These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#1881 - 2012-03-28 13:39:31 UTC  |  Edited by: non judgement
94 pages is a lot to go through. Of course I didn't.

Just wanted to ask... Did CCP Soundwave say during the EVE Keynote at fanfest that the ship balancing would take 5 years?
Dubaschu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1882 - 2012-03-28 13:51:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dubaschu
Don't for the love of god change Command Ships to a shorter time "would require 14-20” Don’t even go near the T2 skill queue.

First with the PLEX, every noob is richer then 5+year’s players flying in null and now you want to give them better ships faster. In another post by CCP we are told CCP did not monitor BOT reports for a long time and now this. Ow yes EVE is still full of BOTS! I'm not asking you, I'm telling you they are full of BOTS.

Do you even review what you publish on this forum and think about your image? I was very impressed watching a presentation by CCP at Fanfest TV and the image given was much better then when you post here and just anger the EVE community.
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#1883 - 2012-03-28 19:38:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Dream Five
CCP Guard wrote:
Re-balancing is on our minds as many of you know and CCP Ytterbium is here to tell you all about some major changes we'll be seeing the start of soon.

Please go here to read the blog and as always, we're eager to hear your feedback.

Edit:
Notice also CCP Soundwave's remark about skill reimbursement,
CCP Soundwave's statement that "if you could fly it yesterday, you will be able to fly it tomorrow" and
CCP Ytterbium's confirmation about racial skill preservation.
CCP Ytterbium provides a bunch of answers to common questions and concerns in the thread (March 8th 12:06 EVE time)


Doesn't really make sense. Ships don't need roles, just fix ships on a case by case basis, roles will emerge as needed. Absolutely no need to change up the existing skills. Just add new skills and dependencies and bonuses to existing ships if you want to change them.
Etheoma
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1884 - 2012-03-29 05:09:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Etheoma
OMFG I'm frightened there going to break eve this is one big mother f***ing change takes some balls though and a little insanity... kind of reminds me of a company I once knew I think it was CCP.

hummmm I don't know if I like it but you definitely maned up...

I do like the idea of of a hurricane with more speed :D Neuting speeding webbing warp disrupting hull breaking bringer of death you are the love of my life... And yeah I love armor canes so what :P

Lets just hope that CCP doesn't fudge this one because if they do it with this the basic core of the game; Day guna be f***ed. BUT! if they get it right this could be the best thing to happen to eve in like forever.

WH's Pfft, T3's no where near, Titan's not even close. NOTHING could compare to this if they get it right or wrong. no fumble could completely destroy eve or no right move on this could improve eve more. so I hope they act like there walking on egg shells.
Etheoma
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1885 - 2012-03-29 05:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Etheoma
Dream Five wrote:
CCP Guard wrote:
Re-balancing is on our minds as many of you know and CCP Ytterbium is here to tell you all about some major changes we'll be seeing the start of soon.

Please go here to read the blog and as always, we're eager to hear your feedback.

Edit:
Notice also CCP Soundwave's remark about skill reimbursement,
CCP Soundwave's statement that "if you could fly it yesterday, you will be able to fly it tomorrow" and
CCP Ytterbium's confirmation about racial skill preservation.
CCP Ytterbium provides a bunch of answers to common questions and concerns in the thread (March 8th 12:06 EVE time)


Doesn't really make sense. Ships don't need roles, just fix ships on a case by case basis, roles will emerge as needed. Absolutely no need to change up the existing skills. Just add new skills and dependencies and bonuses to existing ships if you want to change them.


Dude your plan is worse than there's not only would it not help new players get into better ships but it would add to your skill queue as well. at least the plan in place has 2 upsides rather than 1. if you don't change the existing skills that means you would simply be tacking new once on which means more training time duh.
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania
#1886 - 2012-03-29 18:21:02 UTC
I've been dormant since October, just training my skills (and not very effectively, I might add) until I feel like being a full time pilot again. Every 3-4 weeks, I login to check and see what's up. And then I find this, to which I must say I am not impressed. What I'm seeing is akin to dropping a new transmission into a car to remedy poor fuel economy caused by a clogged exhaust.

The current Frigate -> Cruiser -> Battleship relationship is appropriate, both in skill requirements and theoretical roles. The evolution of these classes should not be changed. Leave the skills alone. All of them. The problem is not with the skills or roles, but with the ships themselves.

The idea of a destroyer is not to be a higher class than a frigate, but to push the frigate class to its limits, and sacrificing mobility and profile efficiency in order to meet these limits. In the case of currently designed destroyers, we have the role of pure offense.
(Side note: CCP was too extreme when it came to this, and destroyers were too specific, and were very difficult to fit. The Thrasher was the only exception. It is an ideal example of what a destroyer should be. So the solution here would be to fix the other three destroyers.)

Another concept in the same vein would be a pure defense vessel. Let's call this a Defender. It would use a new skill: Defenders. Not racial Defenders, just Defenders. Same rank and requirement as Destroyers. It's one additional skill instead of three. This would be a good compromise.

One thing that's an issue, however, is Battlecruisers. It seems that CCP got lazy somewhere when they came up with them. Instead of giving them roles and role bonuses, they just made them to be very large cruisers, which actually placed them rather snugly between the cruiser class and battleship class. They have the survivability of battleships and the anti-cruiser capability of a HAC. This is why they are so popular. To top that off, they chose to create tier 3 BCs, which made splitting them into two different roles extremely difficult.

In an ideal world, CCP would have made Battlecruisers pure offense like they did with destroyers. This would have made the cruiser sized equivalent of the defensive role, the Sentinel, a lot more achievable. Unfortunately, I can't see a way to introduce a Sentinels skill and changing BCs to be purely offensive. So the solution here is to figure out how to split the battlecruisers into specific roles without breaking the game, and doing nothing else with them.

Anyway, Destroyers were designed to be nothing more than built up frigates, and battlecruisers were supposed to have the same relationship with cruisers. At no time was a Destroyer supposed to be a light cruiser, nor was a BC supposed to be a light BS. The idea of making dessies and BCs intermediaries (and racial) is going too far and making things far too complicated.

Anyway, if there's anyone still watching this thread (is there?), I respect that you are trying to do the right thing, but you must know that you are going about it the wrong way. Besides, CCP has a long history of leaving things unfinished, unbalanced, and abandoned. Read: Aurora, COSMOS, rigs (yes, rigs.), missile overhaul, Speed Rebalanced (Mork and... Oh, Mindy!), T3, etc. I don't want to see the same thing happen to a major skill tree across the board. On a catastrophic scale of 1 - 10, this would score a "CCP Nozh".

tl;dr - Leave skills as they are. Introduce a frigate defender role and skill equivalent to the frigate destroyer. Fix currently existing destroyers. Find a way to do the same with Battlecruisers. This will **** off far fewer people.
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids
#1887 - 2012-03-29 21:02:02 UTC
Etheoma wrote:
Dream Five wrote:
CCP Guard wrote:
Re-balancing is on our minds as many of you know and CCP Ytterbium is here to tell you all about some major changes we'll be seeing the start of soon.

Please go here to read the blog and as always, we're eager to hear your feedback.

Edit:
Notice also CCP Soundwave's remark about skill reimbursement,
CCP Soundwave's statement that "if you could fly it yesterday, you will be able to fly it tomorrow" and
CCP Ytterbium's confirmation about racial skill preservation.
CCP Ytterbium provides a bunch of answers to common questions and concerns in the thread (March 8th 12:06 EVE time)


Doesn't really make sense. Ships don't need roles, just fix ships on a case by case basis, roles will emerge as needed. Absolutely no need to change up the existing skills. Just add new skills and dependencies and bonuses to existing ships if you want to change them.


Dude your plan is worse than there's not only would it not help new players get into better ships but it would add to your skill queue as well. at least the plan in place has 2 upsides rather than 1. if you don't change the existing skills that means you would simply be tacking new once on which means more training time duh.


I missed the getting into new ships part :)
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#1888 - 2012-03-30 07:56:15 UTC  |  Edited by: non judgement
Allen Ramses wrote:
Yawn ....

Not many BC have tanks like BS. Maybe only the drake?
When you say Sentinel you are talking about the Amarr electronic attack frigate?
Why should the opinion of someone who hasn't played much in the last few months matter?

The adding in the racial Destroyer is a bit odd only cause there is one destroyer for each race. Adding in racial BC wouldn't be that bad. Not everyone uses all the different races of BC. It might even shorten the training, depending on what you're training for.

I think you need to relax a bit.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1889 - 2012-03-30 13:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Qvar Dar'Zanar
Dream Five wrote:
CCP Guard wrote:
Re-balancing is on our minds as many of you know and CCP Ytterbium is here to tell you all about some major changes we'll be seeing the start of soon.

Please go here to read the blog and as always, we're eager to hear your feedback.

Edit:
Notice also CCP Soundwave's remark about skill reimbursement,
CCP Soundwave's statement that "if you could fly it yesterday, you will be able to fly it tomorrow" and
CCP Ytterbium's confirmation about racial skill preservation.
CCP Ytterbium provides a bunch of answers to common questions and concerns in the thread (March 8th 12:06 EVE time)


Doesn't really make sense. Ships don't need roles, just fix ships on a case by case basis, roles will emerge as needed. Absolutely no need to change up the existing skills. Just add new skills and dependencies and bonuses to existing ships if you want to change them.


... I think you didn't read CCP's posts at all, because that's exactly what they said they want to do (change bonuses and slots), to have 3 BC's of equal power but for different pourposes instead of 1 out of 3 useless.
"Roles" is just a guiding concept just like you know that a Tornado is a high damage/low defence ship.
Skye Aurorae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1890 - 2012-03-31 00:03:59 UTC
So, will they fix the skill requirement for the amarrian industrials? Will we finally need Amarr industrial 3 to fly a bestower?

Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21 - oh well.

Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania
#1891 - 2012-03-31 08:08:28 UTC
non judgement wrote:
Blah...

Not many BCs have tanks like a souped up cruiser. Maybe only the Hurricane?
When I say sentinel, I am talking about a sentinel. Look it up. The word I used was merely a suggestive placeholder.
Why should the opinion of someone who hasn't played for more than three years matter any more than mine?

Having there be only one destroyer per faction is not what makes it odd. Frigate destroyers are called frigate destroyers for a reason. Their role is to destroy frigates! Believe it or not, light cruisers and frigate destroyers are not one and the same.
Racial BC would be fine if it followed the implicit relationship of frigate -> cruiser -> battleship. Fact is, it does not. In order for it to follow the proper scale, BCs would have to replace the Battleship role, and everything larger than a cruiser would have to be re-done. I wouldn't mind seeing BCs using large modules, BSes using X-L modules, dreads using doomsdays, and titans using god knows what. However, I'd rather the time and energy to make that happen go towards something else... Perhaps fixing BCs.

I think you need to critically examine a bit.
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#1892 - 2012-03-31 11:12:57 UTC  |  Edited by: non judgement
Allen Ramses wrote:
[quote=non judgement]Blah...[/quote
Not many BCs have tanks like a souped up cruiser. Maybe only the Hurricane
When I say sentinel, I am talking about a sentinel. Look it up. The word I used was merely a suggestive placeholder
Why should the opinion of someone who hasn't played for more than three years matter any more than mine

Having there be only one destroyer per faction is not what makes it odd. Frigate destroyers are called frigate destroyers for a reason. Their role is to destroy frigates! Believe it or not, light cruisers and frigate destroyers are not one and the same.
Racial BC would be fine if it followed the implicit relationship of frigate -> cruiser -> battleship. Fact is, it does not. In order for it to follow the proper scale, BCs would have to replace the Battleship role, and everything larger than a cruiser would have to be re-done. I wouldn't mind seeing BCs using large modules, BSes using X-L modules, dreads using doomsdays, and titans using god knows what. However, I'd rather the time and energy to make that happen go towards something else... Perhaps fixing BCs

I think you need to critically examine a bit.

I wasn't serious about the first few comments.

I only mean that the racial destroyer skill would be odd in that it only unlocks 1 ship while all the other racial ship skills unlock 3+ ships. Not including the capital ships of course

I always thought that BC were called super-cruisers or large cruisers. They evolved from armoured cruisers?
And that Dreads were a type of large BS. But recently I've read that some people would say that a fast BS was a BC

If we were really going to have the proper names/classes of ships. The first thing I'd do is stop using the interdictor name for a class of ship. Not sure what I'd replace it with. I guess it does describe what the ships do.
Severian Carnifex
#1893 - 2012-03-31 11:39:04 UTC
Will you boost mining ships defences???
Its just too easy to gank them with ten times cheaper ship.
You introduced tier3 BCs then and didn't even look what it will do to non combat ships.
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania
#1894 - 2012-03-31 20:25:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Allen Ramses
non judgement wrote:

I only mean that the racial destroyer skill would be odd in that it only unlocks 1 ship while all the other racial ship skills unlock 3+ ships. Not including the capital ships of cours

I always thought that BC were called super-cruisers or large cruisers. They evolved from armoured cruisers?
And that Dreads were a type of large BS. But recently I've read that some people would say that a fast BS was a BC
These are all valid ideas, but you forget one thing. At the very core of EVE, there is an implicit and irrevocable scale between Frigates, Cruisers, and Battleships. The entire game was designed around this philosophy. It is why we have small, medium, and large modules. It is why we have small, medium, and large skills. Battlecruisers break this scale. A supplemental ship line (which is what they were in the beginning) needs to preserve the scale between small, medium, and large vessels. Battlecruisers allow us to bypass this scale, and the ship is able to be present in both ends of the spectrum simultaneously.

A destroyer will likely dominate any frigate it meets, just as a BC will likely dominate any cruiser it meets. However, a destroyer will be shredded in an instant by any cruiser (perhaps too easily) it meets, but the same cannot be said in regards to a BC vs a BS; It will actually give it a very real run for its money. This is where the problem lies. A cruiser will defeat a destroyer a lot easier than it will a frigate. The same relationship needs to happen with the BC.

If this can be fixed, racial skills are no longer required, and the balance between small, medium, and large would be restored. This is what needs to happen.
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#1895 - 2012-04-01 01:09:52 UTC
Allen Ramses wrote:
non judgement wrote:

I only mean that the racial destroyer skill would be odd in that it only unlocks 1 ship while all the other racial ship skills unlock 3+ ships. Not including the capital ships of cour

I always thought that BC were called super-cruisers or large cruisers. They evolved from armoured cruisers
And that Dreads were a type of large BS. But recently I've read that some people would say that a fast BS was a B
These are all valid ideas, but you forget one thing. At the very core of EVE, there is an implicit and irrevocable scale between Frigates, Cruisers, and Battleships. The entire game was designed around this philosophy. It is why we have small, medium, and large modules. It is why we have small, medium, and large skills. Battlecruisers break this scale. A supplemental ship line (which is what they were in the beginning) needs to preserve the scale between small, medium, and large vessels. Battlecruisers allow us to bypass this scale, and the ship is able to be present in both ends of the spectrum simultaneously.

A destroyer will likely dominate any frigate it meets, just as a BC will likely dominate any cruiser it meets. However, a destroyer will be shredded in an instant by any cruiser (perhaps too easily) it meets, but the same cannot be said in regards to a BC vs a BS; It will actually give it a very real run for its money. This is where the problem lies. A cruiser will defeat a destroyer a lot easier than it will a frigate. The same relationship needs to happen with the BC.

If this can be fixed, racial skills are no longer required, and the balance between small, medium, and large would be restored. This is what needs to happen.
Except I think the main reason for the battlecruiser skill split into racial is to stop people getting 8-12 ships trained all at once by only training the one BC skill. They only need cruiser to be at lvl 3, which isn't much training at all. There isn't another ship class skill that affects so many ships at once. The Recon and Heavy Assault skills are similar to this, but at least they require the racial cruiser skill to be at 5.

I like the idea of boosting the Battleships a bit more. So they can deal with BC a bit better. Except some BS are already quite strong. Maybe only a slight boost to the defence of weaker BS.
None ofthe Above
#1896 - 2012-04-01 02:50:35 UTC
non judgement wrote:

...
Except I think the main reason for the battlecruiser skill split into racial is to stop people getting 8-12 ships trained all at once by only training the one BC skill. They only need cruiser to be at lvl 3, which isn't much training at all. There isn't another ship class skill that affects so many ships at once. The Recon and Heavy Assault skills are similar to this, but at least they require the racial cruiser skill to be at 5.
...


Realistically, very few people train more than one racial cruiser skill before training up BC 1. I find this argument to have very little weight.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#1897 - 2012-04-01 07:37:27 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
non judgement wrote:

...
Except I think the main reason for the battlecruiser skill split into racial is to stop people getting 8-12 ships trained all at once by only training the one BC skill. They only need cruiser to be at lvl 3, which isn't much training at all. There isn't another ship class skill that affects so many ships at once. The Recon and Heavy Assault skills are similar to this, but at least they require the racial cruiser skill to be at 5.
...


Realistically, very few people train more than one racial cruiser skill before training up BC 1. I find this argument to have very little weight.

it's pointless talking about training BC to level 1. What was I really talking about?

hint: it has nothing to do with when someone trains BC level 1.
It's a bit like saying no one trains frigate to level 3 for each race before they put destroyer on the queue.
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1898 - 2012-04-01 20:28:00 UTC
Am i missing some things here? as far as i know it, CCP didn't say they 'want' to do these changes, they said they need to do these changes, which are two different things, the most obvious part is, they are not seeking our approval or suggestions, they are informing us that they will do these changes no matter what. CCP knows these are drastic changes and will affect a lot of people and there would be consequences, pros and cons, they realized that, but want to go through with it anyway, that means that this is important not just from the players perspective, but from their side as well.

Is the current system broken? from the players perspective, probably not, it works fine the way it is and it has been that way for quite some time. But is it not broken? from the developer perspective? i don't know and i'm also pretty sure most of the players doesn't either. To me, the changes are logical, it streamlines and group the skills in somewhat 'cleaner' than it is now, if that means that it helps ccp to fix and/or improve the ship line later on, i'm all for it.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave

Sephiroth CloneIIV
Imperial Dreams
#1899 - 2012-04-01 22:42:24 UTC
non judgement wrote:
Allen Ramses wrote:
Yawn ....

Not many BC have tanks like BS. Maybe only the drake?
When you say Sentinel you are talking about the Amarr electronic attack frigate?
Why should the opinion of someone who hasn't played much in the last few months matter?

The adding in the racial Destroyer is a bit odd only cause there is one destroyer for each race. Adding in racial BC wouldn't be that bad. Not everyone uses all the different races of BC. It might even shorten the training, depending on what you're training for.

I think you need to relax a bit.


add to that, in size and slots (and mineral cost, maneuverability) BCs and destroyers are in between ships of the current system.

It isn't necessary to include them as part of the main progression, but won't kill the game if they are.
Veonara
Darwins disciples
#1900 - 2012-04-02 09:34:38 UTC
I like that they're doing big changes and trying to make more ships viable but I can't say I see the necessity to mess around with the skills like this. Atleast give us a definitive answer on how skill reimbursement will be handled, it represents a huge time investment.

Oh man, this messes with my skilltraining plans so much, should I waste a remap and train up some ship skills before it's too late or not :/