These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jens Beckstrom
Free Space Initiative
#1261 - 2012-03-07 18:50:43 UTC
Im in favor of moving the ship classes in eve to a better place, this change i beleve will be for the better, as long as u duely reimburse those of us who fly every BC ther is.

My question then is why not do the same for the weapons?

Make greater distinctions in the arsenal that we have today and make it match the new categories, artillery should be in the bombardment category along with criuse missiles.

Introduse new weapon classes acording to the purpose of the ships.

Range: Close range, medium, long and extreme

Purpose: Bombardment, brawl, flack, presission and so on.

And for the love of all that is holy, please redo the horrid minmatar gun models,many have square barrels and are misfigured, horribly illogical, and grotescly ugly.
MadShade
Rekay Inc.
#1262 - 2012-03-07 18:51:58 UTC
Hello!

Quote:
"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."


a) If you have BC5 and you fly now a Caldari and a Minmatar BC, after the change you should get the SP back from your BC skill trained to 5 and let you use them to train a racial BC to 5, let`s say i want to fly perfectly the Caldari BC or split the SP between Caldari and Minmatar to be able to fly them both but not perfect.
Giving away a ~6mil boost of SP to the players that trained BC to 5 is not fair for the players that didn`t yet. In addition to that the players that didn`t trained the BC5 will have to "waste" even more time to train the racial BC skills so the score it`s already 2 - 0 for the players that had BC5.

Quote:
"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."


There`s a difference between beeing able to fly a ship and fly it perfectly (skill 5).
b) If a) is not a good solution for you guys you should atleast reconsider giving players a fair warning and enought time to be able to train DEST and BC skill to 5 if they care about them so they can benefit also from the FREE LAME SP boost since training roughly one month for aprox 1.5 mil sp and get 6 mil after the update and no more time spent to train all the other racial BC skills is not a bad thing to do.
Ashina Sito
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1263 - 2012-03-07 18:57:47 UTC
Have not read past the first page. FC'd a roam for 11 hours yesterday so a bit tired. Lol

I did not see a mention of how the skill changes would effect industrial capitals. You need racial Industrial V to get into a freighter. If your shifting skill reqs down to racial BS IV then Freighters should also be reduced to racial Industrial IV. If I missed something and my post makes not sense, I apologize. As stated above still a little blitzed from the all day roam.

Also wanted to thank Liang Nuren for posting dev resonances in his first post. It makes it easier to find the meat amongst all the posts in the thread.
Crasniya
The Aussienauts
#1264 - 2012-03-07 18:59:50 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.


    • So... a big "screw you" to anyone who hasn't done BC 5 yet? Who will now have to work four times as hard to get the skillpoints other players got for free?

    Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net
    Holy One
    Privat Party
    #1265 - 2012-03-07 19:03:19 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).


    All that will do is make the game even less accessible to new players. But since you don't actually have any new players, just the same 20k or so characters changing hands every few months/years its all good I guess.

    :)
    Luba Cibre
    Global Song Setup
    #1266 - 2012-03-07 19:04:10 UTC
    Crasniya 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.


    • So... a big "screw you" to anyone who hasn't done BC 5 yet? Who will now have to work four times as hard to get the skillpoints other players got for free?

    It's more a screw you if you don't read my devblog, i've warned you there.

    "Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
    Adunh Slavy
    #1267 - 2012-03-07 19:06:54 UTC
    Crasniya 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.


    • So... a big "screw you" to anyone who hasn't done BC 5 yet? Who will now have to work four times as hard to get the skillpoints other players got for free?



    I don't think that is what is meant.

    Ignore the "level 5" in the quote. Suppose you had BC 3 now, and you also have Cal Cruiser 4, Minnie Cruiser 1, Amarr Cruiser 2 and Gal Cruiser 5. After the change you would probably have, Cal BC 3, Minnie BC 1, Ammar BC 2, Gal BC 3.

    This is just a guess, but I doubt that if you don't have BC 5 you're screwed. That would not mesh with "if you can fly it today, you can fly it tomorrow".

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
    Sam Bowein
    Sense Amid Madness
    #1268 - 2012-03-07 19:11:13 UTC
    It appears that the skill issue is a very sensible subject Big smile

    I, for one, happily welcome any change to the tier system !
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #1269 - 2012-03-07 19:15:12 UTC
    Yeah, I'm leaning more and more towards the idea that they should just skip the whole “reimbursement” part and instead do a straight search-and-replace:

    [Racial] Frigate III + Destroyer n → [racial] Destroyer n.
    [Racial] Cruiser III + Battlecruiser n → [racial] Battlecruiser n.

    …and the same with any other skill might affected, such as JFs (even though that would be a significant bump for many).

    No extras, no losses — just a very straight “you keep what you have” in terms of flying ability.
    Masumi Do
    Dust Devil Cartel
    #1270 - 2012-03-07 19:17:28 UTC
    Love the changes CCP... Teir system FINALLY being removed and unused ships hopefully filling roles effectively.

    As for the skill changes... you guys have stated "if you could fly yesterday, you'll be able to fly it today" which is awesome but even if this wasn't the case meh.

    Overall it will be better for the game in the long run even if it hurts a little at first.
    Morar Santee
    #1271 - 2012-03-07 19:27:35 UTC
    Melissa Brown wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example.


    So you are planning to add additional support skills per ship line? Where’s the benefit in that? Currently I can fly the Cane "perfectly" with all support skills at 5. After this change I will still be able to fly the Cane (Gallente char), thanks to the planned reimbursement. But I will need to train new skills for its ship line to fly it as good as before. I will need to do it for all ship lines...

    I don't mind splitting generic skills into race specific skills as long as the players are reimbursed accordingly. I don't mind if you change the requirement tree, if BS5 for caps or AS4 for hacs are reimbursed. But I don't believe adding more support skills to a already long list will benefit the game or the players.

    Really kinda wish more people saw through the bull...
    Ranger 1
    Ranger Corp
    Vae. Victis.
    #1272 - 2012-03-07 19:45:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
    Morar Santee wrote:
    Melissa Brown wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example.


    So you are planning to add additional support skills per ship line? Where’s the benefit in that? Currently I can fly the Cane "perfectly" with all support skills at 5. After this change I will still be able to fly the Cane (Gallente char), thanks to the planned reimbursement. But I will need to train new skills for its ship line to fly it as good as before. I will need to do it for all ship lines...

    I don't mind splitting generic skills into race specific skills as long as the players are reimbursed accordingly. I don't mind if you change the requirement tree, if BS5 for caps or AS4 for hacs are reimbursed. But I don't believe adding more support skills to a already long list will benefit the game or the players.

    Really kinda wish more people saw through the bull...


    Indeed. For example understanding the part of the quote that was ignored.

    Quote:
    That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example.


    So if you have say an "attack ship" type vessel that has inherent advantages to speed and firepower, new skills could be introduced to give it a "further boost" beyond it's base stats (or what current skills would be able to do).

    Context for the win.

    View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
    Spacing Cowboy
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #1273 - 2012-03-07 19:52:26 UTC
    Good plan, i like.. Yet...

    Expect one remark, dont screw over the current -crosstrainers- .

    Regarding BSV. Also think of the supercap holding toons, im going to be quite upset if that month of SP is waisted on a mare bonus im never going to use.
    Tallian Saotome
    Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
    #1274 - 2012-03-07 19:58:54 UTC
    Luba Cibre wrote:
    Crasniya 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.


    • So... a big "screw you" to anyone who hasn't done BC 5 yet? Who will now have to work four times as hard to get the skillpoints other players got for free?

    It's more a screw you if you don't read my devblog, i've warned you there.


    CCP ALT DETECTED!!! Cool

    Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
    Herschel Yamamoto
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #1275 - 2012-03-07 20:00:00 UTC
    One more thought, to add to my previous. For skill purposes, titans really ought to count as T2 Dreadnoughts, I think.
    Sigras
    Conglomo
    #1276 - 2012-03-07 20:00:04 UTC
    Mikron Alexarr wrote:
    Erim Solfara wrote:
    Mikron Alexarr wrote:
    Scatim Helicon wrote:
    Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours?



    Quoted for Truth. does the term sandbox mean anything to anyone anymore?


    Lies and fallacy, CCP make the game, balance the ships, and give them bonuses.

    If you want to fly one different to it's intended use, go ahead, but they should all have obvious intended uses. Today, I watched a video of an iteron taking out a megathron, which was awesome.

    It was awesome because someone had taken a ship with an obvious intended role, and used it completely differently. If the iteron HAD no role, and was just another blank-slate hull, it'd have been completely meaningless, no different to someone using any other cruiser sized ship.

    Your argument holds no water.


    I'll try and make this simple.

    The role of a blockade runner did exist before the t2 haulers (I fly the crane for instance). The best ship for this was debatable (sigil with speed mods in low, badger with ECM). Then it was decided that t2 haulers should exist. \0/

    It was the players that defined the role. CCP can enable roles to form, but we the players decide what we like for a particular role.


    Even you must admit that at a base level, CCP does define the roles of all ships; now players can take ships OUT of their role, but all ships have something that you can look at the ship and say "this is what this ship is for"

    IE The Hulk is a mining ship . . . CCP decided that, players didnt, but creative players came up with the battle hulk and surprised people with hulks that can fight, but that is taking the ship out of the job it was clearly built to do.

    What I dont want, and im sure you dont either is a ship that can ONLY do its pre defined role. IE if a hulk couldnt fit combat drones for whatever reason that would be an unnecessary restriction.
    Kiran
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #1277 - 2012-03-07 20:11:58 UTC
    What I want to know is.

    If you trained say Battlecruiser to 5 with this so called re-balance of skills will I have to retrain it to 5 for the minmatar ? Seeing as it is now a new skill set ?


    To be honest if this is the case you can shove this game.
    Lamperouge Kasenumi
    Doomheim
    #1278 - 2012-03-07 20:12:56 UTC
    Oh, while you are at it: how about fixing the need for the laser capacitor bonus on Amarr ship and giving these ship a real fun bonus like other races? Sucks to waste a ship bonus on fixing your weapon system...
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #1279 - 2012-03-07 20:14:18 UTC
    Kiran wrote:
    What I want to know is.

    If you trained say Battlecruiser to 5 with this so called re-balance of skills will I have to retrain it to 5 for the minmatar ? Seeing as it is now a new skill set ?


    To be honest if this is the case you can shove this game.

    Read the first post and follow the links.
    Kiran
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #1280 - 2012-03-07 20:14:23 UTC
    This is the worst Idea I have seen.

    I dont like it as it messes with my skill plan and what I wish to train for.