These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2013-02-11 15:40:30 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
You actively used those skills to get to your current point

You did the same thing with Mining Barge V; it was useful while you needed it.


Yes and no... I was referring to actually flying the ship as an active part of your character's life rather than it merely being a buffer skill, thus it served a more active role in your gameplay rather than a passive one. Important difference? Guess that's up to opinion. Its not exactly rock solid logic, that. Not quite as easy a point to argue. Its not a difference that could be accurately judged either. Which are big reasons I wouldn't have really been able to argue that point. But hey, I'm not going to usually give people I'm debating with ammo, they can find, load and fire that shot just fine on their own if they choose.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#222 - 2013-02-11 15:44:33 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
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.


Thank you for the clarification and detailed response on this matter CCP Ytterbium, it is much appreciated by myself and I am sure many others.

In isolation this mining barge does not pose a large enough issue to warrant a major complaint from myself, and I have stated in this thread and others that this is a minor complaint and simply an anomaly in the otherwise excellent way CCP deals with other issues which I have experienced. Although the inevitable consequence of an event like this is that it begins to undermine of the skill system and the decisions we players make when attempting to optimise our training plans. The skill system is integral to the gameplay of eve, much more than in any other online game, and many players spend a lot of time planning and researching optimal skill training plans for their characters.

The only concern I have is will my future training plans be effected in a similar way to this as many more changes seem to be on the horzion. If so then that will really begin to effect my enjoyment of the game as for some months I am simply keeping my accounts running to achieve my skill training goals with little time actually spent in the game.


Well spoken, however I'm not sure what you mean by "many more changes seem to be on the horizon". This change pretty much brings the skill system to a standardized format, which was the end goal.

Yes, occasionally ship role changes may happen or certain styles of game play may require some minor tweaks in ship capability... but those are necessary for overall game play.

You are spending too much time worrying about skills points my friend.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#223 - 2013-02-11 15:51:36 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
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.


Thank you for the clarification and detailed response on this matter CCP Ytterbium, it is much appreciated by myself and I am sure many others.

In isolation this mining barge does not pose a large enough issue to warrant a major complaint from myself, and I have stated in this thread and others that this is a minor complaint and simply an anomaly in the otherwise excellent way CCP deals with other issues which I have experienced. Although the inevitable consequence of an event like this is that it begins to undermine of the skill system and the decisions we players make when attempting to optimise our training plans. The skill system is integral to the gameplay of eve, much more than in any other online game, and many players spend a lot of time planning and researching optimal skill training plans for their characters.

The only concern I have is will my future training plans be effected in a similar way to this as many more changes seem to be on the horzion. If so then that will really begin to effect my enjoyment of the game as for some months I am simply keeping my accounts running to achieve my skill training goals with little time actually spent in the game.


Well spoken, however I'm not sure what you mean by "many more changes seem to be on the horizon". This change pretty much brings the skill system to a standardized format, which was the end goal.

Yes, occasionally ship role changes may happen or certain styles of game play may require some minor tweaks in ship capability... but those are necessary for overall game play.

You are spending too much time worrying about skills points my friend.


The changes I was thinking about which are possibly on the horizon were the gunnery and missile skills being bought into line with the ship changes. Currently level V is required to proceed to the next sized gun, it would make logical sense to bring these into line with the ship changes proposed. Although this change would make sense I do hope that skills remain as they are personally due to the reasons I gave in the post above.

Heh, yes I have spent a lot of time thinking and optimising skill training, but that is part of the enjoyment I get from eve. Maybe that is sad, but then some people would also say playing internet spaceships is sad. But I would disagree!
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2013-02-11 15:53:49 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
snip


I think you grossly overestimate how long such an option would take... as most with no understanding in coding that present arguments such as yours tend to. They drew the line already, but you're the one who presented the question first. You go on this ranting tangent about how it'd lead to all this ridiculousness and slippery slope and all that if such a decision was made. You got an answer. "But no, they already drew-" Nope, stop. You asked where the line would be drawn if they gave in to this sort of thing. I answered that. I'm the one jumping to conclusions? I'm not the one predicting doomsday scenarios here.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#225 - 2013-02-11 15:56:26 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
snip


I think you grossly overestimate how long such an option would take... as most with no understanding in coding that present arguments such as yours tend to. They drew the line already, but you're the one who presented the question first. You go on this ranting tangent about how it'd lead to all this ridiculousness and slippery slope and all that if such a decision was made. You got an answer. "But no, they already drew-" Nope, stop. You asked where the line would be drawn if they gave in to this sort of thing. I answered that. I'm the one jumping to conclusions? I'm not the one predicting doomsday scenarios here.


My certificate as a Java Software Engineer is in the post. Your saying this literally couldn't have come at a better time, hahaha.

Also, that counter you tried there is a circular argument. I shouldn't need to explain why that's a bad thing.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2013-02-11 15:59:12 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
OK, I'm going to stomp this flat right about now.

What about the magical changing of what skills are required to do something, what do you call that? Big smile
But yeah, seriously, not the kind of logic to bring into a game. If you were to list the things that don't make sense in real life that are done in a game, we'd be here all day.

You seem to have missed the part where I said that these new skills were awarded JUST so that players could do the same thing they were able to do before.

Otherwise CCP turning the generic destroyer and battlecruisers skills into racial variants would be extremely unfair because it would quite literally be taking away player's ability to fly a ship that they trained for, and forcing them to retrain it.

I'm sure you're capable of understanding the difference.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#227 - 2013-02-11 15:59:41 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
snip


I think you grossly overestimate how long such an option would take... as most with no understanding in coding that present arguments such as yours tend to. They drew the line already, but you're the one who presented the question first. You go on this ranting tangent about how it'd lead to all this ridiculousness and slippery slope and all that if such a decision was made. You got an answer. "But no, they already drew-" Nope, stop. You asked where the line would be drawn if they gave in to this sort of thing. I answered that. I'm the one jumping to conclusions? I'm not the one predicting doomsday scenarios here.


My certificate as a Java Software Engineer is in the post. Your saying this literally couldn't have come at a better time, hahaha.

Also, that counter you tried there is a circular argument. I shouldn't need to explain why that's a bad thing.


So you are a newly qualified Java Expert, now that is hardly an expert in the much more complicated art of computer game programming is it.

I think that statement in fact backs up the original point made by Aren. When it comes to those technical matters only CCP knows the actual situation, and the rest of us are in the dark. We are simply customers and our job is to voice our concerns and trust that CCP will act upon them if it is possible and in the interests of the game.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#228 - 2013-02-11 16:03:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:

I think that statement in fact backs up the original point made by Aren. When it comes to those technical matters only CCP knows the actual situation, and the rest of us are in the dark. We are simply customers and our job is to voice our concerns and trust that CCP will act upon them if it is possible and in the interests of the game.


My god, you two are terrible at this.

If his argument was that I overestimate the work required because I know nothing about coding, then knowing stuff about coding is a pretty good counter. If your saying that only CCP can know, then you just completely destroyed his original arguement with your assertion. You can't segregate your response to only apply to me. Either we're both wrong, or just he is... I am fine with either.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#229 - 2013-02-11 16:10:11 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
in the interests of the game.

See, there's the snag. CCP, for the most part, is capable of seeing past their own noses with regards to game balance issues - players who are upset about having had to train a ship skill as a prerequisite for another ship that no longer requires said prerequisite aren't likely to be as objective.


Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#230 - 2013-02-11 16:26:25 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
You actively used those skills to get to your current point

You did the same thing with Mining Barge V; it was useful while you needed it.

Yes and no...

Actually, yes. You got value out of it even if you weren't flying mining barges because it was a prerequisite for the Orca. Removing it as a pre-req does not, in any way, devalue the skill as it is still useful within the game.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
LoneEcho
Mining and Salvage Corporation
#231 - 2013-02-11 16:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: LoneEcho
Training mining barge V was a waste for this toon but needed the orca to haul only.. I only pew pew on this toon so thats all wasted SP as I won't mine...ever!!! I could have put that into ships that are useful to pewpew... That's why I PAY for a 2nd account so that he does all my mining. Not a happy camper here!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#232 - 2013-02-11 17:08:45 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Actually, yes. You got value out of it even if you weren't flying mining barges because it was a prerequisite for the Orca. Removing it as a pre-req does not, in any way, devalue the skill as it is still useful within the game.

…and this really is the rub of the matter: people are complaining that some thing will be cheaper in the future and that they should somehow be compensated for getting exactly what they paid for in the past.

Yes, you had to spend more two weeks amassing the SP needed for an Orca in the past compared to how much you'll have to spend in the future. So what? What is it you want back? No time was wasted (and again, the notion of wasted SP is nonsensical in a game with no level caps or per-level-pick restrictions) — it was worth it; you paid the cost; you got exactly what you wanted for the price you agreed on. Beyond that, nothing has changed. If you didn't use the skill before, then it was just as “useless” back then as it will be now: not at all, you just chose not to use it. If you continue to choose not to use it, then it's doing just as much good now as it did back then.

Back when I started, it took days to grind together a fully fitted Drake; these days, it can be done in an hour. Should I then be reimbursed for all that time I spend grinding back in 2008? Of course not. The game has moved on and is in a better place now. The value of time is not the same now as it were back then. If it was worth it back then it was worth it back then, and nothing that happens now or in the future will ever change that.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2013-02-11 17:18:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Arduemont wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Arduemont wrote:
snip


I think you grossly overestimate how long such an option would take... as most with no understanding in coding that present arguments such as yours tend to. They drew the line already, but you're the one who presented the question first. You go on this ranting tangent about how it'd lead to all this ridiculousness and slippery slope and all that if such a decision was made. You got an answer. "But no, they already drew-" Nope, stop. You asked where the line would be drawn if they gave in to this sort of thing. I answered that. I'm the one jumping to conclusions? I'm not the one predicting doomsday scenarios here.


My certificate as a Java Software Engineer is in the post. Your saying this literally couldn't have come at a better time, hahaha.

Also, that counter you tried there is a circular argument. I shouldn't need to explain why that's a bad thing.


Considering I've ran into coders that have been put what could have been 5, 6 lines of code into literally 20-25, and still gotten good grades out of it because it worked, and not to mention how a large majority of schools teach theory rather than hands on and your treatment of a rather simple aspect as being this grand undertaking. Yeah. Don't rightly care. Not to mention, everyone and their mom on forums seems to claim to be a programmer. No, what I care about is showing that experience. Also don't recall mentioning anything that could be summed up as a is true, so b must be true kind of deal. In fact, relatively sure I didn't. Also not seeing where your certificate is shown.

Karl Hobb wrote:

Actually, yes. You got value out of it even if you weren't flying mining barges because it was a prerequisite for the Orca. Removing it as a pre-req does not, in any way, devalue the skill as it is still useful within the game.


BUZZZZZZZZ and this is where I will argue. 30 days of skills being the same as 15 or whatever the numbers end up being is a clear devaluation. Its lost part of its value. Not ALL of it, but a part of its value was made easier. That's devaluation. That's not an arguable part of the conversation, at all. You can argue if its an acceptable devaluation for one reason or another, but you can't say it is none.

Tippia wrote:

…and this really is the rub of the matter: people are complaining that some thing will be cheaper in the future and that they should somehow be compensated for getting exactly what they paid for in the past.


Again, same logic can be applied to removed skills as well, so need a little bit more than that. Something others have provided, including the CCP post to some extent. They got what they paid for in the past, just now it was free for everyone. The number of people benefiting is relatively irrelevant with that particular sort of logic. Its meaningless without more attached to it unless you apply it to everything.

Also, Show me how to get to battlecruisers within hours please, thanks.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#234 - 2013-02-11 17:29:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
BUZZZZZZZZ and this is where I will argue. 30 days of skills being the same as 15 or whatever the numbers end up being is a clear devaluation. Its lost part of its value.
No, it really hasn't.
Before, you could fly an Orca and all barges at full bonus and be poised to start training Exhumers.
After, you can fly an Orca and all barges at full bonus and be posed to start training Exhumers.

Value lost = nil.

Your decision, before, not to fly barges or train exhumers and your continued decision not to fly barges or train exhumers does not change this equation.

Quote:
Again, same logic can be applied to removed skills as well, so need a little bit more than that.
No, because at that point you've spent time on something that no longer exists in the game — in some sense it effectively never has existed once the underlying mechanic is removed. So reimbursement makes sense there: the time you spent is removed alongside the mechanic that you wanted to use, and you get that time back. In truth, though, even that's generious since in many cases (or rather, in the specific cases where this has been applied), you benefitted from the removal — you got more time back than you ever spent due to the benefits you reaped from spending that time.

Quote:
Also, Show me how to get to battlecruisers within hours please, thanks.
Run L4s for an hour — buy and fully fit a Drake.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#235 - 2013-02-11 17:32:43 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
BUZZZZZZZZ and this is where I will argue. 30 days of skills being the same as 15 or whatever the numbers end up being is a clear devaluation. Its lost part of its value. Not ALL of it, but a part of its value was made easier. That's devaluation. That's not an arguable part of the conversation, at all. You can argue if its an acceptable devaluation for one reason or another, but you can't say it is none.

For people who trained Mining Barge only as a prerequisite for the Orca, the value of the skill has not changed one iota. It was as useful before the change as it will be after the change. Furthermore, you will still be able to fly mining barges at the highest level, so the skill has lost no value.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2013-02-11 17:43:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
BUZZZZZZZZ and this is where I will argue. 30 days of skills being the same as 15 or whatever the numbers end up being is a clear devaluation. Its lost part of its value.
No, it really hasn't.
Before, you could fly an Orca and all barges at full bonus and be poised to start training Exhumers.
After, you can fly an Orca and all barges at full bonus and be posed to start training Exhumers.

Value lost = nil.

Your decision, before, not to fly barges or train exhumers and your continued decision not to fly barges or train exhumers does not change this equation.

Quote:
Again, same logic can be applied to removed skills as well, so need a little bit more than that.
No, because at that point you've spent time on something that no longer exists in the game — in some sense it effectively never has existed once the underlying mechanic is removed. So reimbursement makes sense there: the time you spent is removed alongside the mechanic that you wanted to use, and you get that time back. In truth, though, even that's generious since in many cases (or rather, in the specific cases where this has been applied), you benefitted from the removal — you got more time back than you ever spent due to the benefits you reaped from spending that time.

Quote:
Also, Show me how to get to battlecruisers within hours please, thanks.
Run L4s for an hour — buy and fully fit a Drake.


So I guess time is valueless. And yes, it enters into the equation because it was required at the time. You can't ignore anything when thinking about these things. Something doesn't become invalid just because you don't want it to be. It has to be completely unrelated for it to not matter. We can argue if it matters ENOUGH until the end of time but its still a factor. And its a factor because it affects people. Its why this all really boils down to is a war of opinions, but instead like most forum topics, it derails into people trying to remove facts from the equation. Not really good for discussion.

And nope, only two ways would it have never existed. removing SP they gained as a result of it, or giving people who didn't have it the SP they would have with it. Pretty much for exactly what you stated. They got more back out of it than what they put in.

And umm.. I don't think a new person is going to be running many L4s... just saying. Took me weeks to get into my Myrmidon. Me being able to cheapen it that much would be less a nerf and more an indication of progress >_>

Karl Hobb wrote:

For people who trained Mining Barge only as a prerequisite for the Orca, the value of the skill has not changed one iota. It was as useful before the change as it will be after the change. Furthermore, you will still be able to fly mining barges at the highest level, so the skill has lost no value.


Then I guess no value was lost when learning skills were removed either. They could still train at the same speed. Roll In fact, they gained from it in many cases. There are only two differences between the situations. The number of people with access to the benefits and it no longer being something on the skill bar. It didn't lose its value though because they still had the increased training rate they had before AND they had an edge over those who didn't take them.

At least, if I was using that logic. But the best you can come up with as a counter was that the skill was removed entirely, and yet the benefit didn't go away, yet you're trying to use the benefit not going away as a reason. Can't have it both ways without more to it.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#237 - 2013-02-11 17:47:59 UTC
Wasted skill? Nah. Cloaking 5 is a wasted skill.

The real question is why, especially in a game that strongly features grabbing situations with your own two hands and weaving them into success, everyone feels so entitled. Isn't one of the points of this whole endeavor to start by banging two rocks together and build whatever you want to accomplish from there?

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#238 - 2013-02-11 17:57:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Aren Madigan wrote:

Considering I've ran into coders that have been put what could have been 5, 6 lines of code into literally 20-25, and still gotten good grades out of it because it worked, and not to mention how a large majority of schools teach theory rather than hands on and your treatment of a rather simple aspect as being this grand undertaking. Yeah. Don't rightly care. Not to mention, everyone and their mom on forums seems to claim to be a programmer. No, what I care about is showing that experience. Also don't recall mentioning anything that could be summed up as a is true, so b must be true kind of deal. In fact, relatively sure I didn't. Also not seeing where your certificate is shown.


So, let me get this straight. I, someone with programming experience, can't know how long it would take for this change to be made. But you seem to understand exactly how long it will take CCP, even though they are programmers themselves and therefore could be better or or worse than me? How do you even function on a daily basis when you can't follow a simple argument.

You say "You can't tell how good a programmer is, just because they are a programmer"
Then you say "I understand better than you how quick it would take CCP, who are programmers".

If you don't know how good I am, and therefore can't know how long it would take me to do something or how good my code is, then how can you justify saying you know how longer CCP would take when you don't know how good they are? The fact they are in favour of not reimbursing you guys suggests (just suggests, which is better than you have right now) that I am correct in my assertions.

You do understand why that is stupid your post was right? I'm done with debating with you (I won't call it debating, its more like banging my head against a brick wall). All your doing now is repeating yourself. Everyone can see that you have no idea what your talking about, except yourself.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Maggeridon Thoraz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#239 - 2013-02-11 17:58:07 UTC
somehow i get the feeling ccp is changing so many fundamental things at all that they should give all players a totall reset of the skillpoints and let the users decide where to redistribute them :-)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#240 - 2013-02-11 18:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
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.


Thank you for the clarification and detailed response on this matter CCP Ytterbium, it is much appreciated by myself and I am sure many others.

In isolation this mining barge does not pose a large enough issue to warrant a major complaint from myself, and I have stated in this thread and others that this is a minor complaint and simply an anomaly in the otherwise excellent way CCP deals with other issues which I have experienced. Although the inevitable consequence of an event like this is that it begins to undermine of the skill system and the decisions we players make when attempting to optimise our training plans. The skill system is integral to the gameplay of eve, much more than in any other online game, and many players spend a lot of time planning and researching optimal skill training plans for their characters.

The only concern I have is will my future training plans be effected in a similar way to this as many more changes seem to be on the horzion. If so then that will really begin to effect my enjoyment of the game as for some months I am simply keeping my accounts running to achieve my skill training goals with little time actually spent in the game.


Well spoken, however I'm not sure what you mean by "many more changes seem to be on the horizon". This change pretty much brings the skill system to a standardized format, which was the end goal.

Yes, occasionally ship role changes may happen or certain styles of game play may require some minor tweaks in ship capability... but those are necessary for overall game play.

You are spending too much time worrying about skills points my friend.


The changes I was thinking about which are possibly on the horizon were the gunnery and missile skills being bought into line with the ship changes. Currently level V is required to proceed to the next sized gun, it would make logical sense to bring these into line with the ship changes proposed. Although this change would make sense I do hope that skills remain as they are personally due to the reasons I gave in the post above.

Heh, yes I have spent a lot of time thinking and optimising skill training, but that is part of the enjoyment I get from eve. Maybe that is sad, but then some people would also say playing internet spaceships is sad. But I would disagree!

I have not heard of any changes to gun/missile skills being discussed, and I don't think that the clear progression from T1 to T2 guns/missiles has the same issues that ship progression does (which necessitated this change).

However, if those changes DID come about you would still receive clear value for those skills being at level 5... as running fits that require using meta T1 guns/missiles (as opposed to T2) is very, very common and relys on those very skills.

You can of course say that you ONLY run T2 weapons systems... but keep in mind that is a choice you made in how you fit your ship (and could well change at any time), and has no bearing on whether those skills at 5 have clear value for a player to have.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.