EVE Information Portal

CCP giving me 4.5M free SP won't make it any better if my new pvp recruits have to spend 6M SP instead of 1.5M to be efficient crosstrainers.

This "you won't have to re-train for something you can already fly" is fine, but not satisfying for new characters. And I care about new characters too.

Crosstraining is not "nerf proofing" or "FOTM chasing", it's just being versatile

New characters don't need all four BCs at lvl V. That's a long-term project, and making it a bit harder isn't all that bad. New characters will have it a lot easier now that the T2 requirements are reduced — you can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less after these changes.

…which makes you nerf-proof and which lets you go for the FOTM, both of which should be quite costly.

New character usually don't go for T2 cruisers as they are expensive, while being able to switch between average-skilled Drake, Cane and Myrmidon is not -that- skill intensive, but VERY interesting for a pvp character.

"you can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less after these changes."
-> it's not true, unless they lower the SP cost of skills.

You don't understand. You don't do pvp, do you? Or only 0.0 or fleetfights? You aren't crosstrained either?

You should know that as far as small gang pvp goes, being versatile is more important than being skilled all5

I disagree with this. Increasing the combat abilities of T1 special-purpose ships to a competitive level is impossible from a balancing point of view. What would happen to the pure combat cruisers, if the logis and ewars had equal combat stats? Right, the combat ships would not be used, because they wouldn't have anything special.

Celestis with more drone bay, grid, turret slots and tank? Obsoletes Vexor.

Celestis with more damping? Makes it a viable addition to a fleet.

Also, consider the bigger picture- do we want more, similar general combat ships and fleets consisting mainly of those, emphasizing numbers and F1-F8 tactics?

Or combat that emphasizes the efficient use of force multipliers, requiring more tactical planning and rewarding competency?

In the end I find specialization the right solution.

What a bold move. I congratulate CCP for taking the bull by the horns on this one. Ship balancing has gradually become a more and more polarised issue with an ever decreasing proportion of ships being used by the majority as time and tweaks have progressed.

I trust you to find a suitable way around the 'ships-I-can-currently-fly' dilemma. I applaud anything that adds skill that, as an older player, I would want to train. My skill training has largely been without a driven goal for the past 1-2 years and it has definitely been missed.

As for your analogies for the new ship lines I do have some criticism, hopefully constructive;

"Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller."

Ok, taking this as your opening definition lets accept this a s a baseline comparison.

"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."

Firstly, hit-and-run would require major changes to the mobility of these ships to result in them all being as effective as the hurricane in this role (the only one I'd say currently fits this description here) This leaves you with a quandary. The cane works because it has an extended engagement range due to it's autocannon weapon systems - how would you overcome this for blasters? Drones take too long to travel to the target and are easily destroyed - unlike any other weapon system in eve. How do you envisage this being able to work in this role? We have seen previously the rise and fall of nano-ships yet you have listed several battleships on this list. If they are to become hit and run does this mean you will countenance the return of nano-ships to a degree? If so, what about the previous problems this led to for other ships, being unable to engage this form of piloting? Finally - flanking does not exist as a concept in eve combat - for that matter almost no nuance of tactical planning matters. The only contributory factor to a fleet's success is calling the rights targets in order and having everyone shoot it. If you have some way to introduce the viability of other tactical decisions then that would be more ground-breaking than a ship balance.

"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."

There is no pinning down of an enemy by firepower. Only tacklers can do this. You have imagined a role that cannot exist within eve. What you have done here is to condemn these ships to the second or third rate combat ship pile in one fell swoop.
Artillery has an advantage of being non-direct fire- yet everything in eve is direct-fire. Artillery does not require line-of-sight but can be directed by a spotter from tremendous range (off-grid essentially), yet eve has only line-of-sight (on-grid). Without major changes to the game, which are so far beyond what is technically possible without a huge rewrite of combat mechanics, then this role is a ship graveyard.

"Support vessels: mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator"

With average defence and mobility these ships will die quickly at their operational ranges; currently they have fair to good defences and mobility. Lowering this relative to the combat ability of other ships will render them almost entirely useless - not in role but in their ability to function in that role on a battlefield. Also there is a major distinction between support vessels of an aggressive nature (electronic warfare) and of a logistical nature (remote reps). Grouping these 2 classes together might simplify a chart, but leads to incorrect assumptions about the very different needs of these 2 ship types.

I very much hope that CCP can pull this off. It will not, and never could, keep all the player-base happy - but then no changes of this magnitude could ever do that. The changes alluded to are very much needed however and CCP has my support at least in this endeavour, but please tread carefully. Your initial outlines are naive at best, misguided by non-existent functionality at worst. Remeber how eve works before you make these changes, otherwise you'll merely trade one set of useless ships for a different set and that will be a serious failure to seize a wonderful opportunity and would set eve in it's current rut for another half-decade.

I would say that it's not seeing any fleet action because of it's limited utility. It can't damage anything significantly. It can't exactly fit a lot of EW to go along with it's garbage dps. It's ability to survive any kind of direct onslaught or keep range is worse than it's potential dps. These are the reasons why you don't see them in fleets. These reasons are what need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Making a ship that can't move, can't take a hit, remote rep more isn't going to make it more viable in a fleet.

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.

New characters don't need all four BCs at lvl V. That's a long-term project, and making it a bit harder isn't all that bad. New characters will have it a lot easier now that the T2 requirements are reduced — you can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less after these changes.

…which makes you nerf-proof and which lets you go for the FOTM, both of which should be quite costly.

…which makes you nerf-proof
…which makes you nerf-proof and which lets you go for the FOTM, both of which should be quite costly.