These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mimiru Minahiro
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#741 - 2012-03-06 23:01:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro
The argument that decreasing the BS V req for a carrier is bad because "all the newbs will race into a carrier before having proper skills" is the epitome of dumb. If someone wants to race into carriers (or any cap for that matter) without proper supports they will already be doing so. Last time I checked training BS V does not grant the necessary support skills, intelligence, nor experience necessary to pilot a cap proficiently.
Deo ExMachina
Dependable Delinquents
Fraternity.
#742 - 2012-03-06 23:01:39 UTC
Orion GUardian wrote:
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?


ooo no you dont he did write that i even told my whole alliance that over ts3. come on guys dont be cheap. do you all like talk before you post stuff or is it just oo i feel like writing this cuz we gonna get slammed and loose more players. if you dont know what your gonna do dont try to BS us around WE PAY FOR THIS
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#743 - 2012-03-06 23:04:49 UTC
I knew he would edit that line out...

Stuff Goes here
Evanga
DoctorOzz
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#744 - 2012-03-06 23:04:57 UTC
"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"


Quoted for thruth, too late CCP.
Orion Guardian
#745 - 2012-03-06 23:07:20 UTC
Well I just fear they will do something cheap like reduce the requirements for Commandships to Skill Level IV so we can still fly them with racial BC IV without having to give us more SP or reduce the Rank of the BC skill ;)
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
#746 - 2012-03-06 23:07:33 UTC
I think a more prudent question is why change?

Skills and the skill tree are a route to a ship: not the ships role, performance or capabilities. Im struggling to see how, once the skill route is modified what difference it makes to the ships themselves.

Skills are 'after the fact' - once you have the skill to fly a ship how you got there is history and largely irrelevant.

Does training:

frigate>cruiser>battle cruiser> battle ship or

cruiser>battleship

effect the performance of said battleship?

No.

So why the change? The implication is that this change is in line with the changes to module names: to simplify the surface complexity of EVE Online?

That "might" be a worthwhile objective, but the stated objective in the blog is to balance ships: not reduce complexity for new players.

And, even assuming this process does achieve greater balance (which I'm not convinced of yet) this all becomes rather irrelevant when your ship is instapopped by the focused fire of lots of other ships.

C.
Orion Guardian
#747 - 2012-03-06 23:08:08 UTC
PS: I fear being too perceptive in this may have caused a little trouble for Ytterbium here, when his superiors tell him he ****** up perhaps?
Crasniya
The Aussienauts
#748 - 2012-03-06 23:08:22 UTC
I like how people want CCP to give them like 4.6 million free skillpoints to add to their 1.5 million skillpoint Battlecruiser V reimbursement.

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net
Djakku
U Subbed M8
#749 - 2012-03-06 23:08:33 UTC
First you're changing all the module names to some basic rubbish, you may aswell just have them grey green blue purple LEGENDARY ORANGE modules and be done with it, now you're turning this into a class-based MMO with combat ship, attack vessel, and all this, add all this ontop of WASD in-station gameplay...

...seriously just rename the game WORLD OF SPACESHIPS and be done with it.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#750 - 2012-03-06 23:09:35 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.


I'll keep hammering on this one because I really, really want an answer.

How will changing the arbitrary limitations of a tier based system into arbitrary limitations of a role based system help?

Couldn't you just throw the tier system out and deal with every hull on its own?

From what I can figure out from the devblog, today you guys can't rebalance the Bellicose how you want to rebalance the Bellicose because it's a tier 2 cruiser. Wouldn't we be having the same problem in twelve months only then it'll be we can't rebalance it like we want to because it's a support cruiser.
Kozmic
State War Academy
Caldari State
#751 - 2012-03-06 23:09:47 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • 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.

    • Thanks for the clarification.
    bomb1911
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #752 - 2012-03-06 23:11:21 UTC
    This all looks fantastic! but for the love of god PLEASE give us a choice to get reimbursed with battleship 5 if you do indeed make it redundant for capital ships.. I would very much like that month of my training back
    Djakku
    U Subbed M8
    #753 - 2012-03-06 23:11:27 UTC
    also...

    Quote:
    Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.



    n1 troll...
    M'nu
    Vard School of Cryo Cuisine
    #754 - 2012-03-06 23:13:31 UTC
    Vanessa Vansen wrote:
    First, I do like the idea behind the stuff presented in the dev blog.

    So, training ship skills ...

    CCP Point of view
    - Spaceship Command ... (nearly) all you need to know about flying a spaceship
    - Advanced Spaceship Command ... filling up the gaps
    - Racial Ship skills (frigate, destroyer, cruiser, ...)

    Real life:
    - car driving licence ... one for valid for all kinds of cars, no matter which "country" tag they have
    - lorry drifing licence ...

    - left hand drive experience
    - right hand drive experience

    So, in real life cross training (licences) are not necessary but mostly you'll have more experience with either left or right hand driving.

    From my point of view, the ship size skills correspond to the driving licences while racial handling skills could correspond to the experience (left or right hand drive).

    This way the skills would be more "natural", cross-training would be easier, and you wouldn't have to introduce a **** load of new skills each time you come up with something new.

    Strategic Cruisers and Subsystems skills were a good example, besides having the racial strategic cruisers skill.

    However, you are the ones developing the game, we players will either contiune playing or leave, but I ask you to go the whole way, if you want to rework ship skills, not just half the way as you proposed in the dev blog.

    edit: I like the **** Big smile


    Yeah, I can drive a motorcycle and semi truck with the licence I got when I was 16.
    Nair Alderau
    The Blessed Chains of Freedom
    #755 - 2012-03-06 23:14:12 UTC
    I like the direction this is going in.

    But I have one quibble with the new ship progression:
    Some closely related and useful ship class progression should be kept even in the T2 lines.

    The bare minimum is Covops --> Recon ( --> Black Ops)
    Or maybe CovOps --> Recon/BlackOps

    It just strikes me as ... odd ... if a Recon Cruiser pilot can't fly a covops frigate.

    The interceptor/interdictor/heavy interdictor line is another (but more arguable) candidate.

    The rest is fine without those requirements.
    Michael Harari
    Genos Occidere
    HYDRA RELOADED
    #756 - 2012-03-06 23:14:16 UTC
    Djakku wrote:
    also...

    Quote:
    Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.



    n1 troll...


    The entire list is troll. Its a bunch of roles that dont exist in this game with a list of hulls that may or may not sort of fit in these categories that again are not eve-online roles
    Victor Twenty
    The Scorpion Brothers
    #757 - 2012-03-06 23:14:32 UTC
    First, way to fail on the Rokh image instead of the Naga in the Caldari tech tree. Lol

    Second, Like the changes to the T2 ship requirements, please consider following up with tech 2 turret progression, it seems a bit unfair that missiles dont require a tiered system to get to Tech 2.

    Third, why not just add Destroyers 4 to Cruiser as a required skill and Battlecruiser 4 to Battleship as a required skill. Accomplish the same goal without a. pissing off the community and b. probably is alot less work on your part.

    Vic20
    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #758 - 2012-03-06 23:15:46 UTC
    Evanga wrote:
    "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"


    Quoted for thruth, too late CCP.


    I thought that was too good to be true:

    BC V = 1.5m sp
    Dessie V = 0.5 m sp

    All Racial BC V & Dessie V == 8 m sp... a 6 m sp boost is an assload of sp to just "give out". That's about 4 Months of free SP's....

    I'm sorry, even as a vet, I just don't think we deserve that type of boost.

    Reimburse the BC V and Dessie V sp, Lower the prereqs for Dictors and CS's to LvL IV, and then give us all racials at LvL IV. We can train LvL V for the races we desire, and we can apply sp how we want.

    Then, let us know that in 6 months from the change, the pre-reqs for CS's and Dictors will be increased to LvL V's.... People will have time to sell or blow up their current ships, time to train up as they desire, and it doesn't cause some huge in-game balance.
    Burseg Sardaukar
    Free State Project
    #759 - 2012-03-06 23:15:48 UTC
    I'm assuming, after Soundwave's poasts, that the skill system, to be fair, would have to be along the lines of:

    If you have the racial cruiser to III, and battlecruiser trained to any level, that you'd receive the same racial battlecruiser skill to the level you had BC trained to.

    So with Gallente Cruiser V, Caldari Cruiser IV, Minmatar Cruiser III, and Amarr Cruiser II, and BC to V, you'd receive Gallente/Caldari/Minmatar BC V, but not Amarr BC at all. This seems fair to me.

    It'd absolutely inflate the crap out of SP totals, but provided the system worked along these lines, I'm fine with it.

    Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!
    theelusiveyoda
    Death Troopers
    PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
    #760 - 2012-03-06 23:15:55 UTC
    CCP is it possible to have those charts include the currently required training times next to suggested change time in a differient color so that we can see how much of a differience each proposed change would involve to skill times.

    Also if the battlecruiser skill is devided into a individual race skill would the base training time multipler be decreased from x6 to say a x2 multipler or kept the same as that can mean alot of sp's differience when it comes to reimbursments etc. It appears alot of the discusion on the battlecruiser skill is based upon people's understanding that training all the individual race bc skills to level 5 in the future will take longer than it currently does.