These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#581 - 2012-03-06 21:19:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Butzewutze wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
The skill requirement changes for destroyers and battlecruisers is very tricky to tackle indeed. We fully acknowledge having to re-train for ships you can already fly is not appealing at all.

As said in the blog, nothing is set in stone yet, we are considering various reimbursement options as this is still quite a high level change.



it not just not appealing its crazy.

pre patch i can fly all cs's and all dic's. post patch im ******. i either pick to fly a claymore or damnation or a vulture (eos is **** anyhow) and then im screwed for the next 80 odd days retraining for ships i could already fly.

you either reduce the ranks of the destroyer and bc skills so reimbursed skill points from the old cover all 4 races, or you just give people all 4 races.




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.


Yeah, how generous of you to give us the "little extra" back from what we allready have. I dont know how everybody else thinks about this. But this looks like a "crosstrain"-nerf to me. After that patch it will take more time to see all the different ships in eve as before. Im sure ccp is gonna like this.


Interesting.

So you consider giving you the equivalent level in all races Destroyers and BC's equal to what you currently have in just the generic skill as a "nerf" to cross trainers.

Amusing, but interesting.

"If you can fly it today, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow."

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
#582 - 2012-03-06 21:19:39 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Messilina wrote:
VaL Iscariot wrote:
Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.

You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again.


Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning.


What the heck? No dude, Tiericide is proof positive that they DO play and PVP.

-Liang

And that they DO listen

Also battle cruiser is the single most valuable skill in EvE....the most common combat ships are.....battle cruisers by far! and traning that one single skill and racial cruiser to 3 gets you the 4 most common ships in eve....one skill.

When giving advice to newer players it is always 100% train battle cruisers.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#583 - 2012-03-06 21:19:49 UTC
overall I'm optimistic about the changes proposed only the BS4 for carrier is a bit disturbing

also there seems to be a common misconception within ccp
http://picload.org/image/ropaglw/shiptech_1920fix.png
is fact right now

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#584 - 2012-03-06 21:20:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Camios
Things that I like

  1. Tiericide
  2. Capital ships are a bit faster to train, and that's a nerf to supercapitals because if all the maelstroms around become carriers or dreads supercapitals are as good as dead.


A thing that I don't like
There are some skills that unlock a lot of ships, namely battlecruisers and destroyers. Why would you want to change this? It looks like a move to increase skill training time and thus make more $$. Actually, after working out the right calculations, I think the change affects really few people; but I don't think that making things more skill intensive is the way to go for these reasons:

  1. Excessive skill times make difficult to follow the FOTM strategy, and in general make the unbalancement problems heavier;
  2. If a player can fly more different ships he will be able to change tactics and experience more different kinds of warfare, a more varied gameplay, and thus you can experience more in the EVE universe. By forcing specialization, you are forcing players to commit their time to something that could turn out to be the 'wrong' choice.
  3. Personally I see the skill mechanic quite artificial and it makes balancement more difficult.


A consideration
I look forward to see how the Tiericide concept works when the "Local" problem is fixed and have something like submarines in space in place. The balancement of different already existing ships could take new intel gathering mechanics into account.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#585 - 2012-03-06 21:20:12 UTC
For the reimbursement of skill points and to make sure you can fly today what you could fly yesterday.

1. I would hope to see that SP would be given out to all players so that they could fly at the same level any race's ship that they can today automatically. Which is what I believe you have stated multiple times.

2. As for Cap ship pilots whining about having trained BS to 5 when they wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps make an automatic petition category so pilots can choose to get reimbursed for those SP if they want.

3. And do the same for the miners who trained barges to 5 to get exhumers.


And for the first part above give us enough notice so we can all game the system equally and get extra free SP! Twisted
h4kun4
Banana-Republic.
Shadow Cartel
#586 - 2012-03-06 21:20:54 UTC
How will you mange this?
I mean will I have Caldari, Amarr, Minmatar and Gallente Battlecruiser V because I now have skilled Battlecruisers V? Will I be able to get into my Machariel after this Add On?
For me the Ship lines are a bit extreme, I dont like the Idea of playing a game with "Scissors, Stone & Paper" Gameplay. I have no problem with killing the Tier System and make the Bonuses like 1 Sniper ship, one Short Range DPS ship and one in the Middle but not that extreme how it sounded in the Blog...
Ashen Spiral
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#587 - 2012-03-06 21:21:26 UTC
Great plan! This is the kind of innovation that we don't see often enough. However, if a situation arises where players are forced to choose which destroyer/battlecruiser racial skills to keep and which to give up, I'd suggest that interdictors and command ships be properly balanced first. As it stands, it would be foolish to not choose Sabre over other interdictors, just as foolish as choosing Gallente command ships over those of any other race.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#588 - 2012-03-06 21:21:52 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
3. And do the same for the miners who trained barges to 5 to get exhumers.


You will still need 5 for exhumers but not for covetor which is a barge.
Raneru
Viper-Squad
Pandemic Horde
#589 - 2012-03-06 21:22:27 UTC
CCP, any thoughts on changing missile skills so you have to train rockets to train standards to train heavies to train cruise/torps? (as with turrets)

/me ducks
Knug LiDi
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#590 - 2012-03-06 21:22:30 UTC
Crazy KSK wrote:
overall I'm optimistic about the changes proposed only the BS4 for carrier is a bit disturbing

also there seems to be a common misconception within ccp
http://picload.org/image/ropaglw/shiptech_1920fix.png
is fact right now


I completely agree and I strongly hope that it is pulled back below T2 in "improvement"

If only we could fall into a woman's arms

without falling into her hands
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#591 - 2012-03-06 21:22:45 UTC
WAIT A MINUTE.

I fly all 8 Racial command ships(7 except for EOS lulz).

You're telling me that I'll have only one racial BC to V (or sp to get), but I have to retrain 3 other Racial BC V (80+ days) just to fly those again?!?
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#592 - 2012-03-06 21:23:02 UTC
Alastanir wrote:
Training a carrier should be harder to get into than a marauder or black ops. I vote "nay" on lowering cap requirements to BS IV.


You're forgetting the other skills one needs to fly a capital.

* Advanced Spaceship Command 5
* Capital Ships (to 3 for anything not a Rorqual)
* All the Jump Drive related crap (JDO to 5 fist to unlock any of the other important ones, namely JDC which training to 5 is indispensable)
* Drone Interfacing 5 to be able to even begin training Fighters
* Capital xxx Turrets/Launchers which requires their prereq BS guns at 5 to inject
* Logistics 5 to be able to triage
* Adv Weapons Upgrades 5 to even think about sieging a dread
* All the other Capital module skills (reppers, boosters) that one needs to fit a capital

All in all, simply removing the requirement for racial BS 5 isn't going to substantially change much. That's just removing a single 25-30 day skill out of a bevvy of 18-25 day skills.

/T
Ruri Atreides
Halliburton Heavy Industries
#593 - 2012-03-06 21:23:07 UTC
Dearest CCP

1. Why are you trying to change something that isnt broken
2. Having the ability to fly every sub cap ship in the game has taken me YEARS of paying for this game so anything that may jeprodize that does not get my vote.
3. I really dont want to pay for the clone grades that would be required for having 4 BC 5 skills.

In my bitter vet opinion this makes the system even more complicated than it already is.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#594 - 2012-03-06 21:23:45 UTC
I'll be honest, I can see the rationale for battlecruisers, but splitting the destroyer skill into 4 when there's only 1 T1 destroyer for each race right now seems unnecessary.

(unless this is a hint that more destroyers are coming???)

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Tinkietoo
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#595 - 2012-03-06 21:24:00 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Messilina wrote:
VaL Iscariot wrote:
Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.

You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again.


Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning.


All that is obvious is that you two have serious reading comprehension issues.

"If you can fly it today, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow."


You have serious comprehension issues for failing to understand the original point and then commenting anyway.
BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#596 - 2012-03-06 21:25:16 UTC
I think these changes are good.

I have recently cross trained into amaar and when you start the cross train its like..hmm what do I do.

I do like being able to fly almost any ship when you train certain skills to 4 and 5 but in all fairness it does allow you to do a ton of crap with not training into a particular race.

I like how eve will now force you to choose a role and play it. Currently we can reship to a dozen different things to combat a current battle. Yes that is cool but it does make a lot of players jack of trades master of none.

Is this good / bad. Neither.

I see this method trying to attract new players though not a re balance of current ships.

I think this will make people actually train to do something specific and be a true "specialist"

I think the solution is very simple as far as the SP

Reimburse ALL SP and let players put them where they want. This is a big enough game changer that you simply say here is your points put them where you want.

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#597 - 2012-03-06 21:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ P0N-3
Death to tier system: cool

Death to nonracial battlecruiser/destroyer skills: less cool. I'm real happy for all the guys who can fly every command ship already and will be able to do so after the change and I'm gonna let them finish, but...I was kind of hoping to be able to do that myself someday. Currently you get up to eight ships from BC V, depending on how many racial cruisers you've trained to V. The new system gives you two. Training each racial cruiser to V gives a huge payoff in ships available per racial skill. The payoff for the racial BC V skills isn't nearly as good.

I hope the rebalancing plan continues to evolve; I detect the potential for awesome within.
Morar Santee
#598 - 2012-03-06 21:25:26 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

What the heck? No dude, Tiericide is proof positive that they DO play and PVP.

-Liang


Actually: No, it isn't. If there is a problem with ships of a certain Tier being useless, then the answer is to rebalance the ships of that Tier. Very carefully. With as little intervention as possible.

I see all Tiers of Battleships being used. So the answer to ships not being used is not scrapping Tiers and implementing an arbitrary line of ships that forces me to use a single ship with a single fit if I want to do XYZ. This is, in fact, so much worse than Tiers that it's not even on the same scale anymore.
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
#599 - 2012-03-06 21:26:10 UTC
Knug LiDi wrote:
Despite the howling wind about SP and BC 5, for me the single most important thing I saw in the blog was the image showing t1 (tech one) ships in the centre at the bottom with navy the pirate ships showing increasing improvement. T2 on the right showing increasing specialization and t3 on the left showing increasing flexibility

BUT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE was T2 being higher in "improvement" than T3

T2 ships are optimized for a single role - a T3 ship, being more flexible can do many things, and all those things better than t1 and possibly Navy ships. But they are not supposed to be "improved" enough to do T2 roles better than T2 ships

T2 logistic ships should be better than T3 ships in that role (repping)

T2 field command ships should be better than T3 ships in this role (brawling)

T2 fleet command ships should be better than T3 ships in that role (boosting)

A cov ops (scanner not stealth bomber) should be a better probing/scanning ship than a T3

Similarly for other T2 roles.

I look forward to seeing the changes that bring T3 ships below T2 ships, for that specific t2 role.


THIS.

Right now it's t3 or go home.
Legions>zealots in every way
t3 booster>any command ship
Loki>any t2 mimnitar ship...faster than a vaga, ganker than a munin....
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade
#600 - 2012-03-06 21:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Korinne
Ruri Atreides wrote:
Dearest CCP

1. Why are you trying to change something that isnt broken


"Nuff said". And if the devs pvp'd then they would realize the obvious faux pas of stating that Megathrons/Apocalypses are anything other than plated to high hell; which is what battleships are in any reality, big guns, lots of armor.