These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1161 - 2012-03-07 13:51:52 UTC
Caterpillar wrote:
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.



Those are T2 ship skills, not generic ships. Not on the table to be changed.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Xyrcaryn
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1162 - 2012-03-07 13:53:42 UTC
Dafuq?? I fly 3 race BCs on one character and 2 races on another, and got battlecruisers 5 on both, making it awesome. Now I'll have to re-train several months of skills to do same?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1163 - 2012-03-07 13:54:08 UTC
Bluespot85 wrote:

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


13 days more accessible, by a newbie.

you save 30 days for racial BS5.
you have to spend more for racial Destroyer 4, and racial BC 4

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1164 - 2012-03-07 13:54:38 UTC
Xyrcaryn wrote:
Dafuq?? I fly 3 race BCs on one character and 2 races on another, and got battlecruisers 5 on both, making it awesome. Now I'll have to re-train several months of skills to do same?


Go back to the first post. Read the details on the third link. profit.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Lord Fargo
Thirsty Beaver
#1165 - 2012-03-07 13:55:09 UTC
Gibbo3771 wrote:
oh fuking great.

I have minnie cruiser and gallente cruiser 5, bc 5 and destroyer 5. Obviously not including I will lose use of tornado or talos, my carrier/dreads...complete fukin joke.

I fly the astarte, the sleipner, all of the dictors.

So basically your are going to reimburse BC 5 skillpoints and then I have to choose one of them.

get fuked, shower of ****.

Heres an idea, fix bots, fix FW, nerf the drake, fix drones, make missions less boring, make 0.0 less *****, fix ecm and ecm drones, actually finish WiS, nerf titans, nerf supercarriers, fix the eagle, fix the eos, fix info links, nerf off grid t3's, fix blops jump range/fuel usage.

FIX **** THAT MATTERS



You sound mad bro?you're not mad are you? keep up the tears

Great idea CCP, me and my fellow goon breden approve of this idea :unsmith:
WhiteCoatBloke
Lazy Twats Inc
#1166 - 2012-03-07 13:55:17 UTC
Caldari Marauder - Gallente Marauder - Amarr Marauder - Minmitar Marauder :- are these racial shiptypes to look forward to as well.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1167 - 2012-03-07 13:58:08 UTC
WhiteCoatBloke wrote:
Caldari Marauder - Gallente Marauder - Amarr Marauder - Minmitar Marauder :- are these racial shiptypes to look forward to as well.


Nope. Those are T2 ships, modifications of T1 BSs, so covered by the racial skill + t2 skill.


BCs aren't a T2 ship type, which modify existing hulls.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1168 - 2012-03-07 13:58:51 UTC
58 pages in less than 24 hours

If this has taught anyone anything, it's that spaceships matter

Questions
Would you be balancing things like EWar, active tanking and command bonuses at the same time? Or will you be keeping the deficiencies in those systems in mind whilst rebalancing

Are the drone boats really becoming hit and run boats

How will the implementation of this go through?

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1169 - 2012-03-07 14:00:49 UTC
Thums up CCP.

Probably not the most populair decision you have ever made, but when you step back and not look at your own character but at EvE as a whole it's good decision.

It will take me longer to fly certain ships but it will open many new oppertunities and challenges.

one question:

Quote:
Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.


Does this mean all missile combat platforms end up being "bombardment ships" or will they get their own versions of combat and attack vessles?
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#1170 - 2012-03-07 14:01:29 UTC
Gempei wrote:
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

Well everyone hates newbies anyway, so **** 'em Blink

But seriously, angering existing players would do more harm than changing the game for potential new players... they will just accept the new reality because they don't know any other. It's easier to deny someone something they never had than taking away stuff people already had.

That said, it's still a serious problem.

.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1171 - 2012-03-07 14:01:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Bluespot85 wrote:
So let me get this right, they remove learning skills to help new players, then there going to increase training for new players.
One is not like the other.

They removed learning skills because all they did was (more or less) force new players to train skills that had zero effect on what they could do in the game at the very beginning of their characters' lives — they were just a pointless meta-mechanic.

They are splitting up and rearranging the BC and dessie skills to balance them out against the other ship hull skills, and it actually reduces the training required for new players in most cases. It does indeed add a few days once you start to cross-train and if you go for the mid-range ships, but at that point, you are no longer a new player and the additions will be so small as to not really matter on the scale of things. Even in the few cases where it increases the training time, you're training for things that actually make a difference in-game: you unlock new ships; your ships get better; you unlock new skills — it's not just a pointless meta-mechanic.

This change significantly improves things for new players at the cost of slightly inconveniencing middle-aged ones, leaving old players completely unaffected.
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
#1172 - 2012-03-07 14:05:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sam Bowein
stupid forum
Bluespot85
What IU Doing
Brothers of Tangra
#1173 - 2012-03-07 14:10:36 UTC
WhiteCoatBloke wrote:
Caldari Marauder - Gallente Marauder - Amarr Marauder - Minmitar Marauder :- are these racial shiptypes to look forward to as well.


They say that they wont now, just like they did when they introduced the original gunnery skills, but once people have trained them they will introduce more skills just like they did with gunnerymissiles/drones/ewar.

Its to soften the blow and get all the fanbois on side first you see, then they will introduce amarr hac, recon, mauraders, blops skills at a later date.
Shepard Book
Underground Stargate
#1174 - 2012-03-07 14:18:42 UTC
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.

EDIT SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT:

  • New destroyer and battlecruiser skills would be same rank than existing ones
  • We have a "if you could fly it before, you can fly it now" philosophy, that means properly reimbursing/giving skills not to leave people stranded in ships they could fly before the change. Again, nothing is fixed yet.


MOAR STUFF HERE FOLKS (skills, confusing picture, apology to CSM).


So, question. Does this mean we will be grandfathered in if we can already fly a ship? I like many pilots have cross trained for many ships with my mains. It is not going to be pretty if yall don't grandfather in pilots with skill point reimbursements.
S'Ryel
Sant Brieg Corp
#1175 - 2012-03-07 14:23:56 UTC
In my world it is called "dumbing down" or "streamlining".
I don't like it, specially when it comes to skills.
Why in hell do you have to start messing again with things that are perfectly working, can't you just focus yes F O C U S on broken content/stability/upgrade engine ?
Ogogov
Arpy Corporation
#1176 - 2012-03-07 14:25:14 UTC
If this finally gets the Hyperion fixed (and the mega, and most of the cruisers..), I'm all for it. I'm also hoping some of the more nonsensical support skills (Energy Grid Upgrades V for marauders, I'm looking at YOU) that just seem to pad out training time get relaxed or dropped also.
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#1177 - 2012-03-07 14:26:30 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.


While I agree that in some cases the T3s performance is a bit out of whack with the rest of the ships, I don't agree that they should perform worse than a specialized T2 for that role. I can understand where you're coming from, and in some special cases I agree (repping for example, maybe fleet boosting as well). As a whole they SHOULD be better even though they are quite flexible for many reasons:

  • they cost 5 times what most T2 variants of the same size cost (let alone the comparison to a scanning frig!).
  • You lose skill points if you die in them.
  • Even if you use the flexibility they provide (switching subsystems), changing from one role to another still requires an investment of about as much as that fixed-role T2 ship costs.


Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should a T3 be worse at scanning compared to a CovOps. Currently T3s are the only ships in the game you can take on a lowsec or nullsec scanning trip where you don't need an additional combat ship to clear the damn stage first.
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#1178 - 2012-03-07 14:27:05 UTC
2 things...

CCP Soundwave wrote:


No one is saying you have to retrain them. Our principle for the reimbursement here will be "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today". Ytterbium will post the further details of this once it's written up.


1. I currently have Battlecruisers 5 and can fly BC’s of all races.

The quote above mentions that I will still be able to fly all Battlecruisers, but it does not mention at which level. Will my current SP’s in this skill be converted to, say level 3 of all races ? I could still fly them, but at a greatly reduced efficiency. That is not an acceptable solution.

If this is going to be done, we should not be penalised as to the level of performance we can fly these ships at.



2. It should take time to be able to fly Capital ships. This game has been dumbed down enough over the last year or two, and removing the Battleship 5 requirement from this skill will just be another step down that road. It should not happen.
Saulc Neslo
The Brown Hole
#1179 - 2012-03-07 14:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Saulc Neslo
This is a really bad change if it makes noobs have to train even more skills.

Its annoying to pvp against ppl with bad skills, please get rid of a some skills instead of introducing new ones.

Tier system changes? Tbh idk, but as a general rule i preferr diversity over balance any day.
The Gonif
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1180 - 2012-03-07 14:30:29 UTC
A lot of people have posted concerns about skill point inflation. The argument typically goes something like this:

Evanga wrote:

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.


I guess whether or not this is a valid concern will depend on exactly how CCP will be making sure that "if you could fly it yesterday, you will be able to fly it tomorrow"

If CCP accomplishes this goal by giving you the skills, then there should be no "inflation" (though your total SP count would go up). So if people who had Dessie V woke up the morning after patch day and found that they had Amarr Destroyer V, Caldari Destroyer V, Gallente Destroyer V, and Minmatar Destroyer V, they would have been made whole, their total SP would be higher (by 2M SP according to the quoted post) but that's all.

On the other hand, if CCP made you whole by reimbursing SP the effects would be different. In this scenario the morning after patch day the pilot in question would wake up with each racial destroyer skill at 0 but with 2M SP available for reallocation. Now the pilot might spend the points by allocating 500K to each of the racial dessies and end up exactly where he was (capability wise) as scenario 1. However, the pilot could choose to allocate 500K to only one racial dessie class while using the remaining 1.5M SP on some other skill that he did not previously have.

This second scenario does lead to SP inflation as there is an opportunity for arbitrage. You could train dessie V now in the expectaton that post patch you would turn 500K SP into 2M SP that could be moved to any other skill.

I guess this is just one of the many details CCP will tell us "later". This would be ok, I guess, if the player base had any confidence that CCP is thinking through these kinds of issues. Unfortunately for CCP the tone of the responses makes clear that the player base does not trust CCPs ability to fully understand the consequences of its own actions.