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) |
Karl Hobb
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:22:00 -
[451] - Quote
Given the changes, and I do like them, I think it would be prudent to immediately train Amarr and Minmatar BS to II or III, just to ensure that I don't lose the ability to fly a 'Cane or Harby. Amidoinitrite? I'm ******* terrible at EVE. |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:23:00 -
[452] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote: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
Gold, pure gold |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:23:00 -
[453] - Quote
Akelorian wrote:CCP Soundwave to Goons: Herp Derp BS4 for Capitals CCP Soundwave to Eve: Yea we ruining your game like promised
Honestly, I just don't know how I feel about this. I'm not sure how much the BS V requirement deters people from caps. For me, it was just something that needed to be done - it didn't stop me and, as it was on a dedicated alt, it wasn't as if I could have trained something else.
I'm not sure how much I'm bothered about BS IV for caps. |
Quade Warren
Urban Mining Corp Rising Phoenix Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:23:00 -
[454] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:DelBoy Trades wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
A little extra? you're looking at atleast 8 times more. 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.
I will trust you guys to be fair. Overall, your track record shows that you do give a damn about what the players think. I don't have to tell you that this whole idea was not fleshed out very well in the dev blog and this is probably the reason you're receiving the same complaint from players: What does this meeeaaannn?! This is not the rainbow I was looking for...
I would have waited until you had a more concrete plan instead of crucifying yourself on the new skill tree design, but maybe I'm just understating the obvious. |
Josef Stylin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:23:00 -
[455] - Quote
Can't wait to see if there is actually anyone in the entire game who will train Gallente Battlecruiser V |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:23:00 -
[456] - Quote
Great dev blog, I look forward to many ships that aren't useless anymore.
Bonus points for making so many vets whine "for the sake of the noobs" because they can't read before posting.
Two little things though: 1. You thought I wouldn't notice if you just re-use the Rokh pic, didn't you? WHERE MAH NAGA?
2. If you call my Battlebadger an oil platform again the statue gets it and I'll unsub my 1200 accounts. Not funny! |
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:24:00 -
[457] - Quote
Heimdallofasgard wrote: 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.
I think that you are right, that is why I think that if we get a racial axis, that it should have a very high rank (10 or higher) to encourage specialization. Specialization is a good thing in this game and I would like to see more of it.
But I hate having Spaceship Command being my largest skill group (about 25% of the total pie), and I would prefer not having it explode in my face. If CCP gives me the option to exclude a race during the reimbursement, then I will gladly use that option.
|
Eva midgard
X10 PUNISHM4NT
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:24:00 -
[458] - Quote
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. 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.
this
you are gonna make people quit u morons if u can fly it now u should be able to fly it after this its gonna take alot of manpower to get this right which u won't you will **** it as usual
LET US RESPEC SKILL POINTS ONCE A YEAR FOR A PLEX
DO NOT DO THIS |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
2773
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:24:00 -
[459] - Quote
In on page something. Just so I can read the blog now.
|
|
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:24:00 -
[460] - Quote
Double post |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
94
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:25:00 -
[461] - Quote
Nice long Devblog - Don't forget the final touch on hybrids and nerfing the retardedly tier 3 battlecruiser stats though...
- Removing balance based on tiers is a great improvement on the game. Will give better variety and gameplay for sure. - Splitting destroyers and batlecruisers makes sense, but sounds like a scheme to nerf skill heavy veterans. Bahh. - Plz make sure the new BC skills have lower "training time modifier" as those were put high due to being an omni skill. - For branching into T2 ships plz keep the level 5 skill requirements on the T1 counterpart.
Pinky
|
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:26:00 -
[462] - Quote
How's about you do whats right for a change and instead of creating a shitstorm with your proposed changes you make sure those people who have bc V and destroyers V are able to have the racial variants at V from the get go.
Making us train 6 new skills for what we already trained for is total bullshit and you have no excuse to put players in that position because you want to tweak things. Making capitals even easier to get into also just smacks of detachment from the reality of the game. Caps don't need to be any easier to get into and the only people rewarded by that avenue are alts.
Great that you want to look at things, just don't screw it all up because your rushed or think you can justify screwing over players. The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.
One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear. |
Max Von Sydow
Viziam Amarr Empire
184
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:27:00 -
[463] - Quote
They're removing the tier system?!?
Does this mean I won?
Please tell me I won! |
Rivur'Tam
the united Negative Ten.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:27:00 -
[464] - Quote
wow another waste of time
if you can fly a ship now u should be after this bullshit if u do this u will need to give me amarr and gall bc lv5
why not let us respc sp once a year for a plex
Edit: Personal attack removed, CCP Phantom |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
600
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:28:00 -
[465] - Quote
CCP MUST answer:
Does "Fly today what you could fly yesterday" mean you will fly it AS WELL as you did yesterday?
Or are we going to be flying crippled ships? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
271
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:28:00 -
[466] - Quote
Just to Reiterate:
The Devs have said: If you could pilot it before, you'll be able to pilot it after. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:28:00 -
[467] - Quote
I think it is relatively straightforward to envision how ships across a class get balanced. The Cyclone receives a dps and HP boost to bring it in line with the Hurricane. The Stabber gets additional slots and the stats to make use of them so it isn't horribly gimped relative to a nano Rupture.
How should balancing within a line work out? According to the blog:
Quote:Tech 1 is the reference in ship balancing, while faction ships (navy and pirate variants) are most often plain improvements, tech 2 offer a specialized purpose and tech 3 give opportunities for generalization. Look at the Stabber hull. If you compare today's Stabber Fleet Issue to the Stabber, you see that the SFI is a "plain improvement" over the Stabber in every way except the utility high slot loss and the CPU/slot ratio. The Vagabond, however, is an improvement over the Stabber in two significant ways:
- The Vagabond is a better "attack vessel" than the Stabber, that is, it is more capable of skirmishing. It has the falloff bonus and a higher speed.
- The Vagabond is a "plain improvement" over the Stabber. It is higher DPS, higher EHP, higher targeting range, higher sensor strength, and generally is just better (except cargo capacity and sig radius, two stats that might actually help with its role as a skirmisher).
I think the difference between T2 and T1 should include aspects of #1, that the Vagabond is superior to the Stabber in its defined role; but not aspects of #2, that the Vagabond should be a "plain improvement" over the Stabber. Hopefully Inferno is accompanied by some economic rebalancing to accompany the ship rebalancing, as the price premium for a Vagabond over a DPS/EHP equivalent Stabber is far too large today.
That isn't to say that T2 should not have more EHP or DPS than T1. A T2 "combat ship" should definitely be able to tank harder than a T1 "combat ship". A T2 "bombardment ship" should be able to out-DPS a T1 equivalent at the same range, or out-range the T1 ship at the same DPS. But the improvement that the T2 ship delivers over the T1 equivalent should be focused on its ship line role, not on being a broad-based "plain improvement". You should also make sure that the faction ships are not better than the T2 ships at their supposed specializations. |
Lady InBlack
X10 PUNISHM4NT
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:28:00 -
[468] - Quote
Hugo Smith wrote:Jesus ******* christ. WHAT THE **** IS THIS!?!?!?
The new ship lines make sense but PLEASE dont change the skill training lines. It will anoy so many people. omfg idiots
bad idea won of ur worst |
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
62
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:29:00 -
[469] - Quote
Akelorian wrote:So CCP "Goonswarm" Shockwave
How will you defend the fact that you have lowered the skills required to fly capital ships knowing full well that the alliance you were part of has been attempting to get people to train bs 5 so they can get into these ships? I mean it kinda looks fishy in my personal opinion that your helping your old alliance out in anyway possible without it looking too obvious? I could care less about the other changes being made, but that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Thank you in Advance, I will be going the other route as well.
How are those T2 BPOs doing? You mad that T2 BPOs for Triage Modules and Siege Modules aren't in your hangar?
|
PinkKnife
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:29:00 -
[470] - Quote
CCP, can you just wipe this entire thread since no one is reading the actual comments anyway? Call it comments 2.0 |
|
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Dark Matter Coalition
955
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:30:00 -
[471] - Quote
Okay so here is some ideas on how this total revamp can go...
Every category of ship size needs 5 ships: Combat, Attack, Bombard, Support, and Logi
Remove the miner frigates (as a class) and make mining barge trainable on trail accounts but prevent them from using retrievers my giving the retriever a requirement that cant be trained by trials like astrogeo or something. Finally the procuror has a place in the world.
The old miner frigates will now become logi ships that have bonuses to fitting small reppers and boosters
dessies need 4 more ships and BCs need 3 more, and BS need 2 more...
T2 will now have 5 classes as well and each of them will have 2 ships T2 combat will be like the current AF T2 attack is the current inty T2 bombard would be similar to bombers T2 support is EAS T2 logi is...well logi
The two versions are as such: for the 3 main combat roles you have the different weapon specializations: Amarr = laser/missile Caldari = missile/hybrid Gallente = hybrid/drone Minmatar = proj/missile
The support ships will be be split ewar systems Amarr = Neut/TD Caldari = ECM/??? maybe a new missile disruptor type module to replace defender missiles Gallente = point/SD Minmatar = Web/TP
Logi will be split between "ECCM" and repair Amarr = Tracking links/Armor Caldari = ECCM/shields Gallente = remote sebo/armor Minmatar = new remote sig radius lower thingy/shields
Current covops will meld into support and bombardment (cov ops and bomber)
Current recon will become support
Current HACs will be cut into T2 Combat and T2 Attack ships (Sacril and Zealot respectively)
Current command ships will be made under the support role
Current logi will no longer fit large reppers but now fit reppers that match the ship size (yes this means a BS sized logi)
HICs will move into the T2 Attack role and could be moved up to battleship in size since they ARE meant to counter super caps after all...
this means we'll have an utter EXPLOSION of new ships
75 ships per race not including cargo ships, capitals and the rookie ship
balance between frig and dessy and cruiser and BC should be made in a way that they are simply bigger but also slower versions of the same, two cruisers should be able to compete with a BC
Also a suggestion is to make a new ship size between BC and BS that fits only 4 or 5 large guns (which bumps the number of ships for each race to 90)
Sadly I think this would largely kill off some of the variety we have in ship fittings as there will be so many different ships that fitting a ship to not do it's role will be even more silly with the existence of a ship that DOES do that role.
Perhaps a lot of the T1 ships should be generic enough that they can move around in role but the T2 variations should very explicitly be made to only do the role they are made for. The Drake is a Lie |
Nels Nevin
Stargazer Exploration Company Transmission Lost
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:30:00 -
[472] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Just to Reiterate:
The Devs have said: If you could pilot it before, you'll be able to pilot it after.
But they never said with the same level of effectiveness. |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:30:00 -
[473] - Quote
speaking of morons, LOL at all the people bitching when nothing has been decided yet. Guess some people think "high level" discussions as being written in stone. On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton. -áWhere the dripping patchouli was more than scent. -á It was a sun |
Shepard B00k
X10 PUNISHM4NT
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:30:00 -
[474] - Quote
making a **** of the game is on ur mind
DON'T DO IT |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:30:00 -
[475] - Quote
Looks interesting. Definitely am interested in seeing what the final changes look like -- how the skills will be reimbursed, if at all, and what the new skill requirements will be. Do have some concern about training times and utility. For example, command ships are quite specialized, and some are of decidedly limited utility (i.e. Eos). Less of a concern about interdictors. But the overall idea seems sound. Way back when I was first training for them, it did seem rather odd that battlecruiser skills were independent of the usual racial progression.
I'm not sure why changing skill requirements is a necessary part of ship balancing forr the most part, however, but am not going to complain, and it does make sense in some instances.
While you're redoing skills, it may be a good idea to insert related skills into skill descriptions so that players can know which additional skills they may want to train. For example, referencing Nanite Operation and Nanite Interfacing into the description for the Thermodynamics skill might be useful.
Anyways, looks like a well-thought-out change overall. |
VLAD VIRONS
United Kings
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:31:00 -
[476] - Quote
I can't see any reason for applying this , the system how its works currently not wrong in any way, its just different but not wrong.
anyways:
there like 99.9% of all pvp pilots trained at least one of these skill to 5, allowing them fly any racial ship of its class (having them all at lvl 5), they are also trained hell a lot of skills to be able fit exact these ships etc etc.
making such changes like with Capital class ships - you just making it easy (what is not EVE is) instead of making this part work properly or just leave it...
o7 |
Inara S4rra
X10 PUNISHM4NT
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:31:00 -
[477] - Quote
nonononononNONONONONONOONO
DONT DONT DONT
NEINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NONONONNO
THIS IS AN AWFUL IDEA |
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:31:00 -
[478] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:CCP MUST answer:
Does "Fly today what you could fly yesterday" mean you will fly it as well as you did yesterday? This question makes no sense, as great swathes of ships are being rebalanced. If you can fly a Drake with the exact same stats as today, but suddenly Ruptures are capable of alphaing out Drakes from their logi faster than Drakes can pop the Ruptures, is the Drake as good as it was yesterday?
Your relative power will change regardless of whether you can fly your hulls with the exact same stats or not. |
Akelorian
FinFleet Raiden.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:32:00 -
[479] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Akelorian wrote:CCP Soundwave to Goons: Herp Derp BS4 for Capitals CCP Soundwave to Eve: Yea we ruining your game like promised Honestly, I just don't know how I feel about this. I'm not sure how much the BS V requirement deters people from caps. For me, it was just something that needed to be done - it didn't stop me and, as it was on a dedicated alt, it wasn't as if I could have trained something else. I'm not sure how much I'm bothered about BS IV for caps.
It changes years of everyone training this skill to get into capital ships, so now its changed to a much quicker process to make capital/supercapital alts and or mains that in my opinion is the dumbest change thats listed here. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
944
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:32:00 -
[480] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:CCP MUST answer:
Does "Fly today what you could fly yesterday" mean you will fly it AS WELL as you did yesterday?
Or are we going to be flying crippled ships?
It must, by definition. Because I can fly all the command ships.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
|
|
|
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 |