These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RavenNyx
Tax 'n Death
#501 - 2012-03-06 20:43:42 UTC
Wow... You guys are seriously thinking of screwing with the very fundementals of EvE like that?

You already classified the ships, AND their roles with the very category you placed them in. You did so in a decent manner, even though you need to balance them out so they'll fit into the category, and you did do a few screwups along the way (a frigate is normally larger than a destroyer in real life, but hey, who cares).

Let's run through a few examples:
"Battleship" [bat·tle·ship] - "A heavy warship with extensive armor protection and large-caliber guns."
"Battlecruiser" [bat·tle·cruis·er] - "A large warship carrying similar armament to a battleship but faster and more lightly armored."
"Destroyer" [de·stroy·er] - "A small, fast warship, esp. one equipped to attack submarines and defend fleets."
(thx google-define, you're the best)

You insist on calling vessels in EvE online "ships", and I can only conclude that the above is the image you're trying to put in my head. And that's good. It gives everybody an idea of what the ship is, what it's role is, how it's armed and if it'll handle like a brick or a feather. This is information players derive from the ship category name alone, based on pictures, movies, history lessons in school or even toys... Please stay true to your original course, or make the descision to re-name/-design the entire classification scheme...

Now, the "Megathron" is suggested to be classified as "Attack vessel - made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities". Now, I can tell that you have never flown a mega, not knowing how ships are layed out or how the race's normal tanking methods are like. A good mega-fit, today is blasters and plenty of armor-plates - does that spell "hit and run" to you??

Now, the different categories you want to place them in... I can see all sorts of wrong here...:
Combat ships - well, they kindda' all fit this category, right? And what exactly is a "combat ship"?
Attack vessels - the current naming suggests that there is an opposite; a "defend vessel". Attack vessel == combat ship if no "defend vessel" exists
Bombardment ships - cool, I like arty
Support vessels - name gives NO clue to what vessels in this category do, unless you add sub-categories to your sub-category. Also, is it combat-support or industrial support?
- Logistical ships
- Transport vessels
- Recon ships
- Electronic support vessels
- ... and so on ...

Industrial ships - well, you say logistical ships are in this category, but last time I checked the "Logistics" skill in EvE didn't do miners or industrialists a whole lot of good, actually, if they needed one, they'd be in combat somewhere, and it'd be a combat-ship...

Now Tiers... Tiers are good for nothing, says nothing about the ship or what it can or can't do - I'll be glad to see tiers die...

You'll remove the "Battlecruiser" skill and replace it with "[RACE] Battlecruiser" skills. That's great... You did stop to include stuff like f.ex. "Angel Cruiser" or "Sansha Carrier" too, right? I mean, to avoid MAJOR inconsistencies in your idea, already at birth?

And the skillpoint idea - what a lovely thought... I trust that you'll reimburse all my training-time on medium lasers, and the time I spent training for medium hybrids too, right? I mean, I trained medium hybrids to fly the Brutix and the Ferox and medium lasers to fly the Harbinger, and if I can no longer fly those ships, and I trained those supplementary skills for those ships.
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
#502 - 2012-03-06 20:44:19 UTC
Just curious, while looking at ships, is there any chance of us getting Faction Destroyers/Battlecruisers?
Josef Stylin
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#503 - 2012-03-06 20:44:21 UTC
In case the devs actually read 30 pages into threads, i'll post my opinions:

This idea would be good, IF the ships were balanced. Unfortunately, they are not. Some ships need buffs, some need boosts, but overall, all that this would result in is having ship choices restricted even more. Players will take much fewer risks flying new ships, and you'll just be stuck with the same old metagame over and over, because now when you wanna risk trying something new, you've goto deal with half a month of training.

Fix the balancing issues before you look to streamline it.
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
#504 - 2012-03-06 20:44:32 UTC  |  Edited by: E man Industries
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.

Really?

Players need to HTFU. Ya have battle cruiser to 5 and can pilot all 4 battle cruisers like a boss....

But should I?

I only traind gallentai cruiser to 3, and I have no rail gun skills and no other gallentai ships..
Yet stick me a myrmidon with auto cannons and I will perform just as well as any through and through gallentai player.
Seems a bit odd that one skill gives such a good return.


Also any bonuse re imbersment favors more experianced players over new players...Just because I can now fly all 8 battle cruisers at level 5 does that mean i get all the battle cruisers to 5?
Where as a newer player is even further behind to get to where I am.

Refund the single skill and call it done IMO
orangeFool
Silent Silver Technologies
#505 - 2012-03-06 20:44:39 UTC
Quote:
All of this is work in progress of course and subject to change, especially since we are still discussing skill reimbursement options.


I like the idea. I just wish CCP had waited until it was thought through and soon to be tested (thoroughly) on Sisi. CCP is its own worst enemy Sad

Captains Qupboard: disabled | Awaiting Disable NeX checkbox

Heimdallofasgard
Ministry of Furious Retribution
Fraternity.
#506 - 2012-03-06 20:45:27 UTC
Politik Kommissar wrote:
Seriously CCP you have fucktons of stuff to be fixed before doing this idiotic changes.
Haven't you did enough errors in the recent past?
Wanna neglect more and more the LOYAL veteran players in favor of new unpredictable recruits?
Pls go on!! but dont cry if your "toy" will broke in your hands.


Could people please stop posting with their alts and bring something constructive to the thread instead of flaming... jeeze...
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#507 - 2012-03-06 20:46:07 UTC
Akelorian wrote:
Svennig wrote:
Akelorian wrote:
Svennig wrote:
Akelorian wrote:
CCP Soundwave to Goons: Herp Derp BS4 for Capitals
CCP Soundwave to Eve: Yea we ruining your game like promised


Honestly, I just don't know how I feel about this. I'm not sure how much the BS V requirement deters people from caps. For me, it was just something that needed to be done - it didn't stop me and, as it was on a dedicated alt, it wasn't as if I could have trained something else.

I'm not sure how much I'm bothered about BS IV for caps.


It changes years of everyone training this skill to get into capital ships, so now its changed to a much quicker process to make capital/supercapital alts and or mains that in my opinion is the dumbest change thats listed here.


But this just means that the alt is, what, 30 days quicker? I mean what's that in a carrier skillplan which (if done right) takes a hell of a long time and the racial BS skill is one of the smallest parts?

Surely all this will do is get more newbies into carriers, and that's good for people who want to gank them? For anyone else (for example, goonswarm as you've mentioned), this turns a year skillplan into a 330 day skillplan. That doesn't seem to be terrible.

Rationally, I'm ok with it. But something in the back of my mind does say that BS IV isn't right, but I can't rationalise it so it's probably not sensible.


Tell me then how many people are closer now to capitals because of this ******** change they plan to put in? Like me, you spent that 30+ days just doing bs 5, then after that what, 4-5days for carriers? sure not maxed but who cares if your just going to suicide fleet them. If your going to properly max train them, then yes the extra 30 days is worth it.


Then after that I did carrier IV, all the drone skills, Energy management V, energy systems operation V, tanking skills to IV, all the remote reps to IV, CET to IV, CAR to IV, JDC V (ohgod) and on and on.

Even a suicide triage fit isn't going to be THAT much quicker - you're still going to need semi-decent capacitor skills and you'll need logi V.

If this made it so that it took half the time to get into a carrier I'd be worried. But the more I think about it, the more that I think that BS V was just a hurdle, and not a particularly large one compared to all the other things you have to train to use it.
Mary Mercer
Doomheim
#508 - 2012-03-06 20:46:30 UTC
Full point refunds for all!
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#509 - 2012-03-06 20:46:31 UTC
If you are changing the ships up, what about doing a selectable bonus. This will not be anywhere near as configurable as T3's, but could really mix things up turning each T1 ship into a few different ships.

For example, the Bellicose:

7.5 bonus to target painter effectiveness

Choose between:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Rate of Fire
10% bonus to targeting range per level

The bonuses are picked when you unpackage the ship. At that point is locked into its configuration until you repackage it. This will let you guys deploy multiple ships without any changes to artwork and people will have to guess between which 2 bonuses you picked.

The above is just a crude example. I would expect CCP already has some idea on different roles. This is simple enough that a person only has to know option A, B, or even C of each ship. Its not nearly as diverse as T3s, but can turn a ship from front line to support or vice versa. It could also turn a ship into a all tank, all gank, or half and half versions.

.

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#510 - 2012-03-06 20:47:02 UTC
Reading the blog convinced me that CCP doesnt play eve.

"
Quote:
Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.



Seriously? Hit and run megathrons? Domis have "average defense"?

Reading more just has more silliness. People dont use target painters because minmatar dont use HAMs and torps. Thats totally why people dont use TPs. It has nothing to do with webs being better in most situations. Also people never mix races in fleets. If you are using rapiers, you must have a minmatar only fleet, no drakes, no other missiles boats.

Speaking of the drake,
Quote:
Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.


This is not the role of the drake. Despite what CCP intended or tried to do, the drake is not the same as the raven or the caracal. Check with PODLA on how to fly a drake, not people running level 4s in highsec.
Aase Nord
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#511 - 2012-03-06 20:47:08 UTC
So... My dear CCP devs.....
I can fly all races T3 cruisers...
and comandships...
with perfect leadership skills...
What am I going to loose ?
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#512 - 2012-03-06 20:47:56 UTC
Holy Crap I was only gone a couple hours to mail my tax forms and pick up Mass Effect 3!

In general support this blog.

I like the idea of removing tiers and rebalancing the ships based on roles. It would be good to be able to have more choices about what to fly and to see some of the lower tier ships get buffed.

So who's with me on training up all the racial ship skills so we can get reimbursed for all the new destroyer and battlecruiser skills we would need to have? Don't know if I would actually do that but wouldn't care if it worked that way.

So is the next plan to stream line the module system?

Where there are consistent progressions of primary purpose and fitting requirements.

So that we don't have some Meta 4 Tech 1 items better than Tech 2?

If you did that my suggestion would be, Tech one progress with both better stats and better fitting to highest meta level. Then Tech 2 has base Tech 1 fittings but better than meta 4 stats. Faction items are as good as meta 4 fitting and get as good of stats or have either fitting or stats better then meta 4 and get better at both as they progress, Deadspace get really awesome stats, and officer pretty much stay as crazy as some are today.

Of course I think you could do a lot with modules if you broke them up more into sizes in many categories.

But anyway, interesting changes, don't let the Inferno burn you to bad.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#513 - 2012-03-06 20:48:40 UTC
Aase Nord wrote:
So... My dear CCP devs.....
I can fly all races T3 cruisers...
and comandships...
with perfect leadership skills...
What am I going to loose ?


CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Aurianka
Zellbrigen
#514 - 2012-03-06 20:49:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Aurianka
and whats next? player respawn? you should work on the 0.0 Problematic. well, I hate mainstream, so I play eve, make no mistake, it could be a lot of players will quit eve again
Akiriy Azuriko
Kybernauts
Kybernauts Clade
#515 - 2012-03-06 20:50:15 UTC
Aase Nord wrote:
So... My dear CCP devs.....
I can fly all races T3 cruisers...
and comandships...
with perfect leadership skills...
What am I going to loose ?


ok now im scared whats clashing ?
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade
#516 - 2012-03-06 20:50:36 UTC
This seems like another case of changing something for the sake of saying you changed it. You don't have to majorly overhaul the game every 4 months to keep it interesting/new/profit/etc. The game you have is fine now, just stick to tweaking and rebalancing what you have before you go and breaking it just so you can say it's new and shiny. The last several patches have been nothing BUT new and shiny and have been largely disliked by or at least considered with a level of ambivalence by the playerbase. It also makes it hard to believe that you don't have the resources to get real things done when you apparently have time to churn out bullshit and spend more time trying to make Dust not be a failfest. It's nigh impossible to take you guys (CCP) seriously anymore and it's no wonder that people are dropping like flies.
Heimdallofasgard
Ministry of Furious Retribution
Fraternity.
#517 - 2012-03-06 20:50:40 UTC
Can we get a CSM rep response?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#518 - 2012-03-06 20:51:01 UTC
Why do people think there's only one work stream?

Just because there's ship balancing (this dev blog) It doesn't mean other things won't be happening too. They do have a number of development teams, you know.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Kalaratiri
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#519 - 2012-03-06 20:51:31 UTC
Quote:
Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.


/o\ Of that list, only the Cane, Tempest, Oracle, and maaaybe the thorax and myrm depending on fittings can do anything like 'hit and run'.

Hit and run Armageddon..? The brick tank with 8 low slots? What?

She's mad but she's magic, there's no lie in her fire.

This is possibly one of the worst threads in the history of these forums.  - CCP Falcon

I don't remember when last time you said something that wasn't either dumb or absurd. - Diana Kim

Lemming Alpha1dash1
Lemmings Online
#520 - 2012-03-06 20:51:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Lemming Alpha1dash1
EvE Online:


aka


Pirates of the Burning SpaceBear


(Combat ships: a good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line" + Inferno)


The Lemmings support this product

Information is Ammunition,

War does not tolerate Ambiguities.

May you live in an interesting Empyrean age !

http://eve-radio.com/