These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
James1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
#721 - 2012-03-06 22:48:20 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Ok this thread needs some love now.


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.

  • 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.



CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:


  • Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.



CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:


  • I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.

  • I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.

    Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here Oops.

    That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.



We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.



Go home - Go to bed - This can all wait till morning. Your only human and odds are you'll end up saying something whilst really tired and high on emotion that you will regret tomorrow (read $1000 pants)

This is no way near on the same level as Fearless so i wouldn't threat too badly. Also i would assume very few people are actually reading the posts now and are just mindlessly posting their thoughts so it might be worth making a separate thread. Teiricide is a great thing and as long as these changes are implemented properly they will drastically improve the game on so many levels :)

....

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#722 - 2012-03-06 22:48:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Bruno Bourque wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.


No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3


I take it back, you ARE a bit thlck. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Lamperouge Kasenumi
Doomheim
#723 - 2012-03-06 22:48:43 UTC
Spectrael wrote:
Even if all players who have Battlecruisers V trained are given Racial Battlecruisers V, it's still 4 skills future players are going to have to train.

Leave it the way it is.



So what? I don't have BC 5 on any of my chars and I don't mind the change. Having 1 skill to unlock that many ships was too good, you vets are lucky you had that in the first place.

If this helps them balance ship that are underused while also opening up new possibilities for ships, everybody wins.

HTFU, this is an online game, your experience may changes overtime and that's a great thing.

Also, an Arbitrator line of ship, count me in!
Tubolard
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#724 - 2012-03-06 22:49:43 UTC
If the "if you could fly it before then you can fly it after" hold true why train BC and Desi skills at all, Hell if I need Desi 4 and BC 4 to fly a BS after the fix, but never bought the skills or put any training into them before the fix and can fly a BS, it must mean I get Desi 4 and BC 4 without having to train or buy the skill books! Sounds like I need to train BS 1 in all the other races!
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#725 - 2012-03-06 22:49:52 UTC
Time to do some investments in minerals...

Stuff Goes here

Bruno Bourque
#726 - 2012-03-06 22:51:16 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Bruno Bourque wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.


No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3


I take it back, you ARE a bit thlck. Smile

Nothing to take back, you were talking to someone else at the time. and that was the first post saying "5 will be 5 for all races"...Soundwaves comment was generic.
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
#727 - 2012-03-06 22:51:24 UTC
Bruno Bourque wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.


No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3

*cough* Command ships need BC 5 *cough*

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I'd follow my own god damned advice.

Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#728 - 2012-03-06 22:51:29 UTC
Right so time to skill up (racial)frigate IV and cruiser III skills for some serious SP cash in for the future. Lol
neur0zen
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#729 - 2012-03-06 22:52:46 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
......but allow us to repeat again......


Allow me to repeat myself again too :

DONT YOU HAVE OTHER PRIORITY THAN SPLIT SKILL ???
Bruno Bourque
#730 - 2012-03-06 22:53:19 UTC
Grey Azorria wrote:
Bruno Bourque wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.


No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3

*cough* Command ships need BC 5 *cough*

And those that didnt have CS trained?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#731 - 2012-03-06 22:54:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
/edit

Pointless post

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Deo ExMachina
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#732 - 2012-03-06 22:54:37 UTC
you know at first look i was like NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. BUT i am gonna put faith in omg im gonna say this, im gonna put faith in ccp they smacked the last patch out of the park and oo soundwave well i think he will do us right. and hey if they dont they will have just thrown away all the trust they got back in the last patch
Force Colonel
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#733 - 2012-03-06 22:55:23 UTC
CCP what are yo doing, are you playing eve? I think this is just waste of time....

You must do more important things for ex. like this:

1) Rigs. All of them.

Rigs have never been changed (bar very few units) since the very introduction of them in 2006! Some of them are way too good (popularity speaks for itself), some just don't induce proper penalties, some don't have penalties at all, some aren't even stacking penalized while costing merely 50 calibration points and providing very useful bonuses. Insanity, to put it mildly.

2) Buffer vs. active tanking.

Tanking in general is a very powerful ability. It doesn't matter what the ship itself does on a battlefield or how it's affected by other stuff, but it still dies by taking damage. One's ability to tank that damage is to come with proper cost. At the moment active tanking comes with: high CPU and grid requirements, high capacitor usage. On the other hand, current buffer tanking, while being very potent and popular (yet again, numbers speak for themselves), is hardly associated with any significant penalties. That is especially true for shield tanking, where increase of signature radius is simply a (bad) joke.

There's a great number of ways we can improve buffer tanking (so that it becomes balanced), but the idea of decreasing mobility for using HP modules is something hardly anyone will argue with. Decreased mobility should be there no matter whether you go for shield or armor. Wanna move fast(er)? Go for active tanking then. What is really cool, it's the fact this change hardly affects fleet warfare: the difference between everyone going at 1km/s and say 700-800 is pretty much non-existent. Great Nano Fix reduced velocity values by about the same margin, yet people still blob just fine.

I'm surely perfectly fine with CCP introducing instead some other proper penalties for buffer tanking, but these changes should then come in significant shifts - you can not just increase PG usage of pesky Large Shield Extenders by 20 MWs and consider it done. Nothing will change.

As for repairing/boosting values, these are fine as they are. Increasing them will just ruin small-scale PvP. We don't want to meet unbreakable monsters on each gate. The game is meant to be fun and dynamic, so the stuff must explode. Increasing tanking values just forces people to bring bigger numbers with them and that's it. By the way, that's why there are so many blobs around - the whole game is already overtanked (thanks to buffer tanking being so good) and people can't achieve anything within reasonable timeframe without bringing in a gazillion of teammates. Or at least they think they can't, which is a whole another story - I've already tried my best busting these myths with my movies, so please don't make me elaborate on it here with mere words at my disposal.


taken from here... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68075
Haleuth
Peoples Liberation Army
Goonswarm Federation
#734 - 2012-03-06 22:57:07 UTC
This looks to me like the start of "lets balance all the classes and dumb the game down"

Strange that the only time i ever need to read these forums is when other people tell me ingame that soundwave wants to make stupid changes.

You should get a grip tbh.

You promised/insinuated a gradual progression in ships and equipment from t1-t2-t3 and beyond, you deliver t3 cruisers and thats it.

You talk about balancing broken ships by increasing training time instead of tweaking the broken ships.

You promised/insinuated that we'd be fighting in space ships within a planets atmosphere, you deliver an FPS.

You promised/insinuated mining revamps to "bring back the gold rush" and deliver nothing.

You set up faction war round tables and dont turn up.

Instead of cunjuring up more crazy ideas how about doing some of the stuff you as a company have been saying your going to do for nearly a decade?

How about dealing with the remote repair agro mechanic thats been pissing folk off for nearly a decade?

Nah dont bother, get yourself back to the pub and magic your next stupid idea out of your arse.

anzelotte
well of abyss
#735 - 2012-03-06 22:57:36 UTC
btw.. in blog again - space combat = naval combat. ships of the line, etc.. moreover mentioned cavalry, artillery..
yes it's hard to imagine how real space combat may be look like.. in past sf books and movies autors often use sea analogue..
but it's just wrong ppl..
James1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
#736 - 2012-03-06 22:57:49 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Ok this thread needs some love now.


SKILLS:

[list]
  • 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.


  • I swear 10seconds ago I read that and it said if you have bc 5 you will receive all racial bcs as 5 and now its been edited along with my quoted version :S


    ....

    Orion Guardian
    #737 - 2012-03-06 22:58:10 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Ok this thread needs some love now.


    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.

    • 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.



    CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:


    • Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.



    CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:


    • I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.

    • I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.

      Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here Oops.

      That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.



    We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.



    Ytterbium: I am sure I read the phrase "So everyone who has BC V trained, will get all the racial BC V skills" when I first saw your post. I may have been hallucinating (because its gone now) but did you edit that out?
    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #738 - 2012-03-06 23:00:59 UTC
    The dev blog says, "Starting with EVE Online: Inferno, we will begin revamping ship classes one after the other, making sure obsolete hulls serve a purpose."

    However, I'm unclear if the skill changes will occur with the Inferno Release, or if they will be released prior to Inferno...

    Would you please clarify when we can expect these changes to happen?
    Bruno Bourque
    #739 - 2012-03-06 23:01:02 UTC
    HAHAH, backpeddle from:

    Quote:
    Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.
    Sirius Cassiopeiae
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #740 - 2012-03-06 23:01:25 UTC
    This is sooo goooood change!!!
    Make it happen soon, please... :)