Skill Discussions

The conventional belief is that a ship should be max skilled in its role, and the justification for skill level V requirements is "because you get to have the benefit." if that's true, why are they mandatory rather than optional?

by requiring a ship to be max skilled while also giving it a bonus based on that skill, isn't it a direct cause of the alpha and logistics barriers that plague fleet gameplay?

it's not just T2; another example is missile launcher operation V for caldari offensive systems.

why can't a young character have a fail-skilled tengu, when they would be happy to pilot it sooner, and others would be happy to kill it?

that's a valid outcome, but back up... why can't a player decide to fly a flawed ship to begin with?

if someone is impatient and wants to fly a harpy with Caldari frigate III and assault frigates I, why not let them do it?


that notion, that dogma is what I'm questioning. why is it this way, when it could be rope to let players hang themselves... something EVE claims to allow players to do, and is also known by other names like "depth" and "choice."

those of us who have trained these skills lose nothing in the event of a reduction in prerequisites...

thanks for stopping in. I caught some of your posts regarding advanced spaceship command V while searching for a similar thread addressing this topic.

yeah, the idea of protecting pilots by requiring skills doesn't fit in with the rest of EVE's game design or reputation. (since when does CCP care about protecting players from loss through PVP)

not only does it take a long time for T2 skills, but in that time players are liable to lose interest. ...and even if they make it they're being robbed. for me, Caldari BS V for the marauder skill was a big one. just plain daunting. when a player makes it to the marauder skill, the bonuses per Battleship skill level are suddenly "there" and they aren't able to experience the improvement level-by-level.

in the case of a skill level III "across the board" marauder... say, a Golem, with missile launcher operation III, Torpedoes I, cpu management III, Caldari BS III, Marauders I... a T2 hull made of butter, would that be such a bad thing.

if there was a chance an assault frig was skilled to III, with poor core skills, wouldn't more players take that fight?

a fleet of T2 and T3 ships, with some pilots skilled less-than-perfectly... that would make things a bit more interesting, wouldn't it? add some holes to find in the fleet comp, instead of the current guarantee that a pilot is tanky if they're in a T2 or T3

Advanced Spaceship Command isn't one of the requirements that directly overlap with a bonus per skill level on a hull, but it's guilty of turning a benefit into a requirement.

T2 skills already have the protection in place of not being allowed on trial accounts. if it's a reason to upgrade, it's another reason why that fruit should hang a little lower

I'm not here to ask for a reprieve. I have 12 mains training, and I assume everyone like me who has upgraded from a trial account has accepted the commitment, so please show me the same courtesy for the sake of this discussion.

and training something to V means T2

do you see the circular reasoning in this?

true statement:

true statement:

neither one proves why skill level V is required, which denies the range of specialization...

if specialization is a goal, why does it coincide with the starting point

why would jump freighters be an exception for the skill point reason. It was lv4 freighter needed for along time maybe forever its not a recent change.

and it makes the ships more interesting than just having it as a flat bonus. to whatever it is.

I meant range in terms of Spec Skill 1 - 5. are you saying that yes even this range is not what was intended under the T2 designation? and that some pilots will not have complete hull bonus benefits on the T2 hull?

Yes it does.

The point of specialization requiring level V of the "base" skill is that you can't quickly specialize into a large number of things. That's what specialization means, you get really good at one thing at the expense of getting really good at other things. Choices and stuff.

Can we just take away all goals so no one has any reason to play?

I don't see the logic in a game with no progression.

waiting for a skill to finish is not playing. it's waiting.

if your idea of playing is one action, followed by months of inaction, you should probably start playing savings accounts. you put money in and wait for it to grow.

as for the skill requirements, they are useful for producing artificial scarcity. if everyone could fly a jf, black frog would go out of business. if everyone could fly command ships, you might as well remove battlecruisers. if everyone had perfect refining skills, you may as well remove them entirely, and so on.