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) |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:06:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Roime wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:
Yes, flexibility is the point here. Leave the ships to be flexible without specializing them so much that they have only one viable role. Tech 3 ships are wildly popular, because they follow this philosophy.
The cormy was a good salvager for me, because I had that racial frigate at the time and I think it had good fitting for salvage tackle. It's been awhile though.
Problem with T1 small ships is that they are just way too limited in overall capacity to be decent jack-of-all-trades. Giving the T1 EWAR frigs combat abilities means that their EWAR needs to be gimped to not make them totally OP- which makes them suck in the ewar role. Same goes for cruisers, for example Exequror stinks as logi and as combat ship. Disclaimer: I'm aware of execptions, I've flown the Celestis a lot. There are still 10 sucky ships to every exception, and it's because they try to be a little bit of everything, and end up with not much of anything. I like the idea of higher specialisation as a remedy to the unused hulls, and increasing training times for the T2 versions. This could result in more funky ships like Celestises, Blackbirds and Ospreys fielded as role-ships. Making these into general combat ships is boring imo and also much harder to balance.
These ships are terrible at dealing damage. The stats they have simply don't allow it to be proficient at hurting things. Their whole purpose is to support others in a fleet. The solution is not to fundamentally change the system to name these ships as "healers", "CC'ers", "Tanks", "DPS", "Support". This is what has set eve apart from all other games. Players define roles for these ships based on basic stats that all ships have. The bonuses that particular ships get are clues to tell players what that ship might be good at, but the way to make more people use a particular hull is not to require more skills for a hull that they can already fly (as is being suggested/implied by many posts here).
It has been mentioned already, but the key to increasing the usage of a hull or ship type is to give that ship better base stuff to work with. A sore spot in my heart has always been the Caldari supposedly being able to use railguns (as an example). What has been done to improve the viability of these ships? Not a whole lot. They still fly like bricks (even after a universal Caldari maneuverability improvement). They aren't able to maintain their range because of their poor maneuverability. That range bonus is useless in all but the most niche situations. The damage bonus that most other turret based ships get is not based on niche situations, but rather something that is almost always useful.
If you want to fix ship balance in eve, start looking at the usefulness of EVERY stat of the ship in ALL situations. That will improve a ship's desirability more than giving it a flat role bonus and tacking on a bunch of useless skill trains. |
Edward Kurvora
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:08:00 -
[1262] - Quote
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, I tried to read most of the thread but what I'm concerned by is that adding in racial battle cruiser as rank 6 you massive increase the number of skill points in space ship command.
As it stands
Racial Frigate 4 skills at rank 2 - total of 8 ranks for 2,048,000sp Destroyers 1 skill at rank 2 - 2 ranks for 512,000sp Racial Cruiser 4 skills at rank 5 - total of 20 ranks for 5,120,000sp Battle cruisers 1 skill at rank 6 - 6 ranks for 1,536,000sp
Total of 36 ranks for 9,216,000sp
As the current changes as I understand them, maintaining the BCs skills at rank 6 and destroyer skills at rank 2
Racial Frigate 4 skills at rank 2 - total of 8 ranks for 2,048,000sp Racial Destroyer 4 skills at rank 2 - total of 8 ranks for 2,048,000sp Racial Cruiser 4 skills at rank 5 - total of 20 ranks for 5,120,000sp Racial Battlecruiser 4 skills at rank 6 - total of 24 ranks for 6,144,000sp
Total of 50 ranks for 12,800,000sp (A 38% increase in training time for all level V)
What I propose is CCP want racial skills, frigate and destroyer become rank 2, cruiser rank 3 and battlecruiser rank 4
Racial Frigate 4 skills at rank 1 - total of 4 ranks for 1,024,000sp Racial Destroyer 4 skills at rank 1 - total of 4 ranks for 1,024,000sp Racial Cruiser 4 skills at rank 3 - total of 12 ranks for 3,072,000sp Racial Battlecruiser 4 skill at rank 4 - total of 16 ranks for 4,096,000sp
Total of 36 ranks for 9,216,000sp (same total skills point as before)
Progression is faster T2 ships are faster but cross training is slower than at the moment but faster than the changes as I understand them.
This also make the changes fair by not giving fully skilled up players 3,584,000sp 'free' |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:16:00 -
[1263] - Quote
Akara Ito wrote:The Devblog says T1 ships will need the lower class skills at 4 and T2 ships will need it at 5; does that mean Orca requirements will be lowered to Mining Barge 4 while JF will be upped to Freighter V ?
Shameless self quoting.
|
Mandreh
Dragon's Rage
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:17:00 -
[1264] - Quote
First i rarely post on the forum but this is one topic i just can't not speak up on
1. Your are going to have people on trail account not able to fly a Battleship and get the ability to do a LvL 4 mission and be able to know what it is to do an incursion as they wont getting a fleet without a t2 cruiser or at least a Battleship.
2. Those of us that have train Destroyers to 5 Battle cruiser to 5 took the time to train the different turret/missile skill to tech 2 LVL because we choose to cross train Your are going to basically tell so ah you don't matter to us so Screw you
3. the pilot that can fly these ship and have billions in asset to fly these ship are now not going to be able to use them move them just look at them
4. So i am doing the math which may be off, 109 day to fly one command ship we will only get back enough skill to be able to fly one racial ship, where i now can fly ship of all races so get back to where i am now it is going to be 109 X 3 = 327 Days, plus 123 days more to be able to use Interdictors i all ready own so 450 days to use something i could fly yesterday Moronic
5. Unless you plan on giving people that can fly all the ship races right now the skill to be able to still be able to fly them, then this is plain and simply a *********STUPID F**KING IDEA**************.
This is just another way for CCP to F**K up the game some more First you made 0.0 less profitable then Empire and now this.
Yet another way for CCP to tell there faithful customer of 9 Year to Go F**K Yourself and F**K off you as a customer we dont care about i will take my 5 account and my $900 a year somewhere else.
P.S. Lowering the amount of isk you can make in empire so 0.0 is more profitable is also another Dumb idea plain and simply increase 0.0 Profit when up in empire so did the price of almost everything as the more isk people have the more they will spend.
**************Stop trying to fix something that is not broke************* |
Tyrion Moath
Browncoat Industries Rura-Penthe
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:23:00 -
[1265] - Quote
I'm all for Tiericide and new ships etc... But why touch the skills at all? I don't understand why you need to mess with the skills in order to balance ships. So you learn 4 races worth of battlecruisers/destroyers with one skill, whats the big deal? As just about every single post has said so far, then you're adding in all sorts of extra skillpoints for some players, none for others, some mixture in between... And what about the costs of new clones with their higher SP costs just because of this proposal? Or the extra five months my new alt has to train to learn the same ships my main has already learned?
Don't get me wrong, if you feel you need to add new skills, add new skills. But don't mess with battlecruiser/destroyer. But if you think you need to add a new skill type.. say, Caldari Electronic Attack Cruiser.... add that. Then perhaps when you make a Caldari Electronic Attack Battlecruiser, require the cruiser skills and battlecruisers, like now.
Thanks for your time, keep up the good work. I'm counting on you to make my investment in you today turn into fun in the future! |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:31:00 -
[1266] - Quote
How can so many people write this good when they obviously have no skill in reading? Amusing thread is amusing :3 |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:35:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Mandreh wrote:First i rarely post on the forum but this is one topic i just can't not speak up on
1. Your are going to have people on trail account not able to fly a Battleship and get the ability to do a LvL 4 mission and be able to know what it is to do an incursion as they wont getting a fleet without a t2 cruiser or at least a Battleship.
2. Those of us that have train Destroyers to 5 Battle cruiser to 5 took the time to train the different turret/missile skill to tech 2 LVL because we choose to cross train Your are going to basically tell so ah you don't matter to us so Screw you
3. the pilot that can fly these ship and have billions in asset to fly these ship are now not going to be able to use them move them just look at them
4. So i am doing the math which may be off, 109 day to fly one command ship we will only get back enough skill to be able to fly one racial ship, where i now can fly ship of all races so get back to where i am now it is going to be 109 X 3 = 327 Days, plus 123 days more to be able to use Interdictors i all ready own so 450 days to use something i could fly yesterday Moronic
5. Unless you plan on giving people that can fly all the ship races right now the skill to be able to still be able to fly them, then this is plain and simply a *********STUPID F**KING IDEA**************.
This is just another way for CCP to F**K up the game some more First you made 0.0 less profitable then Empire and now this.
Yet another way for CCP to tell there faithful customer of 9 Year to Go F**K Yourself and F**K off you as a customer we dont care about i will take my 5 account and my $900 a year somewhere else.
P.S. Lowering the amount of isk you can make in empire so 0.0 is more profitable is also another Dumb idea plain and simply increase 0.0 Profit when up in empire so did the price of almost everything as the more isk people have the more they will spend.
**************Stop trying to fix something that is not broke*************
First, congratulations on posting in a thread about an issue you care about. You should always speak up on issues that matter to you.
Second, go read the first post in the thread and realize why you should always read first, comment later. Don't forget to follow the links in that post for pertinent details. 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. |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:39:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Teclador wrote:Ship Lines: ========== When you change the Ship Lines, special named will be here the Bombardment Ships, then you have to change all and i mean all Weapon Platforms too.
So here is why to change all Weapon Platforms, because the Raven, Drake, Caracal (Whoo these are all Missile Boats) are now useless and will be even more useless later because hmm, let me think how to explain it right, now a missile needs ages to hit the target, but all other Weapon Platforms hit instant, but this is if you have a look in to the Reality (sorry) B.u.l.l.s.h.i.t. .
A Bullet fired by a rifle have a speed of depending on the Weapon type / Projectile type and caliber by 70 up to 2000 m/sec (rails up to 5400 mph (2414,02 m/s), tested be the US Navy). Hmm then i ask my self, why are all targets dead when I'm firing my missiles, when I'm in an mixed fleet? Because my Missiles flying with up to 8750 m/sec...?
Not to take Zero-G into account of the Bullet / Missile velocities.
To change the Ship Lines is the same as removing Caldari out of the Game or deleting simply all Missile Ships, because they getting more useless then they are now. He is so true in that point. The velocity of bullets and missiles should be like in reality.
Teclador wrote:Skill tree change: ==============
- Leave BS L5 as Capital requirement. It must be that hard or even harder to get into an Capital as it is now.
- If you go on with Destroyers and Battlecruisers to be Racial, then not to forgot the Capital ship Skill.
- Oh and don't forgot the Jumpfreighter Skill, you will be loved by thousands of Industrial Pilots, for sure, really.
- When we get Attribute Imps > +5 ?
- When do you plan to pimp the Skill Que for even longer Skill planing ?
2. == Racial Frig -> Racial Destroyer -> Racial CR -> Racial BC -> Racial BS -> Racial Capitals I think that's a good idea, it must be harder to come in these ++ber vessels.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:42:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Just a couple of observations on the whole BS 4 to get into a carrier thing.
1: The proposed system actually makes perfect sense in this area if CCP is planning to release T2 Cap ships. 2: More Cap ships means more threat to Super Caps.
We've already been over these points:
1: The slight decrease in time is insignificant compared to time spent training the other necessary skills. 2: More new (and often unprepared) Cap ship pilots on the field is a very nice bonus for everyone. 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. |
Jens Beckstrom
Inertia Fatalis
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:50:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Im in favor of moving the ship classes in eve to a better place, this change i beleve will be for the better, as long as u duely reimburse those of us who fly every BC ther is.
My question then is why not do the same for the weapons?
Make greater distinctions in the arsenal that we have today and make it match the new categories, artillery should be in the bombardment category along with criuse missiles.
Introduse new weapon classes acording to the purpose of the ships.
Range: Close range, medium, long and extreme
Purpose: Bombardment, brawl, flack, presission and so on.
And for the love of all that is holy, please redo the horrid minmatar gun models,many have square barrels and are misfigured, horribly illogical, and grotescly ugly.
|
|
MadShade
Atomic Biohazard
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:51:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Hello!
Quote:"Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5."
a) If you have BC5 and you fly now a Caldari and a Minmatar BC, after the change you should get the SP back from your BC skill trained to 5 and let you use them to train a racial BC to 5, let`s say i want to fly perfectly the Caldari BC or split the SP between Caldari and Minmatar to be able to fly them both but not perfect. Giving away a ~6mil boost of SP to the players that trained BC to 5 is not fair for the players that didn`t yet. In addition to that the players that didn`t trained the BC5 will have to "waste" even more time to train the racial BC skills so the score it`s already 2 - 0 for the players that had BC5.
Quote:"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."
There`s a difference between beeing able to fly a ship and fly it perfectly (skill 5). b) If a) is not a good solution for you guys you should atleast reconsider giving players a fair warning and enought time to be able to train DEST and BC skill to 5 if they care about them so they can benefit also from the FREE LAME SP boost since training roughly one month for aprox 1.5 mil sp and get 6 mil after the update and no more time spent to train all the other racial BC skills is not a bad thing to do. |
Ashina Sito
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:57:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Have not read past the first page. FC'd a roam for 11 hours yesterday so a bit tired.
I did not see a mention of how the skill changes would effect industrial capitals. You need racial Industrial V to get into a freighter. If your shifting skill reqs down to racial BS IV then Freighters should also be reduced to racial Industrial IV. If I missed something and my post makes not sense, I apologize. As stated above still a little blitzed from the all day roam.
Also wanted to thank Liang Nuren for posting dev resonances in his first post. It makes it easier to find the meat amongst all the posts in the thread. |
Crasniya
Legio Geminatus Gentlemen's Agreement
128
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:59:00 -
[1273] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.
So... a big "screw you" to anyone who hasn't done BC 5 yet? Who will now have to work four times as hard to get the skillpoints other players got for free? |
Holy One
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
173
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:03:00 -
[1274] - 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.
MOAR STUFF HERE FOLKS (skills, confusing picture, apology to CSM).
All that will do is make the game even less accessible to new players. But since you don't actually have any new players, just the same 20k or so characters changing hands every few months/years its all good I guess. |
Luba Cibre
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:04:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Crasniya wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5. So... a big "screw you" to anyone who hasn't done BC 5 yet? Who will now have to work four times as hard to get the skillpoints other players got for free? It's more a screw you if you don't read my devblog, i've warned you there. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
331
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:06:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Crasniya wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5. So... a big "screw you" to anyone who hasn't done BC 5 yet? Who will now have to work four times as hard to get the skillpoints other players got for free?
I don't think that is what is meant.
Ignore the "level 5" in the quote. Suppose you had BC 3 now, and you also have Cal Cruiser 4, Minnie Cruiser 1, Amarr Cruiser 2 and Gal Cruiser 5. After the change you would probably have, Cal BC 3, Minnie BC 1, Ammar BC 2, Gal BC 3.
This is just a guess, but I doubt that if you don't have BC 5 you're screwed. That would not mesh with "if you can fly it today, you can fly it tomorrow". |
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:11:00 -
[1277] - Quote
It appears that the skill issue is a very sensible subject
I, for one, happily welcome any change to the tier system ! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:15:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Yeah, I'm leaning more and more towards the idea that they should just skip the whole GÇ£reimbursementGÇ¥ part and instead do a straight search-and-replace:
[Racial] Frigate III + Destroyer n GåÆ [racial] Destroyer n. [Racial] Cruiser III + Battlecruiser n GåÆ [racial] Battlecruiser n.
GǪand the same with any other skill might affected, such as JFs (even though that would be a significant bump for many).
No extras, no losses GÇö just a very straight GÇ£you keep what you haveGÇ¥ in terms of flying ability. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Masumi Do
223
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:17:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Love the changes CCP... Teir system FINALLY being removed and unused ships hopefully filling roles effectively.
As for the skill changes... you guys have stated "if you could fly yesterday, you'll be able to fly it today" which is awesome but even if this wasn't the case meh.
Overall it will be better for the game in the long run even if it hurts a little at first. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:27:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Melissa Brown wrote: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. So you are planning to add additional support skills per ship line? WhereGÇÖs the benefit in that? Currently I can fly the Cane "perfectly" with all support skills at 5. After this change I will still be able to fly the Cane (Gallente char), thanks to the planned reimbursement. But I will need to train new skills for its ship line to fly it as good as before. I will need to do it for all ship lines... I don't mind splitting generic skills into race specific skills as long as the players are reimbursed accordingly. I don't mind if you change the requirement tree, if BS5 for caps or AS4 for hacs are reimbursed. But I don't believe adding more support skills to a already long list will benefit the game or the players. Really kinda wish more people saw through the bull... |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:45:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Melissa Brown wrote: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. So you are planning to add additional support skills per ship line? WhereGÇÖs the benefit in that? Currently I can fly the Cane "perfectly" with all support skills at 5. After this change I will still be able to fly the Cane (Gallente char), thanks to the planned reimbursement. But I will need to train new skills for its ship line to fly it as good as before. I will need to do it for all ship lines... I don't mind splitting generic skills into race specific skills as long as the players are reimbursed accordingly. I don't mind if you change the requirement tree, if BS5 for caps or AS4 for hacs are reimbursed. But I don't believe adding more support skills to a already long list will benefit the game or the players. Really kinda wish more people saw through the bull...
Indeed. For example understanding the part of the quote that was ignored.
Quote: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.
So if you have say an "attack ship" type vessel that has inherent advantages to speed and firepower, new skills could be introduced to give it a "further boost" beyond it's base stats (or what current skills would be able to do).
Context for the win. 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. |
Spacing Cowboy
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:52:00 -
[1282] - Quote
Good plan, i like.. Yet...
Expect one remark, dont screw over the current -crosstrainers- .
Regarding BSV. Also think of the supercap holding toons, im going to be quite upset if that month of SP is waisted on a mare bonus im never going to use.
|
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 19:58:00 -
[1283] - Quote
Luba Cibre wrote:Crasniya wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you can already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5. So... a big "screw you" to anyone who hasn't done BC 5 yet? Who will now have to work four times as hard to get the skillpoints other players got for free? It's more a screw you if you don't read my devblog, i've warned you there.
CCP ALT DETECTED!!! Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:00:00 -
[1284] - Quote
One more thought, to add to my previous. For skill purposes, titans really ought to count as T2 Dreadnoughts, I think. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:00:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Mikron Alexarr wrote: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.
Even you must admit that at a base level, CCP does define the roles of all ships; now players can take ships OUT of their role, but all ships have something that you can look at the ship and say "this is what this ship is for"
IE The Hulk is a mining ship . . . CCP decided that, players didnt, but creative players came up with the battle hulk and surprised people with hulks that can fight, but that is taking the ship out of the job it was clearly built to do.
What I dont want, and im sure you dont either is a ship that can ONLY do its pre defined role. IE if a hulk couldnt fit combat drones for whatever reason that would be an unnecessary restriction. |
Kiran
Knights of Azrael The Azrael Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:11:00 -
[1286] - Quote
What I want to know is.
If you trained say Battlecruiser to 5 with this so called re-balance of skills will I have to retrain it to 5 for the minmatar ? Seeing as it is now a new skill set ?
To be honest if this is the case you can shove this game. |
Lamperouge Kasenumi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:12:00 -
[1287] - Quote
Oh, while you are at it: how about fixing the need for the laser capacitor bonus on Amarr ship and giving these ship a real fun bonus like other races? Sucks to waste a ship bonus on fixing your weapon system... |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:14:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Kiran wrote:What I want to know is.
If you trained say Battlecruiser to 5 with this so called re-balance of skills will I have to retrain it to 5 for the minmatar ? Seeing as it is now a new skill set ?
To be honest if this is the case you can shove this game. Read the first post and follow the links. |
Kiran
Knights of Azrael The Azrael Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:14:00 -
[1289] - Quote
This is the worst Idea I have seen.
I dont like it as it messes with my skill plan and what I wish to train for. |
Duriel Walker
Grey Templars Ushra'Khan
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:20:00 -
[1290] - Quote
I like the idea of removing ship tiers and shifting attention to ship lines. This will allow them to rebalance underused T1 ships. (buffing tier 1/2 cruisers/frigates slot layout and stats?) By giving (tech 2) ships more specialized roles and tying them into the ship lines they open up the option for more ships to fill different roles and gaps in the current ship lines.
New players will need more time to train up to a BS but after that you need less time to get in some T2 hulls that will have reduced requirements.
It also puts destroyer and battlecruiser ships in line with the rest as full ship classes instead of being halfway between the real classes of frigate/cruiser/battleship.
edit: By changing destroyer and battlecruiser to racial skills they are giving acess to a reduced number of ships from before. This opens the option of creating more ships for these hull types without making the skill an overpowered must-have-at-rank-5 that it would be without this fix.
This change creates room for a whole lot of new hulls and rebalancing of the old ones which is exactly what a lot of players want. Gotta love it when everyone fears change and is distrustful of CCP. Just post your feedback here, talk to your local CSM representative and your voice will be heard. Someone might even listen. |
|
|
|
|
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 |