These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
bongpacks
Rules of Acquisition
#1741 - 2012-03-12 00:37:12 UTC
As long as I can still fly all the ships I can currently fly now, after the change...without having to do anything/spend any isk/waste any training time then I'm completely fine with this. If however you change the skill progression in spaceship command and don't immediately make the next project doing the same thing to the gunnery skill progression, I will be very disappoint. If it's good enough for our ships it's good enough for our turrets too! How many god damn attempts does it take to post something successfully to this forum? 4 so far
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#1742 - 2012-03-12 02:33:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
bongpacks wrote:
As long as I can still fly all the ships I can currently fly now, after the change...without having to do anything/spend any isk/waste any training time then I'm completely fine with this. If however you change the skill progression in spaceship command and don't immediately make the next project doing the same thing to the gunnery skill progression, I will be very disappoint. If it's good enough for our ships it's good enough for our turrets too! How many god damn attempts does it take to post something successfully to this forum? 4 so far


This is where the new skill progression pattern falls down. Capital guns are only T1, but require level 5 bs guns. Dropping that requirement to 4 along with dropping the bs skill prereq to 4 would make training for dreads almost trivial.

They should rethink the progression at the capital level.

The changes to the sub cap tree make sense (assuming that we are reimbursed like-for-like across all racial skills), but following these changes through to capitals becomes problematic and could represent more than just reorganising the skill tree and in itself introduce major imbalance as you essentially almost instantly create thousands of cross trained dread pilots.

I dont mind that idea, specially with all the poco shooting going on lol, just wondering if that was intentional.
S McKellop
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1743 - 2012-03-12 04:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: S McKellop
So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super.

Actually now that I think about it, what about our super sitters, they like dont dock....ever. Cant exactly JC him to empire to buy the _____BC skillbook and leave the supercarrier floating in space.

If you were to do that the only reasonable way would be to grant all bitter vets all four racial BC skills trained to the level that vanilla BC is trained to....actually now that I think about that, I only have BC 3..thats still an issue for me because according to the blog you will need L4, also why would I waste time training my supersitter for a BC?

My brain hurts now.

I have concluded that the whole idea is ruhtarded. Stick to fixing the game like you have been doing so well since crucible, dont break it again.
Venkul Mul
Vikramaditya
#1744 - 2012-03-12 06:49:49 UTC
I doubt it will be noticed, so late in the discussion, but wouldn't be better to do it the other way?

What I mean is having:

- a relatively costly racial (or organization, for ORE as an example) skill, with a minimum requirement to use ship of that race/organization
- a generic skill for each class of ships, with separate skill trees for combat/industrial/mining ships
- a advanced racial skill for capital ships

To make some clearer example:


Piloting a Amarr cruiser would require
- Amarr ships at 3
- frigates at 4, destroyers at 4, cruisers at 1

Piloting a Gallente battleship would require:
- Gallente ships at 5
- frigates at 4, destroyers at 4, cruisers at 4, battlecruisers at 4 and battleships at 1

The above Gallente Battleship pilot to cross train to Minmatar ships would only have to train the Minmatar ships skill.
As soon as he get it to 1 he would be capable to use the Minmatar frigates
at 2 he would be capable to use Minmatar destroyers and so on.

The racial skill should be a big factor when determining the ship efficiency but it shouldn't be the only one.

I think it would represent fairly well hot it work in reality too.
When you buy a new vehicle don't have to relearn everything simply because a different firm has made it.
It could have a few different quirks but they are relatively minor.
What matter is if it is a truck or a sport car.




Katy Ling
Crimnson Concept Flame
#1745 - 2012-03-12 06:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Katy Ling
S CCP Ytterbium wrote:

... lowering the Covetor's Mining Barge requirement from 5 to 4 ...


that sounds like a very wise chance, as for years, players have looked how ridiculous it looked, to have such a small training time difference betwin the Covetor and the T2 Hulk

how about Astrogeology down from 5 to 4 too ?



S McKellop wrote:
So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super.

Actually now that I think about it, what about our super sitters, they like dont dock....ever. Cant exactly JC him to empire to buy the _____BC skillbook and leave the supercarrier floating in space.

If you were to do that the only reasonable way would be to grant all bitter vets all four racial BC skills trained to the level that vanilla BC is trained to....actually now that I think about that, I only have BC 3..thats still an issue for me because according to the blog you will need L4, also why would I waste time training my supersitter for a BC?

My brain hurts now.

I have concluded that the whole idea is ruhtarded. Stick to fixing the game like you have been doing so well since crucible, dont break it again.



geeeshhh and i thought i could have some reasons to be wary of ccp changing BC as requirement for battleship and so on, as i fly all races ... but players that have trained for years, planed and remapped to follow a path, and suddenly get all they're train and goals sabotaged, would be immensely annoyed.
good thing ccp is looking to make sure people do not get unable to fly ships they could before.

i wish ccp the best of luck implementing this, knowing they'll need God's help to deal with unnecessary player base frustration and agro, if they handle this in a way to hinder player progression. good luck =)
Sigras
Conglomo
#1746 - 2012-03-12 07:46:04 UTC
Shannae Darkehart wrote:
Scanning through the thread again, I came across this and immediately thought, "You know, additional base tech 1 Destroyer hulls and some tech 2 variants of them might be worth investigating." The faster moving lower throughput Logistics ship idea is popular on the forums, for example, and could find a home here.


Well, im not sure . . . smaller logistics ships would be great, but wouldnt we want those in the faster/lighter frigate hulls than the easier to hit destroyer hulls? i mean up until recently, cruiser logistics ships were about the same size as destroyers.

Shannae Darkehart wrote:
You could even throw down something in the same vein as the Battlecruisers with oversized guns approach. The question would be, 8 medium turrets, or a single solitary large turret? ... both? >.>


ummmm . . . 8 medium turrets >>>> 1 large turret

maybe 4 large turrets?

What about a small command ship? something that can only use two command mods at a time and provides no bonus to those mods, but is light and fast enough to travel with frigate packs?

I would also like to see the destroyer equivalent of a combat command ship with solid tank and gank but limited utility.
Shannae Darkehart
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1747 - 2012-03-12 08:41:07 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Shannae Darkehart wrote:
Scanning through the thread again, I came across this and immediately thought, "You know, additional base tech 1 Destroyer hulls and some tech 2 variants of them might be worth investigating." The faster moving lower throughput Logistics ship idea is popular on the forums, for example, and could find a home here.


Well, im not sure . . . smaller logistics ships would be great, but wouldnt we want those in the faster/lighter frigate hulls than the easier to hit destroyer hulls? i mean up until recently, cruiser logistics ships were about the same size as destroyers.

Shannae Darkehart wrote:
You could even throw down something in the same vein as the Battlecruisers with oversized guns approach. The question would be, 8 medium turrets, or a single solitary large turret? ... both? >.>


ummmm . . . 8 medium turrets >>>> 1 large turret

maybe 4 large turrets?

What about a small command ship? something that can only use two command mods at a time and provides no bonus to those mods, but is light and fast enough to travel with frigate packs?

I would also like to see the destroyer equivalent of a combat command ship with solid tank and gank but limited utility.


I'm just throwing out ideas, there, under the assumption that our current standards of effectiveness may well change when they abolish the tiering system.

I like the small Command Ship idea.

The notion of specialized exploration vessels has come up, too.

Truly, there needs to be more variety in the tech 1 hulls of destroyers, too. A good source of inspiration for their loadouts actually comes from the battlecruisers, which are organized (primarily) into: dominant racial weapon system, secondary racial weapon system, and oversized weapon system categories.

Tech 1 Destroyer size launcher and drone boats, perhaps? An 8 launchers Caldari boat, a drone ship for the Gallente... Minmater perhaps 8 launchers with the bonus on rockets whereas the Caldari one gets it for Standard Missiles? Amar could get a drone boat, shoring up the races overall line of drone using ships some (the Arbitrator and its tech 2 variants really stick out like a sore thumb in this regard), or another Khanid vessel once again favouring launchers. For the oversized weapons group, Caldari should stick with launchers again while the others get their primary turrets.

Mentioned in the thread is the notion that if Defender Missiles worked to protect ships around you, a launcher based Destroyer immediately gains a fleet defense role via loading in defender missiles, while retaining an anti frigate capacity by reloading standard missiles. If the Destroyer sized drone ships bonus also applies to logistics drones, they can aid in more defensive pursuits, as well.

Just to continue throwing out ideas of a minimum level of merit wildly here: The "Exploration Vessel" could go off the same hull as Interdictors, retaining 4 turret slots for dealing with NPCs in sites. The "Vanguard Command Ship" type you mention, Sigras, could be off the new tech 1 hull, along with a "Rapid Response Vessel" logistics boat of some kind from that hull.

I like giving things names. Sue me. :D

It also amuses me greatly to imagine "swarm fleets" with Assault Ships. Interceptors, Electronic Attack Ships, Rapid Response Vessels, and Vanguard Command Ships squaring off in much the way current blobs of big ships do. I just might fall out of my chair laughing if I ever see a post QQing about a "battleship drop" during a high sec war.

I'm sorry if you feel there's a legitimate reason for botting but there isn't and that's basically that. Not liking a game doesn't entitle you to cheat. Ever. At all. Enough with the moral equivalency please. ~CCP Sreegs

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1748 - 2012-03-12 10:08:19 UTC
S McKellop wrote:
So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super.

Actually now that I think about it, what about our super sitters, they like dont dock....ever. Cant exactly JC him to empire to buy the _____BC skillbook and leave the supercarrier floating in space.

If you were to do that the only reasonable way would be to grant all bitter vets all four racial BC skills trained to the level that vanilla BC is trained to....actually now that I think about that, I only have BC 3..thats still an issue for me because according to the blog you will need L4, also why would I waste time training my supersitter for a BC?

My brain hurts now.

I have concluded that the whole idea is ruhtarded. Stick to fixing the game like you have been doing so well since crucible, dont break it again.


Ahem.

Go back to the first post. read the posts linked to from it. (Or read just the dev posts on the thread).

You'll find the concern is dealt with. 'If you can fly it before, you'll be able to fly it after'


One small thing about how the requirements work. A Battleship doesn't need Crusier to fly. It's not tested for. It's the top level only that's tested, not the prereqs for them. Because there's no way (in normal play) to get the requirements, without meeting the requirements for them. It'd be a pointless test.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1749 - 2012-03-12 10:14:21 UTC
S McKellop wrote:
So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super.
…and you've come to this conclusion, how, exactly?
Tesco Yogurt
OMFG Industries
#1750 - 2012-03-12 10:44:32 UTC
Danny Husk wrote:
The reason your answers to these questions aren't making any sense is because you are still dancing around the one simple problem that obviously drives this entire plan: The Drake.

The whole thing comes down to this: We put some ships called BCs in the game a while back, and one of them was stupidly OP. In fact it was so stupidly OP that our T2 cruisers are an embarassment compared to it. This is even more of a problem since the T2 cruiser takes 5x as long to get into. We see now that this stupidly OP ship never should have happened, or should have been just another Tech 2 hull. But we can't nerf it, because people will scream bloody murder. And we can't buff the T2 cruisers, because then they would be stupidly OP.


So this 1 ship that was stupidly OP was flown by PVPers all over the map when it was first introduced, was it? Don't make general, sweeping assumptions like that. It makes you look stupid.

1. The drake was considered a 'meh' ship when it was introduced. 99% of drakes were used in PVE, and 99% of PVPers used ships OTHER than the drake (yes I'm pulling these '99%' numbers out of my arse, but the majority in both cases anyway)

2. People only started realizing that drakes were pretty good, after the nano-nerf, where heavy missiles could actually catch ships in the class they're meant to hit.

3. As it is, the Drake only started seeing heavy usage in 0.0 blobs and small gang PVP post 2009/2010. Prior to that I don't think I've ever seen any 0.0 blobs specifically ask for drakes. In fact you'd be laughed out of the alliance if you told them all you could fly was a drake.

4. The tier 2 BC class are one of the most balanced classes as it is (myrm is slightly underpowered, mainly due to the current state of the game).

5. Personally, I think the Drake is fine as it is, but could always do with a little tweak. Idiotic posts crying "NERF NERF" with no basis are pretty stupid and make me want to kill a kitten.

6. I really don't see the point in nerfing something that didn't undergo any massive changes (bar HP recharge nerf) since its introduction and is only really in demand due to current metagame. Balancing isn't just about tweaking the stats on 1-2 ships.

Danny Husk wrote:
So what we're gonna do is: move all the BCs far enough up the training curve to put them out of the reach of vile noobs; pull the T2 cruisers down the curve a bit to make them seem like a better deal; then make all the other BCs just as stupidly OP.

Balance achieved.

Also we'll throw in some new dessies. Maybe. And caps will be 30 days shorter. So it all works out in the end.


Far enough up the training curve? What's your basis for this whine? If CCP implements Racial Cruiser 4 -> Racial BC 1 in place of the current method, that means training cruiser 3 -> 4, hardly THAT much longer to skill for. The only potential people it would hurt are people who cross train extensively (and even then it's not known what the final implementation will be), and don't tell me all newbies have BC 5 trained up (where new players are under 6 months old) and are capable of flying 3-4 races BC EFFECTIVELY.

tl;dr
Danny Husk > WAHHH WAAAAHHHHH CCP IS DOING SOMETHING I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT BUT I'M GONNA CRY NERFDRAKENERFDRAKENERFDRAKE ANYWAY
Me > you're an idiot, stfu stop crying and wait until we actually know something concrete.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#1751 - 2012-03-12 10:48:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
S McKellop wrote:
So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super.
…and you've come to this conclusion, how, exactly?


Probably by ignoring the fact that you already need Amarr Cruiser trained in order to fly an Amarr BC, so anyone who can fly a Harbinger now should still be able to fly a Harbinger when it requires "Amarr Battlecruiser" instead of "Battlecruiser". And if you can't fly a Drake today because you don't have Caldari Cruiser trained, why would it matter to you that you can't fly a Drake after the change?

So many people. So few braincells.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#1752 - 2012-03-12 10:50:37 UTC
Tesco Yogurt wrote:
Danny Husk wrote:
The reason your answers to these questions aren't making any sense is because you are still dancing around the one simple problem that obviously drives this entire plan: The Drake.

The whole thing comes down to this: We put some ships called BCs in the game a while back, and one of them was stupidly OP. In fact it was so stupidly OP that our T2 cruisers are an embarassment compared to it. This is even more of a problem since the T2 cruiser takes 5x as long to get into. We see now that this stupidly OP ship never should have happened, or should have been just another Tech 2 hull. But we can't nerf it, because people will scream bloody murder. And we can't buff the T2 cruisers, because then they would be stupidly OP.


So this 1 ship that was stupidly OP was flown by PVPers all over the map when it was first introduced, was it? Don't make general, sweeping assumptions like that. It makes you look stupid.

1. The drake was considered a 'meh' ship when it was introduced. 99% of drakes were used in PVE, and 99% of PVPers used ships OTHER than the drake (yes I'm pulling these '99%' numbers out of my arse, but the majority in both cases anyway)

2. People only started realizing that drakes were pretty good, after the nano-nerf, where heavy missiles could actually catch ships in the class they're meant to hit.

3. As it is, the Drake only started seeing heavy usage in 0.0 blobs and small gang PVP post 2009/2010. Prior to that I don't think I've ever seen any 0.0 blobs specifically ask for drakes. In fact you'd be laughed out of the alliance if you told them all you could fly was a drake.

4. The tier 2 BC class are one of the most balanced classes as it is (myrm is slightly underpowered, mainly due to the current state of the game).

5. Personally, I think the Drake is fine as it is, but could always do with a little tweak. Idiotic posts crying "NERF NERF" with no basis are pretty stupid and make me want to kill a kitten.

6. I really don't see the point in nerfing something that didn't undergo any massive changes (bar HP recharge nerf) since its introduction and is only really in demand due to current metagame. Balancing isn't just about tweaking the stats on 1-2 ships.

Danny Husk wrote:
So what we're gonna do is: move all the BCs far enough up the training curve to put them out of the reach of vile noobs; pull the T2 cruisers down the curve a bit to make them seem like a better deal; then make all the other BCs just as stupidly OP.

Balance achieved.

Also we'll throw in some new dessies. Maybe. And caps will be 30 days shorter. So it all works out in the end.


Far enough up the training curve? What's your basis for this whine? If CCP implements Racial Cruiser 4 -> Racial BC 1 in place of the current method, that means training cruiser 3 -> 4, hardly THAT much longer to skill for. The only potential people it would hurt are people who cross train extensively (and even then it's not known what the final implementation will be), and don't tell me all newbies have BC 5 trained up (where new players are under 6 months old) and are capable of flying 3-4 races BC EFFECTIVELY.

tl;dr
Danny Husk > WAHHH WAAAAHHHHH CCP IS DOING SOMETHING I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT BUT I'M GONNA CRY NERFDRAKENERFDRAKENERFDRAKE ANYWAY
Me > you're an idiot, stfu stop crying and wait until we actually know something concrete.

From everything I heard in the days of drake army, the main reason they became so prevalent in nullsec pvp is because they exploited the lag issues, but by working better than turrets under high lag conditions, and be making the servers work harder so they could cause said lag conditions under which they worked better.

After missiles were reworked at the code level to use considerably less CPU overhead, drakefleets started falling back into a less used role, being replaced by alphafleet(whos slow cycling guns had the advantage in lag over faster cycling guns).

Lag has driven a large part of fleet doctrine evolution over the years.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Sasha Azala
Doomheim
#1753 - 2012-03-12 11:20:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Sasha Azala
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
[list]
  • Q: Isn't such a skill change and reimbursement defeating the very purpose of getting new players in, since they will now have to train four times as much to get all destroyer and battlecruiser variants?

  • A: if you only consider raw skill requirement, certainly. We estimate that with the changes, training for a battlecruiser would jump from 5 to 11 days. However, flying a ship properly means much more than just being able to hop into it. You have to consider weapon, tanking, engineering, electronic, navigation skills as well, where 6 days aren't that much in the grand picture.

    Besides, we always encourage players to specialize in a specific hull to be as competitive as veterans, and this will not change here. Splitting destroyers and battlecruisers into four racial variants is aimed to achieve exactly that, as we assess the current, generic battlecruiser skills is giving access to too many ship hulls (12 for training one skill), while being inconsistent with the Frigate, Cruiser, Battlecruiser and Capital skills, which all are race based.




    Good thing about generic destroyer and battleship skills is that it completes a main skill for 4 race varients. More choice of ships to fly the better so reducing that choice (making it longer to train) is not a good thing. I know it might be quicker to learn to fly one race's command ship due to the restructure but it still limits you to what you can fly. Might be better to be more competitive in one hull, but people will get bored quicker with just one hull.

    As it is at the moment training I never minded training a ship type skill (interceptor for example) as part of the skill tree. For the simple fact interceptor is also generic.

    You're adding about 3 months to training battlecruisers (3 races, 4th not counted as you would train that in any case) and 1 month to training destroyers, but you're not taking anytime away from the skill tree just rearranging it as far as I can see.




    We do need to know what you intend to do as a reimbursement sooner rather than later, this decision to have destroyers and battlecruisers no longer generic is already having an effect of my game. Reason being I've put my training plan on hold and moved the battlecruiser skill to the main priority.

    Started training BC V about 10 hours ago, so there's now 23 days still to train until it's completed. But what you decide to do as a reinbursement will make the difference between me wasting my time at the moment or investing the time wisely.

    If you say anyone with BC V gets all 4 race BCs at V (although anyone without BC V or destroyer V gets 4 months added to their training skill tree, so it's not fair for them), or if you decided to reimburse the sp to use again after changing destroyers to rank 1 and battlecruisers to rank 2 then the BC V I'm training won't have been wasted assuming I can finish it in time.

    If, however you also insist on having all 4 races cruiser skill to 3 or 4 which ever applies then the training presently is more likely to have been wasted (as it's likely I won't train it up in time) especially as I'm not that interested in the Minmatar command ship as I think it looks crap (I know some like it, but that just highlights the importance of having choice).

    With the proposed change with the destroyer skill to having to train all 4 race destroyers to 4 is a waste to me as I don't fly destroyers and have no reason to do so. That is of course unless you add some other interesting destroyer hulls which I guess is a possibility. Although I don't think much of the new BCs (role) and hope that's not a sign of what the future holds.
    Red Templar
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1754 - 2012-03-12 12:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Red Templar
    I have a question. not sure if it was answered or cleared before, too much posts, no time to skimm through it all. So i apologize beforehand if this was already answered.

    So the question: will these changes also affect pirate faction ships?

    Specifically this quote :

    by ensuring all navy ships and entry requirement for upper classes have a skill level 4 requirement

    Does this mean i will be required to have both minmatar and gallente BS skills 4 to fly machariel?

    The reason i ask is because thats how it was translated to some russian websites and it causes confusion for some players.
    So i wanted to clear this. Because i understood is as only racial "navy" ships will be affected by this?

    Thank you!

    EDIT: thats how its actually translated for your official russian version and on russian wiki. So clarification would be nice.

    [b]For Love. For Peace. For Honor.

    For None of the Above.

    For Pony![/b]

    Gotrek Gurnisson
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #1755 - 2012-03-12 13:00:43 UTC
    Dairokuten Maoh wrote:
    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.

    As I understand it the roles will determine the ship bonuses, but players will still feel free to fit the ships however they like with modules?

    I know the slot layout of some ships may change slightly - but that wont prevent a good variety of fits even within the same 'role'??

    By your reasoning then ships that already have dedicated roles in game determined by bonuses and slot layout (like AFs) should all be fitted identically?? And yet there are still a good variety of fits out there - and you never quite know which one until you engage or scan them??
    Alfred Mahan
    Task Force 42
    #1756 - 2012-03-12 13:15:20 UTC
    The planned SP reimbursements are nuts. It will make the gap between vets and newbies even bigger. If the requirements for a professional certification changes you have to do the exam again. If you have BC 5 you get to choose which racial BC 5 you want. HTFU.

    btw, lowering the prerequsites (i.e. BS 5) for Capitals is not the way to go IMHO
    Rek Seven
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #1757 - 2012-03-12 14:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
    Alfred Mahan wrote:
    The planned SP reimbursements are nuts. It will make the gap between vets and newbies even bigger.


    Agreed. BC's now are the perfect thing for noobs to train for as they can contribute to a PVP fleet quicker and they can also experiment with the different race weapon systems.
    Tippia
    Sunshine and Lollipops
    #1758 - 2012-03-12 14:46:14 UTC
    Rek Seven wrote:
    Agreed. BC's now are the perfect thing for noobs to train for as they can contribute to a PVP fleet quicker and they can also experiment with the different race weapon systems.

    This doesn't particularly change with the new system.
    Irongut
    Sex Money Guns
    #1759 - 2012-03-12 15:04:23 UTC
    If this is CCP focusing on spaceships please go back to playing with space Barbie.
    Hannott Thanos
    Notorious Legion
    SCRUBS.
    #1760 - 2012-03-12 15:13:13 UTC
    Irongut wrote:
    If this is CCP focusing on spaceships please go back to playing with space Barbie.

    How is rebalancing ships not focusing on ships?

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

         _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

    }