These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Swearte Widfarend
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#1241 - 2012-03-07 17:16:35 UTC
Marc Callan wrote:
Thought on the reimbursement solution (at least for BC):

Convert the one BC skill into the four racial BC skills for each character. Then reimburse only those racial BC skills for which the prerequisites are not fulfilled.

IE: if you have Gallente and Minmatar cruiser skills up to 3, but not Caldari or Amarr, and you have BC 4, you get it converted to Gallente BC 4 and Minmatar BC 4, and get reimbursed skill points equivalent to Caldari BC 4 and Amarr BC 4.

In any event, sounds like it's time to train up BC5 so I don't have to train up multiple variations for command ships if/when the split happens.


Gaming the system for free skillpoints? I'm shocked, shocked to see this.

If you didn't have the skills to fly a particular racial BC, why should you get skill points, ISK, or skill books for them? You should only be getting SP conversion if the prerequisites are met for the skill and the ships that skill unlocks.

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
GreenSeed
#1242 - 2012-03-07 17:16:49 UTC
deleted
Tetsel
House Amamake
#1243 - 2012-03-07 17:17:11 UTC
Malakai Draevyn wrote:
Tetsel wrote:
Does this change mean: No more Drake/Cane blob during 1 week, while people retrain ?
Nice idea ! Hamsters will be happy !


No drake or cane blob for a week or two...
No command ships, recons, logistics, dictors, hictors, ceptors, blah blah blah for that same week or ten..... Oooh, yeah, seeing where this is going yet ? ;)


Fair enought, could be fun !

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore
Marc Callan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1244 - 2012-03-07 17:19:50 UTC
Swearte Widfarend wrote:
Gaming the system for free skillpoints? I'm shocked, shocked to see this.

If you didn't have the skills to fly a particular racial BC, why should you get skill points, ISK, or skill books for them? You should only be getting SP conversion if the prerequisites are met for the skill and the ships that skill unlocks.


I dunno. Someone's going to get extra benefits, someone's going to get screwed, somehow, no matter how it shakes out. That's the way of the world.

I wouldn't benefit anyway - I cross-trained for BC's across the board.

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt
Dilly Dallyer2
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1245 - 2012-03-07 17:24:46 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).



This would suggest to me that CCP do not mind seriously pissing of small sections of the playerbase by massively nerfing the odd ship class at a time but will not do the same when it's a larger proportion of the player base.
You need to be consistent with the way ship alterations are carried out. just because you some changed have direct implications on different proportions of the member base does not mean that different thinking should be applied.
That is negative reinforcement on specialising on anything in the game because you know that at a drop of the hat CCP can decide to bend you over a desk and shove something large up your rear end.
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
#1246 - 2012-03-07 17:33:57 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.



I wonder how you'll balance that with the need for fairness, i.e. not ending up giving more sp to cross trained people than to racially specialized people.
space ganelon
The Mining Corp
#1247 - 2012-03-07 17:46:36 UTC  |  Edited by: space ganelon
never mind, nothing to see
Dilly Dallyer2
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1248 - 2012-03-07 17:46:39 UTC
Caius Sivaris wrote:
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.



I wonder how you'll balance that with the need for fairness, i.e. not ending up giving more sp to cross trained people than to racially specialized people.


Since when have CCP not penalized someone for specialising.

Keep with the masses, updates are 90+% about keeping the masses happy, if you stand out you are liable to get shot.
Malissin
The Highwaymen's Society
#1249 - 2012-03-07 17:47:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Malissin
CCP,

Please take this opportunity to make ship manufacturers make sense as well. There's a bullet point in the blog about "Manufacturers, tech 2 schools that specialize in specific roles, like missiles for Khanid or sniping for Ishukone." but the corresponding graphic didn't seem to alter anything. Nagging things that have always bugged me like the Purifier not being made by Khanid, or the general wackiness of the Roden Shipyards line's "Unlike most Gallente ship manufacturers, Roden Shipyards tend to favor missiles..." manufacturing the Enyo and Ares (1 Launcher Hardpoint) or the Phobos and Comet (No Launcher Hardpoints). Actually, it's just sort of odd that a Gallente manufacturer tends to favor missiles, what with none of their ships getting a Missile Bonus...except the Nemesis, which is made by Duvolle Labs.

I don't bring this up from an RP standpoint (although I'm sure that's a concern for some), but rather see the Manufacturers as an opportunity for new players to get an easier idea of what ships they could easily progress through with the most skills in common being made by the same manufacturer.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1250 - 2012-03-07 18:00:53 UTC
Looking forward to this - dropping of 'Tiers' for 'roles'

I think it will enable much better definition of race specific doctrines and, by extension, better balance.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Maru Utama
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1251 - 2012-03-07 18:05:45 UTC
Could we get confirmation on if it will be an SP return or will we just receive the appropriate skills? Overall it is a great idea. If you are going to remove BS5 from using caps you should consider making cap4 only needed for using titans :)
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#1252 - 2012-03-07 18:06:45 UTC
Roime wrote:
Mikron Alexarr wrote:


Yes, flexibility is the point here. Leave the ships to be flexible without specializing them so much that they have only one viable role. Tech 3 ships are wildly popular, because they follow this philosophy.

The cormy was a good salvager for me, because I had that racial frigate at the time and I think it had good fitting for salvage tackle. It's been awhile though.



Problem with T1 small ships is that they are just way too limited in overall capacity to be decent jack-of-all-trades. Giving the T1 EWAR frigs combat abilities means that their EWAR needs to be gimped to not make them totally OP- which makes them suck in the ewar role. Same goes for cruisers, for example Exequror stinks as logi and as combat ship.

Disclaimer: I'm aware of execptions, I've flown the Celestis a lot. There are still 10 sucky ships to every exception, and it's because they try to be a little bit of everything, and end up with not much of anything.

I like the idea of higher specialisation as a remedy to the unused hulls, and increasing training times for the T2 versions. This could result in more funky ships like Celestises, Blackbirds and Ospreys fielded as role-ships. Making these into general combat ships is boring imo and also much harder to balance.


These ships are terrible at dealing damage. The stats they have simply don't allow it to be proficient at hurting things. Their whole purpose is to support others in a fleet. The solution is not to fundamentally change the system to name these ships as "healers", "CC'ers", "Tanks", "DPS", "Support". This is what has set eve apart from all other games. Players define roles for these ships based on basic stats that all ships have. The bonuses that particular ships get are clues to tell players what that ship might be good at, but the way to make more people use a particular hull is not to require more skills for a hull that they can already fly (as is being suggested/implied by many posts here).

It has been mentioned already, but the key to increasing the usage of a hull or ship type is to give that ship better base stuff to work with. A sore spot in my heart has always been the Caldari supposedly being able to use railguns (as an example). What has been done to improve the viability of these ships? Not a whole lot. They still fly like bricks (even after a universal Caldari maneuverability improvement). They aren't able to maintain their range because of their poor maneuverability. That range bonus is useless in all but the most niche situations. The damage bonus that most other turret based ships get is not based on niche situations, but rather something that is almost always useful.

If you want to fix ship balance in eve, start looking at the usefulness of EVERY stat of the ship in ALL situations. That will improve a ship's desirability more than giving it a flat role bonus and tacking on a bunch of useless skill trains.
Edward Kurvora
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1253 - 2012-03-07 18:08:57 UTC
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, I tried to read most of the thread but what I'm concerned by is that adding in racial battle cruiser as rank 6 you massive increase the number of skill points in space ship command.

As it stands

Racial Frigate 4 skills at rank 2 - total of 8 ranks for 2,048,000sp
Destroyers 1 skill at rank 2 - 2 ranks for 512,000sp
Racial Cruiser 4 skills at rank 5 - total of 20 ranks for 5,120,000sp
Battle cruisers 1 skill at rank 6 - 6 ranks for 1,536,000sp

Total of 36 ranks for 9,216,000sp

As the current changes as I understand them, maintaining the BCs skills at rank 6 and destroyer skills at rank 2

Racial Frigate 4 skills at rank 2 - total of 8 ranks for 2,048,000sp
Racial Destroyer 4 skills at rank 2 - total of 8 ranks for 2,048,000sp
Racial Cruiser 4 skills at rank 5 - total of 20 ranks for 5,120,000sp
Racial Battlecruiser 4 skills at rank 6 - total of 24 ranks for 6,144,000sp

Total of 50 ranks for 12,800,000sp (A 38% increase in training time for all level V)

What I propose is CCP want racial skills, frigate and destroyer become rank 2, cruiser rank 3 and battlecruiser rank 4

Racial Frigate 4 skills at rank 1 - total of 4 ranks for 1,024,000sp
Racial Destroyer 4 skills at rank 1 - total of 4 ranks for 1,024,000sp
Racial Cruiser 4 skills at rank 3 - total of 12 ranks for 3,072,000sp
Racial Battlecruiser 4 skill at rank 4 - total of 16 ranks for 4,096,000sp

Total of 36 ranks for 9,216,000sp (same total skills point as before)

Progression is faster T2 ships are faster but cross training is slower than at the moment but faster than the changes as I understand them.

This also make the changes fair by not giving fully skilled up players 3,584,000sp 'free'
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#1254 - 2012-03-07 18:16:08 UTC
Akara Ito wrote:
The Devblog says T1 ships will need the lower class skills at 4 and T2 ships will need it at 5; does that mean Orca requirements will be lowered to Mining Barge 4 while JF will be upped to Freighter V ?


Shameless self quoting.
Mandreh
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1255 - 2012-03-07 18:17:24 UTC
First i rarely post on the forum but this is one topic i just can't not speak up on

1. Your are going to have people on trail account not able to fly a Battleship and get the ability to do a LvL 4 mission and be able to know what it is to do an incursion as they wont getting a fleet without a t2 cruiser or at least a Battleship.

2. Those of us that have train Destroyers to 5 Battle cruiser to 5 took the time to train the different turret/missile skill to tech 2 LVL because we choose to cross train Your are going to basically tell so ah you don't matter to us so Screw you

3. the pilot that can fly these ship and have billions in asset to fly these ship are now not going to be able to use them move them just look at them

4. So i am doing the math which may be off, 109 day to fly one command ship we will only get back enough skill to be able to fly one racial ship, where i now can fly ship of all races so get back to where i am now it is going to be 109 X 3 = 327 Days, plus 123 days more to be able to use Interdictors i all ready own so 450 days to use something i could fly yesterday Moronic

5. Unless you plan on giving people that can fly all the ship races right now the skill to be able to still be able to fly them, then this is plain and simply a *********STUPID F**KING IDEA**************.

This is just another way for CCP to F**K up the game some more First you made 0.0 less profitable then Empire and now this.

Yet another way for CCP to tell there faithful customer of 9 Year to Go F**K Yourself and F**K off you as a customer we dont care about i will take my 5 account and my $900 a year somewhere else.

P.S. Lowering the amount of isk you can make in empire so 0.0 is more profitable is also another Dumb idea plain and simply increase 0.0 Profit when up in empire so did the price of almost everything as the more isk people have the more they will spend.


**************Stop trying to fix something that is not broke*************
Tyrion Moath
Browncoat Industries
#1256 - 2012-03-07 18:23:31 UTC
I'm all for Tiericide and new ships etc... But why touch the skills at all? I don't understand why you need to mess with the skills in order to balance ships. So you learn 4 races worth of battlecruisers/destroyers with one skill, whats the big deal? As just about every single post has said so far, then you're adding in all sorts of extra skillpoints for some players, none for others, some mixture in between... And what about the costs of new clones with their higher SP costs just because of this proposal? Or the extra five months my new alt has to train to learn the same ships my main has already learned?

Don't get me wrong, if you feel you need to add new skills, add new skills. But don't mess with battlecruiser/destroyer. But if you think you need to add a new skill type.. say, Caldari Electronic Attack Cruiser.... add that. Then perhaps when you make a Caldari Electronic Attack Battlecruiser, require the cruiser skills and battlecruisers, like now.

Thanks for your time, keep up the good work. I'm counting on you to make my investment in you today turn into fun in the future!
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#1257 - 2012-03-07 18:31:17 UTC
How can so many people write this good when they obviously have no skill in reading?
Amusing thread is amusing :3

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1258 - 2012-03-07 18:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Mandreh wrote:
First i rarely post on the forum but this is one topic i just can't not speak up on

1. Your are going to have people on trail account not able to fly a Battleship and get the ability to do a LvL 4 mission and be able to know what it is to do an incursion as they wont getting a fleet without a t2 cruiser or at least a Battleship.

2. Those of us that have train Destroyers to 5 Battle cruiser to 5 took the time to train the different turret/missile skill to tech 2 LVL because we choose to cross train Your are going to basically tell so ah you don't matter to us so Screw you

3. the pilot that can fly these ship and have billions in asset to fly these ship are now not going to be able to use them move them just look at them

4. So i am doing the math which may be off, 109 day to fly one command ship we will only get back enough skill to be able to fly one racial ship, where i now can fly ship of all races so get back to where i am now it is going to be 109 X 3 = 327 Days, plus 123 days more to be able to use Interdictors i all ready own so 450 days to use something i could fly yesterday Moronic

5. Unless you plan on giving people that can fly all the ship races right now the skill to be able to still be able to fly them, then this is plain and simply a *********STUPID F**KING IDEA**************.

This is just another way for CCP to F**K up the game some more First you made 0.0 less profitable then Empire and now this.

Yet another way for CCP to tell there faithful customer of 9 Year to Go F**K Yourself and F**K off you as a customer we dont care about i will take my 5 account and my $900 a year somewhere else.

P.S. Lowering the amount of isk you can make in empire so 0.0 is more profitable is also another Dumb idea plain and simply increase 0.0 Profit when up in empire so did the price of almost everything as the more isk people have the more they will spend.


**************Stop trying to fix something that is not broke*************


First, congratulations on posting in a thread about an issue you care about. You should always speak up on issues that matter to you.

Second, go read the first post in the thread and realize why you should always read first, comment later. Don't forget to follow the links in that post for pertinent details.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1259 - 2012-03-07 18:39:46 UTC
Teclador wrote:
Ship Lines:
==========
When you change the Ship Lines, special named will be here the Bombardment Ships, then you have to change all and i mean all Weapon Platforms too.

So here is why to change all Weapon Platforms, because the Raven, Drake, Caracal (Whoo these are all Missile Boats) are now useless and will be even more useless later because hmm, let me think how to explain it right, now a missile needs ages to hit the target, but all other Weapon Platforms hit instant, but this is if you have a look in to the Reality (sorry) B.u.l.l.s.h.i.t. .

A Bullet fired by a rifle have a speed of depending on the Weapon type / Projectile type and caliber by 70 up to 2000 m/sec (rails up to 5400 mph (2414,02 m/s), tested be the US Navy). Hmm then i ask my self, why are all targets dead when I'm firing my missiles, when I'm in an mixed fleet? Because my Missiles flying with up to 8750 m/sec...?

Not to take Zero-G into account of the Bullet / Missile velocities.


To change the Ship Lines is the same as removing Caldari out of the Game or deleting simply all Missile Ships, because they getting more useless then they are now.

He is so true in that point. The velocity of bullets and missiles should be like in reality.

Teclador wrote:
Skill tree change:
==============

  1. Leave BS L5 as Capital requirement. It must be that hard or even harder to get into an Capital as it is now.
  2. If you go on with Destroyers and Battlecruisers to be Racial, then not to forgot the Capital ship Skill.
  3. Oh and don't forgot the Jumpfreighter Skill, you will be loved by thousands of Industrial Pilots, for sure, really.
  4. When we get Attribute Imps > +5 ?
  5. When do you plan to pimp the Skill Que for even longer Skill planing ?

2. == Racial Frig -> Racial Destroyer -> Racial CR -> Racial BC -> Racial BS -> Racial Capitals
I think that's a good idea, it must be harder to come in these über vessels.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1260 - 2012-03-07 18:42:43 UTC
Just a couple of observations on the whole BS 4 to get into a carrier thing.

1: The proposed system actually makes perfect sense in this area if CCP is planning to release T2 Cap ships.
2: More Cap ships means more threat to Super Caps.

We've already been over these points:

1: The slight decrease in time is insignificant compared to time spent training the other necessary skills.
2: More new (and often unprepared) Cap ship pilots on the field is a very nice bonus for everyone.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.