These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Skill group name changes

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#361 - 2013-07-07 13:38:08 UTC
How CCP spends subscription money on EvE - renaming things and appealing to the lowest common denominator

If you are going to rename something at least make it sound good
Mercedes Chance
GDC Enterprises
#362 - 2013-07-07 13:48:54 UTC
I concur with many others . . . Spaceship Command sounds better and should stay the same.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#363 - 2013-07-07 13:57:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Also please don't make me train energy grid upgrades lv5 just to fly a HAC its just strange surely you could switch it to lv4 and then add the lost time onto some other skill you could add to its pre-req that's upto a lv4 skill thats relevant to the ship like a navigation skill perhaps the mwd skill to lv3 or 4.

Another thing is since you have the large micro jump drive limited to battleships why don't you do the same thing with AB's and mwd's? more consistency please... also would stop exploitation of over sized props like tengus come to mind.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#364 - 2013-07-07 16:00:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
In practice, hull is no more a subcategory of armor than shields is a subcategory of armor, all three are entirely different levels of a ship's defensive abilities and as such we need three clear divisions:

shields - all shield relevant skills

armor - all armor relevant skills

hull - all hull relevant skills.

To further emphasize my point:

1. no module or skill that affects the armor of a ship should have the word 'hull' in it.

2. no module or skill that affects the hull should use the term 'structure' in it's description as you have given it the title "hull" and it should be referenced as such.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#365 - 2013-07-07 16:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Please remove the 'daytrading' skill and refund SPs as needed.

Reasoning: Contracts is the branch of EVEs marketplace that adds the scamming intrigue to the game, while the market should be a safe haven for commerce ( I believe this is why you restrict the market to 'original blueprints only').

I know many will disagree with this reasoning and that is fine, it is just my humble opinion.

P.S. My humble opinion is always right, just ask me!

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#366 - 2013-07-07 16:41:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Harvey James wrote:
also talking about missile skills.. its a little confusing if you look at the base missile stats before you put them in your ship the stats don't really take into account your missile skills ..

also since missile skills usually add upto 100% range and 50% on other stats like tracking its hard to understand looking at say a Heavy missile in eve what kind of performance you will get from them.

besides making these stats accurate with your skills added in game i would also suggest reducing the skills down to more conservative 5% a level .. and then apply the difference to the missiles themselves this would massively help new players understand what the missiles will actually do without having to load them into a ship or look at eve Hq or something.
Adding missile range in km would be nice instead of having to calculate velocity X flight time.

You shouldn't need 3rd party applications to understand and get accurate figures that the game should be doing already
perhaps also the descriptions of missiles in game could be more informative like the ammo for guns now have clear percentage stats on the descriptions.

also add a new skill called medium assault missiles and they could be a lower damage better tracking version of HAMS.
replace RML's with medium assault launchers that way you get better tracking against smaller ships but without the massive loss of dps and ofc using small missiles on a medium sized ship is out of whack really.


If i am misunderstanding your post i apologize in advance but....

The reason skills that affect "missile range" are not dynamically updated to reflect your current skills is because things like ship choice can also affect "missile range" and they don't know what ship, of the 10 missile ships you have, that you intend to fly.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#367 - 2013-07-07 17:03:57 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
also talking about missile skills.. its a little confusing if you look at the base missile stats before you put them in your ship the stats don't really take into account your missile skills ..

also since missile skills usually add upto 100% range and 50% on other stats like tracking its hard to understand looking at say a Heavy missile in eve what kind of performance you will get from them.

besides making these stats accurate with your skills added in game i would also suggest reducing the skills down to more conservative 5% a level .. and then apply the difference to the missiles themselves this would massively help new players understand what the missiles will actually do without having to load them into a ship or look at eve Hq or something.
Adding missile range in km would be nice instead of having to calculate velocity X flight time.

You shouldn't need 3rd party applications to understand and get accurate figures that the game should be doing already
perhaps also the descriptions of missiles in game could be more informative like the ammo for guns now have clear percentage stats on the descriptions.

also add a new skill called medium assault missiles and they could be a lower damage better tracking version of HAMS.
replace RML's with medium assault launchers that way you get better tracking against smaller ships but without the massive loss of dps and ofc using small missiles on a medium sized ship is out of whack really.


If i am misunderstanding your post i apologize in advance but....

The reason skills that affect "missile range" are not dynamically updated to reflect your current skills is because things like ship choice can also affect "missile range" and they don't know what ship, of the 10 missile ships you have, that you intend to fly.


that doesn't explain why they don't update them with skills... and then when loaded to the ship then they Could update them to the ships bonuses.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#368 - 2013-07-07 17:22:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Deleted, reason clarified in my next post below.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#369 - 2013-07-07 17:26:54 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Harvey James wrote:


You shouldn't need 3rd party applications to understand and get accurate figures that the game should be doing already
perhaps also the descriptions of missiles in game could be more informative like the ammo for guns now have clear percentage stats on the descriptions.


If i am misunderstanding your post i apologize in advance but....

The reason skills that affect "missile range" are not dynamically updated to reflect your current skills is because things like ship choice can also affect "missile range" and they don't know what ship, of the 10 missile ships you have, that you intend to fly.
Quote:

that doesn't explain why they don't update them with skills... and then when loaded to the ship then they Could update them to the ships bonuses.


Apologizing again if I'm still missing your point, but.....

1. you state you want a clear understanding of what impact a skill that increases missile range will have on missile range without needing a third party application but even if they give you what you want you will still need to use a third party application to know what range you will ultimately have on any given ship.

2. If you are going to take the time to chose a ship, load it with mods, select your missile launchers and then choose your missiles and THEN check it to see what your missile range ultimately is then your request isnt helping you, you can place your mouse over your loaded missile launcher and there is its range.


My main point being here is that if you look at missiles right now and say you wanted to use them on a caracal you would have to make so many calculations to figure out what you'll get not just range but also tracking etc..
and the point of this thread is too make things much clearer... you seem to not want this for some reason

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#370 - 2013-07-07 17:29:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Harvey James wrote:
... you seem to not want this for some reason


Not that i don't want it, it is just that despite reading 3 of your posts now, my thick skull still isn't seeing your point and i will take up no more of your time, cheers!

, Maldiro Selkurk.

On another subject:

+1

....for your signature line (if that is what they are called) where you basically state that T3's should be slammed with the nerf bat, I couldn't agree more that they are seriously OP in their current form.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Bovaan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#371 - 2013-07-07 18:40:33 UTC
Energy Pulse Weapons

Always confused me with pulse lasers. How about "Smartbomb Operation"? And should it be moved from the Engineering group?
Benjamin Artoriana
Porpoises with a Purpose
#372 - 2013-07-07 19:10:53 UTC
ChromeStriker wrote:
※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※

Keep Electronics and Engineering names the same... might just be nestalgia but never heard they were a problem... seems quite straightforward to me.

Targeting - Target Acquisition

Multitasking - Advanced Target Acquisition

※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※※


Or

Targeting - Target Management

Multitasking - Advanced Target Management

Something, something, don't be an idiot. Blah, blah, I love EVE and goats.

Seamus Donohue
EVE University
Ivy League
#373 - 2013-07-07 20:13:04 UTC
Reading through the original post by CCP Ytterbium, I would like to propose the following amendments or reversions:

"CPU Management" and "Power Grid Management" should instead be "CPU Optimization" and "Powergrid Optimization"; optimization, rather than management.

For "Targeting" and "Multitasking", I suggest "Targetlock Optimization" and "Advanced Targetlock Optimization".

The new "Armor" group should be named "Armor and Structure".

"Mechanics" as a skill should be "Structural Integrity".

"Electronic System" as a group should be "Electronic Warfare".

"Ship Modifications" as a group should be split into "Rigging" and "Subsystems".

"Spaceship Command" as a group should retain its' classic name.

---

Everything else looks good to me. I like it.

Survivor of Teskanen.  Fan of John Rourke.

I have video tutorials for EVE Online on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/SeamusDonohueEVE
Vas Vadum
Draconian Empire
#374 - 2013-07-07 20:29:12 UTC
Seamus Donohue wrote:
Reading through the original post by CCP Ytterbium, I would like to propose the following amendments or reversions:

"CPU Management" and "Power Grid Management" should instead be "CPU Optimization" and "Powergrid Optimization"; optimization, rather than management.

For "Targeting" and "Multitasking", I suggest "Targetlock Optimization" and "Advanced Targetlock Optimization".

The new "Armor" group should be named "Armor and Structure".

"Mechanics" as a skill should be "Structural Integrity".

"Electronic System" as a group should be "Electronic Warfare".

"Ship Modifications" as a group should be split into "Rigging" and "Subsystems".

"Spaceship Command" as a group should retain its' classic name.

---

Everything else looks good to me. I like it.



I actually like some of this, most of it. But I don't like the fact that CCP is dumbing down the game for the idiots or the 12 year olds. They did this with implants, dumbing them down for people when all you had to do was take a minute to read it's info page. I mean, people always open these before buying anyway so what's the point of renaming. I think this is mostly just a delay tactic, to disguise the fact that they can't fix our current problems, so they are gonna work on something pointless to distract us for a while.
Lord Mandelor
Oruze Cruise
White Stag Exit Bag
#375 - 2013-07-07 21:01:47 UTC
Here to support glorious Spaceship Command.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#376 - 2013-07-07 22:34:35 UTC
Perhaps you could change the bonus on the following: to 2% damage
-Energy turrets
-hybrid turrets
-projectile turrets
-Heavy missiles
-heavy assault missiles
-rockets
-cruise missiles
-light missiles
-torpedoes

The reason being that at 5% you can't not train them to lv5.
at 2% lv5 is more optional and thus making training lv5 unnecessary unless you want to specialize in T2 ammo.
Then ofc you need to make T1/faction ammo worth using.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#377 - 2013-07-07 23:11:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Seamus Donohue wrote:
Reading through the original post by CCP Ytterbium, I would like to propose the following amendments or reversions:

"CPU Management" and "Power Grid Management" should instead be "CPU Optimization" and "Powergrid Optimization"; optimization, rather than management.

For "Targeting" and "Multitasking", I suggest "Targetlock Optimization" and "Advanced Targetlock Optimization".

The new "Armor" group should be named "Armor and Structure".

"Mechanics" as a skill should be "Structural Integrity".

"Electronic System" as a group should be "Electronic Warfare".

"Ship Modifications" as a group should be split into "Rigging" and "Subsystems".

"Spaceship Command" as a group should retain its' classic name.

---

Everything else looks good to me. I like it.


1. Anything that gets them to not use the term 'management' gets my vote (it is much to vague a term)
2. Targetlock Opt. is to vague, it could just as easily refer to locking time and locking range.
3. Armor and Hull should be separated into to distinct categories, since they are distinct protection levels in actual practice.
4. Mechanics should be called hull integrity, unless they change all references to 'hull' to 'structure' instead, in which case I would support 'structural integrity', in short they need to chose a name and be consistent with its use.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
ikisol
Nostromm Mining Corp
#378 - 2013-07-07 23:33:25 UTC
please

DO not make WOW out of EVE

no need for DUMB
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#379 - 2013-07-07 23:46:32 UTC
ikisol wrote:
please

DO not make WOW out of EVE

no need for DUMB


becaues dumb is a noun

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#380 - 2013-07-07 23:58:57 UTC
about bloody time..