These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#201 - 2012-03-06 19:04:03 UTC
Papa Boats wrote:
Bitter vet checking in.
I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.

As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.

I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out.


No one is saying you have to retrain them. Our principle for the reimbursement here will be "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today". Ytterbium will post the further details of this once it's written up.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#202 - 2012-03-06 19:04:13 UTC
Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Lolmer
Merciless Reckoning
#203 - 2012-03-06 19:04:27 UTC
Harotak
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#204 - 2012-03-06 19:04:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Harotak
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Tech 2 philosophy is all about specializing into a specific hull and role, thus, requiring players to train for Assault Ships, then Heavy Assault Ships when aiming for Field Command Ships, is quite redundant.


If T2 is about specializing in a specific role, can we get T2 turret spec skills to not require the smaller gun size spec skills as prerequisites?
Dansel
Stellar Pilots
#205 - 2012-03-06 19:05:06 UTC
There are two part of this blog to me: a good one and a not so good (but with promise) one.

The good part would be the removing of tiers, thank you for that. Tiers is a stupid system and needs to be changed, and the change you propose seem good, although it will make, well, all(?) fits obsolete and in the need of a remake but I think that might be good as well.

Now what is the not so good part is the skill remake. It will make the life of a newbie tenfold (fourfold to be more precis) worse.
In order to become valuable to a fleet in the role of say... logi you'll need to train at least two racial cruisers and two logis to 5. and for each new shipclass you wish to fly you need to train between twice and four times as much SP in order to do so.
This will even further widen the crack between new and old players. And depending on what kind of reimbursement you'll give out it might be even worse.

It will also make it way harder for new players to try new ships and adapt to new corps. It will also mean a new player wanting to crosstrain will have to spend a lot more time doing so.
Now I am not against making it harder to crosstrain, but screwing over newbies are rarely a good thing to do.
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2012-03-06 19:06:01 UTC
Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.

As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.

What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now...

Bokononist

 
Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
#207 - 2012-03-06 19:06:12 UTC
Extending the ship specialisation sounds great - there are sooo many classes that never get used because the PvP system has evolved haphazardly over the years. However, to be effective any change also needs to review:

a) Environments: Re-profiling ships won't help if the environments in which PvP takes place are not changed.

b) Counters: more rock/paper/scissors and less blob-wins-all.


Combat in EVE lacks something - generally the blob wins regardless of position or composition. Some smaller-scale fights are more interesting because the FC can make better use of specialist ships. I have a video that R&K released of a wormhole battle where the fleet positioning, the tenacity of the FC and the skill of specialised pilots beat a much larger fleet. That kind of leads into environments - space is a bit bland because physics has no role in EVE (except in wormholes). For example acceleration should be more difficult close to a planet because it has a gravity field - this should favour the "artillery" ships over the "assault" ships described in the blogs.
Bastaardicious
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#208 - 2012-03-06 19:06:19 UTC
Lolmer wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
The skill requirement changes for destroyers and battlecruisers is very tricky to tackle indeed. We fully acknowledge having to re-train for ships you can already fly is not appealing at all.

As said in the blog, nothing is set in stone yet, we are considering various reimbursement options as this is still quite a high level change.

EDIT SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT:

  • New destroyer and battlecruiser skills would be same rank than existing ones
  • We have a "if you could fly it before, you can fly it now" philosophy, that means properly reimbursing/giving skills not to leave people stranded in ships they could fly before the change. Again, nothing is fixed yet.


That last part isn't quite true, unless you quadruple the skillpoints you return to us for Destroyers and Battlecruisers. Since with Battlecruisers IV (and the related sub-skills) I can fly every battlecruiser in the game, but after this proposed change, I'll only have the skillpoints to pick one Battlecruiser (e.g. Gallente).

Instead, you should replace the existing Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills that people have into their new components. So someone with Destroyers V would now get Amarr Destroyers V, Caldari Destroyers V, Gallente Destroyers V, and Minmatar Destroyers V. That way those who've invested in this skill, and the sub-skills, are not now suddenly locked out of the ship(s) they have.


+1

So now we exchange 1.5m SP in Battlecruisers V for 6m in racial BC's ... will you give me 5m SP for free CCP ?

Thanks.

And what will happen to supercapital pilots? be bumped out of their ship for not having required skills?
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#209 - 2012-03-06 19:06:35 UTC
FYI - in the future when you make a 'ship tree', nobody cares about the ships manufacturer.

Unless this has some real meaning for the future, remove it, they are T2 ships.

Having three differently colored borders for T2 ships is unnecessary.

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Littlefat46
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2012-03-06 19:06:47 UTC
I donot like what I see
hope not to los skill points and train skills again to fly that ship again
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#211 - 2012-03-06 19:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
/me facepalms

Teachs me not to heed my own advice about reading all dev posts

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
The skill requirement changes for destroyers and battlecruisers is very tricky to tackle indeed. We fully acknowledge having to re-train for ships you can already fly is not appealing at all.

As said in the blog, nothing is set in stone yet, we are considering various reimbursement options as this is still quite a high level change.

EDIT SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT:

  • New destroyer and battlecruiser skills would be same rank than existing ones
  • We have a "if you could fly it before, you can fly it now" philosophy, that means properly reimbursing/giving skills not to leave people stranded in ships they could fly before the change. Again, nothing is fixed yet.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Ntrails
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2012-03-06 19:07:01 UTC
Train BCV and destroyerV now for free skillpoints
Celeritas 5k
Connoisseurs of Candid Coitus
#213 - 2012-03-06 19:07:25 UTC
The spirit of the idea -- making useless ships useful again and simplifying ship progression, I am 100% in favor of. Implementation of the idea will make or break everything.

I've always liked having destroyers and BCs as an intermediate ship class; a completely linear tree is boring, restrictive, and uninteresting. Why not base some of the BC bonuses on that race's cruiser skill level? Take the drake for example: the tanking bonus could come from your BC skill, but the damage bonus would come from your caldari cruiser skill. That way BC 5 is still worthwhile, but training some race's cruiser to 3 doesn't automatically give you their BC with perfect skills as well.

We don't need more capitals running around; please don't change the requirement to BS IV.

Removal of tiers would be great, if implemented properly. Don't throw everything out the window, just boost crappy ships until they're worth using again. (Part of that is my inner bitter vet, who doesn't want to re-learn the entire game...)
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#214 - 2012-03-06 19:07:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravcharas
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Makalu Zarya wrote:
So let me get this straight...you are going take people who can fly and have flown ALL battlecruisers perfectly and go...sorry we are gonna nerf you, enjoy retraining everything for another 4 months...oh and you can't fly command ships now either, because you have to train bc skill to V for all the respective races?

and same thing for dictors?

am I right or am i missing something here?



You're missing something :)

Hey if the tier system is bad why are you replacing it with the role system? Couldn't you just throw the tier system out and deal with every hull on its own?

From what I can figure out from the devblog, today you guys can't rebalance the Bellicose how you want to rebalance the Bellicose because HURRDURR it's a tier 2 cruiser. Wouldn't we be having the same problem in twelve months only then it'll be HURRDURR we can't rebalance it like we want because it's a support cruiser.
Aida Nu
Perkone
Caldari State
#215 - 2012-03-06 19:08:05 UTC
Awesome devblog!
If you manage to figure out a good solution to the SP problem for those that have dessy/bc skill at 5 this will be a great change.

Also much love CCP for really focusing on FiS again and making this awesome game even better.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2012-03-06 19:08:07 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours?


A littelbit yes, they still need to have the correct bonuses and slots for the roles to work. A lot of t1 ships doesnt have that today.
Ballz Diesel
Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing
Renaissance Federation
#217 - 2012-03-06 19:08:10 UTC
fab24 wrote:
WTF? I spent 6 years training skills that you're going to remove? Fail level : CCP


I think you had your attributes mapped wrong...
Ottersmacker
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#218 - 2012-03-06 19:08:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ottersmacker
I was making reading of the EVE developer journal.

Talk of making one battlecruiser skill into four battlecruiser skills. Alright it is not bad idea if reimbursement e t c.
I read on, nice large pictures in color (Amarr picture is now my wallpaper CoolCool).

Then all of suddenly I make ejaculation Shocked

Not sure what is happen UghUghUgh


Subconcious mind made understanding before concious mind - ship tiers are will be under removal!

This was reason for my happy BearBear

EVE Developers this is great idea!

i just locked an open door.. strange, yet symbolically compelling.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#219 - 2012-03-06 19:09:32 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
TL;DR these changes are designed to gain choral approval from people who don't know how the game works

In complete and utter seriousness, I would rather CCP changed the BattleCruiser skill to Rank 14 than split it up into racial components.

Edit: Spam removed, CCP Phantom

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#220 - 2012-03-06 19:09:34 UTC
Do people even read the blog? Ytter said several times: "IF YOU CAN FLY IT NOW, YOU CAN FLY IT LATER."

On paper, these changes sound like they'd make more sense, especially to newer players. I'm heavily cross-trained (esp. given my low SP), but directionally this sounds right.

Fix POSes.  Every player should want one (even if all players can't have one).