EVE General Discussion

How did this thread ever get past the phrase 'get bent'

I mean wanting SP because you failed to train something.

I am not trained to pilot a titan yet, can I have the SP for that on all of my characters

We got hooked by a very capable troll, it appears. Or a really remarkable case of 'densum aeternum.'

I have not been following this thread at all, but Tiippia is right. Because he's smart and makes good posts and his avatar is super hot.

Naaah. You might be dense (so might I be!), but in no manner as dense as the OP, whom absolutely qualifies for the 'eternal' modifier.

Someone should appologise for this.
To my employer if nothing else.
I got paid to read this, well... paid while I read this.
Doubtless CCP will punish me and add Destroyer V to my skill set
Chur

There's nothing to 'refund' - except in a very tiny minority of cases. The only thing that's being done is to allow the players to fly later what they can fly now. No new capabilities, no suddent leaps in competitiveness. Just some different labels and numbers, signifying... Nothing new.

status quo ante

I have a sneaking suspicion that this, like pretty much all SP whines, is just a classic case of D&D:itis (I'd call it WoW:itis, but it really isn't their fault — they just copied the already obsolete formula because it's simple). The reasoning is that SP = XP, more = higher level, higher level = better, skills = class/level feats, so more of those obviously = better.

…forgetting (or, worse, having never learned) the simple fact that none of that is actually true, because the game isn't a class/level-based system and skills don't work that way. Skills are simply a mix between proficiency and usage licensing, and at the end of the day, mechanics-wise at least, the only thing that matters is what you can use and at what proficiency level.

When viewed through a class/level lens, of course it all looks horribly upsetting — more “XP”, more “feats”, of course it must be a great boon to get those. When viewed through the EVE lens, we get what you just described: no added proficiency, no added usage license, so who cares what you get because it will be applied equally to everyone.

The argument that “onoz, it takes longer to train” forgets not just the fact that a huge amount of changes are being made in the opposite direction, and that the total SP catalogue of the game is increased by just over 1% by the change, but also the fact that skill changes like this are bound to happen with some frequency. Whenever new skills are included, it'll be the same: new players get more to train to “catch up” with older ones, and older players can get going with little to no time investment. It's just something that will (and even must) happen as the game grows older and new stuff gets added to give oldtimers something new and interesting to train. Between MJDs, target breakers, reactive hardeners, honeycombing, new players have “fallen behind“ in terms of how much new SP they have to accumulate just as much as the BC/dessie changes will.

And guess what? It is, in the derailment sense.

Now, since you prefer your things formal (for no particularly good reason) how about this one:
P₁: If things are bad, they can be improved.
P₂: The skill tree is getting improved, according to Tippia.
C: The skill tree was bad, according to Tippia ← non sequitur.

…and I'm being generous here by providing an assumed premise that could possibly connect the otherwise disconnected statements and which is intuitive enough that we can suspect that the OP actually might use it. In reality, P₁ is unstated, so we don't even have a complete syllogism. Either way, the conclusion does not follow form the premise(s).

So yes, /discussion indeed — his conditional was a non-sequitur, and his follow-up questions were nonsensical hypotheticals because they hinged on this fallacious assumption. There's really no two ways about it.

Maybe OP knows something we don't and has already won eve

I just agreed with Frying Doom. This chilled me to my core, but that last part is totally relevant to every Eve player.

The 'failure to plan ahead' counter-argument to OP isn't very good. It can easily be defeated by a player who comes to the game after the change, therefore COULDN'T HAVE failed to plan ahead.

The only counter-argument to OP is that this is simply a reimbursement, nothing more. If something is taken away from you, you must rightly be reimbursed by CCP.

Something is being taken away from us - Battlecruisers V and Destroyers V, which we trained. We must rightly be able to fly these ships in the future if we could fly them in the past. Thus we get racial Battlecruisers V and racial Destroyers V.

You haven't trained BC V or D V, therefore nothing is being taken away from you. You can't fly these ships now. So you shouldn't be able to fly these ships in the future (until you train them).

You are simply asking for free SP, for no good reason.

Those of us affected are receiving SP. But it isn't free - it simply preserves what we already have in terms of piloting ships. In fact, we are actually getting a nerf, because our clone costs are going way up as compared to what they are now.