These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

ORE ship reimbursement and upcoming expansion

First post
Author
Whitehound
#441 - 2013-03-11 12:38:10 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Nowhere have they said that they're giving people Mining Barge 5.

Are you sure?!

I thought CCP would give old players the Mining Barge V skill with the change even when these players did not want it when they trained for the Orca, and now new players will not have to.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#442 - 2013-03-11 12:40:54 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
I thought CCP would give old players the Mining Barge V skill with the change even when these players did not want it when they trained for the Orca, and now new players will not have to.
Of course they aren't. In fact, they can't.
Why would (and how could) they give people something they already have?
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#443 - 2013-03-11 12:41:47 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Nowhere have they said that they're giving people Mining Barge 5.

Are you sure?!

I thought CCP would give old players the Mining Barge V skill with the change even when these players did not want it when they trained for the Orca, and now new players will not have to.
Simply quote the appropriate line(s) you believe you saw mentioning that.
Whitehound
#444 - 2013-03-11 12:44:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Tippia wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
I thought CCP would give old players the Mining Barge V skill with the change even when these players did not want it when they trained for the Orca, and now new players will not have to.
Of course they aren't. In fact, they can't.
Why would (and how could) they give people something they already have?

They do not really posses those skills. They are fictional, consisting out of bits and bytes, and are also the property of CCP if you want to be really precise. Only the decisions and the reasoning made by the players are their own and some of these are being invalidated.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Jiska Ensa
Estrale Frontiers
#445 - 2013-03-11 12:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jiska Ensa
Why the heck is this 16 pages?

Edit: 24 pages! - how fast are you guys posting?!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#446 - 2013-03-11 12:51:04 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
They do not really posses those skills. They are fictional, consisting out of bits and bytes, and are also the property of CCP if you want to be really precise.
…so that makes two reasons why they won't and why they can't give people MB V. So why did you think that they were?

Quote:
Only the decisions and the reasoning made by the players are their own and some of these are being invalidated.
…except that the decisions and reasoning made by the players haven't changed and will still have yielded the exact same results. So we're back to the same old question: why on earth should anyone be reimbursed when they haven't lost anything?
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#447 - 2013-03-11 12:53:01 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Hm.

If i had a "frigate", she might complain about the lack of "signature radius" and "firepower".
"Frigates" certainly need to rely on proper "combat techniques" to make a "ship" "explode",
but if she prefers at least "destroyer-sized" "engagements", then there's probably no hope.

Damn, i'm glad i have a "Tempest", if necessary, so i'm on the safe side anyway.
You should look into "Capital Ships".
The Titans especially are known to be cost-efficient in terms of size.

"Frigates" or other sizes that fit small "rigs" aren't going to "cut it".
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#448 - 2013-03-11 12:54:19 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
You really have difficulties following.

I haven't read every post you've made in this thread, no. If you could direct me to the one that clarifies what you mean here, that would be helpful.

You really would need to start with reading the devblog, then the older thread we had about this and then start reading this thread, to get anywhere near my understanding of it. If this does not satisfy your curiosity then come back and ask, but please do not ask question which have been answered many times before and by each side differently. It only ends in circles.

Yeah, I read the devblog. I've read dev replies to the thread about the devblog. Nowhere have they said that they're giving people Mining Barge 5. And I haven't seen where you've actually elaborated on what you meant by "reimbursement".


What he said really wasn't that difficult to understand, just try reading it again a few time over and maybe you will eventually get it.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#449 - 2013-03-11 13:01:42 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Hm.

If i had a "frigate", she might complain about the lack of "signature radius" and "firepower".
"Frigates" certainly need to rely on proper "combat techniques" to make a "ship" "explode",
but if she prefers at least "destroyer-sized" "engagements", then there's probably no hope.

Damn, i'm glad i have a "Tempest", if necessary, so i'm on the safe side anyway.
You should look into "Capital Ships".
The Titans especially are known to be cost-efficient in terms of size.

"Frigates" or other sizes that fit small "rigs" aren't going to "cut it".
I'd need an "alt" for these and i really don't like "three way dances" ...
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#450 - 2013-03-11 13:03:42 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
You really have difficulties following.

I haven't read every post you've made in this thread, no. If you could direct me to the one that clarifies what you mean here, that would be helpful.

You really would need to start with reading the devblog, then the older thread we had about this and then start reading this thread, to get anywhere near my understanding of it. If this does not satisfy your curiosity then come back and ask, but please do not ask question which have been answered many times before and by each side differently. It only ends in circles.

Yeah, I read the devblog. I've read dev replies to the thread about the devblog. Nowhere have they said that they're giving people Mining Barge 5. And I haven't seen where you've actually elaborated on what you meant by "reimbursement".


What he said really wasn't that difficult to understand, just try reading it again a few time over and maybe you will eventually get it.

Maybe you'd like to explain it to me then, because all he said was some vague reference to "CCP's decision to undo the burden for new players, that has been the Orca training, but not to undo it for older players" which doesn't actually make any sense.
But we both know you won't, because you're just being obtuse and probably don't understand yourself what he meant.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Velicitia
XS Tech
#451 - 2013-03-11 13:09:09 UTC
I don't get all the whining here either.

For those of you who skilled into a MINING SUPPORT VESSEL for using it outside of its intended role ... HTFU.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#452 - 2013-03-11 13:12:17 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Maybe you'd like to explain it to me then, because all he said was some vague reference to "CCP's decision to undo the burden for new players, that has been the Orca training, but not to undo it for older players" which doesn't actually make any sense.
But we both know you won't, because you're just being obtuse and probably don't understand yourself what he meant.

The way I read it would be that the burden of having to train a skill you do not want is undone. After the changes you don't have to train Mining Barges to train for the Orca, so it's a burden not levied on players training it after the changes, but still levied on the players who trained it before.
It was very ambiguous, so he might mean something else, but that was what I understood.

It's still not an argument for reimbursing the mining barge skills, so I'm not concerned.
Whitehound
#453 - 2013-03-11 13:28:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
So why did you think that they were?

I am not the one who uses it as argument. Occasionally do I pick it up in my replies to stay on the same level of those who I reply to, but I am well aware of the fact that it is all just bits and bytes and we could be asking for a whole lot more than what is being asked here.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#454 - 2013-03-11 13:31:03 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
So why did you think that they were?

I am not the one who uses it as argument. Occasionally do I pick it up in my replies to stay on the same level of those who I reply to, but I am well aware of the fact that it is all just bits and bytes and we could be asking for a whole lot more than what is being asked here.
"Look at how i try to crawl out of the mess i made regarding myself"
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#455 - 2013-03-11 13:35:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
I am not the one who uses it as argument.
…except for in this entire thread. Also, it doesn't answer the question: why did you think that CCP were going to hand out Mining Barge V?

By the way, here's an interesting question for you: why on earth should anyone be reimbursed when they haven't lost anything?
Whitehound
#456 - 2013-03-11 13:37:26 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
So why did you think that they were?

I am not the one who uses it as argument. Occasionally do I pick it up in my replies to stay on the same level of those who I reply to, but I am well aware of the fact that it is all just bits and bytes and we could be asking for a whole lot more than what is being asked here.
"Look at how I stand above you but still have the courage to join you in your mess"

Fixed it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Whitehound
#457 - 2013-03-11 13:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Tippia wrote:
Why on earth should anyone be reimbursed when they haven't lost anything?

And I said that their decisions regarding their skills and the reasoning for these decisions have lost their validity.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#458 - 2013-03-11 13:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
And I said that their decisions regarding their skills and the reasoning for these decisions has lost their validity.
…which of course is untrue. Their decisions have yielded, and will still yield, exactly the same result as they always did. They decided to train Barges V and Indy CS, and they got Barges V and Indy CS. The decisions is and will be as valid as it ever was. What did they lose? How is their decision in any way less valid?

Why did you make up the lie about CCP handing out Mining Barge V?

And why on earth should anyone be reimbursed when they haven't lost anything?
Whitehound
#459 - 2013-03-11 14:03:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…which of course is untrue. Their decisions have yielded, and will still yield, exactly the same result as they always did.

It is irrelevant. Just as it is irrelevant for the validity of a decision if it was based on good or bad reasons does a decision keep its validity as long as the environment it was made in stays the same. Now this environment changes and so the decision becomes invalid.

What is untrue is to believe for the yield to be the same. If it was about the yield then the players who did not train all learning skills to level 5 should not have received the higher attributes we all got.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Velicitia
XS Tech
#460 - 2013-03-11 14:17:36 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
What is untrue is to believe for the yield to be the same. If it was about the yield then the players who did not train all learning skills to level 5 should not have received the higher attributes we all got.


I don't follow this.

Learning skills were determined to be dumb, and fixed as follows:
1. remove said skills from the game
2. give everyone the attributes as if they trained everything to 5
3. return the SP to the players that trained the skills, because they were no longer needed.

Ethnic Relations was determined to be dumb (and removed) pretty recently. If you didn't have it, you got 100% non-native corpies for free. If you did have it, you got some other skill at the same level.

Now, CCP is saying the need for mining barge 5 on a capital mining support platform is dumb, and changing the prerequisites. I'm kinda ambivalent on the whole thing -- I mean, freighters need the [Racial] Industrial skill, so needing to have some "Mining" skills makes sense if you want to fly the "mining support platform".

For people who don't have an Orca because "WTF!? MINING SKILLS!! I'm never training those!!" they get a break.
For people who mine, it's a wash since some days you might be the orca pilot ... other days, you're in a hulk.

For people who don't mine, and are getting pissy about this -- why'd you choose to learn how to fly a mining support vessel?

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia