These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Duriel Walker
NPC Tax Evasion Corp
#1281 - 2012-03-07 20:20:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Duriel Walker
I like the idea of removing ship tiers and shifting attention to ship lines.
This will allow them to rebalance underused T1 ships. (buffing tier 1/2 cruisers/frigates slot layout and stats?)
By giving (tech 2) ships more specialized roles and tying them into the ship lines they open up the option for more ships to fill different roles and gaps in the current ship lines.

New players will need more time to train up to a BS but after that you need less time to get in some T2 hulls that will have reduced requirements.

It also puts destroyer and battlecruiser ships in line with the rest as full ship classes instead of being halfway between the real classes of frigate/cruiser/battleship.

edit:
By changing destroyer and battlecruiser to racial skills they are giving acess to a reduced number of ships from before. This opens the option of creating more ships for these hull types without making the skill an overpowered must-have-at-rank-5 that it would be without this fix.

This change creates room for a whole lot of new hulls and rebalancing of the old ones which is exactly what a lot of players want.
Gotta love it when everyone fears change and is distrustful of CCP. Just post your feedback here, talk to your local CSM representative and your voice will be heard. Someone might even listen.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1282 - 2012-03-07 20:29:49 UTC
Brilliant changes, I was worry if these changes are too big but you got it on yourself Big smile awesome
Tzarr Inzaghi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1283 - 2012-03-07 20:32:04 UTC
I want to be able to fly what I can now or be compensated, etc. just like everyone is already talking about.

Other than that...I LOVE IT.
pashared
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1284 - 2012-03-07 20:43:09 UTC  |  Edited by: pashared
"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.

•"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.

•"MAGE" ": 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.

•"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.


I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.

I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.

I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.

you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank.
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1285 - 2012-03-07 20:44:57 UTC
Like: De-generification of DD/BC skills (pending solutions to the "existing skills" issue as everyone seems to be aware), standardization within the ship-skill progression, allowing specialization by specializing.

LOVE: Plans to obliterate tier system. It's gonna get scary once the changes start to roll in but in the long run things should get a lot better.

Not-So-Sure: T2/T3/Faction.

"Faction is generally better," I can understand (though I think in a lot of cases a few ships are WAY across the line) so long as we're not making things obsolete. Right now, Faction doesn't *seem* to really obsolete anything outside of a couple areas that are themselves problems (*glares at incursion shiny fleets*). They're pricey, and the pirate ones in particular are a pain to replace. Make 'em good.

"T2 (as pertains to ships, at least) is specialized," on the other hand, I think is not currently the case, at least not how I'd expect it to be. Part of this will hopefully go away with the tiers, but partly I think some of what T2 ships "get" means they tend to be specialized *and* just plain better. I'd really like to see the T2 ships to be particularly good at ONE aspect of their base hull's role, but not all-round better. So, if the Caracal moves into the "artillery" line for long-range cruiser-sized bombardment, the Cerberus wouldn't hit harder, from further away, and with better defenses: it might hit more accurately (radius/explosion bonus in exchange for some/all of the caracal's straight-up damage bonus, so it hits fast things harder but slow things not so much) from further away (bigger range bonus), and gets used much as it does now with the exception that it doesn't get a bunch of extra resists and slots and other stats. Or maybe as a "heavy assault" cruiser meant to shoot up BCs/BSs it does hit harder (damage bonus or extra launcher+fit), and has significantly improved defenses, but has a penalty to its radius/speed and maybe range (via lack of bonus) scan res so it isn't nearly as effective against smaller targets as would be a "normal" Caracal.

The notion of "T2 resists" basically needs to be replaced with resists based on roles IMO, with extra-heavy values being reserved for emphasizing specialization, not just as part of being "T2." Similarly with extra slots and hardpoints- they should make sense for the intended role.

Ships built for a specialized purpose should fulfill that purpose, and very well. Command ships are another example where the hulls try too hard to just be "better" and oh by the way here's an extra function. Lots of talk about the how people thing reining in the drake will make the nighthawk more attractive. Strangely, much of this talk seems to be about getting people to use it solo, or to provide missile-based death, and a number of people will happily point out that even if the drake were deleted the nighthawk would still be lackluster. It *should* be underwhelming solo, and as a damage platform- it's a command ship! As the "middle of a big fight" version it should be all about running links and refusing to die, and it might happen to also have some weapons. If it's set up to out-tank and out-buff the base ships, it shouldn't also out-damage them, even at an increased cost. Likewise the "faster sneaky" versions like the vulture should tank and hit like a basic BC at best, but be especially nimble.

As this gets sorted, costs should be adjusted to reflect the fact that you're getting an expensive vessel to perform a specific task, rather than an expensive vessel to "also" perform a specific task, and the roles themselves should be examined to make sure they're relevant (EA Frigs?) and sufficiently attractive to be *worth* the expense/tradeoffs (Command Ships?).

Which leaves T3, the hyper-expensive hyper-effective new toys that seem to do everything... the blog mentions them as "generalization" but in reality they're able to be *quite* specialized and in situations where you aren't afraid to lose them (either because they're not at direct risk or because their cost is no longer significant) the're very often a better choice than a T2 ship for the T2 ship's supposed role. Flexibility in and of itself isn't a problem, but they really *shouldn't* be as good at whatever they're currently doing as a ship entirely built to do that. Perhaps making some adjustments so they could more easily change roles at the expense of being able to excel could be studied... (thus becoming more generalist, and appealing in situations where that really is the best, like wormholes, and possibly being able to do several things at once, and so be better than a T1 cruiser at a number of things at any given time but never quite as good as a T2 at the particular thing the T2 is good at)

td;dr (too disorganized...)- T2 shouldn't automatically be better at everything than T1 so all ships get continual use, T3 should be more about doing lots of things well than about doing one thing great, docking, and going back out to do another thing great.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1286 - 2012-03-07 20:53:29 UTC
pashared wrote:
"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.

•"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.

•"MAGE" ": 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.

•"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.


I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.

I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.

I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.

you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank.

Yet you pointed out ever so eloquently that this approach to roles for ships already exists! A number of parallels with classifications in other games can be found in a variety of the ship classes we currently have. If you want to complain about ships being classed with roles such as healer(logistics), mesmer(recon/EAF's), Tank(BS - specifically tier 3's), etc, you are a few years too late.
Electra Gaterau
Thunderwaffles
Goonswarm Federation
#1287 - 2012-03-07 20:58:30 UTC
MadShade wrote:
Hello!

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.


Err isn't one of the purposes of this dev blog to let us know what CCP are currently thinking? Roll
Cindy Marco
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1288 - 2012-03-07 21:02:20 UTC
I like the removal of tiers. Its been needed for a long time.

The skill changes are not needed. Destroyers and BC shouldn't be in the main progression. Destroyers and BCs are basically just big slow frigs and cruisers. Especially destroyers, with 1 ship per race, and such a limited role they don't need to have their own skill.

I also don't see anything to gain by this change. Its not going to change anything for older characters like mine. I'll just be given 6m free sp and can still fly everything I can now.

Younger and new players are going to be punished. Now it will take them 4 times longer to train for BCs and destroyers then it did for me. And for no good reason.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#1289 - 2012-03-07 21:03:05 UTC
pashared wrote:
"TANK" "ARCHER": ...

•"DPS warrior" ...

•"MAGE" ...

•"CLERIC" ...

I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.


Do you actually play this game? Did you actually read the blog?

The roles suggested in the dev blog are basically design objectives for one ship in a stable supplied by a particular faction: ships designed for assault (i.e.: short range, high DPS, low mobility), sniping (long range, low DPS, moderate mobility), support, etc. At present we have ships that area designed in "tiers" where, for example, you have a useless ship that nobody uses (Ferox), then a better ship that a lot of people use (Drake), then an awesome ship which the better pilots will use (Naga).

You already know that capsuleers are not restricted to flying just one ship. Why the comparison to fantasy role playing games with their rigid class structures?

pashared wrote:
I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.


Caldari Achura were popular because they trained all useful skills faster (where "useful" is defined by the jarheads as "not leadership or marketing" ;) - different flavours of ships would not have changed the popularity of that bloodline, simply because the bloodline was superior at training speed and would be able to fly the new FOTM ships faster than anyone else.

pashared wrote:
you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there.


That is exactly what they're doing.
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1290 - 2012-03-07 21:04:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Degren
I've posted several times in here I think the destroyers/BC thing is bad for new players.

I do, however, think the new direction you guys are taking towards making all ships useful and have roles is a good thing.

Ships / aircraft are not designed without a role in mind. People likening it to "classes" aren't terribly far off, but it's said in a negative connotation. The clear (VERY GOOD) goal is to get people in a variety of ships, and have every ship be useful and have a purpose in a fleet. I fail to see how diversification of ships seen engaged in regular fleet ops is a bad thing. To me that isn't simplification, it's actually making fleets more dynamic and more difficult to plan for (hopefully leading to interesting fights more often)...assuming it pans out.

I also think the overall goal of making it simpler to get into a specific role is a good thing, and can lead to specialization and stand out performances...which should matter in a one-world game.

Hello, hello again.

Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#1291 - 2012-03-07 21:04:15 UTC
Sigras wrote:
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.


For the most part, yes. This is about right. I just want to emphasize the importance of avoiding pigeonholing either in theory or practice (while a ship could do something else, it would be so much better suited to it's CCP defined role that using it for anything else would be as practical as using Carriers for hauling stuff over multiple light years POST carrier hauler nerf).
Sunviking
Doomheim
#1292 - 2012-03-07 21:04:56 UTC
As stated earlier in the thread, my main concern with this Skills tree change is that certain pilots will be able to fly Command Ships they currently cannot do because they have BC 5 but don't have Racial Cruiser 5 i.e. if they get all 4 Racial BC skills to 5 in the update, because Command Ships no longer require Racial Cruiser 5, these pilots will get free access to certain Command Ships.

Clearly this needs to be avoided by CCP to unduely benefit certain players.
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#1293 - 2012-03-07 21:08:10 UTC
pashared wrote:
"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.

•"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.

•"MAGE" ": 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.

•"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.


I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.

I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.

I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.

you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank.



I too have strong concerns about this becoming the new model for Eve. This will honestly drive every player who has ever played an MMORPG even loosely based on WoW. If they wanted WoW, Rift, EQ, etc... they would play it. They play Eve, because of the differences that I'm worried this change would remove.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1294 - 2012-03-07 21:19:50 UTC
Mikron Alexarr wrote:
pashared wrote:
"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.

•"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.

•"MAGE" ": 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.

•"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.


I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.

I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.

I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.

you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank.



I too have strong concerns about this becoming the new model for Eve. This will honestly drive every player who has ever played an MMORPG even loosely based on WoW. If they wanted WoW, Rift, EQ, etc... they would play it. They play Eve, because of the differences that I'm worried this change would remove.

Eve's stong point is it's ability to take a small number of arbitrary limits on each hull and use the tools provided in the game to tweak each hull to your purpose. That being said, there are some choices which while clearly possible, are far from efficient. If I want pure mobility for a tackler I can nano a BS, but would be better off with an interceptor. I can use cruiser to haul but an industrial would probably suit the task better. A hulk makes a more efficient miner than a battlecruiser. Even more focused hulls can be selected for their strong points and fitted to mitigate their weaknesses. That is the way things are NOW. And the proposal is to realigning the roles in a more coherent manner and equalizing general usefulness among the T1's. This isn't adding something that has never been.
vacilao
Academy Prime
#1295 - 2012-03-07 21:25:17 UTC
I am wondering if after ccp will split destroyers and battlecruiser into racial they will continue to do so with the other skills that affect all races as:

assault ship, heavy assault ship, black ops, command ships, covert ops, electronic attac ships, heavy interdictors, interceptors, interdictors, jump freighters, marauders, recon ships and transports ships.

Will we get in time to train another zillion skills to be able to fly what I can fly nowAttention? And also to buy all those new skills that will may be implemented later if they will start with battlecruisers and destroyersUgh?
DamienEx
Celestial Cartel
Impulse-Control
#1296 - 2012-03-07 21:39:42 UTC
I ignored 99% of what everyone else posted. I did read the parts where CCP said, "If you can fly it now, you can fly it then.

That being said, I feel these changes are long over due. I never made any sense that someone who was in a different race could over the course of a week train up and be sitting in a ratting drake for the sake of having a ratting drake because their own race lacked something as useful. I feel that the progression from Frig > Dessie > Cruiser > BC > BS > Cap makes more than perfect sense. So the new players have to train stuff for longer periods of time. They also got all the learning skills for free with that one patch not to long ago. You know.... that one patch that the people who trained all the advanced learning skills to 5 b!tched about even though they got all the SP back because anyone making a new toon would be able to skill up just as fast as they could? Well now it seems like the process is being steam lined and it makes logical sense to do what they are doing

I have spent the better part of my EVE life training for and learning to fly every combat ship in the game. I have every races Frig, Cruiser, and BS to level 5. I have all the T2 ship skills to level 4 if not level 5. I have trained every weapon system, e-war, drones, and their T2 counter parts so I can use them with all the ships. CCP has said that if these changes would occur, it would not effect me in anyway. As long as they keep to that, I fully support all the changes they are looking to implement. FFS, right now half the ships I have trained are utterly useless, but I trained them none the less.

This is an opportunity for the game to rebalanced, reformat (for the better), and to make things occur in a more logical fashion. The number of ships that I have never seen in combat is staggering. Everyone is always flying the same ships, in the same fleet, to fight a fleet of identical competetion. Then it turns into a 'blob' game. This is a chance to try to eliminate blob warfare and reintrodue a combat system that takes skill over numbers to work right. Thats not to say we will need a situation where a fleet of 10 can take out a fleet of 200, but it will put an interesting twist on how people change their play styles as well as how fleets will function.

Doing away with tier's, focusing on ship roles father than ship classes, and reformatting the troubled areas of the ship skill tree will all make this game a little easier for new players to manage, old players to organize, as well as giving us an opportunity to reintroduce old ships into the equation of combat again.

As long as myself and other players who have taken the time to specialize in a ship we have trained to fly get to keep that, then I say hats off to CCP and stick with the changes. As a sugestion for determining how players should get the different levels of racial battle cruisers, if they have cruiser 5 for a race and battle cruiser to whatever level, then they should get the races BC skill to that level as well.

Simple examples:
I have Caldari, Minmatar, Amarr, and Gallante cruiser at 5 as well as Battlecruiser 5. I should get all Racial battlecruiser skills to 5.
Someone else has Amarr and Caldari cruiser to 5 and battlecruiser to 5 as well. They would receive Amarr and Caldari battlecruiser 5.
Number three has Amarr and Caldari cruiser to 5 but only has battlecruiser to 4. Well it only makes sense to give them the Amarr and Caldari battlecruiser to 4
A new player has caldari cruiser to 4 and battlecruiser 3. Clearly they only get Caldari Battlecruiser set to 3

One other thing to touch on are the people who have racial battleship skills but lack the battlecruiser skill to go with it. If a player can fly a battleship of a certain race and does not have BC trained to 4 or at all, then they should be given the racial skills to fly those ships. The fact is, if the racial BC skills will have the same multiplier, CCP would only be handing out a weeks worth of training. I am ok with that. As for people with vastly larger skill sets, sure they are giving out a few million SP, but hell, we already worked hard to get where we are, and its not like most of you will catch up to the 100mil SP toons anytime soon. That being said, bring on the changes, and make them work.
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
#1297 - 2012-03-07 21:40:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.

Yes that would be the best solution indeed.

Important consequence though, everybody would train all races cruisers and frigate to III to get max free skill points.
Argus Kell
Solitude Trading
#1298 - 2012-03-07 21:43:46 UTC
One word: Awesome.

This is a brave change and one that I think will hugely benefit the game. 2012 in EVE has me super excited!

Argus
Skex Relbore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1299 - 2012-03-07 21:45:47 UTC
Re-balancing ships and the elimination of the tier system = goo
Changing generic skills to racial skills = ba
Changing pre-req on Covetor to 4 = goo
Changing pre-reg of caps to BS4 = Me

I like generic skills they allow a pilot to gain a lot of capability for a low time investment. BC5 is generally considered such a great skill specifically because it offers so much bang for your buck in that one ~30 day train gives you max bonuses on all races BC's, Now I can see the argument of how this might trivialize training for Command ships but honestly you still need racial cruiser 5 and all those leadership skills in addition to BC5 so it doesn't seem all that awful that one can cross train a tad bit easier into another races CS

My objection to the change has less to do with how it affects me since I've already got all 4 racial cruisers to 5 as well as BC5 (same for racial frigs and dessy 5) than the hurdle it puts before new players.

Under the current system once you've trained a T2 ship skill for one race you can relatively easily add additional races for more flexibility. So if you were trained to use a fly-catcher and you join an alliance that prefers sabre's all you'd have to do is train Mini-frig up so in a week you could be flying the new ship, same for HICs.

This is a good thing, because EVE has enough pain in the backside skill training issues as it stands already, The attribute system already sucks in general since to maximize your training time you need to group skills by attribute in your training rather than by specific ships/roles.

Changing the generic ships skills just seems like a whole lot of trouble for no effective gain, if you really wanted to smooth progression out you could simply make the generic skill to 4 be a prereq for the racial specific of the next higher class. So to train Gal cruiser you'd need Gal frig 4 and generic Dessy 4 and skip the whole rage and reimbursement nonsense

This change screws over new players as compared to older players since it would effectively set every player who didn't already have BC5 at the time of the change 3 months further behind.

Hypothetically if it took a vet 12 months to train to be able to use all racial BC's at level 5 it would take the new player 15 months to reach that same level of capability. Considering the perception of newer players being persistently behind in this game it this seems particularly dumb

Covetor no longer requiring Mining barge 5 would be an overdue and welcome change the old requirement was stupid design to begin with.

Lowering the BS requirement to L4 for Caps just seems kind of meh to me. considering the number of insanely long trains required to fly a cap effectively that ~30 days is more of a speed bump than a hurdle (the real hurdle being the navigation and support skills) so I don't think changing that requirement would lead to some sort of massive influx of new cap pilots and the most likely result of such a change would simply be making it easier for cap pilots to train into different races capitals.

Understand I'm not against making changes to the skill system to make it friendlier to new players but if you are going to go mucking about with it then make changes that actually would make life easier on new players.

Like eliminate attributes completely and they serve no real purpose but to frustrate peoples training plans, "Oh I'd like to try flying logistics but oh look I'm on a perception/will map which means all those required electronic and engineering skills are going to take 33% longer to train but if I remap then I'm stuck on that for a year and I'll have to then either lose 33% to train the ship skill or find other stuff that's on map to train for that year so I still won't be able to fly a logi for another year... f -this game

Adding even more skills that add nothing new to the game to the convoluted mess that is the EVE skill system is just dumb and the person who thought up the idea deserving of ridicule.
Aylat
Doomheim
#1300 - 2012-03-07 21:55:14 UTC
The Dev Blog describes T3 ships as generalization ships. CCP do you think that T3 ships are overpowered currently? In reality T3 ships are like T2 ships only better and more expensive. You are talking about buffing many ships but you are not talking about buffing T3 ships. That would effectively nerf T3 ships. I think it is very important to have ships in the game which have the price of T3 ships combined with their current power advantage compared to other ships. I’m fine with T3 ships being generalization ships instead of improved specialization ships. However, as compensation you definitively would have to add new and improved T2 ships which are comparable to the current T3 ships (price and power wise).