These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bilaz
Duck and Finch
#1721 - 2012-03-10 20:52:53 UTC
once again - removal of tiers is good and all, but there are some conserns. A qick stare on line roles you propose - shows that basicly what you propose is well known paladin, rogue, archer and buffer - roles. Which is quite disturbing becouse i dont want to have la2 is spare or something like that. And franly this whole bombardment stuff is utter bullshit - people shot other people to kill not to scare away or bore opponent to death while cruize missiles fly 200+ km

Back to roles - what i would like to see and what makes sence to me is broader roles than you have for t2 ships - you cann see and you would see that every unused ship have narrow role - pilgrim - close ranged, solo recon, munin - long range, arty hac. and every used ship - have roader role: rapier - good in small and large gangs, armor and shield tanked, have range, zealot - great range with close range and long range weapons, great tank when armor tanked but its possible to shield tank it. (Zealot and legion is overpowered becouse it have 2-3 awesome range, damage and tracking with pulse weapons). i dont want ships that can do only one thing good, especially if that thing is something ccp thought is a good idea to do with ship

Roles are olrady there in tier ships all you have to do is look how and why it is used and give others abilities to compete with it. I'm not talking about drake - if speaking about bc, but hurricane instead - utility, versality, good agility and damage at close range, possible to fit long range variant. Dominix and scorpion show that tier 1 bs - may be a good platform for drone + e-war bs for all races - being used as solo close range ship and/or e-war support bigger fleets. Each ship must have 2-3 purpose

Its also obvious that one line of roles for all shipsizes is not so smart when you think about it - ship of the line - its battleship anything smaller thrying to overtank and outdamage the opposition would look quite bizzare, something fast and agile - its clearly not a battleship - becouse why would anyone would fly a vagabond if the is something fast like a machariel (but fot t1 ship price)? When you want to tackle something you take inti - not cruiser or bs, when you keep something tackled you take recon - so all roles and purposes are already there, no need to invent wheel and paint everyone in 4 colors - that would lead to gedradation of pvp in eve, you would lose motivation and there (again) wont be any balancing in next 4 years

Last but not least concern is... balance. You plan to level the field for all ships but weapons and tank - are not balanced. Range issues - 70 km repair range is too much and unlike e-war stack very well, 1400 have too much alpha, scortch m and l have too much range and damage, heavy missiles fly too far and hit better than they should. armor tanked ships lack mobility shield tanked ships enjoy, gang bonuses give too much advantage (and cloaked bubble-proof bonus giving t3's on spots are much worse than 200km falcons)- all that would make proper balancing between diferent shiptypes and races next to impossible. So i think it would be a good idea to fix all this before work on rewamping cruisers and bs's.
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
#1722 - 2012-03-10 22:53:59 UTC
Oddly, as a low SP player annoyed by how long it takes to be able to upgrade to the next set of ships, my ***** is the exact opposite of most the ones here. Why can't we just remove all the racials and go Frigate-->Destroyer-->Cruiser-->Battlecruiser-->Battleship? I just find the idea of EXPANDING the ship command tree to be pretty silly, because it's completely filled with redundant skills as is. So sayeth the noob less concerned about waving an epeen in the form of SP and more concerned about being able to fly ships. No, I don't expect anyone to really agree with me, I just wanted to say it :)
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
SCRUBS.
#1723 - 2012-03-11 01:03:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannott Thanos
Jonuts wrote:
Oddly, as a low SP player annoyed by how long it takes to be able to upgrade to the next set of ships, my ***** is the exact opposite of most the ones here. Why can't we just remove all the racials and go Frigate-->Destroyer-->Cruiser-->Battlecruiser-->Battleship? I just find the idea of EXPANDING the ship command tree to be pretty silly, because it's completely filled with redundant skills as is. So sayeth the noob less concerned about waving an epeen in the form of SP and more concerned about being able to fly ships. No, I don't expect anyone to really agree with me, I just wanted to say it :)


So what you are saying is that you want only one race in eve? Sounds a bit boring tbh...
The racial ship skills are the only things that makes the 4 races. without it we have one race with different guns.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Gotrek Gurnisson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1724 - 2012-03-11 02:03:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Gotrek Gurnisson
Firstly, I havent yet read through all 87 pages in this thread - though I have read enough to understand the basics of what has been proposed, and what the arguments for and against it are.

Personally, I would like to see another option on the table:

A ONE -OFF REFUND OF ALL SKILL POINTS GAINED TO DATE, ALONG WITH A FULL SET OF SKILL BOOKS FOR THE SKILLS THAT YOU ORIGINALLY HAD (minus Destroyer or Battlecruiser books that would be refunded an ISK cost).

The only reason I am suggesting a full respec as an option is because the introduction of niche ship roles, and role specific training is something that never existed before, and that most people will never have considered when they were developing their training plans.

REASONING: This would leave existing players in the same state they were in before the proposed change, except that this option would also allow players to RE-SPECIALISE into one or more of the new proposed ship roles. This will become increasingly important as CCP seem to be looking to add additional ship role-based skills as time/SP sinks.

ARGUMENTS FOR: The ability to swap skill points from skills that will no longer be of use to you when you change your ship specialism. We all have skills that we regret training, or that we know wont be of much use when these changes come in - so why not allow players a one-off chance to refund their skills and spend them on the racial skills plus the new role based skills?

ARGUMENTS AGAINST: The only one I can think of is that you might have to retrain multiple racial Battlecruiser skills. However this should be offset to some extent by the ability to swap your existing skill points around to concentrate on the ships you use most.

EXAMPLE: My main character can fly 3 races (Amarr, Minmatar and Caldari) up to BC (plus HAS), including racial weapons and EWAR, and can also fly Caldari and Amarr Battleships. After these changes then I might decide that I would like to concentrate on the 'Attack Vessel' and 'Support Vessel' ship lines, so I drop all the Minmatar skills plus HAS and then reassign these skill points to the Amarr 'Attack Vessel' and Caldari 'Support Vessel' lines - in addition to reassigning my other support skills to be more in line with the new ships roles I have chosen to concentrate on.



As far as I can see a single one-off respec per character would not hurt the game - people would still have the same amount of ISK and skill points, and could either spend the skill points in exactly the same areas as they previously had, or have the option to spend them in new areas - freeing up underused skill points.

In order for this to work however, each player would need to receive an EVE mail detailing what their allocation of skill points was before the respec - because players with several hundred skills trained will have a job remembering exactly what they had trained originally!



Im guessing that my idea is probably going to attract a fair amount of flaming - but wouldnt you gladly trade the ability to reallocate your skill points as a one-off against the inconvenience of possibly having to re-train the racial destroyer and battlecruiser skills?

Just a thought..............
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#1725 - 2012-03-11 02:47:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Noticed something odd in there...a bit off topic, but how come the Hyperion is labeled as a slow, heavy "ship of the line", but the the mega is labeled as a faster attack vessel, despite the hyperion being the more mobile of the two? Also, unlike the mega, the hyperion is specifically geared for small, quick, close range engagements...it's even purposefully gimped in some areas to prevent it from being good in fleet fights, unlike the mega, which does relatively fine in large engagements in the exact roles described in the "ship of the line" bit. What have I missed here?




Also:
"Or the Gallente drone and dampening abilities stop with the Exequror?"

The exequror has a bonus to neither of those...?

thhief ghabmoef

James Damar
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#1726 - 2012-03-11 02:50:09 UTC
If you are gonna reimburse people for losing ability to fly other races BC PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE think of the people that don't have all races trained and only give the racial BC skill to the ones that have the cruiser skill trained. I would really really hate to get Amarr/Minmatar BC 5 on my Gallente/Caldari character!
AnzacPaul
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#1727 - 2012-03-11 03:35:35 UTC
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:

Also:
"Or the Gallente drone and dampening abilities stop with the Exequror?"

The exequror has a bonus to neither of those...?



This is what worries me about the people balancing this game What?
Soporo
#1728 - 2012-03-11 03:58:08 UTC
I think I understand the reasoning behind moving away from tiers but, tbfh, the whole ship line part is what makes me pucker up.Straight

Quote:
That is why we want to remove ship tiers altogether, then refocus our balancing philosophy to be based on role. That means finding common themes, or lines that fit ships with the same purpose, then adjusting slot layout, HP and fittings within each class to support this goal.

•Combat ships: 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.

•Attack vessels: 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.

•Bombardment ships: 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.

•Support vessels: 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.

•Industrial ships: provide the mining and logistic backbone to replace military losses and cover operating costs. Poor offense, average defense and poor mobility. An Oil platform is a fairly accurate depiction of industrial ships . EVE examples: Covetor, Orca, Rorqual, Iteron V.


Great, or even Very Good, damage coupled withGreat range simply cannot be used to currently describe any of the listed Bombardment type ships. Ps Devs: Do not, ever, calculate using Rage torps or even maybe Fury Cruise for pvp endeavors unless you are talking Structures. Hint: Massive ship bonuses and high skills and painters are required for the Golem and SB's in order to make REGULAR Torps not utterly fail. But anyway, the fact that ONLY missile ships are used to describe this category is...unnerving, considering what has happened to missiles in the past. *looks at Torps, Cruise*

Does all this this mean, for instance, that when they assign the Drake to the Bombardment line they will nerf the tank and up the rof/dps?

What about the BetterOffUsingProjectiles Ferox? it's in the Combat Ship line, but atm has neither Great damage or Great defense?

Where do the Field and Fleet Command ships fit in these Lines, or do they at all?

People have mentioned ships in the Attack vessel Line, like the Domi (average defense?), Mega Great mobility?

What about ridiculously unused and highly unpopular ships like the lolEagle and others?

Presumably, all these and others will be changed to conform to someones ideal of the assigned role, IF I'm reading all this correctly, and that's what I'd like to hear more about.

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H.L. Mencken

Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#1729 - 2012-03-11 11:31:12 UTC
Quote:
Combat ships: 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.

Attack vessels: 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.

Bombardment ships: 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.

Support vessels: 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.


The examples above are kinda bad, the biggest problem that I see is that you don't give the proper role to missile & drone users. You see these weapon systems have delayed damage, but at the same time the damage is constant over the entire range. The only way for this type of damage to be useful is either having the tank necessary to survive long enough to apply your damage (Drake) or just kite it through massive speed and engagement range (Tengu, Ishkur).

Here are my current thoughts:


[Combat] *tank based*
Line Combat (direct DPS, good buffer tank, poor mobility)
Bombardment (delayed DPS, good constant tank, poor mobility)
Brawler (short DPS, good tank, poor mobility)


[Attack] *speed based*
Assault (great short DPS, poor tank, good mobility)
Artillery (direct long DPS, poor tank, good mobility)
Kiter (delayed long DPS, average tank, good mobility)


[Support] speed or tank
Defense Support (poor damage, good tank or mobility)
EW Support (poor damage, good tank or mobility)
Command Support (average damage, good tank or mobility)
Tackling Support (average damage, cloak or good mobility)




ps. To really be able to balance out EW, CCP needs to move EW modules to the high slots. So that all races have to choose between weapons or EW.
Liberty Belle
Yulai Heavy Industries
#1730 - 2012-03-11 12:11:39 UTC
I would like to see a return of our T2 rigs any time that a particular ship is going to be modified. Otherwise we're going to be stuck with worthless ships that we're going to try and sell to some poor sucker, or we're going to have to destroy rigs. Please don't let that happen.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#1731 - 2012-03-11 14:44:10 UTC
Shin Dari wrote:
[quote] [..]

ps. To really be able to balance out EW, CCP needs to move EW modules to the high slots. So that all races have to choose between weapons or EW.



i do not know how i feel about that. has its pros for sure.
but just imagine a cane, with 6 autocannons, only dmg-mods in the lows and a shield tank. would leave two highs for e-war, with useful tank and a lot of dmg.
scarry....
that would require delicate balancing with cpu and pg. ewar in mediums collides directly with shield tank and while armor tank leaves space for ewar, it reduces the possibilities of using dmg-mods.
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
#1732 - 2012-03-11 15:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Korvin
Raph Koster wrote:

The secrets to a really long-lived, goal-oriented, online game of wide appeal

- have multiple paths of advancement (individual features are nice, but making them ladders is better)
- make it easy to switch between paths of advancement (ideally, without having to start over)
- make sure the milestones in the path of advancement are clear and visible and significant (having 600 meaningless milestones doesn't help)
- ideally, make your game not have a sense of running out of significant milestones (try to make your ladder not feel finite)

I love to quote this guy.

My first question is:
What would EVE gain, if we would make a linear skill training process, instead of a multiple paths where players argue about the best way to sort their training queue?

My second question is:
Doesn't your picture of a navy->pirate ships vision reminds you of those tiers we want to get rid of?

Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8

Lunce
The Icarus Expedition
Solyaris Chtonium
#1733 - 2012-03-11 17:56:53 UTC
Shin Dari wrote:
[quote]
ps. To really be able to balance out EW, CCP needs to move EW modules to the high slots. So that all races have to choose between weapons or EW.



This makes total sense.
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#1734 - 2012-03-11 19:54:10 UTC
awesome changesAttention

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
Gin Doom
d o o m
#1735 - 2012-03-11 19:59:14 UTC
Here's a simple approach to tier ships.

Each tier allows one module spot to be relocated i.e high to low, mid to high , etc..

tier 1, allows player to move 1 module
tier 2, allows player to move 2 module
tier 3, allows player to move 3 module

Simple and refreshing. Players will now have much more diversity in fitting ships allowing seasoned pilots greater challenges and options on the battlefield.


that is my 2 cents...
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#1736 - 2012-03-11 20:29:13 UTC
I really like the ideas in the dev blog- all of them.

BTW, I followed another link on the the wiki-link for "ship of the line" from the devblog that took me to razee. And I think this might also be a very good idea.
If the Gallente Navy just realized that some of their ships are just fail and no longer useful for their intended purpose, maybe they would also "cut down" the hulls and turn them into a lower class of ships.. like the Hyperion gets beefed down to become a battlecruiser...something like this...just a thought..

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.

Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#1737 - 2012-03-11 20:39:52 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
I really like the ideas in the dev blog- all of them.

BTW, I followed another link on the the wiki-link for "ship of the line" from the devblog that took me to razee. And I think this might also be a very good idea.
If the Gallente Navy just realized that some of their ships are just fail and no longer useful for their intended purpose, maybe they would also "cut down" the hulls and turn them into a lower class of ships.. like the Hyperion gets beefed down to become a battlecruiser...something like this...just a thought..


The Brutix says hi.

thhief ghabmoef

Daemon Ceed
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#1738 - 2012-03-11 20:42:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemon Ceed
James Damar wrote:
If you are gonna reimburse people for losing ability to fly other races BC PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE think of the people that don't have all races trained and only give the racial BC skill to the ones that have the cruiser skill trained. I would really really hate to get Amarr/Minmatar BC 5 on my Gallente/Caldari character!


A fair point indeed.
Dairokuten Maoh
Summus Volatilis Vir
#1739 - 2012-03-11 23:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Dairokuten Maoh
Great, catergorizing ships by roles.

How it used to be
- In fleet engagement
FC had to carefully calculate the hostile fleet composition, judging by their logi and their support. Since a ship like drake can be just as much long range or short range, and can be mobile or slow. The uncertainity is what makes the fleet intel vital, and fleet fight exciting. There is so many factors to play, and the one who can calculate the most factor into the fight shall be victorious.
- In skirmishes
Intel reported a 8 man fleet consists of vagas and canes with sabre and rapier. It's a composition that you don't take lightly with. Because you never know if the cane is armor fit or shield fit, or vaga is ab fit or mwd fit. They can be tanky or fast and still carry out a good mid range dps, and massive close range dps. A general solution is either to pick them off gate, split them between system, or out blob them. BUT YOU NEVER KNOW FOR SURE, what they might do.

-In solo pvp
You saw a lone cane flying around, you are in a dramiel, and you think "pffff, I got this *****.", you tackle the cane, and BOOM WEBED AND SCRAMED LIKE A MOTHERF***KER, you thought, "trololol a armor cane", and next thing you know the cane is waving at your pod.

or your in a vaga, and you saw a lone phantasm flying through. and again you thought "pffft, I got this *****!!" you burns toward the phantasm, and point, and start shooting, everything is going so well you wonder why phantasm was ever in production. UNTIL HE TURNS ON HIS DUAL TRACKING DISRUPTOR AND ORBIT YOUR SHIP AT 24KM, next thing you heard is the alarm sound for your hull breach. (btw that's me in the phantasm, hasn't lose to any ship that use guns solo.)

What's going to happen?
- In fleet engagement.
FC recive intels on enemy ship "role", for example and fleet of "combat ships. FC can make instant decision on how to engage them. Because they can only do certain rolls effectivly, and order the fleet to stay the F away from them while picking out their Logistic and Ewars one by one.

- In skirmishes
You saw a small skirmish fleet on intel channel and their ships to be in roles that are meant for quick skirmishes. AND SINCE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THIS SHIP WOULD FLY FOR THEIR ROLE. You warp a onyx into them with 3 or 4 zealot at 50k off with a couple hyena, boom a dead skirmish fleet. Or a drag bubble with snipers like sebo oracle, and hyena. BOOM ANOTHER DEAD F****ING FLEET.

-In solo pvp
pfff, solo pvp would be extinct, since your ship ROLE is predetermined. The result is also predetermined based on the proper counter ship ROLE and tactics.

And in case of mixed roles in a fleet composition. It's still gonna be easy to figure out how every single one of the hostile ship is going to perform based on their ROLEs, and therefore apply proper tactics into target calling and counter maneuvering.

余の前に人は無く、余の後にも人は無し Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.

Dairokuten Maoh
Summus Volatilis Vir
#1740 - 2012-03-12 00:19:53 UTC
Lunce wrote:
Shin Dari wrote:
[quote]
ps. To really be able to balance out EW, CCP needs to move EW modules to the high slots. So that all races have to choose between weapons or EW.



This makes total sense.


This does not remove the cloaky falcon alt's OMGWTFBBQPWN button.

余の前に人は無く、余の後にも人は無し Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.