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) |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
340
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:09:00 -
[121] - Quote
Querns wrote:Given that the skill is required at 5 to inject Capital Construction, I am even less convinced that a refund is a good idea. The utility of the skill goes from "a hard requirement to compete in industry, period" to "the thing you need to train in order to get into capital construction." Actually, the hoop you have to jump through to get into capital construction. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:12:00 -
[122] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Querns wrote:Given that the skill is required at 5 to inject Capital Construction, I am even less convinced that a refund is a good idea. The utility of the skill goes from "a hard requirement to compete in industry, period" to "the thing you need to train in order to get into capital construction." Actually, the hoop you have to jump through to get into capital construction. Pretty much every skill in the game is like this, though. If having to "jump through hoops" to get to a particular skill is distressing, how did you cope with training basically anything of interest before? This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
501
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:13:00 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - 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.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
Then don't refund it, reimburse it. Hand out skillpoints equal to the persons current material efficiency level as unallocated skill, but don't erase it from the char sheet. Keeps the skill, and the person doesn't feel like they got slapped in the face Yaay!!!! |
asteroidjas
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
83
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:14:00 -
[124] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote: This is like changing Rapid firing or Surgical Strike to give 1% bonus to Turret Falloff per level This. Sooo this.
Also, i would probly be more okay with this change if it didn't also mean that all items will increase by 25% in material costs (atleast), on top of it only saving 72 minutes a day, trained to lvl 5. Only saving 14 minutes a day more than it would at lvl 4. (at a cost of how long to train it to 5?)
How many industrialists actually keep all their lines running 23/7...? I know i sure don't. If this was changed to a more substantial bonus, then maybe i could get behind it.
And about 'specializing" through skills. How exactly does this accomplish that? Explain please. How is one more "specialized" by having trained this skill from 2% to 3%? |
Thoren Vaille
American Federation of Musicians Local 148-462
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:17:00 -
[125] - Quote
Actually, I'd prefer it if this skill ended up integrated into recruiting better manufacturing teams or reducing costs. Obviously, time is probably the least efficient way to convert SP into benefit in this case.
The problem for the most part, I think, is that the time invested in training ME5 doesn't really correlate to a 5% reduction in build time. So why not a 5% reduction in job cost? That solves two problems: there is no longer a week-long barrier to entry in manufacturing and the new skill would give you added leverage to NOT move your production from a system that suddenly has gotten quite a bit more active and expensive because the 5% reduction in job cost offsets some of the increase in team/slot cost.
Or you could make it so that people with the higher levels of the skill can recruit better teams or the same teams at lower cost. In any case, with all the emphasis on teams and slots, why not work it into one of those mechanics? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
692
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:17:00 -
[126] - Quote
asteroidjas wrote:Luscius Uta wrote: This is like changing Rapid firing or Surgical Strike to give 1% bonus to Turret Falloff per level This. Sooo this. Also, i would probly be more okay with this change if it didn't also mean that all items will increase by 25% in material costs (atleast), on top of it only saving 72 minutes a day, trained to lvl 5. The benefit currently being conferred by this skill is being "baked in" to the existing blueprints. Post-Crius, it will be as if everyone already had five ranks in the current implementation of the skill without having to train it. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
497
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:20:00 -
[127] - Quote
Was the manufacturing rebalance done by a completely different team than the refining/reprocessing rebalance?
For the manufacturing rebalance, it's all "it's too hard to be competitive and we're reducing the barrier for entry."
For the reprocessing rebalance, it's all "it's too easy to be competitive and we're INCREASING the barrier for entry."
I'm fairly certain that the train to get perfect refining in highsec was longer than the train to get no-waste manufacturing, but now manufacturing has a 0-day train to be competitive and refining has a 6-month train. How does this make sense?
EVE is hard and should stay that way. It's perfectly fine for there to be skills that are very beneficial, if not required, to have at 5 in order to compete, as CCP is proving with the reprocessing changes.
Honestly, just leave the ME skill as-is. I'm fine with that solution too. |
Poison Ivy Rorschach
The Surfin Dead
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:22:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
- We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :)
I am mostly bothered by the fact it's going from something I would train for (and had to at the time) to something that's only useful to dedicated no-lifers who watch their industry jobs all day.
If it was changed to a skill that saved me 1% mats per level I'd be much more OK with the change. I know 5% sounds big but let's face it; the cost of lowly cruisers has more than doubled in the last couple of years and insurance has become all but worthless since it doesn't adjust upwards as the cost of ships climbs. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
563
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:22:00 -
[129] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:- We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops CCP Greyscale wrote:- We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition... These two statements are fundamentally incompatible. You want people to have to choose specializations... then you're choosing one of the specializations for us... so that you don't have to do a SP refund. That's just forcing players through a hoop whether we want to go through it or not. no they're not
skills are about specialization, not jumping through hoops. an old hoop was changed to a specialization in the area its hoop used to be in. this is entirely compatable with "hoops are dumb kill them" and there's absolutely no fundamental incompatability here whatsoever |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
563
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:25:00 -
[130] - Quote
like seriously that's not what "fundamentally incompatable" means, please don't try to use phrases you don't understand
what you mean to say is "i don't like this for reasons that are not at all associated with any contradiction in what you said, here they are" |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
564
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:30:00 -
[131] - Quote
as for the merits of your argument: you already jumped through the hoop. ccp regrets the hoop and issues you:
1) sincere apologies 2) level v in the replacement skill
none of this is forcing you through a hoop again. you were already forced to prance through the hoop for the delight of the audience. now, what's being changed is merely the reward you get from that.
future people will not be forced through the hoop in order to stand on the stool while that jerk with a chair and a whip pokes at you, but you have already been through the hoop and we cannot undo your hoop-hopping
what you are arguing is what reward you are due for your hoop-hopping, something that is merely bargaining, not a matter of principle over the idea of hoops |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Imperium Fleet
260
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:45:00 -
[132] - Quote
The amount of pressure against making the ME skill useful but no longer a sine qua non of even reasonably doing industry strikes me as a common problem in EVE where veteran players who have vested interests resist changes that will benefit new players. Just like the resistances to having standings for placing a POS, these sorts of barriers keep new players from having a fighting chance at making profit or just not wasting their time, while veteran players are not actually losing anything because they benefited for years from having already jumped through these hoops.
I don't personally see a lot to complain about. |
Wolf Kraft
Underground Smellroad
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:50:00 -
[133] - 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.
Mynna, your example (and this skill) are functionally useless because of all the other changes coming in Crius. There is very little point in having a 5% time reduction because you will literally be able to set up as many jobs as you want (though I'm sure there is a technical/code limit somewhere) in a single station since the production/research line limit is being removed from the game. Capital producers may enjoy getting products out marginally faster, but everyone else likely won't notice the difference.
However, I fully agree that the skill, in its current iteration, needs to be changed. Unfortunately, the proposed change is far from being a proper specialization skill that CCP is hoping for. |
Claudius Dethahal
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 17:55:00 -
[134] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:The amount of pressure against making the ME skill useful but no longer a sine qua non of even reasonably doing industry strikes me as a common problem in EVE where veteran players who have vested interests resist changes that will benefit new players. Just like the resistances to having standings for placing a POS, these sorts of barriers keep new players from having a fighting chance at making profit or just not wasting their time, while veteran players are not actually losing anything because they benefited for years from having already jumped through these hoops.
I don't personally see a lot to complain about.
Why don't we remove prequisites across the board and only have skills offer bonuses to performance. That would help the new players out as much or more (since it would let them specialize into something very quickly). |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
694
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:02:00 -
[135] - Quote
Wolf Kraft wrote: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. Mynna, your example (and this skill) are functionally useless because of all the other changes coming in Crius. There is very little point in having a 5% time reduction because you will literally be able to set up as many jobs as you want (though I'm sure there is a technical/code limit somewhere) in a single station since the production/research line limit is being removed from the game. Capital producers may enjoy getting products out marginally faster, but everyone else likely won't notice the difference. However, I fully agree that the skill, in its current iteration, needs to be changed. Unfortunately, the proposed change is far from being a proper specialization skill that CCP is hoping for. I suppose, in your world, you have an unlimited number of characters.
The number of concurrent jobs per station is being removed, but the number of concurrent jobs a single character can run is still limited to 11. Reducing the time that a job takes allows you to cycle your ISK through the market that much faster. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Myxx
754
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:08:00 -
[136] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
Here are some bullet points: - Sorry for the delay in keeping up with this, we've been busy :/ - We're aware of the unhappiness being expressed here - We don't want to have skills that are as in-practice mandatory as the old Material Efficiency skill in the Industry skillset - skills are supposed to be about specialization, not about jumping through hoops - 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.) - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't) - We are aware that you're are unhappy with how far the new skill is moving from its original value proposition, and we'll have another look at it this week. *If* we decide to make changes, they may not be viable for the initial Crius release, but would be unlikely to trail by more than a week or two - We're not delaying the release for this issue; I assume everyone understands that but it's always better to be explicit :) Quit your job. Dumbing industry down 'for the sake of newbies' is bad. Stop doing it. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
695
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:17:00 -
[137] - Quote
Myxx wrote:Quit your job. Dumbing industry down 'for the sake of newbies' is bad. Stop doing it. Removing an onerous requirement to perform in one of Eve's most fundamental activities is not "dumbing industry down."
Anyone who is sane supports the removal of Material Efficiency. The only issue here, and I'm being increasingly convinced it is a non-issue, is the replacement for the skill.
Granted, there were people who thought learning skills were good and should not be removed, too, I suppose. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Myxx
754
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:18:00 -
[138] - Quote
Querns wrote:Myxx wrote:Quit your job. Dumbing industry down 'for the sake of newbies' is bad. Stop doing it. Removing an onerous requirement to perform in one of Eve's most fundamental activities is not "dumbing industry down." Anyone who is sane supports the removal of Material Efficiency. The only issue here, and I'm being increasingly convinced it is a non-issue, is the replacement for the skill. Granted, there were people who thought learning skills were good and should not be removed, too, I suppose. its what... at most a 2 week skill?
That really isn't that bad. That's practically a non-existent barrier. |
Jedediah Arndtz
Warner Bros.
31
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:19:00 -
[139] - Quote
First you make Juryrigging a complete waste of SP, now this? Two skills made worthless in one patch... Nice one CCP. Keep up the great work, can't have people too happy about updates, amiright? |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:21:00 -
[140] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:we dislike skillpoint reassignment as the act of reassignment incrementally devalues the perceived value of skillpoints accumulated over time
The value of this skill, at level V, is this: 72 minutes per day per line. If manufacturing lines are kept going 24/7, it's a valuable skill. For a small-time manufacturer who does not keep their lines going 24/7, the skill is already at zero value. Even at my peak, running my lines twice a day (once before work, and once after), this skill would have been utterly useless to me. Now, running a few lines once or twice a week? I am not exaggerating when I say that I believe it will be the most useless skill I have, because I will have zero utilization of it.
Querns wrote:Compare the reduction in utility for this skill with a nerf to a particular ship in PvP -- people who had trained into that ship are not entitled to an SP refund; neither should we.
Nerfing a ship isn't quite the same thing. A closer consideration, I think, would be the Navigation skill:
What if all ships of a similar type and class (attack BC's, EWAR Frigs, etc) were given the same speed as the rest in their type and class, and then the Navigation skill, which gives a 5% bonus to sub-warp velocity, were changed to give a 1% boost to warp speed?
Yes, the skill would still be useful, but only to a limited number of people, and in limited use. The mission-running pilot, for example, would have no use for it, as it wouldn't save them enough time to run an extra mission while they were online, but a capital pilot (including freighters) might find it incredibly useful.
Similarly, someone who generally flies smaller ships in a fleet would probably have no use for it, but the battleship pilots in that same fleet might enjoy having it, though it would only matter if they all had it.
It's a skill that, while still being useful, isn't going to be useful to everyone after the change, whereas everyone could put it to use previously. Some people who had Navigation to V when it affected sub-warp speed may have no need for it at all when it affects warp speed.
The change from Material Efficiency to Advanced Industry is similar: a person who has their lines going 24/7 will find it useful (as it saves 72 minutes per day per line), but a person who has any more down-time than that on their lines will see a greatly-reduced value in the skill, quickly trending towards having no real value at all. |
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
278
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:29:00 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: [...]refunds[...]requires a fairly substantial investment to write the necessary DB scripts, run upgrade tests and correct any errors[...]
Wow, just wow.
As a DB Admin, i can't even put in words how deeply you just shamed your team.
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
33
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:31:00 -
[142] - Quote
Querns wrote:Anyone who is sane supports the removal of Material Efficiency. The only issue here, and I'm being increasingly convinced it is a non-issue, is the replacement for the skill. I agree that Material Efficiency needed to go with the coming of Crius, but having the skill "changed" into becoming something so vastly different is more than a non-issue. Prior to Crius, Material Efficiency was useful-enough that everyone had to train it, whether they were a 24/7 manufacturer, or a small-time manufacturer.
With the new / changed skill, it's only useful to people running their lines 24/7 (or close to it). It amounts to 72 minutes saved per day, per line. For people who don't keep their lines going constantly, the savings in time is meaningless: What do I care that my 360-minute job now only takes 342 minutes if I'm going to be asleep when it happens, anyway, and won't be starting my lines again for several days to a week? It's a skill that I would never train, given an actual choice.
CCP are essentially saying it would take too much time for too little return to reimburse the SP for it, and if it were only a single person taking issue with it, I would agree. This, however, has more than a single person taking issue with it.
If the skill were to affect something that everyone would find use from, such as reducing the install cost or taxes, even though it would be a fairly small gain overall, I would be perfectly happy with it, because it wouldn't be a complete waste of SP for me. As it stands, 5% faster manufacturing time is useless to me, and from the thread, to others, as well. |
The Piping Piper
We are Canadian -- I'm sorry
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 18:33:00 -
[143] - Quote
I've only been playing this game for 4 months. I spent the ~15 days it took to train this skill to V because it was MANDATORY. Sure, CCP wants to get rid of the mandatory skills for this type of thing, I get that. But you've essentially wasted 12.5% of my TOTAL playing time now. That's time I will never get back. This skill is absolutely USELESS for me as I am only able to play for a short amount of time during the week.
CCP, you complain about newbro retention. You want this game to thrive? Pulling this is kind of thing, then disregarding our concerns and frustrations with a TLDR "it takes a while and its hard" is absolutely unacceptable. This kind of attitude towards YOUR CONSUMERS is unacceptable, and will force me to quit. Sorry, but losing 12.5% of my total playtime into a skill that I DID NOT TRAIN FOR is ridiculous. |
Cekle Skyscales
The Scope Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:06:00 -
[144] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:For the reprocessing rebalance, it's all "it's too easy to be competitive and we're INCREASING the barrier for entry."
Increasing the barrier to entry by allowing every single station in the verse to have refining/reprocessing capability? Think before you post. They're increasing the barrier to perfect, not to entry. |
S'hiya
Cryotechnics
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:09:00 -
[145] - Quote
768,000 skillpoints is no small time investment. Considering the replacement skill is next to worthless I believe a refund would only be fair. |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
463
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:22:00 -
[146] - Quote
As others have said, this is a retirement of an old skill considered a requirement for Industry. It is good that a "required" skill is being changed so that is no longer required. But it is being retired, not nerfed. There should therefore be a refund. The new skillbook should be seeded, and people can choose to use refunded SP on it, or spend the refunded SP elsewhere.
The technical arguments against a refund that CCP presented may have merit, though not for technical reasons; customer service in dealing with errors can be substantial, however. So if SP are not to be refunded, the skill should not be retired as it is currently planned, but instead changed to still interact with material costs for manufacturing items but to a lesser degree: 1% (0.2% per level) would be a minimum, but even that is a little low. Ab adjustment of 0.4% per level, for a total of 2%, would be a more appropriate change.
|
Kali Aldard
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:34:00 -
[147] - Quote
While I understand the concern surrounding a "mandatory skill to 5" that ME currently is, it is that undesired mandate that is why pilots trained to 5 in the first place. Removing the feature of a skill that reduces how much money it costs to build a single item should come with a compensation in SP spent on that feature.
Someone decided "I want to spend time reducing the materials that this blueprint needs" and acted upon it by training a skill. They didn't train to get their item faster. Faster build time doesn't reduce the amount cargo space I need to get my materials to my production home. Removing the feature of one player being able to perform actions that reduce the material cost for BPCs is just what it looks like: removing a feature. It's just the same as removing a feature that allows someone to perform actions that reduce the time it takes to train another skill.
I understand that reimbursing SP reduces the perceived value of SP. But you're completely removing a feature that had a skill associated with it. You're not devaluing this feature, you're eliminating it altogether. You're completely removing what used to be a motive to train a skill. The new "replacement" skill isn't anything close to the same thing, either.
I believe that with the removal of the feature to reduce material cost, skills trained to support that feature need to also be refunded. |
Hope Alar
Blue Tridents Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 19:52:00 -
[148] - Quote
I have an industry alt who has kept many of her lines busy on a daily basis. I would benefit from the new proposed skill, but no where near as much as the current Production Efficiency. I create a set of 21 hour jobs everyday. I have a 3 hour window incase I may end up be doing something in rl, or be busy doing something else in game. The new skill would benefit me but I would likely only train it to IV. I think such a mandatory skill being made into a trivial skill warrants a skill refund. I could put it into some refining skills instead =). |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
697
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:08:00 -
[149] - Quote
Kali Aldard wrote:Someone decided "I want to spend time reducing the materials that this blueprint needs" and acted upon it by training a skill. You "decide" to train Material Efficiency today as much as you choose to breathe. It's just not possible to compete without it today. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Valterra Craven
268
|
Posted - 2014.07.16 20:17:00 -
[150] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hi everyone,
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.
Do we need to start another thread[naught] somewhere else where it would be in scope for discussion?
CCP Greyscale wrote: - We are in any case too close to the release to implement a refund at this time, and that is a non-disputable statement of fact precluding us from doing so even if we wanted to (which we don't)
Then don't delay the release, and make the skill do nothing until such time as you can devote resources to solve the problem properly. Wan't that the very point of moving to the rapid release system? You're happy with making massive industry changes without doing any real work to invention and are instead working on that in the next release, so it would only make sense that you could do the same here as well. |
|
|
|
|
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 |