These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#441 - 2013-02-13 20:34:57 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Point is, if the only thing you want is that snickers, someone is getting a step up over someone else.

Not really, since, in the end, you both have a Snickers Bar. Whether you have a Blow-Pop or a Tootsie Roll as well is irrelevant to the fact that you both have a Snickers Bar, which is what we all wanted anyway because Blow-Pops and Tootsie Rolls are inferior candy.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Whitehound
#442 - 2013-02-13 20:41:12 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Since CCP's opinion is the only one that really matters when it comes to what is useful, there's no reason to be debating the fineries.

Actually, yes, there is. If I had not explained my view would I not have gotten a replacement.

And in CCP's opinion, you deserved a reimbursement.

Exactly, because I could convince them of the opposite.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#443 - 2013-02-13 20:42:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Karl Hobb wrote:
*\o/*

It's almost as if we've been saying the same thing all thread!
We and CCP! Big smile
I just thought it safest to link back to the original example and to add some further illustration to see if the penny finally dropped for them this time…

Hélas, the penny remains stuck since…
Aren Madigan wrote:
If you want to use this comparison so bad, then yes, it does have bearing whether you like it or not
…except that what you said is not what happens. You're painting a scenario that describe some new hypothetical situation you've just concocted that does not correspond to anything that has happened in the game for… oh… five years, IIRC.

You do not pay $1 while everyone else pay ¢35. It's as simple as that. So no, it has no bearing on the topic at hand no matter how much you decide to lie about what is going on. You can invent any amount of nonsense you like — it's still all just a lie.

Quote:
To get the ORCA, ignore everything else, the ORCA, nothing else matters right now, the ORCA,and, cruicially, since it is not something you can overlook unless you want to grossly misrepresent what's going on, the barges and the ability to train exhumers they had to pay the "dollar".
…and for that dollar, they got $1 worth of goods. If they ignore what they got for their money, they will be sent up the river for accountancy fraud. Meanwhile, the people who paid ¢35 got ¢35 worth of goods. There are overlaps between these two packages, but it does not mean that the latter paid less than the former for the goods they got.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#444 - 2013-02-13 20:43:08 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Point is, if the only thing you want is that snickers, someone is getting a step up over someone else.

Not really, since, in the end, you both have a Snickers Bar. Whether you have a Blow-Pop or a Tootsie Roll as well is irrelevant to the fact that you both have a Snickers Bar, which is what we all wanted anyway because Blow-Pops and Tootsie Rolls are inferior candy.


Ahh, but see, if you got the snickers/tootsie roll combo when you just wanted the snickers, you got it cheaper, thus giving an edge over the person who got the snickers/blow-pop combo. Got more money to spend on something else. In fact, the combo is cheap enough where you could get TWO snicker/tootsie roll combos, close to a third even for the price of the snickers/blow-pop combo.

...you know, I find myself feeling a little foolish bringing up candy as an example for this, no matter how amusing its turned this conversation, lol.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#445 - 2013-02-13 20:48:47 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Usefulness as defined by the effect it produces within the game, not by your own personal perception of usefulness. If the skill provides no effect whatsoever, under any circumstance of its use, then it is useless. If you value time-sinks then you are free to train Jury Rigging to V, even though its usefulness ended at IV (IIRC). In fact, training Jury Rigging to V should be a reimbursable action since it provides no tangible benefit at all.

That's just your opinion, son. You have your own definition of usefulness and so do I and everyone else.

The skill itself is probably still fully functional, only are there currently no blueprints in the game that make use of it. There were BPs in the past that needed it and there can be again in the future, but not at present.


Whitehound, I don't think you can win the argument about value. The bottom line is that there are ships that provide bonuses based on the skill. The skill has value. That value isn't changing. I'm having a hard time seeing any argument there.

But usefulness is different from value. What was useful to us was flying an orca.

If there is a strong argument, it's that the orca (and you can include command ship changes here to) change was treated very differently than the Dessy/BC changes. Everyone was given plenty of information about the dessy/BC change.

Choices are supposed to have consequences, yes. But we are supposed to have adequate information to make good choices. Choosing to train a skill because it is going to be changed is a choice that's completely reasonable. Choosing not to train a skill because it won't be required to fly a ship that you think is useful is also a reasonable choice. But it's not a choice I was allowed to make because I wasn't given the information.

Given the amount of attention that CCP gave to the dessy/BC change, it is not unreasonable to assume that any other changes of significance would be given similar treatment. One could be forgiven for thinking that, in fact, those would be the only major changes.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#446 - 2013-02-13 20:56:37 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Ahh, but see, if you got the snickers/tootsie roll combo when you just wanted the snickers, you got it cheaper, thus giving an edge over the person who got the snickers/blow-pop combo. Got more money to spend on something else. In fact, the combo is cheap enough where you could get TWO snicker/tootsie roll combos, close to a third even for the price of the snickers/blow-pop combo.

That's no reason for the proprietor to buy back your Blow-Pop since you can still eat it.

Aren Madigan wrote:
...you know, I find myself feeling a little foolish bringing up candy as an example for this, no matter how amusing its turned this conversation, lol.

You could have started by using whiskeys or tequilas as examples... I blame EVE Uni.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Whitehound
#447 - 2013-02-13 21:08:48 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Whitehound, I don't think you can win the argument about value. The bottom line is that there are ships that provide bonuses based on the skill. The skill has value. That value isn't changing. I'm having a hard time seeing any argument there.

This might be because you and I train our skills differently. I know that some players train a skill to level 5 regardless of how long it takes them and just to have the last x% it gives them. I do not train like this.

I train by time and when the time for a next skill level is too long then I do not train it, but I train a different skill.

To me is the value of a skill not in the percentage it gives, but in the time it takes to train the skill, because I pay my subscription per month.

When then the bonus on a ship changes, which is a skill dependent bonus, do I not ask for a compensation of a skill. To me it is all about the time I invested into the game.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#448 - 2013-02-13 21:09:51 UTC  |  Edited by: De'Veldrin
Alavaria Fera wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
So CCP allowed you to replace a completely useless skill with one that still had a purpose. Thereby adding to the precedent that reimbursements (of any kind) are only done for skills that are completely useless in the context of the game.

Thanks for the example.

Not exactly. The skill is still being traded for 5b ISKs and for some does it serve for bragging.


Last time I checked, bragging rights didn't confer any kind of in-game bonus.

This is EVE Online, are you sure... also seems like a 5b bonus is a pretty big deal


Let me rephrase - bragging rights don't confer any mechanics bonus, If your opponents is so weak minded that your epeen gives them pause, that's just a bonus. Lol

And to Tippia's earlier point, you would have either 5b isk for the skill book OR a reimbursed skill, not both, depending on if you had already injected the skill or not.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#449 - 2013-02-13 21:10:32 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Instead of "enjoying" the legacy skill can CCP return the skill points to you right now and you will not have to wait for a future change first. Your points can become as useful to you as they were before the change without delay.


The points were only ever useful to train a skill that you actually use. That's the only utility you ever got from those points, that's why you trained the points.

There's also the minor issue of Barge 5 being trained under a certain remap, and if you have those points refunded you could end up applying them in, say, Charisma based skills to avoid a remap.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#450 - 2013-02-13 21:11:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Karl Hobb wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Ahh, but see, if you got the snickers/tootsie roll combo when you just wanted the snickers, you got it cheaper, thus giving an edge over the person who got the snickers/blow-pop combo. Got more money to spend on something else. In fact, the combo is cheap enough where you could get TWO snicker/tootsie roll combos, close to a third even for the price of the snickers/blow-pop combo.

That's no reason for the proprietor to buy back your Blow-Pop since you can still eat it.

Aren Madigan wrote:
...you know, I find myself feeling a little foolish bringing up candy as an example for this, no matter how amusing its turned this conversation, lol.

You could have started by using whiskeys or tequilas as examples... I blame EVE Uni.


Dude, I've only been with Uni for a little over a month. I haven't even participated as much as I'd like in the first place. Pretty much just a member by name for the moment as I try to get settled in, figure out what I'm going to be doing, listening to people's advice. Couldn't really care less about corp politics as I hate politics. I blame me not drinking enough.

Anyways, no reason for them to buy it back because they gave a bunch of people free ones either, which sort of goes back to the original point I was making with it before it went too far. Should have just left it be at the whole "just because everyone is no getting the free internet you used to pay for, doesn't mean you're getting your money back" because that really nails the point on the head on why it turns pretty much throws any sort of "loss" that's happened SP-wise on its ass.
Whitehound
#451 - 2013-02-13 21:16:13 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
And to Tippia's earlier point, you would have either 5b isk for the skill book OR a reimbursed skill, not both, depending on if you had already injected the skill or not.

FYI: The 5b ISK were never in question. They were gone and landed in another player's wallet and to whom they were of much use.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#452 - 2013-02-13 21:21:37 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Glathull wrote:
Whitehound, I don't think you can win the argument about value. The bottom line is that there are ships that provide bonuses based on the skill. The skill has value. That value isn't changing. I'm having a hard time seeing any argument there.

This might be because you and I train our skills differently. I know that some players train a skill to level 5 regardless of how long it takes them and just to have the last x% it gives them. I do not train like this.

I train by time and when the time for a next skill level is too long then I do not train it, but I train a different skill.

To me is the value of a skill not in the percentage it gives, but in the time it takes to train the skill, because I pay my subscription per month.

When then the bonus on a ship changes, which is a skill dependent bonus, do I not ask for a compensation of a skill. To me it is all about the time I invested into the game.



I get that, sort of. But you can't say that you don't care about the bonus. If you don't care about the bonus, I can't understand why you would train any skill ever?

The problem here is that in the most literal sense possible, and ignoring any sense of subtlety whatsoever, Tippia and Hobb are correct when they say nothing changed. You will be able to fly the same ships with the same bonuses. Nothing lost; therefore no compensation.

But it's more to your point that you make time-related choices when you train a skill. And we weren't given enough information to make those choices wisely. I think we should get some sort of compensation, but I can't imagine any good way to handle it. You can't just give everyone back their skill points for mining barge. Some people actually want that skill. And if the "lack of information" argument were to win, it would open up an entire floodgate (obviously, the command ship skills, but god only knows what else.)

Basically, I think CCP f***** up pretty bad here by not telling us about the orca changes as soon as they knew they were coming. But I don't really have a solution that wouldn't result in an even bigger s***storm than what we already have.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Whitehound
#453 - 2013-02-13 21:36:56 UTC
Glathull wrote:
I get that, sort of. But you can't say that you don't care about the bonus. If you don't care about the bonus, I can't understand why you would train any skill ever?

I do care about the effects of a skill, but not as much as I care about the time I spend in training them. To me does it not make much difference if I spend a year in skill training on Amarr ships or rather in Gallente ships, but it makes a big difference to me if I only spend a month rather than a year on it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#454 - 2013-02-13 21:42:11 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Glathull wrote:
I get that, sort of. But you can't say that you don't care about the bonus. If you don't care about the bonus, I can't understand why you would train any skill ever?

I do care about the effects of a skill, but not as much as I care about the time I spend in training them. To me does it not make much difference if I spend a year in skill training on Amarr ships or rather in Gallente ships, but it makes a big difference to me if I only spend a month rather than a year on it.



Fair enough. I can't agree with you or Aren about lost value, regardless of how you think about skill training.

But I agree with your conclusion that this is not a fair deal that we're getting.

Since I have nothing to offer in terms of even a proposed solution, I'll bow out of this thread and let it die.

~cheers

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Kathern Aurilen
#455 - 2013-02-13 22:05:00 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Yes I agree with this, making the mining barge skill at least in some way influence the purpose for which it was originally trained for would be an entirely acceptable solution.

Unfortunately, I also agree with you initial point, and I have little hope that CCP would refund the SP and training time which you and myself have essentially wasted.
How long have you had your orca?

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!
Kathern Aurilen
#456 - 2013-02-13 22:11:44 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:


3) Realize that there is an opportunity cost for your decision and make the non-required skills somewhat useful. I don't want a refund, I want utility. Such as Mining Barge is no longer a prerequisite, but give a bonus for having trained it on Orcas. Nothing says a bonus for a ship has to be a prerequisite.


This I could get behind. Something along the line of a modifier to the strenght of mining boost related to your minign abrge traning level would make some sense. It would still be usefull in an orca and people could choose to skip it in the future.
If that would be the case, I think it would boost the ore hold size like it did with the retriver by maybe 2% per level

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#457 - 2013-02-13 22:23:27 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
For playing the game ourselves, we do know how much of pain it is to have unwanted skills left in your character sheet because of a change you even remotely have nothing to do about. It seems logical that, since we required Mining Barges 5 trained as a pure time sink to reach the Orca, we should give the skill points back.

Except it's not, unfortunately. As mentioned in the blog, the only skills that we can in good conscience reimburse are the Destroyers and Battlecruisers ones.

That is because the overhaul will make the two skills mentioned above useless. Even if we were going to give the Destroyers/Battlecruisers skill points back in the allocation pool on a 1:1 ratio, we would leave players unable to fly hulls they could use before the changes (we are creating four racial variants instead of a single generic skill).

All the other skills, including Mining Barge 5 for the Orca, are not in the same category however. We are not taking your ability to fly the vessels away but changing how they are reached - players will still be able to fly them after the change. We are even modifying how skill training works to make sure you can still train the skill itself after the plan goes live.

Yes, it is annoying we leave you with a bunch of skills you have no interest into in your character sheet, and for that, you have our sincere apologies. But if we were to refund them here, other players, like capital pilots, or even people we affected during our numerous changes in the past, could rightfully claim for the same treatment. Because even if the previous concept was deemed acceptable, EVE Online is not one of these games where skill allocation can be technically wasted: with time, any player can theoretically reach and train all the skills we have to offer. There is no such thing as a Class A preventing you from seeing Class B content unless you create a new character specifically for it.

Invested skill points are still an asset - particularly Mining Barges 5, as it is very valuable for resource gathering characters. Which brings the question, why should we leave players with Mining Barge 5 trained if they are using the Orca as a hauler, or even a logistics platform for pirate related activities? That is because, initially, it was designed to be a logistic ship with a mining focus. You may not use any of its bonuses due to the sandbox nature of the game, but it didn't change the role it was initially tailored for.


So again, you do have our sympathy here - we wouldn't have spent half an hour writing this reply if we didn't care - but we cannot reimburse anything else than Destroyers and Battlecruisers in this case.



Well you make a lot of good points, the first comment that came to me from reading this was, that I take ship balance pretty seriously. Seems you guys at CCP like to do ship balancing, but you guys don't want to deal with all the variables really. Its kind of annoying to see people just start whacking at ships without really trying to deal with all the problems or issues.

It really seemed to boil down to CCP mission statement really. CCP only invests or works at things that don't consume too much resources and only does things, that keep their company afloat. That is the only reason you guys are giving back SP to the BC and destroyer changes. This is not a a full fair change or a good smart change. You guys just saw what would be good for the company or changes you can do, that won't take too much up or be much of an effort.

It is sad people trained the orca for logistics only, and it couldn't be made more fair sooner, as well its too sad that a SP reimbursement takes too much, and the CCP company can't afford do that. All I see happening is CCP taking the easy route and not caring for anyone, since doing that would hurt the bottom line. No wonder why you guys don't tell anyone to HTFU anymore.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Kathern Aurilen
#458 - 2013-02-13 22:56:28 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Too bad all this energy/trolling wasn't directed into convincing CCP to provide a non-miner version of the Orca, i.e. an Orca variant that focused on hauling/mobile base attributes. Especially given how popular/useful/practical the standard Orca is.
Same here, I like the idea of a dedicated sub freighter hauler outside the race indy tech trees(i get tired of looking a the twig and dingleberries shape of the gellente indy ships). Maybe call it the walrus.

Maybe ORE should go into the shipping and hauling ship market... Keep the orca as industrial command like the T2 command command BC and BS and just have a T1 hauler version.

I don't think 25% orcas out there are being used for their intended purpose, maybe half making the ore bay useless.

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#459 - 2013-02-13 23:04:12 UTC
I'm curious as to what solutions you would find acceptable, Kathern and rodyas.

What would you do to fix the problem. It's apparently easy, and CCP is just too lazy to do it.

So what is it they should do?

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#460 - 2013-02-13 23:09:48 UTC
rodyas wrote:

Well you make a lot of good points, the first comment that came to me from reading this was, that I take ship balance pretty seriously. Seems you guys at CCP like to do ship balancing, but you guys don't want to deal with all the variables really. Its kind of annoying to see people just start whacking at ships without really trying to deal with all the problems or issues.

It really seemed to boil down to CCP mission statement really. CCP only invests or works at things that don't consume too much resources and only does things, that keep their company afloat. That is the only reason you guys are giving back SP to the BC and destroyer changes. This is not a a full fair change or a good smart change. You guys just saw what would be good for the company or changes you can do, that won't take too much up or be much of an effort.

It is sad people trained the orca for logistics only, and it couldn't be made more fair sooner, as well its too sad that a SP reimbursement takes too much, and the CCP company can't afford do that. All I see happening is CCP taking the easy route and not caring for anyone, since doing that would hurt the bottom line. No wonder why you guys don't tell anyone to HTFU anymore.

After reading your post I can only think that there must be a great deal of truth to the idea that certain people only read what they want to read. Especially when faced with well reasoned arguments which state nothing in regard to effort, yet still determine that a decision was made purely based upon ease or cost.

Considering we are already doing a more complex move than a simple reimbursement with the actual split and cloning of levels from the BC and dessy skills to the Racial BC/dessy skills, it would be trivial to do the rest if they saw fit from a game balance perspective. But it doesn't to the point where they feel it a proper course of action. This is why they didn't do it. Not cost or effort, but the conscious decision that it shouldn't be done.