Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 22 post(s) |
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:22:00 -
[271] - Quote
Mikron Alexarr wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? Quoted for Truth. does the term sandbox mean anything to anyone anymore?
Lies and fallacy, CCP make the game, balance the ships, and give them bonuses.
If you want to fly one different to it's intended use, go ahead, but they should all have obvious intended uses. Today, I watched a video of an iteron taking out a megathron, which was awesome.
It was awesome because someone had taken a ship with an obvious intended role, and used it completely differently. If the iteron HAD no role, and was just another blank-slate hull, it'd have been completely meaningless, no different to someone using any other cruiser sized ship.
Your argument holds no water. |
Tiny Chesticles
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:22:00 -
[272] - Quote
I can fly any Amarr / Caldari / Minmatar command ship at lvl V (meaning battlecruiser V also) - as long as I still can after this update it's all good.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1089
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:23:00 -
[273] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:FOFOFOFOOOO wrote:On a side note its quite funny to see that it now takes less time to get into a dread then a black ops bs. Good thing they fixed black ops bs. + 1 like Good thing this will be part of a general rebalancing, which would (of course) include Black Ops. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:23:00 -
[274] - Quote
You're reading more into that than you need to, the latter image says nothing about skill requirements. It's alluding to a thematic structure for ships, nothing more, nothing less.
Someone who flies destroyers and interceptors might logically want to fly an interdictor, that is all. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
806
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:23:00 -
[275] - Quote
Take a deep breath, wipe the foam from your mouth and read the devblog again
the 'second' image you linked shows the current state of the game, and was in a paragraph that started like this;
"To understand what ships lines are all about, letGÇÖs recap the four theoretical factors that sort ships out"
the 'first' image you posted is the proposed change.
tl:dr stop foaming at the mouth with rage long enough and you might understand whats going on
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1974
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:24:00 -
[276] - Quote
The more I think about this the more I dislike this. Leaving the shafting of cross trainers aside for the moment, I think you went with the idea mainly because it's easy for you. The one thing EVE isn't suffering from is too short skill training times. The exact opposite is the norm from a new players perspective and now you're adding more pointless skill barriers for them before they can access more ships. Why not **** off old players and try to repell new players from getting in to the game at the same time? How could this possibly go wrong? Bad for vets, bad for new players, uniform design and easy for CCP.
FFS I had destroyers trained to lvl 1 until a months ago and I skipped battlecruisers entirely for months when I started, because they couldn't handle the PvE content I aimed to do then, so training them was a giant waste of time. I still hit the skill barriers with my battleship and it was frustrating. Now you're telling me you want everyone to train a specialty ship like a destroyer to lvl 4 before even gaining access to cruisers and you made BCs mandatory before battleships can be accessed. Why would you do that? Why do you force people to train all these ship classes to a high skill level, that can be totally useless to anyone with clear goal in mind.
Why is lvl 4 in these skills required to proceed to the next level? Why do the requirements have to be uniform? Wouldn't it be better to have lvl 3 requirement with basic ship classes, since they really are mandatory to get the most out of the game, but not every step on that ladder is useful to every player. At lvl3 you would have access to a decent selection of ships and force people to learn by flying smaller cheaper ships. Keeping them sitting in those ships they're not interested in flying long term, just so you can have your uniform skill requirements, isn't worth it and isn't a good idea in the first place. Uniformity is good, but it should take backseat to pretty muh every other consideration.
I know the plan is not final and you're looking at the options and feedback, but at this time I can't see the good your ship requirement changes brings to any of the players. It seems chosen because it helps you and is uniform, while only having negatives for most of the players. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
495
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:24:00 -
[277] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:
No one is saying you have to retrain them. Our principle for the reimbursement here will be "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today". Ytterbium will post the further details of this once it's written up.
As a hardcore EVE Vet who would lose the ability to fly a few ships for a brief period.
Burn it all, and let God sort them out.
I love this change. Do it. Great job, commendations, kudos, congratu-facking-lations, this is the **** I want to see from CCP.
You're going to end up with some serious abuse of this system if you go the way of "if you could fly it before you can fly it tomorrow". If that's the case, I'm going to go learn all cruiser skills to 5, so I get instant skills for all Command ships up immediately with no wait or hassle, and know I'll be able to fly every ship in the game when this goes through, and get a gazillion free skillpoints when this goes live.
These are the reasons that CCP made HTFU video.
Make this game better, don't look back.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Trainwreck McGee
Ghost Ship Inc.
232
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:25:00 -
[278] - Quote
With the BC and Destroyer predicament i think it should be a simple solution
IF you have lets say......
Gallante Cruiser 4 Minmatar Cruiser 4 and BC 5
Then when the changes come out you have
Gallante Cruiser 4 Minmatar Cruiser 4 Gallante BC 5 Minmatar BC 5
Therefore there will be no need to reimburse and people will be able to fly what they flew in the past without any changes.
CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
113
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:25:00 -
[279] - Quote
This thread needs:
Less discussion about skill Queues
More discussion about Ship reclassification. |
Mikel Laurentson
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:25:00 -
[280] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:
What about people that have OVER trained for stuff? Gallente Battleship 5 is absolutely worthless (what else am I going to fly? Kronos? Sin? lol) EXCEPT that it opens the door to Thanatos, Moros, Nyx, etc. Do I get my BS 5 skillpoints back since I don't need to train it that high anymore?
I have a dual-repper hype and a sentry domi that say Gallente BS V does things. I'm told people fly Vindicators, Rattlesnakes and even Megathrons sometimes.
Even when hybrids were balls, the T1 and faction Gallente battleships had their uses. It's not always about the unlocks. |
|
Shangpo
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:25:00 -
[281] - Quote
So, instead of doing a half hearted SP refund, why don't we just do a mass SP refund of all skills....
When I started this game, I was a massive carebear, geez. I have Ice Mining V :cripes:
I could get behind this proposal if CCP said, "Ok folks, we are going to allow you to choose skills (In my case Exhumers III, Ice Mining 5, Mining Drones IV, etc) and allow you to take SP out of those skills and apply to our new racial BC program.
tldr: please ccp, let me take SP out of skills I dont want to use anymore...
(like if you agree folks) |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
806
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[282] - Quote
Elanor Vega wrote:Arline Kley wrote:I'm surprised they had to wiki-link an Oil Platform. But Oil Platform dont go boom when you hit it with a rock - like mining barges/exumers in EVE.
http://cdn.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/oil_rigs-accident.jpg i wouldnt be so sure about that statement
|
Hitokiri Battoesai
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[283] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Ethino wrote:So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer. I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't.
Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change!
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[284] - Quote
Thrice distilled, oak-barrel aged post:
Why?
Just....why?
If you want to balance ships....balance ships. |
John Frohike
Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[285] - Quote
If you do this I will love you forever! |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[286] - Quote
Tiericide! And since there will be no more Tiericide threads, it's also Tiericidicide!
Racial battlecruiser skills have to be instigated. It's absurd to have a single battlecruiser skill when 2/3 of Eve is flying Drakes and Hurricanes or Tornados and Oracles. It's also absurd to reduce the rank of racial BC from 6, when racial cruiser remains at rank 5. But, equally, it's absurd to take away the ability to fly these ships. So, options:
1. Give people the same level of each racial BC skill as they currently have in BCs Good: simple. Bad: SP inflation, panders to the "I'm a special petal, give me stuff, make my life easier" entitlement-obsessed crowd. Also punishes newbies, relative to veterans.
2. Introduce racial BC skills but retain the old BC skill and the link to the old BC skill for several months to give people the opportunity to train them up. Good: no SP inflation. Bad: that's everyone's skillplans sorted for the next 3 months, then.
3. GIve people SP in advance, so they can immediately apply them to the racial BC skills, then not receive SP for the appropriate time in the future. Good: Erm. Bad: a complicated way of achieving [2].
Option 2 sounds best to me. |
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:27:00 -
[287] - Quote
Really excited by this direction, assuming CCP keeps its word and enforces the Soundwave Principle --- "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today".
Just to put it in absolute terms, at 70M SP I can fly 53 armed hulls reasonably competently. At any given time I probably have only a dozen kinds of hulls in my hangars, and I really use just about five ships in any given month. If CCP does away with ship tiers and provides me with more decent hulls, I could be looking at between two and ten times as many worthwhile options. That's a lot of new content.
Can a dev comment more on the ship lines philosophy? Is the intent to make it so a new player who has no SP does not gain the ability to fly a Tornado and a Rupture while training up for a Typhoon? That is, the ship line skill tree takes the place of the ship class skill tree? Or, is the intent to provide a baseline capability of Tornado, Cyclone, and Hurricane for everyone who has Minmatar Battlecruisers, but the Minmatar Combat Ship skill gives additional bonuses to the Cyclone without affecting the other two?
I believe the ship trees you published are the existing trees. Could you produce a similar hypothetical tree for the ship trees per race once the ship lines have been implemented? I know that you can't commit to details yet, but even just a broad strokes diagram with some kind of qualitative indication of training time would be useful.
Currently, one of the biggest barriers to entry into Eve for my RL friends is the fact that I think the minimum they need to contribute to my playstyle is flying an interceptor, which is 24d minimum and realistically 40d to get decent stats. If the T1 frigates can be rebalanced to do an OK job of holding down a target, or the T1 cruisers rebalanced to be somehow useful in corps flying primarily battlecruisers today, then I suspect the training time for new players to contribute to a PvP corp could be reduced significantly.
Combat ships and attack vessels are poor names. What about fleet ships and skirmish ships, respectively, instead? Or, you could use the terms heavy attack ships and light attack ships, though that has some aliasing onto the |
Aelana Anais
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:27:00 -
[288] - Quote
OK, a few constructive thoughts.
1) In principle the ship progression needed to be worked on, but you do seem to be removing flexibility instead of promoting flexibility. Unless you plan to add new ships to the races, which could be interesting
2) Remember tiered prerequisites. I would hate to have my Destroyer skill yanked even if you give me enough SP for all the Destroyers at 5, because until they got back up to 5... what would happen to my Cruiser+ skills
3) Since I don't know the ranks of the remapped skills, I will phrase this in a question to try and limit the rage... does the re-tiered system result in a shorter, longer or same train time to capitals? I can see if done right that the train time to capitals could actually be increased due to the addition of new tiers.
4) To those that are trying to make the argument that longer train times could help the capital/supercap problem, that is just punitive against new players. Cap/Supercap problems aren't going to be solved by train time simply because they are already a problem and the people causing the problem already have them trained. Yea it can help limit it from getting further out of hand, but a better solution is fix the problem so getting to supercaps isn't an I win button anymore
5) You forgot logistics ships. If you go through in principle with lumping logistics in with the non-combat ewar ships you will destroy them since the two ship types have different defense requirements. I would suggest creating two different categories one for repair one for ewar
6) You reversed the Hyperion and the Megathron... by your own descriptions in the game the Hyperion is supposed to be the blaster boat, i.e. high maneuverability where the mega is supposed to be focused on rails... i.e. lower maneuverability, higher defense. Its not really how they pan out, but if you are re balancing anyway, might as well stick with lore
7) I don't do missions anymore, but I used to... and I remember what it was like to progress through the mission levels. Be cognizant that if you don't re balance the BCs you are giving an even greater edge to Caldari (which already has the best rewards, a battlecruiser that can run all level 4s, etc) by making it longer to get into battleships for the other races (when caldari can just use the drake). I haven't played since you added the new BCs (not a rage thing, just taking a break to play other games for a while) so maybe this is moot with the tier3 battlecruisers... just wanted the thought to be put out there
|
Aethlyn
98
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:27:00 -
[289] - Quote
I like the general idea of making ships more role than tier depending. Right now it just doesn't feel right everywhere (esp. in mining, where the Covetor is almost pointless skill training wise, cause just a few more minutes and you're able to fly a Hulk). Looking forward to more fleshed out details. Plus I really hope this would also make mixed fleets a lot more interesting (e.g. not just battleships or not just capitals or not just cruisers). Only real downside for me: Finished training for Command Ships last year... :P Looking for more thoughts? Read my blog or follow me on Twitter. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:27:00 -
[290] - Quote
Hitokiri Battoesai wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:Ethino wrote:So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer. I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't. Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change!
Yep, will be a lot of people in this situation. Another reason why this is uneccessary and poorly thought out. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1090
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:28:00 -
[291] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:The more I think about this the more I dislike this. Leaving the shafting of cross trainers aside for the moment, I think you went with the idea mainly because it's easy for you. The one thing EVE isn't suffering from is too short skill training times. The exact opposite is the norm from a new players perspective and now you're adding more pointless skill barriers for them before they can access more ships. Why not **** off old players and try to repell new players from getting in to the game at the same time? How could this possibly go wrong? Bad for vets, bad for new players, uniform design and easy for CCP.
FFS I had destroyers trained to lvl 1 until a months ago and I skipped battlecruisers entirely for months when I started, because they couldn't handle the PvE content I aimed to do then, so training them was a giant waste of time. I still hit the skill barriers with my battleship and it was frustrating. Now you're telling me you want everyone to train a specialty ship like a destroyer to lvl 4 before even gaining access to cruisers and you made BCs mandatory before battleships can be accessed. Why would you do that? Why do you force people to train all these ship classes to a high skill level, that can be totally useless to anyone with clear goal in mind.
Why is lvl 4 in these skills required to proceed to the next level? Why do the requirements have to be uniform? Wouldn't it be better to have lvl 3 requirement with basic ship classes, since they really are mandatory to get the most out of the game, but not every step on that ladder is useful to every player. At lvl3 you would have access to a decent selection of ships and force people to learn by flying smaller cheaper ships. Keeping them sitting in those ships they're not interested in flying long term, just so you can have your uniform skill requirements, isn't worth it and isn't a good idea in the first place. Uniformity is good, but it should take backseat to pretty muh every other consideration.
I know the plan is not final and you're looking at the options and feedback, but at this time I can't see the good your ship requirement changes brings to any of the players. It seems chosen because it helps you and is uniform, while only having negatives for most of the players.
EDIT: And no I haven't read the thread, so if the issues have already been addressed, then great.
I'm assuming you are arguing in favor of the newer players, as none of that would apply to you.
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:28:00 -
[292] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: No one is saying you have to retrain them. Our principle for the reimbursement here will be "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today". Ytterbium will post the further details of this once it's written up.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:EDIT SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT: - New destroyer and battlecruiser skills would be same rank than existing ones
- We have a "if you could fly it before, you can fly it now" philosophy, that means properly reimbursing/giving skills not to leave people stranded in ships they could fly before the change. Again, nothing is fixed yet.
*whew!* /gogela can fly anything but titans...
Well this is double good news to me. 1) I think where there be snowglobes, there should be earthquakes. Shaking up the game is always a good thing, and putting ship balancing and the act of doing it on a more robust and flexible foundation sounds like a no-brainer to me. 2) Glad I don't have to re-train a metric s***ton of skills to maintain my ship versatility.
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
495
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:28:00 -
[293] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote: Take a deep breath, wipe the foam from your mouth and read the devblog again
the 'second' image you linked shows the current state of the game, and was in a paragraph that started like this;
"To understand what ships lines are all about, letGÇÖs recap the four theoretical factors that sort ships out"
the 'first' image you posted is the proposed change.
tl:dr stop foaming at the mouth with rage long enough and you might understand whats going on
Congratulations. Prepare to eat crow.
A) I'm not "Raging" you ignorant troll. I'm asking for a clarification. B) The images are contradicting. The set of 4 images are images of what the changes SHOULD BE. They are contradicting with the proposed changes. Why would they "combine all these elements" to show us images of the way things ALREADY ARE.
Quote: Combining all these elements, we arrive at the following ship trees:
Followed by a series of links to what the Trees should look like after the change.
Why would they link images to things that are already created and in the game. They're trying to demonstrate the new changes. And those images DON"T SHOW THE NEW CHANGES.
Go get a couple brain cells to rub together before you try and offend people. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:29:00 -
[294] - Quote
Evanga wrote:ok ....
first, you made me log on to this stinking ****** forums... second, what the freaky deaky feck is wrong with you guys.
"Nothing is written in stone yet..." UP YOURS!
I guess you will push it through anywayz.
-2 paying accounts.
I believe this was the first threat of unsub, and it took around 8 and a half pages. I guess there's hope yet.
Also, dibs on any stuffs to be had "Fools! I'll show them all!"
What do you mean that one's already taken? |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:29:00 -
[295] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:The more I think about this the more I dislike this. Leaving the shafting of cross trainers aside for the moment, I think you went with the idea mainly because it's easy for you. The one thing EVE isn't suffering from is too short skill training times. The exact opposite is the norm from a new players perspective and now you're adding more pointless skill barriers for them before they can access more ships. Why not **** off old players and try to repell new players from getting in to the game at the same time? How could this possibly go wrong? Bad for vets, bad for new players, uniform design and easy for CCP.
I'll quote this as well. I think I just passed my 3 year mark in game and at 50+mil SP I still have no shortage of stuff to train. I remember being a new player though, gaining that first rank of battlecruiser, and... "OMG! A whole new world has opened up to me!" Same goes for destroyers. It's a fun experience for new players. It's not often that one skill can open up so many new ships. |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:29:00 -
[296] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Do people even read the blog? Ytter said several times: "IF YOU CAN FLY IT NOW, YOU CAN FLY IT LATER."
Most of the people cant read. Welcome to the real world.
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:29:00 -
[297] - Quote
Hitokiri Battoesai wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:Ethino wrote:So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer. I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't. Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change! Not to mention supercap chars would definitely not have trained any BS to five if they didn't have to. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
648
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:30:00 -
[298] - Quote
Maybe something more along the lines of what CCP is trying to do: Make one of the bonuses on a battlecruiser be based upon the racial Cruiser skill, make the other based on the Battlecruiser skill.
Splitting up BC into racial components is the worst idea. Sorry. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:31:00 -
[299] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:For a new player:
Drake: 3 skills (current scheme) vs 4 skills (new scheme) - 33% increase in skills. +Hurricane: 5 skills vs 8 skills - 60% increase in skills required. +Harbringer: 7 skills vs 12 skills - 71% increase in skills required. +Myrmidon: 9 skills vs 16 skills - 78% increase in skills required!
Effectively, you're almost doubling the amount of skills a new player will have to train in order to crosstrain.
Additionally, you're removing one of the big incentives for crosstraining, namely if I train up two skills, I get access to a whole new range of ships for free! Training racial frigate and cruiser, two skills that can be trained in a short amount of time, would give a new player access to battlecruiser at whatever level they had battlecruisers trained to before.
Under this scheme, crosstraining for another race instead becomes a chore.
This is inherently new player UNFRIENDLY, as well as being excessively annoying for veteran players.
Pretty much this.
Leaving aside the older player reimbursement (which I think CCP could get right) how exactly does this help the new player experience? One of the great things about the destroy and BC skills was it lets new people hop in to a few new ships from all races and figure out what ones they want to really start concentrating on the support skills for. If they keep the new skills at the same rank as now then that just becomes a new skill grind for noobs and severely hampers what they can fly and to find out what they really want to fly. But then again if they lower each race skill rank so the total is equivalent to what it is now that could work, but would also put people in a perfect BC perhaps too quickly. It seems that we already have the compromise between these two problems as it is now. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:31:00 -
[300] - Quote
Erim Solfara wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? Quoted for Truth. does the term sandbox mean anything to anyone anymore? Lies and fallacy, CCP make the game, balance the ships, and give them bonuses. If you want to fly one different to it's intended use, go ahead, but they should all have obvious intended uses. Today, I watched a video of an iteron taking out a megathron, which was awesome. It was awesome because someone had taken a ship with an obvious intended role, and used it completely differently. If the iteron HAD no role, and was just another blank-slate hull, it'd have been completely meaningless, no different to someone using any other cruiser sized ship. Your argument holds no water.
I'll try and make this simple.
The role of a blockade runner did exist before the t2 haulers (I fly the crane for instance). The best ship for this was debatable (sigil with speed mods in low, badger with ECM). Then it was decided that t2 haulers should exist. \0/
It was the players that defined the role. CCP can enable roles to form, but we the players decide what we like for a particular role. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |