These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shangpo
Hyperian Command
Important Internet Spaceship League.
#281 - 2012-03-06 19:25:47 UTC
So, instead of doing a half hearted SP refund, why don't we just do a mass SP refund of all skills....

When I started this game, I was a massive carebear, geez. I have Ice Mining V :cripes:

I could get behind this proposal if CCP said, "Ok folks, we are going to allow you to choose skills (In my case Exhumers III, Ice Mining 5, Mining Drones IV, etc) and allow you to take SP out of those skills and apply to our new racial BC program.

tldr: please ccp, let me take SP out of skills I dont want to use anymore...

(like if you agree folks)
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#282 - 2012-03-06 19:26:24 UTC
Elanor Vega wrote:
Arline Kley wrote:
I'm surprised they had to wiki-link an Oil Platform.


But Oil Platform dont go boom when you hit it with a rock - like mining barges/exumers in EVE.


http://cdn.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/oil_rigs-accident.jpg
i wouldnt be so sure about that statement

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Hitokiri Battoesai
THORN Syndicate
Northern Coalition.
#283 - 2012-03-06 19:26:32 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Ethino wrote:
So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? ShockedOops


No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer.

I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't.


Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change!
The Economist
Logically Consistent
#284 - 2012-03-06 19:26:39 UTC
Thrice distilled, oak-barrel aged post:

Why?

Just....why?

If you want to balance ships....balance ships.
John Frohike
Revival.
OnlyFleets.
#285 - 2012-03-06 19:26:51 UTC
If you do this I will love you forever!
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#286 - 2012-03-06 19:26:55 UTC
Tiericide! And since there will be no more Tiericide threads, it's also Tiericidicide!

Racial battlecruiser skills have to be instigated. It's absurd to have a single battlecruiser skill when 2/3 of Eve is flying Drakes and Hurricanes or Tornados and Oracles. It's also absurd to reduce the rank of racial BC from 6, when racial cruiser remains at rank 5. But, equally, it's absurd to take away the ability to fly these ships. So, options:

1. Give people the same level of each racial BC skill as they currently have in BCs
Good: simple. Bad: SP inflation, panders to the "I'm a special petal, give me stuff, make my life easier" entitlement-obsessed crowd. Also punishes newbies, relative to veterans.

2. Introduce racial BC skills but retain the old BC skill and the link to the old BC skill for several months to give people the opportunity to train them up.
Good: no SP inflation. Bad: that's everyone's skillplans sorted for the next 3 months, then.

3. GIve people SP in advance, so they can immediately apply them to the racial BC skills, then not receive SP for the appropriate time in the future.
Good: Erm. Bad: a complicated way of achieving [2].

Option 2 sounds best to me.
Dwindlehop
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#287 - 2012-03-06 19:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dwindlehop
Really excited by this direction, assuming CCP keeps its word and enforces the Soundwave Principle --- "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today".

Just to put it in absolute terms, at 70M SP I can fly 53 armed hulls reasonably competently. At any given time I probably have only a dozen kinds of hulls in my hangars, and I really use just about five ships in any given month. If CCP does away with ship tiers and provides me with more decent hulls, I could be looking at between two and ten times as many worthwhile options. That's a lot of new content.

Can a dev comment more on the ship lines philosophy? Is the intent to make it so a new player who has no SP does not gain the ability to fly a Tornado and a Rupture while training up for a Typhoon? That is, the ship line skill tree takes the place of the ship class skill tree? Or, is the intent to provide a baseline capability of Tornado, Cyclone, and Hurricane for everyone who has Minmatar Battlecruisers, but the Minmatar Combat Ship skill gives additional bonuses to the Cyclone without affecting the other two?

I believe the ship trees you published are the existing trees. Could you produce a similar hypothetical tree for the ship trees per race once the ship lines have been implemented? I know that you can't commit to details yet, but even just a broad strokes diagram with some kind of qualitative indication of training time would be useful.

Currently, one of the biggest barriers to entry into Eve for my RL friends is the fact that I think the minimum they need to contribute to my playstyle is flying an interceptor, which is 24d minimum and realistically 40d to get decent stats. If the T1 frigates can be rebalanced to do an OK job of holding down a target, or the T1 cruisers rebalanced to be somehow useful in corps flying primarily battlecruisers today, then I suspect the training time for new players to contribute to a PvP corp could be reduced significantly.

Combat ships and attack vessels are poor names. What about fleet ships and skirmish ships, respectively, instead? Or, you could use the terms heavy attack ships and light attack ships, though that has some aliasing onto the
Aelana Anais
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#288 - 2012-03-06 19:27:35 UTC
OK, a few constructive thoughts.

1) In principle the ship progression needed to be worked on, but you do seem to be removing flexibility instead of promoting flexibility. Unless you plan to add new ships to the races, which could be interesting

2) Remember tiered prerequisites. I would hate to have my Destroyer skill yanked even if you give me enough SP for all the Destroyers at 5, because until they got back up to 5... what would happen to my Cruiser+ skills

3) Since I don't know the ranks of the remapped skills, I will phrase this in a question to try and limit the rage... does the re-tiered system result in a shorter, longer or same train time to capitals? I can see if done right that the train time to capitals could actually be increased due to the addition of new tiers.

4) To those that are trying to make the argument that longer train times could help the capital/supercap problem, that is just punitive against new players. Cap/Supercap problems aren't going to be solved by train time simply because they are already a problem and the people causing the problem already have them trained. Yea it can help limit it from getting further out of hand, but a better solution is fix the problem so getting to supercaps isn't an I win button anymore

5) You forgot logistics ships. If you go through in principle with lumping logistics in with the non-combat ewar ships you will destroy them since the two ship types have different defense requirements. I would suggest creating two different categories one for repair one for ewar

6) You reversed the Hyperion and the Megathron... by your own descriptions in the game the Hyperion is supposed to be the blaster boat, i.e. high maneuverability where the mega is supposed to be focused on rails... i.e. lower maneuverability, higher defense. Its not really how they pan out, but if you are re balancing anyway, might as well stick with lore

7) I don't do missions anymore, but I used to... and I remember what it was like to progress through the mission levels. Be cognizant that if you don't re balance the BCs you are giving an even greater edge to Caldari (which already has the best rewards, a battlecruiser that can run all level 4s, etc) by making it longer to get into battleships for the other races (when caldari can just use the drake). I haven't played since you added the new BCs (not a rage thing, just taking a break to play other games for a while) so maybe this is moot with the tier3 battlecruisers... just wanted the thought to be put out there
Aethlyn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#289 - 2012-03-06 19:27:42 UTC
I like the general idea of making ships more role than tier depending. Right now it just doesn't feel right everywhere (esp. in mining, where the Covetor is almost pointless skill training wise, cause just a few more minutes and you're able to fly a Hulk). Looking forward to more fleshed out details. Plus I really hope this would also make mixed fleets a lot more interesting (e.g. not just battleships or not just capitals or not just cruisers). Only real downside for me: Finished training for Command Ships last year... :P

Looking for more thoughts? Follow me on Twitter.
The Economist
Logically Consistent
#290 - 2012-03-06 19:27:46 UTC
Hitokiri Battoesai wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Ethino wrote:
So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? ShockedOops


No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer.

I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't.


Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change!


Yep, will be a lot of people in this situation. Another reason why this is uneccessary and poorly thought out.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#291 - 2012-03-06 19:28:33 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
The more I think about this the more I dislike this. Leaving the shafting of cross trainers aside for the moment, I think you went with the idea mainly because it's easy for you. The one thing EVE isn't suffering from is too short skill training times. The exact opposite is the norm from a new players perspective and now you're adding more pointless skill barriers for them before they can access more ships. Why not **** off old players and try to repell new players from getting in to the game at the same time? How could this possibly go wrong? Bad for vets, bad for new players, uniform design and easy for CCP.

FFS I had destroyers trained to lvl 1 until a months ago and I skipped battlecruisers entirely for months when I started, because they couldn't handle the PvE content I aimed to do then, so training them was a giant waste of time. I still hit the skill barriers with my battleship and it was frustrating. Now you're telling me you want everyone to train a specialty ship like a destroyer to lvl 4 before even gaining access to cruisers and you made BCs mandatory before battleships can be accessed. Why would you do that? Why do you force people to train all these ship classes to a high skill level, that can be totally useless to anyone with clear goal in mind.

Why is lvl 4 in these skills required to proceed to the next level? Why do the requirements have to be uniform? Wouldn't it be better to have lvl 3 requirement with basic ship classes, since they really are mandatory to get the most out of the game, but not every step on that ladder is useful to every player. At lvl3 you would have access to a decent selection of ships and force people to learn by flying smaller cheaper ships. Keeping them sitting in those ships they're not interested in flying long term, just so you can have your uniform skill requirements, isn't worth it and isn't a good idea in the first place. Uniformity is good, but it should take backseat to pretty muh every other consideration.

I know the plan is not final and you're looking at the options and feedback, but at this time I can't see the good your ship requirement changes brings to any of the players. It seems chosen because it helps you and is uniform, while only having negatives for most of the players.

EDIT: And no I haven't read the thread, so if the issues have already been addressed, then great.


I'm assuming you are arguing in favor of the newer players, as none of that would apply to you.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#292 - 2012-03-06 19:28:38 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:

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.


CCP Ytterbium wrote:

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.


*whew!* /gogela can fly anything but titans...

Well this is double good news to me. 1) I think where there be snowglobes, there should be earthquakes. Shaking up the game is always a good thing, and putting ship balancing and the act of doing it on a more robust and flexible foundation sounds like a no-brainer to me. 2) Glad I don't have to re-train a metric s***ton of skills to maintain my ship versatility.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#293 - 2012-03-06 19:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Skippermonkey wrote:

Take a deep breath, wipe the foam from your mouth and read the devblog again

the 'second' image you linked shows the current state of the game, and was in a paragraph that started like this;

"To understand what ships lines are all about, let’s recap the four theoretical factors that sort ships out"

the 'first' image you posted is the proposed change.

tl:dr stop foaming at the mouth with rage long enough and you might understand whats going on


Congratulations. Prepare to eat crow.

A) I'm not "Raging" you ignorant troll. I'm asking for a clarification.
B) The images are contradicting. The set of 4 images are images are showing what it should be. They are contradicting with the proposed changes.

Quote:
Combining all these elements, we arrive at the following ship trees:


Followed by a series of links to what the Trees should probably look like after the change.

Why would they link images to things that are already created and in the game. They're trying to demonstrate a ship tree. And those current images are showing the current system.

Before you offend people, maybe you should know what they're trying to say.

Where I am.
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#294 - 2012-03-06 19:29:16 UTC
Evanga wrote:
ok ....

first, you made me log on to this stinking ****** forums...
second, what the freaky deaky feck is wrong with you guys.

"Nothing is written in stone yet..."
UP YOURS!

I guess you will push it through anywayz.

-2 paying accounts.


I believe this was the first threat of unsub, and it took around 8 and a half pages. I guess there's hope yet.

Also, dibs on any stuffs to be had

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
#295 - 2012-03-06 19:29:26 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
The more I think about this the more I dislike this. Leaving the shafting of cross trainers aside for the moment, I think you went with the idea mainly because it's easy for you. The one thing EVE isn't suffering from is too short skill training times. The exact opposite is the norm from a new players perspective and now you're adding more pointless skill barriers for them before they can access more ships. Why not **** off old players and try to repell new players from getting in to the game at the same time? How could this possibly go wrong? Bad for vets, bad for new players, uniform design and easy for CCP.


I'll quote this as well. I think I just passed my 3 year mark in game and at 50+mil SP I still have no shortage of stuff to train. I remember being a new player though, gaining that first rank of battlecruiser, and... "OMG! A whole new world has opened up to me!" Same goes for destroyers. It's a fun experience for new players. It's not often that one skill can open up so many new ships.
JitaPriceChecker2
Doomheim
#296 - 2012-03-06 19:29:40 UTC
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:
Do people even read the blog? Ytter said several times: "IF YOU CAN FLY IT NOW, YOU CAN FLY IT LATER."


Most of the people cant read. Welcome to the real world.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#297 - 2012-03-06 19:29:44 UTC
Hitokiri Battoesai wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Ethino wrote:
So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? ShockedOops


No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer.

I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't.


Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change!

Not to mention supercap chars would definitely not have trained any BS to five if they didn't have to.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#298 - 2012-03-06 19:30:11 UTC
Maybe something more along the lines of what CCP is trying to do: Make one of the bonuses on a battlecruiser be based upon the racial Cruiser skill, make the other based on the Battlecruiser skill.

Splitting up BC into racial components is the worst idea. Sorry.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#299 - 2012-03-06 19:31:27 UTC
Pallidum Treponema wrote:
For a new player:

Drake: 3 skills (current scheme) vs 4 skills (new scheme) - 33% increase in skills.
+Hurricane: 5 skills vs 8 skills - 60% increase in skills required.
+Harbringer: 7 skills vs 12 skills - 71% increase in skills required.
+Myrmidon: 9 skills vs 16 skills - 78% increase in skills required!

Effectively, you're almost doubling the amount of skills a new player will have to train in order to crosstrain.

Additionally, you're removing one of the big incentives for crosstraining, namely if I train up two skills, I get access to a whole new range of ships for free! Training racial frigate and cruiser, two skills that can be trained in a short amount of time, would give a new player access to battlecruiser at whatever level they had battlecruisers trained to before.

Under this scheme, crosstraining for another race instead becomes a chore.

This is inherently new player UNFRIENDLY, as well as being excessively annoying for veteran players.


Pretty much this.

Leaving aside the older player reimbursement (which I think CCP could get right) how exactly does this help the new player experience? One of the great things about the destroy and BC skills was it lets new people hop in to a few new ships from all races and figure out what ones they want to really start concentrating on the support skills for. If they keep the new skills at the same rank as now then that just becomes a new skill grind for noobs and severely hampers what they can fly and to find out what they really want to fly. But then again if they lower each race skill rank so the total is equivalent to what it is now that could work, but would also put people in a perfect BC perhaps too quickly. It seems that we already have the compromise between these two problems as it is now.
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#300 - 2012-03-06 19:31:29 UTC
Erim Solfara wrote:
Mikron Alexarr wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours?



Quoted for Truth. does the term sandbox mean anything to anyone anymore?


Lies and fallacy, CCP make the game, balance the ships, and give them bonuses.

If you want to fly one different to it's intended use, go ahead, but they should all have obvious intended uses. Today, I watched a video of an iteron taking out a megathron, which was awesome.

It was awesome because someone had taken a ship with an obvious intended role, and used it completely differently. If the iteron HAD no role, and was just another blank-slate hull, it'd have been completely meaningless, no different to someone using any other cruiser sized ship.

Your argument holds no water.


I'll try and make this simple.

The role of a blockade runner did exist before the t2 haulers (I fly the crane for instance). The best ship for this was debatable (sigil with speed mods in low, badger with ECM). Then it was decided that t2 haulers should exist. \0/

It was the players that defined the role. CCP can enable roles to form, but we the players decide what we like for a particular role.