Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Attack BC's (There are no T3's any more) are not the only BC's that see use any more. You are confusing Null Blob warfare and anom farming with the entire game. Please don't.

Also you are confused on HAC requirements, go and read them.

And the Split of BC to racial skills was nothing to do with access to Command Ships.
That was a change to Command Ship skill requirements, which gave no-one any extra skill points at all. Stop getting things wrong, seriously.

Honestly, anything would be fine with me as long it's not a double timesink like BC V and the CHA skills are now. There doesn't seem to be much logic behind the other T2 prereqs so lets say that instead of the CHA skills, you need Cap Management V, Thermodynamics V, and Nanite Operation V.

If you want to really help your space friends to enjoy the game, you log on, organize things, chat with people, help out newbros, learn to fc and take fleets out, become a good scout (aka 'juicy target finder'), fly logi or ewar, haul stuff for the corp, fit ships for the corp, refuel towers, etc. etc.

The notion that waiting an year or two for skills to train helps people is ludicrous.

I would prefer if they BOOSTED the ships to be worth that SP level.

They should ALL gain about 50 more cpu so they can all use links and a PROPER fitting. So if someoen wants to being a link ship not offgrid, that person would not be laughing stock.

I actually only have one of those skills trained to V, but whatever. I just don't think it's correct for this one class of ship to have a huge number of timesink SP that the vast majority of players that train them will never see any use from. Capital ships are the only other ship type where this is the case. It's just especially bad when you consider that Battlecruisers V is about as useful as Torpedoes V these days.

Its only the warfare skills, its not the specialist skills, and it helps leave a space for single-link BCs on a tight training budget.

The vets have been through this as well and also have been in the situation current "new bros" (how I detest this word) are in. And they survived this time and had something else to fly during that time, or even cut back their overeager sky-high expectations because they realized (or were made to realize) that they cannot fly such high end ships after a year in the game, let alone any shorter amount of time. If you want to do that, you are an annoying hindrance to the corp, especially in fleets.

It is pointless to give a player a CS after 6 months of playing, because this player cannot fly it as they lack even the most basic skills to maintain it. After 6 months, they (most of them at least) don't even know how to fly a frigate or cruiser. They don't even have the money to buy such a ship and a proper fitting, not to mention the skills for proper fittings.

So, from this notion, I suggest that not the CS skills are the problem, but the exuberant focus on social activities and not on what's meaningful and useful for the game and the community. On the one hand, every corp looks for more and more players, but since most good players are already in corps, they go for new players and expect from them to be able to do the same thing as older players do. That works if there are not too many of them in the corp and they can fill the role of scout or tackle, while the biggest part of the fleet is still in useful ships; however, as soon as there are too many new players in a corp, this concept breaks apart and the game experience rots away. On the other hand, new players nowadays want to have everything immediately, which might work in other games, but not in EVE. While PLEXing your way through the game works, it only causes good laughs on the killboards and pertinent news sites. Both sides make their game worse by expecting too much and wanting too much in too short of a time, without properly thinking about it.
Henceforth, I don't see how shorter CS training and exorbitantly more social entanglement make this game a better game. In my opinion, this is not about " add[ing] :meaning: :choices: or :epic pace: ", it is about the meaningful advancement in the game as a player, where it is necessary to have long training times to lay a proper foundation for further better toys in terms of skill points, but more importantly in terms of knowing what you are doing and how to keep doing what you are doing. Rushing things through just for the sake of handing out candy earlier does not make the game better, it only leads to a worse gameplay experience for all parties involved.

As an older player, we used to have bloodlines, no remaps, and had to train learning skills for seven months+ to help you learn faster - and still had longer training requirements for Command ships and other various ships than it is today. It's already been watered down.

Maybe my sensibilities off a bit because I've waited years to be able to fly everything. But I didn't think Command Ships were unbalanced requirement wise. They are supposed to be an end game ship / long term goal, not the next step up from an frigate/assault frig.

this...

and I have found even the leaderships not full suited to your fit, still helps out the group as a whole. Armour in a shield heavy fleet at siege 5 gets 10% more base shield ehp. That could be a few more shots soaked up in your off tank before the real armour tank is hit. Having been in a few cases where it was slugfest down to hull...that couple of shots on shield helps imo.

Or as shield in armour fleets. I have had lots of caldari boats warp out in armour if not hull. For the ships that gtfo with hull to the point ship is smoking I was real happy i had that little extra armour (otherwise it be one dead ship). And well, jam scorpion needs all the help it can get. This, widow, or falcon...yeah...you like you booster to be 5 all warfares, but armour and shield be top 2 if you could only have half of them.