These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veriton Darkconis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2101 - 2012-08-04 09:32:28 UTC
Ship lines(I.E choosing the use of the ship, and setting it in stone) are taking the choice away from the player.

This game is already the biggest time sink game in existance(1 year min training skills to be mildly good)

this will not end well.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2102 - 2012-08-04 14:42:43 UTC
Mikoyan Gureyvich wrote:
Quote:
Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordinance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.


Unless they change how missiles do damage I don't understand how you can "pin" a ship down. Real world artillery pins people down due to the area affect of shrapnel and I suppose to a lesser extent the noise & shock wave that follows. I don't see how this translates to Eve. If I start firing missiles at a ship, what's pinning them down? Nothing. They hit their MWD and start steaming toward me. There is no area/suppression effect to firing a missile.

Also consider that in the real world, you can't win a battle with just artillery. Nor do you normally deploy artillery with a small squad-sized engagements.

Will this come to mean that missile ships will become niche players appropriate only for larger engagements? Will my Drake and Navy Caracal be able to run missions anymore or will I need to train for some Minmitar ship just to run down the Radar/Magnetometric/Ladar/DED site I've scanned down in my Buzzard?

I know CCP aren't morons and I trust that those with missile skills won't be utterly nerfed but the language they used for missile ships makes me nervous.



Bombardment's pretty much been removed now. Have a look at the CSM minutes for the ship balancing section.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

AngelFood
#2103 - 2012-08-04 22:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: AngelFood
Yea this is what was needed .. not pos changes or drone fix or numerous other things that 90% of the community complain about 90% of the time. You need to completely overhaul and ruin a system which has worked fine for 9 years and had no complaints whatsoever. hey you could do same with inventory? oh you did.

Please put Torfi back in charge.

oh and bring warp to 15 back (and pirates with it)

and leave pirates alone!!!
Dhakamis
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2104 - 2012-08-09 00:27:27 UTC
So, if the tier system is being thrown out and devs want to move to a system with ship lines, has anyone thought about the problems this will cause with race lines? As things are now, the races are not similar in the roles that their ships would have in this new system.

For example, the Caldari line is filled with the "bombardment" role ships, since this race specializes in missile combat, while other races like the Minmatar tend to have more "attack vessel" style ships. These role tendecies are built into the storyline around the 4 main races, and cannot easily be changed without affecting the story of EVE. With all spaceship command skills having 4 racial variants, capsuleers would need to train all the way up the ship progression for each race to access that race's tendencies in ship line.

Why not make each of the ship progression skills generic, like Battlecruisers and Destroyers currently are, since capsuleers still have to train many specific skills (associated to race variant anyway) in order to fly a certain race's ship anyway? For example, to jump from flying the Amarr Abaddon to the Caldari Raven (equivalent to jumping from a combat ship to a bombardment ship), you still have to train up all of the missile and shield skills that are the mainstay of Caldari ships. Why is it necessary to train another set of skills based on just the race of the ship, despite the progression level being the same (still Battleship-level)? If a player can already fly at a Battleship-level in one race, is it really necessary to have make them train Caldari Frigate, Caldari Cruiser, the proposed Caldari Battlecruiser skill, and Caldari Battleship skills in order to fly the same progression level, but a different role ship? In a system based on ship lines and roles, because each race is unbalanced in the roles its ships play, required skills should be based on skills necessary for that race (for Caldari, shield skills) and skills needed for that ship's role (missile skills for bombardment). Throw out the race-variants of each ship progression level (they don't make much sense anyway) so capsuleers can easier access the different roles offered by a certain races of ship.

If my capsuleer already knows how to fly a Minmatar cruiser, what is so different about Gallente cruisers that he has to train more to learn how to fly another cruiser-level ship? It makes sense that he would have to learn armor tanking and different turret systems, because that is required by the new race/roles, but specific race-variant requirements don't make much practical sense... What?
Armone Melchezidek
My Own FFing Zone
#2105 - 2012-08-09 03:07:17 UTC
Dhakamis wrote:
If my capsuleer already knows how to fly a Minmatar cruiser, what is so different about Gallente cruisers that he has to train more to learn how to fly another cruiser-level ship? It makes sense that he would have to learn armor tanking and different turret systems, because that is required by the new race/roles, but specific race-variant requirements don't make much practical sense... What?


Because A: Its how CCP makes their iskies?

or

Because B: Bitter vets will rage at all the time they spent training?

or

Because C: Both A and B?


Not really sure but nothing else makes sense.
Earth Keeper
Uprising Star
#2106 - 2012-08-09 18:02:24 UTC
Someone keep that "smart guy" away from the game!!!!!

"Keep simple and people will accept you"

Is totally enough of your "improvements"
You made failures from "sand box" the "force box":
PI planetary offices and taxes.. guys, not everyone is interested to farm in 0.0..
Mining - from worse you chosen worse attached the flower and presented as the gold..
If you wanted to "balance" would have had done only 2 type of barges - 1 for Ice, another for mining - plain and simple

Now the BC and Destroyer skills , especially BC.. why do for now I need to care on some "must have BC" skill if i don't even fly it?
Aren Dar
EVE University
Ivy League
#2107 - 2012-08-09 18:13:21 UTC
Along with the much heralded changes to the mineral requirements for building the mining barges, it appears that the mineral requirements for all the T1 frigates that were buffed so far have been also adjusted.

At least, I didn't see any announcement to that effect though my look through the patch notes was somewhat cursory.
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#2108 - 2012-08-10 00:55:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Slade Trillgon
TBQFH Destroyers skill and Battle Cruiser skill opening all racial ships, if you had the frigate/cruiser skills trained up, was ludicrous to begin with. If this stream lines things and makes all ships viable then training a few more ship skills to 5 is not all that bad. That being said they did mention SP reimbursement and the fact that having to retrain would suck so I doubt you all have too much to worry about.
Iexo Peoa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2109 - 2012-08-10 12:28:54 UTC
I imagine I will probably be thoroughly flamed for this suggestion, and I apologize in advance if it's been brought up before without my seeing, this thread is 106 pages long after all.

In any case, while we're on the subject of ship rebalancing, it's always struck me as a little counterintuitive that one would need to train Battleships to get into Carriers. Granted, they're the largest subcapital warships before carriers, but they're two different types of ships.

Battleships are gun/missile boats, and regardless of claims that some are droneboats, a droneboat in subcapitals (with the exception of the Arbitrator Cruiser) just means that a ship has greater than average drone capabilities. However, (with the exception of the Arbitrator Cruisier) these ships are still gun/missile boats first, with their main weapons providing the vast majority of their firepower, and drones serving only a secondary role, typically for use against frigates and other small targets.

As such, I've always favored the idea of expanding the carrier line into subcapitals, with two small subcapital carriers, usable in high-sec, that would approximately equal the overall power/tactical value of battlecruisers and battleships, but with similar battlefield roles to their capital counterparts.

NOTE: Drones, in the context of this suggestion, refers to actual moving drones, not sentries, which I never considered true drones to begin with.

The smallest of the two, I like to call "Escort Carriers", would be akin to battlecruisers. About the same size, about the same firepower and tank (though these could be adjusted within this approximate range to balance their effectiveness within their role), and will use drones as their primary, perhaps even sole means of doing damage, with high slots reserved for either support modules or other things that don't require turrets or missile bays. Equivalent damage could be acheived with drone bonuses, in damage, range, controllable number, or some combination of the three.

The largest of the two, I like to call "Light Carriers", would be akin to battleships. Like their smaller counterparts, about the same size, firepower and tank as their gun/missile boat counters, and will likewise use drones as their primary or sole means of doing damage, with bonuses to drone damage, range and number of simultaniously deployed drones giving them this firepower. (Note: As a thought, it may also be worth considering to allow Light Carriers ONLY to deploy small numbers of fighters (balanced by bandwidth), in lieu of equivalent bandwidth worth of standard drones.)

The drone bonuses in both ships could be targeted to apply only to moving drones, not sentries (which I never considered true drones anyway). Such distinctions could be part of a drone overhaul that could accompany these ships.

This would provide an entire line leading smoothly into carriers, and thus (Capital) Carriers would require level 5 (or 4, as I believe was stated in the article) of Light Carriers, rather than Battleships, which is a bit more intuitive. This also allows prospective Carrier pilots to learn carrier tactics in subcapitals before moving into very expensive capitals, as well as bringing carrier tactics into high-sec which, though it would probably require much testing and balancing, would definitely make combat in high-sec much more diverse than it currently is.

It'd also throw droneboaters a long overdue bone (especially if accompanied by long-needed drone overhauls), and, it may sound a bit selfish, but as a droneboater myself, it would make me very happy, as I'd finally have a ship that would suit me, without having to settle for a severe cut in firepower.
SportBilly
GHOSTS OF THE FIRST AND ONLY
#2110 - 2012-08-12 14:56:09 UTC
Am i paranoid or are you trying to kill off all of the original and long term players!!!!!

First off the UI still doesnt work either on sisi or here, i still get spinning discs and incomplete functuality in a multi window environment.

We loose material from drone missions?, previously with a little mining you can sustain a small corp with ships, ammo and items .

Not now

The hulk is now a worthless piece of junk !!! i dont fleet mine very often and i used to do 3 cycles before docking now its one.

No sense there at all, the bigger the ship, the more lasers and the bigger the hold and tank. you would think , are you gonna make titans with a paper thin tank?

Now we have a rethink on ships skills, presently i can fly any sub capital in the game,( I play in all regions on all levels it keeps the game interesting, well i did before the UI made it infuriatingly slow and complicated.) I guess there will be more ships added to the worthless pile!

Falkia
Black.King.Bar
Fraternity University
#2111 - 2012-08-14 22:13:51 UTC
Quote:
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.

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.


What about those of us who only have ever trained for one race and would never train for another because of RP I assume we will get the option to not have those skills implanted?
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#2112 - 2012-08-15 10:11:14 UTC
Falkia wrote:
Quote:
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.

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.


What about those of us who only have ever trained for one race and would never train for another because of RP I assume we will get the option to not have those skills implanted?


Should be simpler to just pretend they arent there, after all youre already RPing stuff that doesnt actually exist so why not the other way around.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

Nalianna
Perkone
Caldari State
#2113 - 2012-08-16 08:58:51 UTC
Darek Castigatus wrote:
Should be simpler to just pretend they arent there, after all youre already RPing stuff that doesnt actually exist so why not the other way around.

Extra SP requires earlier and/or more expensive medical clones for skills that are not needed. So CCP makes more money ultimately. I can see why CCP would like this but also why a player who only wants to focus train one race would not...
Nalianna
Perkone
Caldari State
#2114 - 2012-08-16 09:19:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Nalianna
SportBilly wrote:
Am i paranoid or are you trying to kill off all of the original and long term players!!!!!

First off the UI still doesnt work either on sisi or here, i still get spinning discs and incomplete functuality in a multi window environment.

We loose material from drone missions?, previously with a little mining you can sustain a small corp with ships, ammo and items .

Not now

The hulk is now a worthless piece of junk !!! i dont fleet mine very often and i used to do 3 cycles before docking now its one.

No sense there at all, the bigger the ship, the more lasers and the bigger the hold and tank. you would think , are you gonna make titans with a paper thin tank?

Now we have a rethink on ships skills, presently i can fly any sub capital in the game,( I play in all regions on all levels it keeps the game interesting, well i did before the UI made it infuriatingly slow and complicated.) I guess there will be more ships added to the worthless pile!


Yes, I believe that ultimately, CCP are going to disenfranchise older players, that there is someone in CCP that does not like the way the game has worked in the past and is actively working to change it significantly. But this is some sort of selfish thing on their part. I believe there is a rather strong influence from large minority player groups who dislike the old game mechanics because they are not conducive to their game style. I would say to them, and to CCP, that you don't change the rules to win the game. You change your tactics and strategies to work within the existing rules in an effort to succeed, anything else is just cheating, no matter how you achieve it.

Most of the older players I know are more and more unhappy with each and every tweak, buff or nerf that CCP puts into the game, in an effort to satisfy the vocal minorities and/or "balance" it. More than one of these friends has left the game possibly to never return. Most threaten to do that with each further act of vandalism. Ultimately, because of this policy of heavyhanded tweaking at the behest of the vocal minorities and a misguided determination to level all tall poppies, CCP will find itself presiding over a game which has become boring and bland, with very little racial flavor, removing the richness that used to exist. Hopefully, I myself will be long gone by then.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#2115 - 2012-08-16 11:54:31 UTC
SportBilly wrote:
Am i paranoid...?



Sry but yes you are being one. If something those ship changes are going to benefit once againt to the older players rather than new ones that will now have to train far more than you ever did to complete the full racial tree up to BS.

Plus you're getting back loads of SP provided you've trained your MAIN character for all races witch is not a big deal for older players. If you could fly it before you will be able to fly it after, where's the problem?

Hulk: As Tippia posted in some other thread, Hulk is the ultimate king of yeld of all mining barges provided you are using it in fleets witch was a good change.
Giving Hulk the fleet role was one of the best things done with this mining barges changes, if you want to have the best yeld for solo mining with relative safety, you can field a very decent yeld Mackinaw with 40K EHP. Then if you really like to "afk" mine while doing other stuff pick the Skiff, mine gets 3k yeld per cycle with 90k EHP without a single fitting/tank/mining implant or booster, isn't this safe and good enough??

brb

Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#2116 - 2012-08-17 04:18:15 UTC
I'm with Iexo Peoa here. I'd kill for some true sub-cap carriers.
SportBilly
GHOSTS OF THE FIRST AND ONLY
#2117 - 2012-08-17 18:58:14 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
SportBilly wrote:
Am i paranoid...?



Sry but yes you are being one. If something those ship changes are going to benefit once againt to the older players rather than new ones that will now have to train far more than you ever did to complete the full racial tree up to BS.

Plus you're getting back loads of SP provided you've trained your MAIN character for all races witch is not a big deal for older players. If you could fly it before you will be able to fly it after, where's the problem?

Hulk: As Tippia posted in some other thread, Hulk is the ultimate king of yeld of all mining barges provided you are using it in fleets witch was a good change.
Giving Hulk the fleet role was one of the best things done with this mining barges changes, if you want to have the best yeld for solo mining with relative safety, you can field a very decent yeld Mackinaw with 40K EHP. Then if you really like to "afk" mine while doing other stuff pick the Skiff, mine gets 3k yeld per cycle with 90k EHP without a single fitting/tank/mining implant or booster, isn't this safe and good enough??


Sorry to spoil your day, you need to look back into the game history.

I have lost many skillpoints that i and original players have trained that dont exist in the game now, this is due to previous changes you are not even aware of ! so infact you have an easier route than we did.
But more impotantly when you have a lot of skillpoints their is very little left to train that would be of use , so a re inbursement of skill points wont help at all.

As for afk mining, never have and never would, i worked up the tree to get the best with a large capacity and a reasonable tank, now its useless. like so many other changes before.

And a fleet boost should apply, no matter what ship you use.
James Vayne
Section 9 SFU
#2118 - 2012-08-18 10:30:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tychanus Bain
CCP Soundwave wrote:


We'll find a suitable reimbursement that makes everyone happy. I'm not terribly fussed about giving away a little extra if it moves we move the ship progression system into a better place.


I detect a problem haer.

I'm gallente, but I fly a hurricane. When this new system is introduced it'll lock out my hurricane because my race is Gallente. I don't own any gallente battlecruisers (and don't want to, autocannons FTW).

So, perhaps you could introduce a system whereby you give people the racial skill of their choice rather than simply going with the race that they are? That would make it easier on everyone. What I mean by this is that, rather than give me Gallente Battlecruiser IV, give me Minmatar Battlecruiser IV instead. Thus I don't lose use of my primary ship. I don't really need to train Battlecruiser V just yet as I'm training stuff to make things blow up faster. So giving me the racial of my most active ship makes sense.

Does it also mean that to train a hybrid ship such as a Cynabal, one would then have to train Minmatar and Amarr battlecruisers?
If this is to be the case, then I would suggest just allowing faction ships to become unlocked at IV instead of having to waste time training two skills to get one ship.
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#2119 - 2012-08-18 23:05:16 UTC
I'd like to point out that a Cynabal is a Cruiser. You don't need to train Battlecruiser for it. Requiring two faction skills is a great trade off for the high end awesomeness that is Pirate Faction ships while not requiring T2 train times. Pirate Faction ships are about the only thing I like about having faction ship skills to be honest.

The next point is, you do realize that as it stands now, if they stick with pattern of L4 skill to the next class, you only need one more level in Minmitar cruiser to get into a hurricane? Just train that last level just in case, though I'm pretty sure I saw a reference somewhere saying you only need L3 as is, so anything you can currently fly, you'll be able to fly if this change goes through. So you're kinda complaining about a problem that already has a potential solution the devs are kicking around.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2120 - 2012-08-18 23:26:00 UTC
James Vayne wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:


We'll find a suitable reimbursement that makes everyone happy. I'm not terribly fussed about giving away a little extra if it moves we move the ship progression system into a better place.


I detect a problem haer.

I'm gallente, but I fly a hurricane. When this new system is introduced it'll lock out my hurricane because my race is Gallente. I don't own any gallente battlecruisers (and don't want to, autocannons FTW).

So, perhaps you could introduce a system whereby you give people the racial skill of their choice rather than simply going with the race that they are? That would make it easier on everyone. What I mean by this is that, rather than give me Gallente Battlecruiser IV, give me Minmatar Battlecruiser IV instead. Thus I don't lose use of my primary ship. I don't really need to train Battlecruiser V just yet as I'm training stuff to make things blow up faster. So giving me the racial of my most active ship makes sense.

Does it also mean that to train a hybrid ship such as a Cynabal, one would then have to train Minmatar and Amarr battlecruisers?
If this is to be the case, then I would suggest just allowing faction ships to become unlocked at IV instead of having to waste time training two skills to get one ship.



Did you not see the stuff in the very first post here?

The second link being the most important, in regards to what you're saying?

CCP Guard wrote:
Re-balancing is on our minds as many of you know and CCP Ytterbium is here to tell you all about some major changes we'll be seeing the start of soon.

Please go here to read the blog and as always, we're eager to hear your feedback.

Edit:
Notice also CCP Soundwave's remark about skill reimbursement,
CCP Soundwave's statement that "if you could fly it yesterday, you will be able to fly it tomorrow" and
CCP Ytterbium's confirmation about racial skill preservation.
CCP Ytterbium provides a bunch of answers to common questions and concerns in the thread (March 8th 12:06 EVE time)
CCP Ytterbium explains how balancing will span several expansions

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter