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) |
Insomnium
the united Negative Ten.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:33:00 -
[481] - Quote
IF YOU DO THIS I WILL HAVE TO SPEN 3 MONTHS TRAINING TO BE IN TEH SAME POSTION IAM NOW
IS THIS ATRICK TO GET MORE SUBS FROM US |
Batelle
HOMELE55
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:33:00 -
[482] - Quote
Getting rid of tier system - YES
Ship Lines - SO CONFUSED. This sounds like this will be a formalized thing in game. Will there be skills specific to lines (piloting or in industry). Will T1 ships be getting Line-specific bonuses like role bonuses? Will ship's current role/line be changed to provide a battleship sized extension to that line in any race (turn the geddon into a giant arbitrator?) I concede that the ships in eve already fit into a classification system like this. I understand that with only ship bonuses to go on, understanding a ship's role can be difficult for people that don't spend all day on ships & modules. However, I'm even more concerned that by rebalancing ships along these lines, the versatility of the fitting and slot system will be curtailed, transforming the current state from "only half the ships are worth flying" to "half the ships have only one use, and only one good fit for doing it." How will the formalized ship line concept interact with certificates? How about CCP overhaul ship descriptions for the first time in years, you know, make them informative and useful for someone who doesn't know everything already? Make them more than just flavor text.
Skills revamp - oh god why. Huge pain in the ass. You WILL **** people off. Using day-one, fresh out of character creation, training time to sit in the ship IS AN ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE METRIC, despite being a completely easy one to figure out. How about instead you consider the training time for each t1 ship class to lvl 4, then map the additional time to get into the t2 versions. I dunno, maybe something like THIS http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg Also, what's wrong with the current organization of t2 skills? covops - > recons, assault ships -> heavy assault ships-> field command ships seems perfectly reasonable. Yes, electronic attack SHIPS (not frigs as in picture), logistics, and marauders don't really fit in some kind of t2 skill tree, however they could easily be made to do so, considering the oh-so-onerous secondary skill requirements are shared by other t2 skills and are generally recognized as important skills to train for any combat pilot.
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.
Yet somehow I'm quite sure we won't find our battlecruiser 5 skills replaced with a set of lvl 5 racial battlecruiser skills. Everyone knows there's a canyon between sitting in the ship and being well skilled for it. This is particularly true for resistance bonuses (drake), ROF bonuses (hurricane), and cap use bonuses (logi), where the getting level 5 provides the marginally greatest benefit as opposed to the smallest. For most people, being rewarded w/ level 4 in the racials is the same as having to retrain at least 2 of them to lvl 5.
People have complained about the tier system. they have NOT complained about the skill tree. The fact that you need lvl 1 for a ferox and lvl 2 for a drake is NOT a compelling reason for eliminating the tier system to necessitate overhauling the skill tree. Also, we LIKE that the destroyer and battlecruiser skills as well as the t2 ship skills are not race specific. Really, we do.
Please don't mess with the skill system, CCP. If you're worried that new players will click on a SIN and see they're 4 months from sitting in one, I've got bad news: messing with the skill system won't change this. Can you please focus your dev-power on things everyone (you and us) agrees has been broken for years? Fix damps, rework ECM, eliminate the tier system, rework the wardec system, iterate faction war, rebalance pos defenses (ANCHOR LIMIT IN HIGHSEC GOOD GOD), keep balancing ships, nerf/buff drone poo, spool-time for capital jump drives, make nullsec isk and sov mechanics player based and not moon based, repeat your promise to fix industry next year, and balance incursions. |
Oigober
The Dark Space Initiative Revival Of The Talocan Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:33:00 -
[483] - Quote
drdxie wrote:I do not like this change. I have recently trained my PVP toon to have BC5. I have trained almost all T2 medium guns so I could switch between race BC easily, hell, I even trained for T2 torps for use on the naga. This will now mean I will have to train each race to BC5... madness. I think those who already have this skill to 5 should be given all race BC to 5 and CCP can doesn't then have to reimburse SP... and everyone is happy. Currently training across the board T2 large guns so I can T2 fit and use all the Tiers 3's.. this change is going to mess that all up.
please let us know how those t2 torps work out for you on that naga...
on topic im ok with getting rid of the tiers, but the racial des/bc is bad.
it sounds like you want to make it more of a natural progression by size and without changing skills, you can set the prior size racial requirement to 4 to get into said racial des/bc, and to get into a a race cruiser, you need that race frig 4 and generic des skill 4, and with a race battleship you would need race cruiser 4 and generic bc 4 as prereq). but if you plan to reimburse everyone for racial des/bc 5 than this suggestion is irrelevant. my idea could be bad too, just trying to find a middle ground.
i dont really have an opinion on bs4 to get into caps, but you would have to reimburse folks on that 5 skill if all they were trying to do was get into caps.
|
Gynoceros
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:34:00 -
[484] - Quote
Most people here seem to be focusing on what skill reimbursement strategy CCP will be taking in response to this change. I'm not too concerned about that. I see no reason to believe that we will not be well compensated for our existing skill investment.
There is a much bigger problem with this change: the amount of training required to fly each race's T1 ship line dramatically increases.
Currently, the total amount of training required to get each race's T1 ship skills to V is 17x.
2x (faction frigate) + 0.5x (destroyers / 4 factions) + 5x (faction cruiser) + 1.5x (battlecruisers / 4 factions) + 8x (faction battleship)
Under the new proposal, training for that same ship line jumps to 23x.
2x (faction frigate) + 2x (faction destroyer) + 5x (faction cruiser) + 6x (faction battlecruiser) + 8x (faction battleship)
(More accurately, training a single faction takes the same time for each, but training each additional race adds the equivalent of an 8x skill to the requirement.)
As a result, the amount of training required to fly all races' T1 ships has increased by the equivalent of 4 Battlecruiser skills! That's unacceptable. Making players grind much more time to fly T1 ships is a bad thing for the game. It punishes both newer players and players who want to cross-train into a new race. I understand why you are making the changes and I support streamlining and simplifying the skill requirements, but you have to consider the rather massive amount of additional SP required by the players to fly the most basic ships under the new proposal.
There's a simple solution to the problem: reduce the training time for the T1 ship skills.
Faction Frigate (1x) Faction Destroyer (2x) Faction Cruiser (4x) Faction Battlecruiser (5x) Faction Battleship (7x)
That's a total of 18x, only a single 1x skill's worth of additional SP required per race as the result of a few minor skill adjustments.
Benefits:
- Only a very minor increase in T1 ship skill requirements
- Actually reduces skill requirements for Frigate -> Cruiser, which empowers new players.
- Minimizes frustration for older players.
- Minimizes skill reimbursement amounts. Even the most generous reimbursement under this plan would require only one 4x skill's worth of SP.
|
N3oXr2ii
the united Negative Ten.
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:35:00 -
[485] - Quote
This is such an awful idea you cannot make us do months of training for nothing its a joke and an excuse to get extra money for us just let us respc sp once a year for a plex
taht will give u extra cash and make us love u not spit in anger -áplease don't take out your real life issues out on me not my fault if your fat ugly bullied divorced broke or-á have a pimple thats big and red maybe your mom wants you out her basement or a jock has gave you a wedgie your flames only make me laff at your sadness your hidden tears are as juicy as the whiners i blob or the blobs i hide-áfrom |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:35:00 -
[486] - Quote
Shepard B00k wrote:making a **** of the game is on ur mind DON'T DO IT
Once again, No space likes... Mad as hell |
Nasro Drags
the muppets RED.OverLord
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:35:00 -
[487] - Quote
Slightly off-topic but:
Please use those flow-charts in game! - Figuring out which skills are needed for which ships is quite a pain compared to looking at a decent flowchart. |
hrusha
Open Designs Emergent Avionics
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:35:00 -
[488] - Quote
Also, not sure if someone's mentioned this earlier- but I'm assuming that you're going to start the re-balancing with the Amarr due to them being flown the least? As per Quote:This is still in the research phase and constructive feedback is most appreciated while we wait for the next ship balancing blog to come out, dedicated to how such changes will impact the Amarr Empire fleet.
If that's the case, make sure that us skilling into Amarr and the changes (more powerful hulls) don't make them WINAMMAR for the time while the rest of the races get iterated or you modify your strategies.
Another side issue that I can foresee is that without weapon and ECM re-balancing happening alongside these changes there will still be a a significant amount of 'throw-away' ships instead of more variety for us sub-cap fighters!
Thanks for the lulz and the tears again! Hru |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:36:00 -
[489] - Quote
A pointless change that will do nothing but serve to **** people off. Furthermore, if you're going to bring real naval tactics/ideologies into Eve then you're going to have to reconcile the failure of Eve ships meshing to their rl naval equivalents, which would effectively make everything w/ large guns or bigger a capital ship; which would again serve no purpose but to **** people off. It makes perfectly good sense that you need to have smaller versions of larger ships trained, such as Assault Ships -> HACs, Cov. Ops -> Recons, etc. They show more field specialization as opposed to ship specialization. It would also open the door to far too many niche trained chars; like a char that is a max skilled Logi pilot but somehow only has 8mil sp, making it the functional equivalent of a level nerf. Thus, don't do it. Besides, the current skill trees aren't as painfully cumbersome as they're made out to be, they just require more than 3 working braincells; it's the same flawed logic that went into the renaming of meta prop mods and missles. |
X10punishment CEO
X10 PUNISHM4NT
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:37:00 -
[490] - Quote
Everyone i have spoke to hates this idea its stuiped u cannot make us train for something we already have you assholes are just after more rl isk
|
|
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:38:00 -
[491] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Akelorian wrote:CCP Soundwave to Goons: Herp Derp BS4 for Capitals CCP Soundwave to Eve: Yea we ruining your game like promised Do Goons in Capital Ships scare you? How cute...
Goon Pet detected. Sorry, couldn't resist.
But seriously, I doubt CCP Soundwave has any hidden agenda to help Goons. Please take off your tinfoil hats. |
Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:38:00 -
[492] - Quote
Your Ship Roles are just a re-worded Ship Tier except you're now trying to tell us how to fly the ship, so what's the point? Perhaps re-work the Tiers so that they make more sense to you, but let us continue to choose how we want to use them. We're still going to, you know that ;), but now with even more unintended consequences as you model a ship for a role, and then we totally screw with you and re-fit the ship for a role we like, but now it's overpowered for what we're using it for.
Instead, continue along with the Tiers for the ship ability/stats and let the players determine what role we want the ship in (yes, there are already roles in the game such as Stealth Bomber, Support Cruiser, so I'm not sure what "ship roles" you (CCP) are trying to implement to replace tiers).
Doing Ship Roles rather than generic tiers to me sounds like you're trying to introduce typical MMO classes to all spaceships and not keeping it to the specialized ships (e.g. Logistics, Command Ships). This is a horrible idea, if that's what you're thinking and I'm not misconstruing your intent. We (the EvE playerbase) enjoy doing whatever we want with what we have and not being pigeonholed into a certain "role" based on what ship(s) we have and can fly. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:38:00 -
[493] - Quote
Akelorian wrote: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.
But this just means that the alt is, what, 30 days quicker? I mean what's that in a carrier skillplan which (if done right) takes a hell of a long time and the racial BS skill is one of the smallest parts?
Surely all this will do is get more newbies into carriers, and that's good for people who want to gank them? For anyone else (for example, goonswarm as you've mentioned), this turns a year skillplan into a 330 day skillplan. That doesn't seem to be terrible.
Rationally, I'm ok with it. But something in the back of my mind does say that BS IV isn't right, but I can't rationalise it so it's probably not sensible. |
Emissary K'Ehleyr
the united Negative Ten.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:38:00 -
[494] - Quote
one of the worst things you have thought of and trust me that is along list you should improve the game not make it worse this won't help anyone the only thing it will gain is get yopu more money for subs end of |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
217
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:39:00 -
[495] - Quote
Bummed that I would need to retrain battle cruiser to 5 on 2 other races.. But thats the way it should be. Currently I fing rock in a myrmidon despite only having the cruiser skill to 3.
I'm okay with this long term.
Need more-ádecent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. This applies to PvE and PvP. |
Imogen Tam
X10 PUNISHM4NT
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:39:00 -
[496] - Quote
THEY ARE TROLLING US THEY CAN'T REALLY BELIVE THIS IS A GOOD IDEA HAPPY APRIL FOOLS
OH WAIT |
Akiriy Azuriko
Lapse Of Sanity Exhale.
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:39:00 -
[497] - Quote
Sounds like a lot of thought has gone into this idea, witch is more then can be said about recent ideas. I'd like to see how this all pans out before we start pulling out the pitchforks and torches and burn jita. |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:41:00 -
[498] - Quote
X10punishment CEO wrote:Everyone i have spoke to hates this idea its stuiped u cannot make us train for something we already have you assholes are just after more rl isk
what... you and the other 5 alts you have raging in this thread? |
Luscius Uta
Killers of Paranoid Souls
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:41:00 -
[499] - Quote
Hitokiri Battoesai wrote: 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!
Well I admit that having capital ships being accessible after Battleship IV is the most controversial change of them all, since you normally wouldn't get into one after 2-3 years of playing, but training Amarr Battleship to V will still come handy for those extra 5% resists on that nice ship called Abaddon (fot those people who fly Abaddons of course), and Amarr caps are quite good too, so I would probably train for them if I was flying Amarr ships otherwise...and 30 days spent to train BS to V doesn't seem like too much of a big deal compared to the rest of the time it takes to train to fly a capship effectively.
But I like Destroyers and Battlecruisers being incorportated in the ship progress chain. Of course you might say that capships aren't part of that chain, they are separate game and noobs shouldn't fly them so I maybe it's for best to leave their requirements unchanged. Maybe change the skill training multipliers of subcaps to speed things up a bit (like x1 for frigs, x3 or x4 for cruisers and x4 or x5 for BCs), but I suppose everyone could have a different opinion on that.
Also, giving all racial BC skills to V to people who trained their BC skill to V is generally a good idea, but then they will have around 3-4million skill points given to them out of thin air. So those skill points should be assigned to the rest of us as well. Maybe it would be best if, instead of that, everyone should be given as many skillpoints as it is needed to train both Destroyers and Battlecruisers to V, and some extra ones to distribute as they like. But that's yet my another opinion and I know many people won't agree with it.
But then, nothing is final yet. I expect CCP will still be making some changes, and hopefully for the better, despite being impossible to get an unanimous decision on what "better" is. |
Alara IonStorm
1738
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:41:00 -
[500] - Quote
X10punishment CEO wrote:Everyone i have spoke to hates this idea its stuiped u cannot make us train for something we already have you assholes are just after more rl isk
Well stop lying to everyone and correct them when they are mistaken.
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. You won't be training for anything you do not already have. It is in the OP, it is now in the Blog and it has been posted about six times by Devs and 100+ by players...
How the heck did ya miss it?
|
|
rachealdoll
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:41:00 -
[501] - Quote
I'M NEW TO THIS GAME AND JUST STARTED ON BATTLECRUISERS AND NOW I WILL HAVE TO SPEND AGES JUST TO FLY THE SAME STUFF THIS IS CRAZY I REALLY DON'T THINK I WILL STAY WITH THIS GAME IF YOU KEEP PULLIUNG THE RUG FROM UNDER ME ALL TIME. |
Akelorian
FinFleet Raiden.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:42:00 -
[502] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Akelorian wrote: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. But this just means that the alt is, what, 30 days quicker? I mean what's that in a carrier skillplan which (if done right) takes a hell of a long time and the racial BS skill is one of the smallest parts? Surely all this will do is get more newbies into carriers, and that's good for people who want to gank them? For anyone else (for example, goonswarm as you've mentioned), this turns a year skillplan into a 330 day skillplan. That doesn't seem to be terrible. Rationally, I'm ok with it. But something in the back of my mind does say that BS IV isn't right, but I can't rationalise it so it's probably not sensible.
Tell me then how many people are closer now to capitals because of this ******** change they plan to put in? Like me, you spent that 30+ days just doing bs 5, then after that what, 4-5days for carriers? sure not maxed but who cares if your just going to suicide fleet them. If your going to properly max train them, then yes the extra 30 days is worth it. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:42:00 -
[503] - Quote
Gynoceros wrote:Most people here seem to be focusing on what skill reimbursement strategy CCP will be taking in response to this change. I'm not too concerned about that. I see no reason to believe that we will not be well compensated for our existing skill investment. There is a much bigger problem with this change: the amount of training required to fly each race's T1 ship line dramatically increases.Currently, the total amount of training required to get each race's T1 ship skills to V is 17x. 2x (faction frigate) + 0.5x (destroyers / 4 factions) + 5x (faction cruiser) + 1.5x (battlecruisers / 4 factions) + 8x (faction battleship) Under the new proposal, training for that same ship line jumps to 23x. 2x (faction frigate) + 2x (faction destroyer) + 5x (faction cruiser) + 6x (faction battlecruiser) + 8x (faction battleship) (More accurately, training a single faction takes the same time for each, but training each additional race adds the equivalent of an 8x skill to the requirement.) As a result, the amount of training required to fly all races' T1 ships has increased by the equivalent of 4 Battlecruiser skills! That's unacceptable. Making players grind much more time to fly T1 ships is a bad thing for the game. It punishes both newer players and players who want to cross-train into a new race. I understand why you are making the changes and I support streamlining and simplifying the skill requirements, but you have to consider the rather massive amount of additional SP required by the players to fly the most basic ships under the new proposal. There's a simple solution to the problem: reduce the training time for each T1 ship skill. Faction Frigate (1x) Faction Destroyer (2x) Faction Cruiser (4x) Faction Battlecruiser (5x) Faction Battleship (7x) That's a total of 18x, only a single 1x skill's worth of additional SP required per faction as the result of a few minor skill adjustments. Benefits:
- Only a very minor increase in T1 ship skill requirements per faction
- Actually reduces skill requirements for Frigate -> Cruiser over the current skill tree, which empowers new players.
- Minimizes frustration for older players.
- Minimizes skill reimbursement amounts. Even the most generous reimbursement under this plan would require only one 4x skill's worth of SP.
This is interesting. It makes frigate V for newbs easy (too easy?) but is an interesting idea. |
Politik Kommissar
STEEL AXIS inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:43:00 -
[504] - Quote
Seriously CCP you have fucktons of stuff to be fixed before doing this idiotic changes. Haven't you did enough errors in the recent past? Wanna neglect more and more the LOYAL veteran players in favor of new unpredictable recruits? Pls go on!! but dont cry if your "toy" will broke in your hands. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
590
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:43:00 -
[505] - Quote
Chribba wrote:In on page something. Just so I can read the blog now.
I hate to turn this thread towards more serious matters, but this seriously needs addressed.
There were 22+ pages of people in before Chribba!?!?! On a dev blog?
Oh the horror!
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:43:00 -
[506] - Quote
Wow... You guys are seriously thinking of screwing with the very fundementals of EvE like that?
You already classified the ships, AND their roles with the very category you placed them in. You did so in a decent manner, even though you need to balance them out so they'll fit into the category, and you did do a few screwups along the way (a frigate is normally larger than a destroyer in real life, but hey, who cares).
Let's run through a few examples: "Battleship" [bat-+tle-+ship] - "A heavy warship with extensive armor protection and large-caliber guns." "Battlecruiser" [bat-+tle-+cruis-+er] - "A large warship carrying similar armament to a battleship but faster and more lightly armored." "Destroyer" [de-+stroy-+er] - "A small, fast warship, esp. one equipped to attack submarines and defend fleets." (thx google-define, you're the best)
You insist on calling vessels in EvE online "ships", and I can only conclude that the above is the image you're trying to put in my head. And that's good. It gives everybody an idea of what the ship is, what it's role is, how it's armed and if it'll handle like a brick or a feather. This is information players derive from the ship category name alone, based on pictures, movies, history lessons in school or even toys... Please stay true to your original course, or make the descision to re-name/-design the entire classification scheme...
Now, the "Megathron" is suggested to be classified as "Attack vessel - made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities". Now, I can tell that you have never flown a mega, not knowing how ships are layed out or how the race's normal tanking methods are like. A good mega-fit, today is blasters and plenty of armor-plates - does that spell "hit and run" to you??
Now, the different categories you want to place them in... I can see all sorts of wrong here...: Combat ships - well, they kindda' all fit this category, right? And what exactly is a "combat ship"? Attack vessels - the current naming suggests that there is an opposite; a "defend vessel". Attack vessel == combat ship if no "defend vessel" exists Bombardment ships - cool, I like arty Support vessels - name gives NO clue to what vessels in this category do, unless you add sub-categories to your sub-category. Also, is it combat-support or industrial support? - Logistical ships - Transport vessels - Recon ships - Electronic support vessels - ... and so on ... Industrial ships - well, you say logistical ships are in this category, but last time I checked the "Logistics" skill in EvE didn't do miners or industrialists a whole lot of good, actually, if they needed one, they'd be in combat somewhere, and it'd be a combat-ship...
Now Tiers... Tiers are good for nothing, says nothing about the ship or what it can or can't do - I'll be glad to see tiers die...
You'll remove the "Battlecruiser" skill and replace it with "[RACE] Battlecruiser" skills. That's great... You did stop to include stuff like f.ex. "Angel Cruiser" or "Sansha Carrier" too, right? I mean, to avoid MAJOR inconsistencies in your idea, already at birth?
And the skillpoint idea - what a lovely thought... I trust that you'll reimburse all my training-time on medium lasers, and the time I spent training for medium hybrids too, right? I mean, I trained medium hybrids to fly the Brutix and the Ferox and medium lasers to fly the Harbinger, and if I can no longer fly those ships, and I trained those supplementary skills for those ships. |
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:44:00 -
[507] - Quote
Just curious, while looking at ships, is there any chance of us getting Faction Destroyers/Battlecruisers? |
Josef Stylin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:44:00 -
[508] - Quote
In case the devs actually read 30 pages into threads, i'll post my opinions:
This idea would be good, IF the ships were balanced. Unfortunately, they are not. Some ships need buffs, some need boosts, but overall, all that this would result in is having ship choices restricted even more. Players will take much fewer risks flying new ships, and you'll just be stuck with the same old metagame over and over, because now when you wanna risk trying something new, you've goto deal with half a month of training.
Fix the balancing issues before you look to streamline it. |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
217
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:44:00 -
[509] - 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.
Really?
Players need to HTFU. Ya have battle cruiser to 5 and can pilot all 4 battle cruisers like a boss....
But should I?
I only traind gallentai cruiser to 3, and I have no rail gun skills and no other gallentai ships.. Yet stick me a myrmidon with auto cannons and I will perform just as well as any through and through gallentai player. Seems a bit odd that one skill gives such a good return.
Also any bonuse re imbersment favors more experianced players over new players...Just because I can now fly all 3 battle cruisers at level 5 does that mean i get all the battle cruisers to 5? Where as a newer player is even further behind to get to where I am.
Refund the single skill and call it done IMO
Need more-ádecent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. This applies to PvE and PvP. |
orangeFool
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:44:00 -
[510] - Quote
Quote:All of this is work in progress of course and subject to change, especially since we are still discussing skill reimbursement options.
I like the idea. I just wish CCP had waited until it was thought through and soon to be tested (thoroughly) on Sisi. CCP is its own worst enemy Captains Qupboard: disabled | Awaiting Disable NeX checkbox |
|
|
|
|
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 |