These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sovai Elaaren
KABS Deep Recon Unit
#821 - 2012-03-07 00:23:28 UTC
Basil Wenclas wrote:
Akara Ito wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours?


This is my problem with this blog

Skill lines sounds like an awfull euphenism for getting warrior ships, mage ships, shaman ships, etc

Limiting ships to a single role is bullshit
One of the great things about Eve is that you can fly every ship as you want
PvP in Eve is often about finding a fitting that suits your need and getting effects out of ships that people dont expect

And yeah, racial BC skills are... weird.
Actually I dont know why they are even usefull.
Right now the skill system is mostly tree based, it splits up more and more the higher you get
Whats the advantage of turning this into a single line system?
Its just annoying and a huge oversimplification.

Oh and BS 4 for caps is horrible, a shitload of people crossskill caps and I guess there will be no sp reimbursement for BSV .
You'd have to reimburse so much skills to get these things done, its pathetic.


This is my main problem with this as well.

I have no problem with racial dessy/bc skills, it always confused me why those weren't around in the first place. But I really don't like this ship classification idea. Let us define what's used for what. After all, as has been evidenced, WE are the ones that play the game.

The particular role bonuses for ships already help define what they are good for. This just sounds like a dumbing down of the game.

Not that this will make a difference, we all know it's going to be rammed through anyways.


There's nothing in here to suggest that they won't still be versatile in the way the ships are now. Except maybe that more of them will be useful because they won't be arbitrarily pre-nerfed (ie. tier 1 battlecruisers).

Besides, we already have roles, they're just not classified in those terms. There's a logi cruiser, a mining cruiser, combat cruisers, etc for each race currently. They aren't called that, but their bonuses dictate what their roles are.
James1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
#822 - 2012-03-07 00:24:01 UTC
Laura Dexx wrote:
james1122 wrote:
Laura Dexx wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
words words words


Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile?

I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes:

This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!

Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already?


Confirming that its all about raw HP


If you're trying to appeal to ridicule, at least try to disprove.


Not quite sure what i'm supposed to be disproving ?

I don't understand how a graph of hp can be called proof that longer training time is needed.

A maller gets more hp than a vagabond does this mean a maller should take more time to train for that a vagabond ? Your argument is extremely linear and just out right stupid

....
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#823 - 2012-03-07 00:24:09 UTC
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Zaxix wrote:

The training times for these is heinous, so we'd like to get as much lead time as possible to know how to address this.

Thanks


Everyone, please note that the very first post in this thread confirms that no one will be retraining. They will most likely be throwing skill points at you to grab the stuff you need to fly what you already have. And if everyone complains loudly enough, probably a few more.

Just trying to keep down on the forum thread clutter, no sense going on and on about skill retraining if it there will be no disruptions in game play over it (and you may come out ahead depending on how the bribe goes!)


I don't want to just be able to "fly" what I can already fly. I want to EFFECTIVELY fly what I can already EFFECTIVELY fly. And that effectiveness is a lot related to the skill level ie; I II III IV V, bonuses applied for that ship hull. In other words I have Minmatar and Amarr cruiser V which does not affect the Myrm or Drake because I have BC V from which their bonuses are derived.

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.

Repeating this because apparently it literally cannot be repeated enough.
Jodie Amille
EVE Corporation 690846971
#824 - 2012-03-07 00:24:26 UTC
Just posting to say I'm laughing at all the self-righteous, indignant rage posts in this thread. Especially the people whining about higher clone costs as if they were gonna stop training before they got to the next clone level or something. lol.

Blog sounds awesome to me, it's making me really look forward to the next expansion
Laura Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#825 - 2012-03-07 00:25:57 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Laura Dexx wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
words words words


Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile?

I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes:

This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!

Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already?


Yet another person that didn't really read the blog.
Skill changes is the first step in change to abolish tiers and let them balance ships by class and function instead of just where they happen to fit in implied progression. Skills are just the first base change in a class by class balance adjustment. And that these ship classes will get new specialization skills which can and will likely fill in those cap training gaps and add more time to all ships to keep older players still interested (at least to some degree) with the ships that are currently tier 1.


Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#826 - 2012-03-07 00:26:47 UTC
Creat Posudol wrote:
Zaxix wrote:
Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.

As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.

What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now...


Jump Freighters will continue to require Level 5 because they are T2 (all T2 require now and will according to the devblog continue to require Level 5).

The Question about freighters is relevant though (I personally don't care as I have the prerequisites). I personally think they should continue to require Level 5 as they are a significant step up from their "skill predecessor". There should be SOME commitment. It already only takes about a month to get into one anyway...

Actually, it doesn't require a freighter V skill. Racial freighter 4 is all that is required. There are other level 5 skills required, but they aren't quite the same progression as other ships.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Nomad for example

Bokononist

 
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#827 - 2012-03-07 00:27:33 UTC
People are going to freak out at this massive rebalancing, because a lot of players hate change (bitter vet syndrome). DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM! Everything in the blog is golden; make it happen. This is going to revamp Eve in brilliant and innovative ways Cool

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
The Economist
Logically Consistent
#828 - 2012-03-07 00:31:36 UTC
Zaxix wrote:
Creat Posudol wrote:
Zaxix wrote:
Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.

As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.

What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now...


Jump Freighters will continue to require Level 5 because they are T2 (all T2 require now and will according to the devblog continue to require Level 5).

The Question about freighters is relevant though (I personally don't care as I have the prerequisites). I personally think they should continue to require Level 5 as they are a significant step up from their "skill predecessor". There should be SOME commitment. It already only takes about a month to get into one anyway...

Actually, it doesn't require a freighter V skill. Racial freighter 4 is all that is required. There are other level 5 skills required, but they aren't quite the same progression as other ships.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Nomad for example


I guess if bs V is being removed from the capital ship pre-reqs solely to maintain the continuity of t1 tiers having a lvl4 hull req and t2 lvl 5; then it would follow that racial freighter 5 is going to be needed for jump freighters.
Laura Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#829 - 2012-03-07 00:31:40 UTC
james1122 wrote:
Laura Dexx wrote:
james1122 wrote:
Laura Dexx wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
words words words


Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile?

I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes:

This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!

Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already?


Confirming that its all about raw HP


If you're trying to appeal to ridicule, at least try to disprove.


Not quite sure what i'm supposed to be disproving ?

I don't understand how a graph of hp can be called proof that longer training time is needed.

A maller gets more hp than a vagabond does this mean a maller should take more time to train for that a vagabond ? Your argument is extremely linear and just out right stupid


But we aren't talking about mallers and vagabonds here, we are talking about the 'linear approach' to skill training time also being applied to capital ships. A capital ship gets so much more: A jump drive, utility high slots, boatloads of EHP, massive increases in (remote) repair capabilities, and incredible drone capacity to further increase their usefulness.

What I am trying to reason here is that the racial battleship V requirement for the capital ships is justified and there really is no reason to simplify it. I can't believe that you openly support two step but would gladly advocate for removing the single largest hurdle keeping people from training into capital ships.

Also, because I was so nice, here's a graph for fitted EHP. Big ******* difference isn't it?
GRIEV3R
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#830 - 2012-03-07 00:32:49 UTC
On the nerdrage over skills

How many times does CCP have to say if you could fly it yesterday, you can fly it today? Are you guys blind and can't read multiple Devs all confirming that's their approach? Enough's already guys, seriously. They've said very clearly and professionally they're not going to screw over your skills. Shut up and read it. CCP has made enormous strides in their community relations since Monoclegate. Give them some respect.

On classifying ships into broad categories

I see two sides to this; on the one hand, it helps make sense of Eve's bewildering variety of ships to any less experienced players. On the other hand, it seems like CCP is kind of dictating what ships should be used for instead of letting the community improvise. To these two sides of the coin, I say first - the community will continue to improvise regardless. Second, the people who designed the ships are pretty damn knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of game mechanics. For anyone other than bittervets who already know everything, those designers do have a certain authority to offer general guidance on specific strengths and weaknesses of ships. TL;DR it's a good idea

On BS 4 for capitals

I think capitals should be hard to get into. They should take many months of dedicated training. BS 5 accounts for almost 30 days alone. If you're gonna knock it down to BS 4 to preserve the logical progression, then you should find another prereq to tweak so those 30 days are not lost.
Morar Santee
#831 - 2012-03-07 00:33:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Morar Santee
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
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.


This is so hilarious, there is no words.

The situation looks like this:
CCP decides to take your **** away. Many players had trained the skills to fly the ships in question perfectly. Now they will get reimbursed to the point where they can still fly the ships, but have to retrain some of the racial skills to V to fly them as well as they did before.
In other words: Even veterans have to spend months to train skills that never existed, were never on their skill-plans, and should never exist in the first place.

All new players will have to invest 4x more time to get to where the veteran players are to begin with.

Even if you give CCP all the benefit of doubt in the world, the most harmless explanation for this is that they realized people tend to run out of stuff to train for eventually. If you only fly two races (minus capitals), you'll train for three odd years and be done.
With this change, the amount of time required to cross-train suddenly explodes. For no other reason than CCP being too lazy to come up with meaningful content that requires skillpoints.
Instead, they give us the same content, but it suddenly takes 4x longer to train for. With the promise there will be more ships available due to these changes soon (CCP speak for: "another abandoned feature"). And the ships we do have get pushed into WoW-ish roles, whether we want to or not.


And after hearing this, you say: "Oh no, the reimbursement is too big. We do not deserve such a SP buff!"

It's no wonder CCP thinks they can get away with whatever. Hell, if I was a Dev and read a comment like that, I'd also put more crack on the pipe and keep pushing **** at my "customers".
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#832 - 2012-03-07 00:34:07 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. 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.




OK, with your first bullet I think this won't be a big deal at all. This is a good idea and I'm glad you are doing it. The tier system needed to be fixed.

For the skill progression, the change to the mining vessels is nice but one thing that limits people from using a covetor is not mining barge, it's astrogeology. That should also be considered here.

On Capitals, I really think it should be kept at 5. Although, that decision is with CCP and where they want their game. If you want more people to fly capitals, feel free to make this update. However, right now I have Gallente BS 5 so I could fly a thanatos. I really don't like the idea that I had to train that to 5 and now it's essentially worthless (yes, I get better gallente BS bonuses but it's not going to justify the 26days of training time). I did that to fly a carrier, nothing else. Now with this change I get to fly all carriers since I have all BS trained to 5. There are no bonuses for the BS skill applied to carriers.

So all of us that fly carriers, we wouldn't have trained to BS 5 with this proposed change. If you want to drop it to 4, will we get a refund? What about Dreds? Same issue? If you keep this change, I suggest a refund for BS 5 for all that trained it.

Finally, if you choose to keep this change (allow only BS 4) then I suggest changing carriers to reflect roles. Right now they are all essentially doing pretty much the same thing with minor changes. When you go to Supers you get a bit different but if I can fly all 4 carriers now, then give me a reason to train the others. Yes, this will be a big change as well since you are going to change the way ships are used - expensive ships - but I really think that flying cap ships should be a limited thing, not something everyone can do. The expense is a limiting factor but cap ships are special and I think it level 5 of BS is appropriate.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#833 - 2012-03-07 00:35:56 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Zaxix wrote:

The training times for these is heinous, so we'd like to get as much lead time as possible to know how to address this.

Thanks


Everyone, please note that the very first post in this thread confirms that no one will be retraining. They will most likely be throwing skill points at you to grab the stuff you need to fly what you already have. And if everyone complains loudly enough, probably a few more.

Just trying to keep down on the forum thread clutter, no sense going on and on about skill retraining if it there will be no disruptions in game play over it (and you may come out ahead depending on how the bribe goes!)

I can and did read the first post. Please consider that not EVERYONE is talking about the same thing. I'm referring specifically to the related prerequisites that may or may not be affected (and there are many level 5's involved), to the need for training specific racial freighter skills (which ones will need to be 4 or 5 if JF is t2?), and to general information that pilots who are mid stream training up to join Black Frog might be interested in for planning purposes. If we're talking a lead time to this change on the order of several months, JF training pilots need to have an idea of how and what to prioritize for skill speccing, etc. Even more relevant, no one has actually specified that the JF skill will be treated in the same manner as the other generic skills. In an election season, you might also consider training Diplomacy to 11.

Bokononist

 
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#834 - 2012-03-07 00:37:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Zifrian
Zaxix wrote:
Creat Posudol wrote:
Zaxix wrote:
Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.

As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.

What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now...


Jump Freighters will continue to require Level 5 because they are T2 (all T2 require now and will according to the devblog continue to require Level 5).

The Question about freighters is relevant though (I personally don't care as I have the prerequisites). I personally think they should continue to require Level 5 as they are a significant step up from their "skill predecessor". There should be SOME commitment. It already only takes about a month to get into one anyway...

Actually, it doesn't require a freighter V skill. Racial freighter 4 is all that is required. There are other level 5 skills required, but they aren't quite the same progression as other ships.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Nomad for example

This is a valid concern I would like to see addressed as well as Jump Freighters are T2 Capitals. So this is kind of a blend between the two systems.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder
Grimmash
New Jovian Exploration Department
New Jovian Collective
#835 - 2012-03-07 00:39:50 UTC
Proposal:

Make a generic skill for each hull class (Frig/destroyer/etc).
Make a specialty skill for each race, which can only be trained as high as your core skill.
Split hull bonuses between those two skills, for all ship types and classes.

It would let newer players try out more ships, and then decided which ones they really want to focus on. It would also "punish" players who fly fancy tech II ships w/o the racial stats to back them up. So you get both shorter and longer training times, and more/less effective pilots. Then when you implement the new system, give everyone the base skill at highest trained racial variant, and racial skills at the currently trained levels. Key the destroyer and BC specialty skills to what the player has ever flown. No one loses any ships they can fly, and the system (To me) makes more sense anyway.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#836 - 2012-03-07 00:40:44 UTC
Morwen Lagann 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.



I understand the sentiment of wanting to streamline the skill trees, but if you're going to remove the generic Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills, for those of us who have trained both of them to 5, if we don't get *all four* of the racial skills reimbursed all the way to 5, you are going to have a very, very large and angry mob on your hands.


They will a very large mob of angry ex customers on their hands.
James1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
#837 - 2012-03-07 00:43:32 UTC
Laura Dexx wrote:

But we aren't talking about mallers and vagabonds here, we are talking about the 'linear approach' to skill training time also being applied to capital ships. A capital ship gets so much more: A jump drive, utility high slots, boatloads of EHP, massive increases in (remote) repair capabilities, and incredible drone capacity to further increase their usefulness.

What I am trying to reason here is that the racial battleship V requirement for the capital ships is justified and there really is no reason to simplify it. I can't believe that you openly support two step but would gladly advocate for removing the single largest hurdle keeping people from training into capital ships.

Also, because I was so nice, here's a graph for fitted EHP. Big ******* difference isn't it?



I wasn't arguing about the removal of racial battleship 5 from the capital ship requirements

Personally I don't mind it not being there as it just means easy kills off numptys who get into those ships long before they actually have the proper skills to fly them i.e. capital reps, capital rr, capital guns, siege mod, triage etc. etc.
Getting into a ship =/= being able to use it.

No the issue I had was you using a graph of hp claiming that to be the perfect reason to increase training times on ships. It makes as much sense as claiming battlecruisers do more dps than hacs therefore they should cost more than hacs. Regardless of if what your arguing for is right or wrong your logic is just non-sense

....
Laura Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#838 - 2012-03-07 00:48:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Laura Dexx
james1122 wrote:
Laura Dexx wrote:

But we aren't talking about mallers and vagabonds here, we are talking about the 'linear approach' to skill training time also being applied to capital ships. A capital ship gets so much more: A jump drive, utility high slots, boatloads of EHP, massive increases in (remote) repair capabilities, and incredible drone capacity to further increase their usefulness.

What I am trying to reason here is that the racial battleship V requirement for the capital ships is justified and there really is no reason to simplify it. I can't believe that you openly support two step but would gladly advocate for removing the single largest hurdle keeping people from training into capital ships.

Also, because I was so nice, here's a graph for fitted EHP. Big ******* difference isn't it?



I wasn't arguing about the removal of racial battleship 5 from the capital ship requirements

Personally I don't mind it not being there as it just means easy kills off numptys who get into those ships long before they actually have the proper skills to fly them i.e. capital reps, capital rr, capital guns, siege mod, triage etc. etc.
Getting into a ship =/= being able to use it.

No the issue I had was you using a graph of hp claiming that to be the perfect reason to increase training times on ships. It makes as much sense as claiming battlecruisers do more dps than hacs therefore they should cost more than hacs. Regardless of if what your arguing for is right or wrong your logic is just non-sense



It was a simplified and crude graph showing the justification of retaining the battleship V training.
Xervish Krin
Intaki Fine Stationery Solutions
#839 - 2012-03-07 00:48:07 UTC
This looks good. However much people whine about classes and everything being too fair, the fact is that redundant ships are bad. Right now the crappy ones are just not flown. They aren't an affordable-but-not-as-effective alternative with the advantages of price, they're just never used. The Harbinger isn't a level of progression over a Prophecy; you simply never see Prophecies at all because there's no reason not to take the Harb. Give every ship a viable purpose and you'll see more tactics, more skills, more fits and a better game.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#840 - 2012-03-07 00:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Olmops
Thinking about my initial proposal on page 28, there is even a more elegant way:


Tech I - Generic Hull Size Skills:
Frigates - Rank 1
Destroyers - Rank 2
Cruisers - Rank 2
Battlecruisers - Rank 3
Battleships - Rank 3

Tech I - Race Skills:
Amarr Small Spaceships - Rank 1
Amarr Medium Spaceships - Rank 3
Amarr Large Spaceships - Rank 5

Tech II - Specialized Role Skills:
Interceptors - Rank 3
Heavy Assault Ships - Rank 4
Logistics - Rank 4
Black Ops - Rank 7


Tech II - Racial Skills:
Advanced Amarr Small Spaceships - Rank 1
Advanced Amarr Medium Spaceships - Rank 2
Advanced Amarr Large Spaceships - Rank 3


Each ship could have the bonuses tied directly to the skills like
Vexor
Cruiser Skill: +5% Hybrid Damage (more generic medium hull bonus)
Gallente Medium Spaceships: 10% Drone HP & damage (Gallentean style bonus)

Ishtar
Cruiser Skill: +5% Hybrid Damage
Gallente Medium Spaceships: 10% Drone HP & damage
Heavy Assault Ships: +5km Drone Control Range (special role bonus)
Advanced Gallente Medium Spaceships: +50m³ Drone Bay


Conversion:

Much easier now. A racial Cruiser skill is just split up:
Amarr Cruiser V becomes Amarr Medium Spaceships V + Cruisers V and so on...

If a character has trained more than one Cruiser skill, this will leave some free SP.

If someone has trained T2-skills, they are also split into a generic and a racial component:

Logistics V becomes Logistics V (now rank 3) + Advanced Amarr Medium Spaceships V.
If a character could fly 2 different Logistics before the change, he'll need 2 Racial skills now.
Which are in the sum more expensive.

But since every T2-ship requires the appropriate lvl V T1-skill, the exact same skill progress CAN ALWAYS BE BOUGHT WITHOUT EXTRA SKILL POINTS.

Example:

old:
Amarr Cruiser V - 1.280.000 SP
Gallente Cruiser V - 1.280.000 SP
Logistics V - 1.536.000 SP
total: 4.096.000 SP

new:
Amarr Medium Spaceships V - 768.000 SP
Gallente Medium Spaceships V - 768.000 SP
Cruisers V - 512.000 SP
Logistics V - 1.024.000 SP
Amarr Advanced Medium Spaceships V - 512.000 SP
Gallente Advanced Medium Spaceships V - 512.000 SP
total: 4.096.000 SP

If a pilot has lower T2 than T1 skills, there will be unassigned SP left (but less than in my previous proposal).
Cross-training T1 becomes easier while cross-training T2 becomes harder.
The total number of skill ranks in Spaceship Command stays roughly the same (only Battlecruiser, Interdictors & Command Ship Skills would be easier to learn - they are not split up an would have a higher rank than their bigger counterparts which is not in line with the other skills).
In effect there would just be some skill ranks moved from Tech I to Tech II.