These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

A Hypothetical Skill Question, Would This Be Fair?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#1 - 2013-02-12 17:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
I had a hypothetical scenario in mind analogous to another issue which is quite abstract for the majority of people as it doesn't effect them. So, I was wondering, if the following scenario where to ever happen, then would people think that it was fair?

Take the skill drone interfacing, your a combat pilot, and like most combat pilots you trained the skill to level 5 for the 20% extra bonus to damage for your drones. The skill also give a 20% bonus to mining drone yield also, and although your not interested in mining and never have been, you still train the skill to level 5 simply because the 100% increase to your drone damage is essential for any good combat pilot.

Now imagine CCP decide the skill training time for increasing drone damage by 100% is far too high, and so they decide to remove the bonus to damage from the drone interfacing skill and instead simply give all drones the 100% extra base damage.

Now, according to arguments from some on these forums, this would be perfectly fine, the skill still has a value, despite the fact that you don't mine and so the skill has no actual value to you, the skill still can be used for mining. You would not get any SP reimbursed, and basically you should just go away and htfu according to some on these forums.

Well, guess what, exactly the same thing is happening with the mining barge skill. Many players trained up the Mining Barge skill to fly the Orca, and now that aspect of the mining barge skill is being taken away. CCP has decided that no SP should be refunded in this case despite having a lot of sympathy for those of us in this situation. But basically no action is being taken. I just wondered if eve players considered that this is setting a dangerous precedence given the above example.
Orlacc
#2 - 2013-02-12 17:02:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Orlacc
" I just wondered if eve players considered that this is setting a dangerous precedence given the above example."

No.

Plus you have the same fcking thread just below this. You gonna keep making threads til someone agrees with you?

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-02-12 17:03:27 UTC
No.

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.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#4 - 2013-02-12 17:03:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
Orlacc wrote:
No.


No, it would't be fair correct? I'm glad you agree.

(By the way nice edit, why not just keep your mistake and post again below instead of messing up the thread)
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-02-12 17:04:13 UTC
Go back to your 18 page thread.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-02-12 17:04:16 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Orlacc wrote:
No.


No, it would't be fair correct? I'm glad you agree.


We disagree with the thought in it's entirety. It's as silly as your last SP reimbursement thread.

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.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#7 - 2013-02-12 17:04:28 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
No.


Glad you agree also.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#8 - 2013-02-12 17:04:39 UTC
Quit shitting up the forums with this crap and stick to one thread. People who want to give an opinion on this will use the thread that's already there.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Orlacc
#9 - 2013-02-12 17:05:01 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
No.


Glad you agree also.



I dare say you have issues that need to be addressed.

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#10 - 2013-02-12 17:05:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rebecha Pucontis
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Orlacc wrote:
No.


No, it would't be fair correct? I'm glad you agree.


We disagree with the thought in it's entirety. It's as silly as your last SP reimbursement thread.


Thank you for your opinon on the matter. So I take it your happy if the example I gave above occurs then?
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#11 - 2013-02-12 17:07:14 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Quit shitting up the forums with this crap and stick to one thread. People who want to give an opinion on this will use the thread that's already there.


This is only because you disagree with the answer this question gives. Once you consider what I have written above then I think if you are intelligent you will realise the implication of it.
Azrin Stella Oerndotte
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-02-12 17:07:43 UTC
Isn't drone interfacing 5 needed for carrier triage and some other drone stuff?
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#13 - 2013-02-12 17:08:51 UTC
Orlacc wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
No.


Glad you agree also.



I dare say you have issues that need to be addressed.


The question in the title was do you think this was fair, and you answered no as soon as I had posted the thread.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#14 - 2013-02-12 17:09:14 UTC
Azrin Stella Oerndotte wrote:
Isn't drone interfacing 5 needed for carrier triage and some other drone stuff?


It is required for capital pilots also yes.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-02-12 17:09:37 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Quit shitting up the forums with this crap and stick to one thread. People who want to give an opinion on this will use the thread that's already there.


This is only because you disagree with the answer this question gives. Once you consider what I have written above then I think if you are intelligent you will realise the implication of it.


The skill you want to remove is a prereq for capital ships. Essentially this thread is about dumbing down the training for capitals by removing a skill that takes 25 days to train. If you want your bonus damage, train for it.

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.
Myrissa Kistel
Planetary Logistics
#16 - 2013-02-12 17:10:31 UTC
Except you are are actually not losing anything. You could still fly a mining barge and and an orca. Now it will just be easier to fly an orca.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2013-02-12 17:11:25 UTC
Yes, if the drone interfacing skill was removed they would have to reimburse the skillpoints. There is precedent for this.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#18 - 2013-02-12 17:12:25 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Quit shitting up the forums with this crap and stick to one thread. People who want to give an opinion on this will use the thread that's already there.


This is only because you disagree with the answer this question gives. Once you consider what I have written above then I think if you are intelligent you will realise the implication of it.


The skill you want to remove is a prereq for capital ships. Essentially this thread is about dumbing down the training for capitals by removing a skill that takes 25 days to train. If you want your bonus damage, train for it.


In the example I gave above the player was not a capital pilot. Yes the skill is a pre req for capital pilot, although the skill would still remain as a pre req for capital ships if the drone damage bonus was removed, so it isn't dumbing down capital requirements at all.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#19 - 2013-02-12 17:13:33 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Yes, if the drone interfacing skill was removed they would have to reimburse the skillpoints. There is precedent for this.


Try reading again what I wrote. I didn't say the drone interfacing skill would be removed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#20 - 2013-02-12 17:14:15 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Now, according to arguments from some on these forums, this would be perfectly fine, the skill still has a value, despite the fact that you don't mine and so the skill has no actual value to you, the skill still can be used for mining.
Nice strawman. No, no-one has made that argument.

The SP would get reimbursed because the underlying mechanic was removed.

Quote:
Well, guess what, exactly the same thing is happening with the mining barge skill. Many players trained up the Mining Barge skill to fly the Orca
Since the underlying mechanic is not being removed in that case, it's not even remotely the same thing, no.
123Next pageLast page