These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, one ship at a time

First post First post
Author
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#861 - 2012-03-07 01:16:18 UTC
I officially name this: Skillgate

Stuff Goes here

Ragnar STS
Arcane Odyssey
Electus Matari
#862 - 2012-03-07 01:17:55 UTC
I would like to officially say that I do NOT want these changes. It is currently complicated...such is eve. I really don't see much problem with the way it is set up now.

The only real stupidity that I would like changed is Jump Freighter/Freighter and Carriers. Seriously....if a person needs to move a pair of fit/rigged ships...they should need to train up drone and fighter skills, and other modules and such to fly a carrier. They should use a simple cargo hauler....for cargo.

Carriers could still take ships...but perhaps put pilots in them. How nice would that be...drop a carrier with a squad of people inside it that can then undock. That would be worth training for...
David Rivard
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#863 - 2012-03-07 01:18:15 UTC
This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.

This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#864 - 2012-03-07 01:18:39 UTC
Mr LaForge wrote:
I officially name this: Skillgate


Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

OT Smithers
Perkone
Caldari State
#865 - 2012-03-07 01:19:25 UTC
This skill change has got to be one of the stupidest things I have EVER heard a game company propose.

Seriously. This is game suicide.

I have been thinking for the last hour trying to come up with one thing, anything at all, that would justify this. One improvement to the game, one benefit to new or veteran players, anything that will overshadow the legion of rage quiting subscribers. The only thing I can come up with is that the skill trees will look nicer on some flowchart.

There is no nice way to say this, so I will be blunt:

Fire whoever it is that came up with this.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#866 - 2012-03-07 01:19:50 UTC
David Rivard wrote:
This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.

This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle.


I take it you haven't flown a destroyer lately.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Indy Rider
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#867 - 2012-03-07 01:20:48 UTC
I'm liking the changes so far.

Unless I'm not 100% clear on how this change is going to happen, say I have BCV, which will then turn into each racial BC 5. What happens if someone doesn't have the prerequisite skills for that racial BC?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#868 - 2012-03-07 01:20:56 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
This skill change has got to be one of the stupidest things I have EVER heard a game company propose.

Seriously. This is game suicide.

I have been thinking for the last hour trying to come up with one thing, anything at all, that would justify this. One improvement to the game, one benefit to new or veteran players, anything that will overshadow the legion of rage quiting subscribers. The only thing I can come up with is that the skill trees will look nicer on some flowchart.

There is no nice way to say this, so I will be blunt:

Fire whoever it is that came up with this.


I too hate large boosts to my skill point level.

Get a rope.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

David Rivard
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#869 - 2012-03-07 01:21:45 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
David Rivard wrote:
This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.

This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle.


I take it you haven't flown a destroyer lately.

No, and it's true they're supposed to be better now, but I made a conscious decision not to train them in favor of other ships. I shouldn't be forced to train an offshoot of frigates just to fly cruisers.
None ofthe Above
#870 - 2012-03-07 01:26:25 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
CCP Ytterbium,

I do think you deserve credit for what you where trying to do here. You put a lot of effort into explaining your viewpoint and putting out an impressive dev blog.

It came off as a little rushed, but that wasn't really the issue.

As a suggestion, move more in the direction of a "Request for Comments" as opposed to "This is generally what's coming down the pike, even if we've not worked out all the little details" tone. (Even if it's a lie. Blink It'll be better received and gives you room to backtrack later.) And lead with the good news... tiercide in this case.

On the bright side, you got a crap-ton of feedback in record time.

Two step wrote:

I don't blame you *at all*. I have requested (and been denied) that CSM be part of the Dev blog review process. This blog is proof that some thought should be paid to that suggestion.


Seems wise. I understand that CCP may want to get stuff out quick and its a pain to run things by the CSM first, but an outsiders view could help A LOT. When you are all invested and living an issue, its easy to loose touch with how it will be perceived by some one looking at it with fresh eyes. I admit to falling prey to that on occasion myself.

The Mittani wrote:

Dude, we talked about some of this stuff at the summit, it's not like it came out of nowhere. I appreciate the apology but there's no need to fall on your sword like this in front of everyone. It's fine.

It's a planning blog, and an interesting one - I'd have enjoyed seeing a draft, but it's not like the anomaly nerf which was HERE IS A CHANGE IT IS IN THE GAME HA HA. Since things are still in the design stages we remain in 'feedback land' instead of 'it is on TQ and you are screwed' land.


Agreed fully on that last paragraph.

I do see some foreshadowing of what this blog is presenting in the CSM Minutes. Was the racial split for Destroyer/Battlecruiser discussed with CSM prior? Can it be discussed now what the CSM's reaction to that was?

Anyway, I do hope the racial split on these skills is reconsidered. I don't think the (questionable?) benefits are worth the disruption.

I do love the tiercide idea, particularly if its done by small buffs to the currently useless ships. Still not a fan of nerfing or "refocusing" currently working ships. (Although some tweaks might work, like moving one hull bonus to cruiser makes sense to me on BCs.)

Dropping most requirements from 5 to 4 also makes a fair amount of sense. Particularly in the Coveter's case. Not quite as sure about the BS 5 -> 4 for Capitals though, sounds like there is pros and cons to that one.

Just the idea that you are working on ship balance is worth applauding, although as its a hugely tricky thing it needs a lot of testing and feedback. Do please rely on the CSM for the first response and the community to fine tune.

I hope this spergfest of a response to your blog is in the end encouraging, you are working on something that people care a lot about. Just keep poasting! We can work this out together.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#871 - 2012-03-07 01:29:02 UTC
David Rivard wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
David Rivard wrote:
This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.

This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle.


I take it you haven't flown a destroyer lately.

No, and it's true they're supposed to be better now, but I made a conscious decision not to train them in favor of other ships. I shouldn't be forced to train an offshoot of frigates just to fly cruisers.


Just like you shouldn't be forced to train for a Cruiser before you can fly a Battle Cruiser... except you are.... and that somehow makes sense to you... but not this...

Seriously?

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#872 - 2012-03-07 01:32:07 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
David Rivard wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
David Rivard wrote:
This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.

This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle.


I take it you haven't flown a destroyer lately.

No, and it's true they're supposed to be better now, but I made a conscious decision not to train them in favor of other ships. I shouldn't be forced to train an offshoot of frigates just to fly cruisers.


Just like you shouldn't be forced to train for a Cruiser before you can fly a Battle Cruiser... except you are.... and that somehow makes sense to you... but not this...

Seriously?


By the way, if you can currently fly cruisers, you won't have to worry about it to begin with.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Luvvin McHunt
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#873 - 2012-03-07 01:33:06 UTC
PLZ - call the patch that these changes are in.

INCARNA 2.0

And add another statue to Jita. It will be needed.
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#874 - 2012-03-07 01:35:12 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Mr LaForge wrote:
I officially name this: Skillgate


Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Smile


This is a huge benefit for veteran players. And depending on how they work the skill changeover, it could be an even bigger hidden buff. -- if they just give us a reimbursement of SP to let us train all 4 (for example) battlecruiser skills to 5, I could instead apply those SP to something non-spaceship command related (since my attributes are tweaked to make that stuff train fastest right now) and then retrain the the BC skills myself. I haven't done the math, but it my head it feels like that would work. As much as I love that scenario, I have to say, in the interests of keeping things fair that they should just give us the racial skills at whatever level we had the other skill at instead of straight SP.

But regardless of potential hidden buffs to vets, I'm thankful they came out and explicitly stated that I'll still be able to fly the same ships post patch day with just as much skill as before.

HOWEVER comma

My present (and any future) alts, not to mention new players, can really only see this as a nerf I think. Sure, everything will be quite a bit more intuitive now, and I'm all for that, but it'll also take those newer characters 4 times as long to crosstrain to the extent that I have. My friends already complain about the huge gap in SP from their new characters to my ancient ones, and this won't help matters. When all is said and done I don't think it'll be the straw that broke the camel's back, or anything, but it won't give me any extra ammunition for getting them to jump on board.

On another note - did they say this was only applying to the T1 versions and not to the T2 versions? (Inty, Logi, Black Ops, etc)

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Astomichi
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#875 - 2012-03-07 01:35:25 UTC
No to the skill changes. The only real reason for most of the proposed changes is "to make the numbers nice." The capitals requiring BS4 instead of 5 just because that's what other class progressions require shows that you care more about pretty numbers than about balanced gameplay.

With regards to the Dictor/BC skill changes, I think these are simply not in the interest of "fun." Historically, the unique nature of these ship classes has allowed players to experiment relatively cheaply and try different things before specializing. Removing this opportunity makes it (even more) imperative that new players min/max for the correct ship classes right from the start to be effective.

Can you articulate any specific gameplay reasons behind these changes, or is it all just about making your graphs look cleaner? Pretty graphs do not equal fun, balanced gameplay in and of themselves, and the focus on them instead of on changes backed by real problems is wrong-headed. Leave the skill tree alone.


The ship changes themselves sound like they have potential, but it will of course depend on the implementation.
Cletus Graeme
Shai Dorsai
#876 - 2012-03-07 01:35:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Cletus Graeme
Stop your whining about skill training ffs - it's just a few extra days/weeks and once it's done you never have to train it again :D

I really think the EvE ship hierarchy could do with a big shakeup and this sounds great. There are just too many hulls currently underused because they have nothing special to offer. Each ship should be different - personally, I'd prefer it if they were unique.

I'm also in favour of making stuff take longer to train. At the moment people skip flying entire ship classes because in a few days they can leapfrog them and jump into a bigger ship. Bigger ISNT better but you only realise that after you've trained madly to get into a BS and then realise it's just another ship and no more fun than a cruiser or BC.

CCP should decide how it wants people to train/fly ships and organise the hierarchy accordingly. I've always felt specialisation should be essential early on and then once you can fly T2 in your chosen class you can start to diversify.

Also, currently it's so easy to cross-train races that whichever race is currently FOTM (e.g Winmatar for as long as I can remember) ends up being trained by the majority of new pilots - whatever their own race. I never really understood why Destroyer and BC skills were cross-race while Frigate, Cruiser and BS skills are race specific so bringing them all together consistently sounds sensible.

Even if it meant having to train some skills again (it wont - I'm pretty sure CCP won't implement the changes that way as they haven't done so in the past) I'd be happy to if I felt the changes would result in a more logically consistent hierarchy in which EVERY ship has a USEFUL role to play.

Please don't forget to take a look at those ships which are currently one step away from only being good for reprocessing.

E.g. Prophecy, Cyclone, Eagle, Hyena, Rook

to name a few...

Why are people so afraid of a little change? Especially when it's going to impact SPACESHIPS rather than CQ.

Sheesh - What a bunch of moody grumpy whiners some of you are!
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#877 - 2012-03-07 01:36:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mioelnir
Do you really plan to introduce tech 2 capitals? If no, why reserve lvl 5 battleship for t2 and drop capital requirement to bs4

It takes 30+ million SP to fly a capital properly (except freighter), I can see no benefit training a few skills 30 days earlier. Except for characters that have no business flying them yet. And I have 5 capital chars, some of whom just now start crosstraining other racial caps (so I would actually benefit a lot from dropping the BS 5 requirements)

Also, why are skills for tech 2 ships "confusing"? I mean, there is a requirements tab. You click it, it lists them. You train them, you happy. If you are incapable of doing that, fly tech 1. A lot more tech 2 ships should have "outside" requirements like for example Recon Ships has with Signature Analysis and Long Range Targeting.
Want tech 2, get proper skills. It's not a concept that caused any problems for the last 7-ish years. Why change it

Like the "generic t1" ship skills changes for destroyers / battlecruisers. Although I am unsure how you want to fix that without locking someone out of a current ships
I can fly Minmatar and Gallente battlecruisers with BC5. Does that mean I'll get two BC skills at 5? For "the price of one"
Should I hurry training the other 2 cruisers skills to 3, so I'll get 4 BC skills at 5 for the one that will be removed

The direction of the changes is good. But reducing training time is bad. As is trying to avoid any possible fallout. There will be fallout, embrace it, own it. Having a character that can fly a cap, or a command ship adds "worth" to your corporation because you can't just vat grow them. It takes time
Just like asset-logistics are value-adding since there is no npc teleportation service. The same applies to chars. Want to fly caps, which I regard as a specialization, than you get less diversity for more time. That's just how it is, and should continue to be.
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#878 - 2012-03-07 01:38:45 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Mr LaForge wrote:
I officially name this: Skillgate


Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Smile


It was a joke. It could be Incarnagate Pt 2

Stuff Goes here

Morar Santee
#879 - 2012-03-07 01:40:06 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Mr LaForge wrote:
I officially name this: Skillgate


Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Smile


Yes. Introducing artificial barriers and circumventing the protest (and lost subscriptions) of veteran players by "reimbursing" them is the way to go.
beor oranes
The Capitalist Protectorate
Mad Scientists
#880 - 2012-03-07 01:43:09 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Ok this thread needs some love now.


SKILLS:


  • Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.

I must admit once I read the blog I was thinking that if I have to retrain 3 out of the 4 again I would be seriously miffed.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:


  • BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.


  • While I can see that having BS to IV for capitals would fit in with the other classes to get to the next size but this would mean that you will be able to get into a carrier, dread or supercarrier way too soon and easy. Consistency is good in general but this is a really stupid idea. Capital proliferation is already bad enough this will just make it worse (yes I know I am in a very super cap heavy alliance, but its still true).

    If this does happen can we petition to get our BS V skill that we have trained refunded to us?! Cos I would quite like to put that training time into something else then. And at the same time change the requirements for supercarriers from III to V.