These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Whitehound
#341 - 2013-02-13 12:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Even when this is off topic now am I still curious about this... Lol

Tippia wrote:
No, I left that part out exactly because it isn't correct.

You are saying you know of circles that are not round but have corners? Or do you want to talk about a group of people that are sometimes being called a circle?

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

Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#342 - 2013-02-13 13:04:17 UTC
I'm back briefly because I thought of a better way to explain my learning skill vs this situation point

Lets say person A had learning skills reimbursed. Person B is the mining barge and other skill situation.

Lets say person A passed the threshold where it started being profitable. At that point the skill is nothing but gains for them. Their time is more valuable than anyone else's at the time and they gain skills at a faster rate. Even if the skills were removed without reimbursement, they still made a "profit" of their initial time investment that they use freely towards their goal. Nothing but gains were had. And in fact, the reimbursement can be considered further profit as they already received what they spent and now they get the investment back at its full value to reinvest as they wish towards their own goals.

Person B. Their goal was the Orca and nothing else. They CAN fly mining barges, but ultimately it was just a cost to reach the end they desired. They never used them, never gained, it was just a time sink. This patch rolls around and suddenly their time was devalued by 32 days toward their goal. You can argue "well, at least they can fly mining barges" which is true, but that was never their intention. Their goal was the Orca. So in effect, they had a 32 day more expensive cost versus anyone new who just wanted the Orca. Their time investment FOR THEM was at a 32 day loss.

In all technicality, Person A profited, Person B lost. Has person A just had the skills taken away, they still came out ahead in their time goals while person B did not. Now you can argue this could be applied to nerfs too because a person's goal might be to "ROFLSTOMP" everyone else. But that isn't exactly a reasonable goal, is it? Its not reasonable to expect an unfair advantage over someone else. Wanting to fly X ship though isn't unreasonable, which is what it ultimately comes down to. Person A wanted to speed up the time it took to get what they want and they got it. Person B had to take a longer time to get what they wanted.

From that standpoint, seems to me person B loses more.
Whitehound
#343 - 2013-02-13 13:11:35 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Nothing but gains were had.

No. Those who planned ahead were able to gain an advantage over others. After the change did the advantage disappear and not be gained again.

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

Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#344 - 2013-02-13 13:15:29 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Nothing but gains were had.

No. Those who planned ahead were able to gain an advantage over others. After the change did the advantage disappear and not be gained again.


Mathematically, nothing but gains were had from having the skills long enough. This isn't arguable. This is a fact. Having the skill long enough returned a profit on their time investment that wasn't lost, it just wasn't widened.
Whitehound
#345 - 2013-02-13 13:27:52 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Mathematically, nothing but gains were had from having the skills long enough. This isn't arguable. This is a fact. Having the skill long enough returned a profit on their time investment that wasn't lost, it just wasn't widened.

You mean theoretically, not mathematically. Practically was it possible to gain an advantage and people trained for it. Others did not, and for other practical reasons, and to gain a different advantage (i.e. getting into a ship sooner). You can also turn this around and say that those who did train them only had a disadvantage (in PvP) and those who did not train them gained an advantage, which was lost, too. It then depends on what you see as your advantage. You only cannot argue about what a "mathematical" difference it makes, and I am guessing you thereby mean "with time travelling towards infinity", when EVE is only 10 years old.

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

Virginia Virdana
RSM Inc
#346 - 2013-02-13 13:35:39 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
Nothing but gains were had.

No. Those who planned ahead were able to gain an advantage over others. After the change did the advantage disappear and not be gained again.


Mathematically, nothing but gains were had from having the skills long enough. This isn't arguable. This is a fact. Having the skill long enough returned a profit on their time investment that wasn't lost, it just wasn't widened.


But the difference is that these skills were removed from the game. Everyone was given the advantage they conferred, so those that trained them were given the SP they invested.

If, instead of removing Mining Barge V as a requirement, it was given to everyone, then you would have a valid case - everyone benefits for no effort. But it isn't.

And mathematically, nothing but gains was made from using an Orca for hauling long enough. Gains in capacity, safety, flexibility in role and the ability to reship in space.

They say never come to a gunfight armed with a knife.   You appear to have come armed with a spoon.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#347 - 2013-02-13 13:39:26 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
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.


Here's how to approach anything in EVE: do what you want to do now, and realise that as soon as tomorrow CCP will change that thing that you're doing.

I'm firmly in the "opportunity cost" side of this argument: you trained Mining Barge 5 so you could fly the Orca. The Orca is getting changed to no longer require that skill, so you now have Mining Barge 5 as a reminder of the years/months you were able to make use of this ship. It's not "wasted" any more than Gunnery 5 is "wasted" every time you fly an industrial ship. The skill is still there in case you need to make use of it later.

Enjoy having the legacy skill. Who knows, maybe CCP will update mining to make it interesting and you'll actually find the skill useful in the future?
Whitehound
#348 - 2013-02-13 13:40:19 UTC
Virginia Virdana wrote:
But the difference is that these skills were removed from the game. Everyone was given the advantage they conferred, so those that trained them were given the SP they invested.

Yes. Everyone was made more equal, but it is not a gain. (It is a fact rather than a gain.)

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

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#349 - 2013-02-13 13:40:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
I'm back briefly because I thought of a better way to explain my learning skill vs this situation point

Lets say person A had learning skills reimbursed. Person B is the mining barge and other skill situation.

[…]

In all technicality, Person A profited, Person B lost. Has person A just had the skills taken away, they still came out ahead in their time goals while person B did not. Now you can argue this could be applied to nerfs too because a person's goal might be to "ROFLSTOMP" everyone else. But that isn't exactly a reasonable goal, is it? Its not reasonable to expect an unfair advantage over someone else. Wanting to fly X ship though isn't unreasonable, which is what it ultimately comes down to. Person A wanted to speed up the time it took to get what they want and they got it. Person B had to take a longer time to get what they wanted.

From that standpoint, seems to me person B loses more.
Not really, no. Person B only “lost” because he never actually chose to get the ship he was supposedly training for in spite of having every chance to do so. His choice not to get that skill isn't really something that should be compensated for — after all, it's what he chose to do; what it turns out he actually wanted, nor can it honestly be considered a loss to begin with. He could have had his advantage; he chose not to. Why should he get something he chose not to get? All he had to do was spend two seconds and two mouse clicks and he would have had that Orca, if he actually did want it after all, and he would thus (still) have lost nothing.

Whether or not person A is “in the black”, SP-wise, from his investment doesn't matter. What he did was spend x amount of time to get a distinct and rule-bound advantage over players who did not spent that time, and whether he's started to earn back more SP than he spent doesn't change the fact that the advantage he was training for is gone. This lost advantage means that the training did not do what it was supposed to do, and so the training time is reimbursed.

Just like person A, person B spent y amount of time to get a distinct and rule-bound advantage over players who did not spend that time… and guess what? He got it, both before and after the change. In game-mechanics terms, he lost nothing since, unlike person A, he still has the exact same abilities and advantages as before, and this holds true even if he decided at the last minute not to get that Orca after all. At every step along the way, the training time did (and still does) what it's supposed to do and he got exactly what he was training for, so the training time is not being reimbursed.

Quote:
Mathematically, nothing but gains were had from having the skills long enough.
…and that's utterly irrelevant (and, in truth, somewhat inaccurate). It's not about profit or loss in terms of amount of SP in the character sheet — it's about getting what you paid for. In the case of the learning skills, you no longer were (thus: reimbursement); in the case of the Orca, you still are (thus: no reimbursement).

The whole mining barge complaint is a nice diversion, but that is all it is. The people who complain are the ones who are getting the Orca, not the ones who are training barges to fly barges. These people will still get their Orca; they will still be able to fly it; they will lose nothing unless they very carefully and deliberately sabotage themselves, at which point they got what they wanted anyway. You could start from scratch and have the Orca before the change happens — that's how much you have to screw up to miss out on maintaining the advantage you train for. If you absolutely have to have that advantage now rather than wait until you can buy it piecemeal at a lower individual (but higher total) cost, you can. If, two weeks from the patch, you decide that you want to train for Orca, the correct decision will be to wait until after the patch, because you'll get it sooner that way.
Whitehound
#350 - 2013-02-13 13:51:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Mara Rinn wrote:
I'm firmly in the "opportunity cost" side of this argument: you trained Mining Barge 5 so you could fly the Orca. The Orca is getting changed to no longer require that skill, so you now have Mining Barge 5 as a reminder of the years/months you were able to make use of this ship. It's not "wasted" any more than Gunnery 5 is "wasted" every time you fly an industrial ship. The skill is still there in case you need to make use of it later.

Enjoy having the legacy skill. Who knows, maybe CCP will update mining to make it interesting and you'll actually find the skill useful in the future?

You make a good point, which I'd like to pick up.

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.

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

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#351 - 2013-02-13 13:56:05 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
I'm firmly in the "opportunity cost" side of this argument: you trained Mining Barge 5 so you could fly the Orca. The Orca is getting changed to no longer require that skill, so you now have Mining Barge 5 as a reminder of the years/months you were able to make use of this ship. It's not "wasted" any more than Gunnery 5 is "wasted" every time you fly an industrial ship. The skill is still there in case you need to make use of it later.

Enjoy having the legacy skill. Who knows, maybe CCP will update mining to make it interesting and you'll actually find the skill useful in the future?

You make a good point, which I'd like to pick up.

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.


So what you're saying is everyone should get reimbursed for prerequisite skills being removed in the past also, or just this once because you somehow feel entitled?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Whitehound
#352 - 2013-02-13 14:02:21 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
So what you're saying is everyone should get reimbursed for prerequisite skills being removed in the past also, or just this once because you somehow feel entitled?

No.

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

Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#353 - 2013-02-13 14:07:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Tippia wrote:
Whether or not person A is “in the black”, SP-wise, from his investment doesn't matter. What he did was spend x amount of time to get a distinct and rule-bound advantage over players who did not spent that time, and whether he's started to earn back more SP than he spent doesn't change the fact that the advantage he was training for is gone. This lost advantage means that the training did not do what it was supposed to do, and so the training time is reimbursed.


It should mean everything in a way since the entire reason for reimbursements is for lost time. Person A gained time unless you remove the variable that he had the skill trained long enough to profit from it. Whether they lost or gained an advantage is meaningless. Because guess what nerfs are? The removing or reducing of an advantage. So claiming the advantage is what matters opens up the argument to nerfs mattering as the result is the same.

EDIT: By the way, any time you say something is irrelevant, I'm going to ignore it because you don't get to make that judgement based on nothing.

Virginia Virdana wrote:
And mathematically, nothing but gains was made from using an Orca for hauling long enough. Gains in capacity, safety, flexibility in role and the ability to reship in space.



When talking about SP, only gains and losses in SP are what matters. You can gain ISK from virtually anything.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#354 - 2013-02-13 14:12:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
It should mean everything in a way since the entire reason for reimbursements is for lost time.
…and person A lost time because the advantage he trained for is removed from the game. Thus, that lost time is being reimbursed.

Quote:
Whether they lost or gained an advantage is meaningless. Because guess what nerfs are?
The wholesale application of a modification to everyone involved. I.e. not something that affects only some subset of people who have wasted time on a mechanic that no longer exists.

So no, the loss and gain of advantages is pretty much all it's about: it's what you spend time to get. That's why they have this neat “if you could fly it before” philosophy as their guiding principle for the ship revamps and why they couldn't care less how much SP they hand out to people: so that no skilled-for advantage is lost, because in the end, that's all that really matters — not what piles of SP you have on your character sheet. It's also what has driven their stance on reimbursements from the get-go: if you don't lose a skilled-for advantage, your time has not been wasted, so you're not getting it back (cf. supercarrier revamp for a prime example).

Quote:
By the way, any time you say something is irrelevant, I'm going to ignore it because you don't get to make that judgement based on nothing.
…you mean like you just did. So your argument is baseless then. Good to know.

Whitehound wrote:
You are saying you know of circles that are not round but have corners? Or do you want to talk about a group of people that are sometimes being called a circle?
You just have to move outside of a euclidian plane… Blink
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#355 - 2013-02-13 14:16:18 UTC
yes hello

if i trained industrial command ships V under the current system, then got podded a lot and lost mining barge, could i still fly the orca?
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#356 - 2013-02-13 14:16:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
It should mean everything in a way since the entire reason for reimbursements is for lost time.
…and person A lost time because the advantage he trained for is removed from the game. Thus, that lost time is being reimbursed.

Quote:
Whether they lost or gained an advantage is meaningless. Because guess what nerfs are?
The wholesale application of a modification to everyone involved. I.e. not something that affects only some subset of people who have wasted time on a mechanic that no longer exists.

Quote:
By the way, any time you say something is irrelevant, I'm going to ignore it because you don't get to make that judgement based on nothing.
…you mean like you just did. So your argument is baseless then. Good to know.


And person B lost time by spending towards something that is no longer as expensive. Person a gained time essentially. They lost their advantage, but gained in the long run. Frankly I'd say someone asking for reimbursements on something that gained a profit is more selfish than someone asking for reimbursement on a devalued investment.
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa
The Perfect Harvesting Experience
#357 - 2013-02-13 14:18:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa
Whitehound wrote:
Saying "all skills have a use" is ignorant. You could as well say "I am the boss" or "all circles are round".

Or have all your gunnery skill points moved into corporation, social and trade and try saying it again.

It ignores the individual meaning a skill has got for each player. What people have been saying here on the thread is that they had to train Mining Barge V when they did not want to fly barges. Others, who are not affected by the change measure no meaning to the skill and extend it onto those who are. Wtf?!

It then does not matter for the present what CCP has done in the past. We are not living in the past.


If you want to play the "Stop living in the past"-card, then it should apply to both sides and the people that are debating to get their SP they trained back then but do not not need anymore "soonish" should also have a big sip of the "Stop-living-in-the-past"-potion. They made a choice back then, don't gripe about it now.

EDIT:
Aren Madigan wrote:
It should mean everything in a way since the entire reason for reimbursements is for lost time.


Not for lost time, just lost skill-points.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#358 - 2013-02-13 14:27:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Aren Madigan wrote:
And person B lost time by spending towards something that is no longer as expensive.
Nope.
He lost no time since he can still fly every ship unlocked through that time expenditure (and, in this case, the time expenditure of those who haven't trained for it has actually increased so if anything, what he has is worth more than before).

Quote:
Person a gained time essentially.
…apart from the whole “spent time on an advantage that doesn't exist” — i.e. all that time spent was for nothing. Some would call that a loss of time.

Quote:
Frankly I'd say someone asking for reimbursements on something that gained a profit is more selfish than someone asking for reimbursement on a devalued investment.
As luck would have it, neither has happened.

The people who had their time spent being thrown down a hole and no longer doing what it was supposed to do got their time reimbursed. Time wasted on nothing → reimbursement.
The people who retain exactly what their time investment has given them (and which in this case have an additional advantage from the fact that they got it cheaper than what it will cost in the future) get to… well… retain exactly what their time investment has given them, cheaply. Time spent on something that actually turns out to be worth more → no reimbursement.

So no, the people who have skilled for Orcas are not seeing their investment devalued unless they engage in a bit of dodgy accounting and skip over what their investment has actually bought them…


Put another way: you have just bought a Ferrari and you got this neat Ferrari-branded key chain with it. This cost you an arm and a leg, but hey, look at that swell key-chain! Now, all of a sudden, some other guy goes into the Ferrari Brand store and buys the same key chain for the paltry sum of just his left pinky-toe. You're essentially being upset that he got the keychain at the cost of just a toe (and not being able to walk straight any more), conveniently forgetting that you have the keychain and the car so you don't particularly have to worry about walking straight as you blow exhaust fumes in his face when you drive by. No, your investment has not been devalued by him getting a smaller part of the package for a (not correspondingly) lower price…
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa
The Perfect Harvesting Experience
#359 - 2013-02-13 14:33:43 UTC
One more point about the learning-skill reinbursement.

EVERYONE got their invested SP in the skill-tree reinbursed. And everyone profited from the time they invested in said skill-tree.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#360 - 2013-02-13 14:34:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Aren Madigan
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Person a gained time essentially.
…apart from the whole “spent time on an advantage that doesn't exist” — i.e. all that time spent was for nothing. Some would call that a loss of time.

Except they already gained a profit. You're trying to tell me a positive number minus a smaller positive equals zero. For it to have been nothing there would have had to have been no gain.

Anyways, everything else you said? Nope, nothing I said was wrong. You're ignoring viewpoint. You're looking at it from one viewpoint, I'm looking at it from another. Neither are necessarily wrong when looked at from a specific viewpoint, but there isn't just ONE viewpoint.

Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa wrote:
Not for lost time, just lost skill-points.


In EVE, skill-points = time.