These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Morar Santee
#841 - 2012-03-07 00:53:02 UTC
Xervish Krin wrote:
This looks good. However much people whine about classes and everything being too fair, the fact is that redundant ships are bad. Right now the crappy ones are just not flown. They aren't an affordable-but-not-as-effective alternative with the advantages of price, they're just never used. The Harbinger isn't a level of progression over a Prophecy; you simply never see Prophecies at all because there's no reason not to take the Harb. Give every ship a viable purpose and you'll see more tactics, more skills, more fits and a better game.


Yes. Except with the proposed changes, every ship will have one role, slot layout for one role, and therefore only one viable fit for its role.

You are advocating to fix a problem in diversity by by forcing everyone to fly one ship with one fit for one role. If you don't see the problem there, you can't be helped.

The solution is to apply a sensible fix to the ships that are currently not used because they are not in line with the other ships in their class.
Texty
State War Academy
Caldari State
#842 - 2012-03-07 00:56:45 UTC
So, is it a good idea to skill up my BC3 and DD2 to V ASAP? >,>
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#843 - 2012-03-07 00:58:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Roll Sizzle Beef
Laura Dexx wrote:

Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

"It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example."


Oh snap.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#844 - 2012-03-07 00:58:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Let me ask a specific example.

I have BC trained to V. I fly Hurricane and Drakes perfectly.

Now, here comes the catch:

1) The dev blog has to be fallacious. How is it possible I get free SP reimbursement equivalent to 3 x BC V? I will only believe when I'll see it. If I get 4 x BC V "just because" then it's very discriminating to those who didn't train to BC V by the day the patch goes live.

2) If I don't get the reimbursement but just "the ability to fly" (free skill book + BC trained to 1?), then it's garbage. I fly my BCs perfectly I don't want to waste months just to fly again the same ships I own since years already with the same ability.

Also it clashes with the "you will still fly blah blah".


So, I'd like to know how do they plan to achieve fairness both in case 1 and 2.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Dave Blaumeise
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#845 - 2012-03-07 00:59:51 UTC
I don't like these changes very much.

It's the same as with the missile name change. Streamlining is clearly better to understand for new player, but a mix of names, usefullness and even messed up stuff is EVE making a game that has more "charme" as it feels more like reality.
E.g. in RL we have the metric and the sae system for measurements, for nuts and bolts. We have different wieght systems. And so on. This is what reality makes.

Having everything streamlined is making EVE a bit sterile.

And like someone said already: isn't it OUR job to find a role for the ships?
SkyMeetFire
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#846 - 2012-03-07 01:00:11 UTC
One issue I have with splitting the destroyer and battlecruiser skills up is that while every current player will likely be reimbursed fairly, you are making new players overcome a larger barrier to cross training then older players. I'm not sure I like the fact that you give older players an even greater advantage on newer players. I do feel that increasing the number of viable ship types per class might help alleviate the need to cross train however, and might make this disparity less noticeable.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#847 - 2012-03-07 01:00:56 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Let me ask a specific example.

I have BC trained to V. I fly Hurricane and Drakes perfectly.

Now, here comes the catch:

1) The dev blog has to be fallacious. How is it possible I get free SP reimbursement equivalent to 3 x BC V? I will only believe when I'll see it. If I get 4 x BC V "just because" then it's very discriminating to those who didn't train to BC V by the day the patch goes live.

2) If I don't get the reimbursement but just "the ability to fly" (free skill book + BC trained to 1?), then it's garbage. I fly my BCs perfectly I don't want to waste months just to fly again the same ships I own since years already with the same ability.

Also it clashes with the "you will still fly blah blah".


So, I'd like to know how do they plan to achieve fairness both in case 1 and 2.


They have already specifically stated how this will be handled. Stop the QQ and focus on real issues.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#848 - 2012-03-07 01:01:05 UTC
In case this hasn't already been pointed out, I'll mention it here.

If indeed you are going to take players through each class of ship to level 4 before allowing them to train for the next class up, you're going to need more destroyers. A single hull just isn't going to cut it anymore Blink

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#849 - 2012-03-07 01:01:58 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.

    • tbh, I don't want all four variations at 5. I only fly Minnie ships and they would be wasted skills. VoV

    Nice devblog. only comment that I can think of is:

    Keep the carrier skills at the high level. There are already too many carrier pilots in game and even cutting 30days off training time is too much. Besides, BS V should be a requirement to fly a massive ship like a carrier.



    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #850 - 2012-03-07 01:03:39 UTC
    Aside from the few legitimate issues (how Jump Freighters and BS 5 will be handled) this entire thread reads like "If illiteracy and deliberately obtuse had a love child, what would it look like?"

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
    Kagumichan
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #851 - 2012-03-07 01:03:54 UTC
    This has probably already been mentioned/questioned/answered but (i'm too lazy to go through 40+ pages of shouting to find a legible answer :P) there's this one thing that's nagging me

    I understand that the battlecruiser skill is breaking into 4 racial battlecruiser skills and anyone who has it trained will be reinbursed in some way (Only viable way I can foresee is that everyone who has it trained automatically get's all 4 racial versions pre-trained when the change comes in, at the level their original skill was at.

    However, with the new 'streamlined' ship training including battlecruiser as a requirement for battleship piloting, then if some of us have not trained the battlecruiser skill at all or enough before the changes are made then the reinbursement would result in them not having the correct battlecruiser skill trained to use the battleship that they may have been flying for years

    E.g:
    Current skill tree works as
    Amarr Frigate
    Amarr Cruiser
    Amarr Battleship
    With no battlecruiser skill trained the pilot can still fly an Abaddo

    New skill tree would mean suddenly they couldn't fly that Abaddon, unless of course the reinbursement took into account that the pilot could already fly a ship larger than the new skill tree would allow and therefore reinburse that pilot with the minimum skill requirement for battlecruiser in order to continue to use their battleship.

    This would mean that pilot would receive a large sum of free SP that others would not with the reinbursement

    In closing though, the current skill tree does make sense to a certain degree, frigates and destroyers use small modules, the frigate skill would teach the pilot basic use of 'small' ship, so having to learn destroyer wouldn't really be needed to advance to a cruiser, in the same sense a battlecruiser is simply a cruiser with more armour and guns (hence *battle*cruiser), it's not necessarily a step up from a cruiser theoretically since it still uses the same modules. You need a basic driving licence to drive any car, be it a front wheel drive Toyota Prias or a 4 wheel drive Mitsubishi Shogun, but you need to gain a truck licence to drive a truck, so then frigate skill is learning to fly a little ship, and destroyer skill is getting a bit of a run-down on how to fly a little ship with a big engine

    (sorry for the long message XD)
    Laura Dexx
    Blue Canary
    Watch This
    #852 - 2012-03-07 01:08:18 UTC
    Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
    Laura Dexx wrote:

    Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    "It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example."


    Oh snap.


    Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't.
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #853 - 2012-03-07 01:11:18 UTC
    Laura Dexx wrote:
    Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
    Laura Dexx wrote:

    Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    "It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example."


    Oh snap.


    Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't.


    Last time I checked, Capital Ships were still ships....

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
    Luvvin McHunt
    The Church of Awesome
    #854 - 2012-03-07 01:11:56 UTC
    CCP - The opposite direction would have been much better.

    One frigate book, one cruiser book and one battleship book - Just how Destroyers and Battlecruisers are at the moment.

    That would have been a progressive move, allowing people a greater choice of ships to choose and try before they dedicate their training to the relevant support skills for the one they decide to use in the end.

    The way it is at the moment with Battleships as an example:

    Train Amarr Frigs a few days , Amarr Cruisers a few days , Amarr Battlehips a few days only to realize - OMG the Abaddon is a bricky, slow piece of crap and my cap skills are too low for it to shoot for more than 2 minutes. One week wasted :(

    OK Start again , NEXT - Gallente frigs, cruiser etc etc etc

    How applying this bad idea to BC's and Destroyers can be perceived as a step in the right direction is beyond me.

    This just creates the same skill training hurdles for new players that removal of learning skills was supposed to remove.
    Why are CCP countering their own change which was designed to help lessen the gap between older players SP and newer players catching up????
    Remove training hurdle - add training hurdle. Think about it CCP. You are undoing previous work.
    Hanbali
    All Hallows Eve.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #855 - 2012-03-07 01:12:46 UTC
    Way too late in the game to be introducing crap like this.
    Chiralos
    Chiral's Angels
    #856 - 2012-03-07 01:13:36 UTC
    I salute your willingness to consider changes to old and deeply rooted game design. I really like that you are putting serious effort into making sure ships are not completely overshadowed by "higher level" ships. EVE is not a 60-hour single player game with multiplayer tacked on, so it shouldn't have the skill and gear progression of such.

    I like the idea that T2 ships are about specialisation, not just about being "higher level". Ideally there should be occasions for choosing a T1 over T2 that are not just based on cost. That may be too hard though, given player's current expectations of T2 ships.
    Rogatien Soldier
    C A R D I N A L
    #857 - 2012-03-07 01:14:05 UTC
    Train BC V in 20 days now, or train 4x BC V in 80 days later...

    Sucks4futureNoobs.

    Know what's going in MY queue tonight.
    Rogatien Soldier
    C A R D I N A L
    #858 - 2012-03-07 01:14:51 UTC
    ALSO, need to refund all SP for any pre-req skills if they are removed from any ship's pre-req list. Even if the associated ship isn't trained.

    So if SigAnalysis V is, hypothetically no longer a pre-req for Logi, then ANYBODY who has Sig Analysis V should be refunded those SP.

    Or else the dude who just spent 6 months on an int-mem remap (ahem...) training pre-reqs for all sorts of ships is getting F'd.
    Cyprus Black
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #859 - 2012-03-07 01:15:06 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.
    This bit of clarity was necessary. The dev blog sort of hinted at that, but it wasn't clear one way or another.
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • 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.
    • I'm all for these changes regarding freighters and jump freighters. I *would* be ok with this change for the capitals as well, however they're a problem in their current state. A handful of them aren't a concern, but the mass proliferation of them and the vast distances they can project themselves is. As it stands many nullsec alliances carry the stance of "Go capital or go home". Reducing the training required to fly one could reinforce this common stance.
    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 can only speak for myself, but the CSM is of no concern. They're made up of members voted in by nullsec power blocks. They represent nullsec and push issues that affect them. They pay little mind to how their issues will affect the rest of the universe. The CSMs speak for their voters, not for the general playerbase (and FYI yes I did vote last election).

    Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33
    Roll Sizzle Beef
    Space Mutiny
    #860 - 2012-03-07 01:15:11 UTC
    Laura Dexx wrote:

    Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't.


    "reducing training requirements for various ship classes is not a side-effect we are necessarily happy with. That is why we want to introduce new skills, tied with the new concept of ship lines."

    Pretty sure that comment can only be directed and the one class that did have a major reduced training time. capitals.
    Woooooo