These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1181 - 2012-03-07 14:35:11 UTC
S'Ryel wrote:
In my world it is called "dumbing down" or "streamlining".
How is it “dumbing down” when they're making your decisions matter more; whey they open up for more clever planning; when they give you more choices to pick between?

Quote:
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 ?
They're focusing on the broken content that the ship progression represents and the many useless ships it leaves in its wake.

Saulc Neslo wrote:
This is a really bad change if it makes noobs have to train even more skills.
No. It will in fact let them do more with fewer skills and less skill points. They are doing exactly what you're asking them to: removing unnecessary skills from ships that have no need for those skills.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1182 - 2012-03-07 14:39:25 UTC
Rommiee wrote:
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.


2 things:

1:Go look at the first post. click on the third link in it. read. Have your questions answered.
2: 13 days quicker. (due to the addition of the racial BC and racial destroyer on the way to battleships.) Just 13 days.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
#1183 - 2012-03-07 14:39:34 UTC
Morwen Lagann wrote:
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.

I understand the feeling, but you shouldn't confuse getting in a ship and actually using the ship.

For example, I have BC5, but with my weapon skills I can only use Gallente and Caldari BC efficiently.
I wouldn't know what to do with Amarr BC5 or Minmatar BC5.

So, maybe tie the racial skills attribution to, I don't know, the certificates required to properly fly them ? That means you don't get the racial skill command if you can't use the adequate racial weapon.
Gempei
Marvinovi pratele
#1184 - 2012-03-07 14:40:44 UTC
Saulc Neslo wrote:
... if it makes noobs have to train even more skills.

Noobs dont train battlecruiser on lvl 5. Rank 6 lvl4 bc skill is only 4 days.
Inepsa1987
#1185 - 2012-03-07 14:42:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.



Thanks. Cleared it up for me. This move really makes a lot of sense. As long as the BC skills work out properly ill be happy. Being able to fly every races bc is important for a lot of people.

Spaceship Pilot.
Hotaru Yamato
Perkone
Caldari State
#1186 - 2012-03-07 14:42:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Hotaru Yamato
This idea has my full support. It doesn't mean much compared to this threadnaught though.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1187 - 2012-03-07 14:42:42 UTC
Specialization ftw. Make BC V only one racial BC V!

Also, this thread has changed my perception of an average Eve player's cognitive capacity.



.
dasuri
Doomheim
#1188 - 2012-03-07 14:43:31 UTC
Best Solution I can think of, leave the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills as combined skills; if you want consistency, make these combined skill prerequisites (for Battleships and Cruisers, respectively). So the skill tree looks like this:

Racial Frig IV ---> Destroyer IV ----> Racial Cruiser IV ----> Battlecruiser IV ----> Racial Battleship IV

For those who skipped the Battlecruiser and/or destroyer skills, give them the skills to level IV.
For those who have them trained, give them 363K free skill points.
Leave Racial Cruiser IV (and consequently Racial Frigate IV) as prerequisites for Racial Command Ships.

This is more reasonable than 6M sp free.
(I have started training BC V on all my alts. :-))
Kirkra
The Versa-Ex Corp
#1189 - 2012-03-07 14:44:12 UTC
I fully agree to removing ship tiers, however, as already been noted, reducing the requirements for capital ships is not the way to go.
Even if you add a bit time back on with support skills needed to compensate, this means that cross-training capitals becomes something unbelievably easy - to switch from Archon to Thanatos you would only require 10 days at most (Gallente BS 4 and MAYBE Capital Shield Transfer if you think you'll need it), same thing for almost all dreadnoughts. This leads to the situation where if you can fly one capital decently, you can fly them all, which is IMHO absolutely stupid.
Also, since you're doing skills and balance anyway - why has it happened that T3 vessels have skill prerequisites that are in many cases less than those of T2 cruisers? Especially since T3 can operate as a combat ship better than any T2 cruiser and sometimes better than a CS. Even though there is an argument of their cost, it still seems strange that in most cases you would only want to train into a "specialized" T2 ship for a reduced cost compared to T3.
Swearte Widfarend
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#1190 - 2012-03-07 14:44:55 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • 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.


    • But there's a difference here you aren't accounting for.

    You aren't training Amarr Battleship V then beginning Amarr Carrier I to hop into a carrier.

    You are training Battleship V, and Capital Ships III, and Advanced Spaceship Command V. You are training Jump Drive Operation. You are training Capital Module skills.

    racial Battleship is the last skill in the sub capital skill tree. At that point, you are moving to a new category of ships, not just the next class of ship. You can be different, because it is different. You don't need to make it consistent with the model in sub capital training, because it's not a linear progression anymore, and it shouldn't be.

    Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
    Hatt0ri Hanz0
    Life sucks then you die Ltd.
    #1191 - 2012-03-07 14:46:10 UTC
    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.

    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.


    Except CCP has stated that T2 ships will require lvl 5 for its main ship prereq, which in this case is battlecruisers. And frankly, I don't think that getting all the racial BC at 5 because you can fly all the racial command ships is all that bad. CCP has chosen to make a pretty large change, they should be prepared for having to hand out some free sp, if they want to do it so badly.
    Skye Aurorae
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1192 - 2012-03-07 14:47:12 UTC
    dasuri wrote:
    Best Solution I can think of, leave the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills as combined skills; if you want consistency, make these combined skill prerequisites (for Battleships and Cruisers, respectively). So the skill tree looks like this:

    Racial Frig IV ---> Destroyer IV ----> Racial Cruiser IV ----> Battlecruiser IV ----> Racial Battleship IV

    For those who skipped the Battlecruiser and/or destroyer skills, give them the skills to level IV.
    For those who have them trained, give them 363K free skill points.
    Leave Racial Cruiser IV (and consequently Racial Frigate IV) as prerequisites for Racial Command Ships.

    This is more reasonable than 6M sp free.
    (I have started training BC V on all my alts. :-))


    This is an excellent solution I have advocated for many times. I'd also suggest making all destroyer and battlecruiser hulls get bonuses from the two relevant skills .

    This way we don't screw over the new player and make it harder for them.


    Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21 - oh well.
    Grikath
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #1193 - 2012-03-07 14:50:54 UTC
    Jack Miton wrote:
    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.


    Ummm not really... You failed to unlock the potential of the battleships in question by not training their relevant skills...
    It's only a "loss" from a hyperspecialised viewpoint.

    And given the rest of the requirements to make carriers do well, you really pretty much only need to train up the specific guns for the racial BS you trained even to just T1 to turn your "dud" skill into a fully fledged weapon..

    Seriously, any "loss" is purely in your perception.

    Highsec isn't "Safe".  Neither is it a playground for bullies and bottomfeeders. So stop complaining and start playing the game already.
    Amelia Shortcake
    Doomheim
    #1194 - 2012-03-07 14:51:47 UTC
    So many questions... so many answ... oh... wait.

    No surprise there then! \o/
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #1195 - 2012-03-07 14:55:44 UTC
    …also, since I missed it the first time:
    The Gonif wrote:
    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.
    You're quite right: this is not a matter of inflation — it's actually a case of equilibrium. Yes, the amount of SP goes up, but so does the cost of the skills — end result: nothing happens.

    Ok, that's not entirely true. What actually happens is that people get more expensive clones. The entire notion of “SP inflation“ highest on the idea that total SP has any value. It doesn't. In fact, total SP is a detriment because it has exactly one effect on the game: it determines which clone you need to use in order not to lose SP. Giving people SP is not the boost Evanga thinks it is — it's actually something of a nerf since you gain nothing from it and lose a fair amount of additional skillpoints you can keep in your clone.
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #1196 - 2012-03-07 14:56:33 UTC
    Mara Rinn wrote:
    Ranger 1 wrote:
    Mara, I think he was trying to give people some examples people could loosely relate to real life vessels/tactics, not trying to reinvent EVE combat.

    I'm willing to wait for more details on exactly how they want to break things down.


    This is the thread for discussing the dev blog and possible ship roles, before those poor example roles end up coded into the game by someone "just testing" :)

    There should be more discussion about ship roles, less about skill points.


    I very much agree.

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
    Grey Stormshadow
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #1197 - 2012-03-07 15:02:17 UTC
    Tippia wrote:
    …also, since I missed it the first time:
    The Gonif wrote:
    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.
    You're quite right: this is not a matter of inflation — it's actually a case of equilibrium. Yes, the amount of SP goes up, but so does the cost of the skills — end result: nothing happens.

    Ok, that's not entirely true. What actually happens is that people get more expensive clones. The entire notion of “SP inflation“ highest on the idea that total SP has any value. It doesn't. In fact, total SP is a detriment because it has exactly one effect on the game: it determines which clone you need to use in order not to lose SP. Giving people SP is not the boost Evanga thinks it is — it's actually something of a nerf since you gain nothing from it and lose a fair amount of additional skillpoints you can keep in your clone.

    As long every single player in EVE gets same amount of these NEW skill points, this is not a problem.

    Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

    Play with the best - die like the rest
    Xanos Blackpaw
    Azure Consortium
    #1198 - 2012-03-07 15:08:15 UTC
    No! No!

    Nonononononononono.


    No!

    We dont want this! please dont make this change!
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #1199 - 2012-03-07 15:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
    Grey Stormshadow wrote:
    As long every single player in EVE gets same amount of these NEW skill points, this is not a problem.
    It's not even as complicated as that.

    As I keep reiterating every time new players come and complain about how they can never “catch up” with old players, SP amounts don't really matter — what matters is ability. SP is a way to unlock those abilities, and as long as the abilities of two people are the same, the amount of SP is irrelevant. Same goes here: it doesn't matter if every EVE character gets the same amount of SP — what matters is that every EVE character gets the same ability…

    …and since the whole philosophy behind this change is that the abilities will not change as a result of this change, all characters will get the same ability, namely exactly the same ability as before the change. SP may be added or subtracted or shuffled around, but the ability remains the same, so nothing actually changes.

    Xanos Blackpaw wrote:
    We dont want this!
    Roll
    Yes, we do.
    flakeys
    Doomheim
    #1200 - 2012-03-07 15:15:11 UTC
    Pallidum Treponema wrote:
    Changing skill requirements, Yes. Being able to train for, for instance, recons without having to train for covert ops first. That I can agree with.

    Changing skill progression, NO. One of the appealing aspects of training for ships was that once I'd trained racial frigate and destroyers, I'd get access to ANOTHER race worth of destroyers, for free, once I trained up the racial frigate.

    With these changes, you'll raise the bar for crosstraining further, to a point where it is even more daunting for new players to crosstrain, and makes it even more difficult for them to find useful roles.

    Take a new PVPer, for instance. By training caldari and minmatar frigate, caldari and minmatar cruiser, plus battlecruiser, the player would have access to tackling frigates, t1 cruisers including ospreys, blackbirds, stabbers and ruptures, as well as two excellent and newbie friendly battlecruiser hulls, namely hurricanes and drakes. All this from a total of five skills.

    With the changes, the same new player would now be forced to train eight skills, raising the bar for skilltraining by 75% and making it more difficult to find useful roles. The incentive to crosstrain would be largely eliminated, as it'd take almost as long to train for a single race's battlecruisers as two races under the current scheme.

    Ship tiers: If ship tiers force you into balancing issues, you're looking at the problem in a completely wrong way. The ship tiers should not limit your balancing efforts. Don't make the mistake in thinking that a higher tier "must be better". That's not necessarily so. If anything, tiers should serve as a guideline for the general roles a certain group of ships have, for instance that all ships within a tier are designed as high DPS active tanking platforms, another tier being medium DPS buffer platforms etc, but not that they should be "better" than the previous tier.


    What he said.

    Unlike most older players in here i could care less if i need to train some bc skills over etc as i hardly even undock anyway and if i can only fly BC X so be it but with this idea you are giving a harder time to new players BIG time.

    Also i see no reason why training for a capship should go faster besides for training a holding char for a capship.

    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.