These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Information Center » EVE Information Portal » New dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, one ship at a time

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page7273747576Next pageLast page

New dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, one ship at a time First post First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#1461 - 2012-03-08 12:49:14 UTC

SwissChris1 wrote:

I got Battlecruiser V / Destroyer V and crosstrained all races...if you give me SP for all 4 races: 4x 1'536'000 + 4x 512'000 = 8'192'000 skillpoints ROFL...I doubt that's going to happen and you are just going to screw over all vets.

This keeps coming up, and I just have to wonder…

…why wouldn't they hand out the SP? All it does is make your clone more expensive, and it doesn't give you anything extra in return. So where does this assumption that it wouldn't/shouldn't happen come from?

Tallian Saotome

Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.

Likes received: 1,144

#1462 - 2012-03-08 12:50:55 UTC

SwissChris1 wrote:

They already stated that if they do this, you WILL get the SP, tho your math is off as you will only gain for the SP for 3 races(you already had SP for 1).

You have a problem with that, yet like that they are encouraging noobs to fly carriers? Roll

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Kahz Niverrah

Distinguished Johnsons

Likes received: 182

#1463 - 2012-03-08 12:53:17 UTC | Edited by: Kahz Niverrah

Tippia wrote:

…why wouldn't they hand out the SP? All it does is make your clone more expensive, and it doesn't give you anything extra in return. So where does this assumption that it wouldn't/shouldn't happen come from?

I think people are quietly rubbing their hands together, muttering "Excellent" under their breath, at the extra SP that new players will have to train to have the same skill in flying dessies / BCs.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.

Players vs. EVE Goonswarm Federation 52
Xyla Vulchanus Players vs. EVE Goonswarm Federation Likes received: 52	#1464 - 2012-03-08 12:55:36 UTC So, there will be little incentive now to train cruiser V, BS V, etc. the current system isn't broken, so why fix it? I am reassured somewhat by the fact they are going to implement these changes slowly over time (like sov, faction warfare, PI, etc) because it will clearly never get finished.

DeODokktor

Dark Templars

The Fonz Presidium

Likes received: 80

#1465 - 2012-03-08 12:57:01 UTC

They would likely get a lot of backlash if they did this from the people who didnt manage to get Dest&BCV done in time (with the other skills at required levels)...

Last night I took my Caldari-Only char and injected some of those old "learning" SP's so I could get battleship 1 and cruiser III for the other races. After this change happens pro's will slap themselves if they miss out.

Even new players who feel they cant meet the deadline should try to perhaps get all battleship skills injected.

Also.... The ROKH picture people are talking about is in the tree under BattleCruisers - Not the picture in the background!..

ChromeStriker

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 1,052

#1466 - 2012-03-08 12:58:27 UTC | Edited by: ChromeStriker

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Q: With the skill changes, I will have to train for [racial cruiser V] and [racial battlecruiser V] to train for a Command Ship, how does that make it easier for me?

A: This is a misunderstanding, the changes don't work that way. While training for the next tech 1 ship class size will require that you train the racial skill to 4, training for the tech 2 version will only require the main racial skill at 5. That is the whole point with splitting destroyers and battlecruiser skills into four variants in the first place.

Example:
Before, training for a Harbinger required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 3 and Battlecruisers at 2
Before, training for an Absolution required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruiser at 5 and Heavy Assault Ships at 4
Now, training for a Harbinger requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and then Amarr Battlecruiser at 1.

Now, training for an Absolution requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and Amarr Battlecruiser at 5. There is no more need for the Amarr Cruiser 5 and Heavy Assault Ship at 4.]

So if i read this bit right...

... because i have battle cruisers V, and not command ships, i will (after the change) be able to fly comand ships without training anything new???? (Command ships V is a looooong skill train)

No Worries

Tippia

Sunshine and Lollipops

Likes received: 27,526

#1467 - 2012-03-08 12:59:21 UTC | Edited by: Tippia

Xyla Vulchanus wrote:

So, there will be little incentive now to train cruiser V, BS V, etc.

There's exactly the same incentive as now: it gives you access to T2 and it gives you max performance for your T1 ships.

Quote:

the current system isn't broken, so why fix it?

Because it is kind of broken? What they're doing is making specialisation easier; FOTM-chasing harder, and opening up for a much cleaner way to introduce new roles and ship classes.

ChromeStriker wrote:

So if i read this bit right...

... because i have battle cruisers V, and not command ships, i will (after the change) be able to fly comand ships without training anything new????

You still have to train the Command Ship skill, which has its own set of prerequisites. It's just that they're removing HAC as a prereq for field command ships, and cruiser as the “hull skills” requirement. In fact, I'll just repost my comparison from here:

Nighthawk:

Caldari Cruiser V (×5)
     Caldari Frigate IV (×2)
Command Ships I (×8)
     Battlecruisers V (×6)
     Warfare Link Specialist IV (×6)
          Leadership V (×1)
     Spaceship Command V (×1)
Heavy Assault Ship IV (×6)
     Assault Ships IV (×4)
          Engineering V (×1)
          Mechanic V (×1)
     Weapon Upgrades V (×2)
          Gunnery II (×1)

becomes…

Caldari Battlecruiser V (×6)
     Caldari Cruiser IV (×5)
          Caldari Frigate IV (×2)
Command Ships I (×6)
     Warfare Link Specialist IV (×6)
          Leadership V (×1)
     Spaceship Command V (×1)

Likewise, the Vulture will go from

Caldari Cruiser V (×5)
     Caldari Frigate IV (×2)
Command Ships I (×8)
     Battlecruisers V (×6)
     Warfare Link Specialist IV (×6)
          Leadership V (×1)
     Spaceship Command V (×1)
Logistics IV (×6)
    Signature Analysis V (×1)
    Long Range Targeting V (×2)
        Electronics II (×1)

…to having the exact same prereqs as the Nighthawk (for any other race's CS:es, just search/replace “Caldari” with whatever race you're looking at). So training BC V + Command Ships I will give you both field and fleet command ships without any additional training required.

Steve Ronuken

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM

Likes received: 6,759

#1468 - 2012-03-08 13:00:24 UTC

CCP Ytterbium? I don't suppose I could get you to say that it won't be an SP reimbursement, but instead just sticking the new skills onto people, at the appropriate level? I'm pretty sure that's what you've been meaning, but it's also obvious some people are thinking they'll get the chance to respend the points at will.

As for Destroyers:

Typically, a destroyer is a fleet defense boat. It already handles the anti-frigate line ok, so how about something for handling fleet missile defense? Or maybe an E-Warfare role.
Maybe something cloaky or Bomb defense related?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

C C P C C P Alliance 4,566
CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance Likes received: 4,566	#1469 - 2012-03-08 13:02:11 UTC 3 Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: i guess it is not the rokh in the backround which triggered the lol, but the one which replaces the little picture representing the naga next to the drake and ferox in the ship tree. Doh! I just noticed that on the ship tree Of course that's supposed to be the Naga, not the Rokh *FAIL, BAD YTTERBIUM, BAD.*

Steve Ronuken

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM

Likes received: 6,759

#1470 - 2012-03-08 13:03:42 UTC

ChromeStriker wrote:

... because i have battle cruisers V, and not command ships, i will (after the change) be able to fly comand ships without training anything new???? (Command ships V is a looooong skill train)

Other than the command ships skill (and it's requirements). That's not going anywhere. It's the tertiary skills that are.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter


Tallian Saotome Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc. Likes received: 1,144	#1471 - 2012-03-08 13:05:04 UTC \| Edited by: Tallian Saotome 1 CCP Ytterbium wrote: OMG SNOT SHOT IS A CCP DEV!!!! You have too many alts, Ytterbium. Starting to think we are all your alts Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.


CCP Ytterbium C C P C C P Alliance Likes received: 4,566	#1472 - 2012-03-08 13:05:21 UTC 3 ChromeStriker wrote: ... because i have battle cruisers V, and not command ships, i will (after the change) be able to fly comand ships without training anything new???? (Command ships V is a looooong skill train) You will still need to train the Command Ship skill, which means having the leadership requirements like Warfare Link Specialist.

CCP Ytterbium

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 4,566

#1473 - 2012-03-08 13:10:34 UTC

Steve Ronuken wrote:

Well reimbursement is tricky, can't say about details yet, because we still need to think about them. Whatever this is going to be SP reimbursement or just sticking new skills, or whatever options in the middle still need to be considered.

Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch

*insert tinfoil hat theory here*

Demolishar

United Aggression

Likes received: 1,252

#1474 - 2012-03-08 13:13:10 UTC

I don't think any changes should be made to the training system like this. I trained certain things only as prerequesites for other things. If you are removing the need for these prerequesites then you should refund the SP from the prerequesites. For example, I would not need BSV to fly capitals - all BSV should be reimbursed. I would not need useless (to me) skills like Electronics Upgrades or Covert Ops to be able to fly Recons. I never wanted to fly covops, or have -5% less cpu use on my passive targeter and ship scanner. That's almost a million SP wasted completely.

I think it is foolish to consider such radical changes to a system that many of us have built our entire characters around. The changes are too radical to just reimburse the skills that are being removed and think everyone will be happy. I trained 2 BSVs to be able to fly two races capitals. That's 60 days training time. And that's only two of the many prerequisite skills that will be affected. That's £30 worth of gametime, effectively wiped out. Sure, I still have the SP, but it's worthless SP in skills that I don't actually want.

I urge CCP not to go ahead with changes to the existing skill system. Build on what is there already by all means, but don't change things that represent a huge time investment to players that they will not get back.

The only acceptable way to go through with this, in my eyes, is to reimburse all skillpoints that are in ship command, and all skillpoints that are in skills that are pre-requesite to any ship command skills. However, I still prefer this does not go ahead at all, as it is unnescessary.

Steve Ronuken

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM

Likes received: 6,759

#1475 - 2012-03-08 13:13:40 UTC

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch

*insert tinfoil hat theory here*

It's because I'm that person's alt. They just don't know it. isn't dissociative personality disorder fun? Lol

(It's not fun. No offense to people with actual mental illness.)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Grey Stormshadow

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 1,646

#1476 - 2012-03-08 13:18:25 UTC

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Steve Ronuken wrote:

*insert tinfoil hat theory here*

If defender missiles would target any incoming unfriendly missile (including those heading towards fleet members too), this kind of role would be rather easy to create. It would also work in certain type of pve content.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Tallian Saotome

Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.

Likes received: 1,144

#1477 - 2012-03-08 13:19:49 UTC

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Steve Ronuken wrote:

*insert tinfoil hat theory here*

One actual question for you. I only have destroyers to 2(because dessies were not that good when I was at that point in the game). I am currently training various capital skills. When I go to inject/train dreadnaught(as an example), will I have an issue(either way) because I lack that very deeply nested prereq, or will dreadnaught only check for BS skill and capital skill?

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Creat Posudol

German Oldies

Likes received: 68

#1478 - 2012-03-08 13:36:30 UTC | Edited by: Creat Posudol

Tallian Saotome wrote:

No, the dreadnaught skill (or any skill) only cares about it's direct prerequisits. If those are trained it can be injected (and trained). Once a skill is injected in can be trained even if you lose the prerequisites as far as I know, but of course this normally can't happen Shocked

This was actually answered in the devblog, even though it was not exactly explained in immense detail:

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

If and when such changes occur, we would remove the generic Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills, reimburse the skill points (and possibly the cost) not to penalize players. Due to the way nested requirements work, it would also mean pilots would not need to re-train anything to fly Battleships or Cruisers. All of this is work in progress of course and subject to change, especially since we are still discussing skill reimbursement options.

Valei Khurelem

Likes received: 457

#1479 - 2012-03-08 13:41:33 UTC | Edited by: Valei Khurelem

I was about to prepare myself for a wall of text rant about the way CCP are ******* up the balance yet again, but this actually looks fairly promising. The only problem is you're doing it on tranquility, if you want to keep the current playerbase you should make a seperate server for those who actually like this current balance system ( god knows why ) but you may as well cater to them first.

I'm actually impressed CCP, well done, just don't go the star wars galaxies route and you'll be fine.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." - CCP Ytterbium

Vanessa Vansen

Vandeo

Likes received: 69

#1480 - 2012-03-08 13:49:19 UTC | Edited by: Vanessa Vansen

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Q: If you want to make skills consistent, why don’t you make all of them generic instead of inserting racial variants for destroyer and battlecruiser classes?

There are ways to handle that but it looks like you just don't care about that.

Oh, and please help me, what is bad about "having access to too many hulls by training one skill"?
I can't accept that argument, since you could also use it to introduce racial T2 ship skills.
Hence, your argumentation is inconsistent.

edit: answer provided by Tippia a few post down

First pagePrevious page7273747576Next pageLast page

EVE Information Portal

Sunshine and Lollipops

Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.

Distinguished Johnsons

Players vs. EVE

Goonswarm Federation

Dark Templars

The Fonz Presidium

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM

C C P

C C P Alliance

United Aggression

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

German Oldies

Vandeo