Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You are paying for (among other things) an opportunity to train SPs. If I pay for an account or for multiple character training time and do not train any skills during that time, I am not entitled to a refund for the skillpoints I did not train. Likewise, if I pay for an account and don't use it, I am not entitled to a refund for ISK that I didn't earn, research that I didn't do, or kills that I didn't make.

You buy time and server access, not SPs. If you can't understand this, I don't know what else to say.

The Anchoring skill was not even remotely, let alone effectively, removed from the game. The utility of training Anchoring to V was reduced to a subset of players, which is a far cry from "effectively removed". Anchoring V is still quite useful to those who build outposts or anchor large T2 bubbles. The fact that Anchoring V is no longer useful to those who had previously trained Starbase Defense Management does not equate to "effectively removed".

Did CCP refund points spent on the Logistics skill when they changed the requirements of Command Ships? By your logic, people who only fly Command Ships and never fly Logistics should be entitled to a refund because that skill was "effectively removed" from the game for them. The answer is, no they didn't, because even though the Logistics skill was no longer useful for what they trained it for, it was still useful. The same applies to Anchoring V.

I've said my peace here. Refunding Anchoring V would be a horrible idea and contrary to every other skill change and refund that CCP has ever made.

Petitions for SP reimbursement add small amounts of SP into the game, usually <50k. They also don't reimburse skills without a very good reason (like skill queue is stuck). Reimbursing Anchoring V would inject 500+k SP for that skill. You then open the door for the examples I posted:
BS V for my Carrier Pilot (+1.75m SP)
Small & Medium Turret V & Small & Medium weapon spec skill for my Marauder pilot (+2m SP)

If I don't use medium T2 Blasters, and now players can get large T2 Blasters without training Medium Hybrid V, shouldn't I get reimbursed using your flawed logic?

Let's talk honestly. We both know that CCP will occasionally change the skill tree, reshaping the game to their liking. When they change the skill tree, they make efforts to insure that you can continue to operate all ships/functions you could prior to the skill changes (which is wise and fair). I can sum up your entire argument so far as:



You both can now train SDM with anchoring IV. That's fair.
Before the changing, you both had to train Anchoring V to get SDM. That was fair.
Furthermore, you can do everything you could do now that you could before the change. That is fair.

What you want is SP redistribution, because you feel your SP are no longer "optimally" assigned. Guess what, SP redistribution is something that CCP and most players do not want in this game. Nothing CCP has recently changed warrants even a limited redistribution of your character's SP. Why you might ask? Because you are not negatively impacted by having extra SP. I scoff at your lame clone upgrade counter-example, as it is an unlikely edge case that we both know is irrelevant to your situation. Again, you are not negatively impacted by having extra SP. So there is NO reason for CCP to allow you to redistribute the Anchoring V SP. The argument that you deserve an SP redistribution because you no longer need Anchoring V is silly. It is silly because people change their focus all the time, resulting in SP invested in skills they don't utilize any more. To give a relevant example, Heavy Missile Tengu's and Drakes used to be the most common mission boats in the game. When CCP rebalanced heavy missiles, it changed the effectiveness of those ships at running missions. Suddenly Marauders, which require a different skillset for mastery, became the mission boats of today. Nobody got their HM Skillpoints reimbursed despite the fact that most people no longer utilized them (because they were no longer overpowered compared to other weapons).

You haven't provided a single valid reason for CCP to reimburse your SP, which is why you have no support.

Not true. I am aware of other pilots who have millions of unallocated SP from petitions or other reimbursements. And that doesn't change the fact that there is a simple solution to that problem, making it an irrelevant factor.


If that were the case, yes. But try making the argument that you only use large T2 blasters but not mediums. This is in no way as common or as significant as the Anchroing V example or other such examples of past skill changes. And even if it were reimbursed for others why would I care and why should you? They'd most likely just put it right back in that skill anyway, and if they put it in something else then good for them. Wasn't that the spirit of the skill change anyway?


Time and money, yes. That is one way of viewing the argument. Are you arguing that it's fair? Because that most definitely does not seem fair. If you're arguing though that it's *not* fair, but just insignificant and thus you should accept it, then that's different. My argument is that while it may in most cases be insignificant, it's also trivial to just avoid this completely, and I don't see the downside of that.

In the corp skill case you mentioned, reimbursement would also have been the best and most fair option IMO.

Again, was that not the whole point of the skill change though? That you shouldn't be required to invest that much SP if you only need 1000? Why should that only apply to new training? I see no reason why changes to skill requirements like this should not be applied retroactively. Many people would put the reimbursed SP back into the same skill anyway, and again, if they don't why should you care? Is it because you'd be upset that someone can now train another skill he/she wants instead? You get that same benefit if you want to train for SBM now too, so you'd basically be upset simply because you don't come out ahead of that player from the skill change (aka. upset you didn't get anything for free in comparison).

And again, the fact that CCP has not reimbursed in many similar situations like this before is not disputed, but whether or not it's the right thing to do is. And just because CCP is fair about some things does not mean they have been or are fair about everything.

Also believe it or not, some people do value the ability to optimally plan their skill training to save on time (or additionally money). The aspect of player choice in this (and your ability to effectively plan at all) is devalued when CCP chooses not to reimburse in the event of skill changes like this. You buy +5s, remap efficiently, etc. to save yourself 30 days or a PLEX, and CCP goes and undoes all of that because of a choice they made (and not you) that caused a skill to be useless in your plan.

I still don't see any good reason not to reimburse though, just statements of "no" without an explanation of why. Apparently, I haven't given any good reason to reimburse, either, because players being happy is apparently not a good enough reason.

They implied that with the skill change, which was that existing SP should be worth more in terms of the number of corp members that it grants. If this weren't they case, they would have added a new skill, but they didn't.

And it really doesn't matter that the skill still does something if it's not what you trained it for. People will get just as upset as if you removed the skill entirely. It just acts as a red herring to justify it to people who don't know any better.

The only reason any of you have given is "because I want it!".

And I have absolutely no idea why you think that's good enough.

I read your post. I did not read CCP's posts on the topic, no. This is irrelevant though because it does not change the fact that it's in the spirit of most if not all skill changes to apply them retroactively. People either don't care enough or aren't smart enough to make skill changes a balanced process in EVE (e.g. just think about the command ship changes, and how someone new needs to train much longer for that, and ask yourself if the community would have accepted those changes had they themselves had to train all the extra skills as well). It's simply not balanced, fine HTFU, but don't pretend EVE is a better game because of it. It's not.


I also have not read this. Care to link or even better summarize what those reasons were? Were they good reasons?


I am arguing that Anchoring V does not provide suitable return for the investment that people already put in, yes, since it now does nothing for SBM. If you can think of a new benefit of the skill that literally *everyone* would be ok with, then sure. But you probably can't, so a refund is the better option.


It does *not* do what it did when you originally trained it. Anchoring V does *not* unlock SBM.