These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Weapons skill rebalancing next?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#41 - 2013-02-11 08:43:26 UTC
all you people wanting faster training frankly dont get it...
EVE should not be about faster and easier rewards, it's not that game.

even hypothetically if CCP did make these changes, they'd need to put in more pre requs to make the training time the same, just like theyre doing with capitals.

on a separate note, apart from pure capital alts, there arent any people who should be going straight to large guns without training the smaller ones first and given only long term players with several accounts are going to be training dedicated capital alts, the whole 'catching up' argument is actually the reverse; these changes would just let the older players train alts faster.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#42 - 2013-02-11 08:43:59 UTC
This is a good idea. It can be applied further.

This could get messy and take a long time. But think how quickly new players will be able to train up if they just specialize. I think it's a good thing for the game.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2013-02-11 08:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Jack Miton wrote:
all you people wanting faster training frankly dont get it...
EVE should not be about faster and easier rewards, it's not that game.

even hypothetically if CCP did make these changes, they'd need to put in more pre requs to make the training time the same, just like theyre doing with capitals.

on a separate note, apart from pure capital alts, there arent any people who should be going straight to large guns without training the smaller ones first and given only long term players with several accounts are going to be training dedicated capital alts, the whole 'catching up' argument is actually the reverse; these changes would just let the older players train alts faster.


Read my previous post, because what I've done is made individual skills faster to get to while overall increasing the training time. Not getting everything faster.

Notice how getting all lasers to T2 takes the same amount of time, both in how it's done now and how my plan works - yet the way it's done now actually means you get more out of that training time. What I'm proposing is a tradeoff between being able to pick which size you want to train for T2 and overall training time if I want to cross-train.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2013-02-11 08:56:36 UTC
If I want to get spec 4 small, medium, and large pulse, then I would have to follow the same training plan that you do now.

Gunnery to 5
Motion Prediction to 5
Small, medium, large energy weapon to 5
Small, medium, large pulse spec to 4

This takes 87 days to do currently.

If you wanted to do the same under my plan, this would actually take longer: 18 days longer for small, medium, and large energy weapon to 5, and 3.2 days longer for small, medium, and large pulse spec to 4.
So what took 87 days before now takes 108 days.

It's not making everything faster. It's encouraging people to specialize and helping them do that instead of forcing them to train everything to get to what they want.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Whitehound
#45 - 2013-02-11 13:14:50 UTC
While I get the general idea of the suggestion is it against the current trend.

Having small and medium hybrid weapons as a prerequisite for large hybrid weapons means to accelerate the skill training for those who choose the hybrid weapons path and to slow down cross-training of weapons.

CCP have already said they want less cross-training, which is why we are now getting more racial ship skills.

And this should really be in Features and Ideas Discussion.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#46 - 2013-02-11 13:37:45 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
all you people wanting faster training frankly dont get it...
EVE should not be about faster and easier rewards, it's not that game.

even hypothetically if CCP did make these changes, they'd need to put in more pre requs to make the training time the same, just like theyre doing with capitals.

on a separate note, apart from pure capital alts, there arent any people who should be going straight to large guns without training the smaller ones first and given only long term players with several accounts are going to be training dedicated capital alts, the whole 'catching up' argument is actually the reverse; these changes would just let the older players train alts faster.


I agree, making more fundamental changes to the skill system is opening a can of worms, and although it seems like a good idea where do you stop? In an ideal world I agree CCP should scrap the entire skill system and start from scratch. But we are where we are now, and making so many fundamental changes to the skill system will really start to annoy people who spend a lot of time planning out skill training plans.
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#47 - 2013-02-11 13:54:00 UTC
Moving from General Discussion to Features & Ideas Discussion.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2013-02-11 14:00:47 UTC
Well I suppose that was inevitable.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#49 - 2013-02-11 14:33:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
I support OPs idea but on 1 condition: separate long and short range turret skills.

small autocannon (3) > med autocannon (3) > large autocannon (5) > large autocannon spec if you want to train for T2 large ACs
small railguns (3) > med railguns (3) > large railguns (5) > large railguns spec if you want to train for T2 large rails.

some adjustment to rank of skills/requirements might be needed to compensate overall increase of training time, but it will make more sense and (almost) in line with missile training. It will make specialization on preferred weapon system/size much easier while training for all weapons much longer (training for both short and long range versions of same weapon platform should take longer than in takes to train unified skill now).

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Acac Sunflyier
The Ascended Academy
#50 - 2013-02-11 14:42:22 UTC
I think that spec should take 5 but next sized gun should take 4
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2013-02-11 15:47:32 UTC
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
I support OPs idea but on 1 condition: separate long and short range turret skills.

small autocannon (3) > med autocannon (3) > large autocannon (5) > large autocannon spec if you want to train for T2 large ACs
small railguns (3) > med railguns (3) > large railguns (5) > large railguns spec if you want to train for T2 large rails.

some adjustment to rank of skills/requirements might be needed to compensate overall increase of training time, but it will make more sense and (almost) in line with missile training. It will make specialization on preferred weapon system/size much easier while training for all weapons much longer (training for both short and long range versions of same weapon platform should take longer than in takes to train unified skill now).

Could be interesting. I cbf to do the math on these but it sounds like it could work.

Acac Sunflyier wrote:
I think that spec should take 5 but next sized gun should take 4

I'm not sure what you mean? Please elaborate.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#52 - 2013-02-11 16:13:09 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Well I suppose that was inevitable.

It was all that math, you scared the poor souls who look after GD.

I like your suggestion though, even though I don't fly anything bigger than a cruiser I can see the problem people have currently to get to tech 2 large turrets. And with the changes to the skill tree with respect to some of the T2 and T1 hulls it will probably end in the very soon(tm) basket.
Luc Chastot
#53 - 2013-02-11 16:19:31 UTC
Unnecessary time sinks could be replaced by other support skills, like Surgical Strike and Controlled Bursts.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#54 - 2013-02-11 16:48:28 UTC
Well if we want to make it 'fair' then we need to make 3 completely separate sets of support skills that only apply to one of the gunnery trees, and we need to separate 'small projectile turret' into 'small auto cannon' and 'small artillery' skills.

Are you sure you want this to be 'fair'? Because with the added ability to specialise easily, you also get the downsides.

Do you realise that you are asking for an huge NERF to gunnery by asking for 'fairness'?
Acac Sunflyier
The Ascended Academy
#55 - 2013-02-11 17:18:13 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:
I support OPs idea but on 1 condition: separate long and short range turret skills.

small autocannon (3) > med autocannon (3) > large autocannon (5) > large autocannon spec if you want to train for T2 large ACs
small railguns (3) > med railguns (3) > large railguns (5) > large railguns spec if you want to train for T2 large rails.

some adjustment to rank of skills/requirements might be needed to compensate overall increase of training time, but it will make more sense and (almost) in line with missile training. It will make specialization on preferred weapon system/size much easier while training for all weapons much longer (training for both short and long range versions of same weapon platform should take longer than in takes to train unified skill now).

Could be interesting. I cbf to do the math on these but it sounds like it could work.

Acac Sunflyier wrote:
I think that spec should take 5 but next sized gun should take 4

I'm not sure what you mean? Please elaborate.


I meant for larges to x-large
bardaq
Iron Whales
Goonswarm Federation
#56 - 2013-02-11 17:29:58 UTC
I kinda agrea with the OP.

For me the naming convention makes it feel awkard to change the system. The current naming; small, med then large kinda emply you need the smaller guns before you can use med, then large.

Perhaps change the naming of the turrets to somethign like - Support Class, assault class and seige class or Frig, cruiser and BS. Can't really think of anything snappy right now but I imagin you get the idea.

I for one have no use for small turrets of any kind as like my cruser class too much.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#57 - 2013-02-11 18:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Paikis wrote:
Well if we want to make it 'fair' then we need to make 3 completely separate sets of support skills that only apply to one of the gunnery trees, and we need to separate 'small projectile turret' into 'small auto cannon' and 'small artillery' skills.

Are you sure you want this to be 'fair'? Because with the added ability to specialise easily, you also get the downsides.

Do you realise that you are asking for an huge NERF to gunnery by asking for 'fairness'?


I sure do. We do need to separate projectile/energy/hybrid weapon skills to make things fair if there is a change for easier specialization for turret skills. Still no need to make duplicates of support imo.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-02-11 18:53:38 UTC
Torps take less time to train because they suck. If gun training were to be the same, you should un-suck missiles first.Cool
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2013-02-11 18:57:19 UTC
I'm sure CCP has weapons on the table for balancing. They're probably planning on looking over all modules.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#60 - 2013-02-11 19:47:21 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
tl;dr because nobody wants to read that ******* wall of MATH:

Training large pulse spec 1:


  • Old way: 79 days
  • New way: 54 days


That's nice, isn't it?


However, there's a drawback
Training all lasers to lowest possible specs that get you all T2 currently takes 99 days, getting you small spec 4, medium spec 4, and large spec 1
Under this plan it would take 100 days, however you would only get small spec 1, medium spec 1, and large spec 1.

Training all size lasers both beam and pulse to T2:

  • Old way: 99 days
  • New way: 100 days

However old way gets you spec 4 of the medium and small, whereas the new way gets you spec 1 only

Training large pulse spec 4:

  • Old way: 87 days
  • New way: 63 days


What does this mean!?
MORE INCENTIVE TO SPECIALIZE

Look this kind of smart ideas are bad for eve, if people keep reading stuff like this, they might eventually start thinking and that will make my job harder, stop making smart ideas!