These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sheol Duncan
Perkone
Caldari State
#1141 - 2012-03-07 13:09:34 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
[quote=Galphii]Everyone in the fleet has to maneuver the same way, and have the same basic damage profile(range, damage type, etc) in order to effectively co-ordinate them to work as a team. This is why you don't see Rohks in Alphafleets


Bad example, we have used Rohks in alphafleet and it works pretty well!
Seb Seba
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1142 - 2012-03-07 13:09:47 UTC
I generally LOVE this idea.
But for the love of God, players, your money PLEASE PLESE implement them all at once.
If you do it gradually you will screw the balance beyond imagination.
Danny Husk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1143 - 2012-03-07 13:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Danny Husk
Effortless Breeze wrote:
So assuming that you will be able to fly all ships you can fly post patch, any level of racial cruiser trained would need to get a racial destroyer to IV added to your characters skills. Any level of racial battleship or capital would require both racial destroyer AND racial battlecruiser IV to be added to the character sheet

This is why the money move for anyone not "all V" right now is to forget about Dessie / BC and train all racial BS skills to I. Guaranteed you wll get all racial Destroyer and BC to IV for the price of around a 10 day train today. If you can get BC V, Destroyer V before the patch hits, so much the better.
Marc Callan
Lucifer's Hammer
A Band Apart.
#1144 - 2012-03-07 13:13:04 UTC
Sounds like it could be interesting - in the Chinese curse sense of the word, natch.

But a couple of niggling hypotheticals:

What happens to someone who ignored the Battlecruisers skill entirely and went straight from racial cruisers to racial battleshpis? If BC's become a prereq for BS's, doesn't that kneecap people who skipped BC's as a dead-end skill by locking them out of their battleships?

And ... well, let's take two characters: one who's cross-trained in all races' cruisers and has BC IV, another who's only trained in Caldari cruisers and has BC IV. Player A would presumably have his BC IV skill converted to Amarr BC IV, Caldari BC IV, Gallente BC IV, and Minmatar BC IV, but what would happen to Player B? Caldari BC IV plus reimbursed skill points equal to the other three skills?

Hm ... wonder if it makes sense to set aside one month to prioritize training up BC V now, instead of finding myself having to set aside four months to train up four different BC skills?

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt

Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#1145 - 2012-03-07 13:14:03 UTC
Something else to look at:

Currently, Destroyers (as a skill) is pretty bland - it enables exactly 1 ship per race. That's OK as a stub skill (that unlocks a hull for each race), but not as a mainline skill. If Racial Destroyer is going to be part of the core progression, it needs to unlock more than a single hull.

Conversely, now that there are three different BC hulls per race, putting Battlecruiser into the mainline is workable.


(More generally, can I recommend that we all forget about our invested skill points and actually discuss the idea on its merits? If the idea itself is a net improvement, there are half a dozen different ways of dealing with "grandfathering" skill points. Moreover, your opinion is much more valuable if it doesn't appear to be smothered in a thick covering of "But I'm gonna be nerfed!")


What I'd like to hear more discussion of is "endgame" ships. What are the advantages and drawbacks of (say) lowering the threshold to actually sit in a carrier?

Note that requiring BS IV vs BS V doesn't actually have mechanical effect on your carrier skills, except an extra 20+ days training time. It won't inherently improve your support skills, since you can't train them in parallel with BS V. I'm not sure that any of the battleships count as a pseudo-carrier, so it's not providing extra opportunity to practice carrier skills. And the training time for the carrier supports is several months, so an extra half-month of experience isn't likely to make a big difference. Comments?

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1146 - 2012-03-07 13:17:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Galphii
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Galphii wrote:
The way it was described, CCP is going to adjust ship stats and capabilities base on role instead of tier. Slow heavy hitters, fast, lightly armoured strike craft etc. This clearly means that ships within the same faction fleet will have differing capabilities. Does it mean, however, that Minmatar ships will no longer be all fast, and Amarr/Caldari as much slower ships overall? Will Amarr pilots have the choice between a slow, heavily armoured cruiser as well as a fast, hunter/killer ship as well? It's an interesting thought in terms of how to rebalance the factions, instead of just having a race that's all speed, another race that only does armour tanking etc.

Oh, and the way I see it, if the ships that are kinda useless atm become useful, cross-training is less essential. Players have had to cherry-pick the good ships from the different races in order to excel, and this may well come to an end in the future.

You don't understand how fleet doctrines work, do you?

Everyone in the fleet has to maneuver the same way, and have the same basic damage profile(range, damage type, etc) in order to effectively co-ordinate them to work as a team. This is why you don't see Rohks in Alphafleets, ishtars in ahac fleets, or Hyperions in any fleets. Making it hard to crosstrain will simply make nullsec life harder than it already is.

There are major changes coming to fleets so this statement is shortsighted; you are assuming the ship capabilities are going to stay exactly as they are now, and this is not necessarily the case, given that under-performing hulls are going to be tweaked.

Oh, and the time for cross-training is only a little longer under the guidelines presented thus far; this is hardly the end of the world, given the training time for large tech 2 guns.

Personally, I'd like to see all railguns, cruise missiles and beam lasers give much higher volley damage, akin to artillery, as this seems to be the best implementation of long range weapon systems, and wouldn't require everyone to train minmatar just to do the high alpha thing that alliance fleets use.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#1147 - 2012-03-07 13:18:23 UTC
Grikath wrote:
Katarina Reid wrote:
is bs 5 getting refunded as its not needed for cap pilots?


Why would they refund BS V? That one is already racial, and in the new scheme would give access to the T2 BS.
I see no "waste" SP there to be refunded.



it is a waste if it's only trained as a capital ship pre requ.
my carrier pilot for example havs 2 BS5s but doesnt fly any BSs at all and has no large gun skills or other BS relater support skills, he has them purely to be able to fly carriers.
after these changes, those 2 BS5s turn into 60 days of totally wasted training time.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Marc Callan
Lucifer's Hammer
A Band Apart.
#1148 - 2012-03-07 13:18:47 UTC
Debir Achen wrote:
...I'm not sure that any of the battleships count as a pseudo-carrier, so it's not providing extra opportunity to practice carrier skills. ...


Well, none of them except perhaps the Dominix. Smile

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1149 - 2012-03-07 13:21:53 UTC
gfldex wrote:
Before skill changes:

Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.

After skill changes:

Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.

I can't really see where the benefit is. You will spend a lot of time getting the SP reimbursement wrong (every time you did that in the past some players had to ask GMs for help) for no benefit.
The benefit is that you can specialise earlier and faster without getting bogged down by semi-irrelevant prerequisites. This lets you be a bit more clever than before in what you choose and when.

It also makes most, if not all, T2 ships conform to standard pattern (hull skill + role skill), which makes it easier to add new ships and roles without creating a tangled mess of prerequisites, and which lets them fiddle with individual skills without creating unwanted side-effects on others. For instance, if for some reason they figured that the HAC skill was too cheap, changing it now would also affect command ships, but by decoupling those two, they can adjust one without affecting the other.
Roime
Yamagata Syndicate
Shadow Cartel
#1150 - 2012-03-07 13:24:28 UTC
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Everyone in the fleet has to maneuver the same way, and have the same basic damage profile(range, damage type, etc) in order to effectively co-ordinate them to work as a team. This is why you don't see Rohks in Alphafleets, ishtars in ahac fleets, or Hyperions in any fleets. Making it hard to crosstrain will simply make nullsec life harder than it already is.


What about logistics, tacklers, command ships, support EWAR and anti-support?

I think fleets already consist of several different kinds of ships playing to their strengths.

Perhaps it would be cool to give people with all 4 races BCs just their own racial BC V, it would mean that people would need to think outside the box and :gasp: maybe start using the wing+squad concept. Lots of whiny babies crying first, then they would either realize that there's nothing wrong with their chosen ship, but it's their lack of imagination and tactics, or ragequit for having to train a few weeks for a ship they absolutely just can't undock without. :P


And lol at "hard nullsec life"

.

Tamiya Sarossa
Resistance is Character Forming
#1151 - 2012-03-07 13:28:32 UTC
Just adding my voice to the general support for these changes - you've clearly got the right idea with the big picture here, as always the devil will be in the details. Here's hoping the new CCP can carry through on implementation.

Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#1152 - 2012-03-07 13:28:47 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
...
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.


Honestly, I prefer it that way. The community is eager go give input.
The only problem is that it is hard to work through all the input.
But with the CSM you already started to get something done in that direction.
Would be great to have a way to get more involved while not being a CSM member, e.g. working groups.
Caterpillar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1153 - 2012-03-07 13:32:37 UTC
Please forgive me if my interpretation of the proposed removal of generic skills is incorrect, but it might also be that everyone else, who appears to be focussing just on BC and destroyers, is missing something.

My point is, that there are far more generic ship skills in the game than the BC and destroyer skills, including Logistics, Recon, Heavy Interdictor, most of which i have at level 5, if you needed to understand my motive for posting.

I know that CCP have stated that you will still be able to fly the ships that you could before the change, but the bonuses that you get from the generic skill will be at risk. For example the recon skill to 5 will allow far more to be fitted onto a cov ops version, due to the recon skill bonus on the CPU usage of the cov ops cloaking device. If my general recon skill at level 5 is replaced by a whole set of racial skills to level 5, this wont be a problem, but anything less, would mean that i would not be able to use the same fittings that i currently can on at least 3 of the racial variants.

Like I said, i might have got this wrong, but, if not, please let's not just concentrate on the BC and destroyers when far more ship types will be affected.

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#1154 - 2012-03-07 13:37:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
gfldex wrote:
Before skill changes:

Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.

After skill changes:

Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.

I can't really see where the benefit is. You will spend a lot of time getting the SP reimbursement wrong (every time you did that in the past some players had to ask GMs for help) for no benefit.
The benefit is that you can specialise earlier and faster without getting bogged down by semi-irrelevant prerequisites. This lets you be a bit more clever than before in what you choose and when.

It also makes most, if not all, T2 ships conform to standard pattern (hull skill + role skill), which makes it easier to add new ships and roles without creating a tangled mess of prerequisites, and which lets them fiddle with individual skills without creating unwanted side-effects on others. For instance, if for some reason they figured that the HAC skill was too cheap, changing it now would also affect command ships, but by decoupling those two, they can adjust one without affecting the other.


It also allows us to get pirate destroyers and battlecruisers, since we now have racials for both skills Big smile.
Inepsa1987
#1155 - 2012-03-07 13:38:43 UTC
Quote:
"Removing the tier system makes it significantly easier for us to balance ships, as there is no more artificial barrier dictating ship attributes within the same class."



Could you please elaborate on the artificial barrier dictating ship attributes within the same class? What is it? How does removing whatever it is help re balance ships?

Everyone's all worried about getting there sp for bc v, when i think that is the least important thing in this blog to take note of.

Spaceship Pilot.

Gempei
Marvinovi pratele
The Bastion
#1156 - 2012-03-07 13:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Gempei
Terrorfrodo wrote:
For example, a player that joins the game five weeks before the change can train BC to V once and will get the four new skills maxed out for free. A player who joins five weeks later gets nothing and has to train the four new skills the hard way. Thus the newer player will have millions of SPs less even though he is just a few weeks younger. That's pretty rough.

And your solution? On one side bigger skill barrier for new player, on other side 10 000 angry (advanced/veterans) players - what is your choice? Ugh
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1157 - 2012-03-07 13:43:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Caterpillar wrote:
Please forgive me if my interpretation of the proposed removal of generic skills is incorrect, but it might also be that everyone else, who appears to be focussing just on BC and destroyers, is missing something.
It doesn't look like they will “racialise” the role skills you mention — they will work just like now, and in order to fly any given T2 ship, you have to have the hull skill (frigate, dessie, cruiser, whatever) at lvl V and then the role skill (HAC, Recon, Logi, Interceptor) at lvl I+.

So your general recon skill will not be split up; it will still work almost exactly the same way it does now, except it will no longer require CovOps to train. Since you already have the racial cruiser skill for the recon ships you want to fly, and since you already have the Recon skill, everything will be exactly the same as before.

Inepsa1987 wrote:
Could you please elaborate on the artificial barrier dictating ship attributes within the same class? What is it? How does removing whatever it is help re balance ships?
Right now, there is this strange rule where higher tier (= higher sklll requirement) dictates that the ship will be stronger, have more slots and fitting space, be more expensive, and generally just be “better”.

The most glaring example of this is the old tier-1 vs. tier-2 BC problem: the tier-2s are better than the tier-1s in pretty much every way for no particular reason.

They want to move away from this and instead assign each ship of a specific class to a particular role, and let the role determine what kind of abilities it gets. So a cruiser that only requires Cruiser I will no longer forcibly be weaker than a different cruiser that requires Cruiser III just because tier-1 is less than tier-3. Instead, if that first (previously tier-1) cruiser is in the “brick tank” role, it will be a hellalot sturdier than the second (previously tier-3) cruiser, even though the latter has a higher skill requirement because that second cruiser actually fulfils some newly invented “assault” role that is built around speed and firepower instead of pure tank.

To continue the battlecruiser example: the new tier-3 BCs are not simply “better” than the tier-1s and tier-2s — instead, they simply fill a different role: massive firesupport for fast-moving fleets. This role does not include massive tanks and it is implemented in such a way that they are quite vulnerable to small ships, so even though they are higher-tier than the old BCs, they are not universally better than them.
Bluespot85
What IU Doing
Brothers of Tangra
#1158 - 2012-03-07 13:47:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Bluespot85
So let me get this right, they remove learning skills to help new players, then there going to increase training for new players.

They spent years balancing the ships from 2003-2012, now they want to fix the broken ships that became broken through constant balancing.

They spend years balancing ships, now they want to spend years balancing all the ships into "roles".

They intorduce ships that ruin 0.0 warfare, now they want to make those same ships more accessable.

All this from a game that is 15 years down the development line?

So many good ideas from the players, so many bad ideas from the devs.

All i can say is that CCP has learnt nothing from the debacle that was last summers expansion.

If your were serious about fixing the broken ships, you could join faction war or RvB, fit up 100 of the broken ships (if you can) test them in combat, realise why they are broken, and fix them.

But you would have to use your product and brain to do that much wouldn't you?
Alexei Orlov
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1159 - 2012-03-07 13:47:42 UTC
I've gone through the Dev posts, but remain curious (as the focus of the discussion is elsewhere,) just when should we expect these changes to come to Tranquility? The gut instinct says for Inferno... But, I sense a surprise coming.

So, is there even a general timeline for this to begin shaking up our "alternate" lives?
(Well, apart from the speculation and panic and such.)
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#1160 - 2012-03-07 13:50:52 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
It also allows us to get pirate destroyers and battlecruisers, since we now have racials for both skills Big smile.


Oh dear Shocked Didn't think of that possibility at all. This change is even more full of win. Big smilePirate

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.