These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Deo ExMachina
Dependable Delinquents
Fraternity.
#761 - 2012-03-06 23:17:36 UTC
All i ask is please dont kill the game i love if i wanted to play WOW i would play WOW and to be honest thats what its kinda turning into. with the name changes, the walking in stations, and know even the thought of taking away our ships!
i love EVE ONLINE please dont ruin it
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#762 - 2012-03-06 23:18:33 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:


  • I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.

    • I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.

    Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here Oops.

    That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.



We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.


I don't blame you *at all*. I have requested (and been denied) that CSM be part of the Dev blog review process. This blog is proof that some thought should be paid to that suggestion.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Evanga
DoctorOzz
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#763 - 2012-03-06 23:18:59 UTC
CCP ur horrible
Endeavour Starfleet
#764 - 2012-03-06 23:19:26 UTC
Actually I want to thank you CCP for NOT running this by the CSM first.

Considering how much later we hear about the drake nerf from when they did.
Evanga
DoctorOzz
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#765 - 2012-03-06 23:19:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Evanga
keep editing your posts with false statements


"Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5"
Hothnogg
FinFleet
Northern Coalition.
#766 - 2012-03-06 23:20:55 UTC
ccp have their heads so far up their own backsides, they dont know what they hell they are doing
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#767 - 2012-03-06 23:21:12 UTC
Two step wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:


  • I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.

    • I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.

    Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here Oops.

    That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.



We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.


I don't blame you *at all*. I have requested (and been denied) that CSM be part of the Dev blog review process. This blog is proof that some thought should be paid to that suggestion.


QFT
Akbhar
Steam-Powered
#768 - 2012-03-06 23:23:27 UTC
Now that you are at it, you might want to reconsider some ships requiring the Advanced Spaceship Command Skill. I think that skill is rather useless to almost all players (pretty much except capital pilots).

Today that skill is only a prerequisite to skill Capital Ships, but not worth anything else as it only affects those ships requiring it.

Actual Ships that require Adv. Spaceship Command without requiring Capital Ships are as far as I understand it only Freighters and Jumpfreighters as well as Marauders.
Anja Talis
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal
#769 - 2012-03-06 23:25:30 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:

[list]
  • I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.


    • Doh :)

    My workplace has a usergroup and we routinely forget to put stuff before them before telling the world. They then get annoyed and rant at us similarly. I know how you feel! Oops

    Nice one for 'fessing up though!
    Decus Daga
    Unfit for Duty
    #770 - 2012-03-06 23:26:28 UTC
    I like the fact that your retooling the ships requirements and skills - honestly it can only end well(with a little bit of blood in the water during the process haha).

    IF your reducing the dread requirement from 5 to 4 though, can we get that last BS level reimbursed? I dont use BS's normally only trained it for dreads(and i know quite a few other pilots like this).

    Keep it up CCP, im liking how things are going :D
    Garmon
    Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
    #771 - 2012-03-06 23:27:12 UTC
    For all it's worth I thought it was a great devblog, and I'm actually very very excited about it, it's a shame how the eve community received it, and focused on the BC/destroyer skill part, but something like that should have been expected considering how it was delivered and how negative the community can be at times when it's not really needed
    I like Duncan
    Harrigan VonStudly
    Stay Frosty.
    A Band Apart.
    #772 - 2012-03-06 23:29:21 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Ok this thread needs some love now.


    SKILLS:


    • Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.

    • BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.



    CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:


    • Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.



    CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:


    • I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.

      • I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.

      Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here Oops.

      That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.



    We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.



    Claiming forgetfulness and/or individual fail works once, maybe twice. But the pattern has and is showing itself to be, well, a typical pattern. In other words; we see this as a bullshit lie and excuse to try and cover CCP's typical way of business.

    tl;dr Don't **** down my neck and tell me it's raining
    Anja Talis
    Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal
    #773 - 2012-03-06 23:31:55 UTC
    Harrigan VonStudly wrote:

    Claiming forgetfulness and/or individual fail works once, maybe twice. But the pattern has and is showing itself to be, well, a typical pattern. In other words; we see this as a bullshit lie and excuse to try and cover CCP's typical way of business.

    tl;dr Don't **** down my neck and tell me it's raining


    Actually, it's really easy to do this if that review stage isn't a formal part of the review process. I.e. just tacked on the end. I know from similar experiences.
    The Mittani
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #774 - 2012-03-06 23:33:48 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:


    • I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.

      • I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.

      Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here Oops.

      That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.


    Dude, we talked about some of this stuff at the summit, it's not like it came out of nowhere. I appreciate the apology but there's no need to fall on your sword like this in front of everyone. It's fine.

    It's a planning blog, and an interesting one - I'd have enjoyed seeing a draft, but it's not like the anomaly nerf which was HERE IS A CHANGE IT IS IN THE GAME HA HA. Since things are still in the design stages we remain in 'feedback land' instead of 'it is on TQ and you are screwed' land.

    ~hi~
    Creat Posudol
    German Oldies
    #775 - 2012-03-06 23:36:02 UTC
    Haven't read all the pages yet, will reply in detail when I have done so.

    Only this much so far: FINALLY no moar tiers! YAY! FFIIINNAAALLLYYY!!!!!!!!!!! (about time too!)

    I also prefer the new, "cleaned up" ship progression. I can also get over the fact that destroyers don't quite sit between frigs and cruisers. Who cares. The progression is quite clear with Cruiser -> BC -> BS, where the BSs actually sit in between.

    As it seems I'll be able to fly all the different races' BCs (and obviously command ships) as well as I can now (having BC V) I'm all for this and can't wait for more detailed blogs!

    The only thing I've noticed: Support ships in your definition don't include logistics? Where do they fit in? There are T1 and T2 variants currently, as well as capital variants (sort of, depends on fitting in that case). You sure they don't deserve their own Ship Line?
    Tsubutai
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #776 - 2012-03-06 23:36:50 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.
    • Excellent.
    Yahrr
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #777 - 2012-03-06 23:38:58 UTC
    Tsubutai wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.
    • Excellent.

    I was so waiting for a Drake nerf right after everyone trained Caldari Battlecruiser to V again... Sad
    Liang Nuren
    No Salvation
    Divine Damnation
    #778 - 2012-03-06 23:39:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:


    The Mittani wrote:

    Dude, we talked about some of this stuff at the summit, it's not like it came out of nowhere. I appreciate the apology but there's no need to fall on your sword like this in front of everyone. It's fine.

    It's a planning blog, and an interesting one - I'd have enjoyed seeing a draft, but it's not like the anomaly nerf which was HERE IS A CHANGE IT IS IN THE GAME HA HA. Since things are still in the design stages we remain in 'feedback land' instead of 'it is on TQ and you are screwed' land.


    I'm willing to forgive a lot in the name of tiericide. As long as you do it right. Also, damn you Mittani for making me like a post of yours.

    Damn you.

    -Liang

    I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
    UAxDEATH
    The xDEATHx Squadron
    Legion of xXDEATHXx
    #779 - 2012-03-06 23:39:43 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Ok this thread needs some love now.


    SKILLS:


    • Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.

    • BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.



    CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:


    • Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.



    CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:


    • I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.

      • I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.

      Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here Oops.

      That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.



    We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.


    We are here to help, not to blame. Thank you for a good work.
    M5 Tuttle
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #780 - 2012-03-06 23:40:00 UTC
    Tsubutai wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.
    • Excellent.


    Yeah, this instantly makes the changes sound great to me.