These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#881 - 2012-03-07 01:43:24 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
Do you really plan to introduce tech 2 capitals? If no, why reserve lvl 5 battleship for t2 and drop capital requirement to bs4

It takes 30+ million SP to fly a capital properly (except freighter), I can see no benefit training a few skills 30 days earlier. Except for characters that have no business flying them yet. And I have 5 capital chars, some of whom just now start crosstraining other racial caps (so I would actually benefit a lot from dropping the BS 5 requirements)

Also, why are skills for tech 2 ships "confusing"? I mean, there is a requirements tab. You click it, it lists them. You train them, you happy. If you are incapable of doing that, fly tech 1. A lot more tech 2 ships should have "outside" requirements like for example Recon Ships has with Signature Analysis and Long Range Targeting.
Want tech 2, get proper skills. It's not a concept that caused any problems for the last 7-ish years. Why change it

Like the "generic t1" ship skills changes for destroyers / battlecruisers. Although I am unsure how you want to fix that without locking someone out of a current ships
I can fly Minmatar and Gallente battlecruisers with BC5. Does that mean I'll get two BC skills at 5? For "the price of one"
Should I hurry training the other 2 cruisers skills to 3, so I'll get 4 BC skills at 5 for the one that will be removed

The direction of the changes is good. But reducing training time is bad. As is trying to avoid any possible fallout. There will be fallout, embrace it, own it. Having a character that can fly a cap, or a command ship adds "worth" to your corporation because you can't just vat grow them. It takes time
Just like asset-logistics are value-adding since there is no npc teleportation service. The same applies to chars. Want to fly caps, which I regard as a specialization, than you get less diversity for more time. That's just how it is, and should continue to be.


Good post.

The only thing I'd worry about is getting all of the BC types trained up before the change, remember, if you can fly it before the update you'll be able to fly it afterwards as well.

The BS 5 issue is worthy of debate, however keep in mind they were also considering some new skills being introduced to even out the shorter training time issue is some cases.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#882 - 2012-03-07 01:43:46 UTC
Cletus Graeme wrote:

Also, currently it's so easy to cross-train races that whichever race is currently FOTM (e.g Winmatar for as long as I can remember) ends up being trained by the majority of new pilots - whatever their own race. I never really understood why Destroyer and BC skills were cross-race while Frigate, Cruiser and BS skills are race specific so bringing them all together consistently sounds sensible.
!

This. A thousand times this.

Any Skillpoints you have in non-winmatar where already wasted.
Yasumoto
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#883 - 2012-03-07 01:44:27 UTC
What. Da. Phukk?

Not even going to bother reading through this CF of a threadnought. Forgot to involve the CSM because you were busy? Bullsh!t.

I wonder what other nasty tricks CCP has up its sleeve for post-Fanfest release. Remember CCP Greyscale's slick maneuver with the anomaly nerf last year?
BlitZ Kotare
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#884 - 2012-03-07 01:45:23 UTC
I'm not wading through 44 pages of posts about this topic before posting, I read about half the first page.

I like the "if you could fly it yesterday, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow" concession. It's very important that you have this idea in mind - games in the past like Diablo 2 rebalanced themselves without any player concessions and were always worse off for it. An MMO like EVE that is long-term and progression based (and long-term fee based too) should always keep this in mind.

This nicely tiered skill system would have been great if it had been implemented in the first place. It would have made a lot of sense. Now though, from what I can see, it's a pretty blatant revenue grab aimed at newer players. For instance, I have a perfect command ship pilot in my inventory of characters. He has BC V, every Leadership skill at V (except mining, lol) and is finishing up every Cruiser V so I can fly all 4 racial command ships.

It sounds like I'll be getting all 4 BC V's out of this deal, given the "if you could fly it, you'll still be able to" clause above, and have my Cruiser V's too since I actually trained those. But what about a new player that wants a leadership pilot? He doesn't have to train Cruiser V's anymore, (just to 4, for 4d each of wasted SP) but he has to train 4x BC skills to V, and if they're the same tier as the BC skill is now, that's an added ~7d each over the current requirement of Cruisers, for more than a month added to the total skillplan. It only gets worse if you step up to wanting to fly all 4 racial Black Ops or Marauders.

And before, my command ship pilot also got a lot of icing on his cake - with the training of a few simple support skills (Logi, Recon and Heavy Assault Ships) he also unlocked a giant pile of really neat T2 ships to play with. No longer will this be true.

This is right up there with messing with all my module names - your mucking with something that doesn't need fixing. The system works great, it's a little confusing for newbies but they figure it out pretty quickly - just like everything else in EVE.


Also, Ship Lines[/b

[b]What the hell?
I can tell from the examples of the ships you gave for each group that you don't play your own game. The Ferox and Maller are not Combat Ships at all - the Maller is almost exclusively used as heavy tackle and the Ferox isn't used for anything by anyone (except bait) because it's so terrible. And the idea of Bobmardment ships "pinning the enemy down" with missile fire is laughable unless you plan on releasing some kind of warp scrambling/stasis webifying missiles (which would be completely broken and I don't recommend at all). There are other inconsistencies too..

I'm not saying I don't like the idea of ship roles, it's an interesting concept, but you might want to take the time to learn which ships already fill certain roles and make relevant roles to existing gameplay instead of rebalancing years of game knowledge out from beneath your players and inventing roles that aren't relevant to PvP in EVE.

Badezimmer Zerstorer
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#885 - 2012-03-07 01:45:33 UTC
You guys really need to hire a full time customer interaction expert to handle these reveals. You can't just without warning announce "We're changing EVERYTHING" and not expect people to freak out. Where are the dev posts that ask for feedback on whether or not we want any of this?

While I'm always for greater diversity in the game, part of that diversity means that quite a few ship types will suck under most circumstances. There is nothing wrong with that. If everyone you knew had a Ferrari, would yours be special? If everyone was equally smart and beautiful with great personality and character, wouldn't it be a bland and shallow world?

Not everything has to be awesome. If it was, then nothing would be awesome.
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#886 - 2012-03-07 01:46:22 UTC
Yeah, all this zero-sum reimbursement is crap. It's not like a dread-only chars got their drone skills reimbursed.

The game changes and skills that were needed / awesome yesterday, may be useless tomorrow. And relevant again the day after tomorrow. I get it, noone at CCP can afford to be the Dev that caused the next monoclegate. But don't drop your balls / ovaries at the office entrance either.
Sloppy Podfarts
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#887 - 2012-03-07 01:47:10 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
This is AWESOME!


GO GO CC PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Velarra
#888 - 2012-03-07 01:47:15 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.

  • Will it be possible to opt out of receiving new skills we do not want?
    Percelus
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #889 - 2012-03-07 01:48:39 UTC
    Like a lot of people, I have BC V and all the T2 weapons unlocked across the 4 races. I use it a lot too, and I need at least a couple of those for doctrine fits. If you suddenly screw me out of flying ships that I can already fly, I will be pissed off. Otherwise, I support a lot of the changes.

    I would really like clarification that I won't need to train again to be at the current competency I enjoy with drakes, canes, myrms and harbs. If you can do that, I wouldn't be fretting now would I? But as things look, basically I'll be playing catchup for months after this goes live.

    Months of training to do what we can already do is just ******. Promise us we won't have to and we'll sleep that much easier tonight, as your loyal customers you owe us that much I think.
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #890 - 2012-03-07 01:49:03 UTC
    Morar Santee wrote:
    Ranger 1 wrote:
    Mr LaForge wrote:
    I officially name this: Skillgate


    Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Smile


    Yes. Introducing artificial barriers and circumventing the protest (and lost subscriptions) of veteran players by "reimbursing" them is the way to go.


    What artificial barriers? You mean the same type of prerequisites that currently exist for every other ship class in the game? Smile

    I'll agree with the rest if by "reimbursing" you mean "infusing a huge amount of skill points into your character so that you lose absolutely nothing personally if you already have these skills trained but gain a more cohesive and logical progression path... and make useful a ton of currently useless ships".

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

    S0mveraa
    If You're Reading This You Suck
    #891 - 2012-03-07 01:53:21 UTC
    I have alot of accounts, lets just say more then 5, all with lots and lots of SP. I don't use destroyers, for example, on any of them, OR assault ships. But i do use T3's and HAC's/Recons alot. On multiple races on allmost all of my characters. So if you implement it as was stated in this dev blog, i'll probably quit, 5 years was a good run i guess.

    Oh wait, nevermind I want to train racial skills on alot of accounts now....
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #892 - 2012-03-07 01:54:39 UTC
    Percelus wrote:
    Like a lot of people, I have BC V and all the T2 weapons unlocked across the 4 races. I use it a lot too, and I need at least a couple of those for doctrine fits. If you suddenly screw me out of flying ships that I can already fly, I will be pissed off. Otherwise, I support a lot of the changes.

    I would really like clarification that I won't need to train again to be at the current competency I enjoy with drakes, canes, myrms and harbs. If you can do that, I wouldn't be fretting now would I? But as things look, basically I'll be playing catchup for months after this goes live.

    Months of training to do what we can already do is just ******. Promise us we won't have to and we'll sleep that much easier tonight, as your loyal customers you owe us that much I think.


    Just... go read the first post in this thread. Don't forget to follow the links.

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #893 - 2012-03-07 01:56:02 UTC
    S0mveraa wrote:
    I have alot of accounts, lets just say more then 5, all with lots and lots of SP. I don't use destroyers, for example, on any of them, OR assault ships. But i do use T3's and HAC's/Recons alot. On multiple races on allmost all of my characters. So if you implement it as was stated in this dev blog, i'll probably quit, 5 years was a good run i guess.

    Oh wait, nevermind I want to train racial skills on alot of accounts now....


    You too.
    Go.
    Scoot.
    First post... read it.

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

    Morar Santee
    #894 - 2012-03-07 01:58:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Morar Santee
    Ranger 1 wrote:
    Morar Santee wrote:
    Ranger 1 wrote:
    Mr LaForge wrote:
    I officially name this: Skillgate


    Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Smile


    Yes. Introducing artificial barriers and circumventing the protest (and lost subscriptions) of veteran players by "reimbursing" them is the way to go.


    What artificial barriers? You mean the same type of prerequisites that currently exist for every other ship class in the game? Smile

    I'll agree with the rest if by "reimbursing" you mean "infusing a huge amount of skill points into your character so that you lose absolutely nothing personally if you already have these skills trained but gain a more cohesive and logical progression path... and make useful a ton of currently useless ships".

    Yes. I'm sure new players will really appreciate a cohesive progression path that was not required for 10 years. But that multiplies time required to cross-train by 4 on at least 5 different ship-classes.

    And even you as one of the most ******** CCP white-knighters have to realize that them messing with core game mechanics and re-balancing every single ship in the game is probably about as desirable as reading your forum posts.
    Orgasmadrone
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #895 - 2012-03-07 01:59:58 UTC
    Yasumoto wrote:
    What. Da. Phukk?

    Not even going to bother reading through this CF of a threadnought. Forgot to involve the CSM because you were busy? Bullsh!t.

    I wonder what other nasty tricks CCP has up its sleeve for post-Fanfest release. Remember CCP Greyscale's slick maneuver with the anomaly nerf last year?



    What if I can't fly it today? Will I be able to fly it tomorrow?
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #896 - 2012-03-07 02:00:05 UTC
    Mioelnir wrote:
    Yeah, all this zero-sum reimbursement is crap. It's not like a dread-only chars got their drone skills reimbursed.

    The game changes and skills that were needed / awesome yesterday, may be useless tomorrow. And relevant again the day after tomorrow. I get it, noone at CCP can afford to be the Dev that caused the next monoclegate. But don't drop your balls / ovaries at the office entrance either.

    While related there is one large difference here. Dread pilots had SP they trained for drones become useless, but they could still get in their ships. If there was no compensation on this, multirace CS pilots wouldn't be able to do the same.
    GRIEV3R
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #897 - 2012-03-07 02:01:15 UTC
    I think a very relevant point to keep focused on is the issue of useless Tech 1 ships. There are several frigate and cruiser hulls in the current schema that are just not good for much of anything. As an example, let's say you're a new Gallente player. You are working on getting your first Myrmidon, but on the way you have to train cruisers, so you decide a Vexor would be a logical choice since it's a baby drone boat. So you hop in a Vexor and go about your merry way doing level 2s or dying in 0.0. But within a couple of weeks, you'll be able to fly a Myrmidon, and then you never, ever need to come back to a Vexor again. You may want to train for an Ishtar, but you can still fly your Myrmidon while you're doing that. There's never a reason to fly that Vexor ever again.
    That seems wasteful. I think this idea has the potential to change that situation, revitalizing the humble Tech 1 ships and giving veterans like myself a reason to step out of my Ishtar or Proteus or Vindicator, and come back and fly them.
    I think that potential should not get lost in all the QQ from people who can't read good and think The Man's gonna come take away their skills.
    Percelus
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #898 - 2012-03-07 02:03:56 UTC
    Ranger 1 wrote:
    Percelus wrote:
    Like a lot of people, I have BC V and all the T2 weapons unlocked across the 4 races. I use it a lot too, and I need at least a couple of those for doctrine fits. If you suddenly screw me out of flying ships that I can already fly, I will be pissed off. Otherwise, I support a lot of the changes.

    I would really like clarification that I won't need to train again to be at the current competency I enjoy with drakes, canes, myrms and harbs. If you can do that, I wouldn't be fretting now would I? But as things look, basically I'll be playing catchup for months after this goes live.

    Months of training to do what we can already do is just ******. Promise us we won't have to and we'll sleep that much easier tonight, as your loyal customers you owe us that much I think.


    Just... go read the first post in this thread. Don't forget to follow the links.


    I hope so, if I have to spend even 1 minute training to do what I already can that is ******.

    While you are looking at revamping SP, why not go with mittens suggestion of removing attribute implants. In fact, why not get rid of attributes all together. When PO copypasta'd the system their devs realized rather quickly how stupid attributes were and ripped them out. People will still be limited to SP/hr but it'll give more freedom to what a character can or can't do in an efficient manner. It would actually be a change that benefits new players who are more than anyone else hampered by attributes and carefully have to plan out that first year.
    Kayosoni
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #899 - 2012-03-07 02:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kayosoni
    CCP: Please don't listen to the whiners in this thread. As someone who has played since beta, this is the most exciting blog I have read ever. I can't believe it took you guys 9 years to figure out the tier system is ******* stupid, but its good that you have.

    Every size of ships should have a ship dedicated to those ship line roles you have outlined. For instance, (everyone knows im a BS diehard..) battleships as a whole have no cohesion at all in their roles, and are pretty crap compared to cruisers(bc specifically) these days. I think something along these lines makes sense for BS:

    Ships of the line (fleet): Maelstrom, rokh, mega, abaddon.

    These should be specialized for fleet warfare. tbh I think they should get 3 bonuses, but less mid/low slots (so they can't be used as true close rangers.)

    Each should get a resist bonus, damage bonus, and tracking bonus. And a lot more EHP. probably like 50-75% more. Battleships still die too fast.

    EW/support: scorp/dominix/arma/typhoon

    Again, I think these should get 3 bonuses. 1 EW bonus. logistic bonuse, and a damage bonus. More ehp since they are also fleet ships. Uncrap the bs remote rep base ranges (like 20km or something instead of 5.)

    scorp: please make sized ECMs. give scorp 30% ecm effect bonus, and BS remote shield rep effect bonus, railgun damage.

    domi: damp bonus, remote armor effect, drone bonus (damps + drones = ????)

    arma: tracking dis, remote armor effect, laser damage

    typhoon: target paint, remote shield effect, missile damage.

    Close range attack ships:

    Raven/thatgallentething/tempest/apoc

    Kinda like they are now. Just better for close range. same ehp. these should rely on their damage output.
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #900 - 2012-03-07 02:05:38 UTC
    Morar Santee wrote:
    Ranger 1 wrote:
    Morar Santee wrote:
    Ranger 1 wrote:
    Mr LaForge wrote:
    I officially name this: Skillgate


    Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Smile


    Yes. Introducing artificial barriers and circumventing the protest (and lost subscriptions) of veteran players by "reimbursing" them is the way to go.


    What artificial barriers? You mean the same type of prerequisites that currently exist for every other ship class in the game? Smile

    I'll agree with the rest if by "reimbursing" you mean "infusing a huge amount of skill points into your character so that you lose absolutely nothing personally if you already have these skills trained but gain a more cohesive and logical progression path... and make useful a ton of currently useless ships".

    Yes. I'm sure new players will really appreciate a cohesive progression path that was not required for 10 years. But that multiplies time required to cross-train by 4 on at least 5 different ship-classes.

    And even you as one of the most ******** CCP white-knighters have to realize that them messing with core game mechanics and re-balancing every single ship in the game is probably about as desirable as reading your forum posts.


    Considering that re-balancing the immense flock of currently useless ships has been one of the most sought after fixes to the game for years now, I take that as a compliment. Smile

    It's never too late to close loop holes and fix inconsistent design decisions.

    By the way, cross training should be challenging, not a cheap fix to past decisions you made in your characters training plan.

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.