything, it's just everyone else is getting also, and you agreed a SP refund would be acceptable in that case. But we have had this argument and it would be just going round in circles to continue it.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#330 - 2013-02-13 03:08:05 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:

[quote]Even if the skill is simply a timesink to get to the next skill, then it seems fair if that time sink is removed in the future that those who sunk their time into training for the skill should get something back for that.
They are already getting exactly what they spent all that time to get, so there's no additional stuff to “get back” — you already have it all.


But using the previous example, everyone else is getting it also. As with the drone example, you are not losing anything, it's just everyone else is getting also, and you agreed a SP refund would be acceptable in that case. But we have had this argument and it would be just going round in circles to continue it.


And the prime difference is that nobody is getting the ability to fly an Orca nor the ability to fly Mining Barges for free.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#331 - 2013-02-13 06:04:42 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
I have cleaned up some off topic posts and removed some personal attacks. Please keep it on topic and civil. Thank you very much.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#332 - 2013-02-13 11:08:50 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


And the prime difference is that nobody is getting the ability to fly an Orca nor the ability to fly Mining Barges for free.


RubyPorto, I have a lot of respect for you. But I think you are being disingenuous here. No one is suggesting that flying mining barges should be free. Some people are saying that since CCP now admits that mining barges shouldn't really have anything to have anything to do with flying an Orca, why should people be penalized for having trained that skill.

I think that's a question that deserves an answer.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#333 - 2013-02-13 11:23:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Glathull wrote:
RubyPorto, I have a lot of respect for you. But I think you are being disingenuous here. No one is suggesting that flying mining barges should be free.
Rebecha is. His claim is that the Orca skill change is exactly like taking away a skilled-for advantage and giving it to everyone. In terms of the skills involved, that would mean giving away Orcas or lvl-V barge bonuses (or exhumers) to everyone. The critical difference between his trumped-up example and what's actually happening is that no such advantages are being handed out — quite the opposite: everyone keeps exactly the same advantages they already have (and some are actually given an additional leg-up as a result).

Quote:
Some people are saying that since CCP now admits that mining barges shouldn't really have anything to have anything to do with flying an Orca, why should people be penalized for having trained that skill.
Good news: they're not being penalised. In fact, in many ways they're being rewarded.

Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
But using the previous example, everyone else is getting it also. As with the drone example, you are not losing anything
…except for your skilled-for advantage, just like in every other case where they have reimbursed skills. This is why you're not getting a reimbursement in the summer: because you're not losing any advantage in the switch-over so there's nothing to reimburse.

Quote:
you agreed a SP refund would be acceptable in that case.
…because they would lose their skilled-for advantage, which is completely different from what's happening in the Orca case.
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa
The Perfect Harvesting Experience
#334 - 2013-02-13 11:27:58 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
In WoW if there's a significant change, usually talents get refunded... and that's with something that's almost no time investment. I would think something that has far more time investment would be a little more deserving of one. Which, is kind of the thing. It isn't just a nerf or buff, its a complete change in the requirements of a skill. Something that could have been used for other things that suddenly translates into A LOT of wasted time. So it isn't an unreasonable request in the slightest. Its just a matter of if one agrees with it or not. Is it ok to basically tell someone that over a month of their time was completely worthless to them now? I have trouble saying yes to that.


The ONLY reason ever for CCP to refund SP has been with the removal of Learning skills... and that was only because skills were "removed".
I the current situation the skill-points on your sheet may not serve you, but the still have use in the game.
Jungleland Roy
#335 - 2013-02-13 11:44:36 UTC
Glathull wrote:
[quote=RubyPorto]

RubyPorto, I have a lot of respect for you. But I think you are being disingenuous here. No one is suggesting that flying mining barges should be free. Some people are saying that since CCP now admits that mining barges shouldn't really have anything to have anything to do with flying an Orca, why should people be penalized for having trained that skill.

I think that's a question that deserves an answer.



Whether a pre-requisite is relevant for the ship or not is a debatable point (personally it makes sense for it to do so) but to me that is not the fundamental point.

My alt had to do a "grind" to fly a ship (Orca). The skill pre-requisite makes up that grind - he did it - he's happy and has been flying an orca for 2 years with no intention of mining. The grind takes a certain time and I had a choice - either do the grind or don't fly the ship.

I decided the grind was worth it and learned a skill that won't be used - but i accepted that to fly the ship. Now the pre-reqs are changing - so what? I wouldn't have waited for 2 years (if I even knew the pre-reqs were going to change) - I still would have done the grind because I wanted to fly the ship 2 years ago. My Alt is still good, he has lost nothing, can still further skill the Orca (if reqd) and therefore I dont see any reason for SP reimbursement.

Now if the discussion is "WAA WAA it took me 20 days longer to fly an Orca than a new char does" then that is a different point.

And on that point I say so what? The game evolves, rules change and my grind is in the past - so forget it. I don't subscribe to the old argument of "I had to go through a load of grief so new ones should as well". Nor do I subscribe to the ideas of hind-sight or crystal balls and saying I would have done things different "if only I'd known". I made my choice and am happy with it - plus should I have the inclination to actually mine with my alt - he's good to go.

Roy

_if you could fly it before, you can fly it now. _ Read the Blog.
Virginia Virdana
RSM Inc
#336 - 2013-02-13 11:48:28 UTC
Wow. Three days in and this is still going? I'm impressed with the combination of passion and bloodymindedness needed to reach this milestone.

I'm not sure how much more I can add, I think we have gone round and round the arguments several times, but how about we get down to the one we don't really like to say, but ultimately is the truth.

It's CCP's game. The can do what they want with it.

Also - just because people use the Orca as a hauler, doesn't mean it is one. It's amining support vessel. The Lore says

"The Orca was developed as a joint venture between Outer Ring Excavations and Deep Core Mining Inc as a vessel to help meet the demands of New Eden's industry and provide a flexible platform from which mining operations can be more easily managed.

Role Bonus:
250% bonus to tractor beam range
100% bonus to tractor beam velocity
500% bonus to survey scanner range
99% reduction in CPU need for Gang Link modules
Can use 3 gang link modules simultaneously.

Industrial Command Ship Skill Bonus:
5% bonus to cargo capacity per level
3% bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level"

The hauling/industrial community adopted it because of it's large cargo hold and MASSIVE hp advantage over standard industrials.

Now, CCP, responding ot this emergent gameplay, has changed the skill requirement to make it more accessible, more quickly. You should all stop moaning and thank them. 
They say never come to a gunfight armed with a knife.   You appear to have come armed with a spoon.
Whitehound
#337 - 2013-02-13 11:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa wrote:
The ONLY reason ever for CCP to refund SP has been with the removal of Learning skills... and that was only because skills were "removed".
I the current situation the skill-points on your sheet may not serve you, but the still have use in the game.

Saying "all skills have a use" is ignorant. You could as well say "I am the boss" or "all circles are round".

Or have all your gunnery skill points moved into corporation, social and trade and try saying it again.

It ignores the individual meaning a skill has got for each player. What people have been saying here on the thread is that they had to train Mining Barge V when they did not want to fly barges. Others, who are not affected by the change measure no meaning to the skill and extend it onto those who are. Wtf?!

It then does not matter for the present what CCP has done in the past. We are not living in the past.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#338 - 2013-02-13 12:16:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
Saying "all skills have a use" is ignorant correct. You could as well say "I am the boss" or "all circles are round".
There you go. Much better. Also, you couldn't just as well say “I'm the boss” or “all circles are round” since those are not universally true.

Quote:
Or have all your gunnery skill points moved into corporation, social and trade and try saying it again.
And? It would make it any less true (aside from the fact that all the SP wouldn't fit in those categories) — all skills would still have a use.

Quote:
It ignores the individual meaning a skill has got for each player.
…and rightly so, since the individual meaning players ascribe to their char sheets cannot and most certainly should not have any effect on game mechanics. If people choose to put more into those skills than what they actually are, then that's their problem — not something that CCP can (or should) fix.

Oh, and plenty of people who are affected by the change have noted that it has no meaning as well…

Quote:
It then does not matter for the present what CCP has done in the past. We are not living in the past.
Eh, not quite. Your decisions in the past does not matter for the changes done in the present, as long as those changes don't invalidate those early decisions. What CCP is doing here is preserving those decisions so that they were still the right ones to make at the time you made them, irrespective of what's going on in the present. Only when they can't be preserved do they break out the heavy stuff (viz. reimbursement).

What CCP has done in the past matters because it decides what they'll have to do in order to maintain the value of those decisions.

You're quite right, though: we're not living in the past, so people should stop trying to time-shift their decisions and say that, had the present been the case in the past they would have decided something else. The decisions they made were correct at the time (and if they weren't, that's their own fault — not something anyone else should fix), and they are still correct today because they yield the exact same result.
Whitehound
#339 - 2013-02-13 12:26:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Saying "all skills have a use" is ignorant correct. You could as well say "I am the boss" or "all circles are round" is correct, too.
There you go. Much better. ...

No, you missed one. I have marked it in italics...

You want to start another debate match after the thread got cleaned again? What the f' is wrong with you, girl?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#340 - 2013-02-13 12:30:08 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
No, you missed one. I have marked it in italics...
No, I left that part out exactly because it isn't correct.

Quote:
You want to start another debate match after the thread got cleaned again?
Of course. Why wouldn't I? That's what the thread is for, after all. What was cleaned out was all the trolling and abuse that people had to resort to when they couldn't argue against facts any more…

So the real question is: do you want to keep trolling after the thread got cleaned out again, or do you actually want to discuss the topic?