These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
SCRUBS.
#1561 - 2012-03-08 20:00:43 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
dont like the changes, why you guys fix things which arent broken instead of focusing on real broken aspects of the game?!?!
Dumbing down the game is only brings short term success.



Says game is broken other places than anywhere CCP fixes things.
---
Does not say what exactly they think are broken



A certain hat comes to mind

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1562 - 2012-03-08 20:05:39 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
dont like the changes, why you guys fix things which arent broken instead of focusing on real broken aspects of the game?!?!
Dumbing down the game is only brings short term success.

Good thing, then, that they're fixing something that's a bit broken and that, in doing so, they're smartening the game up a fair amount.
Lili Lu
#1563 - 2012-03-08 20:07:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Ranger 1 wrote:
You really need to go back and read the dev posts describing the problems inherent with the current system. More importantly you need to understand them.

Additionally they already have plans for the current obsolete hulls in game, allowing them to seriously consider (for the first time) the frequently asked for inclusion of some new Destroyer variants.

You may feel that new destoyer hulls are not wanted or needed, but most of the EVE community disagree's with you... and has elaborated on why countless times.

The Dev responses in this thread have very completely spelled out why these changes are being considered, and their reasoning is sound. You would probably be better served promoting your idea's of how best to impliment them rather than arguing a patently lost cause.

Yes, your polling data surely backs up your claim that "most of the EVE community" agrees with you. Roll And, of course this question should be determined by majority vote anyway whether true or not.

Also, got no problem reading, budd, so you can shove that argument back where it came.

edit- oh and the just shut up and fall in line with the powers that be argument is a gemBlink
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1564 - 2012-03-08 20:10:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Dormax wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
There have been literally dozens of excellent proposals for new, unique, useful Destroyer hulls made over the years... Point Defense Destroyers, Counter Covert Ops Destoyers, Heavy Bombers, Ninja Salvaging Craft to name a very few. The old system made their introduction problematic, the new system makes their serious consideration realistic... and at the same time addressess the core issues that make a great many existing ships obsolete.


Help me understand. Why would adding new destroyers into the current system be problematic?
Destroyers 5 + Cloaking 4 + Missile Bombardment 4 = Heavy Bomber 1
Destroyers 5 + Assault Ship 5 = Medium Assault Ship 1
Interdictor 5 + Propulsion Jamming 5 + Graviton Physics 5 = INTERDICTION SPHERE LAUNCHER II (with new anti-cloak bubble)

Doesn't seem that difficult to me, unless there's something I'm not understanding.


To put it simply this allows 1 skill to open the door to WAY too many different hull varients.

The goal is to reward specialization and to make cross training at least slightly more challenging. Having one skill (Destoyers) open the door to a huge number of hull varients is extremely counter productive from a game design point of view.

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

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1565 - 2012-03-08 20:15:12 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
...Dumbing down the game.

Those words, I don't think they mean what you think they mean (more specifically the idea that more focused training and more relevant ship choices is somehow "dumbing down" anything).
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1566 - 2012-03-08 20:16:10 UTC
Gabriel Grimoire wrote:
Mioelnir wrote:
Insanely OCD-riddled whine post.


Shocked

Holy dogshit... are you one of those dudes who goes around doing everything in threes?

No, most certainly not.

I just think these changes need to be looked at under more angles than they had been in the last few pages.
Everyone has an agenda. Especially those that claim not to have one. Never forget that.

If my agenda being math makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, not mine.
Maybe you have noone-should-be-able-to-do-math-OCD?

And if the change is based on the numbers, instead of - one possible - interpretation of them, we will at least avoid threadnoughts like after the last round of christmas gifts, where thousands of players could either not read, understand or both.
Lili Lu
#1567 - 2012-03-08 20:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Ranger 1 wrote:
To put it simply this allows 1 skill to open the door to WAY too many different hulls variants.

The goal is to reward specialization and to make cross training at least slightly more challenging. Having one skill (Destoyers) open the door to a huge number of hulls is extremely counter productive from a game design point of view.

Racial destroyer and racial BC is not the most objectionable part of the blog. That increases training reqs per ship. Fine.

Reducing the reqs for command ships by removing (AF 4 + HAC 4, or Logistics 4) and frig 5 + cruiser 5 , and removing BS 5 from flying Carrier or Dread, these are major dumbing down of the game and exacerbate the supercaptital proliferation problem. That is poor game design, at least as far as what EVE has been. So many changes have been dumbing down the game (removal of learning skills, etc) and these two changes would add to it.
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
#1568 - 2012-03-08 20:21:28 UTC
Mini-derail:

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
One way could be adding more destroyer hulls, if we can find a role for them.
Glass cannon destroyers with medium-sized guns. The idea worked well for BCs. ;-)

With the roles you have defined, you should be able to come up with 3 different destroyers per race anyhow.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1569 - 2012-03-08 20:23:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lili Lu wrote:
Reducing the reqs for command ships by removing (AF 4 + HAC 4, or Logistics 4) and cruiser 5 , and removing BS 5 from flying Carrier or Dread, these are major dumbing down of the game
No.

It smartens the game up by giving you more options, more choices, more ways to optimise and (consequently) more ways of making bad choices that give you less bang for the buck. By removing those prereqs, you are no longer given a single path that everyone has to follow, but rather let people mix and match to suit their perceived needs… and then it's up to them to figure out what those needs actually are. It smartens the game up by allowing for far more concentration and specialisation, and thus further removing the meaning (and interpretation) of character age and the perennially meaningless SP count.

More choices = smarter.
Fewer choices and more railroading = dumber.

This change creates the former by removing the latter (and that's without even going into how it's making the game conceptually smarter by removing illogical and inconsistent prereqs that serve absolutely no purpose for, and have zero relation to the skills and ships they open up).
Diamaht Nevain
Eldritch Union
#1570 - 2012-03-08 20:27:27 UTC
I know a lot of people are worried about retraining, and you guys have said that we won't have to. However, IMO if retraining for a couple weeks is the price we have to pay for solid, long lasting ship changes then it's a non-issue.

If it comes down to a choice of making a really good change or sparing us from a small amount retraining time, then make the change.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1571 - 2012-03-08 20:29:42 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
You really need to go back and read the dev posts describing the problems inherent with the current system. More importantly you need to understand them.

Additionally they already have plans for the current obsolete hulls in game, allowing them to seriously consider (for the first time) the frequently asked for inclusion of some new Destroyer variants.

You may feel that new destoyer hulls are not wanted or needed, but most of the EVE community disagree's with you... and has elaborated on why countless times.

The Dev responses in this thread have very completely spelled out why these changes are being considered, and their reasoning is sound. You would probably be better served promoting your idea's of how best to impliment them rather than arguing a patently lost cause.

Yes, your polling data surely backs up your claim that "most of the EVE community" agrees with you. Roll And, of course this question should be determined by majority vote anyway whether true or not.

Also, got no problem reading, budd, so you can shove that argument back where it came.

edit- oh and the just shut up and fall in line with the powers that be argument is a gemBlink


Tell you what, you come up with a few threads devoted to "For gods sake, we don't want any new ships", and I'll take a few seconds to come up with dozens of threads asking for new ships and capabilities.

I didn't say you had a problem with reading, I am saying you seem to be having trouble understanding the logic underlying what you have read.

You might consider that a good idea, whether it comes from the "powers that be" or from the man on the street, is still a good idea.

The new skill system would make it much quicker, meaningful, and streamlined to specialize in a particular type of ship (including T2 varients)... while making it slightly more time consuming (in some cases) to cross train.

It also acts to enable sensible expansions to existing hull classes, and dove tails nicely with the rebalancing of existing hulls.

I don't really see much to argue about there, but to each his own.

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

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1572 - 2012-03-08 20:29:44 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
To put it simply this allows 1 skill to open the door to WAY too many different hulls variants.

The goal is to reward specialization and to make cross training at least slightly more challenging. Having one skill (Destoyers) open the door to a huge number of hulls is extremely counter productive from a game design point of view.

Racial destroyer and racial BC is not the most objectionable part of the blog. That increases training reqs per ship. Fine.

Reducing the reqs for command ships by removing (AF 4 + HAC 4, or Logistics 4) and frig 5 + cruiser 5 , and removing BS 5 from flying Carrier or Dread, these are major dumbing down of the game and exacerbate the supercaptital proliferation problem. That is poor game design, at least as far as what EVE has been. So many changes have been dumbing down the game (removal of learning skills, etc) and these two changes would add to it.

Having prereqs which never added anything to the performance of the ships that required them makes things smarter? I can potentially see the argument that they should follow the precedent set by the T1 ship skills of requiring smaller hulls trained to 4, but their function is different enough to justify making them independent IMHO as you've already trained to a level of competence with the ship class to justify being able to pilot more specialized hulls.
Mukuro Gravedigger
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1573 - 2012-03-08 20:31:17 UTC
As I read this thread further, this is my prediction on what shall happen.

CCP will refund the skill points for the Battlecruiser and / or Destroyer skill(s) or allow a player to convert them into specific racial type. They may grant you one or more of the racial varients in skill books too while leaving the basic version of the skill "locked" in your character. The players will have a grace period to learn the other racial varient skill books (if desired) before CCP alters the requirements for the various ships. Afterwards, the players will be allowed to train (or trade in skill points) to change the basic version into a racial type.

As myself as an example, I have both skills at level 5 while remaining basically a "pure" Minmatar pilot. If CCP decides to grant me level 5 in all racial varieties, suddenly I do not have the lower ships skills to actually utilize these new skills (frigate or cruiser). Should I be punished for not training the other three races? Should I lose out on ~free~ skill points because another pilot could use the skills across multiple races and gets them granted while I will not? Or everyone gets an even number but has the option to place them anywhere? So the multiple raced pilot has to spend them on four types while I can spend mine on but one type and now ~free~ skills to spend elsewhere?

So yes, the blog does state that nobody will be hurt by this change. But I have a feeling this stance will be altered to allow time to pass for training purposes so those that want one or two or three or four types will have the time while others can train elsewhere. In the end, everyone still has the same number of skill points.

Just my thoughts at the moment.
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
#1574 - 2012-03-08 20:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: prolix travail
Lili Lu wrote:
This would imply you already "polluted" it with another race of Cruiser 4 it seems. So nbdP



What are you on about?

My point for those who missed it:

If i have caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5 - battelcruiser 5 and no other races trained (for rp reasons) i would be a little annoyed that afterwards it would go caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5- caldari battelcruiser 5 / amarr battelcruiser 5 / gallente battelcruiser 5 / minamtar battelcruiser 5




if they then have to add in the racial frig / cruiser then it's even worse.

CCP please consider reimbursement of sp rather than shoving other racial bc 5 for those who dont need or want it. Better yet don't 'fix' the skill tree.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1575 - 2012-03-08 20:35:16 UTC
Mukuro Gravedigger wrote:
As I read this thread further, this is my prediction on what shall happen.

CCP will refund the skill points for the Battlecruiser and / or Destroyer skill(s) or allow a player to convert them into specific racial type. They may grant you one or more of the racial varients in skill books too while leaving the basic version of the skill "locked" in your character. The players will have a grace period to learn the other racial varient skill books (if desired) before CCP alters the requirements for the various ships. Afterwards, the players will be allowed to train (or trade in skill points) to change the basic version into a racial type.

As myself as an example, I have both skills at level 5 while remaining basically a "pure" Minmatar pilot. If CCP decides to grant me level 5 in all racial varieties, suddenly I do not have the lower ships skills to actually utilize these new skills (frigate or cruiser). Should I be punished for not training the other three races? Should I lose out on ~free~ skill points because another pilot could use the skills across multiple races and gets them granted while I will not? Or everyone gets an even number but has the option to place them anywhere? So the multiple raced pilot has to spend them on four types while I can spend mine on but one type and now ~free~ skills to spend elsewhere?

So yes, the blog does state that nobody will be hurt by this change. But I have a feeling this stance will be altered to allow time to pass for training purposes so those that want one or two or three or four types will have the time while others can train elsewhere. In the end, everyone still has the same number of skill points.

Just my thoughts at the moment.

Unless something changed from CCP Ytterbium's post on the matter, linked in the op, why would you believe it to be different from what was stated there? As far as missing out, if what is granted is based on ones current capabilities and choices, it wouldn't be through any fault of CCP if you missed out. That aside, the static number of skill points should really be irrelevant to the discussion IMHO.
Swearte Widfarend
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1576 - 2012-03-08 20:37:37 UTC
prolix travail wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
This would imply you already "polluted" it with another race of Cruiser 4 it seems. So nbdP



What are you on about?

My point for those who missed it:

If i have caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5 - battelcruiser 5 and no other races trained (for rp reasons) i would be a little annoyed that afterwards it would go caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5- caldari battelcruiser 5 / amarr battelcruiser 5 / gallente battelcruiser 5 / minamtar battelcruiser 5




if they then have to add in the racial frig / cruiser then it's even worse.

CCP please consider reimbursement of sp rather than shoving other racial bc 5 for those who dont need or want it. Better yet don't 'fix' the skill tree.

What are you on about?

If you have caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5 - battelcruiser 5 and no other races trained then you will get Caldari Battlecruiser 5 and no other racial skills.

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.

Kasenada
Suzaku Enterprises
#1577 - 2012-03-08 20:37:42 UTC
Should the skill destroyers (for example) be devolved into 4 racial destroyer skills, and those that have the skill already then get all 4 racials at the same level, which seems to be the only appropriate way to handle this, have they considered that they will also likely be increasing clone costs for those characters?
Especially if they are going to do this for:

destroyers, battlecruisers, interdictors, heavy interdictors, assault ships, heavy assault ships, marauders and black ops
(did i miss any generic ship skills?)

as would only be proper in creating a new intuitive ship skill set under the terms they set forth in dev blog.
Swearte Widfarend
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1578 - 2012-03-08 20:42:00 UTC
Kasenada wrote:
Should the skill destroyers (for example) be devolved into 4 racial destroyer skills, and those that have the skill already then get all 4 racials at the same level, which seems to be the only appropriate way to handle this, have they considered that they will also likely be increasing clone costs for those characters?
Especially if they are going to do this for:

destroyers, battlecruisers, interdictors, heavy interdictors, assault ships, heavy assault ships, marauders and black ops
(did i miss any generic ship skills?)

as would only be proper in creating a new intuitive ship skill set under the terms they set forth in dev blog.


First, were you going to stop training skills when you reached a particular SP total? If not, then so what?

Second, you need to work on comprehension.

Tech 1 ships are prerequisites for Tech 2 ships. Tech 1 ships will all have racial variants. Tech 2 ships are not being changed in that regard. There will be no racial variation for Tech 2, as it is merely a sub-specialty of Tech 1.

Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.

Minabunny
Bogus Brothers Corporation
#1579 - 2012-03-08 20:44:13 UTC
Now cut all skill training times by 50% and it will be perfect.
Lili Lu
#1580 - 2012-03-08 20:49:28 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Tell you what, you come up with a few threads devoted to "For gods sake, we don't want any new ships", and I'll take a few seconds to come up with dozens of threads asking for new ships and capabilities.

I didn't say you had a problem with reading, I am saying you seem to be having trouble understanding the logic underlying what you have read.

You might consider that a good idea, whether it comes from the "powers that be" or from the man on the street, is still a good idea.

The new skill system would make it much quicker, meaningful, and streamlined to specialize in a particular type of ship (including T2 varients)... while making it slightly more time consuming (in some cases) to cross train.

It also acts to enable sensible expansions to existing hull classes, and dove tails nicely with the rebalancing of existing hulls.

I don't really see much to argue about there, but to each his own.

You argue with premises that aren't proven. "a good idea" according to what? Just because you think it's a good idea?

Is quicker into T2 variant really better? I don't think it is.

I'm expressing opinions and so are you. Stop couching yours as inherently "good."

Tippia wrote:
It smartens the game up by giving you more options, more choices, more ways to optimise and (consequently) more ways of making bad choices that give you less bang for the buck. By removing those prereqs, you are no longer given a single path that everyone has to follow, but rather let people mix and match to suit their perceived needs… and then it's up to them to figure out what those needs actually are. It smartens the game up by allowing for far more concentration and specialisation, and thus further removing the meaning (and interpretation) of character age and the perennially meaningless SP count.

More choices = smarter.
Fewer choices and more railroading = dumber.

This change creates the former by removing the latter (and that's without even going into how it's making the game conceptually smarter by removing illogical and inconsistent prereqs that serve absolutely no purpose for, and have zero relation to the skills and ships they open up).

You are looking at it from a different direction, that being number of choices. I'm looking at it from sp requirements to get into command ships or capitals where the changes are decidedly dumbing down.

As for the logi and HAC prereqs they are not meaningless and have logic. A HAC is a tanky combat ship. A field command is an even tankier and gankier BC variant on that. Noone (well few) is flying a field command for the ability to fit a link. And with the Logi > Fleet command ship it is, to borrow the rp fantasy game analogy, the progression of a front line priest/healer into a super buffing preventive healing hierarchical position. There is no stupidity in the reqs as they are now.

And if you want to fly a capital ship no problem with requiring the mastery of a BS.

Sure, you say that the changes force more choices. OK. But they simultaneously reduce the pre-reqs for certain ship classes that were distant end goals for players progressing in the game. They will now be too easy to attain I believe. They will lose meaning with that ease. And making it easier to get into capitals and supsequently supercaps will further harm the game.