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) |
Temmu Guerra
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:58:00 -
[391] - Quote
CCP I think you guys should give up trying to comfort people about the skills being replaced. You can shout until you are blue int he face (or in this case fingers are numb from typing) and no one will listen.
Everyone bitches about not enough communication from CCP with dev blogs being not frequent enough, however when they tell you the first idea and some details that they are still trying to work out everyone throws their hands up in the air screaming about it because the details haven;t been set yet. Seriously f**king make up your minds already (towards playerbase)
Still happy with these changes and looking forward to the next dev blog about it once changes are solidified. |
Aarin Wrath
East Khanid Laboratories Khanid Trade Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:58:00 -
[392] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
Fewf. Having done some extensive cross training this was my only real fear.
On the whole it honestly sounds like an incredibly good change. I just hope those of us who cross trained a lot, or have a huge amount of SP in flying space ships don't get short changed by this whole process.
Keep it up CCP. You guys are kicking ass this expansion. |
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:00:00 -
[393] - Quote
This thread is moving way too fast to read every reply so I'll throw out my idea for redicule...
CCP leaves the current version of the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills to allow people trained to fly all four racial versions. But then add a new racial designed skill book to be trained to boost additional specific properties for those ships. These racial skill books are side skills to the main skill books and are not required to fly the ship, but again, to boost some "special" bonus to the ship in question. Or better still, the racial skill book's effect can be utilized on any of the four racial ships instead of strictly to the racial ship in question. |
Morar Santee
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:01:00 -
[394] - Quote
Okay... where to start. How about:
CCP Ytterbium wrote: For example, why does the Amarr drone and tracking disruption line ends with the Arbitrator? Or the Gallente drone and dampening abilities stop with the Exequror? CanGÇÖt Minmatar use short range missile platforms to make use of that target painting bonus? I can completely understand your concerns. If I was not aware the Curse and Pilgrim do carry on the Amarr drone and tracking disruption line, I would also be miffed The other word you are looking for is "Celestis". Incidentally, it also has T2 variants that carry on the drone and sensor dampening abilities, along with the extended point range.
And turrets also profit from target painters and extended web range, by the way. In fact, there's entire fleet doctrines built around this.
It's great to know you are in charge of redesigning the core gameplay of EVE. I don't see what could possibly go wrong. It also explains:
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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. I'm sorry, but I don't want you to decide how I have to fly my ships. I want to decide how I fit and fly my ships. I don't need you to place artificial limitations on my ships that only allow for one possible purpose. I'm sorry, that's ****, and it's ruining the sandbox game I signed up for. But wait, you already took that into account:
CCP Ytterbium wrote: It groups vessels into easily identifiable lines for each race and allow us to add new skills to support them. That is the purpose of the ship line skills mentioned above, which could further boost respective advantages. Combat ship line skills could give a bonus to defense, while attack ship skills benefit offense and mobility for example. Oh, okay, you're shoveling sand out of the sandbox on purpose. Players get WoW-esque gameplay by being forced to fly one single ship to fill a certain role, and CCP gets additional revenue because in order to fly that one ship, you have to train new support skills. It's a win-win situation!!
Really, I can't begin to say how disappointed I am by this. I'm not even going to get into the skillpoints/crosstraining issue. CCP has promised current players will be able to fly all ships they can currently fly. Works for me. Frankly, I don't care about people who will have to work with the new skill-tree anymore. I hope they use their free month to have a good look at it, and simply quit. If they don't - they signed up for it. But why the **** is it impossible to simply fix current issues with gameplay? Why can't you fix the Overview and have a look at hotkey behaviour / modifier keys. Why can't you give us a working text editor in-game, that doesn't eat all formatting - and maybe fix all other bugs related to notepad and eve-mail.
There's so many things that could be done to simply reintroduce functionality you broke with every other patch over the last years, and instead of doing any of that, you want to revamp core gameplay. You want to mess with the one thing that keeps EVE going, and that you probably shouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, given your track record over the last two years. And signed up the guy who can't tell a Celestis from an Exequror, and doesn't know Recons even exist. |
Zabir Kal'Uragan
Sanguine Cabal
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:01:00 -
[395] - Quote
Simply appalling. |
Granix Uvelian
Epsilon Inc STORM.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:01:00 -
[396] - Quote
I gotta be honest, I disagree completely with the 'make BC and destroyers racial' line of thinking.
Instead I think you should make them full fledged classes. Continue the connection grid that can be seen in the first diagram, and make the consistency STRONGER.
For example Assault Ship frigates scale into Heavy Assault Ship cruisers. This makes sense.
However, you skipped the destroyer sub-class, therefore you should skip the BC subclass and go to an Assault Ship version of a Battleship. OR.... create an assault ship version of a destroyer and BC (the BC is implied as the Field Command ship).
Similarly, connect the Electronic Attack Frigate with it's Cruiser size and Battleship size counter parts as you did with the Assault ship classes. Basically making the diagram you show a complete grid instead of a half-baked grid.
This allows the pilot to pick a race (amarr), and then pick a Tech 2 specialization (electronic warfare), and follow that through as high as they want in the ship size department (Frigate, Cruiser, Battleship). The destroyer and battlecruiser, T1 subclasses should be expanded into full classes, ESPECIALLY if you want to make them racial like the big 3.
Regards,
G |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
588
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:01:00 -
[397] - Quote
Temmu Guerra wrote:CCP I think you guys should give up trying to comfort people about the skills being replaced. You can shout until you are blue int he face (or in this case fingers are numb from typing) and no one will listen.
Everyone bitches about not enough communication from CCP with dev blogs being not frequent enough, however when they tell you the first idea and some details that they are still trying to work out everyone throws their hands up in the air screaming about it because the details haven;t been set yet. Seriously f**king make up your minds already (towards playerbase)
Still happy with these changes and looking forward to the next dev blog about it once changes are solidified.
This.
Very much this. This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:01:00 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:The skill requirement changes for destroyers and battlecruisers is very tricky to tackle indeed. We fully acknowledge having to re-train for ships you can already fly is not appealing at all.
As said in the blog, nothing is set in stone yet, we are considering various reimbursement options as this is still quite a high level change.
it not just not appealing its crazy. pre patch i can fly all cs's and all dic's. post patch im ******. i either pick to fly a claymore or damnation or a vulture (eos is **** anyhow) and then im screwed for the next 80 odd days retraining for ships i could already fly. you either reduce the ranks of the destroyer and bc skills so reimbursed skill points from the old cover all 4 races, or you just give people all 4 races. We'll find a suitable reimbursement that makes everyone happy. I'm not terribly fussed about giving away a little extra if it moves we move the ship progression system into a better place.
I would suggest you give people skill points for the Interdictor, BC, CS, etc based on what they can fly now. In other words, if I have BC IV and Gallente Cruiser and Caldari Cruiser I can currently fly Gallente and Caldari BCs. Give me enough SP so I can train Gallente BC to IV and Calardi BC to IV.
If you decide to do this, you can freeze the SP that will be given based on when you announce the change so people don't train to max their free SP.
Other than that, I really like the change especially getting rid of the tiers and moving to the functional roles. I'm not sure I agree with all the functions, but its pretty good.
|
OfBalance
Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:01:00 -
[399] - Quote
*rushes to train bc requirements on every alt for free sp* |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:01:00 -
[400] - Quote
Just to confirm if I currently can fly all 4 races BC with BC5 will this new system still give me all races with lvl 5 bonus, or a suitable reimbursement such that I can achieve lvl bonus on all 4 races.
Or will I go down from 4 race BC 5 to 1 race BC 5?
Also capital requiring BS 4, lol. trying to find a new source of alt accounts for when the gang boost nerfs start landing? |
|
matarkhan
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Cascade Imminent
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:02:00 -
[401] - Quote
Bullshit bullshit bullshit.
The generic skills are one of the things I love about Eve, and they make sense in the role they're in.
Is it someone's job @ CCP to anger veterans? Seriously? |
Justin Cody
T.A.L.O.N. Company Psychotic Tendencies.
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:02:00 -
[402] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Kozmic wrote:Cronus Zontanos wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:
We'll sit down and have a chat about it, but what we're looking to do is create a solid ship scheme, not take things away from people. You'll be reimbursed properly.
People need to stop freaking about the skill change and just read this. The devs realize how many skill points this could set people back, and should be able to reimburse properly. I'm sure there's someone on the team who's good enough at some math to figure out an algorithm to get everyone set straight on skills. Plus like they said nothing is set in stone. Great Devbolg Ytterbium, really looking forward to how the changes end up working out. Yes - cause God knows CCP never promised anything it didn't follow through. Enjoing walking around your establishments talking to other players in sov-iterated 0.0 with fixed supercaps, are you? Heaven forbid a game company talk about what they want to do with their game in the future.
good...good...let the butt-hurt flow through you!
and this is fine as long as you don't take away from other people...stream lining the system is good. However I say keep BS5 for capitals. There has to be some barrier to entry.
BS4 for caps is like...an Achura level mistake. |
kyrieee
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:02:00 -
[403] - Quote
I haven't read any good arguments for introducing racial BC skills. The devblog says it streamlining, but I think it's the opposite. And of course, it will hurt new players the most. |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
116
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:02:00 -
[404] - Quote
Shin Dari 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. I have been looking at the math of the current suggestion, and that seems to be a bit hard to implement properly. Racial specialization is good, but why not accept a matrix? Axis 1: Frigate -> Destroyer -> Cruiser -> Battlecruiser -> Battleship -> Capitals Axis 2: Racial ship skill (high rank skill) Example "Amarr Ship" skill: Amarr Ships 1: Amarr Small ships Amarr Ships 2: Amarr Medium ships Amarr Ships 3: Amarr Large ships Amarr Ships 4: Amarr Capital ships Amarr Ships 5: Amarr Super-Capitals ships An Amarr Noob will start with Amarr Ships 1 and Frigate 1. A reimbursement under a matrix system could require less SP (depends upon the ranks) and be far simpler to implement.
Interesting method, this favours cross training HUGELY, which I think ccp are trying to move away from.
I for one am in the camp of specialisation, I think cross training should be made as difficult as possible, in this way, a character becomes introduced to the concepts of each race slowly, instead of getting Battle cruisers and stepping right into a drake as the first thing they've flown outside of amarrian ships.
Each race should have its own learning curve, I for one trained gallente first, and now have the properties of all their ammo types memorised. I cross trained to amarr and fly abaddons in fleets but still have no idea what t1 crystals your supposed to use for certain ranges. |
Akelorian
FinFleet Raiden.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:03:00 -
[405] - Quote
CCP Soundwave to Goons: Herp Derp BS4 for Capitals CCP Soundwave to Eve: Yea we ruining your game like promised |
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:03:00 -
[406] - Quote
Question:
Why not provide an automated query to every player pertaining to their choice?
For example:
"Dear Player:
You currently possess two skills which are going to be removed from the system. You have one of two options:
1. Exchange your current Skill by all Racial skills at the level you currently have the original skill at. You have Battlecruiser 5, so if you take option 1, you will have: Amarr Battlecruiser 5, Caldari Battlecruiser 5, Gallente Battlecruiser 5 and Minmatar Battlecruiser 5.
2. Exchange your current Skill for skill points. These skill points are identical to all skillpoints currently applied in the following Skill: Battlecruisers 5. You will be given twice the present allocated ammount, to enable you to train either two Racial Battlecruiser skills to 5, or choose somethign else entirely.
Thank you for your attention." |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:03:00 -
[407] - Quote
IM ANGRY because effectivly nothing is going to change for me!!! iv been promised that il be able to fly the same ships as before AND CCP has alowd themself the ability to balance the game BETTER and introduce MOAR ships!!! THIS SENSIBLE LOGIC MAKES ME ANGRY!!!
+1 CCP - Nulla Curas |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1095
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:03:00 -
[408] - Quote
Quote:alright... another example then.
Before the days of the drake, there was only the ferox. Poor ferox wasn't very good with turrets. The players still needed something to run L3 missions with, but luckily, CCP had given the ferox unbonused launcher hard points.
The role of the ferox as designed by CCP was quite clear. The only reason the ferox ever peaked up above 10% market share of production was it's missile hard points that allowed it to be a very viable mission boat.
The whole point is that just because CCP gives a ship a role, doesn't mean that's what players will use it for.
Also, cormoront = salvager. Nothing else needs said here.
Actually, CCP designed part of the Ferox role to be a flexible platform that was also viable with missiles. This flexibility wasn't an unforseen mutation that "just happens sometimes".
CCP designs many ships to be flexible, in fact it is the guiding philosophy behind a great many ships in EVE. This is by design... a design created by the same people who will be rebalancing for this release as well.
I'm not sure what your reference to the cormorant is relating to, you can use most any ship as a salvager... and all destroyers do rather well in that role.
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. |
Temmu Guerra
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:03:00 -
[409] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:blah blah blah blah
I bet your one of those people that screams for all the ships to be useful and now when CCP is making an effort you cry about it.... Your tears are delicious |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
613
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:04:00 -
[410] - Quote
i wish you the best that this works without showstoppers. They look like fairly risky changes to me. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
|
Death Reactor
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:04:00 -
[411] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=9129 wow
That guy needs fired. I cant believe you pay him to come up with such garbage. I will not spend one second training for a ship that i can already fly. If it goes through as is ill be suiciding my aeon into the sun and go play mw3. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
101
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:05:00 -
[412] - Quote
The OP was good and I love the changes. they make sense, they are ok. What I didn't like is the lack of information about the way this change migration will occur and the way these changes are going to affect my future training plan.
In the blog I read " would not need to re-train anything to fly Battleships or Cruisers" and that is a good thing but only solves 1 issue, in my opinion people have 1 other import issue with these changes:
- People will login in the next day and find several holes in their skill training tree
My sugestion to cover this "hole":
1 - If a pilot cannot fly a cruiser of any race and have the destoryer skill book injected give him the SP trained and money back. 2 - If a pilot can fly a cruiser of a race, give them that race destroyer skill with sp trained at level 4. 3 - if a pilot can fly a l.interdicter of any race, give give them that race destroyer skill with sp trained at level 5.
4 - If a pilot cannot fly a battleship of any race and have the battlecruiser skill book injected give him the SP trained and money back. 5 - If a pilot can fly a battleship of a race, give then that race battlecruiser skill with sp trained at level 4. 6 - if a pilot can fly a command ship of any race, give give them that race battlecruiser skill with sp trained at level 5.
Now I can see also that people that are currenlty trainning cross race and didn't finished the trainning for those ship types will be pissed. to minimize this I propose that:
1 - CCP offers the new raciall skill books to everone with minimum requirements to have them, for free. 2 - CCP offer free SP that match the current sum of the SP trained in the destroyer and battlecruiser skills that were taken way. 3 - CCP announces the patch date with at least 3 months distance so people can prioritize and train skills and finish their current training runs for interdictors or command ships.
PS:
Give me my level 5 caldari battleship SP back please! Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |
Plyn
Random Jedi Industries KRYSIS.
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:06:00 -
[413] - Quote
Confirming I will be changing my skill queue to BC 5 when I get home this evening, in hopes of getting all 4 races BC 5 when the change happens.
<3 Soundwave, Guard, and Ytterbium
I strongly suggest you move your "We are not going to kill your crosstrainz" comments to the actual dev blog before this thread reaches 100 pages of people complaining about stuff you already said you were going to make not suck.... Come2Nullsec |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:07:00 -
[414] - Quote
How would removal of the tier system affect the manufacturing cost of T1 ships or their BPO costs? |
Duvida
The Scope Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:07:00 -
[415] - Quote
Nick Bison wrote:Mibad wrote:Very "sound" changes ;) Will be great to streamline everything to make ship balancing much easier. I'm all for it.
Still amazes me how many people here rage about the skill change fail to read the whole blog. You know the very important part that says you will be fully reimbursed and still able to fly what you did before... This. Seems some folk need to brush up on reading comprehension ... or just read the fricken dev blog to begin with.
This is the main reason I'm not in total fear of this change. It isn't going to take me years to get back to where I was.
I appreciate how large an undertaking this is going to be. It's going to be a huge adjustment, and require tweaking by the devs for a while in order to be successful. Dropping it in mid-course would be bad, to understate it a little.
That said, I didn't feel like I was hindered by the current system. Perhaps it was because we're on even ground in EVE in this regard. If it was broken, it was broken the way we liked it.
I have frustrations with EVE, but this wasn't one for me. (Thank you for the little things thread, btw) Was it a frustration that was brought up by the CSM?
Tangent:
CCP, a bit of tin-hattery on my part, but is any of this motivated by a sense of 'If the devs aren't working on something we think is important right now, they will be let go right now?'. That sense can cause people to push forward on things that weren't urgent or largely desired, just to keep from becoming unemployed. |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:07:00 -
[416] - Quote
I always recommend that my nubbins train BC 5 and Dessie 5 because the wealth of ships opened up by those two generic skills keeps them interested for months while they learn about ships, and even longer once they realize they love those ships. I'd rather that not be taken away. |
Stark Thunder
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:07:00 -
[417] - Quote
Removal of tiers = good
Removing BS 5 from cap ships = not so good Eather leave it at bs or bs 4 for dreads/carrers and bs 5 for supers.
Removing generic destroyer and BC skils = OK As long as I dont have to retrain to fly my ships. I can see several ways to do it most of whitch have been mentiond allready except for leaving it for people who have alredy trained it and creating new skils for anybody who wants to start training it.
Putting destroyers and BC as prereqs. for cruiser and bs = bad Leave it out of the progression or make it a seprate one Frig > Destroyer > BC & Frig > Crusier > BS |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
117
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:08:00 -
[418] - Quote
Death Reactor wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=9129 wow
I will not spend one second training for a ship that i can already fly. If it goes through as is ill be suiciding my aeon into the sun and go play mw3.
The number of space likes you have... is inversely proportional to how angry you are about the proposed changes
i.e: you have no space likes... You're very angry about the proposed changes |
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
177
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:08:00 -
[419] - Quote
When the generic destroyer and BC skills first came out I thought that it was a mistake to not make them racial. Unfortunately its been a long, long, time since then and doing this now is going to some people a considerable amount of inconvenience.
However, I think the proposed system does make alot more sense and I agree that it does open up new possibilities.
Whomever in CCP decided to push for this has cohones of steel and the size of beach balls.
A couple of suggestions to ease the pain; * Seed the new racial destroyer/BC skill books well ahead of the switchover to allow for at least some cross-training. Simply seed them as books that don't connect to anything then when the time comes remove and reimburse the SP for the generic books.
* consider making the new racial books a temporarily lower rank so that they can be trained more quickly for pilots to catch-up? Then revert them to the correct rank on switch over day. (Possibility of abuse?) http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:11:00 -
[420] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:alright... another example then.
Before the days of the drake, there was only the ferox. Poor ferox wasn't very good with turrets. The players still needed something to run L3 missions with, but luckily, CCP had given the ferox unbonused launcher hard points.
The role of the ferox as designed by CCP was quite clear. The only reason the ferox ever peaked up above 10% market share of production was it's missile hard points that allowed it to be a very viable mission boat.
The whole point is that just because CCP gives a ship a role, doesn't mean that's what players will use it for.
Also, cormoront = salvager. Nothing else needs said here. Actually, CCP designed part of the Ferox role to be a flexible platform that was also viable with missiles. This flexibility wasn't an unforseen mutation that "just happens sometimes". CCP designs many ships to be flexible, in fact it is the guiding philosophy behind a great many ships in EVE. This is by design... a design created by the same people who will be rebalancing for this release as well. I'm not sure what your reference to the cormorant is relating to, you can use most any ship as a salvager... and all destroyers do rather well in that 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 |