These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Skill Discussions

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Gameplay Center » Skill Discussions » we need more gunnery and missile skills

Topic is locked indefinitely.

we need more gunnery and missile skills
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#161 - 2012-09-16 16:46:13 UTC | Edited by: digitalwanderer

Tippia wrote:

…and class for class, the T2 ships pretty consistently offer less options and more focus on a single thing than the T1 equivalent.

True if you want to take advantage of their added bonuses, but you can fit your T2 cruiser any way you wish, and in most stats it'll still beat the standard T1 version even when the fitting is less than ideal, relative to the extra bonuses that CCP gave to it.

Quote:

Why would any of that happen when it didn't for the cruisers? And more to the point: why would the ships themselves happen if they couldn't think of any good reason to add them (“more stuff to train” isn't one).

T3 cruisers are still way more expensive than T2 ones for one, their overheating bonus for the strategic cruiser skill is pretty debatable as it may come into play in scenarios most pilots wouldn't want to be in the first place, and they can do more damage than T2 cruisers if you set them up for maximum damage, but are willing to lose the drone bay(i learned this one the hard way..

)

Quote:

…and yet they fill exactly the role you're describing: more damage and tank at the expense of pretty much everything else, so there would be no need for a T3. Instead, a proper T3 BS would do the exact opposite, and offer less of both while opening up far stranger fitting options.

They do indeed, just not enough of it and their tanks can be easily broken with just 4~6 sleeper ships.....I once went for a stroll in sleeper space( class 3 i think it was), and came about a sleeper site wich i had warped to 100 kms, only to find just 2 sleeper BS's, and i kid you not, even from that distance and i was heavily tanked and on the first alpha volley, those 2 Sleeper BS's wiped out 7000 shields on a scorpion with 20 000+ shield HP, using all the mids for tanking basically.

Naturally i warped out ASAP and back to known space... Lol

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#162 - 2012-09-16 17:01:15 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

)

…yeeees, and? That didn't really answer the question: why would they be harder to train for, when that didn't happen with the cruisers and when it would directly go against the core design principle of T3?

Quote:

They do indeed, just not enough of it and their tanks can be easily broken with just 4~6 sleeper ships.

Then the correct solution would be to ask for the class to be fixed, not to add ships that obsolete it.

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#163 - 2012-09-16 17:26:09 UTC | Edited by: digitalwanderer

Tippia wrote:

yeeees, and? That didn't really answer the question: why would they be harder to train for, when that didn't happen with the cruisers and when it would directly go against the core design principle of T3?

Well 12 skills are needed to fly a T2 assault cruiser( used a zealot as an example):

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Zealot

18 skills are needed to fly a legion:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Legion

So they have more skills to train up, wich will obviously take a longer time to train up......It's easy for the old farts since we have had the bases covered for quite a while now, but when looking at it as a new player, the picture is somewhat different... Blink

Quote:

Then the correct solution would be to ask for the class to be fixed, not to add ships that obsolete it.

I'd love a marauder that can do that kind of damage that a pair of sleeper BS's can do at those ranges since it wouldn't involve any extra training on my part, but i assume a lot of people out there would scream "overpowered" if CCP did just that, so i'd rather have the T3 BS's with insane training requirements that are expensive in order to also give an additonal objective for the old farts of the game to strive for, and at least initially, limit the amount of them in game though that will change over time....

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#164 - 2012-09-16 21:15:55 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

The number of skills isn't particularly important (also, you counted them incorrectly — there's a lot of duplication on those prereq trees). What matters is the combination of ranks and levels.

Zealot:
Amarr Cruiser V (×5)
    Amarr Frigate IV (×2)
Heavy Assault Ships I (×6)
    Assault Ships IV (×4)
        Engineering V (×1)
        Mechanic V (×1)
    Weapon Upgrades V (×2)
        Gunnery II (×1)
    Spaceship Command V (×1)

…that's 10 ranks to V, 6 ranks to IV, and one rank each to I and II. A total of 2.83M SP.

Legion:
Amarr Strategic Cruiser I (×5)
    Amarr Cruiser V (×5)
        Spaceship Command III (×1)
        Amarr Frigate IV (×2)
    Amarr Defensive Systems I (×1)
        Mechanic V (×1)
        Shield Operation III (×1)
    Amarr Electronic Systems I (×1)
        Electronics V (×1)
    Amarr Engineering Systems I (×1)
        Engineering V (×1)
    Amarr Offensive Systems I (×1)
        Gunnery V (×1)
        Drones III (×1)
    Amarr Propulsion Systems I (×1)
        Navigation V (×1)

…that's 10 ranks to V, 2 ranks to IV, 3 ranks to III, 10 ranks to I. A total of 2.68M SP. The skill list may look longer, but it's so full of cheap stuff (including a bunch of must-have skills that the Zealot pilot needs to train on top of the prereqs for the ship) that it comes out a week or so quicker than the HAC. In addition, when you want to push them further, you're looking at training a rank-6 skill for the Zealot, compared to 1–5 rank-1 skills for the Legion (depending on whether you want it all or can settle for going after only a few of the subsystem bonuses), so the Legion is cheaper to improve as well.

In fact, if you recall, T3s were denounced as being something of a newbship class when they first came out since they were so much cheaper, skill-wise, than the alternatives, and only the bigger cost kept the poor vets from being mass slaughtered.

Quote:

Nah. As long as they still had their massive weaknesses to balance the thing out — their silly-low speed and crippling ewar sensitivity go a long way to keep them from being overpowered, especially since you can have the same damage and tank without those penalties if you're wiling to pay the “pirate/faction ship tax”.

If older players want something new to strive for, then the first step would be to come up with something new to strive for, not something that already exists and which is then duplicated with a fancy coat of paint.

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#165 - 2012-09-16 21:25:12 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

3 characters gets you a well rounded 100mSP Subcap+Capital pilot (with plenty of room to keep training), a well rounded 100m SP industrial pilot (with some space to grow), and a well skilled Titan pilot (with only 1 Titan trained) all at the same time. That means you can be in a Titan, have an industrial operation set up, and have a well skilled Subcap+Cap pilot with quite a bit of training to go before "perfection." Given that you have 180m SP, had you chosen to split your SP intelligently, you would still have 3 or 4 years of training to do before running into any sort of wall of "what do I train," at which point, you can keep training that Subcap+Cap pilot, cause there's plenty for him to train past 100m SP (since you can easily do 100m SP without touching Capital skills).

Where did I ever give the impression that I wasn't aware that you can't train multiple character's on one account at the same time? Do me a favor: Open up the skill queue and look at the button next to "Apply." What does it say? Is it "Pause" or "Invoke Chittering Doom?" I so often get those two confused.

Anyway, 12 total years of training to get 3 100m SP characters is roughly accurate. The Game's been out for 9 years and change.
Once you have all 3 at 100m SP, keep filling them in and improving them. You'll eventually (after 20 years or so of training) hit 400m total SP, at which point your complaints will gain some validity.

LOL is all i have to say really....

Quote:

So you don't have any evidence to support your claim after all, and are resorting to an appeal to ignorance? Ok.

Not at all, i do, but this would definitely settle it once and for all and you'd have no arguments left.... Blink

Compelling stuff.

Tell me again how your choice in limiting yourself to one character slot (and only half the trainable SP on that slot) is CCP's fault?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#166 - 2012-09-16 21:28:24 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

Tippia wrote:

Isn't it great that the number of skills is all that matters with regards to training time, not, say, the rank of those skills or the level to which they must be trained?

Quote:

Then the correct solution would be to ask for the class to be fixed, not to add ships that obsolete it.

Again, your idea of T3 ships runs quite contrary to CCP's plan for T3 ships.

Here's their idealized chart:
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
And the Devblog it comes from:
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=9129

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#167 - 2012-09-16 22:34:26 UTC | Edited by: digitalwanderer

Tippia wrote:

digitalwanderer wrote:

Fair enough, i didn't go to the point of counting the actual SP for each skill requirement between both classes and simple settled on the amount of books needed, and called it a day.

Quote:

Being an owner of all the pirate ships in the game, i can tell you that marauders still outdamage pirate ships, even if in some cases, it is by small amounts and nothing really that significant, but yeah, the low sensor strenght is a drawback, but when dealing with NPC's( including sleepers), the ship you fly could have all the sensor strenght in the world, it'll still get scrambled by NPC's( kind of a cheat there CCP..

), so that drawback applies more to actual pvp scenarios with real players.

Quote:

If older players want something new to strive for, then the first step would be to come up with something new to strive for, not something that already exists and which is then duplicated with a fancy coat of paint.

Well i'd like for Tech 3 BS's to be based on entirely new hulls, in fact it's a requirement given the subsystem aproach they'd likely use, just like they're used for Tech 3 cruisers and their apearance changes dramatically depending on the subsystems installed, so it wouldn't be any different for tech 3 BS's in that respect, but i can imagine the amount of graphics work needed from CCP's art dept for all the subsystems that need to be created, and giving each a distinctive look.

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#168 - 2012-09-16 22:38:42 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

Compelling stuff.

Tell me again how your choice in limiting yourself to one character slot (and only half the trainable SP on that slot) is CCP's fault?

I never said it was in the first place, so i don't know where you got that idea...

What i did say was that there's been tons of gameplay, balance, role and content changes in the past 9 years, and well before you even started playing the game, so you're in no position to question anything, since you aren't even aware of a lot of the changes that have occured over the years.... Blink

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#169 - 2012-09-16 22:44:54 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

Well, if that's what they intend, i guess i really have no use for a T3 battleship if even a pirate battleship or T2 battleship ends up being better than it, meaning i have less skills to train and will move to super capitals sooner and be done with it.... Straight

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#170 - 2012-09-17 00:10:48 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Compelling stuff.

Tell me again how your choice in limiting yourself to one character slot (and only half the trainable SP on that slot) is CCP's fault?

I never said it was in the first place, so i don't know where you got that idea...

Could be that I got the idea that you were choosing to limit yourself to one character slot and a fraction of the available skill tree from the words you chose to type.

Self imposed limitation with regards to character slots:

digitalwanderer wrote:

no, i won't train an alt with the same skills that the main already has maxed out just to have something left to do in the game.... Roll

Self Imposed limitation with regards to large portions of the skill tree:

digitalwanderer wrote:

Correct on number 1, since in 2 odd years from now, i'll have every ship related skill, for every race and every ship class, completely maxed out.....I do not care for research, manufacturing, trade, corporation skills and social skills at all, and that removes about 130+ million skill points i'll never bother with.

As for you saying it's CCP's fault; you're suggesting that they need to "fix" it by adding more skills. If you don't believe that CCP's to blame, why ask them to fix it?

Quote:

What i did say was that there's been tons of gameplay, balance, role and content changes in the past 9 years, and well before you even started playing the game, so you're in no position to question anything, since you aren't even aware of a lot of the changes that have occured over the years.... Blink

Says the man so ignorant of EVE's history that he thinks that massive build costs are an appropriate balancing measure for a new Super-Titan.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#171 - 2012-09-17 02:16:55 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

Self imposed limitation with regards to character slots:

digitalwanderer wrote:

no, i won't train an alt with the same skills that the main already has maxed out just to have something left to do in the game.... Roll

To you it's a limitation, to me it's a challenge i gladly undertook and reached the objectives i had intended.....

Quote:

As for you saying it's CCP's fault; you're suggesting that they need to "fix" it by adding more skills. If you don't believe that CCP's to blame, why ask them to fix it?

Maybe CCP never figured that some players are really this long term perhaps, and would have quit the game a long time ago?.....It's a shocker i know..

[quote]
Says the man so ignorant of EVE's history that he thinks that massive build costs are an appropriate balancing measure for a new Super-Titan.

Firstly, i've forgotten more stuff about this game than you'll ever know, and secondly, given that large challenges don't scare me at all, no matter how long they take to train~ build or how expensive they are.....Heck i thrive on stuff that is hard to achieve and have been so for nearly a decade in this game.

So if you have anything that's even remote constructive to say, please do, but ranting that your way is the only way isn't getting you anywhere.... Blink

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#172 - 2012-09-17 02:37:09 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

Self imposed limitation with regards to character slots:

digitalwanderer wrote:

no, i won't train an alt with the same skills that the main already has maxed out just to have something left to do in the game.... Roll

To you it's a limitation, to me it's a challenge i gladly undertook and reached the objectives i had intended.....

Then why are you asking CCP to fix something that you "gladly undertook"? By the way, you placed limits on your choices. That means that you imposed a limitation on your usage of character slots. Limitation does not necessarily have a negative connotation.

Quote:

As for you saying it's CCP's fault; you're suggesting that they need to "fix" it by adding more skills. If you don't believe that CCP's to blame, why ask them to fix it?

Maybe CCP never figured that some players are really this long term perhaps, and would have quit the game a long time ago?.....It's a shocker i know..

[/quote]

What? That literally does not follow. You say you imposed limits on what resources you were willing to use as a "challenge" but then say that you want CCP to remove the effects those self imposed limits have had on you. Then you break into something about long term players quitting or something.

Quote:

I've heard that Doctors are working on a cure for memory loss, so you hang in there.

Aside from that, are you going to try addressing the fact that you still subscribe to the ridiculous idea that high build costs enforce rarity and thus can balance powerful ships?

Finally, how is Right Click > Inject Skill a challenge? If your answer is cost, how is that any more challenge than simply acquiring that amount of ISK?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto


digitalwanderer DW inc Likes received: 411	#173 - 2012-09-17 03:46:10 UTC Pipa Porto wrote: stuff And yet you keep on blabbing the same crap over and over like a broken record..... i can ask for new skills aimed for veteran pilots, end of story.( i hope)

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#174 - 2012-09-17 04:57:16 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

stuff

And yet you keep on blabbing the same crap over and over like a broken record..... Roll

i can ask for new skills aimed for veteran pilots, end of story.( i hope)

When did I ever say you couldn't ask for them?

I'm simply pointing out that your arguments in favor of implementing those new skills are crap.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#175 - 2012-09-17 16:32:24 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

digitalwanderer wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

stuff

And yet you keep on blabbing the same crap over and over like a broken record..... Roll

i can ask for new skills aimed for veteran pilots, end of story.( i hope)

When did I ever say you couldn't ask for them?

I'm simply pointing out that your arguments in favor of implementing those new skills are crap.

You're the one that described my request for more skills as being "Fixes" since i'm using a single char, so you tell me?

And i do understand why you hate them, since it would make the skill point gap between older and newer players even wider still.

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#176 - 2012-09-17 16:42:22 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

When did I ever say you couldn't ask for them?

I'm simply pointing out that your arguments in favor of implementing those new skills are crap.

That's exactly what you were asking for. New skills for you to train to remove the negative effects of your choice to ignore 2 free character slots and over 100m SP worth of skills. I am against that because those new skills would cause other problems of a far greater magnitude than the "problem" you claim they would "fix" (really, adding more SP to train just means you'll be back in a few years once you've finished the training you're interested in asking for more).

Now, Where did I ever say you couldn't ask for them? Quote and Link, please.

That's exactly why I hate the idea of adding new skill depth. Newbies already think that they can never catch up to old players and it's tons of work to show them how to specialize in order to negate the older players gross SP advantage. Adding deeper skill trees for maximizing the use of a ship just makes that impression more accurate and makes it harder for newbies to negate the older players gross SP advantage.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#177 - 2012-09-17 17:04:03 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

That's exactly why I hate the idea of adding new skill depth. Newbies already think that they can never catch up to old players and it's tons of work to show them how to specialize in order to negate the older players gross SP advantage. Adding deeper skill trees for maximizing the use of a ship just makes that impression more accurate and makes it harder for newbies to negate the older players gross SP advantage.

It's not negative effect of having a single char at all, it's continuing my evolution in the game just like everyone else wants to, no matter where they are in game....I put in the time to reach this point, now there's supposed to be this artificial barrier that says i can go no further even if i want to?, no matter how demanding those new skills may be?

Since when did EVE become like WOW and when you hit level 80 in that game, you can go no further?

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#178 - 2012-09-17 17:16:59 UTC | Edited by: Pipa Porto

digitalwanderer wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

If "running out of skills to train" is not a negative effect, why are you complaining?

Since 2003. It has always been true in EVE that when you hit L5 in a Skill, you can go no further with it and when you hit L5 in all skills related to a ship you can improve that ship no further (though you can certainly improve the fit and your personal skills).

You're just among the first to approach the halfway point.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

digitalwanderer

DW inc

Likes received: 411

#179 - 2012-09-17 17:24:25 UTC

Pipa Porto wrote:

The full point since i just want to fly ships.....Not trade, research, social, production or any other activity not related to ships. so the list is considerably reduced, and it's not a imposed limitation, but my personal choice so don't go there yet again.

Pipa Porto

Likes received: 1,548

#180 - 2012-09-17 17:34:44 UTC

digitalwanderer wrote:

Pipa Porto wrote:

The full point since i just want to fly ships.....Not trade, research, social, production or any other activity not related to ships. so the list is considerably reduced, and it's not a imposed limitation, but my personal choice so don't go there yet again.

What's stopping you from flying ships after you've trained everything related to flying ships?

Your personal choice to exclude chunks of the skill tree is a self imposed limitation. That's how choice works. They are different ways of phrasing the same idea.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

First pagePrevious page7891011Next page