These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: The great ship skill change of summer 2013

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#501 - 2013-02-08 15:37:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Irregessa
Anthar Thebess wrote:
To be honest.
1. Command ships changes are strange.
- Someone stated correctly - if i fly Shield Command ship -WHY THE HELL I NEED ARMOUR SKILLS! :)


Because they needed to add something that compensated training time-wise for no longer requiring Racial Cruiser 5 and either/both Logi 4/HAC 4 to be trained, and those leadership skills were the closest thing that made sense. Given that the Command Ships are proposed to be changed into ships that will largely be used on fleets, someone who is giving boosts should have those skills trained anyway, IMO.

Quote:

2. Recons
- Cloaking IV as a prerequisite for a ship that will not a covert op cloak - WHY?


Agreed.

Quote:

3. Carriers/Dreads
- From my perspective if i will have alt in a wormhole - what is the reason for Jump Drive calibration, and Jump Fuel Conservation at this high lvl? I can understand other things - but why skills that only determine how far, and how cheap you can jump?
- Dreads - Siege as a prerequisite - strange , i can still undock without a siege module ... and fly this ship - so why do i need it train before sitting in this ship?


Carriers are primarily logistics ships, in both sense of the words (repping stuff and carrying stuff - fitted ships specifically). Both of these activities are benefitted by being able to move long distances on minimal fuel (okay, that is a stretch for the repping part, but if it were too much of a bother to rep a tower/structure/whatever, things that people care about will die a lot more readily).

You can undock and fly an interdictor without the warp disruption probe launcher too, but there isn't a lot of reason to. Same with Dreads - you don't typically use a dread without the siege module.

Quote:

4. Electronic Atack ships
- Long range targeting? WHY those are frigates, this 5% does not help much - and is not so important for this ship class!


Because they were looking to replace it with a skill that maintained the train time. The only other x2 skills in Electronics (as these are Electronic Attack Frigates) are Long Range Targeting and Electronic Warfare. If you think LRT is useless for these ships, EWAR is even more so, and to be honest, so is Electronics Upgrades - likely why it is being replaced. I know the new sensor compensation skills are also x2, but this is the race-independent t2 skill. Unless you want it to be like the change ot the Command Ships.... Didn't think so.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#502 - 2013-02-08 15:38:30 UTC
By training carriers and dreads before summer expansion I save 1 month of useless jump drive skills, so I thank you for announcing this change now :)

.
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#503 - 2013-02-08 15:43:01 UTC
That was a lot to get through! - Thanks for the update - it has made me think about where my characters are going this year!

It all sounds pretty good - And I don'tthink letting new characters into Battleships really quickly is a big issue here - as it will help and encourage people to make up Alts, (i.e. quickly), for those special activities days. Twisted - although not sure what guns I could put on it. . . . but there must be a use
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#504 - 2013-02-08 15:44:08 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Clone costs in their current form are not something we as a design department are happy with. Beyond that we can't make commitments on the issue at this time.

Clone insurance maybe? Keep the reasonably high cost, but make it run for a fixed term like 90 or 180 days, and you're covered no matter how many times you get podded during that period. This way you still have an ISK sink for the 200m SP club, but nobody is discouraged from flying around in teeny weeny easy to pop ships.

Just make sure you don't ignore those warning mails you get when it's about to run out --- there would probably need to be a warning in big red letters that pops up and warns you if YOU'RE ABOUT TO UNDOCK WITHOUT CLONE INSURANCE ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS???!

Sounds good to me.

Remove standings and insurance.
Myopic Thyne
Accounts Payable.
#505 - 2013-02-08 15:44:16 UTC
Adding my voice to:

Command Ship requirements make no sense.
(Links for 'off-race' and generally neveruse situations.)

Carrier requirements make no sense.
(Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and Fighters make more sense then Jump requirements)

Recons requirements make no sense.
(Cloaking skill for non-cloaky ships is absurd. How about making carriers require freighter skills.. oh wait THAT would make more sense since they do haul stuff around a lot.)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#506 - 2013-02-08 15:46:31 UTC
Wait, are people complaining about long range targeting on a class of ship that all have range bonuses for their ECM modules?

...lol

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Drosal Inkunen
Spreadsheeters
#507 - 2013-02-08 15:51:27 UTC
Myopic Thyne wrote:
Adding my voice to:

Command Ship requirements make no sense.
(Links for 'off-race' and generally neveruse situations.)

Carrier requirements make no sense.
(Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and Fighters make more sense then Jump requirements)

Recons requirements make no sense.
(Cloaking skill for non-cloaky ships is absurd. How about making carriers require freighter skills.. oh wait THAT would make more sense since they do haul stuff around a lot.)

As has been mentioned, you aren't training the gang link skills to be able to use a command ship, you are training the passive boost skills.

Now the question is, why do I have to train the passive shield boosts for my armor booster?
Simple, they needed to replace the logistics/other skills with something, so they went with the passive boosts. It makes sense to me.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#508 - 2013-02-08 15:53:50 UTC
I don't get what the problem is with the cloaking skill requirement.
No, combat recons can't use covert ops cloak - I realize that. However the majority of fits that I've seen of combat recons use the improved cloak.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Sakari Orisi
Doomheim
#509 - 2013-02-08 15:55:58 UTC
Myopic Thyne wrote:
Adding my voice to:

Command Ship requirements make no sense.
(Links for 'off-race' and generally neveruse situations.)

Carrier requirements make no sense.
(Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and Fighters make more sense then Jump requirements)

Recons requirements make no sense.
(Cloaking skill for non-cloaky ships is absurd. How about making carriers require freighter skills.. oh wait THAT would make more sense since they do haul stuff around a lot.)


I think this is spot on.
I don't think the passive boost skills should be needed to fly all command ships.

Ditto for Carriers and Cloaking on recons.
I appreciate training time should be kept roughly the same as now, but a better set of skills should be searched for.

Perhaps ...

Command Ships: Wing command ?
Recons: No idea there
Carriers: As above poster mentioned: Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and/or fighters.
Dreads: the dread requiremetns should mirror the carrier ones. Keep them in line imo.

The evefit project Pyfa thread Phobos thread
Drosal Inkunen
Spreadsheeters
#510 - 2013-02-08 16:01:56 UTC
Sakari Orisi wrote:
Myopic Thyne wrote:
Adding my voice to:

Command Ship requirements make no sense.
(Links for 'off-race' and generally neveruse situations.)

Carrier requirements make no sense.
(Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and Fighters make more sense then Jump requirements)

Recons requirements make no sense.
(Cloaking skill for non-cloaky ships is absurd. How about making carriers require freighter skills.. oh wait THAT would make more sense since they do haul stuff around a lot.)


I think this is spot on.
I don't think the passive boost skills should be needed to fly all command ships.

Ditto for Carriers and Cloaking on recons.
I appreciate training time should be kept roughly the same as now, but a better set of skills should be searched for.

Perhaps ...

Command Ships: Wing command ?
Recons: No idea there
Carriers: As above poster mentioned: Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and/or fighters.
Dreads: the dread requiremetns should mirror the carrier ones. Keep them in line imo.


Hey, someone notices it is the passive boosts, not the gang link skills!

Anyway, the passive boosts were probably chosen because they would be the skills needed to train for gang links.
I am not sure of training times for wing command, but I personally would rather have the boosters all have the passive boosts than not have them. Sure 10% shields won't help too much on an armor ship, but I'd rather have the 10% shields than nothing.

I will pass on commenting on the carrier changes as that isn't an area I'm familiar with.

I think cloaking for recons is a tricky one. I believe they mentioned the reasoning is that half the recons really shouldn't be used without a cov-ops cloak and they couldn't really find a skill that worked better. Force Recons almost seem like they should be a different ship type entirely, don't you think?
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#511 - 2013-02-08 16:02:10 UTC
Debir Achen wrote:
*


* Carriers

It always struck me as odd that the only training difference between a carrier and a super-carrier was Racial Carrier III vs I. With the new changes, there seems to be no skill requirement difference between a carrier and a super-carrier.

And while the jump drive requirements might be perfectly sensible in low- and null-sec, they aren't relevant for WH carriers. There are carriers that spend their entire life in WH space, and never use their jump drive. Others use their jump drive to get to WH space, and thereafter do not. As such, the high jump drive skill reqs seem somewhat arbitrary, especially when compared to the proposed dreadnaught pre-reqs.

(Similar question arises with dreads: is a dread without siege a sensible dread? If it is, then the pre-req is somewhat arbitrary. Less of a problem in this case, since siege mode is useful for any dread, while it's entirely possible for a carrier to fully function as a carrier without using the jump drive)



I feel you m8. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the large majority of newly hired middleman developers are hired from big null alliances. They have little notion or some simply don't care about how certain decisions affect players from different areas in the game. For them EVE-meta = Nullsec. It's worth noting as well that questions coming from certain groups within the player community get answered faster and more frequently.
In the end I think null-players in generals tend to be more hardcore players so it's logical for them to get and deserve more attention/opportunities and that we will all benefit from the changes initiated by them long term.

Fly safe o/

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.
Myopic Thyne
Accounts Payable.
#512 - 2013-02-08 16:04:15 UTC
I miss spoke, I was thinking about links on command ships and wrote links, I did indeed mean the passive skills, I actually like the idea of needing wing command for command ships, that's pretty good.
Sakari Orisi
Doomheim
#513 - 2013-02-08 16:06:41 UTC
Drosal Inkunen wrote:
Sakari Orisi wrote:
Myopic Thyne wrote:
Adding my voice to:

Command Ship requirements make no sense.
(Links for 'off-race' and generally neveruse situations.)

Carrier requirements make no sense.
(Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and Fighters make more sense then Jump requirements)

Recons requirements make no sense.
(Cloaking skill for non-cloaky ships is absurd. How about making carriers require freighter skills.. oh wait THAT would make more sense since they do haul stuff around a lot.)


I think this is spot on.
I don't think the passive boost skills should be needed to fly all command ships.

Ditto for Carriers and Cloaking on recons.
I appreciate training time should be kept roughly the same as now, but a better set of skills should be searched for.

Perhaps ...

Command Ships: Wing command ?
Recons: No idea there
Carriers: As above poster mentioned: Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration and/or fighters.
Dreads: the dread requiremetns should mirror the carrier ones. Keep them in line imo.


Hey, someone notices it is the passive boosts, not the gang link skills!

Anyway, the passive boosts were probably chosen because they would be the skills needed to train for gang links.
I am not sure of training times for wing command, but I personally would rather have the boosters all have the passive boosts than not have them. Sure 10% shields won't help too much on an armor ship, but I'd rather have the 10% shields than nothing.

I will pass on commenting on the carrier changes as that isn't an area I'm familiar with.

I think cloaking for recons is a tricky one. I believe they mentioned the reasoning is that half the recons really shouldn't be used without a cov-ops cloak and they couldn't really find a skill that worked better. Force Recons almost seem like they should be a different ship type entirely, don't you think?

An entirely different skill actually sounds like a better idea here .. Might be worth pondering about ? I mean .. it's now or never pretty much.

The evefit project Pyfa thread Phobos thread
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#514 - 2013-02-08 16:27:05 UTC
Eagleye13 wrote:
I Am NOT A FAN of this Re-Mapping... For me It Seems CCP is Making it EASIER for NEW players and HARDER for older players... for me being an older player it is un-fair and ultimatly could drive me away from the game...Take for example the Requirements for the Command Ship... Why do i need all these extra WARFARE skills when i only need maybe 2 out of 3... It should be left to the pilot to customize his skill sheet with those so their is diversity when fighting others...This to me seems like you are balancing everything to the point where only Lock.Click. And Shoot Comes into effect...meaning everyone is equal and has the same effect against each other...Leave that to US thats what MADE Eve FUN...Knowing that we had the advantage because we spent the time to get their....by doing these changes it makes it easier for newer players to come up from nothing and take on us older players.......Remember who dominated the game of eve....The players, mainly OLDER Players(Game Time). In my view here CCP is duming eve down so that it so call balances the ships when in reality they are making it easier for the NEWER players to inflict more damage and accumulate isk at a faster rate that what we had the chance to do when we first started.....If this is the Case maybe everyone who has been playing for over 5 years should be given an ISK Gift from CCP so that we can have a fair inflated advantage!!!!!


You did get and still have an umlimited isk credit card for CCP. T2 bpo's anyone? Some great unique/limited ships that are priceless now and only you rotting oaks have? How about the whole of nullsec that you could settle for free cause no-one else was there at the time, basically providing unlimited wealth for the people owning sov.

Oldskool players have always had and still have an unfair advantage over anyone that joined the last 5 years. Please give younger players a chance and a reason to exist or you will find yourself alone one day.

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#515 - 2013-02-08 16:31:43 UTC
Onyx Nyx wrote:
I am concerned, and I have heard murmurings, that CCP will not reimburse the current battleship 5 requirement to fly capital ships. I have two characters whose sole purpose is to fly carriers and dreads and once these changes go through, my two characters and everyone else that has characters for dedicated capital roles is going have 1,984,000 SP of wasted training time.

Needless to say, if these changes go through without reimbursement, it is a ****-move and huge loss of goodwill on CCP's part.


If we ever delete the Battleship skills from the game we'll reimburse the skillpoints.

We're not taking a single thing away from you with this change.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#516 - 2013-02-08 16:38:15 UTC
Does "Summer" refer to like May-ish or more like July-ish?

/fishing for a general approximation of release schedule, things got suddenly quite tight because of the cap change :o

.
Beckie DeLey
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#517 - 2013-02-08 16:42:34 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Clone costs in their current form are not something we as a design department are happy with. Beyond that we can't make commitments on the issue at this time.

Clone insurance maybe? Keep the reasonably high cost, but make it run for a fixed term like 90 or 180 days, and you're covered no matter how many times you get podded during that period. This way you still have an ISK sink for the 200m SP club, but nobody is discouraged from flying around in teeny weeny easy to pop ships.

Just make sure you don't ignore those warning mails you get when it's about to run out --- there would probably need to be a warning in big red letters that pops up and warns you if YOU'RE ABOUT TO UNDOCK WITHOUT CLONE INSURANCE ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO DO THIS???!


This is brilliant. CCP, get to it.

My siren's name is Brick and she is the prettiest.
Onyx Nyx
The Veldspar Protectorate
#518 - 2013-02-08 16:43:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Onyx Nyx wrote:
I am concerned, and I have heard murmurings, that CCP will not reimburse the current battleship 5 requirement to fly capital ships. I have two characters whose sole purpose is to fly carriers and dreads and once these changes go through, my two characters and everyone else that has characters for dedicated capital roles is going have 1,984,000 SP of wasted training time.

Needless to say, if these changes go through without reimbursement, it is a ****-move and huge loss of goodwill on CCP's part.


If we ever delete the Battleship skills from the game we'll reimburse the skillpoints.

We're not taking a single thing away from you with this change.


Not really what I asked, but I suppose that is the best answer I'll get.

I kill kittens, and puppies and bunnies. I maim toddlers and teens and then more.

  • Richard (http://www.lfgcomic.com/)
stoicfaux
#519 - 2013-02-08 16:43:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Onyx Nyx wrote:
I am concerned, and I have heard murmurings, that CCP will not reimburse the current battleship 5 requirement to fly capital ships. I have two characters whose sole purpose is to fly carriers and dreads and once these changes go through, my two characters and everyone else that has characters for dedicated capital roles is going have 1,984,000 SP of wasted training time.

Needless to say, if these changes go through without reimbursement, it is a ****-move and huge loss of goodwill on CCP's part.


If we ever delete the Battleship skills from the game we'll reimburse the skillpoints.

We're not taking a single thing away from you with this change.

Well, nothing except for the rage tears. However, the butt-hurt should be considered as just compensation.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#520 - 2013-02-08 16:44:14 UTC
Unkind Omen wrote:
The only nasty and really confusing thing in this skill split idea is the fact that racial battlecruiser and destroyer skills would get same ranks as their common counterparts have now. Do you think that command ships alone are that good so people would surely spend 1.5 mil SP for each one of them? I think that they are not that awesome. Most people train commands as a good bonus for having at least two of racial cruisers 5. And even now it would cost only an additional 1.2mil SP to cross-train commands through cruiser skills even if you would ignore the fact that the cruiser 5 skill is a must have skill for any experienced pvp pilot anyway as it provides access to SC, Logistics, Recons, HICs and HACs as weapons of destruction.

I think that you should consider lowering a rank of racial battlecruisers skill at least to rank 5( which cruisers have) or may be even lowering both cruisers and BC skills to rank 4. Personally I already have BC and destroyers V but I still cant forget that damn month I spent training BC V. How do you imagine new players to spend 4 months to get the same result?


Nobody ever said you were obligated to train all races. It is a personal choice. Instead of having to train all cruisers to V to fly command ships you will now train all bcs instead. Not having to train racial cruiser V and battlecruisers V for CS makes perfect sense to me. For me there is the added benefit that I preferred BCS over cruisers anyway :).

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.