These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

ORE ship reimbursement and upcoming expansion

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#61 - 2013-03-08 13:40:01 UTC
Asmodai Xodai wrote:
I guess these forums are dominated by idiots or trolls. So I'm done here. Good day.

Goodbye NPC alt guy.

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.
Dave Stark
#62 - 2013-03-08 13:43:09 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Xen Solarus wrote:
What about the itty 5? Bet loads of people spent the weeks required to train that. That too is going to be made redundant by the changes. But, we've got no choice but to just go with CCP. Thats how they roll.


Actually it won't be redundant at all. The itty V will still be more awesome than the others when you have the gallente industrial skill trained to 5 & it will be awful if you only have it trained to 1. Having a race specific industrial skill also allow you to train for freighters.


only thing is, they've not rebalanced the industrials yet so the fact that the current itty V beats every other t1 industrial is irrelevant even with the upcoming skill changes.

even so i'm pretty sure the current itty V at gallente industrial I is still bigger in terms of cargo capacity than any of the others at industrial V.
flakeys
Doomheim
#63 - 2013-03-08 13:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: flakeys
Asmodai Xodai wrote:
Quote:
I'm happy that they are removed though, the changes in training make skilling up for a ship much more sense.


I agree that the new tech tree makes much more sense, and I like it too. I just don't like that some people had to waste a ton of time sinking skill points into something and it was all useless and a waste, and no kind of reimbursement for it. Furthermore, someone under the new system doesn't have to make that sacrifice. "Tough noogies" doesn't seem to be a good explanation here.



Let's be clear , if you have not started in 2004 like me i could name you a ton of stuff you got wich i didn't when you started between 1-7 years ago.In regards of sp starting sp points/training multiplier etc .


I never felt the need however to make a thread about it how i got robbed out of X days training .Things change ,use it to your benefit or just accept it.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-03-08 13:45:56 UTC
Quote:
CCP MAY FIND IT NECESSARY ON OCCASION TO MAKE CHANGES TO OR RESET CERTAIN PARAMETERS OF THE PERSISTENT GAME WORLD MECHANICS, INTERFACE OR FEATURES OF EVE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN GAME BALANCE AND ENHANCE PLAYABILITY OR PERFORMANCE FOR ITS SUBSCRIBERS. THESE CHANGES MAY AFFECT OR CAUSE SETBACKS FOR THE CHARACTERS YOU’VE CREATED.


I did not write this screaming part. It's from here. Terms of service.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2013-03-08 13:46:41 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Xen Solarus wrote:
What about the itty 5? Bet loads of people spent the weeks required to train that. That too is going to be made redundant by the changes. But, we've got no choice but to just go with CCP. Thats how they roll.


Actually it won't be redundant at all. The itty V will still be more awesome than the others when you have the gallente industrial skill trained to 5 & it will be awful if you only have it trained to 1. Having a race specific industrial skill also allow you to train for freighters.


only thing is, they've not rebalanced the industrials yet so the fact that the current itty V beats every other t1 industrial is irrelevant even with the upcoming skill changes.

even so i'm pretty sure the current itty V at gallente industrial I is still bigger in terms of cargo capacity than any of the others at industrial V.


True, but he was arguing that the ship will be redunant, when it clearly isn't.

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.
Dave Stark
#66 - 2013-03-08 13:48:16 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Xen Solarus wrote:
What about the itty 5? Bet loads of people spent the weeks required to train that. That too is going to be made redundant by the changes. But, we've got no choice but to just go with CCP. Thats how they roll.


Actually it won't be redundant at all. The itty V will still be more awesome than the others when you have the gallente industrial skill trained to 5 & it will be awful if you only have it trained to 1. Having a race specific industrial skill also allow you to train for freighters.


only thing is, they've not rebalanced the industrials yet so the fact that the current itty V beats every other t1 industrial is irrelevant even with the upcoming skill changes.

even so i'm pretty sure the current itty V at gallente industrial I is still bigger in terms of cargo capacity than any of the others at industrial V.


True, but he was arguing that the ship will be redunant, when it clearly isn't.


if anything it's the only ship that won't be redundant.
Whitehound
#67 - 2013-03-08 13:49:11 UTC
Cebraio wrote:
Quote:
CCP MAY FIND IT NECESSARY ON OCCASION TO MAKE CHANGES TO OR RESET CERTAIN PARAMETERS OF THE PERSISTENT GAME WORLD MECHANICS, INTERFACE OR FEATURES OF EVE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN GAME BALANCE AND ENHANCE PLAYABILITY OR PERFORMANCE FOR ITS SUBSCRIBERS. THESE CHANGES MAY AFFECT OR CAUSE SETBACKS FOR THE CHARACTERS YOU’VE CREATED.


I did not write this screaming part. It's from here. Terms of service.

It does not mean we cannot discuss it or that you can use it to shut up discussions.

You people really worry too much over stuff you believe you will not be getting anyway.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2013-03-08 13:51:23 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Cebraio wrote:
Quote:
CCP MAY FIND IT NECESSARY ON OCCASION TO MAKE CHANGES TO OR RESET CERTAIN PARAMETERS OF THE PERSISTENT GAME WORLD MECHANICS, INTERFACE OR FEATURES OF EVE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN GAME BALANCE AND ENHANCE PLAYABILITY OR PERFORMANCE FOR ITS SUBSCRIBERS. THESE CHANGES MAY AFFECT OR CAUSE SETBACKS FOR THE CHARACTERS YOU’VE CREATED.


I did not write this screaming part. It's from here. Terms of service.

It does not mean we cannot discuss it or that you can use it to shut up discussions.

You people really worry too much over stuff you believe you will not be getting anyway.

You can discuss all you want and I don't care if this thread goes on for another 20 pages.
Fatbear
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-03-08 13:52:21 UTC
Asmodai Xodai wrote:

I feel hard done by


If Orca training was being changed from 60 days to 360 days, I doubt you'd be posting to volunteer that all existing Orca pilots should have to do the extra training.

Get over it.
Ella Narina
Income Savings Plan
#70 - 2013-03-08 13:57:35 UTC
Lol
I think one point not mentioned, or I missed, is in the game overall players are going to have to train longer for the ships we (older players) had to spend. Racial ships, for example. it's going to take a lot longer for the newer players to cross train all the racial ships that it did for us.
I think this will more than make up for the 30 days shorter orca time.
it's a painful process re-balance...
but here we are.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2013-03-08 14:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
Asmodai Xodai wrote:
I guess these forums are dominated by idiots or trolls. So I'm done here. Good day.
By your own words, CCP is full of idiots or trolls,
because they do not agree with you either.

The only idiot is he who cant accept reality.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#72 - 2013-03-08 14:22:18 UTC
Cebraio wrote:

You can discuss all you want and I don't care if this thread goes on for another 20 pages.



And that's why it needs some Kittens and Squirrels !

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Virginia Virdana
RSM Inc
#73 - 2013-03-08 14:42:50 UTC
Asmodai Xodai wrote:
I guess these forums are dominated by idiots or trolls. So I'm done here. Good day.


We are neither trolls or idiots because we don't agree with your flawed premise, which has been already talked to death, is not going to change a thing and, as the thread went on, was increasingly rambling and chaotic.

You are the equivalent of a someone who decides in September that they will buy their winter coat in the January sales when it'll be half price, and then whines about being cold from October to December.

And good day to you too.
They say never come to a gunfight armed with a knife.   You appear to have come armed with a spoon.
Whitehound
#74 - 2013-03-08 15:11:08 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Cebraio wrote:

You can discuss all you want and I don't care if this thread goes on for another 20 pages.



And that's why it needs some Kittens and Squirrels !

Uuuuuhhhh .... Shocked

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#75 - 2013-03-08 15:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Solstice Project wrote:
Asmodai Xodai wrote:
I guess these forums are dominated by idiots or trolls. So I'm done here. Good day.
By your own words, CCP is full of idiots or trolls,
because they do not agree with you either.

The only idiot is he who cant accept reality.


Well, sometimes You just have to stare into realities hideous face, stomp with Your foot on the ground and shout NO!

Big smile

EDIT: I forgott the smiley, always add smileys when telling jokes they're like little toothy signs saying "This is a joke and it's not on You." most of times at least. :)

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2013-03-08 15:55:13 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Roime wrote:
Whether or not you use the skills you have trained out of your free will doesn't make a cause for reimbursement. It's your own personal choice not to mine even after training for a mining ship.

True.

Only is CCP going to change it, because CCP thinks these skill choices are unnecessary.

Many players knew about the lack of necessity, but accepted it as a part of the requirement for getting into an Orca, or else could they not have gotten into it. There was simply no choice for them.

The reason for why a reimbursement should be given is not just because a few players want it, this sure will always be the case when skills change, but because CCP is making this change and it invalidates players' skill choices of the past.

I am sure many Orca pilots will have trained Exhumers I in addition just to profit from this in their own way. These players should not get a reimbursement as they not only accepted it but used it for further training. Only those who did not should be allowed to reallocate some of their skill points. It is likely a very small group of people and also the reason why the discussion on this is largely biased, because most of who post here will not be part of this group.


Not really.

Again, those pilots ALREADY gained benefits from having those skills trained to use a ship *NOW* before the requirements are lowered. "Value obtained" style.

Just like when Steam holds a game sale a year after someone bought their game and they want the difference refunded... Sorry dude - you had your fun at that price when you got it.

Be happy with what you had from then until now - versus whining about wanting it for less when "the price drops". They don't give reimbursements like that and I don't see why CCP should either.

By your logic, when Survey was lowered from 5 to get Archeology, those pilots should have been reimbursed and any capitol pilot should be reimbursed both tier 4 and 5 of battleships being as that won't be a requirement anymore -- so on and so forth.

Yeah you are bringing up a plug ugly can of worms and no, I really don't find your arguments all that sound.
SB Rico
Sumo Wrestlers
#77 - 2013-03-08 15:55:58 UTC
Just like to point out that in the 5 1/2 yearss I have played this game I have seen...

Stealth bombers changed to torp boats... Did i get reibmursed?
Nano HACs nerfed hard enough to make HACs no longer the top of the tree... Reimbursment?
Drone bays removed from dreads... SP back?

etc..

On the other hand...

Learning skills REMOVED Reimbursed
Connections skills REMOVED Reimbursed
And now looking at removal off Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills for which I am being compensated.

Bottom line you have the skills trained you may not want to make use of them but you COULD.

(A good case here is SBs which were the only reason I trained cruise missiles - however much I dislike cruise ships I COULD still use them and as such do not deserve my sp back)

As someone else said reimbursing mining ships on this is a Pandora's box with all the similar things in the past CCP would suddenly be inundated with people pointing out they should get SP back from all sorts of changes in the past.

Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.

Killing me should be for free.
Whitehound
#78 - 2013-03-08 17:48:15 UTC
Mocam wrote:
Not really.

Again, those pilots ALREADY gained benefits from having those skills trained to use a ship *NOW* before the requirements are lowered. "Value obtained" style...

Some have already said that they did not benefit from it and it is the reason they are asking for a reimbursement. You simply assume too much.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#79 - 2013-03-08 18:05:30 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Some have already said that they did not benefit from it and it is the reason they are asking for a reimbursement.
If they didn't benefit from it, they shouldn't have trained it to begin with. Their poor decision-making skills are not grounds for compensation.
T'Laar Bok
#80 - 2013-03-08 18:16:41 UTC
Its happened before and I'm sure it'll happen again.

My coping mechanism is to say something appropriate such as "Sh!t" and shrug my shoulders.

It works well, you should try it and keep an eye on your blood pressure.

Amphetimines are your friend.

http://eveboard.com/pilot/T'Laar_Bok