Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 31 post(s) |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2456
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:20:00 -
[271] - Quote
If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th. |
|
Valterra Craven
269
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:33:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
I'm ok with that. I also think that the job install cost would be better than the time savings, if even only marginally so. But again, my vote is still that either way this is a huge waste of SP given the previous bonus. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement and that should matter more than what you would "like to do" and what your design goals are. Right answers usually take more time and effort, there's usually a reason for that. |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:35:00 -
[273] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
I think we should change it now, before release.. I think the Installation Cost [both research and production IMO] reduction solution is the right one - but we need to do some discussing of if 2% or 5% (or somewhere between) is the right amount.
I side with 5% because that makes this skill the research version of Broker Relations, same strength. Broker Relations is a Rank 2 skill, Material Efficiency is a Rank 3 skill.
Valterra Craven wrote:. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement t.
No. That's completely unrealistic and simply IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Valterra Craven
269
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 18:44:00 -
[274] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement t. No. That's completely unrealistic and simply IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
No, it isn't unrealistic. CCP has shown previously that not only is this realistic that its possible for them to do and possible with a good deal of accuracy.
|
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:02:00 -
[275] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Denidil wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement t. No. That's completely unrealistic and simply IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. No, it isn't unrealistic. CCP has shown previously that not only is this realistic that its possible for them to do and possible with a good deal of accuracy.
did you even read this thread?
Greyscale covered it earlier why at this point is impossible to happen on Crius release, and as a software engineer I find his explanation not only reasonable but entirely the likely situation. Go read the thread. Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Valterra Craven
269
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:07:00 -
[276] - Quote
Denidil wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Denidil wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:. The only correct answer for paying customers is reimbursement t. No. That's completely unrealistic and simply IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. No, it isn't unrealistic. CCP has shown previously that not only is this realistic that its possible for them to do and possible with a good deal of accuracy. did you even read this thread? Greyscale covered it earlier why at this point is impossible to happen on Crius release, and as a software engineer I find his explanation not only reasonable but entirely the likely situation. Go read the thread.
Oh I've read the thread, I have no problem with the reasons why its not realistic for the 22nd. What I have a problem with is his reasons why it can't happen period. I'm fine with waiting for the reimbursement to happen in the next release 6-8 weeks from now. I work in IT as well and I have a lot of patience. I think you merely misunderstood the intent of my post. |
Luscius Uta
93
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:11:00 -
[277] - Quote
I think that changing the skill to give 2% time reduction of all Industry jobs per level would be most fair - it would be less powerful than original skill, while still not being a worthless train from IV to V. Highsec is for casuals. |
Lion El'Johnson
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:12:00 -
[278] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:During the mass test today, I noticed that the "Material Efficiency" (-5% material requirements per level) has been changed to "Advanced Industry" (-1% time per level).
I'm sorry, but what? I wouldn't have bothered training this to 5 if it had been like this originally. You've taken a skill that was absolutely necessary for manufacturing and turned it into something that's not worth training.
This skill is going to be refunded, right? Because this isn't an example of "skill's usage changing slightly," this is an example of "skill being removed and a new one added in its place."
Crius ( and many of the older patches for that matter ) are full of these proofs that CCP does not value veteran players anymore. How about those who have trained anchoring to 5 in order to get starbase control skill and now they find out that anyone can reach that 2 weeks earlier ? |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:21:00 -
[279] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
I don't see the issue. Just do the following
1) change the skill as you originally planned (no problem) 2) TOMORROW, add skillpoints to every character who has at least trained that skill to 1, equal to the skill level, and grant it as unallocated skillpoints.
No issue with people mass training that skill just to get a few extra skillpoints (which wouldn't amount to anything except joy in the players who have trained it.
Yes people will moan, but will be the vocal minority. Don't do a 3 week notice on skill change, or give people a chance to train it if they had no intention to. Tomorrow, allocate skillpoints equal to the skillpoints in that one skill, grant it to the people who trained into it.
You will be giving 15 days back to the people who trained into it, and a 15 day boost to both budding and experienced builders. Heck if your that worried create a mega lab technician skill, granting an extra 5 slots for people. Yaay!!!! |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:30:00 -
[280] - Quote
If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. damn it is hard to delete my signature |
|
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
2457
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:33:00 -
[281] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases.
Open to suggestions :) |
|
Avacore Estemaire
The Scope Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:36:00 -
[282] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th. If it is anything but a decent cost reduction most people will demand an SP refund. Time reductions and cost reductions are VERY different things. |
Rust Connor
Air Traffic Control
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 19:36:00 -
[283] - Quote
Math told me that install cost reduction is bad....
If you spend 1B material everyday on production on a good system (0.1% cost index) you will safe amazing 36M on a year if the skill grants 10% on lvl5. Thats 36M.... or 2 geckos. You remember? The drone you got as a gift...Oh wait, we got 7 drones so thats better than 3 years of benefit of that skill...
And don't tell me that you dont run 24/7 but you spend way over 1B everyday on production?
Of course, if you produce on "bad system" you will get a much bigger benefit (10-100 times better). So that is good to people that dont want to maximize profit as moving to another system would bring a better benefit....
Why can't we get ME bonus? 0.5%-1% per level? The new system is much easier to give that kind of bonus. I mean, you introduced teams with ME bonus! You gave it to POS arrays. Why not to the skill? |
Denidil
The Scope Gallente Federation
634
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:06:00 -
[284] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :)
I have a few ideas
Idea 1: we stay with the "Installation Cost Reduction" idea but make each rank worth more. 15% total reduction split 1%/2%/3%/4%/5% per level. So Level is a 1% reduction in cost, Level 2 gives a total of 3%, Level 4 a total of 6%, Level 4 a total of 10%, Level 5 a total of 15%. This give a middle ground between my original 5% idea and your 2% idea, and makes each rank worth more making it worthwhile to Train level V
Idea 2: We make it so we can have "active jobs" and "queued jobs". Repurposed ME job gives us 2 Research Queue slots and 2 Production Queue Slots per level. A queue slot is used when we install a job, but have no more available active job slots. Soon as the active job finishes the queued job starts. [this requires code changes that probably cannot be done by July 22nd] Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
508
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:10:00 -
[285] - Quote
10%/level job cost reduction.
People who max it can more easily produce in busy systems. People who want to do industry more casually can do it someplace less busy and can easily end up with less overhead than the guy in the busy system, even if the casual guy has 0 in the skill and the "professional" has 5.
It's not required for industry and it's still a fairly hefty "nerf" to how powerful the skill is (from 25% reduction as current with ME down to at most 5-7% reduction in the busiest systems).
"Reduce install cost by 50%" at level 5 sounds like a lot, but it really isn't, since it's at most 50% of 14% or whatever in busy systems, down to 50% of .5% or whatever in slow systems. |
Kaija Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:22:00 -
[286] - Quote
Just finding out about the Material Efficiency nerf from today's devblog. And I HAVE been trying to keep up with all the changes by reading the industry articles, and this announcement still left me dumbfounded. Spent the last 2 hours reading up on all the threads and found this one. So take that as some feedback that the changes weren't clear and centralized since I'm still having to dig through Test Server Feedback threads to find the meaningful discussions. Thanks for linking this thread in some of the other discussions though - made it a little easier to find.
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th.
I am fine with having the weekend to have a meaningful discussion around the Material Efficiency change skill. Waiting a week after Crius release to change it is fine. Waiting until September to change this would be unacceptable. Thank for you committing to fxiing this quickly- as development time for promised changes "SoonTM" can sometimes disappear. For example, still waiting for CCP Rise to fix the Rapid Missile Launcher ammo type swap mechanic from the 200+ page threadnaught.
You've said clearly that the skill on Tranquility is currently too powerful, and needs to be brought back a bit, and that's fine. But lets approach the change clearly. From reading all this, I feel like we're arguing the Meta around a skill change, and not the change itself.
The final change needs to be considered in two ways:
1. The skill must still apply to material requirements/job cost reduction. Anyone who trained a character to Material Efficiency 5 intended to specialize the character to manufacturing with the least amount of waste. Material/Job cost reduction is much more valuable than a time savings, because we don't all play 24/7 and without being able to queue more than 11 jobs at once, the extra time is a significantly diminished benefit. The material reduction plays out in having to purchase and haul around less materials to build with - and that saves us time (and ISK) inherently anyway. I think most of us have expressed how poorly thought out this idea was, and you've heard us.
2. The skill must have an equal value as before and have a significant benefit to be attractive to train to Level 5, especially as a 3x skill. My problem with renaming "Material Efficiency" to "Advanced Industry", and then claiming it is okay for it to be have diminished value because it's an "Advanced" skill is framing the discussion (and poorly) from the start. Material Efficiency is a 3x skill, and most "Advanced" skills (at least in industry research terms) are 8x. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
108
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:32:00 -
[287] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :)
Actually I like alot of the suggestions made in the thread so far. My issue isn't with what skill is replacing the exsisting but that a core required skill to compete is bieng replaced with an edge scenario skill. If the replacing skill isn't of similar value to the previous then it's a ripoff.
+1 industry slot per rank would be acceptable and carry equal value. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
108
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:35:00 -
[288] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:10%/level job cost reduction.
People who max it can more easily produce in busy systems. People who want to do industry more casually can do it someplace less busy and can easily end up with less overhead than the guy in the busy system, even if the casual guy has 0 in the skill and the "professional" has 5.
It's not required for industry and it's still a fairly hefty "nerf" to how powerful the skill is (from 25% reduction as current with ME down to at most 5-7% reduction in the busiest systems).
"Reduce install cost by 50%" at level 5 sounds like a lot, but it really isn't, since it's at most 50% of 14% or whatever in busy systems, down to 50% of .5% or whatever in slow systems.
not a bad idea but when those of us with it already trained are getting force-fed that we have no option to decide wether we want the skill is an issue. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
503
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:47:00 -
[289] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :)
Here it is, grant the people who trained this skill they no longer want equal skill points to what they have in the skill as unallocated skill points. Don't "refund" the skill, let them keep it, just grant them SP equal to where they have the skill currently. They can recover the two weeks of their life they spent training this for minimizing waste and reducing time shipping the crap back and forth.
The people can decide what they want to do or go afterwards with no ill will.
Leave the skill as you originally balanced it at, and don't recreate the math trying to find some completely backwards way of appeasing people.
That is by FAR the easiest and simplest solution. Yaay!!!! |
Regan Rotineque
Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
358
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 20:58:00 -
[290] - Quote
I am left after reading this thread with the opinion that we are trying to fit the square peg in the round hole.
We are taking what CCP agrees with is a 'mandatory skill' for any industrialist....removing its entire reason for existence....ie: no more artificial waste.
Then the next step has been to apply entirely new logic to this ... and say we dont want to have any mandatory type skills .... so we are taking the time and effort you 'had' to invest and repurpose this to some 'other' skill which will by definition not be mandatory or have the same value as the one it had before.
This is not a nerf of the existing skill...that would be leaving what it affected and then modifying the values. This is a direct and entirely new skill that CCP admits is not as valuable as what the old skill did before.
It seems to me that the easiest solution here is that since the skill is no longer required/needed that you simply delete it and refund the SP. When skills are removed from the game you have done this in the past ie: learning skills. You are doing the same thing here which is removing a skill from the game...we dont need to remove the waste anymore.
You could save soooo much time doing the simple refund here. Why try and repupose this artifically to something that many people will never accept as being equal in value? From a customer service and development point of view it is lose lose to try and force the square peg in the round hole.
For the record...the time saving of 1% is of little value to me or my alts....we talking about at lvl 5 saving me 3 minutes on an hour job which I will tell you is a joke, compared to the value of what the skill brought before.
So there is a choice right now to save time and effort here...refund it..and remove the advanced industry skill. |
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:00:00 -
[291] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th. Just so long as the solution is something that's viable for everyone, and not just the edge-cases who keep things going 24/7.
How about a reduction in team cost increase? I'm not tossing out any specific numbers, as I don't know how the percentages from teams will work, but lowering their percentage cost would be something that would be useful for everyone without necessarily making it a barrier for entry. |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:14:00 -
[292] - Quote
I can agree with the sentiment that the only way the currently-planned 1% time reduction per skill level would be even remotely relevant to most people is if we're allowed to queue jobs beyond our actual active-job limits of 11 per toon ... but think of the glut of products (especially T2's and T3's from mass-queued jobs) which would effectively drive people away from industry under the premise of there being zero profit to be made in a profession which would be overflooding the market within a week.
No, no that cant be allowed to happen. No queues beyond 11 per toon.
Instead, I think Greyscale's initial response of cutting fees has the most merit of all the ideas posted here. It's not a lot of cash the way he posted it, but we should also consider cranking that % up a bit to be around the 5%-10%/level area. The fee reduction should be scaled around with respect to just how much of an isk sink it's expected to be on EVE as a whole. None of us except one of CCP's economists can really say for sure how much that value should be, but I believe that it should for sure be more than 2% per level. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:24:00 -
[293] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:As long as it gets revisited. It's silly that a skill that was required and useful to everyone is becoming a skill that can only be utilized by a specific group (the most active). Don't be silly. This is the kind of self entitled whining that makes me facepalm. The skill is still useful, it will cut back on the time it makes for you to make an item. That is still completely relevant to anyone who partakes in industry, particularly if as Greyscale suggest, this could be increased to a 2%/3% bonus.
As others have said, a TE bonus is the best way to go with this. Reducing install costs defeats the purpose of the change. People who are arguing for that would probably still like the skill to offer an ME advantage. The whole point is everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to material efficiency, and then your choice is what matters. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
35
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:30:00 -
[294] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Summer Isle wrote:As long as it gets revisited. It's silly that a skill that was required and useful to everyone is becoming a skill that can only be utilized by a specific group (the most active). Don't be silly. This is the kind of self entitled whining that makes me facepalm. The skill is still useful, it will cut back on the time it makes for you to make an item. That is still completely relevant to anyone who partakes in industry, particularly if as Greyscale suggest, this could be increased to a 2%/3% bonus. As others have said, a TE bonus is the best way to go with this. Reducing install costs defeats the purpose of the change. People who are arguing for that would probably still like the skill to offer an ME advantage. The whole point is everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to material efficiency, and then your choice is what matters.
Everyone, eh? So the people whose lines only run for a few hours a day, a few times a week, are going to save all of 10 minutes per line, despite those lines sitting idle for a few days longer?
The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day. If you have any more down-time on a line than that each day, you've essentially wasted the bonus for that day. Not every person who manufactures wants to do that, nor do all those who manufacture have the resources or RL time to do so.
Personally, I couldn't care less if my 6-hour line ends in 360 minutes or 342 minutes because it's the last thing I do before logging out for the night. |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:40:00 -
[295] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:If people are OK with shifting gears, I am totally on board with coming up with a better solution in this thread over the weekend, getting the development time scheduled on Monday and aiming to ship the change by the 29th. I think this would be the best solution, as I don't see how extra time to consider will make much difference to the end solution.
Luscius Uta wrote:I think that changing the skill to give 2% time reduction of all Industry jobs per level would be most fair - it would be less powerful than original skill, while still not being a worthless train from IV to V. I would go with this, or 3% if it is possible.
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :) I hope you do not go with an install cost reduction, as it defeats the purpose of the change. Either the install cost reduction will be so minimal it has no effect, and therefore worthless. Or alternatively, it will be a worthwhile train, and therefore act as a barrier to entry.
Making the skill worthwhile to train, and at the same time not be a barrier to entry, is logically impossible, as by definition they are mutually exclusive of each other.
I'd like to ask though, what exactly do we have to play around with in terms of production efficiency? Because, optimally I would like to see Industry confer 4% per level, and Advanced industry confer 3% per level. Overall that would give a 0.68 reduction to time, which is definitely something worth having.
If this is not possible, then I would go with 4% and 2% respectively. Overall that would give a time saving of 0.72. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
144
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 21:56:00 -
[296] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Lady Zarrina wrote:If you are not going to refund skill points you need to replace it with something to make training that last level (4 to 5) worth while. And so far I have not heard of one example change that would be worth while to take to 5, except maybe in absolute extreme cases. Open to suggestions :)
Since the original skill ultimately effected the cost of the item (reduced mineral needs = cost savings) it would make sense that the cost of producing the item is somehow effected. It most likely should effect fees as our skills and knowledge in manufacturing techniques lower labor costs by requiring less labor.
edit to add: the cost benefit in lowered fees should be proportional to the cost benefit we have been receiving from reduced mineral costs. |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
806
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:06:00 -
[297] - Quote
A reduction in job cost (anywhere between 2 and 5% per level) seems like a perfectly reasonable and logical use of this skill. In fact, the only counter arguments I see in this thread are 'it isn't as good as it used to be'. Well sh*t, if that's the standard we're going by we might as well go back to 2003. Yes the current iteration of the skill is a little off. Doesn't mean there should instantly be refunds and crying.
The entitlement train is steamrolling through this thread, it's completely pathetic to be honest. Things change, things get nerfed. Deal with it. This trend of crying for refunds and reimbursements any time you're negatively affected by a change really needs to STOP. Not just tone down, it needs to completely 100% STOP. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Medalyn Isis
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
289
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:14:00 -
[298] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:The TE bonus only works for those keeping their lines going constantly. In its current form, it amounts to 72 minutes per line, per day. Taken in isolation, at 1% that equals 72 minutes * 11 (number of lines) = 13.2 hours of time saving per day.
If you bump that up to 3% per level, which is what CCP Greyscale seems to be looking at, then that would equal 3.6 hours saved per day per line. Much much better than a tiny job install reduction. If you are sensible you will stick with the PE bonus which is being offered. |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1306
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:25:00 -
[299] - Quote
Delay it a shade so it doesn't feel rushed? Good idea CCP
Suggest possible other iterations more in keeping with the orignal skill. Good job players
Continually ask for sp rebates when Greyscale already said (and I quote)
Quote:- 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, and time we can reduce for work on things we don't want to do allows us to spend more time on work on things we do want to do; this is an imperfect statement of our position as I'm writing it on the fly to give you an approximate idea of *why* we don't want to do a refund here, but the statement that we don't want to do a refund *is* essentially perfect and out of scope for discussion in this thread, much as you may unfortunately disagree with it.)
No a good idea
Personally I think that if they make the skill relevant AND advanced 8x training then you get your skill prorated by the sp you have spent so far. So yoiu may be skill level 2 after the transfer
It may be a step back but if everybody who trained it gets the same step back then we are fighting mudflation, not causing you to lose. You will still be in the same place relative to everybody else in the marketplace, no?
One complaint a few pages back I REALLY want to get behind. We need a common spot where ALL changes are listed. Not some in dev blogs, some in test feedback, some on the back of envelopes.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9 |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
11
|
Posted - 2014.07.17 22:42:00 -
[300] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Personally I think that if they make the skill relevant AND advanced 8x training then you get your skill prorated by the sp you have spent so far. So yoiu may be skill level 2 after the transfer
It may be a step back but if everybody who trained it gets the same step back then we are fighting mudflation, not causing you to lose. You will still be in the same place relative to everybody else in the marketplace, no?
Not to burst your bubble, but this would be on the other end of the scale of refunding SP's due to a skill multiplier reduction for what's perceived to be a lesser skill - and you just said that kind of thing is a no-go. You shouldn't consider one without being willing to consider the other in equal measure. So ... no. I'm sorry, but no. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |