These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Material Efficiency Refund?

First post
Author
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#21 - 2014-07-26 20:14:57 UTC
Choices are important, and so are consequences. But when you choose something intentionally after weighing the consequences and it ceases to mean what you chose, that's a problem.

I'm in favor of a refund here.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Slicr
#22 - 2014-07-26 20:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Slicr
CCP should refund all SP for Industry as they have changed the game big time with Crius.
As training is real time and the game is subscription based - I find it frustrating that no refund is given as CCP has changed the game mechanics immensely.

I believe in being Pro-Active as Opposed to Reactive. Reactive tends to be more costly in time and money.

Slicr
#23 - 2014-07-26 20:31:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Slicr
dp

I believe in being Pro-Active as Opposed to Reactive. Reactive tends to be more costly in time and money.

NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2014-07-26 20:44:06 UTC
I thought ME5 was a prereq for building capitals?
GreenSeed
#25 - 2014-07-26 20:50:49 UTC
"i read someone else make a sound argument on favor of not refunding SP on another discussion that totally sounds like this one, so im just going to repeat it here, even though everything indicates this is not he same situation." - everyone else on this thread.

this has been discussed already while this patch was on SiSi, the skill did one thing, now does another one completely different. the skill should have been refunded. it wasn't.
how many random players who have NO interest in industry had that skill trained at least to IV? even if you never made one hull, you still made ammo to turn it into faction, fuel blocks, etc, etc. now when you go make a batch of ammo its done faster! isk/h goes up!. no it doesn't, it was a crap job that you did once a month and usually would sit there for days before you had time to go deliver it and trade it for faction. the only reason why you invested 6 days of training in it was to get the waste down under market sell price. you deserve your SP back.

so whats left is to think why it wasn't refunded. it's not because it didn't fit the accepted requirements for a refund, but because CCP decided they didn't want to refund it. now, next time they change a skill, one that invalidates weeks or months of training on gunnery, or Spaceship Control, don't come crying when CCP doesn't refund you ****.

again, in case its not clear. saying "no you wont get refunded because the skills didn't meet the criteria xxxx" is just ********, because even if it did meet that criteria in an even more obvious way than it does now, CCP still wont refund it. refunds are over. and that's a load of garbage.

Ten Bulls wrote:
CCP has only ever given refunds of combat related skill, the skills in question are industry.


wrong.

it case you still need more clarification, its the refunds that are over, trying to fabricate a reasoning around why this specific skill wasn't refunded is just pointless.

this will lead to the already classical human drama of a change in policy not effecting you and people like you not caring , until it irrevocably ends up affecting you and then you'll find that we wont have any sympathy for you.
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#26 - 2014-07-26 20:56:09 UTC
Explorers asked for a skill refund due to changes with Odyssey. Did not happen them, will not happen now.

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!

Ryuu Towryk
Perkone
Caldari State
#27 - 2014-07-26 21:08:04 UTC
I would like CCP to change Surgical Strikes to give a 1% bonus to falloff. Rename the skill to Long Range Strikes. No refunds.

Watch the tears.
Lol
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#28 - 2014-07-26 21:21:56 UTC
Long range strikes, huh

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Lothras Andastar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-07-26 21:45:54 UTC
Things change. Suck it up. If you don't like it, don't play.

They recently nerfed sentries to ****, I don't whine asking for a refund.

Because the Legacy Code has too much Psssssssssssssssh, nothing will ever get fixed until CCP stop wasting money on failed sparkle MMOs and instead rewrite the entire backend of EvE from scratch.

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2014-07-26 21:48:11 UTC
Ten Bulls wrote:
CCP has only ever given refunds of combat related skill, the skills in question are industry.

Yes learning skills were definitely combat related.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2014-07-26 21:50:00 UTC
Lothras Andastar wrote:
They recently nerfed sentries to ****, I don't whine asking for a refund.

Maybe the reason you're not whining is because they didn't.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Nikolai Lachance
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2014-07-26 21:50:12 UTC
SP refunds only occur if a skill is removed or otherwise made obsolete, and there isn't a comparable new skill to move the points to. The skill is still useful. Furthermore, you've benefitted from having that skill (and will continue to benefit, even if you don't value the benefit). Thus, the time you invested in its training cannot be said to be wasted.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#33 - 2014-07-27 01:54:39 UTC
Many people are saying that the way things are is the way things have always been. No argument there. But that isn't a particularly strong argument for keeping things the same way.

The argument seems to be that so long as some bonus exists for a skill, then you got what you paid for. Some bonus.

I disagree. I think that we paid to train a specific skill for a specific bonus, and when that's taken away, that is exactly not what we paid for.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2014-07-27 02:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Nikolai Lachance wrote:
The skill is still useful.

But not comparable.

The primary reason CCP didn't refund the skill was because they deemed it too much time and effort. Not for any principle of "refunds only for removed skills, not changed skills".

Ethnic Relations should have also been refunded.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#35 - 2014-07-27 02:20:47 UTC
I find that a little difficult to believe. I know it's popular to think that CCP devs don't know that you can put where clauses on sql statements and that lots of people think that rewriting eve with multithreading support is just a matter of a year or whatever, but I don't buy it.

There is a long history of policy about skill refunds, and don't think it has anything to do with how hard that would be technically. There's a philosophy that says that as long as a skill has a benefit, that's your consequence, and it doesn't matter if it is the one you intended when you made the choice to train it. That attitude is wrong. If CCP can be persuaded that it's the wrong attitude, we will see changes.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with how difficult it would be to do it.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2014-07-27 02:25:34 UTC
Glathull wrote:
I find that a little difficult to believe. I know it's popular to think that CCP devs don't know that you can put where clauses on sql statements and that lots of people think that rewriting eve with multithreading support is just a matter of a year or whatever, but I don't buy it.

There is a long history of policy about skill refunds, and don't think it has anything to do with how hard that would be technically. There's a philosophy that says that as long as a skill has a benefit, that's your consequence, and it doesn't matter if it is the one you intended when you made the choice to train it. That attitude is wrong. If CCP can be persuaded that it's the wrong attitude, we will see changes.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with how difficult it would be to do it.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors,

Emphasis mine. Post is here.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#37 - 2014-07-27 02:45:06 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Glathull wrote:
I find that a little difficult to believe. I know it's popular to think that CCP devs don't know that you can put where clauses on sql statements and that lots of people think that rewriting eve with multithreading support is just a matter of a year or whatever, but I don't buy it.

There is a long history of policy about skill refunds, and don't think it has anything to do with how hard that would be technically. There's a philosophy that says that as long as a skill has a benefit, that's your consequence, and it doesn't matter if it is the one you intended when you made the choice to train it. That attitude is wrong. If CCP can be persuaded that it's the wrong attitude, we will see changes.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with how difficult it would be to do it.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are very keen to avoid doing refunds *wherever* possible, hence the desire to repurpose this skill rather than delete it (reasons: we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time; and deleting and refunding requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors,

Emphasis mine. Post is here.



Okay. Welp. I was wrong about that.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#38 - 2014-07-27 03:08:44 UTC
How amazing. I would never have guessed.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#39 - 2014-07-27 03:17:24 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
How amazing. I would never have guessed.



James said something; I disagreed; he came back with good evidence, and I ate my words. No need to be a **** about it. Geez.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#40 - 2014-07-27 03:19:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
You do know the skill is being changed to 3% per level time savings on EVERYTHING you can do in S&I, right?

It will also be a prerequisite for new industry skills

CCP Greyscale - New industry skills discussion (connected to Advanced Industry)
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

The Advanced Industry skill has been updated to give 3%/level reduction to all industry jobs (ie anything you can do in the industry window, not just building); this should be rolled out to TQ in the next week or so.

This should give *most* people a decent amount of value, but we'd like to give it some additional oomf. We are therefore planning on adding some more advanced industrial skills with AI at 5 as a prereq, so there's clear benefit to everyone in having it trained (plus it would be nice to have some more skills).

We're expecting this discussion to evolve over the coming weeks as the new system settles down and people figure out what bonuses they'd find most valuable. We'd be looking at shipping these changes in one of the two following scheduled releases, depending on how this discussion goes.

So... discuss! What sorts of advanced industry skills would be good?

-Greyscale