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) |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3681
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 06:35:00 -
[31] - Quote
5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we?
Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
475
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. That assumes you can have your production lines running all the time, which isn't always practical or reasonable. Most people probably have their production lines set to end while they're asleep or while they're at work, and if they're building less than 20 things at a time (fairly common to have batches of less than 20 for things like ships, I suspect) they may not be able to take advantage of this skill at all.
Quote:This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Sometimes it's a waste, sometimes it isn't. If I (for example) primarily manufacture pirate faction ships from BPCs, 5% TE doesn't matter in the slightest.
The ME skill was useful to every manufacturer, no matter what you manufactured or how often you manufactured. This TE skill is, I suspect, only useful to a relatively small subset of very high throughput manufacturers. Really, that's my fundamental problem with this change.
Good to hear that this isn't the only option that's been considered, though. Hopefully this won't be the final iteration. |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:24:00 -
[33] - Quote
mynnna wrote:If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill
This, in and of itself, brings up a pont of conversation. The core of the problem is that expectations had been set and then reality changed in contravention of the initial expectations in a game setting. Am I annoyed at such a fundamental adjustment of a 'required' skill? Yes, but you won't find me crying about it. On the other hand, I can accept the additional reality that people who play a game should be allowed to make their builds however they like under the rules which are given to them as opposed to the rules of the future. Most people probably wouldn't enjoy most board games quite as much if a wizard periodically came in and changed the rules pamphlet before waving it in their faces.
In that vein of thought, what would you think would be the pros and cons of simply refunding SP's every time a skill is adjusted in any way? As for me, I don't agree that EVE should ever be a place where you can have a swiss army knife bucket of readjustable-on-demand skill points ... but customers should be given a nod where developmental preferences are concerned. I'm sure somebody could develop a bot which not only refunds SP's after changes are made, but also automatically sends an eve-mail detailing which skill had its SP's rolled back to 0 that month. |
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
204
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:31:00 -
[34] - Quote
mynnna wrote:If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill And if the circumstances are the same as they are in this case then those people would be perfectly entitled to whine about it. EVE Down Under 2014 (Australia's very own fanfest) 21st to 23rd November 2014 in Sydney, Australia www.evedownunder.com |
Current Habit
Get LP or Die Trying
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 07:37:00 -
[35] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions.
Based on this logic, are you gonna propose to only manufacture in Amarr nullsec outposts next? Cause with the 30% decrease in manufacturing time the isk per time increases vastly.
Oh, the cost are also much higher? I bet that balances out! |
O'nira
United System's Commonwealth
18
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 08:56:00 -
[36] - Quote
you don't get refunds on changed skills, never have and never will. |
Ria Nieyli
12895
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 09:56:00 -
[37] - Quote
If the skill remains a prerequisite for Capital Ship Construction, which it probably will, refunding it will cause an ENORMOUS mess. So no, I can't see a refund coming. Do not remove a fly from your friend's forehead with a hatchet.
- Ancient Chinese Proverb |
Trademaster Rob
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:02:00 -
[38] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill
This is the most terrible response I ever heard from a csm member. Speculation.. tisk tisk. It's plain and simple. Skill A got removed, Skill B got added. Refund for skill A, let people decide if they want to train skill B. That's it. I know CCP can do this. |
Setsune Rin
Collapsed Out Overload Everything
205
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:05:00 -
[39] - Quote
this is just a completely different skill, in both name and function
transferring the skill points is not appropriate in this case
remove PE and add advanced industry it as a new skill
if industrialists wish to obtain this skill then they can invest the unallocated SP to do so |
Luscius Uta
91
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:36:00 -
[40] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. l
Except that's even less than 5 percent, since it's around 10 days of training just to get that last one percent. Even 2003 characters will have something better to train for, I am sure. CCP is literally trolling industrialists with this, as if they said "let's replace this skill bonus with something as useless as possible" (go find me another skill that gives 1% bonus per level to whatever it applies to, I know only that Exhumers had it after their tiercide but that got changed eventually). Five percent bouns per level would probably still be acceptable to most people, but 1% is a joke. This is like changing Rapid firing or Surgical Strike to give 1% bonus to Turret Falloff per level
Highsec is for casuals. |
|
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
34
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
This replacement is unacceptable. Refund SP. Let us choose if we want to use this heavily niched skill or not. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
501
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 10:48:00 -
[42] - Quote
I have to agree with the OP. The skill will be a complete waste for me now.
Material Efficiency is 768,000 skill points. I would give players who have points in it an equal amount of unallocated skill points.
Basically, if you have it maxed at 5, you are gaining an extra 768,000 unallocated skillpoints to assign.
If you don't have it at all, you don't gain any. You have it at 3, you gain sp's in comparison.
Its a completely different skill (and I mean completely different).
That would fix the issue and/or complaint for people. Its less than 1 million skillpoints so it shouldn't be that significant of an issue (hated the 15 day train for it). Yaay!!!! |
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:04:00 -
[43] - Quote
This is quite irritating - I've just started two alts and spent most of a plex training this skill up on them which I wouldn't have done otherwise. I think the people demanding a skill point refund are getting overly emotional however its certainly the case that the skill has gone from important to negligible. Industry V with a 5% reduction in build time is somewhat ignorable unless you need it for a particular BPO requirement so it will be the same for this skill as well. Even more so as it will take 5 levels of Advanced Industry to achieve the same as 1 level of Industry.
I think the best course here would be to bake in 5% waste to each blueprint then have this skill reduce the waste by 1% per level. That way it reduces the impact of the waste mechanic on newer players but still gives a meaningful improvement to efficiency. So its a nerf to this skill but less so. |
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:05:00 -
[44] - Quote
mynnna wrote:5% faster building is 5% more isk per time, 5% faster that you can pivot and make something else based on changing market conditions. This actually is the second iteration and I do hope and in fact will be encouraging CCP to revisit it because the original change was more interesting, but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we? Bam Stroker wrote:I'm not even an industrialist but I know I would feel ripped off by this change. As has been covered in the thread already it's one thing to fiddle with the numbers while leaving the skill's purpose intact but it's another thing to change it into a different skill entirely.
Come Crius CCP should just delete the ME skill, refund the SP and seed the books for the new TE skill then let the players decide if they want to re-invest that SP into the new skill or allocate it elsewhere. If they did this, then when and if they do change the skill into something else again, all the same people would be back here whining about CCP having cheated them out of a skill 5% more isk/hour? I got ME 5 on two toons, and I can't say that I even have 1 queue going all the time... Where is my 5% more isk? Oh, you're only talking about those toons that are focused industrials, and do nothing else, they will have 5% more isk/hour.
I put just as many skillpoints into the skill, but now I get zero return because I'm not 100% dedicated to industry.
Casual players taking another hit... |
Lia' Vael
No More Ore Reclamation Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:23:00 -
[45] - Quote
I don't give a damn about time, I trained this because it was mandatory for production. I have like one or two manufacturing jobs a week so I'd prefer to have SP back. If it's not the case, I'll try to petition it and explain it there
I mean it might be good for guys who have only industry toons (or at least indy mains) and have dozens of jobs running all the time but for me this is a HUGE HUGE income loss as I manufacture local pirates' stuff. Now what do I say? Let me do it because I finish 5% faster'?
Not fair, please reconsider this. I'd be happy with the SP refund because people could chose to invest in the proposed skill (-1% manu time) if it's a equiement for cap ship production or something. I completely agree that the game should change to be more friendly towards new players, but in this way it's a pointless aggression to anyone who plays for more than 30 days and took industry seriusly. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:31:00 -
[46] - Quote
Sounds like a reasonable change. |
Von Reichenbach
Maraque Enterprises Brothers of Tangra
13
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:46:00 -
[47] - Quote
I would like to weigh in on this. Material Efficiency 5 took over 15 days to reach from brand new character. MANY of us have multiple build characters that each had to waste what equates to half a PLEX. Can anyone explain why a 3x skill that was mandatory is going to be replaced with a skill that no one would waste half a PLEX training to 5. Let alone across multiple build characters.
Just to highlight the issue, I am a small time builder with only 4 build toons. Basically I spent what equates to 2 PLEX, or 1.4 billion isk for my production lines.
This is a BAD change that has not been thought out. Make the change substantial... or give us back the skill points and see how many people spend it on this
"but let's drop the hyperbole and not make out like it's a waste, shall we?" - mynna
I am pretty sure 1.4 bil for skills that I will not train is pretty much the definition of waste...
Von
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:49:00 -
[48] - Quote
Von Reichenbach wrote:I would like to weigh in on this. Material Efficiency 5 took over 15 days to reach from brand new character. MANY of us have multiple build characters that each had to waste what equates to half a PLEX. Can anyone explain why a 3x skill that was mandatory is going to be replaced with a skill that no one would waste half a PLEX training to 5. Let alone across multiple build characters.
because the skill being mandatory was dumb as all hell and is thankfully being killed
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
560
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
and I say that as someone with fifteen characters with MEV |
Throwaway Sam Atild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
Oh wow!
I've been following the updates pretty closely and missed this. As the leader of a small manu corp I think I've directed something like 20 characters to train this skill to 5. Sad to see that it's wasted SP for them.
Why not just remove this skill completely? 5% TE is pretty insignificant for most manufacturers, and I don't really see anyone training it past say 3 in its current form to get those extra 2% squeezed out.
This also shows that the changes need to be communicated to the community more clearly. I'm baffled that I'm finding this out about a week before the update when I've been watching things pretty darn closely. Similar situation seems to be recurring with the significant changes to bpo's research and build times that can only be found if you happen to download a .csv buried in a long technical discussion.
Anyway, refund please! |
|
Virgil Armstrong
Alice In Wonderlands
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:56:00 -
[51] - Quote
agreed, I never would have trained advanced industry to 5
either refund, or keep the base waste for production |
The Bazzalisk
Snuff Box
47
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:57:00 -
[52] - Quote
Not an industrial player but as far as I can tell this change seems really stupid. AFAIK ME5 was necessary for anyone who took manufacturing seriously. I agree with the removal of high skill investment to start manufacturing and being able to compete with people who already have it. However CCP should just replace ME with unallocated skillpoints and the new book because even I can see that the new skill is far less valuable than the old one. |
The Bazzalisk
Snuff Box
47
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 11:59:00 -
[53] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Von Reichenbach wrote:I would like to weigh in on this. Material Efficiency 5 took over 15 days to reach from brand new character. MANY of us have multiple build characters that each had to waste what equates to half a PLEX. Can anyone explain why a 3x skill that was mandatory is going to be replaced with a skill that no one would waste half a PLEX training to 5. Let alone across multiple build characters.
because the skill being mandatory was dumb as all hell and is thankfully being killed Yes I agree, but that doesn't address the lack of refund for players who have spent time training a now seemingly fairly crap skill.
|
Shade Millith
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
129
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:01:00 -
[54] - Quote
This new skill you've put in game is useless to me.
It doesn't matter if my build takes 10H or 9H 30M, I'm still only going to be able to produce 2 sets per 24H cycle.
And I'm going to have it to level V on 3 characters? No thank you.
Please give me the SP from the skill you've deleted. |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
29
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:07:00 -
[55] - Quote
I'm going to chime in and agree with the people seeking a refund. I'm a small-time manufacturer. I don't (and with my work schedule, can't) keep my lines going 24/7. Heck, I generally only run manufacturing jobs once a week, at most, because it's a for-fun side-job.
Even for a small-time manufacturer, getting the 25% materials reduction was absolutely critical. Now? Getting 5% faster production is absolutely useless to me.
Give a refund, CCP. The extra 5% to time efficiency doesn't even come close to comparing to what we had before. It's 100% useless in too many cases, and unless you're a hard-core manufacturer, you have no need of it.
Edit :: This isn't a small skill, either. It's 768,000 SP that will now be 100% useless to me. End Edit |
Jeff Kione
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
Agreed, this is not a good change. |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
133
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:10:00 -
[57] - Quote
This is going to seriously impact the pirate BPC contract market. Anyone who gets a random drop will be able to manufacture the things with perfect efficiency, so they won't have as much motivation to sell as opposed to build.
Just putting it out there. |
Amari Jackson
Aideron Robotics
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:18:00 -
[58] - Quote
Whilst I can understand the frustration of seeing a skill changing, this ME change is really, really good. And a lot of this is just bellyaching, because everyone is in the same boat. No longer do you NEED to train this skill up to 5 just to have a chance in hell of being competitive. Now you get to use your brain and strategize. Is that bad?
"What about time wasted???" - well, hopefully you got some usage out of it while it was more relevant, and after the changes, hopefully you'll get some usage out of the new benefits.
"What about the SP wasted???" - well, CCP doesn't refund skill points for things that are still in game and can still be useful. And if you are clever about it, you should be able to make more isk.
If you think having some time shaved off is a crappy skill, then you aren't looking closely. Between this thingie and that thingie and being a little clever, you can reduce say...72% of the build time off certain items? That's useful, isn't it?
Oh, you say it isn't? Whelp, what can I say? vOv |
Agent Blackbear
Emerald Inc. Easily Excited
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:24:00 -
[59] - Quote
So much wasted time. Thx cpp. |
Lairel Dallocort
West Research Air Atomic
16
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 12:26:00 -
[60] - Quote
I agree that this needs to be revisited. I literally just finished training it on an alt using half a PLEX because nothing in the dev blogs said specifically this was going to happen. If you respond to me with "yes they said that in a dev blog" then I'll expect to see a link citation for that included.
I won't be pants-on-fire mad about it if this goes through, but for fairness sake just refund the points. |
|
|
|
|
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 |