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) |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
1863
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
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. CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |
|
Hugo Smith
New Eden Conglomerate of Trade and Comerce
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jesus ******* christ. WHAT THE **** IS THIS!?!?!? |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
908
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
This is AWESOME, but I'm a bit miffed that those of us who have extensively crosstrained are going to be stuck re-training up 3 Destroyer and 3 BC skills.
-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
|
testobjekt
Goonswarm Federation Human Resources Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
sounds good but its very complicated and a lot of people will be upset if they cant fly a /trained useless skills. Be careful here.
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
203
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:This is AWESOME, but I'm a bit miffed that those of us who have extensively crosstrained are going to be stuck re-training up 3 Destroyer and 3 BC skills.
-Liang
Ed: Also, your comments link in the dev blog doesn't work. <3 Yeah, the more I think about it the more that it bothers me to have to spend ~2.5 months retraining to fly the many, many, many battlecruisers across all races that I already fly. :|
this, not happy about having to train 6 skills to fly ships i can already fly CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Command Fleet Coordination Coalition
158
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
Removing tiers? This might be the greatest thing ever.
I can see a lot of resistance from those who have extensively cross trained. I don't know how you will deal with that for everyone. But honestly, changing the skills just makes sense. I'm sure a lot of people will also be split on the idea to lower the requirement for capitals from BS V to BS IV.
http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
Will we get our battleship fives reimbursed too? |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
908
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
dev blog wrote:Or the Gallente drone and dampening abilities stop with the Exequror?
wha? 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
|
Spugg Galdon
Callidus Temple Forsaken.Empire
111
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yay for the tier system getting blown to bits. I love you!
Buckets of tears for maybe needing to train battle cruisers to 5 for the three races I choose not to put he reimbursed SP in but I am happy to take it up the arse if that's what it takes to get the role system!
A big arsed **** yeah! |
StevieTopSiders
Evolution
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Furiously buying up Probe halls in hopes of a buff.
Also, while this is a great step in the right direction, balancing this is gonna be OMGWTF difficult. Notify us about changes on SisI, let us test them and give you feedback, etc. Also, if something ends up being OP, then don't wait like 10 months to nerf it.
Also, listen to Prom. |
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
For this kind of extensive renovation you should probably go ahead and reimburse pretty much every single spaceship command skillpoint |
Elanor Vega
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
HERE. :) now read. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
199
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:02:00 -
[13] - Quote
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.
|
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
436
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm guessing the battlecruiser/destroyer skills will be refunded as free sp as a part of this? generally fairly happy with what i can see so far otherwise... |
quygen
Acting Neutral NEM3SIS.
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
First page \o/
|
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
239
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:03:00 -
[16] - Quote
Hey, this looks like a decent change but will the new racial destroyer/bc skills take up as much SP as the current skills? I don't want to retrain in order to fly ships that I already can fly, and people are going to be pissed off because you are screwing with their remaps and stuff. |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
This sounds like good news - people have been asking to drop the tiering system for a while. I hope you guys realise how difficult getting all this balancing right is going to be. But good luck :) |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
911
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:05:00 -
[18] - 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.
It goes far beyond simply unappealing. It is simply not practical. We've got dozens of battlecruisers in the wormhole we live in and potentially nobody would even be able to fly them for months. The best solution is not to reimburse BC/Destroyer SP but to give everyone the racial skills at the level they have them trained when the books are seeded.
-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
|
Mussaschi
No Wise Guy's Stellar Economy Experts
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:06:00 -
[19] - Quote
As someone with a lot of cross training the idea of relearning skills for destroyer or battle cruisers is somehow annoying. Specially if you take into account that destroyers are of little use at this point.
Some of the ideas clearly make sense to me, than I still miss handling some points in your current schema.
New types great. I still love to see a frig or destroyer size logistic ship, for fast moving groups.
I totally miss something to counter blob warfare. Is there any incentive in this, that would counter bigger blob wins regardless of strategy? Something that actually would bring FCs to distribute their fleets?
So many interesting ideas out there (direction of hit impacts dps), sensor strength in dense formation ...
So what I see now mostly feels as if you make it more noob friendly instead of more interesting :(
Still change is good, so go on |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:06:00 -
[20] - Quote
First thought was "awww, I'm going to have a bunch of skills to train now." Then it dawned on me that I was just complaining a week ago that I didn't know what to train next. This is a good change. Keep it up! |
|
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
139
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
Those are some HUGE-ASS images, and trust me, I know huge ass. Please support: export of settings in editable format
Your stuff goes here. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
94
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
My gut reaction is that adding even more skilltime to the queue for new players to get into a BS is not something you want. In fact I'd rather getting INTO ships was a quicker affair than today, but actually getting to the point where you get the best out of them took longer. |
Kozmic
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
For those of us with all racial sub-caps, that is a lot of re-training. SP reimbursment should take that into account - if I had BC V and have race X BS V, then I should get race X BC V.
Edit: also, :ccp: |
LegendaryFrog
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
I am really glad to see this level of ambition being directed at ship balancing. It was always going to be reliant on some significant changes in order to properly align all the existing ships into a role-based system that ensures each one is desirable to fly under a certain circumstance.
Sure the prospect of having to train new skills just to get into ships I can already fly perfectly with all 5's is not optimal, but if you handle that properly the benefits to the game will far outweigh those concerns. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:...We fully acknowledge having to re-train for ships you can already fly is not appealing at all.
Understatement of the day. |
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:08:00 -
[26] - 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.
I understand the sentiment of wanting to streamline the skill trees, but if you're going to remove the generic Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills, for those of us who have trained both of them to 5, if we don't get *all four* of the racial skills reimbursed all the way to 5, you are going to have a very, very large and angry mob on your hands. |
BugraT WarheaD
Astromechanica Federatis
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
Great blog ! Hope we will have more informations while your brainstorming evolved to gameplay and real modification :)
Btw .. .re-training skills isn't really a problem if ships have more value ;). |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:09:00 -
[28] - Quote
Just want to echo the concern at potentially having to spend a long time training in order to fly ships that I currently own and use with the same level of proficiency that I currently enjoy. I don't see how the new BC and destroyer skills could reasonably be reimbursed other than by giving everyone who currently has BC V all of the racial battlecruiser skills at V, for instance. |
Alara IonStorm
1726
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:09:00 -
[29] - Quote
Are Cruisers and Frigates going to be buffed in Inferno as the CSM Minutes indicated.
I really like a lot of the changes you are planing to make. |
Whiteknight03
Trilon Industries and Exploration
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:09:00 -
[30] - Quote
I think lowering the rank of the new Racial Battlecruiser skill compared to the old Battlecruiser skill would alleviate some of the problems people who use multiple command ships would have. That or instead of a reimbursement, grant Racial Battlecruiser skills equal to the previous BC skill for Race that Cruiser V is trained for. |
|
Aphoxema G
Teraa Matar
230
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
With changes this fundamental (every other skill stems from what you want to fly), simply refunding for the ship skills is completely unacceptable. The minimum we deserve to be given is a complete respec (refund all SP and return the skillbooks to the redeeming system) to requalify ourselves for what we are interested in using.
People like me with 2004 characters wouldn't be hurt so badly, I can stick to one race if I have to. I can switch to drones or missiles or any turret or armor rep or shield rep. Players less than three years old won't be so fortunate and by forcing them to stick to one race, they'll generally be screwed-over with the kind of skilltraining new users are prone to. After all, no one starts playing EVE knowing everything any person needs to know to survive.
I hereby demand on behalf of all players that the only appropriate result of this kind of change is the chance to start over. Warp drive failure indicator: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=887805#post887805 |
Jackie Cross
MacGyver Communications
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:11:00 -
[32] - Quote
I like this change, strange enough. As long as you balance the training times. It shouldn't be faster to get into t3 than t2. But I don't feel that t2 should get a lot shorter training time.
"It hurts soooo good." |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:11:00 -
[33] - Quote
I am uncomfortable with the idea, but you may have to translate existing Des/BC X to all 4 races, and not to a single chosen race. It's the only way to avoid people needing to retrain for existing ships.
Also, LOL at the people demanding a full SP reset. Keep trying guys! |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
422
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:11:00 -
[34] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
It goes far beyond simply unappealing. It is simply not practical. We've got dozens of battlecruisers in the wormhole we live in and potentially nobody would even be able to fly them for months. The best solution is not to reimburse BC/Destroyer SP but to give everyone the racial skills at the level they have them trained when the books are seeded.
-Liang
easily solvable with a grace period during which the old skill will work and which give you time to train the new ones to level 4, after which the original skill is terminated and SP reimbursed to be used wherever you want |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
203
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:12:00 -
[35] - 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.
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.
CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Command Fleet Coordination Coalition
158
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:12:00 -
[36] - 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.
Is it possible to instead of refunding the SP, just give the skills instead? Because if you can do so, here is what I would do:
- If a player has Racial Frigate III and Destroyers X - give player Recial Destroyer X for every race they have Racial Frigate III in
- Ditto for Battlecruisers
This would really only work if you could actually give us the skills directly. Refunding would result in players having more skill points than they originally spent training the skill to spend on other things. Restricting it to the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills would mean that they keep the level they were at across all races, but aren't able to spend all of the extra skill points elsewhere.
http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Whiteknight03
Trilon Industries and Exploration
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Aphoxema G wrote:With changes this fundamental (every other skill stems from what you want to fly), simply refunding for the ship skills is completely unacceptable. The minimum we deserve to be given is a complete respec (refund all SP and return the skillbooks to the redeeming system) to requalify ourselves for what we are interested in using.
People like me with 2004 characters wouldn't be hurt so badly, I can stick to one race if I have to. I can switch to drones or missiles or any turret or armor rep or shield rep. Players less than three years old won't be so fortunate and by forcing them to stick to one race, they'll generally be screwed-over with the kind of skilltraining new users are prone to. After all, no one starts playing EVE knowing everything any person needs to know to survive.
I hereby demand on behalf of all players that the only appropriate result of this kind of change is the chance to start over.
QQ Moar, can I haz your stuff?
And a "It's for the new players" argument will inevitably be better for older players. I'm guessing you want to get rid of some skills you don't use much, huh? |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
65
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:13:00 -
[38] - Quote
Should also add that I'm a bit sceptical about the idea of rebalancing ships to fit specific roles - while it sounds intriguing, I think it could also lead to excessive pigeonholing. Restricting the scope for coming up with new ways to fit and use ships outside of their 'intended' role would be bad for the game. |
Entity
X-Factor Industries Synthetic Existence
132
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
Maybe start with the turret skills?
Doesn't make much sense to be forced to train SPECIALIZATIONS for smaller turrets if what you want is LARGE TURRET SPEC, and you already have the relevant LARGE TURRET skill ;) GòªGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGûæGòæGûæGûæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòæGûæGòæGûæGòöGòùGûæGòªGòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòªGòùGòöGòù GòæGûæGòöGòùGòöGòùGòöGòúGûæGòöGòùGòáGûæGûæGòáGûæGòáGòùGòáGò¥GûæGòæGòáGûæGòáGò¥GòæGòæGòæGòÜGòù Gò¬GòÉGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòÜGò¥GûæGòÜGò¥GòæGûæGûæGòÜGò¥GòæGòæGòÜGò¥GûæGò¬GòÜGò¥GòÜGò¥GòæGûæGòæGòÜGò¥ Got Item? | [topic=6504]EVE API?[/topic] | [topic=6501]Cache?[/topic] |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off Imperial Ascension
276
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:13:00 -
[40] - Quote
Eugh.... Just what we always wanted... having to spend even *MORE* time cross-training to experience the different races and play styles of EvE.
Battlecruisers is one of the best skills there is for a very good reason; you spend a month training it and then it gives you lots of flexibility. You get it, and it opens lots of doors... and variety is what people enjoy.
If you do this, then a lot of people, myself included, are going to be pissed. It's introducing more drag just for the hell of it. |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
543
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:13:00 -
[41] - Quote
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.
|
|
Natalie Cerulean
Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:13:00 -
[42] - Quote
I don't like this at all personally. I have two characters one is more or less pure caldari, and the the other is pure amarr (currently training her for capital ships).
While it "makes more sense" until I can see a way to fix it so that you are screwing everyone who has already trained their racial skills up I 100% disapprove.
|
Atrum Veneficus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:13:00 -
[43] - Quote
As a player who already has all frigates, cruisers, and battleships to 5, I find it an incredibly **** move to remove a large portion of my current ship options because you see a new shiny in the corner.
Replace the generic skill with all four racial specific skills at the same level. Battlecruiser V was an incredibly annoying grind and I find it disgusting you want to chop it into to four pieces - unless the total SP requirement of the 4 racial battlecruisers to V equals the SP refunded from battlecruiser V.
|
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
229
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:14:00 -
[44] - Quote
Do devs just get paid to sit around smoking crack all day? This is the worst thing I've ever seen. Those of us with BC 5 get the pleasure of training it 3 more times. **** that. Damn nature, you scary! |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1973
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:15:00 -
[45] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:This is AWESOME, but I'm a bit miffed that those of us who have extensively crosstrained are going to be stuck re-training up 3 Destroyer and 3 BC skills.
-Liang
this, not happy about having to train 6 skills to fly ships i can already fly
I can't emphasize this enough. I'm now using battlecruisers from 3 races, so you're telling me I have to shelve 2/3 of them for weeks and retraining them to my current skill level will take months of extra training. I like tiericide as much as the next person and think it is a worthy goal, but this is a really nasty kick in the ******* and makes crosstraining a bit less appealing prospect in general.
|
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
230
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:15:00 -
[46] - Quote
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.
Damn nature, you scary! |
Alara IonStorm
1726
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:15:00 -
[47] - Quote
One suggestion. You have 3 types of Combat Ships, 1 Industrial and 1 Support Line.
Quote: Support vessels: mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
Here is your example of Support.
It says nothing to differentiate between Ships that give positives and ones that give negative support in the Ship Lines despite having 3 Combat Lines.
Perhaps you should have Positive Support (Logi, Tracking Links) and Negative Support (ECM, Target Painters) as separate categories.
|
Rei Kwon
Commonwealth Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:16:00 -
[48] - Quote
Palovana wrote:Those are some HUGE-ASS images, and trust me, I know huge ass.
I'm sayin'! C'mon CCP, I know it's just a dev blog but those images brought Chrome to a crawl!
Vector graphics, please! |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:16:00 -
[49] - Quote
So to clarify your devblog.
If you currently have in-game assets in the nature of multiple, racial destroyers, interdictors, battlecruisers, or command ships, you are totally screwed.
Because when this is done, you have to choose which one racial ship you want access to now, and then plan to train (up to) an additional 6,144,000 skill points at x2 and x6 to unlock ships you may already own.
Which translates (based on an available remap to per/wil) about FIVE MONTHS of retraining.
Here are my tears. Feast upon them.
Carebears in hisec, rejoice. This change cripples nullsec players in ways you will never experience. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
915
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:16:00 -
[50] - 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.
Good enough for me. I'll link this post in post #2 to help quell the rising panic. <3
-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
|
|
Jax Slizard
Celerna Talocan United
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:17:00 -
[51] - Quote
Really, there are only two fair ways to do the skill thing, both have been suggested before.
1. Just give everyone who has Destroyers and Battlecruisers trained already all four skills at the level they are now. It hurts CCP because its free SP, but it screws players much much harder to not be able to fly 10+ ships they could FOR SEVERAL MONTHS.
2. If you REALLY change the system, just give everyone every single SP in the entire Ship Command tree back, and let us pick what we want to be able to fly. |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
i like the big changes on the ships roles and stats, and the end of the tier system, but as lots of people i'm pretty worried about the skills i'll be missin you should at least offer free SP for a second race for people having destro/bc
well anyway, at least that's finally a blog with lots of interesting content that you delive
Quote:you either reduce the ranks of the destroyer and bc skills so reimbursed skill points from the old cover all 4 races that's an interesting solution ; 4 skills not 1, but asking for the same SP overrall.
but seems you point is to review the time needed to fly the differents ships, so giving free SP me be a better choice giving your vision |
Kenerian
Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies.
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:17:00 -
[53] - Quote
You spelled Spear incorrectly (when discussing Direct combat battleships you said spar instead of spear in spear heading.).
Love, Ken. |
Dinta Zembo
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:17:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:You're gonna have to train 4 skills to lvl 5 and we're only gonna give you the SP's to train 1 trololol
Go away |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
549
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:17:00 -
[55] - Quote
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. |
|
Joe D'Trader
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:17:00 -
[56] - Quote
Good idea,
But no Amarr destroyers
Or Caldari BC. Go away with that mess. |
Teron Radec
Enslave. Suddenly Spaceships.
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:17:00 -
[57] - Quote
If anything's going to make you wonder whether you can be arsed with the game anymore it's this. |
Kozmic
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:18:00 -
[58] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Should also add that I'm a bit sceptical about the idea of rebalancing ships to fit specific roles - while it sounds intriguing, I think it could also lead to excessive pigeonholing..
I'd rather have pigeonholing than uselessness - which is what most EVE ships are today. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
206
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:18:00 -
[59] - 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.
cool. im really hoping that on this patch day i dont get crippled on ship choice. reason i trained all 4 race cs's and dic is so i could fly them all, having to train for them again would really be........ anoying is prob the least angry would i could use for that feeling CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Dead Soldier
R.T.F.M
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:18:00 -
[60] - 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.
Don't the forget gunnery/missile/Shield/armor skills. I have all those skills just because i can fly multiple race's. So this is not only related to the ship commands skills but all lot of others as well. |
|
YouShouldntEatIt
Matte Gray
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:19:00 -
[61] - Quote
lemme get this straight....... (I know this is still in the works but I'll treat this as what is in the devblog is going live right now)
1) I spent ~30 days training Battlecruiser 5 (thats $15-17 dollars btw). Now you want to split it up and make me train 4 seperate battlecruiser skills to fly ships I can already fly? The only way this is acceptable is if I get every sp reimbursed and the 4 racial battlecruiser skills take up NO MORE sp than the vanilla battlecruiser skill.
2) I think I've heard my fill of bitching about the proliferation of capitals, super and normal, in this game enough to think that the idea of reducing said requirement of racial battleship 5 from level 5 to 4 would imply the person behind that idea is either insane, or has a number of bot accounts needing capitals.
just checking to make sure i heard things right.... |
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:19:00 -
[62] - Quote
The link on the Caldari progression image is broken.
(also, can you resize those images? I can't actually read them in a browser, because they are either too big, or too small!) |
Elanor Vega
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:19:00 -
[63] - Quote
WOW... GREAT NEWS!!! |
Aphoxema G
Teraa Matar
231
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:21:00 -
[64] - Quote
Anja Talis wrote:The link on the Caldari progression image is broken.
(also, can you resize those images? I can't actually read them in a browser, because they are either too big, or too small!)
Yeah, and on the Minmatar one they got the Scimitar and Rapier mixed up. Warp drive failure indicator: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=887805#post887805 |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
210
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:21:00 -
[65] - Quote
Yay putting out devblogs so we have all our talking points in a row for fanfest.
Keep them coming so you will have answers for us when we storm the castle in 2 weeks. |
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
142
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:21:00 -
[66] - Quote
If this means I have to add more training to get into ships I have already put a great deal of effort into training into, I would personally be supremely PO'd and I doubt I would be alone. Any plan that makes it harder to get into subcapital ships and easier to get into capitals & supercapitals IS A BAD PLAN. The biggest problem with the game is how it's becoming Supercaps Online and you want to increase that?
Have you been sniffing lava again? Last time you did that you came up with space pants. JUST SAY NO TO LAVA. And leave the racial BS V requirement for capitals. This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
Someday, this signature may save my life. |
Cronus Zontanos
Twin Paradox 0rizen Nation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:22:00 -
[67] - 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.
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. |
Teron Radec
Enslave. Suddenly Spaceships.
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:22:00 -
[68] - Quote
Also, my carrier pilot alt has Amarr and Caldari BS 5 for NO other reason that to fly the Archon and Chimera, if the requirements go down to 4 will I get 4-5 SP reimbursed? |
Zirse
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
276
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:22:00 -
[69] - Quote
An easy way to do it would be to put BC V people at racial BC IV and BC IV people at racial BC III etc.
Looking forward to the tiericide. |
Szilardis
Phoibe Enterprises
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:22:00 -
[70] - Quote
Grideris 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.
Is it possible to instead of refunding the SP, just give the skills instead? Because if you can do so, here is what I would do:
- If a player has Racial Frigate III and Destroyers X - give player Recial Destroyer X for every race they have Racial Frigate III in
- Ditto for Battlecruisers
I could support this. |
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:22:00 -
[71] - Quote
Changing skill requirements, Yes. Being able to train for, for instance, recons without having to train for covert ops first. That I can agree with.
Changing skill progression, NO. One of the appealing aspects of training for ships was that once I'd trained racial frigate and destroyers, I'd get access to ANOTHER race worth of destroyers, for free, once I trained up the racial frigate.
With these changes, you'll raise the bar for crosstraining further, to a point where it is even more daunting for new players to crosstrain, and makes it even more difficult for them to find useful roles.
Take a new PVPer, for instance. By training caldari and minmatar frigate, caldari and minmatar cruiser, plus battlecruiser, the player would have access to tackling frigates, t1 cruisers including ospreys, blackbirds, stabbers and ruptures, as well as two excellent and newbie friendly battlecruiser hulls, namely hurricanes and drakes. All this from a total of five skills.
With the changes, the same new player would now be forced to train eight skills, raising the bar for skilltraining by 75% and making it more difficult to find useful roles. The incentive to crosstrain would be largely eliminated, as it'd take almost as long to train for a single race's battlecruisers as two races under the current scheme.
Ship tiers: If ship tiers force you into balancing issues, you're looking at the problem in a completely wrong way. The ship tiers should not limit your balancing efforts. Don't make the mistake in thinking that a higher tier "must be better". That's not necessarily so. If anything, tiers should serve as a guideline for the general roles a certain group of ships have, for instance that all ships within a tier are designed as high DPS active tanking platforms, another tier being medium DPS buffer platforms etc, but not that they should be "better" than the previous tier. |
drdxie
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:22:00 -
[72] - Quote
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. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:23:00 -
[73] - Quote
poasting in an epic whine thread.
I wonder how long it will take to hit 50 pages |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1871
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:23:00 -
[74] - Quote
While changes of this scope will always be controversial, and may involve a bit of inconvenience, the fact that CCP is tackling such issues illustrates how much focus and love FiS is getting.
We all can (and should) argue about the best way to refresh various areas of the game, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that CCP is putting a ton of effort into refreshing the game!
Re-Elect Trebor to the CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism!
My CSM Blog |
Orion GUardian
121
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:24:00 -
[75] - Quote
I can understand where you come from, trying to get Destroyers and Battlecruisers to racial Variants.
BUT: I always thought them not to be "stepping stones" but intermediate classes. Which made totally sense having the skills not racial.
i.e "You know how to fly X Races Cruisers well, the Batlecruisers rely on the same technology and modules but you need to learn how to control larger ships thats why you need Battlecruiser skill as well"
I think it is not at all necessary to make the Battlecruiser skill racial! Having to Train BCs to IV until one can get into a BS or Destroyers to IV till you can get into a Cruiser will slow down alot of newbies trying to get into useful roles above "Tackler" in any fleet.
Blackbird for example was an easy to train for ship, it will be prolonged for about a week now (doesn't sound much, but if you are a newbie that is quite some time!) Especially as it stands today that Destroyers are very rarely used and considered "useless" by alot of people.
Please think it over, I do NOT think the skill line should be changed.
IF you disaggree and really want to change that, I am strongly for a Reimbursement Plan that will not make Crosstrainers like me train 3 additional Rank 6 Skills to V (2-3 Months?) to be able to fly all the ships again that I can now ;) I go with Liang here: If you have BC X give them Racial BC X*4 as reimbursement!
Unless you want to macke the Racial BC/Racial Destroyer skills all Rank 1 so the SP are enough to get them to the past level.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
915
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:24:00 -
[76] - Quote
Zirse wrote:An easy way to do it would be to put BC V people at racial BCs IV and BC IV people at racial BCs III etc.
Looking forward to the tiericide.
So nobody in the game can fly command ships for the next month. I propose we go with Soundwave's promise not to take things away from us.
-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
|
Kozmic
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:25:00 -
[77] - Quote
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? |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
367
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:25:00 -
[78] - Quote
I have just read the most important dev blog in eve's history. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:25:00 -
[79] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Zirse wrote:An easy way to do it would be to put BC V people at racial BCs IV and BC IV people at racial BCs III etc.
Looking forward to the tiericide. So nobody in the game can fly command ships for the next month. I propose we go with Soundwave's promise not to take things away from us. -Liang
I too, support Soundwaves ideas. |
|
Poss Ible
User Disconnected
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:26:00 -
[80] - Quote
I think this revamp into classes is a really good idea and I hope you can do it reasonably well!
Goodluck! |
|
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:26:00 -
[81] - Quote
Very much in favor of these proposed changes.
Could you fix the link to the Gallente ship tree ... seems to be the only one with a broken link.
Or is this just another slight aimed at the Gallente? lol |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:27:00 -
[82] - Quote
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. |
|
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:27:00 -
[83] - Quote
How about reimbursing us for our battlecruisers and destroyers skills, and then making the racial skills a sufficiently low rank that 'Battlecruisers 5' gets us Amarr Battlecruiser, Minmatar Battlecruiser, Caldari Battlecruiser, and Gallente Battlecruiser all at 5?
Battlecruisers is a rank 6 skill, could make the new racial bruisers skills rank 1? It somewhat fits with lore too, the point is a prophecy requires mostly the same skills a maller does, it's just a little bit bigger. Why shouldn't the bruiser skill be a much lower rank?
Destroyers could only drop to rank 1, but as it requires frigate which is rank 2 they're still not ludicrously simple to get into?
For what it's worth, I've wanted the tier system to die in a fire for YEARS now, great change, looking forward to it! |
Crasniya
Legio Geminatus Gentlemen's Agreement
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:27:00 -
[84] - Quote
Ahahahahahaha tears.
Folks, you don't deserve free SP because the game is changing. If they are going to reimburse enough that you get all four skills worth of SP when Inferno releases... every intelligent person should be training up additional Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills right now, so it'll multiply later. |
Orion GUardian
121
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:27:00 -
[85] - Quote
PS: Especially for people like me with long standing Skill plans, I am going for INT/MEM nowadays and the plan is due to end in 450 days....if Inferno were to force me to get into PEr/will just to get back into my ships it would make me lose even more than just TIME! |
Temmu Guerra
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:27:00 -
[86] - Quote
Everyone just needs to take a deep breath and stop panicking. We have already been told that a proper reimbursement plan will be put in place and I have no doubt that this will be brought up with CSM8..
CCP keep up the good work though. Really liking what you are doing to the game so far. |
Snus Mumriken
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:27:00 -
[87] - Quote
Ytterbium, please insert thumbnails into the news article and only link to the huge images.
I like the changes, but something confuses me: In this image the T2 specialization ship skills only require their underlying T1 ship class (AF requires frigate, HAC requires cruiser ...), but when I look at new Amarr ship tree there seem to be requirements between Assault Ships and Heavy Assault Ships.
So my question is now: Which of both is true? I hope that the Amarr ship tree is just older than the changed skill tree and not reflecting the removed requirements. Because, as mentioned in the dev blog, T2 ships are specializing, so there should be no requirements between AF and HAC, or HAC and Command ship.
Oh, and because I can't resist: Y U REMOVE TEARS? (removal of tiers is fine though) I'm on Twitter. |
Lt Vanzi
Lamb Federation Navy Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:28:00 -
[88] - Quote
Racial skills are the single most boring part of the skillpoint system in EVE, introducing even more of them by simply splitting one skill into four makes no sense whatsoever, you should be going the exactly opposite direction. If you want to introduce new skills then that's fine, but at least make them somewhat unique instead of being generic version of a single skill. |
Kozmic
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:28:00 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Kozmic wrote: 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.
Sorry for being a bit bitter, but it will take more than one half-decent expansion to get back into my good graces. |
Dasrufken
Nova Ardour
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:28:00 -
[90] - Quote
Szilardis wrote:Grideris 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.
Is it possible to instead of refunding the SP, just give the skills instead? Because if you can do so, here is what I would do:
- If a player has Racial Frigate III and Destroyers X - give player Recial Destroyer X for every race they have Racial Frigate III in
- Ditto for Battlecruisers
I could support this. seconded |
|
Iniquita
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:29:00 -
[91] - Quote
I feel this makes sense going forward but what needs to happen for existing players is that if you have requisite skills for Destroyers or Battlecruisers that you get enough SP to ensure you can still fly all those specific racial ships at the same level.
So if I have Amarr, Minmatar, Caldari Cruiser skills and BC5, I should get enough SP to ensure under the new system I can get BC5 in Caldari, Minmatar, And Amarr.
The same holds true for destroyers.
That said I am extremely excited about the possibility of racial battleship class ewar platforms besides the scorpion. |
Joe D'Trader
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:29:00 -
[92] - Quote
If you currently have all the prerequsits you get the new skills to the same level?
So if I have 4 cruisers and BC V, then I get 4 cruisers and 4 ratial BCs to V.
I understand it makes sense going forward, but current players will take ~3-4 months to retrain all these new skills. |
fab24
Tax Fraud Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:29:00 -
[93] - Quote
WTF? I spent 6 years training skills that you're going to remove? Fail level : CCP |
Elaron
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:29:00 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We fully acknowledge having to re-train for ships you can already fly is not appealing at all. It's more than "not appealing", it's downright repugnant.
In my opinion, a better solution would be to give people who already have Destroyers and Battlecruisers trained the same level in all of the racial versions of the skills for which they have the prerequisites. Thus if someone has Destroyers V trained, and has Minmatar and Amarr Frigate skills trained to IV, they should get Minmatar Destroyers V and Amarr Destroyers V.
Another possibility would be to keep the generic skills but rejig the Cruiser and Battleship skills to add Destroyer and Battlecruiser prerequistes as appropriate, and update the racial skill requirements on Destroyers and Battlecruisers to reflect the new progression.
Examples:
- Amarr Battleship skill would have the prerequisites Amarr Cruiser IV, Battlecruisers IV.
- The Prophecy would now require Amarr Cruiser IV to fly.
Finally, if you could rejig the skill system to allow for "either / or" prerequisites for skills then you could make it so that the generic Destroyers skill could be trained with any of the four racial frigate skills trained to IV. This might be more work and risk than you're able to have with the project though. |
Temmu Guerra
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:29:00 -
[95] - Quote
Orion GUardian wrote:PS: Especially for people like me with long standing Skill plans, I am going for INT/MEM nowadays and the plan is due to end in 450 days....if Inferno were to force me to get into PEr/will just to get back into my ships it would make me lose even more than just TIME!
You know you could train out of what your currently mapped to... I promise it wont kill you... |
Cass Lie
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:29:00 -
[96] - Quote
Awesome blog. The idea of removing the tier system is beyond great, the streamlining of ship requirements also makes sense. The devil is, as always, in the details. Hope you can come up with something that won't **** off too many players (me included). Good luck. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:30:00 -
[97] - Quote
If this gets done properly, well done, outstanding stuff.
If it doesn't...... "Fools! I'll show them all!"
What do you mean that one's already taken? |
SpaceSquirrels
266
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:30:00 -
[98] - Quote
WOOOOOOHHHOOO
Though I'm now pissed that I trained all those prereq ships...And now might hold off on others.
But I love getting rid of tiers and emphasize role warfare to mix things up, and create new options. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
96
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:30:00 -
[99] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Eugh.... Just what we always wanted... having to spend even *MORE* time cross-training to experience the different races and play styles of EvE.
Battlecruisers is one of the best skills there is for a very good reason; you spend a month training it and then it gives you lots of flexibility. You get it, and it opens lots of doors... and variety is what people enjoy.
If you do this, then a lot of people, myself included, are going to be pissed. It's introducing more drag just for the hell of it. Three additional BC skills to four at the same is what? Another two weeks or something? Throw in one or two races to level five and it's about two more months of subscription time for CCP.
Get yer tinfoils on! |
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:30:00 -
[100] - Quote
Orion GUardian wrote:I Blackbird for example was an easy to train for ship, it will be prolonged for about a week now (doesn't sound much, but if you are a newbie that is quite some time!) Especially as it stands today that Destroyers are very rarely used and considered "useless" by alot of people.
The points of this sort of change is so that CCP can rebalance easier and make sure ships like destroyers have useful roles.
Look forwards, not backwards :D |
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
647
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:30:00 -
[101] - Quote
I have to say, what the hell...
What are the ranks of these skills going to be?
I currently fly 3 races of Command Ships on a regular basis, and all 4 races of battlecruiser. I have alts that fly all 4 in both command ships and battlecruisers. Am I going to be forced to choose one, then train 3 more rank 6 skills from 0 to 5 before I can get back to where I was already?
Oh, and if nobody's said it yet, removing the requirement for Battleship 5 to get into capital ships is a horrible idea. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Dinta Zembo
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:30:00 -
[102] - Quote
Dasrufken wrote:Szilardis wrote:Grideris 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.
Is it possible to instead of refunding the SP, just give the skills instead? Because if you can do so, here is what I would do:
- If a player has Racial Frigate III and Destroyers X - give player Recial Destroyer X for every race they have Racial Frigate III in
- Ditto for Battlecruisers
I could support this. seconded
'thirded'? |
AetomHaert Mother
Star Frontiers Initiative Mercenaries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:31:00 -
[103] - 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.
Then you should fully realize that this is not an appealing way of balancing skill training. I could care less about the reimbursement, I do not want to train 90 more days to have an awesome oracle, awesome talos/myrm and awesome cane.
As a bitter vet who has payed you lots of money over 2 accounts over 5 years and has cross trained almost every ship class, I just saw a little roid rage red. Maybe I am over reacting, but thats $40 worth of wasted training time. |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
773
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:32:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP please fix your images they crash the dev blog pages as the browsers seem to load them at full size.
Anyway.....
First, I dont want to have to train 5 different bc's to 5 again so i can fly my command ships, especially when i own one from each race. Doing so just screws over the vets who trained all this stuff to 5. So you really need to think long and hard about how you are going to gives us all skill points so that they are all trained to 5.
Next - the charts make it look like capitals have a lower barrier of entry. BAD! BAD CCP! no cookies for you. If anything capitals need a steeper barrier of entry. |
Garr Earthbender
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:33:00 -
[105] - Quote
Me gusta. -Rock is overpowered, Scissors is fine. |
Nomad I
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:34:00 -
[106] - Quote
I'm flying already all BC, BS from 3 faction and all hacs regulary. It would be awful to start training again and to me a reason not to play eve. |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
714
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:34:00 -
[107] - Quote
Intrigued by the idea, worried about the implementation. All the more reason to vote for someone who actually flies these ships for CSM 7
(I fly all these ships~) |
YouShouldntEatIt
Matte Gray
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:34:00 -
[108] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:Changing skill requirements, Yes. Being able to train for, for instance, recons without having to train for covert ops first. That I can agree with.
The only thing about this that doesn't make sense to me is to fly a battlecruiser (essentially a bigger cruiser) requires the cruiser skill. so why shouldn't a recon (essentially a bigger covert op) require covert op skills?
Of course, this is just how I view the ship progression in eve. Maybe it's because I grew up with the current system >.> |
Neddy Fox
FireStar Inc Curatores Veritatis Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:34:00 -
[109] - Quote
Having command ship 5 and 4 jumpclones with mindlinks, flying all 4 command ships regularly I hope this won't bite back if implemented wrong.
I will not train 4 times BC5 and CS5 unless I get somehow all SP's for all 4 races reimbursed so I don't lose any capability.
|
Cannonball1
101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:35:00 -
[110] - Quote
Any general skillbooks that you make racial (i.e., Destroyer, Battlecruiser, etc.) had better be refunded at 4 times the skillpoints so that current pilots can immediately train the racial equivalent of each ship to previous levels. Failure to do so will create severe disruptions for 0.0 pilots who fly different races of such ships. Failure to do so would also be unfair to pilots who trained those skills to level V expressly because they were so versatile. |
|
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:35:00 -
[111] - Quote
Liang Nuren 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 goes far beyond simply unappealing. It is simply not practical. We've got dozens of battlecruisers in the wormhole we live in and potentially nobody would even be able to fly them for months. The best solution is not to reimburse BC/Destroyer SP but to give everyone the racial skills at the level they have them trained when the books are seeded. -Liang There is a problem with that, I and many others don't want the extra skill points. I might go with that option if CCP would also allow us to trim skills away so that we don't get too many skill points. |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:35:00 -
[112] - Quote
This is going to be controversial.
First, I will say that the proposed changes sound really great. The more I think about it the better it feels like it will be. Taking away tiers is a very good idea. You'l have to bear in mind the mineral composition of each ship because if you make something that was a very low tier really really good, then no one will buy anything else, because with a lower mineral composition it will cost less to buy.
Im sure I dont have to say this, but CCP is going to need to be very very careful with the skills. If you stop people from being able to fly ships that they can already fly (and probably love to play), then your going to have an uprising. In the same way, if you make it so people who have spent a great deal of time training for optimal use of a certain ship are now crap with it, you'l get the same effect.
Long and Short of it; Like the sound of the changes to ships, but be very very careful when playing with people's skills.
o7 |
Jax Mones
Barr Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:35:00 -
[113] - Quote
this is the stupidest idea i've EVER heard..
Que the riots and usubs.. how the **** did this even get sugested? |
Yakumo Smith
The Forsakened Companions
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:35:00 -
[114] - Quote
In eve, decisions you make with skills are supposed to carry with you.
I have made a point of not training Yak into Capital ships. I have instead cross trained into all subcap combat ships. This was a decision I took when I first started playing 95m SP ago.
This change feels like I am being punished for actually planning ahead with my character. While I agree a simplified tree would be nice, but it doesn't change the fact I have a potentially large number of skills I need to train in order to be able to use the current ships I do at the efficiency level I do. (so no I would not consider giving me the racial skills to IV + all the SP from BC V as a "win")
There is a growing trend of these mini respecs, disguised in different clothes, but respecs none the less.
Learning skills - was a respec Social skills - respec This change - respec
I think it's time you just bite the bullet and push all changes of this type that could appear in the future in one go and give a respec rather than giving everyone a respec over time in drips and drabs.
|
Catho Sharn
Don't Die Interstellar Enterprises
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:36:00 -
[115] - Quote
Forcing more roadblocks into the ship skills tree is a terrible idea.
|
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:36:00 -
[116] - Quote
YouShouldntEatIt wrote: The only thing about this that doesn't make sense to me is to fly a battlecruiser (essentially a bigger cruiser) requires the cruiser skill. so why shouldn't a recon (essentially a bigger covert op) require covert op skills?
Of course, this is just how I view the ship progression in eve. Maybe it's because I grew up with the current system >.>
Yeah. Ignoring the class size tiers, the current system did make sense. Doesn't mean it should stay that way though.
|
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
75
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:37:00 -
[117] - Quote
first thing i thought after reading about the skill changes was "all those guys in null sec will be fighting tooth and nail in frigates cause barely anyone will have trained destroyers" and on another note of that at least add another 1 or 2 destroyers to actualy make that class worth even moving into after frigate. |
Milamar Tokugawa
Tribal Core
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:37:00 -
[118] - Quote
No. Just no.
Carriers with battleship 4?
No. |
Tore Vest
286
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:37:00 -
[119] - Quote
NICE... !!! All my plans and goals for me and my alts out of the window...
This game is getting dumber..
A real highsec carebear. |
SamGromoff
Padded Helmets
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:38:00 -
[120] - Quote
Kozmic wrote:For those of us with all racial sub-caps, that is a lot of re-training. SP reimbursment should take that into account - if I had BC V and have race X BS V, then I should get race X BC V.
Edit: also, :ccp:
This or some version of this {BC V + Cruiser V} should be 100% the way to go.
However, I understand that CCP may balk at giving everyone an effective 8 million free SP (i.e. I train BC V and the effective Cruiser V now -> I get all four racial skills down the road). So what I suggest is a further rebalancing of the rank of the effective ship skills.
Currently, BCs are a Rank 6 skill (1.56m SP) and cruisers are Rank 5 (1.28m). To fly all cruisers and BCs perfectly thus costs 6.68m SP. But what if we lower the requirements?
Cruisers = Rank 3 (768k SP) Racial BCs = Rank 4 (1024k SP)
To fly everything perfectly would now take just over 7m SP, meaning the difference is just over a week of training. Of course, CCP could always credit us that little bit extra if they like
Under this system, the change would take place as follows:
1)Refund everyone the difference for every cruiser skill. Your old Amarr Cruiser V skill would change to Rank 3 and you'd get 512k free SP in the bargain;
2)Delete the old BC skill; your BC V is worth 1.56m free SP;
3)Implement the new racial BC skills at 1024k each.
Example: I currently have Amarr Cruiser V, Caldari Cruiser V and BC IV. The change gives me 1m free SP from the lowered rank of the cruisers + 271k SP from the deleted BC skill. I could then spend 1.024m SP on a single Racial BC V and have 271k left over, spend 450k SP on two BC IVs and have about 800k left over, or go do something else - it's my call.
Most people would be slightly better off than they are now while heavy crosstrainers would be slightly worse off, but no one would be badly nerfed like many cruiser specialists would be under the current proposal.
Destroyer specialists are a little tougher because frigates are Rank 1 and can't be lowered further, but not hugely so. If CCP refunds the destroyer skill at rank 2, then makes the new racial destroyer skill rank 1, 4 race crosstrainers would be out 3 weeks of training time, which isn't horrific. Ideally, CCP would refund the existing destroyer skill as if it were rank 3, saving us a bit of pain, but I'd be willing to live without that.
--
Under this plan, the most free SP anyone could get is just over 4 million. These players would then have to retrain about 8m skillpoints' worth of ships - again, bad but not horrific. Anyone that specialized in 1 or 2 races, though, would actually be better off.
The price would be lowering the time it takes to fly a t1 cruiser. I submit that this is not a huge loss for Eve Online.
please upvote if you like this, tia |
|
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:38:00 -
[121] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:first thing i thought after reading about the skill changes was "all those guys in null sec will be fighting tooth and nail in frigates cause barely anyone will have trained destroyers" and on another note of that at least add another 1 or 2 destroyers to actualy make that class worth even moving into after frigate.
oh yeah! Add some more destroyer types! |
Velicitia
Open Designs
741
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:39:00 -
[122] - Quote
drdxie wrote:hell, I even trained for T2 torps for use on the naga.
You sure you're playing the same game as the rest of us?
|
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
408
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:39:00 -
[123] - Quote
Oh hey, CCP looking to rebalance ships? This is my fort+¬, prom4csm CSM Candidate & PVP Samurai RE-ELECT PROM4CSM7 www.promsrage.com |
Grady Eltoren
Aviation Professionals for EVE
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:39:00 -
[124] - Quote
I LIKE THIS DEV BLOG.
One of my FIRST thoughts when I started playing EVE years ago was that the ship progression should be exactly this way. I could not understand why it wasn't set deeper to have to train racial battlecruiser.
IN RE: to all the whiners (I.e. Liang etc etc) - You people lobby all the time for EVE to be tougher and crueler. Well then don't B%#$@ when things are set straight.
Furthermore, CCP is going to help by letting us reallocate. Like Trebor said, you should be PRAISING CCP for the work they are putting in to REFRESH EVE.
.....
Posting in what is sure to be an EPIC whiners thread.
Grady
P.S. as I type this the pages have jumped from 4-6 in two minutes - WOAH....er rather....WAH :) |
Fird
SH Brotherhood
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:39:00 -
[125] - Quote
Here's a thought. Scrap the idea, think of something less ********. You idiots are running this game into the ground already.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:40:00 -
[126] - Quote
Well, I can't criticize you for a lack of ambition...
1) Do not refund/reimburse SP in destroyers and battlecruisers, please. Transfer the SP into all four of the racial skills, so that we aren't stuck spending three months making ourselves able to fly the ships we currently can. I love me some BCs/CSes, and I'll be pissed if I spend months unable to fly them.
2) If you're sticking destroyers in the main line of ships, and not as an optional extra, then they need to be less crap. This had better come with a serious buff, particularly to their missioning capabilities.
3) Tiers are only a problem if they're done badly. For example, battleship tiering is done quite well, and doesn't need to be changed. But yes, frigate/cruiser tiering needs an overhaul.
4) I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with "ship lines". It sounds like you're thinking the right way, but I don't know what actual gameplay changes will result. Is this just a replacement for the tier system, or are you going to use it as a reason to add a bunch of new ships? |
ReptilesBlade
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:40:00 -
[127] - Quote
I LOVE it! |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
919
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:41:00 -
[128] - Quote
Shin Dari wrote:Liang Nuren 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 goes far beyond simply unappealing. It is simply not practical. We've got dozens of battlecruisers in the wormhole we live in and potentially nobody would even be able to fly them for months. The best solution is not to reimburse BC/Destroyer SP but to give everyone the racial skills at the level they have them trained when the books are seeded. -Liang There is a problem with that, I and many others don't want the extra skill points. I might go with that option if CCP would also allow us to trim skills away so that we don't get too many skill points.
I'm well beyond giving a **** what my total SP count is. I simply refuse to have things taken away from me. Fortunately, CCP Soundwave agrees with me.
-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
|
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
195
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:41:00 -
[129] - Quote
Wow - what a devblog.
I predict this has the potential to become one of the biggest threadnaughts ever!
:: gets popcorn ::
I support this process and discussion, but the Devs will have to be very proactive here discussing with the players, since these changes reach into so many parts of the game. Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so.. Vote for Scott Manley / Skye Aurorae for CSM 7 An Expert in Dealing with Childish Arguments Over Toys. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68506 |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
263
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:42:00 -
[130] - Quote
Great blog! Looking forward to some details on the actual stat changes. |
|
SigmaPi
Valkyr Industries Late Night Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:42:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tread lightly here, CCP - while its all logical, you have the ability to really destroy and enrage a lot of your bread 'n butter players - us old people don't like being screwed with. |
SamTheTrader
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:42:00 -
[132] - Quote
next time put even larger images (in terms of filesize) into the page of the blog. don't bother with things like preview images |
Cronus Zontanos
Twin Paradox 0rizen Nation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:42:00 -
[133] - Quote
Ugh. I love this game but you whining people really get on my nerves. Everyone complains about FiS content and balance, CCP moves to make sweeping balance changes that actually make sense, and everyone complains that it's too much change. You people are impossible. |
killer139139
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:43:00 -
[134] - Quote
Quote:ISD BH Bunnykore > Honestly skills that take a month to train just feel like something to force people to stay interested and PAYING for the game. |
Arline Kley
Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:43:00 -
[135] - Quote
I'm surprised they had to wiki-link an Oil Platform. |
yoyaz
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:43:00 -
[136] - Quote
Fird wrote:Here's a thought. Scrap the idea, think of something less ********. You idiots are running this game into the ground already.
2nd |
ReptilesBlade
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:44:00 -
[137] - Quote
Herschel Yamamoto wrote:
4) I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with "ship lines". It sounds like you're thinking the right way, but I don't know what actual gameplay changes will result. Is this just a replacement for the tier system, or are you going to use it as a reason to add a bunch of new ships?
I took it to mean they are going to use it to add a lot of new ships.
A lot of ships. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
292
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:44:00 -
[138] - Quote
your huge-ass images have murdered my browser to death, fix this please jesus christ. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
548
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:44:00 -
[139] - Quote
I like the direction. Curious how bumpy the road will be getting there.
|
Prime FLux
The Rising Stars The Volition Cult
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:44:00 -
[140] - Quote
*posting in epic threadnought*
|
|
David Rivard
Republic University Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:45:00 -
[141] - Quote
And here I was worried they were getting back on the right track. Thank god the incompetent CCP I know and love is back.
For the love of christ, this is a terrible, terrible idea. Don't you dare take away the ability to train generic battlecruisers/destroyers. That's a ray of hope for the new player that they wont be spending months in training hell just to be able to play with the big boys and their cookie cutter fleets. |
Ethino
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:45:00 -
[142] - Quote
So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? |
YouShouldntEatIt
Matte Gray
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:46:00 -
[143] - Quote
Anja Talis wrote:YouShouldntEatIt wrote: The only thing about this that doesn't make sense to me is to fly a battlecruiser (essentially a bigger cruiser) requires the cruiser skill. so why shouldn't a recon (essentially a bigger covert op) require covert op skills?
Of course, this is just how I view the ship progression in eve. Maybe it's because I grew up with the current system >.>
Yeah. Ignoring the class size tiers, the current system did make sense. Doesn't mean it should stay that way though.
Very true. I just like the way they build off eachother. It makes you feel like you're specializing more if you have a few prereqs related to the ship you wanna fly, rather than a newb saying "Oh I want to fly a bigger covop ship, lemme just train this one skill to level 1 and voila!"
I realize they may be trying to make the game "easier" for new people, they seem to be destroying the immersion that I've grown fond of. |
Jax Mones
Barr Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:46:00 -
[144] - Quote
Shin Dari wrote:Liang Nuren 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 goes far beyond simply unappealing. It is simply not practical. We've got dozens of battlecruisers in the wormhole we live in and potentially nobody would even be able to fly them for months. The best solution is not to reimburse BC/Destroyer SP but to give everyone the racial skills at the level they have them trained when the books are seeded. -Liang There is a problem with that, I and many others don't want the extra skill points. I might go with that option if CCP would also allow us to trim skills away so that we don't get too many skill points.
I have, personally dozens of drakes hurricanes talos and oracles that i use on a daily basis. my skillset is made around it.
if they reset BC skills alone, that would mean: Give me ALL my heavy missile sp back (not gonna use it cause i wont train drake to 5) Give me Sige warfare, and adv 5 back (not gonna use it cause i'm not gonna train vulture to 5) Give me Large Hybrid sp back, i'm not training in to a Talos anymore Give me Caldari Carrier 5 sp back ( i have both caldari and amarr carrier ) Give me Caldari BS lvl 5 sp back ( read above) Give me Capital Shield Transport bacp Give me Caldari Dreadnought sp back Give me Citadel Torpedo sp back Give me Citadel Cruise missle sp back
and i can keep going
all these will no longer be useable with the implemention of "racial bc required for larger ships"
this is why this is ********. |
Nistrak
Balanced Unity Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:46:00 -
[145] - Quote
CCP, I hope you figure out the skill reimbursement in a way, that the players can fly every ship they can fly at the moment. Fore example : If a player has BC V today, giving the players as much skill points as needed to train all racial BC to V.
It suggest to give players the necessery skills to train the ships they can actually fly. For example, if a player has Amarr and caldari cruiser at III and BC V. The Amarr and Caldari BC skill at 0 + skillpoints to train all four BC to V |
Time Funnel
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
93
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:46:00 -
[146] - Quote
Rebalancing ships and re-assigning skills seem to be two separate issues and could be dealt with separately.
There is a lot of pretty pictures and I like to think I understand EVE but after reading the OP I am left wondering and that makes me nervous.
My skill trainings have been teamed up with remaps and year-long training queues. If I find that I need to remap and train ship skills again I will not be very happy at all. I better still be able to fly the ships that I already fly at the same competency levels.
Edit: And if you are going to have skills like Racial Destroyer, then they should be WAY faster to train than they currently are. Accelerated learning curves would be appealing to new players.
Finding a role for the useless ships in the game is a good thing and I am not going to stand in the way of ANY progress that goes into this. I would rather have constant (monthly) buffs and eventually nerfs every patch than the stagnant desert that is the EVE ship universe. |
Evanga
Trust Doesn't Rust Ineluctable.
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:47:00 -
[147] - Quote
ok ....
first, you made me log on to this stinking ****** forums... second, what the freaky deaky feck is wrong with you guys.
"Nothing is written in stone yet..." UP YOURS!
I guess you will push it through anywayz.
-2 paying accounts. |
JudgeBob
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:47:00 -
[148] - Quote
What jumped out at me in a big way was that moving from the tier system to a role system seems to dump some sand out of the sandbox
Yes, as it is now under the tier system, some ships are utilized more than others, and many have come to be used mostly in specific roles as players have discovered how to use them most effectively. That's what the sandbox is all about! So why care if some roles or ships are less utilized? People will do what they want and part of the pleasure for many is exploring ship role potential
By removing the more generic tier system and replacing it with structured roles, it may remove a lot of the open sandbox feel
The other red flag that I'm sure will get major attention is tinkering with skills progression. We all know that everybody is sensitive to changing skills that have already been trained. The SP reimbursement method for removing a skill from the game seems a good way to handle it, but I'm unclear exactly how the nested skill situation works out when a new skill is added and becomes a prerequisite for a skill already trained
If I have BS5 and a new racial BC4 becomes required to train BS, does this mean I automatically get BC4 trained? The way I understood the plan, generic BC will go away and be replaced with 4 racial BC skills, each required to be trained up to some level as a requirement to train BS. I'm unclear how this works if I've already trained BS. |
Razesdarked
Onyx Brotherhood
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:47:00 -
[149] - Quote
This whole skill rebalancing seems to made under the pretense that all races have ships to fit every role. Which is not only wrong, but would be destructive to gameplay Races have different focuses, strengths and weaknesses. By increasing time to cross-train different races, you are by extention limiting peoples options for fitting into the situation at hand.
This also seems very limiting on new players getting into null-sec fleets. I spent a good month to be able to fly the races needed in our fleet doctrines, and your proposed change would make my character semi useless in fleets for up to 1/6 of a year. Im not sure where this is supposed to help the game I would not enjoy spending 2+ months waiting to get in on the action I stepped into 0.0 for.
By going away from the tier based system and into a more role-based focus you would either have t A) Rebalance all ships so that all races have one ship or more that fits every role you wish to have. Thus making all ships less distinctive to make the pain for cross-training tolerable again in exchange for simpler gameplay where you have less options on customizing your fleet to any real advantage B) Keep the ship/race diversity and basicly shoehorn players into one shiptype/role or force them to cross-train to be able to experience the diverse gameplay or be useful in groups
The double edged nature of group gameplay is that when it is working, its more fun, but when something goes wrong for 1, it can ruin the day for the rest of the group. The more optimal approach to skilltraining would be making it EASIER to fly a new (T1) ship type or race by lowering skill requirements to advance from 4 to 3. To get everyone where they want to be faster, and let their skills train when they are flying that ship and getting better at using it. Instead of some arbitary counter reaching zero so you can go out and actually start playing
P.S. CCP ... Y.. Somethng!! wrote Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane,[b] Dominix, Myrmidon.[/b
When has the Dominix and Myrmidon have been known for their speed or DPS? In fact, when talking about Gallente. I have alot of questions about gallente * Why does the T2 Drone Cruiser(Ishtar) have 125 in bandwidth while the T2 Drone Battlecruiser(Eos) has 75 * Why does the Drone boats have to sacrifice most of its DPS to be able to do Electronic warfare drones, while any other race drops alot less with equally as effective ECM drones The Myrmidon does most of its DPS from Drones, while the Hurricane can drop the same ammount of Hornet ECM drones, and be equally as efficient. * Why does blasters require you to be so up close, but none of their ships really have the ability to dictate range The already pretty awesome Loki gets a web bonus, despite its ability to hit with autocannons at range. While the Proteus who needs to be close are unable to get there as easy
|
Kalestra Cable
Faust Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:47:00 -
[150] - Quote
Great blog and good stuff.
Looking forward to more details |
|
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Dark Matter Coalition
951
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:47:00 -
[151] - Quote
All of this sounds awesome, completely and utter awesome. The destroyer and BC thing makes sense to me and I assume the reimbursement will go over fine.
Being able to use the lower teir ships for specific purposes and seeing that possibility for new ships is AWESOME.
Personally I think the support ships should have high mobility to counter act their low defense.
Also, have a look at the turret and missile systems, the way they work now would still lend itself to making BCs the back bone of fleets and not the BSes since BCs using medium guns make them the perfect balance between BS DPS/tank and cruiser mobility. They still should have that balance but BSes should still be better/viable. The Drake is a Lie |
Abon
Pandorum Research Incorporated
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:48:00 -
[152] - Quote
oh boy here we go. |
Andrea Griffin
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:48:00 -
[153] - Quote
WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE REAL CCP?
Seriously though - killing the tier system is something the player base has wanted for YEARS now, and finally it's on the horizon. I'm very excited at what this means for the future of Eve. People wanted new ships? Well, something like this will give us a dozen ships (or more) per race all at once.
This will keep PvP interesting for a long time to come. GÖÑ CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars RED.OverLord
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:48:00 -
[154] - Quote
Does this mean that we could in the future see more destroyers? |
Akelorian
FinFleet Raiden.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:48:00 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Soundwave, nerfing eve for the greater goon, yet another change that aids his old alliance in eve, favourtism? I think so way to go!
Edit: Before Denial of aiding his old alliance/Goons defending soundwave |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
1866
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:48:00 -
[156] - Quote
Palovana wrote:Those are some HUGE-ASS images, and trust me, I know huge ass.
The image size issue has been resolved. Sorry about that!
CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |
|
Di Mulle
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:49:00 -
[157] - Quote
A proper SP reimbursement will be the huge headache by itself. But lets not forget the somehow smaller but still real annoyance. Skillbooks.
If I will be reimbursed not with skills I will need to fly the same ships I can now, but just with a pile of free SP, I still will need to acquire new skillbooks. Even if reimbursed with ISK, you still need to get them from somewhere they are seeded. For a many that may become a serious annoyance - wormholes, again. I guess it will be "not appealing" as well.
In general, no matter how much work will be put to prepare this process, it will still cause a big inconvenience for many, and will be perceived even as a bigger. As always. I think, a simple "streamlining of skills" is not worth it at all. A change for a sake of change. Potential better ship balancing, however, is. I just want to ask if CCP realizes that putting that inconvenience onto players bounds them to that big commitment of a much better balancing. I don't want to suffer through this process only to see a balancing task forgotten again half-done.
CCP is unable to implement simpliest things. Like settting to hide signatures. So they sweep it under a rug . Children do that in their pre-shool years, CCP does it being adults. Probably because it is fearless enough. |
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC 0ccupational Hazzard
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:50:00 -
[158] - Quote
oh fuking great.
I have minnie cruiser and gallente cruiser 5, bc 5 and destroyer 5. Obviously not including I will lose use of tornado or talos, my carrier/dreads...complete fukin joke.
I fly the astarte, the sleipner, all of the dictors.
So basically your are going to reimburse BC 5 skillpoints and then I have to choose one of them.
get fuked, shower of ****.
Heres an idea, fix bots, fix FW, nerf the drake, fix drones, make missions less boring, make 0.0 less *****, fix ecm and ecm drones, actually finish WiS, nerf titans, nerf supercarriers, fix the eagle, fix the eos, fix info links, nerf off grid t3's, fix blops jump range/fuel usage.
FIX **** THAT MATTERS Everytime you dont like my comments/posts the terrorists win and your a disgrace to your country. |
agram tabris
Immortal Legion Pure Madness.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:50:00 -
[159] - Quote
Morwen Lagann 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.
I understand the sentiment of wanting to streamline the skill trees, but if you're going to remove the generic Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills, for those of us who have trained both of them to 5, if we don't get *all four* of the racial skills reimbursed all the way to 5, you are going to have a very, very large and angry mob on your hands.
this. |
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:51:00 -
[160] - Quote
For a new player:
Drake: 3 skills (current scheme) vs 4 skills (new scheme) - 33% increase in skills. +Hurricane: 5 skills vs 8 skills - 60% increase in skills required. +Harbringer: 7 skills vs 12 skills - 71% increase in skills required. +Myrmidon: 9 skills vs 16 skills - 78% increase in skills required!
Effectively, you're almost doubling the amount of skills a new player will have to train in order to crosstrain.
Additionally, you're removing one of the big incentives for crosstraining, namely if I train up two skills, I get access to a whole new range of ships for free! Training racial frigate and cruiser, two skills that can be trained in a short amount of time, would give a new player access to battlecruiser at whatever level they had battlecruisers trained to before.
Under this scheme, crosstraining for another race instead becomes a chore.
This is inherently new player UNFRIENDLY, as well as being excessively annoying for veteran players. |
|
Aeril Malkyre
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:52:00 -
[161] - Quote
This will be an incredible change if it falls together correctly. It will fundamentally alter pretty much everything about flying in the game, and that is a huge risk that I'm glad the Devs are willing to take. A more logical ship progression is badly needed, and I'm stoked about the possibility of old ship types getting new uses, and limiting out the roles of various hulls so that their contemporaries get a chance to do their job.
Completely understand all the rage about crosstraining, but I think they've got the point. Save your tears for when they come up with an actual solution for the reimbursement, judge it then.
This change opens up a lot of doors for the game, and the possibility of new ships (!!!!!!!!), which I think we can all agree is a Good ThingGäó. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
805
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:52:00 -
[162] - Quote
The amount of rage in this thread is equally proportional to those that havent read all the posts before theirs
The simlpest way of handling this would be to refuns FOUR times the SP removed from a pilot to instantly pay for the 4 new racial variants of destroyers and Battlecruisers.
I know this would be my prefered choice as i fly all 4 racial variants
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3377
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:52:00 -
[163] - Quote
About time, honestly one of those things that should have been done AGES ago.
And just when I thought I got all the sub caps trained up to max.
|
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers Initiative Mercenaries
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:52:00 -
[164] - Quote
I have to say im happy that you are looking into this. I even think the ideas you propose are fine. HOWEVER!
For those of us who have trained dessy 5 and Battlecruiser 5 - if you do make skills for each race you MUST give us all racial skills to 5. We have trained that and its not our fault you are changing skills.
If someone had dessy 3 and bc 4 for instance give them that level of skill for each race. Its not perfect I know but there is no way in hell im training bc 5 again for every race. Training it once for commandships was **** enough.
You want to **** people off and lose players then go ahead. Otherwise give us the same skill level in each racial ship should you go ahead with this plan.
A little bit of isk and skillpoint reimbursement is NOT enough.
Just warning you now as I know there is heated disscussion on this topic. |
AdamiaMaxima
4U Services Inc. 4U Holdings Inc
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:52:00 -
[165] - Quote
Yeah, okay....
NO
-Adamia You cant outrun death forever, but you sure can make the people trying to kill you work for it.-á |
Mallikanth
L V B Industries
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:53:00 -
[166] - Quote
I like the ideas. I like the plan. I like that no-one will end up with ships they can no longer fly. I like that you're asking the players (and the CSM?) and taking on board what people say.
Oh, yes. And I like it even though the transition is going to be difficult (To engineer for the Devs and to experience by the players).
Believe in what they do, not what they say.
|
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:53:00 -
[167] - Quote
Evanga wrote:ok ....
first, you made me log on to this stinking ****** forums... second, what the freaky deaky feck is wrong with you guys.
"Nothing is written in stone yet..." UP YOURS!
I guess you will push it through anywayz.
-2 paying accounts.
The Rage is strong with this one... |
Seismic Stan
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:53:00 -
[168] - Quote
I came to complain about something as I understand that's what we're meant to do on these forums, but I can't quite get my head around the implications on these changes at the moment so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Seriously though, it sounds exciting and I'm loving those ship flow charts. However, if you're removing tiers, what do the numbers within each size class at the top represent? Blogger on Freebooted. Co-Creator of Tech4 podcast and website. Author of Incarna: The Text Adventure. |
Mehashi 'Kho
Spiritus Draconis
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:54:00 -
[169] - Quote
This is terrible.
This will really mess with the new player progression. You are going to make it more prohibitive for a developing player to try out different ship styles and force more time intensive specialisation, something that as a younger player this game has way too much of already, to a point that it puts some people off trying new ships or parts of the game. And putting people into caps even quicker?
Madness. Horrible idea. Couldn''t be more opposed to this. |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:54:00 -
[170] - Quote
cBOLTSON wrote:I have to say im happy that you are looking into this. I even think the ideas you propose are fine. HOWEVER!
For those of us who have trained dessy 5 and Battlecruiser 5 - if you do make skills for each race you MUST give us all racial skills to 5. We have trained that and its not our fault you are changing skills.
If someone had dessy 3 and bc 4 for instance give them that level of skill for each race. Its not perfect I know but there is no way in hell im training bc 5 again for every race. Training it once for commandships was **** enough.
You want to **** people off and lose players then go ahead. Otherwise give us the same skill level in each racial ship should you go ahead with this plan.
A little bit of isk and skillpoint reimbursement is NOT enough.
Just warning you now as I know there is heated disscussion on this topic.
I'm inclined to agree with this dude, in a slightly softer tone though. |
|
Serge Bastana
GWA Corp
229
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:54:00 -
[171] - Quote
Orion GUardian wrote:I can understand where you come from, trying to get Destroyers and Battlecruisers to racial Variants.
BUT: I always thought them not to be "stepping stones" but intermediate classes. Which made totally sense having the skills not racial.
i.e "You know how to fly X Races Cruisers well, the Batlecruisers rely on the same technology and modules but you need to learn how to control larger ships thats why you need Battlecruiser skill as well"
I think it is not at all necessary to make the Battlecruiser skill racial! Having to Train BCs to IV until one can get into a BS or Destroyers to IV till you can get into a Cruiser will slow down alot of newbies trying to get into useful roles above "Tackler" in any fleet.
Blackbird for example was an easy to train for ship, it will be prolonged for about a week now (doesn't sound much, but if you are a newbie that is quite some time!) Especially as it stands today that Destroyers are very rarely used and considered "useless" by alot of people.
Please think it over, I do NOT think the skill line should be changed.
IF you disaggree and really want to change that, I am strongly for a Reimbursement Plan that will not make Crosstrainers like me train 3 additional Rank 6 Skills to V (2-3 Months?) to be able to fly all the ships again that I can now ;) I go with Liang here: If you have BC X give them Racial BC X*4 as reimbursement!
Unless you want to macke the Racial BC/Racial Destroyer skills all Rank 1 so the SP are enough to get them to the past level.
The destroyers are seen as a stepping stone, they're just a heavier frigate to most people. Before the buff they were pretty much useless other than salvage boats. Even after the buff I'm not sure people will bother training all four racial skills for destroyers, same with BC.
Like another poster said, I can see the idea behind wanting to turn these skills into racials but for those of us with BC to 5 it could be a bitter pill to swallow.
Is this a stealthy Drake nerf perhaps? WoW holds your hand until end game, and gives you a cookie whether you win or lose. EVE not only takes your cookie, but laughs at you for bringing one in the first place... |
Learath
Incendiary Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:54:00 -
[172] - Quote
Huge huge huge change. Overall good, I hope it happens, after *TONS* of testing. |
Lucas Kyu
Shin Hikage Ineluctable.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:55:00 -
[173] - Quote
Removing tiers is a very good and welcome idea. Making useless ships useful again, what's not to like.
The line of bombardment ships seems the short end of the stick though. You might have noticed how useful the Raven is in PVP right now.
But, retroactive skill requirement changes is ******** and UNFAIR. Seriously, don't do that racial bc skill thing. The only reason you've given for that is that it looks better on a spreadsheet. It's not broken as it is now. Keep things fair.
|
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
109
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:56:00 -
[174] - Quote
Thoughts:
Like they said in the dev blog... it's open for discussion
To be honest I don't think capitals should be made easier to train for, but I DO like that they're opening up this kind of dialogue, it will make things very interesting.
There's way too many under utilised ships in game, this will shake things up and make things interesting, they're also letting us know well in advance of what they're planning so discussions can be had and we can say what we do and do not like about it.
Bad Points: Racial BC + Dessy skills.
Good Points: Reclassification of ships + Effort to try and make redundant ships useful again.
Edit: CCP you might want to fix the images in that blog btw, they've been resized but not compressed so they're taking AGES to render and scrolling from top to bottom just took me about a minute (on Chrome at least) |
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
496
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:56:00 -
[175] - Quote
WTS Visio lessons to Ytterbium, 1x PLEX per hour!
I'm glad you guys are looking at tiers :)
The skills changes look interesting for a discussion starter |
Isaac Apylon
Lobster Adoption Agency
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:56:00 -
[176] - Quote
Well, the Tier system disappearing is great, although I'm not sure a role system is quite the best way to go about it. I'm going to have to think about that one. Regardless, I am really looking forward to flying some of the currently 'useless' ships on a regular basis. Some of my favorite hulls are lower tier (and therefore terrible) ships.
The skill system change, though, while logical, is a serious pain in the ass. I trained BC 5 to be able to use ALL the BCs, along with all the required weapon and tank skills. All of that sp is going to be nearly useless for a few months while I retrain all the new BC skills. And God help wormhole residents, you all are just screwed.
|
Jackie Cross
MacGyver Communications
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:56:00 -
[177] - Quote
Heimdallofasgard wrote:Evanga wrote:ok ....
first, you made me log on to this stinking ****** forums... second, what the freaky deaky feck is wrong with you guys.
"Nothing is written in stone yet..." UP YOURS!
I guess you will push it through anywayz.
-2 paying accounts. The Rage is strong with this one... I'm surprised it took that long into the thread before the first "I'm unsubbing /whine" popped up. |
Mister Alt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:57:00 -
[178] - Quote
So the naysayers were right, CCP panics about bending us over ala Incarnia and we get Crucible
Then we shut up and keep paying, they decide to bend us over again. 2/3 of that blog is pure unadulterated bullshit.
I'm all for cruisers and tier 1 BCs becoming actual viable choices instead of "this will get me a fight cos people will laugh at me" but seriously... Leave the crack pipe alone. |
Botrias Pirabus
The Divine Machine
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:57:00 -
[179] - Quote
Read the thread, and love it. Go to it, CCP! |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:57:00 -
[180] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:The amount of rage in this thread is equally proportional to those that havent read all the posts before theirs
The simplest way of handling this would be to refund FOUR times the SP removed from a pilot to instantly pay for the 4 new racial variants of destroyers and Battlecruisers.
I know this would be my prefered choice as i fly all 4 racial variants
So you get extra 7 millions skillpoints while person that does not fly battlecuisers gets nothing.
Is that it ?? ( I have BC 5 my self ) |
|
Nomad I
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:58:00 -
[181] - Quote
Lucas Kyu wrote: But, retroactive skill requirement changes is ******** and UNFAIR. Seriously, don't do that racial bc skill thing. The only reason you've given for that is that it looks better on a spreadsheet. It's not broken as it is now. Keep things fair.
/this |
Miwako Teshigawara
Suddenly Failure
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:58:00 -
[182] - Quote
I think the changes to make EVE more self-consistent are awesome. New players make a lot of assumptions like "Tech 2 is always better than Tech 1 or Faction" and are confused when they discover Tech 2 is for specializing the item. These changes make it easier for new players.
Also, refocusing on ship roles is an excellent change. For the longest time I thought "bigger is better" because that's how other MMOs work... the bigger my ship, the more I'll win. After some sit-downs over TeamSpeak with friends, I've realized that even the little ships matter because of their role. It took me way too long to realize that, and I hope these changes keep new players from a similar fate.
Keep up the good work, CCP! |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:58:00 -
[183] - Quote
Simple, if you have battlecruiser IV today then give all racial battlecruiser IV for the races you have cruiser IV in. |
Makalu Zarya
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:58:00 -
[184] - Quote
So let me get this straight...you are going take people who can fly and have flown ALL battlecruisers perfectly and go...sorry we are gonna nerf you, enjoy retraining everything for another 4 months...oh and you can't fly command ships now either, because you have to train bc skill to V for all the respective races?
and same thing for dictors?
am I right or am i missing something here?
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
578
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:59:00 -
[185] - Quote
Makalu Zarya wrote:So let me get this straight...you are going take people who can fly and have flown ALL battlecruisers perfectly and go...sorry we are gonna nerf you, enjoy retraining everything for another 4 months...oh and you can't fly command ships now either, because you have to train bc skill to V for all the respective races?
and same thing for dictors?
am I right or am i missing something here?
You're missing something :) |
|
Karlhockey Forte
The Ordo Imperialis KRYSIS.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:59:00 -
[186] - Quote
Terrible way of handling something that for all intents and purpose isn't currently broken save for the idea of making things in a graph "cleaner."
Please go back to the drawing board and see if there is any other ways of going about this. |
Jackie Cross
MacGyver Communications
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:00:00 -
[187] - Quote
SamGromoff wrote:-snip- Currently, BCs are a Rank 6 skill (1.56m SP) and cruisers are Rank 5 (1.28m). To fly all cruisers and BCs perfectly thus costs 6.68m SP. But what if we lower the requirements? Cruisers = Rank 3 (768k SP) Racial BCs = Rank 4 (1024k SP) To fly everything perfectly would now take just over 7m SP, meaning the difference is just over a week of training. Of course, CCP could always credit us that little bit extra if they like -snip-
This tbh. Page 6, at the bottom. |
AetomHaert Mother
Star Frontiers Initiative Mercenaries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:00:00 -
[188] - Quote
Cronus Zontanos wrote:Ugh. I love this game but you whining people really get on my nerves. Everyone complains about FiS content and balance, CCP moves to make sweeping balance changes that actually make sense, and everyone complains that it's too much change. You people are impossible.
No we are complaining about losing access to ships we have, fly and love, and in some cases (command ships) are very expensive hulls and fits.
I am all about doing away with the tier system, however messing with peoples skillsets is a little bit of a different story.
"But Aetom," you say, "they did away with the learning skills no problem." Yes but those skills didnt really do anything. We are talking about taking away skills that are directly applicable to playing the game. |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:00:00 -
[189] - Quote
Makalu Zarya wrote:So let me get this straight...you are going take people who can fly and have flown ALL battlecruisers perfectly and go...sorry we are gonna nerf you, enjoy retraining everything for another 4 months...oh and you can't fly command ships now either, because you have to train bc skill to V for all the respective races?
and same thing for dictors?
am I right or am i missing something here?
For starter you are missing the fact that you already have skillpoints to fill one racial BC so you can fly it from the start. |
Alara IonStorm
1730
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:00:00 -
[190] - Quote
Andrea Griffin wrote:WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE REAL CCP?
Seriously though - killing the tier system is something the player base has wanted for YEARS now, and finally it's on the horizon. I'm very excited at what this means for the future of Eve. People wanted new ships? Well, something like this will give us a dozen ships (or more) per race all at once.
This will keep PvP interesting for a long time to come. GÖÑ Skill stuff aside. This so much!
Have more Hearts.
GÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑGÖÑ |
|
Mokokan
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:00:00 -
[191] - Quote
The kneejerk reaction is I'm somewhat apprehensive about how this might lead to the nerf of some of my favorite ships, and I could care less about cap ships, but I really see this as a positve step forward, and would love to see how this develops. A number of ships are just plain useless.
The skill point thing? Whatever. Gotta train something. |
Bastaardicious
FinFleet Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:01:00 -
[192] - Quote
You guys must have really lost common sense this time. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
243
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:01:00 -
[193] - Quote
Easy crosstraining leads to monocultural fleet doctrines.
It's the single biggest reason why people just resort to the Drakes and Hurricanes, and nobody bothers to try anything else.
Limits feed creativity. |
aetherguy881
Malformed Entity
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:01:00 -
[194] - Quote
I really like how you have the full, high-res images only re-sized on that blog... It loves to kill browsers on slower internet connections... |
Riffix
Synergistic Arbitrage
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:01:00 -
[195] - 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.
You've addressed my (and other's) main concern. As long as I can still fly all the things I can now, I love where this is going. This is a great example of CCP really getting to the heart of things that haven't made sense or were neglected for YEARS.
The only problem with this approach is that to make serious changes, things are gonna get shuffled and people will have to change the way they do some things. Players aren't always happy about that and I can only hope that people don't freak out simply because things change. Just keep these types of changes for the better and things should be fine |
Papa Boats
Legio Geminatus Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:02:00 -
[196] - Quote
Bitter vet checking in. I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.
As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.
I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out. |
Prioleau
Four Bird LTD.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:02:00 -
[197] - Quote
Roime wrote:Easy crosstraining leads to monocultural fleet doctrines.
It's the single biggest reason why people just resort to the Drakes and Hurricanes, and nobody bothers to try anything else.
Limits feed creativity.
Spot on! |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:02:00 -
[198] - Quote
That's rather saucy and all, but is this just pure ******* punishment for those who can fly all racial destroyers and battlecruisers? Are you really going to force us to train three additional racial skills just to fly the ships we used to fly? This won't fly and you know it. |
Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:03:00 -
[199] - 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.
That last part isn't quite true, unless you quadruple the skillpoints you return to us for Destroyers and Battlecruisers. Since with Battlecruisers IV (and the related sub-skills) I can fly every battlecruiser in the game, but after this proposed change, I'll only have the skillpoints to pick one Battlecruiser (e.g. Gallente).
Instead, you should replace the existing Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills that people have into their new components. So someone with Destroyers V would now get Amarr Destroyers V, Caldari Destroyers V, Gallente Destroyers V, and Minmatar Destroyers V. That way those who've invested in this skill, and the sub-skills, are not now suddenly locked out of the ship(s) they have. |
Virgil Travis
GWA Corp
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:03:00 -
[200] - Quote
Heimdallofasgard wrote: To be honest I don't think capitals should be made easier to train for, but I DO like that they're opening up this kind of dialogue, it will make things very interesting.
Not so sure that's a good thing myself, maybe that one should be left alone. Admittedly there are plenty of other skills required to fly caps effectively but allowing pilots to get into them with BS4 may well lead to a lot of comedy kill mails and whines and we have enough of that right now. |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
598
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:04:00 -
[201] - Quote
Papa Boats wrote:Bitter vet checking in. I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.
As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.
I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out.
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. |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:04:00 -
[202] - Quote
Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Lolmer
Yahoo Inc Caffeine Nicotine and Hate
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:04:00 -
[203] - Quote
Your image links (at least some of them), they are broken. e.g. the new Gallente tier points to http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Gallenteshiptree2.jpghttp:/content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Gallenteshiptree2.jpg (notice the double-URL), but should point to http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Gallenteshiptree2.jpg. |
Harotak
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:04:00 -
[204] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Tech 2 philosophy is all about specializing into a specific hull and role, thus, requiring players to train for Assault Ships, then Heavy Assault Ships when aiming for Field Command Ships, is quite redundant.
If T2 is about specializing in a specific role, can we get T2 turret spec skills to not require the smaller gun size spec skills as prerequisites? |
Dansel
Revenge of the Noobs Mortal Destruction
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:05:00 -
[205] - Quote
There are two part of this blog to me: a good one and a not so good (but with promise) one.
The good part would be the removing of tiers, thank you for that. Tiers is a stupid system and needs to be changed, and the change you propose seem good, although it will make, well, all(?) fits obsolete and in the need of a remake but I think that might be good as well.
Now what is the not so good part is the skill remake. It will make the life of a newbie tenfold (fourfold to be more precis) worse. In order to become valuable to a fleet in the role of say... logi you'll need to train at least two racial cruisers and two logis to 5. and for each new shipclass you wish to fly you need to train between twice and four times as much SP in order to do so. This will even further widen the crack between new and old players. And depending on what kind of reimbursement you'll give out it might be even worse.
It will also make it way harder for new players to try new ships and adapt to new corps. It will also mean a new player wanting to crosstrain will have to spend a lot more time doing so. Now I am not against making it harder to crosstrain, but screwing over newbies are rarely a good thing to do.
|
Zaxix
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:06:00 -
[206] - Quote
Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.
As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.
What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now... Red Frog--Hisec Courier Black Frog--Losec/Nosec Courier
|
Ilany
Nightingale Enterprises
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:06:00 -
[207] - Quote
Extending the ship specialisation sounds great - there are sooo many classes that never get used because the PvP system has evolved haphazardly over the years. However, to be effective any change also needs to review:
a) Environments: Re-profiling ships won't help if the environments in which PvP takes place are not changed.
b) Counters: more rock/paper/scissors and less blob-wins-all.
Combat in EVE lacks something - generally the blob wins regardless of position or composition. Some smaller-scale fights are more interesting because the FC can make better use of specialist ships. I have a video that R&K released of a wormhole battle where the fleet positioning, the tenacity of the FC and the skill of specialised pilots beat a much larger fleet. That kind of leads into environments - space is a bit bland because physics has no role in EVE (except in wormholes). For example acceleration should be more difficult close to a planet because it has a gravity field - this should favour the "artillery" ships over the "assault" ships described in the blogs. |
Bastaardicious
FinFleet Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:06:00 -
[208] - Quote
Lolmer 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. 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.
That last part isn't quite true, unless you quadruple the skillpoints you return to us for Destroyers and Battlecruisers. Since with Battlecruisers IV (and the related sub-skills) I can fly every battlecruiser in the game, but after this proposed change, I'll only have the skillpoints to pick one Battlecruiser (e.g. Gallente). Instead, you should replace the existing Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills that people have into their new components. So someone with Destroyers V would now get Amarr Destroyers V, Caldari Destroyers V, Gallente Destroyers V, and Minmatar Destroyers V. That way those who've invested in this skill, and the sub-skills, are not now suddenly locked out of the ship(s) they have.
+1
So now we exchange 1.5m SP in Battlecruisers V for 6m in racial BC's ... will you give me 5m SP for free CCP ?
Thanks.
And what will happen to supercapital pilots? be bumped out of their ship for not having required skills? |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
805
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:06:00 -
[209] - Quote
FYI - in the future when you make a 'ship tree', nobody cares about the ships manufacturer.
Unless this has some real meaning for the future, remove it, they are T2 ships.
Having three differently colored borders for T2 ships is unnecessary.
|
Littlefat46
Viperfleet Inc. Narwhals Ate My Duck
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:06:00 -
[210] - Quote
I donot like what I see hope not to los skill points and train skills again to fly that ship again |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
271
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:06:00 -
[211] - Quote
/me facepalms
Teachs me not to heed my own advice about reading all dev posts
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.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:07:00 -
[212] - Quote
Train BCV and destroyerV now for free skillpoints |
Celeritas 5k
Connoisseurs of Candid Coitus
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:07:00 -
[213] - Quote
The spirit of the idea -- making useless ships useful again and simplifying ship progression, I am 100% in favor of. Implementation of the idea will make or break everything.
I've always liked having destroyers and BCs as an intermediate ship class; a completely linear tree is boring, restrictive, and uninteresting. Why not base some of the BC bonuses on that race's cruiser skill level? Take the drake for example: the tanking bonus could come from your BC skill, but the damage bonus would come from your caldari cruiser skill. That way BC 5 is still worthwhile, but training some race's cruiser to 3 doesn't automatically give you their BC with perfect skills as well.
We don't need more capitals running around; please don't change the requirement to BS IV.
Removal of tiers would be great, if implemented properly. Don't throw everything out the window, just boost crappy ships until they're worth using again. (Part of that is my inner bitter vet, who doesn't want to re-learn the entire game...)
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:07:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Makalu Zarya wrote:So let me get this straight...you are going take people who can fly and have flown ALL battlecruisers perfectly and go...sorry we are gonna nerf you, enjoy retraining everything for another 4 months...oh and you can't fly command ships now either, because you have to train bc skill to V for all the respective races?
and same thing for dictors?
am I right or am i missing something here?
You're missing something :) Hey if the tier system is bad why are you replacing it with the role system? Couldn't you just throw the tier system out and deal with every hull on its own?
From what I can figure out from the devblog, today you guys can't rebalance the Bellicose how you want to rebalance the Bellicose because HURRDURR it's a tier 2 cruiser. Wouldn't we be having the same problem in twelve months only then it'll be HURRDURR we can't rebalance it like we want because it's a support cruiser. |
Aida Nu
Nu Industries
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:08:00 -
[215] - Quote
Awesome devblog! If you manage to figure out a good solution to the SP problem for those that have dessy/bc skill at 5 this will be a great change.
Also much love CCP for really focusing on FiS again and making this awesome game even better. |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:08:00 -
[216] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours?
A littelbit yes, they still need to have the correct bonuses and slots for the roles to work. A lot of t1 ships doesnt have that today. |
Ballz Diesel
Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:08:00 -
[217] - Quote
fab24 wrote:WTF? I spent 6 years training skills that you're going to remove? Fail level : CCP
I think you had your attributes mapped wrong... |
Ottersmacker
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:08:00 -
[218] - Quote
I was making reading of the EVE developer journal.
Talk of making one battlecruiser skill into four battlecruiser skills. Alright it is not bad idea if reimbursement e t c. I read on, nice large pictures in color (Amarr picture is now my wallpaper ).
Then all of suddenly I make ejaculation
Not sure what is happen
Subconcious mind made understanding before concious mind - ship tiers are will be under removal!
This was reason for my happy
EVE Developers this is great idea! The Order of the Falcon or Hin +¡slenska f+ílkaor+¦a is a national Order of Iceland |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
647
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:09:00 -
[219] - Quote
[19:00:52] Iam Widdershins > CCP wants to implement racial BC & destroyer skill [19:00:57] Iam Widdershins > thread is already 12 pages lon [19:01:03] Pinky Feldman > OM [19:01:07] Pinky Feldman > F**** Tha [19:01:11] Iam Widdershins > it is the worst idea i've heard come out of ccp in year [19:01:19] Iam Widdershins > option 1, make the racial bc skills high ran [19:01:21] Emizeko Chai > oh n [19:01:23] Iam Widdershins > welp you guys are screwe [19:01:32] Pinky Feldman > proof the CSM is ineffectiv [19:01:37] Iam Widdershins > people trained to fly command ships and bcs of different races, well yeah we don't car [19:01:42] Iam Widdershins > option [19:01:55] Iam Widdershins > make them low rank, combined to the same time as the current bc skil [19:02:01] Iam Widdershins > well now it takes 2 days to get a perfect drak [19:02:05] Iam Widdershins > yeah, terrible ide [19:02:09] Caius Argentis > re***de [19:02:09] Iam Widdershins > there ARE no good option [19:02:11] Emizeko Chai > those both suc [19:02:14] Iam Widdershins > ye [19:02:19] Emizeko Chai > option 3 LEAVE IT THE F*** ALON [19:02:20] Iam Widdershins > oh and did i mentio [19:02:31] Iam Widdershins > anything in betwee [19:02:31] Pinky Feldman > thtas just awfu [19:02:34] Iam Widdershins > is just a balance between the [19:02:45] Iam Widdershins > Battlecruisers 5 is the best way ever to start cross-trainin [19:02:54] Iam Widdershins > if you are a perfect harb pilo [19:02:59] Iam Widdershins > you are NOT a perfect cyclone pilo [19:03:03] Iam Widdershins > so what is the proble [19:03:16] Emizeko Chai > what is motivating thi [19:03:19] Emizeko Chai > why does it need changin [19:03:26] Emizeko Chai > "people need mroe things to train" is a ****** reaso [19:03:12] Iam Widdershins > o [19:03:20] Iam Widdershins > and they want to make capital ships require only BS [19:03:29] Caius Argentis > omg n [19:03:39] Emizeko Chai > ahahaahahaha if they make caps easie [19:03:39] Iam Widdershins > dude i'm not even mad because "oh god i trained these [19:03:48] Iam Widdershins > i'm mad because these are legitimately horrible game design decision [19:04:01] Pinky Feldman > i'm still at the stage of bafflemen [19:04:02] Emizeko Chai > there are already enough idiots in caps, seriousl [19:04:09] Pinky Feldman > as to where this is even coming fro
TL;DR these changes are designed to gain choral approval from people who don't know how the game works
In complete and utter seriousness, I would rather CCP changed the BattleCruiser skill to Rank 14 than split it up into racial components. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:09:00 -
[220] - Quote
Do people even read the blog? Ytter said several times: "IF YOU CAN FLY IT NOW, YOU CAN FLY IT LATER."
On paper, these changes sound like they'd make more sense, especially to newer players. I'm heavily cross-trained (esp. given my low SP), but directionally this sounds right. |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
598
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:09:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Papa Boats wrote:Bitter vet checking in. I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.
As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.
I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out. 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.
Not empty quoting. |
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:09:00 -
[222] - Quote
Are you ******* insane?
Not only is this a complete and utter waste of time and resources but it's badly thought out to boot.
I have a character with all racial frigate and cruiser skills at 5 as well as destroyers and battlecruisers 5. Are you honestly going to make me train 4 racial bc and destroyer skills to 5 to have access to the same ships and get the same performance? Seriously?
No bs 5 req for caps? **** off. If you go ahead with this are you going to give us all back a month of training time? Why not let everyone start with bc 4, make it take 1 week to get to min bs 4 then give everyone a free carrier for training the skill; hyperbolous I know...but what a funny coincidence that caps requiring only bs lvl 4 is an un-expected side-effect from trying to "maintain progression consistency"...yeah people have been crying about this for 8 years.
T2 skill progression; personally I always liked it, imo it actually gives you a nice steady progression which forces you to try different classes you otherwise might never have looked at. You say having to train assault ships > heavy assault ships > command ships is redundant; I say it's an elegant system.
So far this seems to be Eve online: Infernally badly thought out patch.
As far as the so-called benefits listed at the end of the blog: ships in need of hp and slots will still need them after you bugger around with skills and tier concepts. Balancing that needs doing won't be done by these changes, is possible now and will still be possible afterwards; likewise looking at a range of ships and seeing if there's one missing....there have been threads on those subjects for years.
I'm actually quite worried that someone green-lit this proposal as a valuable way to spend manpower.
[Yes I'm a bitter vet knee-jerk posting] |
Aessaya
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:10:00 -
[223] - Quote
Frankly, I am dissapointed with this, CCP. Thankfully this is not the final thing and there is time to change it. And I really hope you'll reconsider this change.
Although the idea of balancing ships around their roles not the tiers is better, yet it is a wholly different can of worms to open. Ah, you seek meaning?-áThen listen to the music, not the song. |
Jax Mones
Barr Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:10:00 -
[224] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Simple (ish) solution:
If you have racial frigate 3, you get racial destroyer at your current destroyer level. If you have racial cruiser 3, you get racial battlecruiser at your current battlecruiser level.
Thus, no-one loses the ability to pilot anything they can already pilot. Some people get more, but it's all in relation to how much you've already invested.
Don't people complain it takes people too little time to get into battleships anyway?
I have Amarr AND caldari carrier + dread
now i have to choose one, or crosstrain both
i have ALL subcapital exept industrial and marauder, now i have to retrain what? 10-20 skills? to be where i allready am not to mention i cant move my ships around for months, because :CCP: |
Mikel Laurentson
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:10:00 -
[225] - 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.
You really should have said that in the blog. In bold. Possibly in big letters.
Because honestly, it takes no seconds at all between reading "removing generic skills and replacing with 4 racials" and people realising that doesn't add up.
(as to the 'time to battleship' argument: battleships are easy to sit in, but the support skills take a bit longer. Those HML Ravens don't come from nowhere, y'know).
Also, removing tiers is unmitigated winsauce. |
Aileen Morex
Morex Group Inc. The Babylon Consortium
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:11:00 -
[226] - Quote
I don't like the idea of being forced to train Destroyers to fly Cruisers at all. Besides the fact that there is just one they are a waste of time. As a new player I would have been annoyed at being forced to train them and I don't think most of my characters have it trained at all. Which will make it annoying when I want them to jump into a cruiser for another race.
I am also disappointed with the idea that I won't be able to fly all the BCs that I can fly now. If you can do something to ensure that I can fly all the ships I can fly now then I'll be happy. At least there are a good number of BCs out. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
637
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:11:00 -
[227] - Quote
Interesting changes hope you will nof **** up this one. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:11:00 -
[228] - Quote
Gibbo3771 wrote:oh fuking great.
I have minnie cruiser and gallente cruiser 5, bc 5 and destroyer 5. Obviously not including I will lose use of tornado or talos, my carrier/dreads...complete fukin joke.
I fly the astarte, the sleipner, all of the dictors.
So basically your are going to reimburse BC 5 skillpoints and then I have to choose one of them.
get fuked, shower of ****.
Heres an idea, fix bots, fix FW, nerf the drake, fix drones, make missions less boring, make 0.0 less *****, fix ecm and ecm drones, actually finish WiS, nerf titans, nerf supercarriers, fix the eagle, fix the eos, fix info links, nerf off grid t3's, fix blops jump range/fuel usage.
FIX **** THAT MATTERS
Angry ranting aside, this pretty much sums up what I'm thinking about the actual change. There are MANY more pressing issues to fix in FiS than the tier system.
also, Someone mentioned this already: If you want to fly a ship that has a particular role, you train for that RACE. For example, I want to fly a logistics ship. I want shield and power transfer capability. I should fly the basilisk. I need to train CALDARI ships for that. Changing the system to look more simple (read: LIKE WORLD OF WARCRAFT) is a step in the WRONG DIRECTION.
Honestly, I don't care about the SP. I have a fundamental problem with the direction of this dev blog. Eve is different, because it wants to you choose a role by training a full line of ships. If you don't like it, this change exacerbates the problem. If you like that, this change sucks, because it forces you to retrain a lot of skills for no good reason (roles should be determined by racial ships). Homogeneity is bad. It's what bad games do before they die. Consider a different direction with ship balancing. |
Warde Guildencrantz
Fake Philanthropists Illicitly Liberated
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:11:00 -
[229] - Quote
Easiest way to fix the training issues. People are mad because they have to do extra training. The way of compensating for this is reducing the training time for each tree. The people who are complaining are cross trained into multiple things. That's why, below, you will see how this can be remedied fairly easily:
1. Make frigate skills 1x mutiplier instead of 2x
2. reimburse extra.
3. Leave destroyers at 2x.
4. Make Cruisers 3x. Reimburse.
5. Make Battlecruisers 5x. Reimburse.
lets see how much this saves.
Say you have all 4 races all to lvl5.
Frigates = 256000*4 reimbursed.
Cruisers = 256000*8 reimbursed
Battlecruisers = 256000 reimbursed.
= 256000*13 reimbursed.
Assuming you already have the battlecruisers skill to lvl 5, you get all the points left over after subtracting 256000 for change reimbursement. That's enough to get one BC skill back to lvl 5 already.
Lets see how much you need to have everything to level 5 with this change.
Destroyers all lvl 5 would need an extra 512000*3
Battlecruisers all lvl 5 would need an extra 1280000*3
3840000+1536000=5376000 = 21*256000
Now assuming most people don't need every single destroyer skill to level 5 (seriously...who uses caldari destroyers?), this value would be a fair bit lower. So, you end up with enough skill points to get 2 BC skills to level 5 after a single set of BC points (assuming you train destroyers to 4 first, not 5). You thus can instantly train 3 BC skills to max(including the one you were initially reimbursed for), when originally you only had 1 BC skill maxed with a 6x mutiplier, and 1 Destroyer skill maxed that had a 2x mutiplier.
People are angry about the proposed changes because it would nerf their ability to get in command ships (or perhaps interdictors). Well, to fly command ships you need to have cruiser 5 for that race anyways, so they will undoubtedly be affected by the reimbursement (512000sp per cruiser skill you have at 5) due to changing cruiser and frigate training times. Same thing with destroyer skills. If you are specialized into 2 races, and can fly 2 command ships, this means you have 2 cruiser skills at 5. Therefore, you will be reimbursed 512000sp*2 right away, along with a bit for frigates as well. This should be enough to cover training the BC skill for that race back up to L5. Reasonable?
Okay how about people who just want to fly the race's BC at level 5 skills? You only have cruisers to 4, and frigates to 4. Once again, if you are spec'd into two races, that means you will have some skill points left over from training both to 4 from reimbursement. This return should give you enough to cover at least a few days of training for that second BC skill once again (not to mention the destroyer skill). This would easily get both to level 4, however BC 5 in that race would not be initially achievable. This is understandable. You can't just spec into a race for lvl 5 skills instantly, so if you DID have that race fully spec'd you would have all the reimbursed points you need to lvl5 everything again. However, if only the destroyers and BC skills were at level 5, you won't be able to get them back to level 5 instantly, because you aren't truly spec'd into that race. It's pretty fair if you ask me.
I think that's a reasonable method of reimbursement, and a reasonable change to skill speed. Since you HAVE to go through destroyers and HAVE to go through battlecruisers to get to battleships now, its only reasonable to reduce training times to compensate. It isnt reasonable to reduce capital ship requirements and say this makes training more reasonable. 90% of eve players dont fly capitals, we don't want easier time training into them, we want an easier time training through subcaps.
There might need to be a little bit more though. Maybe just giving all the destroyer skills and battlecruiser skills at 5 would work out after all.
EDIT: soundwave said nah, we are just gonna give all lvl5. Fair enough. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
598
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:11:00 -
[230] - Quote
The Economist wrote:Are you ******* insane? Not only is this a complete and utter waste of time and resources but it's badly thought out to boot. I have a character with all racial frigate and cruiser skills at 5 as well as destroyers and battlecruisers 5. Are you honestly going to make me train 4 racial bc and destroyer skills to 5 to have access to the same ships and get the same performance? Seriously? No bs 5 req for caps? **** off. If you go ahead with this are you going to give us all back a month of training time? Why not let everyone start with bc 4, make it take 1 week to get to min bs 4 then give everyone a free carrier for training the skill; hyperbolous I know...but what a funny coincidence that caps requiring only bs lvl 4 is an un-expected side-effect from trying to "maintain progression consistency"...yeah people have been crying about this for 8 years. T2 skill progression; personally I always liked it, imo it actually gives you a nice steady progression which forces you to try different classes you otherwise might never have looked at. You say having to train assault ships > heavy assault ships > command ships is redundant; I say it's an elegant system. So far this seems to be Eve online: Infernally badly thought out patch. As far as the so-called benefits listed at the end of the blog: ships in need of hp and slots will still need them after you bugger around with skills and tier concepts. Balancing that needs doing won't be done by these changes, is possible now and will still be possible afterwards; likewise looking at a range of ships and seeing if there's one missing....there have been threads on those subjects for years. I'm actually quite worried that someone green-lit this proposal as a valuable way to spend manpower. [Yes I'm a bitter vet knee-jerk posting]
the post above yours |
|
|
Drew Solaert
University of Caille Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:12:00 -
[231] - Quote
Awesome changes, Tiericide is something we have all wanted for years. Looking forward to seeing how it all goes!
As for the SP issue, its going to be a powder keg. People though need to stop posting shite about it until they here the final plans for how its going to happen tbfh |
Tetania
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:12:00 -
[232] - Quote
Good lord you bitter veterans.
Posting to say this change makes the game make more sense to newbies and good be a positive. I wish to hear more.
Keep up the good work. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
805
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:13:00 -
[233] - Quote
are people going to be happy training through a racial destroyer to 4 when there is only a single tech 1 ship per race?
how long before you add more destroyers?
|
Jerrin Swoop
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:13:00 -
[234] - Quote
Anything that makes the game easier to understand is fine by me, and that includes adjusting the skill requirements so that it's more intuitive. However there are many things about this that bother me.
I think it's counterproductive to increase the amount of time it takes for players to cross-train between platforms. We already have to put in a HUGE amount of SP in order to enhance the support skills associated with each race (projectiles, missiles, drones, lasers, etc). Anything that penalizes subcap pilots and delays our enjoyment of content is a bad thing from a player retention standpoint. While it's important to ensure that access to content is provided at a pace that ensures the player has a sense of progress and accomplishment, you need to balance that with the fact that no player wishes to endure unnecessary grind in the pursuit of a certain ship.
It's admirable that you want to put the various ships into different roles for purposes of ensuring balance is easier to handle, and I support this. But be very careful about what role you assign each ship because unless everything is extremely well balanced the player base will simply find an "optimal" configuration and spam that to the detriment of everything else (ie Drake fleets). This is an area that the CSM should be heavily consulted in as they have the best idea of what roles various ships form. Off the top of my head you have snipers, main fleet ships, support ships, tacklers, and noncombatants. Terrestrial war concepts like "mobility" are irrelevant when movement is entirely a question of your ability to align and warp out. If you decide to provide different roles then be very sure that those roles are applicable to EVE, and not some unresearched concept of how spaceship combat "should" be. |
StarLite
Aurora Polaris The Babylon Consortium
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:13:00 -
[235] - Quote
OMG, massive shop rebalancing. Im all in favor of that, maybe we will finally see people use all those underused ships that are in the game (auguror anyone? ;) ) |
Zhentar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:13:00 -
[236] - Quote
Cronus Zontanos wrote: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. 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.
|
Nels Nevin
Stargazer Exploration Company Transmission Lost
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:14:00 -
[237] - Quote
What I see here:
It will make it a longer train time to get in to the T1 ships that are more useful to noobs, But shorten the time to get in to a T2 ship.
CCP do you remember the learning curve graph you revised because you were working on the new player experience. Well you need to add the cliff back in now that you adding more skills for someone to train upfront. |
The Grum
FinFleet Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:14:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Papa Boats wrote:Bitter vet checking in. I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.
As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.
I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out. 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. Not empty quoting.
Perhaps if you explained yourselves better that might be a plan, like how it will actualy work that some half baked promise that with your track record is lol worthy.
Tier system changes are good mind, so many ships are poor and might get fixed. |
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:14:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Papa Boats wrote:Bitter vet checking in. I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.
As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.
I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out. 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. Not empty quoting.
Guys, tier removal is good, skill reimbursement is to be discussed, stop bloody whining and read the WHOLE devblog, mull it over, think about the positives, and if you think an issue hasn't been addressed (hint, it has), post here. |
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:15:00 -
[240] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The best solution is not to reimburse BC/Destroyer SP but to give everyone the racial skills at the level they have them trained when the books are seeded.
-Liang There is a problem with that, I and many others don't want the extra skill points. I might go with that option if CCP would also allow us to trim skills away so that we don't get too many skill points.[/quote]
I'm well beyond giving a **** what my total SP count is. I simply refuse to have things taken away from me. Fortunately, CCP Soundwave agrees with me.
-Liang[/quote] The only thing I am hearing fro you is a lot of whining. And CCP Soundwave said that we are going to get compensated, he didn't say how. Or even how flexible the compensation will be. I am hoping it will be flexible enough to take everybody into account. |
|
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:15:00 -
[241] - Quote
So I actually raged and commented before reading the second half of the blog at all.
Back on the skill tree though, I like the idea that if a character has (for example) Gallente Frigate V, Minmatar Frigate V, Caldari Frigate V, Amarr Frigate IV and Destroyers V, they should get Gallente Destroyers V, Minmatar Destroyers V, Caldari Destroyers V, Amarr Destroyers IV. The same idea for Cruisers/Battlecruisers, and no SP refunds. I think this was the most sane comment in the ones I read.
As for restructuring the ship classes, that's pretty cool, although I think it's stupid to move the prerequisite for Racial Carrier from Racial BattleshipV to Racial Battleship IV. I know that's crazy, but remember that in addition to the Carrier skill, you have to learn a whole baseline skill (Capital Ships) because this is a bigger move than just the next class of ship.
Capital ships are the only ships that have unique skills for their support modules (energy transfer/shield transfer/armor repair), and that distinction exists by having a maximized sub capital skill tree. I'd actually suggest the following change to Carrier prerequisites:
Racial Battleship V Spaceship Command V Racial Battlecruiser IV Spaceship Command IV Racial Cruiser IV Spaceship Command III Racial Frigate IV Spaceship Command I
EDIT (failed snipe) |
Hitokiri Battoesai
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:15:00 -
[242] - Quote
If you guys really are planning on making any changes to what you need to train to fly certain ships. Then the only logical thing to do is give everyone all there skill points back under the spaceship command skill section. |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:15:00 -
[243] - Quote
You really should have thought the blog through more thoroughly. Instead you're left with angry replies of people who *gasp* crosstrained and a threadnought in the making. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
647
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:15:00 -
[244] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Not empty quoting.
Does not fix. The cross-race specialization aspect of battlecruisers should absolutely be preserved. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Luscius Uta
Killers of Paranoid Souls
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:15:00 -
[245] - Quote
Ethino wrote:So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING?
No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer.
I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:16:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:The Economist wrote:Are you ******* insane? Not only is this a complete and utter waste of time and resources but it's badly thought out to boot. I have a character with all racial frigate and cruiser skills at 5 as well as destroyers and battlecruisers 5. Are you honestly going to make me train 4 racial bc and destroyer skills to 5 to have access to the same ships and get the same performance? Seriously? No bs 5 req for caps? **** off. If you go ahead with this are you going to give us all back a month of training time? Why not let everyone start with bc 4, make it take 1 week to get to min bs 4 then give everyone a free carrier for training the skill; hyperbolous I know...but what a funny coincidence that caps requiring only bs lvl 4 is an un-expected side-effect from trying to "maintain progression consistency"...yeah people have been crying about this for 8 years. T2 skill progression; personally I always liked it, imo it actually gives you a nice steady progression which forces you to try different classes you otherwise might never have looked at. You say having to train assault ships > heavy assault ships > command ships is redundant; I say it's an elegant system. So far this seems to be Eve online: Infernally badly thought out patch. As far as the so-called benefits listed at the end of the blog: ships in need of hp and slots will still need them after you bugger around with skills and tier concepts. Balancing that needs doing won't be done by these changes, is possible now and will still be possible afterwards; likewise looking at a range of ships and seeing if there's one missing....there have been threads on those subjects for years. I'm actually quite worried that someone green-lit this proposal as a valuable way to spend manpower. [Yes I'm a bitter vet knee-jerk posting] the post above yours
As pointed out by others that needs to be emphasised heavily because it's not the message that comes across. Also all my other complaints still stand, I think this is a terrible waste of time and focus. If you have to do all this to achieve a negligible change to a subjectively smoothly working system then imo you're doing something wrong.
Also you say the aim is "if you could fly it yesterday you'll be able to fly it tomorrow"; well the blog talks about reimbursing skill points, and it talks about racial bc skills. Will the reimbursed skills from bc 5 be enough to instantly put all 4 racial bc skills to 5? If it's not I get screwed; if it is then it's not going to be uniformly fair unless you come up with a system of varying the sp's given per person based on how many racial cruisers they had at 5 or something similar. Just all seems needless. |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
109
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:16:00 -
[247] - Quote
Hahahaha I love how soundwave is trying to make a point and everyone is just ignoring him and continuing to rant
IF YOU CAN FLY IT TODAY... YOU'LL BE ABLE TO FLY IT TOMORROW!!! |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:16:00 -
[248] - Quote
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? |
FOFOFOFOOOO
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:16:00 -
[249] - Quote
Its nice to see CCP adding new skills to the game instead of rehashing old ones. I too look forward to retraining into what I can already fly.
On a side note its quite funny to see that it now takes less time to get into a dread then a black ops bs. Good thing they fixed black ops bs. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
930
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:16:00 -
[250] - Quote
Shin Dari wrote: The only thing I am hearing fro you is a lot of whining. And CCP Soundwave said that we are going to get compensated, he didn't say how. Or even how flexible the compensation will be. I am hoping it will be flexible enough to take everybody into account.
He has repeatedly said that if I can fly it today I'll be able to fly it after the patch. You are being silly and I am no longer worried.
-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
|
|
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:16:00 -
[251] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Papa Boats wrote:Bitter vet checking in. I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.
As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.
I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out. 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. Not empty quoting.
if you are now to give us 3 more destroyers lv5's and 3 more bc lv5's if we had them at 5 before, lv4 x 4 for lv4 ,lv 3 x 4 for lv3 etc etc.. can you just say it mr soundwave and avoid more spam about it, be nice if we can get back to the good part of the blog please CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
495
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:17:00 -
[252] - Quote
CONTRADICTORY IMAGES, PLEASE CLARIFY
These images don't line up :
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Skilltreeafter_1920.jpg
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Amarrshiptree2_1920.jpg
In the first image you're saying you want to break away from having prerequisites based on T2 Frigate hulls to get to T2 Cruiser hulls. And the second image you're going back to saying you need the prerequisites for T2 Frigates to get to T2 Cruisers?
Which is it? Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:17:00 -
[253] - Quote
It all sounds pretty good, you probably want to get amarr and gallente on par with minmatar and caldari before you change the skill trees. Otherwise we'll be flying them less than we already do. This new system of skill training will make it much easier to skill an alt for a specific ship much faster than before, good stuff. |
Aida Nu
Nu Industries
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:17:00 -
[254] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:You really should have thought the blog through more thoroughly. Instead you're left with angry replies of people who *gasp* crosstrained and a threadnought in the making.
Nothing wrong with the devblog. People just need to learn how to read.
They said that they will reimburse and have no problems being generous when doing it. |
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:18:00 -
[255] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Makalu Zarya wrote:So let me get this straight...you are going take people who can fly and have flown ALL battlecruisers perfectly and go...sorry we are gonna nerf you, enjoy retraining everything for another 4 months...oh and you can't fly command ships now either, because you have to train bc skill to V for all the respective races?
and same thing for dictors?
am I right or am i missing something here?
You're missing something :)
I find myself agreeing with Makalu here. You're looking at three options:
1. BC5 will get reimbursed and the equivalent skillpoint will get all players to racial BC5. Result, veteran players are overjoyed and get to keep playing. New players are screwed, as they'll now have to train even further to get the skills.
2. BC5 will get reimbursed for the equivalent of one racial BC5 skill. Result, new players are still screwed compared to before as they'll not only have longer to progress for battleships, but crosstraining is prohibitively harder. Veteran players are screwed as their ships will be unplayable until they retrain a skill they once had.
3. A mix between the two above, and/or with racial BC skill requirements being way lower than intended. Result, new players are still at a disadvantage compared to today. Veteran players will still get the shaft due to them not being reimbursed with the equivalent amount of skills they lost.
Am I still missing something? Are both I and Makalu wrong? Please communicate your intentions to us then, so that we do not misunderstand it.
|
Tarsas Phage
Pain Delivery.
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:18:00 -
[256] - 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.
TBQH this devbog shouldn't have been published without this important detail. The mystery surrounding it is causing a lot of needless consternation.
/T |
Intermittent Fault
Punning Clan
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:18:00 -
[257] - Quote
I think alot of people might be missing something here.
If new "defined-role" ships are getting new bonusses, it's as sensible to attach these to the new role skills as the base ship skill. If you only need Caldari Cruiser 1 to fly any Caldari cruiser, one of the bonusses for the ship can be based on that skill and the other on a role skill. It would then be sensible to reduce the rank of the cruiser skill so that cruiser+role skill rank = old cruiser skill rank.
Similarly with other ship classes. Role skills would be generic ie non-racial. Whether role skills should be class-specific would depend on how the numbers work out. Alternatively, the role bonus could be a flat bonus which requires a certain level of role skill depending on the class (an EW cruiser gets +20% if you have EW role to level 3, EW BS needs level 5 to get its bonus).
I'm not going to try to think in detail about how the numbers might work out, but if the refund from Battlecruisers was enough to instantly buy 2 racial BC skills to level 5 and 1-2 role skills to 4 or 5 that goes a long way to reducing the problems, either directly or by reducing the number of free SPs that would have to be given out.
Of course, the fact that so many people have cross-trained demonstrates what a mess the current system is. If the new system turns out to be good enough that people don't feel the need to cross-train then the tears can safely be tanked. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Tactical Invader Syndicate
212
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:19:00 -
[258] - Quote
Did the CSM see this blog before it was published? |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:19:00 -
[259] - Quote
First of all: THANK YOU so much for having the balls to suggest some serious changes to the system. Changes of this magnitude are exactly what's needed, and I welcome them. I look forward to the details of the reimbursement of skills as this will be critical to how this will be received by the player base.
I've got three main points:
I'm glad that there's a commitment to make sure that people who currently fly command ships (or dictors) will be able to do so afterwards (through whatever mechanism). I'd also like to urge that, however it's done, it doesn't adversely affect new players to the game. Battlecruiser is one of the best skills in the game currently as it grants so much flexibility - making newbros have to train this four times seems to be a little bit unfair.
I don't know how I feel about the lower requirements for capital ships. On one hand, it makes cross-training capitals comically easy, and it gets players into carriers faster than before. On the other hand, is that a good idea? It's going to lead to some bad carrier pilots and some hilarious killmails. I'm not sure, I can see both sides. I wonder what proportion of people find the need to train a racial BS V a hurdle which they don't take (or at least, don't take until much later in their eve career when they have a better understanding of the game)
The final one is that I'm not 100% sure that I like the removal of progression and the isolation of each skill. For example, currently in order to fly Interdictors you must have Evasive Manoeuvering V (as a prereq for interceptors). This heirarchy of prerequisites from "lower" ship classes is useful as it gives guidance on what skills are important to flying that class of ships and that can really help out newer players. I'd like to suggest, therefore, that the skill requirements be flattened and merged to make sure that evasive maneuvering is still a requirement for dictors (for example) rather than being lost when the requirement of interceptors is removed. |
Ardal Cearul
Saiph Industries SRS.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:19:00 -
[260] - Quote
Manssell wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:...We fully acknowledge having to re-train for ships you can already fly is not appealing at all.
Understatement of the day.
QFT |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
806
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:20:00 -
[261] - Quote
FOFOFOFOOOO wrote:On a side note its quite funny to see that it now takes less time to get into a dread then a black ops bs. Good thing they fixed black ops bs. + 1 like
|
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:20:00 -
[262] - Quote
I'm not so sure I like this idea. In theory it sounds great, simplify the training route, make this a clear progression, etc. Then theory comes crashing headlong into reality. Others have said it. they live in wormholes and -need- to be able to fly every version of battlecruiser, that's what they've been relying on for years. Or people like me who may not need it, but I've stocked up on several different T1 and T2 destroyer and BC hulls, what do I do with those?
You respond with "if you can fly it before, you'll be able to fly it afterwards" Ok, that's a reasonable response that'll keep players happy. However, as others have said, you're going to have to reimburse a LOT of skillpoints for a LOT of people. If you're fine with this ok.
What about people that have OVER trained for stuff? Gallente Battleship 5 is absolutely worthless (what else am I going to fly? Kronos? Sin? lol) EXCEPT that it opens the door to Thanatos, Moros, Nyx, etc. Do I get my BS 5 skillpoints back since I don't need to train it that high anymore?
There's a ton of other issues players have brought up these last few pages, most of which tie into one of the above. It just seems like a huge can of worms to open. I'm sure the game designers have their own view on whats working and what's broken, but I don't think I've ever seen the players complain about the ship skill training path. If it ain't broke (from the players perspective), don't fix it, right?
Again, it sounds good in theory. If it's that important to the game play that this be done, fine. Just be aware that if you don't refund a metric crapton of skill points, there's going to be backlash from one group. If you do refund all that SP, there's going to be backlash from another group. This is one of those issues where I don't think you'll be able to make everyone happy. I'd recommend treading lightly, doing a lot of CSM discussion, and keeping the players informed early and often so there's no surprises.
PS. If you do it, let me know soon so I can start training BC to 5 and thus get all of the command ships reimbursed to me when this rolls out.
As for the ships category. I never really had a problem with the tier system, but I guess if this allows you to do the much needed balancing, then run with it. I don't think this will cause nearly as many problems as the skill thing.
Also, who put the Ferox in the "combat ships" category :P
|
Akelorian
FinFleet Raiden.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:20:00 -
[263] - Quote
Heimdallofasgard wrote:Hahahaha I love how soundwave is trying to make a point and everyone is just ignoring him and continuing to rant
IF YOU CAN FLY IT TODAY... YOU'LL BE ABLE TO FLY IT TOMORROW!!!
Cause he's a Goon |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
109
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:20:00 -
[264] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Not empty quoting. Does not fix. The cross-race specialization aspect of battlecruisers should absolutely be preserved.
Cross training vs Specialisation argument,
Cross training is encouraged by racial similarities such as armour and shield tanking as well, missles on the t2 amarr boats, hybrids on caldari, BC skill isn't the only thing encouraging cross training. |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:20:00 -
[265] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: No one is saying you have to retrain them. Our principle for the reimbursement here will be "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today". Ytterbium will post the further details of this once it's written up.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:EDIT SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT:
- New destroyer and battlecruiser skills would be same rank than existing ones
- We have a "if you could fly it before, you can fly it now" philosophy, that means properly reimbursing/giving skills not to leave people stranded in ships they could fly before the change. Again, nothing is fixed yet.
hey guys stop crying ! they already accepted ! |
ShadowFire15
BOAE INC GIANTSBANE.
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:20:00 -
[266] - Quote
looking forward to seeing what the final plan is going to be Stan Smith had a snow storm over weekend guy was shoveling snow outside, so i shot him and mined the snow myself. concord never showed up. on an unrelated note, i have a court date next tuesday |
Prioleau
Four Bird LTD.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:21:00 -
[267] - Quote
IF YOU CAN FLY IT TODAY... YOU'LL BE ABLE TO FLY IT TOMORROW!!! |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1089
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:21:00 -
[268] - Quote
Wow, a lot of people skip over pertinent details in their haste to post.
Bitter Vets, in effect you will likely end up being given free skills that newer players will have to manually train up when they get to that point.
This also means that most ships will be buffed and generally made useful in ways that make sense as to how they are used... especially the myriad of useless ships that now clutters the tier system.
Get a grip. 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. |
Elanor Vega
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:21:00 -
[269] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:I'm surprised they had to wiki-link an Oil Platform.
But Oil Platform dont go boom when you hit it with a rock - like mining barges/exumers in EVE. |
Landredas
Insectopia
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:21:00 -
[270] - Quote
After the third time it was stated that ships we can fly now, we'll be able to fly after, let's just say i was starting to get the idea. I can only assume that most of the people screaming and yelling about how things are unfair that they will not be able to fly ships they can currently fly after this reorganization are trolling. Although now that i think about it, there is no need to attribute intelligence where stupidity could very well be the more likely reason.
It would be nice to have some of the "useless" ships have a bit of a resurgence in popularity. Balance ships, and scrap things that don't make sense (target painting for minmatar).
Do what you will, just don't screw it up CCP! |
|
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:22:00 -
[271] - Quote
Mikron Alexarr wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? Quoted for Truth. does the term sandbox mean anything to anyone anymore?
Lies and fallacy, CCP make the game, balance the ships, and give them bonuses.
If you want to fly one different to it's intended use, go ahead, but they should all have obvious intended uses. Today, I watched a video of an iteron taking out a megathron, which was awesome.
It was awesome because someone had taken a ship with an obvious intended role, and used it completely differently. If the iteron HAD no role, and was just another blank-slate hull, it'd have been completely meaningless, no different to someone using any other cruiser sized ship.
Your argument holds no water. |
Tiny Chesticles
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:22:00 -
[272] - Quote
I can fly any Amarr / Caldari / Minmatar command ship at lvl V (meaning battlecruiser V also) - as long as I still can after this update it's all good.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1089
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:23:00 -
[273] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:FOFOFOFOOOO wrote:On a side note its quite funny to see that it now takes less time to get into a dread then a black ops bs. Good thing they fixed black ops bs. + 1 like Good thing this will be part of a general rebalancing, which would (of course) include Black Ops. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Erim Solfara
inFluX.
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:23:00 -
[274] - Quote
You're reading more into that than you need to, the latter image says nothing about skill requirements. It's alluding to a thematic structure for ships, nothing more, nothing less.
Someone who flies destroyers and interceptors might logically want to fly an interdictor, that is all. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
806
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:23:00 -
[275] - Quote
Take a deep breath, wipe the foam from your mouth and read the devblog again
the 'second' image you linked shows the current state of the game, and was in a paragraph that started like this;
"To understand what ships lines are all about, letGÇÖs recap the four theoretical factors that sort ships out"
the 'first' image you posted is the proposed change.
tl:dr stop foaming at the mouth with rage long enough and you might understand whats going on
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1974
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:24:00 -
[276] - Quote
The more I think about this the more I dislike this. Leaving the shafting of cross trainers aside for the moment, I think you went with the idea mainly because it's easy for you. The one thing EVE isn't suffering from is too short skill training times. The exact opposite is the norm from a new players perspective and now you're adding more pointless skill barriers for them before they can access more ships. Why not **** off old players and try to repell new players from getting in to the game at the same time? How could this possibly go wrong? Bad for vets, bad for new players, uniform design and easy for CCP.
FFS I had destroyers trained to lvl 1 until a months ago and I skipped battlecruisers entirely for months when I started, because they couldn't handle the PvE content I aimed to do then, so training them was a giant waste of time. I still hit the skill barriers with my battleship and it was frustrating. Now you're telling me you want everyone to train a specialty ship like a destroyer to lvl 4 before even gaining access to cruisers and you made BCs mandatory before battleships can be accessed. Why would you do that? Why do you force people to train all these ship classes to a high skill level, that can be totally useless to anyone with clear goal in mind.
Why is lvl 4 in these skills required to proceed to the next level? Why do the requirements have to be uniform? Wouldn't it be better to have lvl 3 requirement with basic ship classes, since they really are mandatory to get the most out of the game, but not every step on that ladder is useful to every player. At lvl3 you would have access to a decent selection of ships and force people to learn by flying smaller cheaper ships. Keeping them sitting in those ships they're not interested in flying long term, just so you can have your uniform skill requirements, isn't worth it and isn't a good idea in the first place. Uniformity is good, but it should take backseat to pretty muh every other consideration.
I know the plan is not final and you're looking at the options and feedback, but at this time I can't see the good your ship requirement changes brings to any of the players. It seems chosen because it helps you and is uniform, while only having negatives for most of the players. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
495
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:24:00 -
[277] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:
No one is saying you have to retrain them. Our principle for the reimbursement here will be "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today". Ytterbium will post the further details of this once it's written up.
As a hardcore EVE Vet who would lose the ability to fly a few ships for a brief period.
Burn it all, and let God sort them out.
I love this change. Do it. Great job, commendations, kudos, congratu-facking-lations, this is the **** I want to see from CCP.
You're going to end up with some serious abuse of this system if you go the way of "if you could fly it before you can fly it tomorrow". If that's the case, I'm going to go learn all cruiser skills to 5, so I get instant skills for all Command ships up immediately with no wait or hassle, and know I'll be able to fly every ship in the game when this goes through, and get a gazillion free skillpoints when this goes live.
These are the reasons that CCP made HTFU video.
Make this game better, don't look back.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Trainwreck McGee
Ghost Ship Inc.
232
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:25:00 -
[278] - Quote
With the BC and Destroyer predicament i think it should be a simple solution
IF you have lets say......
Gallante Cruiser 4 Minmatar Cruiser 4 and BC 5
Then when the changes come out you have
Gallante Cruiser 4 Minmatar Cruiser 4 Gallante BC 5 Minmatar BC 5
Therefore there will be no need to reimburse and people will be able to fly what they flew in the past without any changes.
CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
113
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:25:00 -
[279] - Quote
This thread needs:
Less discussion about skill Queues
More discussion about Ship reclassification. |
Mikel Laurentson
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:25:00 -
[280] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:
What about people that have OVER trained for stuff? Gallente Battleship 5 is absolutely worthless (what else am I going to fly? Kronos? Sin? lol) EXCEPT that it opens the door to Thanatos, Moros, Nyx, etc. Do I get my BS 5 skillpoints back since I don't need to train it that high anymore?
I have a dual-repper hype and a sentry domi that say Gallente BS V does things. I'm told people fly Vindicators, Rattlesnakes and even Megathrons sometimes.
Even when hybrids were balls, the T1 and faction Gallente battleships had their uses. It's not always about the unlocks. |
|
Shangpo
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:25:00 -
[281] - Quote
So, instead of doing a half hearted SP refund, why don't we just do a mass SP refund of all skills....
When I started this game, I was a massive carebear, geez. I have Ice Mining V :cripes:
I could get behind this proposal if CCP said, "Ok folks, we are going to allow you to choose skills (In my case Exhumers III, Ice Mining 5, Mining Drones IV, etc) and allow you to take SP out of those skills and apply to our new racial BC program.
tldr: please ccp, let me take SP out of skills I dont want to use anymore...
(like if you agree folks) |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
806
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[282] - Quote
Elanor Vega wrote:Arline Kley wrote:I'm surprised they had to wiki-link an Oil Platform. But Oil Platform dont go boom when you hit it with a rock - like mining barges/exumers in EVE.
http://cdn.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/oil_rigs-accident.jpg i wouldnt be so sure about that statement
|
Hitokiri Battoesai
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[283] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Ethino wrote:So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer. I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't.
Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change!
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[284] - Quote
Thrice distilled, oak-barrel aged post:
Why?
Just....why?
If you want to balance ships....balance ships. |
John Frohike
Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[285] - Quote
If you do this I will love you forever! |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:26:00 -
[286] - Quote
Tiericide! And since there will be no more Tiericide threads, it's also Tiericidicide!
Racial battlecruiser skills have to be instigated. It's absurd to have a single battlecruiser skill when 2/3 of Eve is flying Drakes and Hurricanes or Tornados and Oracles. It's also absurd to reduce the rank of racial BC from 6, when racial cruiser remains at rank 5. But, equally, it's absurd to take away the ability to fly these ships. So, options:
1. Give people the same level of each racial BC skill as they currently have in BCs Good: simple. Bad: SP inflation, panders to the "I'm a special petal, give me stuff, make my life easier" entitlement-obsessed crowd. Also punishes newbies, relative to veterans.
2. Introduce racial BC skills but retain the old BC skill and the link to the old BC skill for several months to give people the opportunity to train them up. Good: no SP inflation. Bad: that's everyone's skillplans sorted for the next 3 months, then.
3. GIve people SP in advance, so they can immediately apply them to the racial BC skills, then not receive SP for the appropriate time in the future. Good: Erm. Bad: a complicated way of achieving [2].
Option 2 sounds best to me. |
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:27:00 -
[287] - Quote
Really excited by this direction, assuming CCP keeps its word and enforces the Soundwave Principle --- "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today".
Just to put it in absolute terms, at 70M SP I can fly 53 armed hulls reasonably competently. At any given time I probably have only a dozen kinds of hulls in my hangars, and I really use just about five ships in any given month. If CCP does away with ship tiers and provides me with more decent hulls, I could be looking at between two and ten times as many worthwhile options. That's a lot of new content.
Can a dev comment more on the ship lines philosophy? Is the intent to make it so a new player who has no SP does not gain the ability to fly a Tornado and a Rupture while training up for a Typhoon? That is, the ship line skill tree takes the place of the ship class skill tree? Or, is the intent to provide a baseline capability of Tornado, Cyclone, and Hurricane for everyone who has Minmatar Battlecruisers, but the Minmatar Combat Ship skill gives additional bonuses to the Cyclone without affecting the other two?
I believe the ship trees you published are the existing trees. Could you produce a similar hypothetical tree for the ship trees per race once the ship lines have been implemented? I know that you can't commit to details yet, but even just a broad strokes diagram with some kind of qualitative indication of training time would be useful.
Currently, one of the biggest barriers to entry into Eve for my RL friends is the fact that I think the minimum they need to contribute to my playstyle is flying an interceptor, which is 24d minimum and realistically 40d to get decent stats. If the T1 frigates can be rebalanced to do an OK job of holding down a target, or the T1 cruisers rebalanced to be somehow useful in corps flying primarily battlecruisers today, then I suspect the training time for new players to contribute to a PvP corp could be reduced significantly.
Combat ships and attack vessels are poor names. What about fleet ships and skirmish ships, respectively, instead? Or, you could use the terms heavy attack ships and light attack ships, though that has some aliasing onto the |
Aelana Anais
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:27:00 -
[288] - Quote
OK, a few constructive thoughts.
1) In principle the ship progression needed to be worked on, but you do seem to be removing flexibility instead of promoting flexibility. Unless you plan to add new ships to the races, which could be interesting
2) Remember tiered prerequisites. I would hate to have my Destroyer skill yanked even if you give me enough SP for all the Destroyers at 5, because until they got back up to 5... what would happen to my Cruiser+ skills
3) Since I don't know the ranks of the remapped skills, I will phrase this in a question to try and limit the rage... does the re-tiered system result in a shorter, longer or same train time to capitals? I can see if done right that the train time to capitals could actually be increased due to the addition of new tiers.
4) To those that are trying to make the argument that longer train times could help the capital/supercap problem, that is just punitive against new players. Cap/Supercap problems aren't going to be solved by train time simply because they are already a problem and the people causing the problem already have them trained. Yea it can help limit it from getting further out of hand, but a better solution is fix the problem so getting to supercaps isn't an I win button anymore
5) You forgot logistics ships. If you go through in principle with lumping logistics in with the non-combat ewar ships you will destroy them since the two ship types have different defense requirements. I would suggest creating two different categories one for repair one for ewar
6) You reversed the Hyperion and the Megathron... by your own descriptions in the game the Hyperion is supposed to be the blaster boat, i.e. high maneuverability where the mega is supposed to be focused on rails... i.e. lower maneuverability, higher defense. Its not really how they pan out, but if you are re balancing anyway, might as well stick with lore
7) I don't do missions anymore, but I used to... and I remember what it was like to progress through the mission levels. Be cognizant that if you don't re balance the BCs you are giving an even greater edge to Caldari (which already has the best rewards, a battlecruiser that can run all level 4s, etc) by making it longer to get into battleships for the other races (when caldari can just use the drake). I haven't played since you added the new BCs (not a rage thing, just taking a break to play other games for a while) so maybe this is moot with the tier3 battlecruisers... just wanted the thought to be put out there
|
Aethlyn
98
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:27:00 -
[289] - Quote
I like the general idea of making ships more role than tier depending. Right now it just doesn't feel right everywhere (esp. in mining, where the Covetor is almost pointless skill training wise, cause just a few more minutes and you're able to fly a Hulk). Looking forward to more fleshed out details. Plus I really hope this would also make mixed fleets a lot more interesting (e.g. not just battleships or not just capitals or not just cruisers). Only real downside for me: Finished training for Command Ships last year... :P Looking for more thoughts? Read my blog or follow me on Twitter. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:27:00 -
[290] - Quote
Hitokiri Battoesai wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:Ethino wrote:So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer. I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't. Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change!
Yep, will be a lot of people in this situation. Another reason why this is uneccessary and poorly thought out. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1090
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:28:00 -
[291] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:The more I think about this the more I dislike this. Leaving the shafting of cross trainers aside for the moment, I think you went with the idea mainly because it's easy for you. The one thing EVE isn't suffering from is too short skill training times. The exact opposite is the norm from a new players perspective and now you're adding more pointless skill barriers for them before they can access more ships. Why not **** off old players and try to repell new players from getting in to the game at the same time? How could this possibly go wrong? Bad for vets, bad for new players, uniform design and easy for CCP.
FFS I had destroyers trained to lvl 1 until a months ago and I skipped battlecruisers entirely for months when I started, because they couldn't handle the PvE content I aimed to do then, so training them was a giant waste of time. I still hit the skill barriers with my battleship and it was frustrating. Now you're telling me you want everyone to train a specialty ship like a destroyer to lvl 4 before even gaining access to cruisers and you made BCs mandatory before battleships can be accessed. Why would you do that? Why do you force people to train all these ship classes to a high skill level, that can be totally useless to anyone with clear goal in mind.
Why is lvl 4 in these skills required to proceed to the next level? Why do the requirements have to be uniform? Wouldn't it be better to have lvl 3 requirement with basic ship classes, since they really are mandatory to get the most out of the game, but not every step on that ladder is useful to every player. At lvl3 you would have access to a decent selection of ships and force people to learn by flying smaller cheaper ships. Keeping them sitting in those ships they're not interested in flying long term, just so you can have your uniform skill requirements, isn't worth it and isn't a good idea in the first place. Uniformity is good, but it should take backseat to pretty muh every other consideration.
I know the plan is not final and you're looking at the options and feedback, but at this time I can't see the good your ship requirement changes brings to any of the players. It seems chosen because it helps you and is uniform, while only having negatives for most of the players.
EDIT: And no I haven't read the thread, so if the issues have already been addressed, then great.
I'm assuming you are arguing in favor of the newer players, as none of that would apply to you.
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:28:00 -
[292] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: No one is saying you have to retrain them. Our principle for the reimbursement here will be "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today". Ytterbium will post the further details of this once it's written up.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:EDIT SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT: - New destroyer and battlecruiser skills would be same rank than existing ones
- We have a "if you could fly it before, you can fly it now" philosophy, that means properly reimbursing/giving skills not to leave people stranded in ships they could fly before the change. Again, nothing is fixed yet.
*whew!* /gogela can fly anything but titans...
Well this is double good news to me. 1) I think where there be snowglobes, there should be earthquakes. Shaking up the game is always a good thing, and putting ship balancing and the act of doing it on a more robust and flexible foundation sounds like a no-brainer to me. 2) Glad I don't have to re-train a metric s***ton of skills to maintain my ship versatility.
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
495
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:28:00 -
[293] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote: Take a deep breath, wipe the foam from your mouth and read the devblog again
the 'second' image you linked shows the current state of the game, and was in a paragraph that started like this;
"To understand what ships lines are all about, letGÇÖs recap the four theoretical factors that sort ships out"
the 'first' image you posted is the proposed change.
tl:dr stop foaming at the mouth with rage long enough and you might understand whats going on
Congratulations. Prepare to eat crow.
A) I'm not "Raging" you ignorant troll. I'm asking for a clarification. B) The images are contradicting. The set of 4 images are images of what the changes SHOULD BE. They are contradicting with the proposed changes. Why would they "combine all these elements" to show us images of the way things ALREADY ARE.
Quote: Combining all these elements, we arrive at the following ship trees:
Followed by a series of links to what the Trees should look like after the change.
Why would they link images to things that are already created and in the game. They're trying to demonstrate the new changes. And those images DON"T SHOW THE NEW CHANGES.
Go get a couple brain cells to rub together before you try and offend people. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:29:00 -
[294] - Quote
Evanga wrote:ok ....
first, you made me log on to this stinking ****** forums... second, what the freaky deaky feck is wrong with you guys.
"Nothing is written in stone yet..." UP YOURS!
I guess you will push it through anywayz.
-2 paying accounts.
I believe this was the first threat of unsub, and it took around 8 and a half pages. I guess there's hope yet.
Also, dibs on any stuffs to be had "Fools! I'll show them all!"
What do you mean that one's already taken? |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:29:00 -
[295] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:The more I think about this the more I dislike this. Leaving the shafting of cross trainers aside for the moment, I think you went with the idea mainly because it's easy for you. The one thing EVE isn't suffering from is too short skill training times. The exact opposite is the norm from a new players perspective and now you're adding more pointless skill barriers for them before they can access more ships. Why not **** off old players and try to repell new players from getting in to the game at the same time? How could this possibly go wrong? Bad for vets, bad for new players, uniform design and easy for CCP.
I'll quote this as well. I think I just passed my 3 year mark in game and at 50+mil SP I still have no shortage of stuff to train. I remember being a new player though, gaining that first rank of battlecruiser, and... "OMG! A whole new world has opened up to me!" Same goes for destroyers. It's a fun experience for new players. It's not often that one skill can open up so many new ships. |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:29:00 -
[296] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Do people even read the blog? Ytter said several times: "IF YOU CAN FLY IT NOW, YOU CAN FLY IT LATER."
Most of the people cant read. Welcome to the real world.
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:29:00 -
[297] - Quote
Hitokiri Battoesai wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:Ethino wrote:So you're basicly telling me that i just wasted 26days to train for a Thanatos for NOTHING? No, learn to read, you'll still keep your Gallente Battleship trained to V with all its beneftis apllied to Gallente battleships you fly. Unless you trained it to V just so you can get in a Thanny, in which case you made a bad decision of spending 30 days of training just to have a slightly better Carrier than other races can offer. I also wish I trained projectile turrets instead of lousy hybrids, but guess what, I have to stick with them now and I have to consider myself lucky because CCP made hybrids less sucky with Crucible. I would be happier if they reimbursed my skill points, but that doesn't mean my skillpoints put into hybrids are wasted. Training skill like Astrometic Acquisition to V is a waste, training any weapon or ship skill to V isn't. Wow You did not understand his statement at all. I have a cap pilot also, and there is no way I would have trained BS 5 on 2 races if I did not have to. My cap char never touches a BS. So everyone should get there lvl 5 BS sp back. If they want it there after the update they can put it back, but do not make people that already have cap chars suffer because of this change! Not to mention supercap chars would definitely not have trained any BS to five if they didn't have to. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
648
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:30:00 -
[298] - Quote
Maybe something more along the lines of what CCP is trying to do: Make one of the bonuses on a battlecruiser be based upon the racial Cruiser skill, make the other based on the Battlecruiser skill.
Splitting up BC into racial components is the worst idea. Sorry. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:31:00 -
[299] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:For a new player:
Drake: 3 skills (current scheme) vs 4 skills (new scheme) - 33% increase in skills. +Hurricane: 5 skills vs 8 skills - 60% increase in skills required. +Harbringer: 7 skills vs 12 skills - 71% increase in skills required. +Myrmidon: 9 skills vs 16 skills - 78% increase in skills required!
Effectively, you're almost doubling the amount of skills a new player will have to train in order to crosstrain.
Additionally, you're removing one of the big incentives for crosstraining, namely if I train up two skills, I get access to a whole new range of ships for free! Training racial frigate and cruiser, two skills that can be trained in a short amount of time, would give a new player access to battlecruiser at whatever level they had battlecruisers trained to before.
Under this scheme, crosstraining for another race instead becomes a chore.
This is inherently new player UNFRIENDLY, as well as being excessively annoying for veteran players.
Pretty much this.
Leaving aside the older player reimbursement (which I think CCP could get right) how exactly does this help the new player experience? One of the great things about the destroy and BC skills was it lets new people hop in to a few new ships from all races and figure out what ones they want to really start concentrating on the support skills for. If they keep the new skills at the same rank as now then that just becomes a new skill grind for noobs and severely hampers what they can fly and to find out what they really want to fly. But then again if they lower each race skill rank so the total is equivalent to what it is now that could work, but would also put people in a perfect BC perhaps too quickly. It seems that we already have the compromise between these two problems as it is now. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:31:00 -
[300] - Quote
Erim Solfara wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? Quoted for Truth. does the term sandbox mean anything to anyone anymore? Lies and fallacy, CCP make the game, balance the ships, and give them bonuses. If you want to fly one different to it's intended use, go ahead, but they should all have obvious intended uses. Today, I watched a video of an iteron taking out a megathron, which was awesome. It was awesome because someone had taken a ship with an obvious intended role, and used it completely differently. If the iteron HAD no role, and was just another blank-slate hull, it'd have been completely meaningless, no different to someone using any other cruiser sized ship. Your argument holds no water.
I'll try and make this simple.
The role of a blockade runner did exist before the t2 haulers (I fly the crane for instance). The best ship for this was debatable (sigil with speed mods in low, badger with ECM). Then it was decided that t2 haulers should exist. \0/
It was the players that defined the role. CCP can enable roles to form, but we the players decide what we like for a particular role. |
|
kyrieee
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:31:00 -
[301] - Quote
BS IV for capitals is the dumbest thing out of CCP this year. We don't need people rushing into them, and who the hell trains BS V for T2 BSes? |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
495
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:31:00 -
[302] - Quote
Erim Solfara wrote:
You're reading more into that than you need to, the latter image says nothing about skill requirements. It's alluding to a thematic structure for ships, nothing more, nothing less.
Someone who flies destroyers and interceptors might logically want to fly an interdictor, that is all.
These images match the CURRENT design. They aren't the "NEW DESIGN".
Use your eyeballs and you'll see that.
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Skilltreebefore_1920.jpg
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Amarrshiptree2_1920.jpg
These two images match exactly. The "BEFORE" and "Amarr Ship Tree" are exactly the same layouts, not matching the new format proposed @
http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Skilltreeafter_1920.jpg
Hence, asking for them to correct or clarify what they're trying to demonstrate.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Khanid Voltar
Dark-Rising
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:32:00 -
[303] - Quote
SamGromoff wrote:Kozmic wrote:For those of us with all racial sub-caps, that is a lot of re-training. SP reimbursment should take that into account - if I had BC V and have race X BS V, then I should get race X BC V.
Edit: also, :ccp: This or some version of this {BC V + Cruiser V} should be 100% the way to go. However, I understand that CCP may balk at giving everyone an effective 8 million free SP (i.e. I train BC V and the effective Cruiser V now -> I get all four racial skills down the road). So what I suggest is a further rebalancing of the rank of the effective ship skills. Currently, BCs are a Rank 6 skill (1.56m SP) and cruisers are Rank 5 (1.28m). To fly all cruisers and BCs perfectly thus costs 6.68m SP. But what if we lower the requirements? Cruisers = Rank 3 (768k SP) Racial BCs = Rank 4 (1024k SP) To fly everything perfectly would now take just over 7m SP, meaning the difference is just over a week of training. Of course, CCP could always credit us that little bit extra if they like Under this system, the change would take place as follows: 1)Refund everyone the difference for every cruiser skill. Your old Amarr Cruiser V skill would change to Rank 3 and you'd get 512k free SP in the bargain; 2)Delete the old BC skill; your BC V is worth 1.56m free SP; 3)Implement the new racial BC skills at 1024k each. Example: I currently have Amarr Cruiser V, Caldari Cruiser V and BC IV. The change gives me 1m free SP from the lowered rank of the cruisers + 271k SP from the deleted BC skill. I could then spend 1.024m SP on a single Racial BC V and have 271k left over, spend 450k SP on two BC IVs and have about 800k left over, or go do something else - it's my call. Most people would be slightly better off than they are now while heavy crosstrainers would be slightly worse off, but no one would be badly nerfed like many cruiser specialists would be under the current proposal. Destroyer specialists are a little tougher because frigates are Rank 1 and can't be lowered further, but not hugely so. If CCP refunds the destroyer skill at rank 2, then makes the new racial destroyer skill rank 1, 4 race crosstrainers would be out 3 weeks of training time, which isn't horrific. Ideally, CCP would refund the existing destroyer skill as if it were rank 3, saving us a bit of pain, but I'd be willing to live without that. -- Under this plan, the most free SP anyone could get is just over 4 million. These players would then have to retrain about 8m skillpoints' worth of ships - again, bad but not horrific. Anyone that specialized in 1 or 2 races, though, would actually be better off. The price would be lowering the time it takes to fly a t1 cruiser. I submit that this is not a huge loss for Eve Online. please upvote if you like this, tia
A model along the lines of this would be the most optimal solution in my opinion.
When I first read the blog I was like 'oh great now i need to completely adjust my skill tree... but what this change would bring is awesome'
Then I read Soundwave's comment that noone would be better off, and read Liang's suggestion and thought 'wow i could get x amount of fee sp... but so would everyone else, and what about the poor saps that start after and realise everyone got it for free'
Then I read this chaps post and finally saw a way this could work and keep everyone happy - without giving everyone loads of free sp (which frankly isn't a good idea).
|
Chokichi Ozuwara
Lucky Dragon Convenience
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:32:00 -
[304] - Quote
I can see the upside for this but I have a hard time believing that it is going to translate into more players (which is fun for everyone), more money for CCP etc.
Of all of the low hanging fruit to pick, this one doesn't seem particularly useful. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:32:00 -
[305] - Quote
can i have my battleship 5's SP back. Yes it was trained purely to get into caps.
Oh, and my t2 medium projectile guns, as i will lose the hurricane for the drake
in fact. Just reset my SP and leave me with all the skills injected. Many thanks. |
Murashu
Phoibe Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:32:00 -
[306] - Quote
I'm all for some long overdue ship rebalancing, I just think it is unfortunate that we have to deal with more skill point changes. When CCP changed stealthbombers from cruise missiles to torpedos, they gave us the middle finger and refused to give anyone a skillpoint refund.
I hope we can take it as a good sign that CCP is atleast discussing skillpoint refunds since this will affect so many more people than the bomber nerf.
Since the ship tiers are going away, I assume this also means missile users will never get a BC comparable to the new Tiers 3s that gun users got? |
My Neutral Toon
Knights Who Til Recently Said Ni
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:32:00 -
[307] - Quote
So. According to the new skill tree, I can skip interceptors and dictors and jump straight to heavy dictor?
how does that make sense?
Being able to fly a heavy dictor without ever flying a smaller tackle ships?
Its not all about Skill Book progression, but CCP should be taking PLAYER SKILL PROGRESSION into account here too... ...Can't. Tell. If ...Troll? Or Serious.... |
WolfeReign
T.O.R. Absolute Damage Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:33:00 -
[308] - Quote
Grideris 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.
Is it possible to instead of refunding the SP, just give the skills instead? Because if you can do so, here is what I would do:
- If a player has Racial Frigate III and Destroyers X - give player Recial Destroyer X for every race they have Racial Frigate III in
- Ditto for Battlecruisers
This would really only work if you could actually give us the skills directly. Refunding would result in players having more skill points than they originally spent training the skill to spend on other things. Restricting it to the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills would mean that they keep the level they were at across all races, but aren't able to spend all of the extra skill points elsewhere. is support of this
+1 great dev blog and all the changes look great |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
806
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:33:00 -
[309] - 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. Ok, that makes sense. But at the time you DID NEED to train it to lvl5, so why do you think you deserve a refund of any kind?
Nothing has been taken from you, CCP didnt tell you to train exclusively for capital ships did they?
tl:dr HTFU
|
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:33:00 -
[310] - 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.
Being able to fly it prior to the patch, and being able to fly it after the patch, is one thing.
What people are concerned about is being able to fly things just as effectively after the patch as they could have before. In the case of command ships and interdictors, this is affected by the base Battlecruisers and Destroyers skill levels.
If the minimum requirement is changed to 4, and that's all that's given to us, we effectively regress in our training time. I trained Battlecruisers and Destroyers 5 specifically for the extra benefit of the skill being at 5, not just the ships it unlocked. If the switch over from generic to racial skills for those involves me only getting racial Battlecruisers/Destroyers 4, I've just lost a whole lot of 5% bonuses I have to train for a second time, across both T1 and T2 ships.
If CCP is simply going to give us all the racial skills at the levels we've trained the generic one to, fine - there's nothing to worry about. But until we get a clear answer on that, people are going to continue worrying and fearmongering. |
|
profundus fossura
Calista Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:33:00 -
[311] - Quote
This sounds interesting but a lot of people are concerned about possibility of needing retraining
If you are going serious about doing this I would strongly suggest starting with the mining/orefaction ship line as it is already pretty linear and also a limited range o
would suggest combining ore industrial with mining barges and also streamlining the progression from orca to rorqual, and removing and reimbursing the separate ore industrial and industrial command/capital industrial ships skills which each give only a single ship - noctis and orca
If players can see it going right with a single line of ships it is likely to do more to instill confidence than any number of dev blogs etc and will give you an opportunity to fine tune reimbursement plans and balancin
also if you get it wrong the sight of 5000 hulks sieging statues in jita would be priceles
I do have concerns about how much of a barrier this will be to cross training for new player
Introducing an ore faction hauler and scan ship maybe with a gravimetric boost would also be nice - and maybe a dedicated gas miner. |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
166
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:34:00 -
[312] - Quote
I like the general thinking behind this but I have some minor comments ...
CCP Soundwave wrote: We'll find a suitable reimbursement that makes everyone happy.
Good luck with that ;)
CCP Soundwave wrote: I too, support Soundwaves ideas.
Warning: hyperextending your arm to pat yourself on the back might lead to medical conditions.
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Heaven forbid a game company talk about what they want to do with their game in the future.
Oh, the horror, rabid gamers might revolt on forums, shoot in-game monuments or send flowers to devs (sorry about that one).
At least we cut CCP Hilmar some slack when he acknowledged being wrong.
He didn't end up in court ... Washington Post
CCP Guard wrote:Palovana wrote:Those are some HUGE-ASS images, and trust me, I know huge ass. The image size issue has been resolved. Sorry about that! WTF? a Gamer complaining about a huge ass? Infidel!
|
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:34:00 -
[313] - Quote
Hictors fly nothing like any of the small tacklers you mentioned, you are ******** |
Lt Angus
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:34:00 -
[314] - Quote
my god is reading so hard, please try one more time for us |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3377
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:34:00 -
[315] - Quote
Three types of Support ships
Logistics - Repairs damage
Fire Control - Provides better solutions to other freindly targets.
Electronic Warfare - Denies hostile targets solutions to friendly targets.
All of them should have a dull bite. The logistics should be the toughest of the three to crack. Ewar ship should probably feature the best biting out fo the three but thinnest skin. FC somewhere in between the two.
I also always felt that teir 2 bcs as they are now should all be attack boats not link ships.
Next question when you guys go in and redo the ships in stats are you going to nail thier descriptsion to be uniform as well?
|
Drew Solaert
University of Caille Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:34:00 -
[316] - Quote
Heimdallofasgard wrote:This thread needs:
Less discussion about skill Queues
More discussion about Ship reclassification.
Not empty quotin' |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
114
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:35:00 -
[317] - Quote
Only thing I'll say about skill queues: Keep Racial BS 5 as pre-requisite for each Racial carrier, rest is fine :)
These changes will enable better classification of ships, and open doors to new mind sets when thinking up new fleet compositions, this is ship rebalancing on a really hefty scale which is great.
There are FAR TOO MANY under utilised ships at the moment, and if they all end up having a specific role instead of some being laughed at (like the celestis/deimos/ferox/helios) then I'm all for it. It will make iteration of space ship based features easier, which means more content, in lower lead times, so your monthly subs go to good use. |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Command Fleet Coordination Coalition
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:35:00 -
[318] - Quote
If you actually read through the dev blog, they are in the part where they describe the current state of ships. It's under the heading "Stating the not so obvious" and the line directly after that reads : "To understand what ships lines are all about, letGÇÖs recap the four theoretical factors that sort ships out:"
So those four trees are the current states. http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Drakthon
The Abdication Corporation Tactical Nuke
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:36:00 -
[319] - Quote
It's always nice to be on an epic thread, so I'm going to throw my two cents here for the ****:
I can fly 2 racial command ships, and I think see what you're trying to do here. However, it's sort of confusing, so the only thing I request (and this may already have been stated) is that I can fly those same two racial command ships when this tornado is over.
Also, for the love of the Amarrian God don't reduce BS V to IV for Caps. They're meant to be flown with those that have had enough time in game to know what they are...BS IV is nothing with implants. I just can't get on board with this. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
102
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:36:00 -
[320] - Quote
My Neutral Toon wrote:Its not all about Skill Book progression, but CCP should be taking PLAYER SKILL PROGRESSION into account here too... True for people's first char. When you're on your second or third alt it might get a wee bit tedious.
|
|
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:36:00 -
[321] - Quote
skill queue online though |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
807
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:36:00 -
[322] - Quote
stop being so simple. Here, let me add notes for you
the current skill tree http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Skilltreebefore_1920.jpg
the current ship tree http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Amarrshiptree2_1920.jpg
the proposed change to the skill tree http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Skilltreeafter_1920.jpg
|
Spoon Dame
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:37:00 -
[323] - Quote
I like the general tone of this update, but it does concern me a little about BC being required for BS. I have all racial battleships to IV. Getting only the racial BC SP reimbursement would be rather inconvenient, but I'd live.
Curious how all this will pan out. |
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security Random Coalition of Corporations
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:37:00 -
[324] - Quote
Generally good stuff. Very un-CCP because this actually is starting to make sense and god knowns CCP has been known for confusing and obscure systems. Are you sure EVE is still developed by CCP?
Anyways, one thing I did notice immediatly is that only Caldari ships were listed as Bombardment ships. Seems like a massive design flaw that no other race has the capacity to field bombardment role ships. CCP designers should look into this. - A.Mobius |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:37:00 -
[325] - Quote
I don't like this at all. It's a huge kick in the shins to all the noobies out there by adding more and more and more SP needed to cross-train. I know when I started off with my first main I started going amarr, which turned out to be a huge mistake. Being able to get into a drake instead of a harbinger was a huge deal for me, because it opened up a whole world of possibilities, not just in terms of pvp but also pve. Going from cruiser>bc>bs doesn't help really anyone and it just makes it harder on the noobies because they'd have to completely start from scratch with a new race. It's a move that takes out one of the more dynamic factors of EVE for no discernible benefit, save for the RP factor. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1092
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:37:00 -
[326] - 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.
Yes, player actions highlight (to a degree) different needed ship roles... CCP often designs their ships with this in mind.
Which, fortunately, is exactly what is occuring here. 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. |
Arcin Hamir
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:37:00 -
[327] - Quote
What on earth do you think this actually adds? It seems a lot of resource and time will be devoted that adds essentially nothing but removes a fair amount of flavour. |
Megnamon
HOMELE55 FORECLOSURE.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:38:00 -
[328] - Quote
I like the idea of jetting tiers.
I like the idea of changing recs for destroyers and BC's if implemented properly.
I like that CCP is working to make the game more balanced and make more ships useful.
I like not freaking out any time a change is proposed.
That is all. |
Kippis
exception.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:38:00 -
[329] - Quote
Interesting...
So how will it be called, this new game you are talking about?
But seriously: WTF? The Destroyer and Battlecruiser concepts are awesome BECAUSE they allow you to fly all races' ships with one skill. Also do you seriously want to shorten Capital skill training time by 30 days? Having to train BS to level V is one of the things that makes Capitals special, which they should be IMO.
I can find nothing wrong with the current skill system. Rebalance the ships, yes, and make some Tiers worth flying again, but please do not change the skills. They're awesome as is.
P.S.: Gallente dampening ends with the Exequror? I LOL'd |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:38:00 -
[330] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:FOFOFOFOOOO wrote:On a side note its quite funny to see that it now takes less time to get into a dread then a black ops bs. Good thing they fixed black ops bs. + 1 like
This can't be missed. Great job, this sure doesn't look like it was thought out in a night. |
|
Aethlyn
98
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:39:00 -
[331] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Maybe something more along the lines of what CCP is trying to do: Make one of the bonuses on a battlecruiser be based upon the racial Cruiser skill, make the other based on the Battlecruiser skill.
Splitting up BC into racial components is the worst idea. Sorry. Actually a nice idea. Always saw destroyers and battlecruisers more like an optional "1.5 upgrade". So instead of grabbing the next bigger class of ships you specialize here (even if it's juts on your current tech tier). But having them split up and put into the chain sounds interesting, too. I can actually understand both approaches here and I'm not really sure which one is the one I'd prefer.
In a similar way I always considered the T2 ships requiring other T2 ships as a prereq more like "T2.5". It added quite some complexity, that's right, but at the same time it isn't that bad. But yeah, it sometimes doesn't feel right, if you have to train some ship class that's not directly related with the one you'd like to fly (had that with Command Ships as well as my Orca). Looking for more thoughts? Read my blog or follow me on Twitter. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:40:00 -
[332] - Quote
Has anyone got confirmation of whether they will be properly balancing headlights across the racial offerings? The current imbalance is disgraceful. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:40:00 -
[333] - Quote
I, for one, look forward to Exequrors being useful. "Fools! I'll show them all!"
What do you mean that one's already taken? |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
587
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:40:00 -
[334] - Quote
Awesome - an actual plan to follow when rebalancing ships.
And old ships get new life, very cool.
I like the BS4 for capitals change - it follows the theme, and might make for more overconfident newbs in carriers ratting in lowsec :)
Keep up the great work CCP!
Also, for the stupid people, one more requote:
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.
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
150
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:41:00 -
[335] - Quote
Removal of tiers! \o/ |
Exitar Stormscion
Black Aphelion Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:41:00 -
[336] - Quote
Best thing since removal of learning skills !
THERE IS HOPE !
I just hope CCP learns that in the future they NEED to write in caps and explain clearly in blogs that people wont lose anything and that every change will be done in there benefit so they avoid **** storm on the forums of people that do not read deep enough or understand the concept fully :)
Also SoundWave ! Can we have that ship trees in game ?
Could be very beneficial added under skills in character sheet. Maybe tied with certiciates. Open it select race tab / faction tab click on ship see certificates check on market check skill train time etc :)
Visual representation FTW for new players and old ones alike. |
The Snowman
Aliastra Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:41:00 -
[337] - Quote
It seems everyone is more worried about what compensation they'll get! rather than worried if the damn ships are balanced or not. lol
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1092
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:42:00 -
[338] - Quote
Kippis wrote:Interesting...
So how will it be called, this new game you are talking about?
But seriously: WTF? The Destroyer and Battlecruiser concepts are awesome BECAUSE they allow you to fly all races' ships with one skill. Also do you seriously want to shorten Capital skill training time by 30 days? Having to train BS to level V is one of the things that makes Capitals special, which they should be IMO.
I can find nothing wrong with the current skill system. Rebalance the ships, yes, and make some Tiers worth flying again, but please do not change the skills. They're awesome as is.
P.S.: Gallente dampening ends with the Exequror? I LOL'd
I believe his point was intended to be that it ends at the cruiser level... which means they would consider BC and BS dampner bonused ships.
Still complaining? 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. |
Plyn
Random Jedi Industries KRYSIS.
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:42:00 -
[339] - Quote
On one hand:
THANK YOU GOD, please kill the tier system and fix all of the obsolete ships! This would make the game so much more diverse and super happytize me!
On the other hand:
Many people will be very disappointed to find that they have to train for several months to fly all of their BCs that they were fantastic in a couple of weeks ago. It makes total sense, but you can expect a lot of rage from it.
One idea to make this suck slightly less:
Introduce the racial BC and dessy skills at least a month before you make the change final. This will give people a chance to train up one race's BC 5 and dump the refunded SP into another race's BC 5.... At least this way there is less of a "rug pulled out from under my feet" feeling when you suddenly can't fly all those command ships you had tucked away. Come2Nullsec |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:42:00 -
[340] - Quote
The Snowman wrote:It seems everyone is more worried about what compensation they'll get! rather than worried if the damn ships are balanced or not. lol
it's ccp, they will not be balanced. At all. |
|
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative.
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:43:00 -
[341] - Quote
Skipped over the last few pages as it just seemed to be people raging about having to spend the next 4 months retraining things having not read the devblog properly!
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. As it stands I've got Cruiser5 in all but caldari (which is at 4) - so I can currently fly all battlecruisers. I can fly all field command ships except for the Nighthawk. Currently if I want the Nighthawk I'd just need to train cruiser 5. Providing after the changes, once again the only thing I need is Caldari Cruiser 5 I'm happy. I don't care what the skills are called providing I can fly everything I can now at the same level - judging from the blog this is what will happen - so I'm happy.
Good job CCP, the change to make things like BC required for BS and so on is a good one. Will stop people jumping up into bigger ships so quick on the whole - although I can't decide whether that's a good or bad thing for Capitals.
Regarding removing tiers to make certain ships more useful - awesome! |
Rixiu
PonyTek
107
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:43:00 -
[342] - Quote
Great ideas. Even if retraining is less than desirable the end result makes it worth it.
Removal of tiers! |
DaDutchDude
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:43:00 -
[343] - Quote
HOLY *censored* BATMAN! Quick, to the Wall of Text response mobile
Skill progression changes I think there are two mayor sides to this - For those new to the game / training new characters: excellent news! I think this makes a lot more sense - For those who have many characters / very deeply trained characters: oh noes, this is going to be FUBAR
Since the majority of the current customers are veterans, it's good to take their worries seriously. For example, I just finished training basically all (combat) subcaps on my main to V, and just respecced Int / Mem to finish training those skills to V. The prospect of possibly having to go back to training Perc / Will skills and figuring out how to best use refunded skill points to get back most of my skills in one go makes my head hurt a bit. Without specifics, it is hard to tell how bad the head ache will be though
That being said, I think in general, the reason for change is clear and good, so as long as player concerns for these changes are addressed, I'm quite happy with them
Ship lines This idea is really exciting. I'd consider renaming some of your choices though, because the meaning of the names is not very self-evident, at least not to me. As an idea, consider to the following Combat - Brawler: close range combat, good DPS + tank, low agility / rang - Skirmisher: mobility based combat, good DPS + agility, medium range / tan - Sniper: long range combat, good DPS + range, low agility / tan - (idea) Tank: Ship class with a local repair specialization, medium DPS and range, low agility. great self repair. These would be the race ship for solo PVE or PVP Support (I would split these up from the start, because you probably want to have attribute range control a bit better per ship type then just as a group, and also because the group lends itself to extension for new classes - EWAR: EWAR bonus, low DPS, medium range / tank / agilit - Logistics: Logistics bonus, low DPS, medium range / tank / agilit - (idea) Exploration ship class: I would love to see exploration become a lot more prevalent, and adding specific exploration ships would be awesome.
You can flesh out the specifics a bit more by also setting targets for attributes such as lock speed, ECM strength, etc. On top of that, you can make the races a bit more defined by setting different targets for these attributes per race. I can totally see this giving new ways to specialize, new strategies, etc. I'm bubbling with ideas.
The thing where it gets tricky is when you talk about specific skills to specialize. I would really like to see some examples of what you are thinking about. how does that relate for example to current support skills, such as the existing ewar / gunnery / missile / shield tank / armor tank skills? Also, how powerful will they be? If they become a "must have" for some ship classes, you really will have to address that as part of the skill progression changes as well, since it means it might be much better to have less races but more specialization skills instead of cross training. Also, this could easily become either very overpowered or useless
A second major concern is how this relates to T2, and the T1 vs T2 balance. Currently, T2 usually means more specialization then T1. However, if T1 ships get more specialized, they risk making T2 ships almost redundant. That is already the case with some T2 ships, most specifically the HACs and Field Command Ships. T1 DPS ships, especially battlecruisers, already do the job so well and are so much less expensive that the T2 version is a lot less useful to most. This is much more the case when it comes to larger fleet fights, which unfortunately dominate a lot of the PVP. So I would like to see more specific ideas on that as well
A third concern will be the way you implement these changes. I personally think you should start with all frigates and work youe way up size wise from there, instead of doing it by race or as a big bang. I think knowing the capabilities of the smallest entity will help scale the next level properly, and the next level from there on. Personally I'd love to see the gap in tracking / sig / speed to become a bit larger to make classes more distinct and have one class need other classes or the proper support at all times.
Also when you make these changes, initial imbalance will be unavoidable. Because of that, I would suggest setting a lot of time apart in next releases for rebalancing, and also some possibilities for players to get skill points refunded in case changes are radical. Building trust with the community that this isn't a one time deal and their concerns will be taken into account will be very important when making such sweeping changes across something that players have invested years of skill points into
Anyway, those are my thoughts for the moment. All in all, it looks promising but quite tricky to get it right as well, especialy in one go, and therefor slightly panic inducing as well. I hope you pull it off and it becomes a major success. They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I always have the best intentions for others ... |
Mukutep
Appetite 4 Destruction
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:44:00 -
[344] - Quote
Just want to make sure I understand what the reason for having Racial Battleship at V would be if this change happened. Would it only be necessary for black ops and marauders? |
Candente
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:45:00 -
[345] - Quote
Reiteration of the popular opinion here.
Don't make us train stuff after the patch for stuff we could fly before the patch.
That being said, it's ideal not to reimburse SP, but give players actual skills with equivalent level.
Some other ideas with the float chart:
- Ceptor -> Dictor -> HIC line should retain. Since training for T2 ship skills no longer have the racial T1 ship skills to V, I'd say the requirement to fly a HIC should include Interdictor IV, which has prereq of Interceptor IV. Please get rid of Graviton Physics IV requirement for HIC bubble.
- Buff Black Ops (for example, ability to warp cloaked) and link it to Covert Ops -> Recon line.
- Combat Recons should be split from Force Recon since they don't cloak. A suitable line would be Electronic Attack Ship -> Combat Recon, while Covert Ops -> Force Recon
|
A Lunchbox
Basgerin Pirate
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:45:00 -
[346] - Quote
After reading all this, I have come to the conclusion:
I must be the only person in eve to train bs 5 for normal bs
Carry on flameage |
anzelotte
well of abyss
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:46:00 -
[347] - Quote
oh.. and i just wanted to propose complete remove racial specific ships skills.. just frigate, destroyer, cruiser etc skills + one < racial > starship command skill (with 16x traning time) which replace "spaceship command" and "advanced spaceship command". so to fly condor: you need "frigate level 2" and "caldari spaceship command level 1" abaddon: "battleship level 3" and "amarr spaceship command level 3" ragnarok: "titan level 1" and "minmatar spaceship command level 5" something like that..
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
323
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:46:00 -
[348] - Quote
Looks like a good change overall for going forward. Like most, I also express less than joy for having to retrain for that which I have already paid for in terms of subscription time. The rules were X, and get changed, now I have to pay for X again ... not ideal.
Those that come after and have to pay for the new skill trees, it may sound cold but, so what? They are new to the agreement and accept it. Those of us with many of these skills, like myself, who are cross trained on just about every sub-cap in the game to level 5, should not be subjected to having to do it again.
Grandfather us in, doing so will not alter the landscape. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:46:00 -
[349] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:Has anyone got confirmation of whether they will be properly balancing headlights across the racial offerings? The current imbalance is disgraceful.
Too long have our headlights languished un-loved; enquiring minds must know!! |
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative.
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:46:00 -
[350] - Quote
Mukutep wrote:Just want to make sure I understand what the reason for having Racial Battleship at V would be if this change happened. Would it only be necessary for black ops and marauders?
Well some people do fly Normal and Faction Battleships and quite enjoy having the maximum of their possible bonuses ;) |
|
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
116
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:47:00 -
[351] - Quote
Mukutep wrote:Just want to make sure I understand what the reason for having Racial Battleship at V would be if this change happened. Would it only be necessary for black ops and marauders?
The BS V bonuses to t1 BS's make some entire fits possible. and give a hefty boost to the amount of dps/rep in some cases... BUT!
Keep BS V requirement for all capitals |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
424
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:47:00 -
[352] - Quote
CCP has given a rough picture of how they want ship progression to work. They have give NO details of the proposed trasition mechanism. Still, in typical EVE community fasion, people are filling in the blanks themselves and comment on this basis as if it where the thruth, virtually having a heart attack based on nothing but their own imagination.
Let me say that again: You havent been told about how CCP plans to transit from current state to end state. Stop acting like you do. |
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
335
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:47:00 -
[353] - Quote
The idea is fundamentally great, but like many people have pointed out, all of us who have made sure we are crosstrained extensively are going to be mighty pissed...
So, basically what would happen is overnight I would lose the ability to fly 3/4 of the BC and destroyers entirely and have to retrain, which lets face it is complete crap. Being able to jump literally into any T1 or t2 subcap is something I made sure I am capable of. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1093
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:47:00 -
[354] - Quote
Mukutep wrote:Just want to make sure I understand what the reason for having Racial Battleship at V would be if this change happened. Would it only be necessary for black ops and marauders?
Logically yes, outside of the obvious benefits of having BS level 5 to begin with. It is still the most universally used ship in the game. 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. |
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:47:00 -
[355] - Quote
As far as retraining gripes: deal with it. If thats what needs to be done to implement a vastly cleaner system, then it should be done. Crap happens, and the trouble is more than worth it in the long run.
I'm glad CCP finally realized that there's a lot of hulls that are currently next to useless. I like the idea of giving each ship a place, rather than: "Do you want more attack or defense? Attack? Cool. Pick that one." "But what about these other two ships?" "Oh, those? Nobody uses those. They suck." "okay.jpg"
It'd also be nice to see mobility play an actual role. As it stands, it's mostly a matter of using modules to enhance mobility. The base ship stats don't make much of a difference. I think increasing the differences in mobility between ships would help (Instead of a 15 m/s increase of one ship over another, make it something like 50 m/s so it's actually a worthwhile consideration when choosing your ship.) Unfortunately when it comes to fleets that you can just warp anywhere, it's less of an issue. So I kind of doubt this whole 'make mobility more viable' thing is really practicable... I mean, we are flying large warships here; not cockpit fighters. It's just something to think about. When it comes to real life war fleets, for example, essentially every ship is there to support the carrier and protect it from outside threats, so most of the time they're trawling along at the speed of their slowest ship. |
Giullare
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:47:00 -
[356] - Quote
This is the dumbest idea second only to when you started to sell pants and monocles. I play since 2007 and crosstrained ALL subcapitals because every " x " months ccp nerf my favorite ship. Now they still find out a way to f.u.c.k up my ship hangar. I don't care if noobs can fly a carrier with bs 4, when someone conquer a right you can't just take that right away. Many people crosstrained different races and we deserve to fly what we skilled ( and payed with subscription) in several years. So change your mind because a shitstorm will hit this forum. |
Myz Toyou
Bite Me inc Exhale.
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:48:00 -
[357] - Quote
After getting hope after last patch in the new born "old" CCP it seems that they lost either the key to the meds they took the last month or just thinking "f... that BS community shizzle" we now back to our WoW in space plans were everyone should be lvl 80 space paladin in 50 days.
Shame on you CCP |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
495
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:48:00 -
[358] - Quote
Grideris wrote:
If you actually read through the dev blog, they are in the part where they describe the current state of ships. It's under the heading "Stating the not so obvious" and the line directly after that reads : "To understand what ships lines are all about, letGÇÖs recap the four theoretical factors that sort ships out:"
So those four trees are the current states.
Right.
A whole lot of images to show what is pretty obvious already to anyone who plays the game.
Quote:Stating the not so obvious
To understand what ships lines are all about, letGÇÖs recap the four theoretical factors that sort ships out:
Size
Tech
Tiers
Combining all these elements, we arrive at the following ship trees:
Reading that states at no point that these are showing the "current state of things". Hence, it's pretty unclear if you actually read the material. At no point does it say, "These images represent currently sorted ships out before the changes" The mention of removing tiers is done after the images, so there's no reason to presume that those images have anything to do with the old system, since we're trying to talk about the new system. Until that point you really are left thinking the images represent the new system. All they need to do is state a clarification that the images are as things currently are. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
184
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:49:00 -
[359] - Quote
Jump Freighters
Just to clarify - are we talking about requiring racial freighter to V for jump freighters, or racial industrial to IV for regular freighters and racial industrial to V for jump freighters (in addition to the regular jumpy nav skills)? With racial freighter skills at 10x training time (compared to the 8x for racial battleship) it would make for one very long train to get into JFs. |
bassie12bf1
Militaris Industries Cascade Imminent
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:49:00 -
[360] - Quote
Would this make the t1 mining cruisers and frigates useful for pvp then?
|
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1093
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:49:00 -
[361] - Quote
Rico Minali wrote:The idea is fundamentally great, but like many people have pointed out, all of us who have made sure we are crosstrained extensively are going to be mighty pissed...
So, basically what would happen is overnight I would lose the ability to fly 3/4 of the BC and destroyers entirely and have to retrain, which lets face it is complete crap. Being able to jump literally into any T1 or t2 subcap is something I made sure I am capable of.
Not to single you out, but yet again...
"IF YOU CAN FLY IT NOW, YOU CAN FLY IT LATER." 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. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
624
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:49:00 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Navigator is updating the devblog as we speak :) |
|
Freelancer117
Obsidian Tigers
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:50:00 -
[363] - Quote
1st: CSM needs to be a major player in this like with the removal of learning skills, and rebalancing of the social skills
2nd: WHEN you redo the ships and their skills, make sure you reimburse players that at that time have all racial frigates to lvl5 and destroyer to lvl5 with enough reimbursed skillpoints to get all racial destroyers skill to lvl5.
same applies to the all racial battle cruiser skills, if the capsuleer has all racial cruiser skills to lvl5 and bc to lvl5
I don't care how you do this, but else there will be a major riot.
Im thinking of bubble layers (dictors) and fleet boosters (fleet command)
3rd: DON'T rush this because you have an Inferno deadline or some stupid scrum team deadline , ty |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
116
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:50:00 -
[364] - Quote
Giullare wrote:This is the dumbest idea second only to when you started to sell pants and monocles. I play since 2007 and crosstrained ALL subcapitals because every " x " months ccp nerf my favorite ship. Now they still find out a way to **** up my ship hangar. I don't care if noobs can fly a carrier with bs 4, when someone conquer a right you can't just take that right away. Many people crosstrained different races and we deserve to fly what we skilled ( and payed with subscriction) in several years. So change your mind because a shitstorm will hit this forum.
Still far too much discussion about skill queues instead of space ships. |
Luba Cibre
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:51:00 -
[365] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:CCP Navigator is updating the devblog as we speak :) he better has some good news and clarification for us. |
Asban
Panda Inc
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:51:00 -
[366] - Quote
The stated reason for splitting the desty/bc skills into racial versions is that it is bad to have 12 ships unlocked by a single skill. Could CCP elaborate a little more on why this is considered a bad thing? I'm on board for the other changes, but I'm just not seeing why this was a bad thing. Are BCs too strong, and the only way to justify keeping their power level that high is by making it harder to cross train into them? What's the rationale behind the split, because in all honesty, the pain doesn't seem worth the change if it's "just too confusing" |
KanashiiKami
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:51:00 -
[367] - Quote
looks like a dilema for CCP ... for me ...id say ... CCP should
1) refund all skill points since this is a pretty massive rework (ccp chooses a fixed date, everyone gets his SP reset/refunded) 2) every BC/destro skill refund x4 amt for player self re-allocate (or which ever skill that has to be quadruple trained)
yes players seems to get upper hand, but ccp have the option to shrink amt of SP required ... but increase number of skills tiers to get to the top ...
and i tend to agree that the shortened path to supercaps doesnt sound like a good idea. so really ... we are all going to end up in null sitting in supercaps? LOL ... so who is this bloke in a hurry to grab supers in a hurry?
anyway ... full reallocate and over dose of SP refunds is wad i will look forward to ... it WILL take some time to re-digest the entire new ship "tree" WUT ??? |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
116
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:52:00 -
[368] - Quote
bassie12bf1 wrote:Would this make the t1 mining cruisers and frigates useful for pvp then?
BOOOOO!!!!!
To be honest I love the look of the gallente mining frigate... but it mines... wtf...
MAKE MINING FRIGATES MORE INDUSTRIAL LOOKING!! |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:52:00 -
[369] - Quote
[quote=Scatim Helicon]Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours?[/quote
This is my problem with this blog
Skill lines sounds like an awefull euphenism for getting warrior ships, mage ships, shaman ships, etc
Limiting ships to a single role is bullshit One of the great things about Eve is that you can fly every ship as you want PvP in Eve is often about finding a fitting that suits your need and getting effects out of ships that people dont expect
And yeah, racial BC skills are... weird Actually I dont know why they are even usefull Right now the skill system is mostly tree based, it splits up more and more the higher you get Whats the advantage of turning this into a single line system Its just annoying and a huge oversimplification
Also Battlecruisers are currently one of the most usefull shipclasses. Newbies can fly them quickly (if not good), while people with more SP can use progressively better fittings Racial skills would completely **** that and be a huge boot in the face for people with low sp chars
Oh and BS 4 for caps is horrible, a shitload of people crossskill caps and I guess there will be no sp reimbursement for BSV You'd have to reimburse so much skills to get these things done, its pathetic
|
RLCHANCE
The Shadow Cartel
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:52:00 -
[370] - Quote
OK sounds good but that would make a lot of people so angry
My I dear Instead of that - Frigate Level 4, To Train Destroyers Destroyer Level 4, To train Cruisers Skill Cruiser Level 4, To train Battle-Cruisers Skill Battle-Cruiser Level 4, To train Battleships Skill
|
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
102
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:52:00 -
[371] - Quote
Silath Slyver Silverpine wrote:I'm glad CCP finally realized that there's a lot of hulls that are currently next to useless. I like the idea of giving each ship a place I'm sure no one mourns the loss of the tier system.
However, they better not push each hull into a niche. Making a hull do something it's technically not supposed to in order to surprise your opponent is one of the best parts of Eve. So here's hoping they pull it off.
Like I said though, I'm worried they are painting themselves into just another corner trading tiers for roles. But when they start to release some stats we can make a judgement based on that instead of guesswork.
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:52:00 -
[372] - Quote
Not only do that to Battelcruisers and destroyers, but also to heavy assault, marauders, etc... Also don't forget to give us SP when you do it, so that we can turn into maximized single or cross-trained ship hulls. |
Raivi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:53:00 -
[373] - Quote
Holy ****.
There are a lot of good concepts in this blog, but you're talking about radically changing more than half the ships in eve, including many ships that people do use (if you're gonna do stuff like give Amarr a TD and drone BS). I have no idea if this is going to end in success or disaster.
Basically, I love what's been shared so far, but please please do everything possible to avoid messing this up. (That includes talking to the CSM in ways you apparently have not so far on this issue) |
Mistredo
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:53:00 -
[374] - Quote
anzelotte wrote:oh.. and i just wanted to propose complete remove racial specific ships skills.. just frigate, destroyer, cruiser etc skills + one < racial > starship command skill (with 16x traning time) which replace "spaceship command" and "advanced spaceship command". so to fly condor: you need "frigate level 2" and "caldari spaceship command level 1" abaddon: "battleship level 3" and "amarr spaceship command level 3" ragnarok: "titan level 1" and "minmatar spaceship command level 5" something like that..
This is great idea and I would love to see that. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:53:00 -
[375] - Quote
Why not put all this time and effort into actually re-balancing those neglected ships and filling those tier holes which have been endlessly discussed for nigh on the last 8 years if that's what, in the end, this is all about?
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1093
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:53:00 -
[376] - Quote
Luba Cibre wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:CCP Navigator is updating the devblog as we speak :) he better has some good news and clarification for us.
Likely it will boil down to...
"IF YOU CAN FLY IT NOW, YOU CAN FLY IT LATER."
Which, in essence, is all anyone is really concerned about.
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. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
588
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:53:00 -
[377] - Quote
Rico Minali wrote:The idea is fundamentally great, but like many people have pointed out, all of us who have made sure we are crosstrained extensively are going to be mighty pissed...
So, basically what would happen is overnight I would lose the ability to fly 3/4 of the BC and destroyers entirely and have to retrain, which lets face it is complete crap. Being able to jump literally into any T1 or t2 subcap is something I made sure I am capable of.
One more time for the stupid people:
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.
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Alara IonStorm
1732
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:54:00 -
[378] - Quote
bassie12bf1 wrote:Would this make the t1 mining cruisers and frigates useful for pvp then?
I don't know about the Frigates but I really hope the T1 Logi actually becomes real T1 Logi. |
Shangpo
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:54:00 -
[379] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:looks like a dilema for CCP ... for me ...id say ... CCP should
1) refund all skill points since this is a pretty massive rework (ccp chooses a fixed date, everyone gets his SP reset/refunded)
anyway ... full reallocate and over dose of SP refunds is wad i will look forward to ... it WILL take some time to re-digest the entire new ship "tree"
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=899067#post899067
Yup, I said that too |
Vanir Waelcyrge
Enochian Key
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:54:00 -
[380] - Quote
Probably been suggested above, but here we go.
I beleive a better way to change the ship skills would be to ease crosstraining, but make ship line skills racial.
Create general frigate, crusier and battleship skills usable to fly all of their type (the same as destroyer and battrecruiser today). Make all new specialist skills racial, and make them higher rank. Separe ship bonuses so that the more important/profilic of the bonus type on each ship is related the the racial skill of the ship. Only basic bonuses should be tied to the level of ship skills.
This would make people able to trying out more ships and faster too. But getting the important role bonuses would take more time and investment.
It would simplify the change. Keep the highest racial ship skill level you have and get the other reimbursed. Any reimbursed points could then be spent on the new ship line skills.
As a bonus; if the ship line skills wasn't identical to all races we could get more flavor back into the empires. Make the empires differ more than the choice of colour schemes.
/Vanir |
|
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:55:00 -
[381] - Quote
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. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:55:00 -
[382] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: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. Yes, player actions highlight (to a degree) different needed ship roles... CCP often designs their ships with this in mind. Which, fortunately, is exactly what is occuring here.
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. |
Mibad
Caldari Provisions
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:55:00 -
[383] - Quote
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... |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
588
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:55:00 -
[384] - Quote
Akara Ito wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? This is my problem with this blog Skill lines sounds like an awefull euphenism for getting warrior ships, mage ships, shaman ships, etc
Great idea!
I want a Shadowknight ship!
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
stoicfaux
765
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:56:00 -
[385] - Quote
+1.0 for something that is long overdue -0.5 if we have to retrain for ships we can already fly (i.e. the BC/Destroyer skill makeover)
0.5 which rounds up to +1.
Great change, but I'm going to loathe having to train multiple BC5 skills.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:56:00 -
[386] - Quote
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. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics Bringers of Death.
598
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:56:00 -
[387] - Quote
Yay. More things to train.
Whenever I think of opening a 3rd account, I'll be sure to consider how much fun I'll have... training more stuff.
I'm sure that will motivate me.
By the way, what are you gonna do for all those people who trained BS5 just to fly carriers? This is kind of a "Haha ****-you" to them, isn't it? |
Yasuhiro Shoe
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:57:00 -
[388] - Quote
Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance.
I would like to point out once again, that heavy fire does not in fact pin the enemy down: in Eve movement / warp are not restriced nor hindered by explosions. Barring further changes in the mechanics, this concept is fundamentally broken, as it's simply a delayed dps/alpha role with no clear advantage over turrets' instant effects.
Apart from that, interesting if controversial blog. Keep it coming.
I don't care about nor see much point to the skillbook changes. It seems like a waste of effort.
The emancipation of tiers is very much welcome.
Will production be impacted by this change? Right now weaker tiers cost less to manufacture. Are you going to rebalance that too?
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
935
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:57:00 -
[389] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:+1.0 for something that is long overdue -0.5 if we have to retrain for ships we can already fly (i.e. the BC/Destroyer skill makeover)
0.5 which rounds up to +1.
Great change, but I'm going to loathe having to train multiple BC5 skills.
Fortunately, you won't. It helps to read. ;-)
-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
|
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 19:58:00 -
[390] - Quote
Finally \o/ I've been waiting for a balancing blog that shows some vision for years. I'm glad to see you have the guts to make EVE better, even in the face of a lot of complaining about the difficulties involved with crosstraining. If it means certain people get an outrageous amount of "free" SP in comparison to those of us who have pretty much trained just one race for 6 years, so be it ;) |
|
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.
|
|
stoicfaux
765
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:11:00 -
[421] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:stoicfaux wrote:+1.0 for something that is long overdu -0.5 if we have to retrain for ships we can already fly (i.e. the BC/Destroyer skill makeover
0. which rounds up to +1
Great change, but I'm going to loathe having to train multiple BC5 skills
Fortunately, you won't. It helps to read. ;- -Liang You mean this? "Due to the way nested requirements work, it would also mean pilots would not need to re-train anything to fly Battleships or Cruisers."
I'll believe it when I see it. There's something bugging me about how you would program/implement that, but I can't put my thumb on it.
Plus, I'll probably be one of those people who will use the refund to buy "non-optimally mapped" skills and then retrain for the faction BC skills with my current Perc/Will mapping
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:11:00 -
[422] - Quote
If you remove BS V as requirement for caps then i should be able to get it reimbursed, my capital alt does not need 30d of training for something it will never use. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
589
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:11:00 -
[423] - 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.
Edit: Personal attack removed, CCP Phantom.
Yet another time, for the less than observant:
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.
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:12:00 -
[424] - Quote
quygen wrote:First page \o/
Still wondering about splitting those BC skills, i trained that to lvl5 about 2,5 years ago. have to do all the training all over again.
That assumes they don't grant you all 4 x Racial BC skills at V.
Why is everyone assuming that the racial BC skills will take as much time as the generic BC skill? |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order Villore Accords
95
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:12:00 -
[425] - Quote
Excuse me CCP but you can kindly suck my balls.
Changing prereqs isnt balancing, changing ship stats is.
Idiots. |
Tubolard
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:14:00 -
[426] - Quote
I don't think splitting up the Destroyer and BC skill makes sense. it means you are giving both of those skills equal weight to frigates and cruisers, however when I train for example Caldari frigate to 5 i get access to multiple different ship specializations like interceptor and assault frigate, however destroyers only gives me interdictors. I feel that if the Destroyers and BC skills are split into race spacific skills more ships in these classes need to come out to make it worth it to train level five in multiple races. |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:14:00 -
[427] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:quygen wrote:First page \o/
Still wondering about splitting those BC skills, i trained that to lvl5 about 2,5 years ago. have to do all the training all over again. That assumes they don't grant you all 4 x Racial BC skills at V. Why is everyone assuming that the racial BC skills will take as much time as the generic BC skill?
Looks like you're the one who can't read, the blog clearly states that the racial battlecruiser skills will most likely have the same rank. |
PinkKnife
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:15:00 -
[428] - Quote
For those not wanting caps to be faster trains you can easily simply crank up the capital ships training time to compensate for it.
I approve of the basing the BC skills off of the cruiser level. I have CS4 and BC V, and I want to keep both Amarr and Gallente BC V (those are what I fly). I don't want to have just some random ass Caldari BC V thrown into my queue ruining my pretty skill list. |
Bluestream3
the Goose Flock
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:15:00 -
[429] - Quote
Don't overdo it with streamlining, CCP. Streamlining is ****. That is all I have to say. |
Bull Eramix
Mimidae Risk Solutions
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:15:00 -
[430] - Quote
Dear CCP employees,
There are again tearz of joy ... this time because you are trying to give us more viable options for ships to fly which leads to additional strategies to be developed to utilize these ships.
I only have one albeit small issues with this devblog...
Why did you have to post it while I am at work, it's hard to explain the tearz to my coworkers, whereas my corp mates on vent would be a much better support group.
As for the fears surrounding the potential for basically there being more SP required to fly 'everything'. (Not just vets who showed concerns about command-ships, or capital ships, but new players who may require less time for an individual ship, but more SP overall to be well rounded). I'm glad that you CCP responded as quickly as you did, but at the same time you know what?
You've done so much to address concerns with the game from little things to hybrids over the past few months that I'm just going to sit back and TRUST you to make the best decision for the game/community as a whole on this one (whatever that works out to be), even if I may not personally agree with whatever you go with.
|
|
August Hayek
PILSGESCHWADER Monkey Circus
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:15:00 -
[431] - Quote
Heh,
Super Carrier and Titan pilots don't need destroyer or battlecruiser skill for now. Do I have to skill destroyer and battlecruiser with my SC char?
lulz |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
940
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:16:00 -
[432] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: You mean this? "Due to the way nested requirements work, it would also mean pilots would not need to re-train anything to fly Battleships or Cruisers."
I'll believe it when I see it. There's something bugging me about how you would program/implement that, but I can't put my thumb on it.
Plus, I'll probably be one of those people who will use the refund to buy "non-optimally mapped" skills and then retrain for the faction BC skills with my current Perc/Will mapping
No, I mean: CCP Soundwave had this to say here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=898503#post898503
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.
And again here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=898531#post898531
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.
More info: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=898882#post898882
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.
-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
|
hrusha
Open Designs Emergent Avionics
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:16:00 -
[433] - Quote
The ::lack of reading comprehension:: is strong with this crowd!
Can't wait to see how this makes the game even more exciting!
Also- make caps harder to get, we need more sub-cap ship proliferation and pewpew!
Also #2: Quote: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. - PLEASE DO!
Hru |
Zabir Kal'Uragan
Sanguine Cabal
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:16:00 -
[434] - Quote
Aarin Wrath wrote: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.
The devil is in the detail
If I have level 5 bc and they refund me the sp I can technically invest it in level 1 of each and therefore "fly what I could yesterday". I haven't seen a promise that I will have them trained to the same level as yesterday which is where it matters to me.
Stop screwing with the few things left in the game that arent broken. The skill tree is what it is, there's no secret internerd rules that say it has to follow some strictly logical progression, its part of what makes eve the uniquely brilliant game it is.
As for making all ships across the races have defined roles, STOP TRYING TO EFFING TURN EVE INTO WOW-IN-SPACE |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
117
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:17:00 -
[435] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Excuse me CCP but you can kindly suck my balls.
Changing prereqs isnt balancing, changing ship stats is.
Idiots.
You're just being short sighted... these changes enable greater iteration. |
Akelorian
FinFleet Raiden.
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:18:00 -
[436] - Quote
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. |
Alastanir
NOMAD. RISE of LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:18:00 -
[437] - Quote
Training a carrier should be harder to get into than a marauder or black ops. I vote "nay" on lowering cap requirements to BS IV. |
Plyn
Random Jedi Industries KRYSIS.
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:18:00 -
[438] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Excuse me CCP but you can kindly suck my balls.
Changing prereqs isnt balancing, changing ship stats is.
Idiots. Lulz... Somebody forgot to read both halves of the blog!!!!! Come2Nullsec |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:18:00 -
[439] - Quote
Zabir Kal'Uragan wrote:Aarin Wrath wrote: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. The devil is in the detail If I have level 5 bc and they refund me the sp I can technically invest it in level 1 of each and therefore "fly what I could yesterday". I haven't seen a promise that I will have them trained to the same level as yesterday which is where it matters to me. Stop screwing with the few things left in the game that arent broken. The skill tree is what it is, there's no secret internerd rules that say it has to follow some strictly logical progression, its part of what makes eve the uniquely brilliant game it is. As for making all ships across the races have defined roles, STOP TRYING TO EFFING TURN EVE INTO WOW-IN-SPACE
Quoted for truth. |
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
335
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:18:00 -
[440] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Rico Minali wrote:The idea is fundamentally great, but like many people have pointed out, all of us who have made sure we are crosstrained extensively are going to be mighty pissed...
So, basically what would happen is overnight I would lose the ability to fly 3/4 of the BC and destroyers entirely and have to retrain, which lets face it is complete crap. Being able to jump literally into any T1 or t2 subcap is something I made sure I am capable of. Not to single you out, but yet again... "IF YOU CAN FLY IT NOW, YOU CAN FLY IT LATER."
I probably overshot and panicked and missed that bit, thx.
I usaully trust the judgements made and go with it, but I saw red when i thought id lose the ability to fly my precious command ships of every race...
Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
|
Kuroi Hoshi
Ajo Heavy Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:18:00 -
[441] - Quote
As a suggestion I'd rather see the problem approached from a different direction.
Remove Amarr, Caldari, Minmatar, and Gallente Frigate/Cruiser/Battleship and make it just Frigate/Cruiser/Battleship. Remove the Spaceship Command skill.
Then just add the skills of Amarr, Caldari, Minmatar, and Gallente Spaceship Command (with maybe a slightly higher training time) etc.
It would seem to be an easier way to keep the ranks for each skill about the same across the races without having to effectively grandfather in players or else have players up in arms with worry about no longer being able to fly ships well that they could previously.
Also it would prevent you from having to go through the same mess with all T2 ship skills a year down the road.
*Edit - I missed Shin Dari's post basically suggesting the same thing. Consider this as being in support of that as well. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
231
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:19:00 -
[442] - Quote
I think your new FiS approach is more than welcome.
While I was originally a little nervous about how skillpoint redistribution and skill reallocation will alter the ships I can currently fly, I'm very much alright with your changes and trust CCP will do us right...
I think the tiericide is very welcome, and thank you for keeping up the new and innovative changes!!! |
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:20:00 -
[443] - Quote
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... |
ORCACommander
Astral Synthetics
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:20:00 -
[444] - Quote
very interesting concept and I demand more high resolution tech tree progression images when its finalized. My one complaint is that HACs should require assault ships as a prereq as logically how can you be qualified to fly a heavier version of an assault ship if you are not qualified in the smaller version
not sure if i approve of racial battlecruiser until we have naval and pirate variants. if you do insist on this then existing players should be grandfathered into having all racial bc skills provided they have battlecruisers to begin with.
Also i demand black ops be given covert ops cloaks and the widow at least needs a larger tank and better ecm bonus so its not just on par with a falcon or rook. now to read a 23 page topic and see what others are saying |
Steelrat diGriz
X10 PUNISHM4NT
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:20:00 -
[445] - Quote
THIS IS A STUIPED IDEA
that means i have to train battlecruisers another 2 time just so i'm in teh sam eplace i i am unless u get 1.5mil free sp for every race cruiser 5 u have if you as well as cs skills |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
1179
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:21:00 -
[446] - Quote
I find it funny that people are calling this Tiericide...I guess I missed the part where they actually removed the Tiers. Looks like they are still there to me. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP!-á Open the door!!! |
Russir
the united Negative Ten.
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:21:00 -
[447] - 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. agreed DO NOT DO THIS ITS ******* STUIPED |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
117
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:21:00 -
[448] - Quote
Steelrat diGriz wrote:THIS IS A STUIPED IDEA
that means i have to train battlecruisers another 2 time just so i'm in teh sam eplace i i am unless u get 1.5mil free sp for every race cruiser 5 u have if you as well as cs skills
Once again... no likes... mad as hell |
Kale Kold
the unified Negative Ten.
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:22:00 -
[449] - Quote
CCP is smoking the Incarna crack again!
So i lose BC5 and then i have to train 4 x BC5 again!?!?! or if we are 'reimursed' we get enough skillpoints for 1 BC5 then a bit for another, leaving 3 more months of training for something we already have??? This is a **** move CCP!!! Prepare for us shooting the jita monument again! GÇ£Some people call me insane for the destruction-áIGÇÖve caused, ...I believe I was just doing my duty!GÇ¥ -- Testimony submitted to Caldari Navy war crimes tribunal. |
Mitauchi
NOMAD. RISE of LEGION
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:22:00 -
[450] - Quote
While I love the fact CCP is focused on revamping ships in general. I do not see how making it easier for players to get into capitals is a good idea. I have an industrial account that has trained BS5 skill only to fly a carrier. He has no conventional weapon skills that would apply to flying a T1 or T2 BS as he uses this character solely for logistics. If this change goes forward then that would mean I spent the 30 day or so training of BS5 for absolutely no reason. Unless CCP is planing on offering a refund of the SP I have wasted on training BS4 to BS5 then I feel as though I wasted an entire month where I could of applied these skills points else where.
The big question is will I get my BS5 reimbursed??? |
|
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
|
|
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 |
|
Alara IonStorm
1738
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:45:00 -
[511] - Quote
rachealdoll wrote: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. Step away from the coffee and caps lock button before you stroke out.
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 do not have to retrain any skills to fly what you can already fly.
|
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:45:00 -
[512] - Quote
Politik Kommissar wrote: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.
Could people please stop posting with their alts and bring something constructive to the thread instead of flaming... jeeze... |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:46:00 -
[513] - Quote
Akelorian wrote: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.
Then after that I did carrier IV, all the drone skills, Energy management V, energy systems operation V, tanking skills to IV, all the remote reps to IV, CET to IV, CAR to IV, JDC V (ohgod) and on and on.
Even a suicide triage fit isn't going to be THAT much quicker - you're still going to need semi-decent capacitor skills and you'll need logi V.
If this made it so that it took half the time to get into a carrier I'd be worried. But the more I think about it, the more that I think that BS V was just a hurdle, and not a particularly large one compared to all the other things you have to train to use it.
|
Mary Mercer
King Wholesaling
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:46:00 -
[514] - Quote
Full point refunds for all! |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:46:00 -
[515] - Quote
If you are changing the ships up, what about doing a selectable bonus. This will not be anywhere near as configurable as T3's, but could really mix things up turning each T1 ship into a few different ships.
For example, the Bellicose:
7.5 bonus to target painter effectiveness
Choose between: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Rate of Fire 10% bonus to targeting range per level
The bonuses are picked when you unpackage the ship. At that point is locked into its configuration until you repackage it. This will let you guys deploy multiple ships without any changes to artwork and people will have to guess between which 2 bonuses you picked.
The above is just a crude example. I would expect CCP already has some idea on different roles. This is simple enough that a person only has to know option A, B, or even C of each ship. Its not nearly as diverse as T3s, but can turn a ship from front line to support or vice versa. It could also turn a ship into a all tank, all gank, or half and half versions. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:47:00 -
[516] - Quote
Reading the blog convinced me that CCP doesnt play eve.
"Quote:Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
Seriously? Hit and run megathrons? Domis have "average defense"?
Reading more just has more silliness. People dont use target painters because minmatar dont use HAMs and torps. Thats totally why people dont use TPs. It has nothing to do with webs being better in most situations. Also people never mix races in fleets. If you are using rapiers, you must have a minmatar only fleet, no drakes, no other missiles boats.
Speaking of the drake, Quote: Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
This is not the role of the drake. Despite what CCP intended or tried to do, the drake is not the same as the raven or the caracal. Check with PODLA on how to fly a drake, not people running level 4s in highsec. |
Aase Nord
Vikinghall
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:47:00 -
[517] - Quote
So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ? |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:47:00 -
[518] - Quote
Holy Crap I was only gone a couple hours to mail my tax forms and pick up Mass Effect 3!
In general support this blog.
I like the idea of removing tiers and rebalancing the ships based on roles. It would be good to be able to have more choices about what to fly and to see some of the lower tier ships get buffed.
So who's with me on training up all the racial ship skills so we can get reimbursed for all the new destroyer and battlecruiser skills we would need to have? Don't know if I would actually do that but wouldn't care if it worked that way.
So is the next plan to stream line the module system?
Where there are consistent progressions of primary purpose and fitting requirements.
So that we don't have some Meta 4 Tech 1 items better than Tech 2?
If you did that my suggestion would be, Tech one progress with both better stats and better fitting to highest meta level. Then Tech 2 has base Tech 1 fittings but better than meta 4 stats. Faction items are as good as meta 4 fitting and get as good of stats or have either fitting or stats better then meta 4 and get better at both as they progress, Deadspace get really awesome stats, and officer pretty much stay as crazy as some are today.
Of course I think you could do a lot with modules if you broke them up more into sizes in many categories.
But anyway, interesting changes, don't let the Inferno burn you to bad.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
948
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:48:00 -
[519] - Quote
Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ?
CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P
-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
|
Aurianka
Gemeinschaft interstellarer Soeldner Ev0ke
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:49:00 -
[520] - Quote
and whats next? player respawn? you should work on the 0.0 Problematic. well, I hate mainstream, so I play eve, when the crap comes I quit eve. No station shooting anymore. |
|
Akiriy Azuriko
Lapse Of Sanity Exhale.
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:50:00 -
[521] - Quote
Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ?
ok now im scared whats clashing ? |
hrusha
Open Designs Emergent Avionics
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:50:00 -
[522] - Quote
rachealdoll wrote: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.
Cool story bro, but if you just started then AT MOST you'll loose -- ehhh a day or two? Try harder.
Hru |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:50:00 -
[523] - Quote
This seems like another case of changing something for the sake of saying you changed it. You don't have to majorly overhaul the game every 4 months to keep it interesting/new/profit/etc. The game you have is fine now, just stick to tweaking and rebalancing what you have before you go and breaking it just so you can say it's new and shiny. The last several patches have been nothing BUT new and shiny and have been largely disliked by or at least considered with a level of ambivalence by the playerbase. It also makes it hard to believe that you don't have the resources to get real things done when you apparently have time to churn out bullshit and spend more time trying to make Dust not be a failfest. It's nigh impossible to take you guys (CCP) seriously anymore and it's no wonder that people are dropping like flies. |
Heimdallofasgard
Blazing Celts
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:50:00 -
[524] - Quote
Can we get a CSM rep response? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
273
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:51:00 -
[525] - Quote
Why do people think there's only one work stream?
Just because there's ship balancing (this dev blog) It doesn't mean other things won't be happening too. They do have a number of development teams, you know. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Kalaratiri
Teraa Matar
117
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:51:00 -
[526] - Quote
Quote:Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
/o\ Of that list, only the Cane, Tempest, Oracle, and maaaybe the thorax and myrm depending on fittings can do anything like 'hit and run'.
Hit and run Armageddon..? The brick tank with 8 low slots? What? |
Lemming Alpha1dash1
Lemmings Online
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:51:00 -
[527] - Quote
EvE Online:
aka
Pirates of the Burning Space
(Combat ships: a good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line" + Inferno) |
Alara IonStorm
1741
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:52:00 -
[528] - Quote
Korinne wrote:It's nigh impossible to take you guys (CCP) seriously anymore and it's no wonder that people are dropping like flies. Subs have past 400k and are rising but sure.
|
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
246
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:52:00 -
[529] - Quote
I think removing the battleship lvl 5 req from capitals is a very bad idea. BS 5 provided a large investment of time to complete and provided a barrier(a good one) against everyone and their alts having capitals.
Yeah I said barrier. Stuff Goes here |
Aase Nord
Vikinghall
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:53:00 -
[530] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ? CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P -Liang
Thank you for that ansver.... But.... I would like to hear that from CCP
|
|
MadMuppet
Kerguelen Station
163
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:53:00 -
[531] - Quote
Should probably post this in the actual feedback thread too:
As it stands right now, you would potentially benefit hugely if you have Destroyer to V (500,000 SP) and Battlecruiser to V (1.5 million SP) done now because to 'make it fair and flyable' you would suddenly have to be given four Racial Destroyer to V and four Racial Battlecruiser to V or a bonus of potentially 6million SP under the current system. So long as I had the required skills to fly all four races I could lay claim to such a thing, and that only requires a day of training for per race to claim. But failure to plan such a thing ahead of time could mean the potential of having to train that same six million SP in the future if you wanted it.
I don't always finish my commentary, but when I do |
Jas Dor
Republic University Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:54:00 -
[532] - Quote
So basically I'm going to have to respec and train 3 new BC skills to V to get back to where I am now. Can you at least throw in a bonus remap? |
Feawin
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:54:00 -
[533] - Quote
I like the idea of removing ship tiers. One thing you should consider is reimbursing people skill-wise for their bs 5 skills. I would never have trained gallente battleship 5 if it werent for the thanatos i wanted to fly. And gallente bs 5 is quite useless in itself. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
590
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:54:00 -
[534] - 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
Easy solution, stop talking to people.
Stupid seems to be a communicable disease, and you're spreading it!
One more time for the short bus crowd:
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.
This is my signature.-á There are many others like it, but this one is mine. |
Mary Mercer
King Wholesaling
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:54:00 -
[535] - Quote
Natalie Cerulean wrote:I don't like this at all personally. I have two characters one is more or less pure caldari, and the the other is pure amarr (currently training her for capital ships).
While it "makes more sense" until I can see a way to fix it so that you are screwing everyone who has already trained their racial skills up I 100% disapprove.
I was completely looking forward to knowing that those race specific tech 2 skills I trained wouldn't need to be retrained (I can currently fly all subcapital t2 ships on this one).
If you want to fix a broken tree, work on missiles to make it more in line with the way gunnery is set up e.g. frigate sized generic, with rocket, and standard spec as opposed to making them separate skill lines.
They will work out reimbursing skill points and letting you reuse them, my goodness quit freaking out people. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:55:00 -
[536] - Quote
Aase Nord wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ? CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P -Liang Thank you for that ansver.... But.... I would like to hear that from CCP
Go back to the first post. then read all the dev responses. profit. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Sunrise Aigele
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:55:00 -
[537] - Quote
First: Death to ship tiers! Yes! Thank you!
Now, a suggestion: Flip the script: Split Spaceship Command into 4 [Faction] Spaceship Command skills; give everyone who has Spaceship Command all four of the new skills trained to the level they had Spaceship Command trained. Do the same with Advanced Spaceship Command. Then make Frigate, Cruiser and Battleship generic. Reimburse everyone who has more than one factional skill trained.
For bonus points, move Logistics, Covert Ops, and other specialization skills to tier 1, and have the different ship roles get bonuses based on the capsuleer rank in those skills. At [Role Skill] V and [Ship Skill] IV, or something like that, you get to fly the T2 equivalents.
Finally, if you lower the Covetor's requirement to Mining Barge IV, aren't you obsoleting the Retriever in the same way that the quick train from I to III obsoletes the... whatever it's called? The littlest mining barge that nobody flies? Maybe the T1 mining barges should get roles, too. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
948
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:55:00 -
[538] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote:Should probably post this in the actual feedback thread too:
As it stands right now, you would potentially benefit hugely if you have Destroyer to V (500,000 SP) and Battlecruiser to V (1.5 million SP) done now because to 'make it fair and flyable' you would suddenly have to be given four Racial Destroyer to V and four Racial Battlecruiser to V or a bonus of potentially 6million SP under the current system. So long as I had the required skills to fly all four races I could lay claim to such a thing, and that only requires a day of training for per race to claim. But failure to plan such a thing ahead of time could mean the potential of having to train that same six million SP in the future if you wanted it.
What do you really gain here except SP that is equivalent to what you already have? Really, extra SP that doesn't give you anything new means nothing except a higher clone cost.
-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
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:55:00 -
[539] - Quote
Kalaratiri wrote:
Hit and run Armageddon..? The brick tank with 8 low slots? What?
Apparently I've been doing it wrong and should have been using propulsion mods and nano-fibers instead of plates, resist mods and heat sinks.... |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:55:00 -
[540] - 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.
Aside from any other concerns; Id say for me it's more that bs V for caps is and should be a mental barrier and a bit of a milestone for your progression in the game. Moving up into them should take a bit of consideration, a bit of agonising about investing the time in pre-reqs etc. [it also has a bearing on alt accounts and capital proliferation as well since, I for one, if this were to go through would very rapidly get 6 previously noob cyno/utiity alts in carriers whereas currently bs V is too much of an investment, especially when plex prices are rising and every sp spent on an account is a precious commodity for me to make them cross that training hurdle into a new area of specialisation.] |
|
None ofthe Above
106
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:56:00 -
[541] - Quote
Wow you guys, just wow.
First off you buried the lead; this article should have been entitled "Teircide!!!! We are doing it!" Explain the ship lines and then go into the amazingly controversial idea of messing with the skill trees by splitting Destroyer and Battlecruisers by race, then explain why. People would love you before they get to the "Urrrrk!?" moment in the skill trees.
Which by the way I don't buy your reasoning. You could have done the same thing to uncomplicated the requirements without that change.
This way you introduce a huge issue of SP reimbursement and also increased training times for new players to catch up to cross-train and fly pirate faction ships.
Did this go by the CSM? What did they say?
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:56:00 -
[542] - Quote
Aase Nord wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ? CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P -Liang Thank you for that ansver.... But.... I would like to hear that from CCP
Then read the Op, it's on page 1 |
Val Vherosan
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:56:00 -
[543] - Quote
World of Spaceships!
This is revolution not evolution and chances are that everything will be horribly unbalanced if this happens - judging on how well CCP knows their own ship types.
But the real question is if this is really, really the best you can do CCP? While the player base is screaming for the next Apocrypha do you honestly think this is the best way to spend your precious development time? |
Xoralundra
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:56:00 -
[544] - Quote
Revamping Destroyers/Battlecruisers: Yes (Racial) Battlecruiser 4 requirement for Battleship: Yes
Lowering Tech2 hull requirements: No
As you stated in the devblog itself, training for a Tech2 Hull is about the specialisation in a specific role. If you only need to train Level 3 for the basic hull, you are essentially saying, you have an average skill level in this hull, and bam, out of nowhere, specialised in something. Level 4 at a bare minimum if you definitely want to lower barriers, but I'd rather Level 5 requirement stayed. |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:56:00 -
[545] - Quote
Who are you and what did you do with the real CCP? This is great! I can't wait to see how shaking the anthill ends up. |
Hiryu Jin
noXCorp Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:56:00 -
[546] - Quote
just start a new server and start over. Or refund all of our SP's and let us start over.
This whole thing sounds like a massive pain in the ass for everyone with little benefit. |
Jiix Zix
Erasers inc. 0ccupational Hazzard
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:57:00 -
[547] - Quote
Well, tbh I like how the new skill tree looks like.
However, what I see here is lack of powerpoint and flow chart skills what and how to present the awesomeness to the higher-ups in the corporation so through understanding they could.. well, they cannot, so your only chance is to summon the powers of seventh hell of spreadsheets and show them how the player population (accounts) would definitely grow which would mean added value to the shareholders investments.
If you want to streamline the ship progression and specializations are based on the hulls in stead ie. that frigate (+destroyer) hulls are no longer the requirement for cruiser counterparts (covops/recons, dictors/hics etc) and cruiser specs are no longer requirement for command ships (logi/hacs) this can be done without splitting the destroyer and BC skills into 4 parts.
Imagine all the people... well, too bad John Lennon isn't here now, but prolly turning over in his grave. Here is my few cents into the matter:
Leave the current destroyer/bc generic skills as... they magically already are, but:
Introduce cruiser skill to require x ranks of destroyers (don't you boy go near that cruiser before you have learned to handle the manliness of those destroyers or I will have you thrown into the airlock!). ..and BS to require BC 4 with the current racial cruiser 4 requirement
This would remove the need of adding SP to people or changes to the current skills in example of faster training times.
However if you are planning to drop the BS5 requirement from the capitals, just don't. But if you MUST do it (for some odd reason to get people fast into capitals) then you really need to take a look at the T2 BSes as well since hitting into Dread faster than T2 BS hull is just.. well, if there must be more capitals... add variation.
However if you must do it, then you must, since someone in a neon-yellow collar shirt with pink bow-tie (bow-ties are not cool) said so:
Allow an option for people to refund their BS5 -> 4 (then the player can either forfeit or accept the refund (per racial) - own choice)
(Or if you feel lazy, just add option 'refund all' (could get rid of some none used skills and spent them somewhere else))
- J
- In space no one really cares if you scream -
|
Kalaratiri
Teraa Matar
118
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:57:00 -
[548] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:Kalaratiri wrote:
Hit and run Armageddon..? The brick tank with 8 low slots? What?
Apparently I've been doing it wrong and should have been using propulsion mods and nano-fibers instead of plates, resist mods and heat sinks....
I did actually once fit up a nano-geddon on sisi. It sucks. Really badly -.- |
Gripen
666
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:57:00 -
[549] - Quote
DevBlog wrote:... stuff ... Sometimes I think you guys are reading my mind =) ... but some of details seems to be lost during transition. Is it OK if I plug one idea here?
I like concept of turning current skill tree into "skill grid" where one dimension is a Frigate > Cruiser > ... progression and the other is ship line skills or for weapon skills one direction would be Small Turret > Medium Turret > Large Turret and the second could be generic gunnery skills.
Other part of idea I had is to revitalize learning skill approach where training one skill gives training speed bonus to the other skills and then remove fixed skill requirements. Imagine that you wouldn't need to train for example Small Artillery Specialization to start training Medium Artillery Specialization but Small Artillery Specialization would give additional bonuses to training speed of Medium and Large specializations so training them from the start would be unoptimal. Same principle should apply to the other dimension, for example for ships: Assault Ships skill would give additional bonus to training speed of all racial frigate skills.
With those two changes character advancement will become more interesting with new planning dilemmas: whatever to train for bigger ships\weapons straight away or use standard progression which will yield maximum possible skill points/time in the end; and whatever to skill "horizontally" for choosen race ships and their weapons or to pick preferred ship class and train "vertically" all ships from all races belonging to chosen class. |
Jessy Berbers
Tribuo Quod Victum The AirShip Pirates
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:58:00 -
[550] - Quote
I do NOT agree with these changes at all... It is silly as i am one of those players who is now finnaly teethering on wanting cross train and thus these changes will only make it even more annoying for me to get into a different races ships.
For instance, with the current system i would be able to train just proj weapons up to t2 small variants and fly a destroyer, and then for the medium size do the exact same thing but fly a rather viable BC.
But with your planned new system, this will make it needlessly difficult to get into these other races and fly the ships proficiently and not just be a sitting duck while skills train up, or just forced to use ships from the previous race while training up the other.
This also means, getting used to the new races weapon systems the ships themselfs also being just a chore.
Instead of a nice smooth transition without having to worry all to much about Destroyer skills, BC skills and the like.
LEAVE THE SKILL SYSTEM ALONE!
Greets
Jessy |
|
Aase Nord
Vikinghall
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:58:00 -
[551] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Aase Nord wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ? CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P -Liang Thank you for that ansver.... But.... I would like to hear that from CCP Go back to the first post. then read all the dev responses. profit.
Dont know why..... but I have a feeling this will end bad for me..... |
Bruce McRaven
Black Work Logistic Black Work Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:59:00 -
[552] - Quote
This has the potential to become super awesome
Please don't screw it CCP! |
Kingwood
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:59:00 -
[553] - Quote
I can fly all 4 races' BCs - as long as I'm not required to skill another 3 months in order to fly the ships I have in my hangar I'm fine with the change.
However, I don't agree at all with the proposed role changes. While removing the Tier system is something I've been advocating for a long time, you're trying to now force all ships into a certain role which will not work and goes against everything Eve stands for.
For instance, why do you classify a Megathron as an "Attack vessel" when you could also plate it up and have it function as a "Combat vessel"? What I'm afraid of you're going to do with your proposed changes is take away the freedom and creativity of fitting ships away from the players and forcing them down a single line.
Staying with the Megathron example, I have flown it both nano'd ("Attack vessel" style) and plated ("Combat vessel" style). I do not want to be forced to fit it according to someone's arbitrary design decision. Why is the Scorpion classified as a "Support vessel" when I can also fit it as a nice 700 dps, 95k EHP brawler? Where is the "Anti-tackle" role, if you're gonna go along with this?
The proposed changes remind me of World of Warcraft - being forced down a class route with little to no deviation. So yeah, rethink this, because it won't work the way you imagine it will work out.
Removing tiers is good, no question there. Forcing arbitrary, limiting roles upon ships is bad.
Edit: Also, the reason some ships are not flown has NOTHING TO DO AT ALL with EHP and available fitting slots. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:00:00 -
[554] - Quote
well, how about something else ...
Common Skills: (one for all, not one for each race!) Frigate -> Destroyer -> Cruiser -> Battlecruiser -> Battleship -> Carrier/Dreadnought -> Titan Frigate -> Industrial -> Freighter -> Jump Freighter
So, with those skills you know how to fly ships in general, however you need to know how to fly, e.g. Amarr ships ...
Amarr Control Systems Caldari Control Systems Gallente Control Systems Minmatar Control Systems
edit: forgot Ore Control Systems
* inspired by T3 subsystems * easier to spread between races
edit2: page 28 already, somebody hit a weak spot |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
323
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:00:00 -
[555] - 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.
Yay! |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Bringers of Death.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:00:00 -
[556] - Quote
What about making this Ship Type/Faction-Skill thing a matrix?
Skills:
Hull Size Skills: Frigates - Rank 1 Destroyers - Rank 2 Cruisers - Rank 3 Battlecruisers - Rank 4 Battleships - Rank 5
Race Skills: Amarr Small Spaceship Design - Rank 1 Amarr Medium Spaceship Design - Rank 3 Amarr Large Spaceship Design - Rank 5 [...]
Specialized Role Skills: Heavy Assault Ships Logistics Black Ops [...]
Each ship could have the bonuses tied directly to the skills like Vexor Cruiser Skill: +5% Hybrid Damage (more generic medium hull bonus) Gallente Medium Spaceship Design: 10% Drone HP & damage (Gallentean style bonus)
Ishtar Cruiser Skill: +5% Hybrid Damage Gallente Medium Spaceship Design: 10% Drone HP & damage Heavy Assault Ships: +50m-¦ Drone Bay, +5km Drone Control Range (special role bonus)
Effects on skilling difficulty:
Single frigate before change: Rank 2 after: Rank 2
Single cruiser before: Rank 5 after: Rank 6 [...]
Training the first ship/race combination becomes slightly more difficult, but cross-training becomes easier. If you start to cross-train, you already have the generic bonus.
Effects on reimbursement:
1. Destroyer and Battlecruiser skill stay as they are.
2. Frigate, Cruiser and Battleship skill will be SPLIT UP like this:
assuming you have Amarr Cruisers so far: Amarr Cruisers V - Rank 5 = 1.280.000 SP
first the generic skill is learned to the original level (always possible, since the rank is lower) Cruisers V - Rank 3 = 768.000 SP
rest goes to Amarr Medium Spaceship Command which will end up on level IV 1.280.000 SP - 768.000 SP = 512.000 SP
If someone has cross-trained, the second and further skills will be set to their original level. Remaining skill points will be used to get the first race skill back to original level, the rest is reimbursed.
If the sample char would have had Gallente cruiser as well, these 1.280.000 SP are automatically used to buy Gallente Medium Spaceship Design V (Rank 3) -> 768.000 SP gone. of the remaining 512.000 SP, 256.000 SP are used to bring Amarr Medium Spaceship Design to V. -> 256.000 SP free SP reimbursed
so someone who had level V on something before will end up either with the new ship skills at IV/V (not so big a loss if 1 out of 2 bonuses is a bit lower) OR (if he had cross-trained) with exactly the same abilities plus some free SP. In the worst case a veteran player (all T1 skills maxed out) could get a stunning 4.352.000 SP reimbursed through this operation since the total number of required skill ranks for T1 spaceship command drops from 68 to 51.
What about skill reqirements? Will anyone not be able to fly something he could have flown before? (assuming you always need lvl IV to get to the next skill as indicated in the Dev Blog) Skills would have separate requirements, i.e. Amarr Medium Spaceship Design would require Amarr Small Spaceship Design IV as a prerequisite whereas Cruisers would require Destroyers IV.
It might now be that some characters do not meet the requirements for higher skills that they already have, because for example they left out Battlecruisers and trained Battleships directly. In this case, the SP would have to be applied to the necessary prerequisites first.
(hey, anyone still following? )
Example 1: I have concentrated on Battlecruisers (worst case, no crosstraining, minimum SP on lower tiers).
old: Amarr Frigates IV - 90.510 SP Amarr Cruisers III - 40.000 SP Battlecruisers V - 1.536.000 SP total: 1.666.510 SP
new: Frigates IV - 45.255 Amarr Small Spaceship Design - 45.255 SP Cruisers IV (required for Battlecruisers) - 135.765 SP Amarr Medium Spaceship Design - 135.765 Battlecruisers V - 1.024.000 SP (rank reduced from 6 to 4, these extra SP come handy here) total: 1.386.040 SP (would leave 280.470 free SP)
It is slightly worse if the example pilot would have only Battlecruisers IV, because this would only "free" 90.510 SP, but these would still be sufficient to buy the required Amarr Medium Spaceship Design IV. Odd side effect: the sample pilot is better at flying Amarr Cruisers after the change... Worst case actually is if you only have Cruisers III and Battlecruisers I in which case you would lose the ability to fly Battlecruisers... but in that case we are talking about just a day or so to get back this precious Battlecruiser I skill after having finished Amarr Medium Spaceship Design IV...
Example 2: Focus on Battleships, no cross-training, left out everything else.
old: Amarr Frigate IV - 90.510 SP Amarr Cruiser IV - 226.275 SP Amarr Battleship V - 2.048.000 SP
new: Frigates IV - 45.255 Amarr Small Spaceship Design - 45.255 SP Cruisers IV - 135.765 SP Amarr Medium Spaceship Design - 135.765 Battlecruisers IV - 181.020 SP (rank reduced from 6 to 4) Battleships V - 1.280.000 Amarr Large Spaceship Design IV - 226.275 (dropped 1 level) total: 2.049.335 (plus 315.450 extra skill points)
Again, only one skill drops one level. (you might lose Battleship at all if you don't have Battlecruisers IV and only Battleship I or so. But again, then we're only talking about very few skill points to get the ability back)
Cap skills: requirements unaffected - lvl V can only drop to IV. So either you could fly Caps that all require Battleship V before the change - then you will still be able after. If not, you still can't fly them, but maybe you now meet the requirements to buy the skill (only IV required as indicated in the Dev Blog) |
Tinkietoo
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:02:00 -
[557] - Quote
Val Vherosan wrote:World of Spaceships!
This is revolution not evolution and chances are that everything will be horribly unbalanced if this happens - judging on how well CCP knows their own ship types.
But the real question is if this is really, really the best you can do CCP? While the player base is screaming for the next Apocrypha do you honestly think this is the best way to spend your precious development time?
this: World of Spaceships!
Next step = premium spaceships? |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Bringers of Death.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:03:00 -
[558] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote:well, how about something else ...
Common Skills: (one for all, not one for each race!) Frigate -> Destroyer -> Cruiser -> Battlecruiser -> Battleship -> Carrier/Dreadnought -> Titan Frigate -> Industrial -> Freighter -> Jump Freighter
So, with those skills you know how to fly ships in general, however you need to know how to fly, e.g. Amarr ships ...
Amarr Control Systems Caldari Control Systems Gallente Control Systems Minmatar Control Systems
edit: forgot Ore Control Systems
* inspired by T3 subsystems * easier to spread between races
Same idea as mine... Dammit! As always in EVE.... maneuvering for hours to write the post and then someone else is 10 seconds faster... -.-
|
Alunis
Focused Annihilation Detrimental Imperative
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:04:00 -
[559] - 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.
After reading this Devblob I am absolutely annoyed at the idea that CCP would think after all these years that they could pull off pushing separate skill trees for Destroyers and Battlecruisers after so many of us have cross trained to be able to fly most if not all the races as we've built up our characters over the last 7 to 8 years.
My 8yo alt can fly nearly every subcapital and by this looks of this blog post this means that CCP is going to shaft me and many like me because they've decided there needs to be a skill point sink due to all the people that have tons of skills trained already and now they want to make it where there is more to train so that people don't skill cap so quickly.
This change for me means I will no longer be playing Eve. I'm not about to waste my time having to spend months training for three other races that I already have several implant sets for and have invested billions in ships, fittings, and implant sets for command ships due to training up all the other cruiser skills and weapons skills to match them.
This meant I spent all this time training up shield and armor tanking skills, weapons skills, and ship skills for absolutely nothing when I could have just focused on training a specific race instead and not have invested in other racial ships and implants to support those ships.
What a total waste of time. |
Rhaegar Thrax
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:04:00 -
[560] - Quote
As I'm currently taking classes in automatisation and programming, I can appreciate how making a simple framework for a given system, will make your life that much easier, when you want to expand and add to that system.
This is great news CCP, and will probably help you out a great deal in the future, even if there's a lot of work the coming months. |
|
Hanakar
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:04:00 -
[561] - Quote
If some of the prerequisites for T2 ships are going to be removed, I think you have to do a full skill reset, or at least have the option. If you no longer need to have Assault Ships and Heavy Assault Ships to get to Command ships, who would have trained those skills up if all they wanted was to go straight to Command. No one. Those are now wasted skill points.
Do whatever is necessary to keep us flying what we now have, then give us the option for a full reset to work some of this stuff out. |
Raneru
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:04:00 -
[562] - Quote
I cant wait for the Eve Newsletter email that proudly tells me that in the upcoming exciting expansion I'll be able to fly 15 less ships! |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:05:00 -
[563] - Quote
Sounds like justified plan - green light on.
Get |
Messilina
People's Front of Matar
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:05:00 -
[564] - Quote
Why not just go ahead and do what you want to do anyway regardless of what anyone thinks. We all know that you're just progressively buttering up the players to switch to a level system where you can buy experience via plexes and implimenting p2w. Just make sure you add dungeons and player respawns while youre at it, and make sure to replace the market with an auction house full of naked dancing Brutor women. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:05:00 -
[565] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:well, how about something else ...
Common Skills: (one for all, not one for each race!) Frigate -> Destroyer -> Cruiser -> Battlecruiser -> Battleship -> Carrier/Dreadnought -> Titan Frigate -> Industrial -> Freighter -> Jump Freighter
So, with those skills you know how to fly ships in general, however you need to know how to fly, e.g. Amarr ships ...
Amarr Control Systems Caldari Control Systems Gallente Control Systems Minmatar Control Systems
edit: forgot Ore Control Systems
* inspired by T3 subsystems * easier to spread between races Same idea as mine... Dammit! As always in EVE.... maneuvering for hours to write the post and then someone else is 10 seconds faster... -.-
Yep, but I don't mind sharing the honor, your's is more elaborate |
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance
327
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:05:00 -
[566] - Quote
I always considered Destroyers and BC as a specialization. Why should we change that?
Making lower tier ships useful is a great move, but looking at the picture: T1 -> Navy -> Pirate Isn't it the same tier levels, you want to get rid of? Pirate ships are also specialization, cross training needed to achieve.
p.s. I'm glad CCP are working on a game balance philosophy and plan, not a casual non systematic fixes. I think this is the right direction to evolve. __________________________________ Member of CSM 4&5, your CSM 7 candidate. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:06:00 -
[567] - Quote
The Economist wrote: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. Aside from any other concerns; Id say for me it's more that bs V for caps is and should be a mental barrier and a bit of a milestone for your progression in the game. Moving up into them should take a bit of consideration, a bit of agonising about investing the time in pre-reqs etc. [it also has a bearing on alt accounts and capital proliferation as well since, I for one, if this were to go through would very rapidly get 6 previously noob cyno/utiity alts in carriers whereas currently bs V is too much of an investment, especially when plex prices are rising and every sp spent on an account is a precious commodity for me to make them cross that training hurdle into a new area of specialisation.]
The only thing I can think of that's like that is supercarrier holding alts, which will now be much easier to make.
When I first thought about flying caps I downloaded a skillplan for the alliance fitting. It was a bloody long plan. It was never just about sitting in the hull - people who think that way will soon lose their ships. I don't know how much less agonising there's going to be if we knocked 30 days off it.
To be clear: Yes, BS IV lets people get into the hull quicker. But that's nothing compared to everything else you need to have. |
None ofthe Above
107
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:06:00 -
[568] - Quote
Largo Coronet wrote:.... Any plan that makes it harder to get into subcapital ships and easier to get into capitals & supercapitals IS A BAD PLAN. The biggest problem with the game is how it's becoming Supercaps Online and you want to increase that?
I have to say, I had a WTF reaction to that too.
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
My Neutral Toon
Knights Who Til Recently Said Ni
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:07:00 -
[569] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:My Neutral Toon wrote:So. According to the new skill tree, I can skip interceptors and dictors and jump straight to heavy dictor? http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Amarrshiptree2_1920.jpghow does that make sense? Being able to fly a heavy dictor without ever flying a smaller tackle ships? Its not all about Skill Book progression, but CCP should be taking PLAYER SKILL PROGRESSION into account here too... Hictors fly nothing like any of the small tacklers you mentioned, you are ********
How are they so different from each other that the skill training should NOT be related? A Hictor is just a larer version of the Dictor. They are both tackle/bubble ships. Hictor being a destroyer class and Dictor being a cruiser class that has greater firepower/defenses
Im guessing calling someone out as being less intelligent and then giving no explanation makes you smarter somehow? ...Can't. Tell. If ...Troll? Or Serious.... |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:08:00 -
[570] - Quote
Raneru wrote:I cant wait for the Eve Newsletter email that proudly tells me that in the upcoming exciting expansion I'll be able to fly 15 less ships! It has repeatedly been clarified that this will not happen.
Any new player starting out will get less bang per skillpoint though, having to skill BC four times over instead of just once. Which is too bad really because whenever someone who is new to the game asks me what they should skill I usually tell them BC for that very reason - a hull size that is welcome in many different kinds of fleets, from small roams to large sov fights and also relatively quick to skill into.
So yeah, Malcanis Law strikes again. |
|
Sovai Elaaren
Korriban Confederation
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:08:00 -
[571] - Quote
This is probably one of the best dev blogs I've read. I think this is a great way to address the multitude of useless or under-utilized ships in Eve. I think the addition of racial skills is great. It is still not going to take a terribly long time to cross-train to other races, but if you want to be *awesome* in all races (i.e. all racial BCV), then yes, you need to invest the time to become *awesome*.
Obviously it gets a bit trickier with those who already are *awesome*, but I'm confident that CCP will work out something fair.
I also think that the people in this thread sperging all over their keyboards in nerd rage need to chill out.
Edit: I'm not sure about reducing the requirement for capital ships to BS IV, though. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:09:00 -
[572] - Quote
Not sure I've seen this as I'm working through the pages. As far as ship skill requirements, take advantage of what exists.
Tech 1 ships (and Pirate/Navy ships) require the appropriate Tier 1 skill (frigate/destroyer/cruiser/battlecruiser/battleship) and a matching skill in Spaceship Command, but not the class below it.
To train for a frigate, you much have Spaceship Command 1 To train for a destroyer, you must have Spaceship Command 2 (not Frigate 4) To train for a cruiser, you must have Spaceship Command 3 (not Destroyer 4) etc.
For Tier two ships, you must Train Advanced Spaceship Command (the cost of this skill should come down to around 10 million +/-) and it has a pre-requisite of Spaceship Command 4 (instead of 5), in addition you need a baseline of the Tier 1 ship class you want to fly. Tier 2 Frigate skills require Advanced Spaceship Command 1 and Frigate 4 Tier 2 Destroyer skills require Advanced Spaceship Command 2 and Destroyer 4 etc.
Then for the ship bonuses, map the bonuses based on the source ship type. So (for example) the Enyo:
Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Damage per level
Assault Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level 7.5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Tracking Speed per level
If you only train Frigate to 4, you can still train into an Enyo, but you get less bonus to damage than someone who trains it to 5. WIth this model the skills and bonuses actually map with variation depending on skills. Of course this doesn't change anything for vets, but new players could get into an assault frigate faster but not fly it as well as someone who min/maxes the skills - providing new shiny ships in a variety of ways.
This also provides better use and balance of a 5-level skill (advanced spaceship command) that currently only has 3 useful levels (1, 4, 5) |
VaL Iscariot
The Concilium Enterprises Spectrum Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:09:00 -
[573] - Quote
Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again. |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
219
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:10:00 -
[574] - Quote
I really like that rather than one tier sucking and we all use the other one that there would be ship lines. Having a faster hull does nto mean it is weaker just diffrent. be really cool if this matched the sub faction lines... Say brutor ships or bruto hulls tend to be more ganky where as thucker tend to be faster.
Shame all that is lost amungst all these pansies whining because they may have to train up a racial battle cruiser skill like we should have had to originally.
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. |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
219
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:11:00 -
[575] - Quote
VaL Iscariot wrote:Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again. hahaha dumbing down=more skills and needing to chose a faction to specialize.
oh knows having to speciallise is a races battle cruiser like any other ship in the game....what ever shall i do..
Really HTFU....
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. |
Gynoceros
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:11:00 -
[576] - Quote
Svennig wrote: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.
You are in Dreddit. Don't you want more newbs in Frigates?
The faction frigate skills are used for the most basic ships in the game, so I think it makes sense to change them to rank one. Plus it gives new players a sense of accomplishment to move up the Frigate -> Cruiser skill chain even faster while still keeping the overall skill requirements pretty much the same.
|
Alara IonStorm
1742
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:12:00 -
[577] - Quote
E man Industries wrote:I really like that rather than one tier sucking and we all use the other one that there would be ship lines. Having a faster hull does nto mean it is weaker just diffrent. be really cool if this matched the sub faction lines... Say brutor ships or bruto hulls tend to be more ganky where as thucker tend to be faster.
Shame all that is lost amungst all these pansies whining because they may have to train up a racial battle cruiser skill like we should have had to originally.
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:12:00 -
[578] - Quote
Val Vherosan wrote: But the real question is if this is really, really the best you can do CCP? While the player base is screaming for the next Apocrypha do you honestly think this is the best way to spend your precious development time?
Wondering that myself.
There are only a limited number of teams with a limited amount of devs and their time is precious; we understand that different people have different areas of expertise and that not everyone can balance ships, or work on lag, or fiddle with the engine etc....but is this really the best way a portion of that valuable time can be invested?
Are you running so short on things to do that you need to make more work for yourselves, and not just more work, but something that's going to wind up being a big headache and require a needlessly complex fix to maintain the status quo for little to no actual payoff? Is the tier system really the only, or at least main, thing that caused AF balancing, for example, to take so long? |
Messilina
People's Front of Matar
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:12:00 -
[579] - Quote
VaL Iscariot wrote:Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again.
Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1095
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:13:00 -
[580] - Quote
Raneru wrote:I cant wait for the Eve Newsletter email that proudly tells me that in the upcoming exciting expansion I'll be able to fly 15 less ships!
Well, I guess if you'd rather not have all the free skills given to you for some reason.... 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. |
|
Mitauchi
NOMAD. RISE of LEGION
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:13:00 -
[581] - Quote
Just curious what incentive do new players have to train BC5 of each race when before these changes it seems T3s are being used more as boosters than command ships. If these changes go through I think you will see command ships used even less. I recommend you change slot layouts on ships before you change all the skills to get into them. Just my opinion.
|
Tinkietoo
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:14:00 -
[582] - Quote
Kingwood wrote:The proposed changes remind me of World of Warcraft - being forced down a class route with little to no deviation. So yeah, rethink this, because it won't work the way you imagine it will work out.
This! If you screw this one up CCP, while trying to fix something that wasn't broken, you're going to lose the good will of the player base that you've only just started to regain.
And you sure are giving yourselves a heck of lot of rope to hang yourselves with... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1095
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:14:00 -
[583] - Quote
Messilina wrote:VaL Iscariot wrote:Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again. Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning.
All that is obvious is that you two have serious reading comprehension issues.
"If you can fly it today, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow." 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. |
Aya Chelien
Firestorm Wrecker Service Firestorm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:15:00 -
[584] - 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.
Oh, sweet. My biggest concern when I read this was getting locked out of my Hurricane. It's the only combat ship I can fly decently. But since that's not an issue, I'm on board. |
Butzewutze
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:16:00 -
[585] - 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.
Yeah, how generous of you to give us the "little extra" back from what we allready have. I dont know how everybody else thinks about this. But this looks like a "crosstrain"-nerf to me. After that patch it will take more time to see all the different ships in eve as before. Im sure ccp is gonna like this.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
953
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:16:00 -
[586] - Quote
Messilina wrote:VaL Iscariot wrote:Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again. Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning.
What the heck? No dude, Tiericide is proof positive that they DO play and PVP.
-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
|
Knug LiDi
N00bFleeT Numquam Ambulare Solus
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:17:00 -
[587] - Quote
Despite the howling wind about SP and BC 5, for me the single most important thing I saw in the blog was the image showing t1 (tech one) ships in the centre at the bottom with navy the pirate ships showing increasing improvement. T2 on the right showing increasing specialization and t3 on the left showing increasing flexibility
BUT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE was T2 being higher in "improvement" than T3
T2 ships are optimized for a single role - a T3 ship, being more flexible can do many things, and all those things better than t1 and possibly Navy ships. But they are not supposed to be "improved" enough to do T2 roles better than T2 ships
T2 logistic ships should be better than T3 ships in that role (repping)
T2 field command ships should be better than T3 ships in this role (brawling)
T2 fleet command ships should be better than T3 ships in that role (boosting)
A cov ops (scanner not stealth bomber) should be a better probing/scanning ship than a T3
Similarly for other T2 roles.
I look forward to seeing the changes that bring T3 ships below T2 ships, for that specific t2 role.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms
without falling into her hands |
mechtech
Ice Liberation Army
139
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:18:00 -
[588] - Quote
This is awesome! Eve is almost 10 years old, I'm glad that you guys are finally going back and looking at core systems in order to make a more cohesive game. Right now Eve feels a bit disjointed, like some of the pieces (and ships) are kind of "glued" in.
I also hope you guys go back and do a difficulty overhaul. Lvl4 missions are a joke now that we have T3/rigs, incursions are an isk waterfall, cheap ships have no purpose because you can afford the loss of an insured BS in about an hour of playtime. Isk has devalued by at least 10x since I started playing (albeit it was in '05), and I feel as this continues to worsen, the game becomes less dynamic because so many cheaper options are simply obsolete in the face of ever increasing wallet sizes.
Keep it up! Refactoring the core system without making the game easier, that's what I hope to keep seeing! |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1095
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:19:00 -
[589] - Quote
Butzewutze wrote: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. Yeah, how generous of you to give us the "little extra" back from what we allready have. I dont know how everybody else thinks about this. But this looks like a "crosstrain"-nerf to me. After that patch it will take more time to see all the different ships in eve as before. Im sure ccp is gonna like this.
Interesting.
So you consider giving you the equivalent level in all races Destroyers and BC's equal to what you currently have in just the generic skill as a "nerf" to cross trainers.
Amusing, but interesting.
"If you can fly it today, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow." 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. |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
220
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:19:00 -
[590] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Messilina wrote:VaL Iscariot wrote:Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again. Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning. What the heck? No dude, Tiericide is proof positive that they DO play and PVP. -Liang And that they DO listen
Also battle cruiser is the single most valuable skill in EvE....the most common combat ships are.....battle cruisers by far! and traning that one single skill and racial cruiser to 3 gets you the 4 most common ships in eve....one skill.
When giving advice to newer players it is always 100% train battle cruisers.
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. |
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Unprovoked Aggression
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:19:00 -
[591] - Quote
overall I'm optimistic about the changes proposed only the BS4 for carrier is a bit disturbing
also there seems to be a common misconception within ccp http://picload.org/image/ropaglw/shiptech_1920fix.png is fact right now |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:20:00 -
[592] - Quote
Things that I like
- Tiericide
- Capital ships are a bit faster to train, and that's a nerf to supercapitals because if all the maelstroms around become carriers or dreads supercapitals are as good as dead.
A thing that I don't like There are some skills that unlock a lot of ships, namely battlecruisers and destroyers. Why would you want to change this? It looks like a move to increase skill training time and thus make more $$. Actually, after working out the right calculations, I think the change affects really few people; but I don't think that making things more skill intensive is the way to go for these reasons:
- Excessive skill times make difficult to follow the FOTM strategy, and in general make the unbalancement problems heavier;
- If a player can fly more different ships he will be able to change tactics and experience more different kinds of warfare, a more varied gameplay, and thus you can experience more in the EVE universe. By forcing specialization, you are forcing players to commit their time to something that could turn out to be the 'wrong' choice.
- Personally I see the skill mechanic quite artificial and it makes balancement more difficult.
A consideration I look forward to see how the Tiericide concept works when the "Local" problem is fixed and have something like submarines in space in place. The balancement of different already existing ships could take new intel gathering mechanics into account. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:20:00 -
[593] - Quote
For the reimbursement of skill points and to make sure you can fly today what you could fly yesterday.
1. I would hope to see that SP would be given out to all players so that they could fly at the same level any race's ship that they can today automatically. Which is what I believe you have stated multiple times.
2. As for Cap ship pilots whining about having trained BS to 5 when they wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps make an automatic petition category so pilots can choose to get reimbursed for those SP if they want.
3. And do the same for the miners who trained barges to 5 to get exhumers.
And for the first part above give us enough notice so we can all game the system equally and get extra free SP! |
h4kun4
H.E.A.T
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:20:00 -
[594] - Quote
How will you mange this? I mean will I have Caldari, Amarr, Minmatar and Gallente Battlecruiser V because I now have skilled Battlecruisers V? Will I be able to get into my Machariel after this Add On? For me the Ship lines are a bit extreme, I dont like the Idea of playing a game with "Scissors, Stone & Paper" Gameplay. I have no problem with killing the Tier System and make the Bonuses like 1 Sniper ship, one Short Range DPS ship and one in the Middle but not that extreme how it sounded in the Blog... |
Ashen Spiral
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:21:00 -
[595] - Quote
Great plan! This is the kind of innovation that we don't see often enough. However, if a situation arises where players are forced to choose which destroyer/battlecruiser racial skills to keep and which to give up, I'd suggest that interdictors and command ships be properly balanced first. As it stands, it would be foolish to not choose Sabre over other interdictors, just as foolish as choosing Gallente command ships over those of any other race. |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:21:00 -
[596] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:3. And do the same for the miners who trained barges to 5 to get exhumers.
You will still need 5 for exhumers but not for covetor which is a barge.
|
Raneru
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:22:00 -
[597] - Quote
CCP, any thoughts on changing missile skills so you have to train rockets to train standards to train heavies to train cruise/torps? (as with turrets)
/me ducks |
Knug LiDi
N00bFleeT Numquam Ambulare Solus
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:22:00 -
[598] - Quote
I completely agree and I strongly hope that it is pulled back below T2 in "improvement"
If only we could fall into a woman's arms
without falling into her hands |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:22:00 -
[599] - Quote
WAIT A MINUTE.
I fly all 8 Racial command ships(7 except for EOS lulz).
You're telling me that I'll have only one racial BC to V (or sp to get), but I have to retrain 3 other Racial BC V (80+ days) just to fly those again?!? |
Tarsas Phage
Pain Delivery.
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:23:00 -
[600] - Quote
Alastanir wrote:Training a carrier should be harder to get into than a marauder or black ops. I vote "nay" on lowering cap requirements to BS IV.
You're forgetting the other skills one needs to fly a capital.
* Advanced Spaceship Command 5 * Capital Ships (to 3 for anything not a Rorqual) * All the Jump Drive related crap (JDO to 5 fist to unlock any of the other important ones, namely JDC which training to 5 is indispensable) * Drone Interfacing 5 to be able to even begin training Fighters * Capital xxx Turrets/Launchers which requires their prereq BS guns at 5 to inject * Logistics 5 to be able to triage * Adv Weapons Upgrades 5 to even think about sieging a dread * All the other Capital module skills (reppers, boosters) that one needs to fit a capital
All in all, simply removing the requirement for racial BS 5 isn't going to substantially change much. That's just removing a single 25-30 day skill out of a bevvy of 18-25 day skills.
/T |
|
Ruri Atreides
Ever Flow Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:23:00 -
[601] - Quote
Dearest CCP
1. Why are you trying to change something that isnt broken 2. Having the ability to fly every sub cap ship in the game has taken me YEARS of paying for this game so anything that may jeprodize that does not get my vote. 3. I really dont want to pay for the clone grades that would be required for having 4 BC 5 skills.
In my bitter vet opinion this makes the system even more complicated than it already is. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
297
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:23:00 -
[602] - Quote
I'll be honest, I can see the rationale for battlecruisers, but splitting the destroyer skill into 4 when there's only 1 T1 destroyer for each race right now seems unnecessary.
(unless this is a hint that more destroyers are coming???) ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Tinkietoo
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:24:00 -
[603] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Messilina wrote:VaL Iscariot wrote:Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again. Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning. All that is obvious is that you two have serious reading comprehension issues. "If you can fly it today, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow."
You have serious comprehension issues for failing to understand the original point and then commenting anyway. |
BolsterBomb
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:25:00 -
[604] - Quote
I think these changes are good.
I have recently cross trained into amaar and when you start the cross train its like..hmm what do I do.
I do like being able to fly almost any ship when you train certain skills to 4 and 5 but in all fairness it does allow you to do a ton of crap with not training into a particular race.
I like how eve will now force you to choose a role and play it. Currently we can reship to a dozen different things to combat a current battle. Yes that is cool but it does make a lot of players jack of trades master of none.
Is this good / bad. Neither.
I see this method trying to attract new players though not a re balance of current ships.
I think this will make people actually train to do something specific and be a true "specialist"
I think the solution is very simple as far as the SP
Reimburse ALL SP and let players put them where they want. This is a big enough game changer that you simply say here is your points put them where you want.
Lt. Colonel of The Caldari State
Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:25:00 -
[605] - Quote
Death to tier system: cool
Death to nonracial battlecruiser/destroyer skills: less cool. I'm real happy for all the guys who can fly every command ship already and will be able to do so after the change and I'm gonna let them finish, but...I was kind of hoping to be able to do that myself someday. Currently you get up to eight ships from BC V, depending on how many racial cruisers you've trained to V. The new system gives you two. Training each racial cruiser to V gives a huge payoff in ships available per racial skill. The payoff for the racial BC V skills isn't nearly as good.
I hope the rebalancing plan continues to evolve; I detect the potential for awesome within. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:25:00 -
[606] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: What the heck? No dude, Tiericide is proof positive that they DO play and PVP.
-Liang
Actually: No, it isn't. If there is a problem with ships of a certain Tier being useless, then the answer is to rebalance the ships of that Tier. Very carefully. With as little intervention as possible.
I see all Tiers of Battleships being used. So the answer to ships not being used is not scrapping Tiers and implementing an arbitrary line of ships that forces me to use a single ship with a single fit if I want to do XYZ. This is, in fact, so much worse than Tiers that it's not even on the same scale anymore. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
277
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:26:00 -
[607] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:WAIT A MINUTE.
I fly all 8 Racial command ships(7 except for EOS lulz).
You're telling me that I'll have only one racial BC to V (or sp to get), but I have to retrain 3 other Racial BC V (80+ days) just to fly those again?!?
No. Go read the dev posts FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
222
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:26:00 -
[608] - Quote
Knug LiDi wrote:Despite the howling wind about SP and BC 5, for me the single most important thing I saw in the blog was the image showing t1 (tech one) ships in the centre at the bottom with navy the pirate ships showing increasing improvement. T2 on the right showing increasing specialization and t3 on the left showing increasing flexibility
BUT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE was T2 being higher in "improvement" than T3
T2 ships are optimized for a single role - a T3 ship, being more flexible can do many things, and all those things better than t1 and possibly Navy ships. But they are not supposed to be "improved" enough to do T2 roles better than T2 ships
T2 logistic ships should be better than T3 ships in that role (repping)
T2 field command ships should be better than T3 ships in this role (brawling)
T2 fleet command ships should be better than T3 ships in that role (boosting)
A cov ops (scanner not stealth bomber) should be a better probing/scanning ship than a T3
Similarly for other T2 roles.
I look forward to seeing the changes that bring T3 ships below T2 ships, for that specific t2 role.
THIS.
Right now it's t3 or go home. Legions>zealots in every way t3 booster>any command ship Loki>any t2 mimnitar ship...faster than a vaga, ganker than a munin....
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. |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:26:00 -
[609] - Quote
Ruri Atreides wrote:Dearest CCP
1. Why are you trying to change something that isnt broken
"Nuff said". And if the devs pvp'd then they would realize the obvious faux pas of stating that Megathrons/Apocalypses are anything other than plated to high hell; which is what battleships are in any reality, big guns, lots of armor. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
955
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:28:00 -
[610] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: What the heck? No dude, Tiericide is proof positive that they DO play and PVP.
-Liang
Actually: No, it isn't. If there is a problem with ships of a certain Tier being useless, then the answer is to rebalance the ships of that Tier. Very carefully. With as little intervention as possible. I see all Tiers of Battleships being used. So the answer to ships not being used is not scrapping Tiers and implementing an arbitrary line of ships that forces me to use a single ship with a single fit if I want to do XYZ. This is, in fact, so much worse than Tiers that it's not even on the same scale anymore.
Did you even read the dev blog? Your counter example was very specifically cited in it.
-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
|
|
Avitus Caius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:29:00 -
[611] - Quote
It all sounds great to me.
Just do it right and **** the people who end up bitching about it let them unsub and then welcome the new people who replace them. |
Seraph Razgriz
Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:29:00 -
[612] - Quote
As a new player(relatively in eve) here are my views. If you give people who have trained battle cruiser five all the racial battle cruiser fives, then my training time to get to the same level as that person who was maybe only a month older then me, is now multiplied by four. he went for command ships right away, i took my time, and now to get to the same level as him, i have to train for four months to be at the same level as a guy who trained for one month. IF you do the whole, what you fly yesterday you fly today. implying that you will get all battle cruiser fives if you had it trained before the switch. Its not fair if you dont do that. and its not fair if you do.
and capitals. Yes, they are T1, but only needing battleship four? that doesnt feel right. they are capital ships, they shouldnt be a walk in the park to get into. Hey, it would be awesome not to train battleship five, but at the same time..... i should have to.
What about those who only trained battleship five on races PURELY to get a carrier? will they get their battleship five allocated back to them? |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:30:00 -
[613] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: What the heck? No dude, Tiericide is proof positive that they DO play and PVP.
-Liang
Actually: No, it isn't. If there is a problem with ships of a certain Tier being useless, then the answer is to rebalance the ships of that Tier. Very carefully. With as little intervention as possible. I see all Tiers of Battleships being used. So the answer to ships not being used is not scrapping Tiers and implementing an arbitrary line of ships that forces me to use a single ship with a single fit if I want to do XYZ. This is, in fact, so much worse than Tiers that it's not even on the same scale anymore.
Did you read the blog?
They acknowledge that Battleships have the smallest tier problem because the proportional difference of slots and EHP is the least in that class!
Where as for frigs, cruisers and battlecruisers the tiers make more that half the ships ridiculous to fly in combat or their current role.
|
The Economist
Logically Consistent
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:30:00 -
[614] - Quote
Ruri Atreides wrote:Dearest CCP
1. Why are you trying to change something that isnt broken 2. Having the ability to fly every sub cap ship in the game has taken me YEARS of paying for this game so anything that may jeprodize that does not get my vote. 3. I really dont want to pay for the clone grades that would be required for having 4 BC 5 skills. .
Good point, hadn' t thought about that. If the new racial bc skills for example are the same tier as the existing one then people could feasibly be boosted up into new clone levels....and they do get expensive. (not sure how much of a concern it really is though since they would inevitably reach that new clone level before long without the changes anyway)
|
Aphoxema G
Teraa Matar
243
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:30:00 -
[615] - Quote
I just plain don't see the point. Destroyers are special frigates, battlecruisers are special cruisers. We've never had "Minmatar Assault Ships" or "Amarr Covert Ops", so what isn't arbitrary about these changes?
What's been suggested doesn't add anything to the game, it only causes confusion and stress for most players. Warp drive failure indicator: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=887805#post887805 |
stoicfaux
765
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:31:00 -
[616] - Quote
Skills like Logistics or Interceptors are currently generic. Are these skills also being broken up into "[faction] Logistics" skills?
So under the new system, if I want to train an Amarr Logistic Tech II cruiser, would it require: *Amarr Frigate IV * Amarr Destroyer IV * Amarr Cruiser V * Amarr Logistics I or "generic" Logistics I . * Signature Analysis V . * Long Range Targeting V
Also, the proposed skill tree looks a lot like the T3 Strategic Cruiser tree. A base skill (faction Strategic Cruisers == Amarr Frigate or Amarr Battleship) and then faction specific ship skills (Amarr Offensive Systems == generic/Amarr Logistics or generic/Amarr Heavy Assault Ships.)
edit: damn "save draft" feature is lopping off the last character of lines. Use "chomp" not "chop" dammit.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:33:00 -
[617] - Quote
Wow so you've spent the last little while trolling the playerbase left after :last year: by arsing around with module/missile names and general ui trashing, that hasn't been bad enough so now you want to screw not only with pretty much every ship ingame, but the skill system as well? Everyone could talk forever on which ships they feel need a tweak one way or another, I don't think there's many would say you need to tear it up and start from scratch with a new design concept for ships of EVE (basicly what the blog seems to suggest. And maybe I've missed it, but please enlighten me and point out the epic threadnaughts on the forums about how terrible the skills system is and how we need to totally redo that as well (other than the people that want to be able to grind max sp in everything by leaving abot shooting stuff for a few days). Again you take a part of the game that maybe has 1 or 2 little curiosities to work out, and throw out the baby and bathtub along with the water.
To be slightly constructive at least in this post, please just outright promise (and then DELIVER) that you'll grant everyone every new skill that they'd have to retrain, to the level they have it atm. To be perfectly, mind numbingly clear, if you do actually go ahead and make racial destroyer/bc skills, you need to give someone like myself all those new skills to 5 right away, same for every ship that might become inacessable due to revised skill reqs.
Requiring new skills/training for new ships is all fine and to be expected, if you expect people to want to retrain to fly hulls they've had avalible for #sometime# you're incredibly stupid, even for the standards of CCP.
|
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
154
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:34:00 -
[618] - Quote
So if i have minmatar cruiser 3, battlecruiser 5 and command ships 4 will i be able to fly claymore after patch? Im not able to today but i will have minmatar battlecruiser 5 |
PRLord
Violent Force Productions The Phoenix Regime
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:34:00 -
[619] - Quote
First generic and lazy sounding modules, now dumbing down the ship system and making it even harder for young players to be versatile. What you see as streamlining many see as cheapening the game into a cookie cutter form that takes is sacrificing player knowledge and innovations. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
278
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:35:00 -
[620] - Quote
TheLostPenguin wrote: Requiring new skills/training for new ships is all fine and to be expected, if you expect people to want to retrain to fly hulls they've had avalible for #sometime# you're incredibly stupid, even for the standards of CCP.
Good thing they're not doing this then. Go read the dev posts. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Avitus Caius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:36:00 -
[621] - Quote
Avitus Caius wrote:It all sounds great to me.
Just do it right and **** the people who end up bitching about it let them unsub and then welcome the new people who replace them.
Again this..... |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:36:00 -
[622] - Quote
Love the idea of getting rid of tiers and opening up the ability to make some of the redundant ships useful again. Though at times I wonder if there are perhaps too many types of frigates for each race. I guess it depends on the bonuses applied to each ship, but perhaps some of the lesser used frigs could be reconfigured to simply provide a cosmetic option for newer players.
As for skill point reimbursement, create special skill books.
If someone has the ability to fly more than one type of cruiser, give them SP to allow them to fly one cruiser based on their race, but then give them skill books that automatically train them to the same level for their race of choice.
Pre-patch: can fly 3 cruiser types post-patch: can fly racial cruiser, but also have 2 skill books that, when injected, increase the skill level to exactly what is needed for them to continue flying the other cruisers they are used to flying. Previously at Cruiser 4? Get a skill book for 4. Previously at 5? get a skill book for 5.
Same with BC's.
Doing this instead of re-imbursing skill points not only allows users to quickly get back into their favorite ships, but also gives them the option of holding deciding to train traditionally for one of them, and then sell the special skillbook via contracts for some Isk.
As for the industrial side, the tiny bit of commentary in the blog dedicated to that is a joke. Just leave mining and industrial as it is. You are great at doing that anyway. Profit favors the prepared |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:36:00 -
[623] - Quote
CCP! This is a genial move!!! You guys are realy doing it right! By balancing the game this way you will expand many times the game content, as you are bringing back to life everything that was obsolete, and making them count!!!!
ALTHOUG CCP, WE REALY NEED A CLOAK HUNTER SHIP ASAP! CLOAK IS UNBALANCED THE WAY IT IS NOW!
Now cloak is used as a griefing tool known as AFK Coaking, this prevents people from minning and rating on null-sec, sending many players back to hi-sec, also force all industrials and minners to stay on Hi-sec. This colls down the whole game!! Whille the afk cloaker just sits there as a bot ( afk playing ). |
Harocko K'zack
Rookies Empire Rookie Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:37:00 -
[624] - Quote
Plain and simple response:
1. do the the roles thing you suggested. 2. do NOT mess with destroyers or battlecruisers.
In my eyes, #1 is a good thing, and #2 is a bad thing.
Yes CCP is greatly known for adding advantages and disadvantages to EVERYTHING they do, but when you do it when your trying to FIX somehting, its pointless to even "Fix" it at that point
By "Fix" im talking about streamlining. How is it stramlining when you now just added 2 books that wssnt there to beguin with? Dessies and Bc's have always been optional and have always been very generic ships. they shoudl stay that way |
Morar Santee
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:37:00 -
[625] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Morar Santee wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: What the heck? No dude, Tiericide is proof positive that they DO play and PVP.
-Liang
Actually: No, it isn't. If there is a problem with ships of a certain Tier being useless, then the answer is to rebalance the ships of that Tier. Very carefully. With as little intervention as possible. I see all Tiers of Battleships being used. So the answer to ships not being used is not scrapping Tiers and implementing an arbitrary line of ships that forces me to use a single ship with a single fit if I want to do XYZ. This is, in fact, so much worse than Tiers that it's not even on the same scale anymore. Did you even read the dev blog? Your counter example was very specifically cited in it. -Liang
No ****. So we agree that more slots allow for more versatility and are a good thing, because they allow different ships to be used in different ways.
Solution: Introduce Lines of ships. With a dedicated role and slot layout to be only useful in that role.
Now that you pointed it out, yeah, totally makes sense. Or wait - no it doesn't.
Now, this is just an idea, we could go back to my original point that ships should be carefully balanced. This can include slot layout. Or giving Tier 1 BCs an advantage over their Tier 2 counterparts. It makes no sense the Hurricane packs more DPS and is exactly as fast/agile as the Cyclone. There's a ton of tweaks that could help. Screwing over EVE's core gameplay is not one of them. |
Sernum
Total Mayhem. Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:38:00 -
[626] - Quote
April fools? |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1297
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:38:00 -
[627] - Quote
As a veteran, I feel I must be bitter about this, regardless of what the changes are all about and how they will affect me.
Nothing personal, it's in the global rules of MMO participation that all changes are to be despised and fought against with all kinds of bitter hatred and rhetoric, going to ALL CAPS if necessary per the Geneva Convention.
Reading about the actual changes is not even required.
So... uh...... let me begin....
These changes suck. They will ruin the game. My brothers sisters cousins roommate with the 25 accounts is going to unsub and single-handedly bankrupt CCP. Armies of darkness will march across the face of the earth and puppies will be sad all because of CCP, and .....Marsha Marsha Marsha!
Forgive me if I missed anything.
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:38:00 -
[628] - Quote
Aphoxema G wrote:We've never had "Minmatar Assault Ships" or "Amarr Covert Ops", so what isn't arbitrary about these changes?
#***#! **&&$$$! ***$#@@! Shhhhhh Don't remind them. |
Danny Centauri
Real Time Industries
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:38:00 -
[629] - Quote
Ultimately I'm pretty chill no matter what you do as long as at the end of it I can: - Continue cross training into all commandships without losing any time to get to my goal. - Reclaim any wasted skill points like AFs/HACs etc that I don't need anymore to fly the ship.
Understandable the changes you want to make, massive and not the most obvious place to start (hello turret specialisations for large t2 guns) but hey CCP do like big ideas.
Protip: "It's much better to get to first base consistently than to try to hit a home run and strike out 9 times out of 10." The McKinsey Way (1999) |
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:39:00 -
[630] - Quote
The delivery of this blog was pretty bad, Please dear god run this stuff past the csm. Surely that's what they are there for.....
replacing bc 5 with all racial bcs 5 is an acceptable solution but I would then strongly urge you to look into clone costs as you are talking of a 6m + sp injection.
Tiericide is one of the best things you can do and sooo glad to hear that you are pressing for it :) :) :) :)
Slightly concerned that you are dropping the prereq for capitals. One thing we don't need in this game is even more caps running around.
Overall fairly promising news just make sure people aren't required to re-train skills Two Step for CSM |
|
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:39:00 -
[631] - Quote
Another thought on the capital ship issue. While any sane/competent/cautious person would wait till they are properly skilled to use a capital ship; that is often not necessary to turn the tide of many battle when they reach that scale. Just the presence of an extra carrier/dread on the field can play a big role both in the percieved threat and in morale, and there is no way for the attackers to know that the pilot of the Thanatos that just undocked has **** poor skills, then just know what that Thanny CAN do. So yes, while knocking off one 30 day skill doesn't mean that you can be a good cap pilot instantly, it does make a bigger difference than can be easily downplayed. |
Andrea Griffin
170
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:39:00 -
[632] - Quote
I am excited at the prospect of a Drone/TD Amarr Battleship. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:39:00 -
[633] - Quote
There should not be free skill points awarded. This should be done like previously.
Skill points from trained skills which are removed should be reimposed and value of those skill books returned as isk. Players can then choose how to redistribute their points how they like. They don't even need to put them back to ship skills if they don't want.
It is likely that some won't be able to fly all racial variants after this before some additional training, but in the end this will be same for everyone.
Any other method will cause more harm than this one. Extra skillpoints for some will cause jita protest or worse.
Get |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:40:00 -
[634] - Quote
Dear CCP Ytterbium / CCP Soundwave (if you see this),
First, thanks for the "heads up" and development direction. After reading the devblog post, I understand that this is a part of a renovation of the current ship system. That answers my "Why this?" question. The next patch coming answers my "Why now?" question.
My remaining question is this: Is there anyway that this track could be made less linear?
As stated, the extra training time to get into a battleship is undesirable. (Personally, destroyers are a waste of my time.) Right now things do branch out, but only at the final capital level. Doesn't this seem imbalanced and top heavy? My hope is that this leads to new ship paths, but I doubt that is what you are ready to start thinking about. That said, what should the next logical step after battlecruisers be?
My advice is this: If you are going to renovate, go the extra mile to do it right and don't plan on coming back later.
Yes, this means I'm suggesting even more radical changes to the ship paths, but I think you should start with roles and work down from there. You are retrofitting a good idea onto a very old one from days when Eve was a fresh, new, and (in ways) derivative game. It has grown into a game that others now mimic. If the game were new, and you knew what you knew now, what you have done differently? Wouldn't you have role skills and then ships that used them?
In terms of roles, I believe that what helps to make T2 ships have such defined roles it their extra bonuses. I think a third bonus would make it easier for you to define the roles of T1 ships. As for T2, already you are seeing ships with extra bonuses beyond the basic 4. Even T1 ships are getting role bonuses. What if role skills determined role bonuses (unrequired to fly, but useful if you have it)? Such skills could span ship classes and even races. Just my personal thought, but also an observation.
Beyond that, I really hope you factor in cross-training. Right now, these changes will remove racial links and create racial divides. The simplicity of your diagrams mask the complexity of what people actually fly. I really would like to see some new ideas here (such as the role skill). Right now I just want you to be aware of the deeper problems this will be creating. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:40:00 -
[635] - Quote
I like the changes as they are described.
I like the pubbie tears even more.
|
Tashanaka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:40:00 -
[636] - Quote
Several things going on in that post thus I have mixed feelings.
1- Removing the tiers for T1 ships (aka: Buffing hulls that no one flies) = good and would hopefully bring a greater variety of hulls in space.
2- "Re-balancing" ships reads like nerfing popular ships to me. IE: T3's (make them worse than faction cruisers?!?!) and other well performing hulls like the Drake. = BAD BAD BAD :twisted:
3- Making the training tree more clear = mostly good (BAD if we have to train all the races BC and Dessy skills!) Sounds like it's time to make sure I have the Frig & Cruisers for all races to at least 4... /sigh
4- Making it take longer to train into some ships = Bad-ish. EVE is already a timesink skill intensive game for "new" players. Pushing training up even higher seems counter-productive to bringing in more new players.
5- Not too sure on the new skills for "Ship Lines" especially if these new "Ship Line" skills have no meaning beyond T1 ships. Or will they just tack on more requirements for T2/T3 (IE: Interceptor requires Attack & Support) There is already a ton of support skills for Capacitor, CPU, Armor, Shields, Guns, Missiles, etc needed to maximize a ships potential. I don't see a benefit (other than a timesink) for these new skills. Again, this seems counter-productive to bringing in more new players.
TLDR: - Making the skill paths more clear and intuitive =good - Making it take even longer to trin = bad (From a vet point of view it's more or less 6's) - Buff under performing hulls without nerfing ones that do perform well
|
Malache
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:41:00 -
[637] - Quote
I would support this change if there was more than one type of destroyer for each race.
As it stands now the destroy skill is not fun to train past 1 as a newb. There is no potential upgrade to your destroyer. |
Maxpie
Metaphysical Utopian Society Explorations
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:41:00 -
[638] - Quote
I really don't like this term 'progression' I see a lot in the blog. There shouldn't be a 'right' way to play Eve. I prefer the skill system to be a bit quirky, requiring more thought and planning, as opposed to 'progressing' to the next ship I'm supposed to get into. |
Baneken
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric The Polaris Syndicate
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:42:00 -
[639] - Quote
What ever as long as we still need BS V for capital ships or change the requirement for advanced ss command and reimburse accordingly. |
None ofthe Above
108
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:43:00 -
[640] - Quote
Seraph Razgriz wrote:As a new player(relatively in eve) here are my views. If you give people who have trained battle cruiser five all the racial battle cruiser fives, then my training time to get to the same level as that person who was maybe only a month older then me, is now multiplied by four. he went for command ships right away, i took my time, and now to get to the same level as him, i have to train for four months to be at the same level as a guy who trained for one month. IF you do the whole, what you fly yesterday you fly today. implying that you will get all battle cruiser fives if you had it trained before the switch. Its not fair if you dont do that. and its not fair if you do.
and capitals. Yes, they are T1, but only needing battleship four? that doesnt feel right. they are capital ships, they shouldnt be a walk in the park to get into. Hey, it would be awesome not to train battleship five, but at the same time..... i should have to.
What about those who only trained battleship five on races PURELY to get a carrier? will they get their battleship five allocated back to them?
This is my point. There is no "making everyone happy" on this one.
I can appreciate that this fixes one of the weirdnesses of the skill tree and probably does make the job of totally new players understanding the skill progression easier (the only valid reason to do this I've thought of so far), but am really not sure that justifies the chaos and butt-hurt that this is sure to cause.
And to reask my question (apologies if its been answered in this torrent of comments)
Was CSM consulted on this and what did they say?
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2023
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:43:00 -
[641] - Quote
10/10 CCP has officially just trolled all the CSM7 candidates, by dropping the most colossal steaming heap of a pile of issues to discuss a day before the polls begin. They're clearly testing our ability to handle unexpected news!
I'm writing up some *words*, Its going to take me a few because I want to give it its treatment. There's a hundred things to comment on here, and I'm already 30 pages behind! Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:44:00 -
[642] - Quote
This thread has led me to a horrifying medical conclusion: Prolonged exposure to large EMP smartbomb radiation at or near the Rancer gate causes brain cancer!
Acute symptoms in 100% of the posts by "the united" in this thread should be statistically significant and proof enough. CCP, you're messing with the health of your customers here. Fix this ASAP!
Rivur'Tam wrote: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
Insomnium wrote: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
N3oXr2ii wrote: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
Emissary K'Ehleyr wrote: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
Russir wrote: agreed DO NOT DO THIS ITS ******* STUIPED
|
thoth rothschild
First Aid Emergency Service
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:44:00 -
[643] - Quote
You got my full support. My philosophie as you might know is "Change is good, stagnation is bad" The basic idea is awesome!
Also i really thank you for accepting ideas for new modules. the combination of this will bring a new adventure feeling to eve which we lost after we got vets.
good job +thumbsup+
|
Kitt JT
Crimson Empire. Nulli Secunda
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:44:00 -
[644] - Quote
The problem i see is here:
People are always talking about the dispairity between vets and noobs.
Won't new players now have a longer training time, thus taking even longer to skill up for things?
To be honest, i think that idea is a step in the wrong direction
A better solution might be having different bonuses apply to ships (bonuses not requirements)
Say for example a raven requires caldari battleship 3 to fly.
However, it gets a bonus from each level of caldari battleship It gets a bonus from each level of caldari cruiser It gets a bonus from each level of caldari frigate
yes, ships will have more bonuses, but you could mitigate them. Example, maybe the frigate bonus is a 2% to say agility, or missile velocity, or w/e.
Furthermore, i think there should be less "manditory" skills to train to level 5 Obviously fitting skills and such are always important to train to 5, but i mean requirements.
And no, i'm not saying that t2 ships should have reduced ship requirements (i think recons should require racial cruiser 5 for example)
What I'm talking about is skills like "advanced spaceship command" Why is advanced spaceship command 5 a requirement for capital ships? Would it not make sense to have the requirement at 4? or even 1? or not at all? The point is that its an extra 30 day skill that everybody flying carriers and dreads has to train, that doesn't really change anything (as everyone gets it) its a pointless filler-skill.
Similarly, jump drive operation. Jump drive operation 5 is a requirement for JDC. Fleets will NOT let anybody fly with them without JDC 4 (although JDC 5 requirement is becoming more common). Its another needless 30 day skill that has no progression (you really don't have an extra 30 day skill that EVERYBODY needs for ALL capitals)
And lets be clear here. I think capitals are a good thing. Capitals are great ships. Capitals are fun to shoot. Capitals are easilly kill-able by BS fleets. Its SUPERCAPITALS that everyone hates. |
Vedje
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:45:00 -
[645] - Quote
This seems very brave A lot room for mistakes, errors etc. But if implemented right it might open up a whole new world.
I agree that balancing was needed ages ago and if that is what this improvements should bring about i am very excited.
Best of luck ccp, and please don't f.. this up, there's so much that might go wrong here. |
stoicfaux
767
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:45:00 -
[646] - Quote
Freighters will be more common since you only need industrial IV under the proposed system. Which could have an interesting effect on the market.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:46:00 -
[647] - Quote
Tinkietoo wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Messilina wrote:VaL Iscariot wrote:Thanks for dumbing the game down, CCP. You guys pull that **** with Capitals, Command Ships, and Battlecruisers, I'm done. I'm not spending four months training up all the battlecruisers to 5 and I really don't appreciate you 'streamlining' this game so a bunch of new fags can understand it better. Kick them in the ass and tell them to read a mother ******* book and stop giving away hand outs. Battleship V should be a requirement to fly a ******* capital ship. Comparing that to the progression to a Hulk places high in my top 5 boneheaded things CCP has said.
You should be making this game harder, not easier. Think about that before you **** everything up... again. Agreed. It becomes ever more obvious that the devs don't play eve, or at least they don't pvp, which is just as damning. All that is obvious is that you two have serious reading comprehension issues. "If you can fly it today, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow." You have serious comprehension issues for failing to understand the original point and then commenting anyway.
I understand his point perfectly, and stand by mine.
Skill points will be allocated so that you do not have to retrain anything you can currently fly.
Reimbursements will be granted for anything unnecessary you trained under the old system.
Continuity in the skill tree's is good game design, not "dumbing down" anything.
I think that about covers it... unless you feel that the insignificant amount of time spent to train BS 5 actually matters compared to the time spent learning how to practically fly a cap. If so then 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. |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:48:00 -
[648] - Quote
thoth rothschild wrote:My philosophie as you might know is "Change is good, stagnation is bad"
This is so asinine it makes my head hurt. I have an idea, lets start all walking on our hands for a change. It's a change so it must be good. Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that it is 'stagnant'. |
GrusomeGeir
Ganja Labs
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:48:00 -
[649] - Quote
On the Skilltree changes: Wow... I really hope you guys gives this ALOT of tought. Because if you think that Incarna thingy was bad, this has the potential of turning into something way worse. Take everyone who was upset about WiS not coming, and then add the rest of EVE.... thats how many people are gonna be upset about this if it goes wrong.
I'm not saying I don't think you guys know what your doing.. i'm just saying PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET THIS RIGHT!!!!
On the ship/tier changes: So, how much are you guys looking to change the ship stats in order to achieve this? Change ships that aren't beeing used, LEAVE the ones that are.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:48:00 -
[650] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:As a veteran, I feel I must be bitter about this, regardless of what the changes are all about and how they will affect me.
Nothing personal, it's in the global rules of MMO participation that all changes are to be despised and fought against with all kinds of bitter hatred and rhetoric, going to ALL CAPS if necessary per the Geneva Convention.
Reading about the actual changes is not even required.
So... uh...... let me begin....
These changes suck. They will ruin the game. My brothers sisters cousins roommate with the 25 accounts is going to unsub and single-handedly bankrupt CCP. Armies of darkness will march across the face of the earth and puppies will be sad all because of CCP, and .....Marsha Marsha Marsha!
Forgive me if I missed anything.
You win the thread! 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. |
|
Carl Hinken
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:49:00 -
[651] - Quote
No sir, I don't like it. Certain things should be left alone. To be blunt, I do NOT trust you to not mess this up CCP.
First off, I don't believe you won't screw up the 1 skills to 4 skills SP reimbursement. You can't realistically give those of us who have destroyers 5 and BC 5 the extra 6m SP just so we can continue flying what we already fly. It'll be a huge advantage to incoming new players.
Secondly, BS4 for a capital ship? Seriously? They're a capital ship. For many people they're close to if not end-game goals. They should NOT be BS4, period. Do super caps need BS5 at least?
Thirdly, what about all the other generic skills? You know, crazy things like the T2 ship skills, the capital ship skill, etc? Will we now need to tale out an extra 360m for Gallente Capital Ship, Amarr Capital Ship, etc. If you're going to do this, you should at least be consistent on how you handle EVERY ship skill.
In short, you made a mistake when you implemented the Destroyer and BC skills, now you're going to screw things up trying to fix them. Not a great plan. I guess all of these changes you've been making have been you buttering us up for this dreadful, awful, horrible change. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2025
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:49:00 -
[652] - Quote
Basically my TL:DR is - The spirit and direction here are great - arbitrary numbered tiers are silly, ship roles and logical progression of skills just makes sense. Some of the specifics here are just crazy bad, however.
I'll give you one for starters (i'm sure its been said already having not read the 30 pages yet):
BS IV TO TRAIN CARRIERS IS BAD, BAD, BAD. CCP, DON'T DO THIS. We do not need underprepared pilots in carriers. At that ship size level, we need srs bizness fleet members. Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Derth Ramir
Hellion Evolution
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:50:00 -
[653] - Quote
Can someone please shut up all the mindless humans that are posting about how they are going to be forced to retrain for the new skills. If you guys took a few minutes to read you would find out CCP stated they would reimburse properly. |
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:52:00 -
[654] - Quote
Looks like the drake nerf will happen after all.
Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
Quote:Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
The fact that the Drake had the best defense and average DPS was the entire point. Now they will just be alpha bait. And never used considering that FCs are going to be preferring insta long range anyway.
With the increased DPS inside Lvl4s these days noobs will yet again lose access to stuff that will keep them in the game. |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:53:00 -
[655] - Quote
Carl Hinken wrote: Certain things should be left alone. To be blunt, I do NOT trust you to not mess this up CCP.
I trust CCP to take care of this as much as I trust a meth head in my ammonia warehouse and as much as I trust a Muslim parent with a beheading implement around his daughters and/or wives. |
ReK42
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:55:00 -
[656] - Quote
I'm cautiously optimistic about these changes. However, there are a couple issues with the transition that need to be addressed. Specifically, SP refunds for people who trained skills only because they were a pre-requisite. An example of this would be a supercarrier pilot who has Battleship 5 for the sole reason that it was required to inject carrier. That is now nearly 1.5 million SP that is completely wasted on a pilot that will never leave his supercarrier to fly a subcap. Another example would be a combat pilot who trained Mining Barge 5 solely for the logistical utility of a Rorqual which he never actually mines with, or flies mining barges or exhumers.
I truly hope that CCP takes this opportunity to learn from their previous mistakes handling transitions (eg: fuel blocks) and provides some form of optional SP refund for pilots who would otherwise be stuck in this situation. An optional refund would require a large amount of work on the part of the GMs handling the requests but it needs to be done. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:56:00 -
[657] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Looks like the drake nerf will happen after all. Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal. Quote:Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller. The fact that the Drake had the best defense and average DPS was the entire point. Now they will just be alpha bait. And never used considering that FCs are going to be preferring insta long range anyway. With the increased DPS inside Lvl4s these days noobs will yet again lose access to stuff that will keep them in the game.
Perhaps you should consider that "noobs" really shouldn't have a dirt cheap, quickly trained for ship that can allow them to waltz through Level 4 missions with impunity. 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. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:56:00 -
[658] - Quote
Gynoceros wrote:You are in Dreddit. Don't you want more newbs in Frigates? The faction frigate skills are used for the most basic ships in the game, so I think it makes sense to change them to rank one. Plus it gives new players a sense of accomplishment to move up the Frigate -> Cruiser skill chain even faster while still keeping the overall skill requirements pretty much the same.
Sure, and if Dreddit were the only corp and Test the only Alliance in the game then I'd be all for it. But the game is more than one corp with a newbie focus and an alliance with an emphasis on screwing around, so it helps to think about these things from a broader perspective.
|
Bilaz
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:58:00 -
[659] - Quote
well after 10 mitutes of initial rage im ready to post some comments racial battlecruiser skills make sense, but i dont want to train all 4 to 5 on all my chars AGAIN [:evil:
as for tier elimination - its a good idea, but your role summury is completly wrong. While part of me wants to write a thousand words on where and how you are wrong - i would rather write what i think is closer to truth
first of all roles depend on size of your fleet. Fos solo you generaly have brawlers and kiters - brawlers are capable to overtank and overdamage all opposition they expect to see - mostly armor tanked ships, but you can do that with haml drake or active mael and such, kiters are capable to dictate preffered range to hostiles - distance where they can outdamage and tackle enemy and enemy cannot do **** - obvious example is cynabal. But both of them must be capable of scouting and tackling their targets. This makes brawler class (and thus most armor based ships) not usable as true soloships unless you dont mind losing them every 10 jumps to a random camp/gang
Second point is that damage for some reason is "great" for all damage dealing types - is not as important as ability to inflict it. For instance 1000+ dps blaster boats are useless when properly tackled by something from afar, and pathetic 350 dps from drake on 50 km was much more than you could get from other bc's and cruisers (and it hits better than most long range weapons) - but then you introduced tier 3 bc and drake is no longer king of the hill. point is - you cant make roles not taking damage dealing potential in mind - some ships may be general damage dealers (close, long or middle range and apropriate tracking), some may provide tackle and damage, some may serve as antisupport - killing targets that not being killed by main gang
third point is that calling non damage dealing roles as support is wrong - becouse damage dealing ships can participate in doing almost everything specialized ships are doing: tacking (webs and such), tactical advantage (scouting, bubbles, (smart)bombs, scan, cyno), e-war, support (cap, shield, armor, hull transfers, gang bonuses
And i would prefer to have different but not overly specialized ships -pvp in eve is evolving every day and bonuses and roles ccp devised in 5+ years ago - now no longer looking interesting. Puls its obvious that you make balance like goverments make laws and we as criminals have lots of keen minds and lots of time to devise a way to break them. So you cant possiby make perfect balance (or law) - but you can correct holes when they become obvious. for instance before lag nerf it was not that obvious that t3 ships are two-three times better than their damage dealing counterparts and can humiliate even huge battleship fleets in different ways, |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:58:00 -
[660] - Quote
Quote:We do not need underprepared pilots in carriers.
What on earth would make you say a thing like that? 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. |
|
Sollana
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 21:59:00 -
[661] - Quote
I like the idea, but lets take myself for example.
I have 3/4races up to cruiser 5, battlecruiser 5, so i can use commandships.
but if the ship tree/lines etc had existed before then this would not of happened.
perhaps a full skill point reimbursement. this is what most other MMo's would grant.
|
stoicfaux
767
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:00:00 -
[662] - Quote
Derth Ramir wrote:Can someone please shut up all the mindless humans that are posting about how they are going to be forced to retrain for the new skills. If you guys took a few minutes to read you would find out CCP stated they would reimburse properly. Yes, but... it opens up some interesting side effects. "New destroyer and battlecruiser skills would be same rank than existing ones"
BC is a rank 6 skill. The new system would suddenly give you 4 rank 6 skills. Which means that everyone should be training the generic destroyer and battlecruiser ship skills right now to take advantage of this One Time Quadruple Training Speed Special Offer!*
* User is solely responsible for any increase in clone replacement/upgrade costs.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:00:00 -
[663] - Quote
Quote:well after 10 mitutes of initial rage im ready to post some comments racial battlecruiser skills make sense, but i dont want to train all 4 to 5 on all my chars AGAIN [:evil:
Before going any further, respectfully, take another 10 minutes and read the opening post in this thread. 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. |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries Broken Chains Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:00:00 -
[664] - Quote
'Nother Bittervet checking in.
Like other BVs who have posted so far, I have a significant chunk of SP (nearly 90 mil) on two characters created at near the same time. One (this one) is a combat specialist, able to fly all sub-BS t2 ships (except industrials) across all 4 races, and has the distinction of qualifying for the Elite Fleet Co-ordinator certificate (go look it up, it's a *****). My other char is a cap pilot, but, being pure Gallente, would not be effected much by this change as she already has BC 5 and Dest 5.
So my issue mostly revolves around this character. As I noted, I have extensive training in Command Ships and what makes them special. I also own and fly an Eris and a Flycatcher, as well as a Damnation, Claymore, and Vulture. I do not want to lose access to those ships, even temporarily, because of some new racial training schema for "off-path" ships.
Now, I understand breaking the tiers and the fact that the genericism of Destroyers and BCs makes the skills a little broken compared to the others. But at the same time, it really doesn't. You still need racial Frigate or Cruiser to fly them. You could just bump the level requirement to 4 instead of 3 to make them a little tougher to get into, much like the next level up on the t1 transition. Destroyers and BCs are kinda specialized to begin with, even at t1, so them being off the beaten path makes sense anyway. I treated them as half-way stepping stones, something a bit more powerful to fly while I trained up support skills to make the next level of basic ships viable to fly. So if you guys go ahead and make the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills race specific, I damned well better get level 5 in all 8 of them.
Other things: I do not agree with severing the progression of AF -> HAC -> Field Command Ship. Each one really is just a beefier, less mobile version of the one before. Also Covop -> Black Ops, EAS -> Recon, and Interdictor -> HIC (interceptor should not be a pre-req to Dictor, though). Fleet CS has its own "usefullness" pre-reqs in the Leadership skill tree; Logistics should have nothing to do with them (in part because they do not do logistics directly, in part because only two of them BUFF logistics ships), but, say, Siege Warfare Specialist 4 for the Vulture (and equivalents for the others) would make sense. I don't like the idea of people being able to skip lesser t2 ships on the way to greater t2 ships. Feels like watering down the specialization. And like I'll have trained potentially unnecessary skills (I almost never actually fly an AF - I could easily do without them). Similarly, as you need to train increasingly larger base hulls to move up in size of ships, you should need to know how to fly a smaller sibling to a bigger vessel before flying that bigger vessel. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
232
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:01:00 -
[665] - Quote
The biggest complaints people have is they fear having to train longer for roughly the same ships in the game. Meaning, to be proficient at the drake and the hurricane takes more time, significantly more time if you aim for BC V. I think many people are complaining because they don't want to "have to" put in the extra training, some people are complaining to get free sp, but very few people are actually focused on what issues this causes. The BC class of ships are one of the primary "cross-training" drivers. BC's are cheap and potent, and it is relatively easy to cross-train between races to quickly fly effectively. With these changes, cross training becomes significantly more time consuming, especially when trying to fly BC+ type ships with lvl V skills. This hurts new players that attempt to train into the standard fleet types, as their time-to-effectiveness is increased.
-- Realistically, HTFU people... The BC class of ships are extremely potent and brutal ships, and do you really think you deserve to so easily unlock the full potential of these ships with so little training? BC's easily go toe-to-toe with t2 cruisers, for much less skilltraining and cost. Moving the BC's to racial BC's is a very much needed step. Then their sp investment falls much more inline with their firepower and abilities.
-- CS pilots, like myself: It will be a PITA to train 4x Racial BC V to board our command ships again. At the same point in time, granting us all 4x Racial BC V off the bat is pretty over-the-top. We are vets, so a boon from CCP is nice, but realistically, we don't deserve getting 6m sp for the 1.5m we invested in BC V (maybe 3m ). The simple solution is to refund back the BC sps, and lower the CS prereq from BC V to BC IV. We could distribute our sp's to then fly all the command ships again, or we can invest them in a particular race to fly one CS very effectively.
-- The future: If there is a racial BC and Dessie skill, it really opens the door for additional BC and Dessie ships. So while you might feel like this is limiting the ships you can fly now, the writing on the wall suggests you will gain more ships to fly in the future. Even moreso, this blog is about changing current useless ships into potential useful combat ships. Suddenly ships like the Atron or Executioner can gain slots and fitting to become a viable combat ship.
IMO, this Dev Blog is nothing but win.... and people whining and bitching about how its unfair they can no longer fly a Hurricane, Drake, and Talos perfectly using the same moderately low-cost skill need to HTFU...
|
Caerephon
Origin.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:02:00 -
[666] - Quote
This is going to make Destroyers look like a terrible skill option, since it'll take you a while to get a single ship, whereas skilling up Cruiser will get you 3 or 4. Maybe you should implement more destroyers with this system... *winkwinknudgenudgeohgodpleasei'mtiredofthethrasherhull* |
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:03:00 -
[667] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Looks like the drake nerf will happen after all. Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal. Quote:Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller. The fact that the Drake had the best defense and average DPS was the entire point. Now they will just be alpha bait. And never used considering that FCs are going to be preferring insta long range anyway. With the increased DPS inside Lvl4s these days noobs will yet again lose access to stuff that will keep them in the game. Perhaps you should consider that "noobs" really shouldn't have a dirt cheap, quickly trained for ship that can allow them to waltz through Level 4 missions with impunity.
What do you mean Waltz? Even with proper fit many of the "new" Lvl 4 missions will eat you alive in a drake without Domi logi. And even then you are fit for so much tank that the isk per hr is pathetic. |
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance
327
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:03:00 -
[668] - Quote
DEAR CCP. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PIC?
http://korvin.isgreat.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=28 __________________________________ Member of CSM 4&5, your CSM 7 candidate. |
Rhaile Vhindiscar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:04:00 -
[669] - Quote
Kill it with FIRE.
You're going to stick all those people in null with ships they can't fly until they retrain? Think about the poor fools in Wspace. You can either A) Drop your points and regain caine at lvl 5 or B) drop your points and be able to fly the only ship you have in system, a drake. Are you insane?! Good lord, did you run this pas the CSM?
Balance the ships, but can who ever came up with the subdivision of bc and cruiser skills. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:08:00 -
[670] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Derth Ramir wrote:Can someone please shut up all the mindless humans that are posting about how they are going to be forced to retrain for the new skills. If you guys took a few minutes to read you would find out CCP stated they would reimburse properly. Yes, but... it opens up some interesting side effects. "New destroyer and battlecruiser skills would be same rank than existing ones" BC is a rank 6 skill. The new system would suddenly give you 4 rank 6 skills. Which means that everyone should be training the generic destroyer and battlecruiser ship skills right now to take advantage of this One Time Quadruple Training Speed Special Offer!* * User is solely responsible for any increase in clone replacement/upgrade costs. Best way to limit abuse would be for CCP to add the skills directly and not just give free SP, which means that while the arbitrary SP number goes up you didn't really gain anything from the change. Training as is allows it so it's not terribly exploitish.
Would stay longer but I have to go make some changes to the skill queue for a sec. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:08:00 -
[671] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Looks like the drake nerf will happen after all. Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal. Quote:Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller. The fact that the Drake had the best defense and average DPS was the entire point. Now they will just be alpha bait. And never used considering that FCs are going to be preferring insta long range anyway. With the increased DPS inside Lvl4s these days noobs will yet again lose access to stuff that will keep them in the game. Perhaps you should consider that "noobs" really shouldn't have a dirt cheap, quickly trained for ship that can allow them to waltz through Level 4 missions with impunity. What do you mean Waltz? Even with proper fit many of the "new" Lvl 4 missions will eat you alive in a drake without Domi logi. And even then you are fit for so much tank that the isk per hr is pathetic.
"Noobs" shouldn't be able to do level 4's at all.
If you have the skills to do level 4's, you are no longer a noob.
Level 4 missions should require something a bit more advanced to do solo than a simple Drake.
If you can't currently do most level 4's in a Drake with relative ease, you are doing it wrong. 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. |
Stanis Myunga
Lonetrek Trade and Industries Elite Space Guild
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:09:00 -
[672] - Quote
I'm concerned with the fact that this would screw those of us who've progressed directly from frigate to cruiser training. Up until 3-4 months ago I didn't have destroyers trained and I was already flying in battleship-class vessels.
These changes would mean an extremely huge nerf to nullsec PVP and severely disrupt fleet ops as major retraining would be needed, especially for toons under 2 years of age.
Cross-training at present point in time is relatively easy and not so much time consuming. However, with the changes, you're going to rickroll players' abilities to cross-train for other vessels.
In my instance, I can, at this moment in time... fly a Machariel, Vindi and Bhaalgorn. With the changes to the skill trees, I will be locked out most if not all pirate faction vessels that I can currently fly and do own. So will other members from my corp. Which is not making anyone happy.
Then there's those of us with negligible SP in destroyers and battlecruisers. Are we going to be reimbursed with full SP to match our current ship skills to keep continuity or will we be forced change gears and spend even MORE time training destroyers IV and then BC IV to fly battleships AGAIN?
Slight edit:
Corpmate alerted me to this. So yes I would be able to fly my ships but what about the SP?
Quote:Due to the way nested requirements work, it would also mean pilots would not need to re-train anything to fly Battleships or Cruisers |
Aphoxema G
Teraa Matar
247
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:09:00 -
[673] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Aphoxema G wrote:We've never had "Minmatar Assault Ships" or "Amarr Covert Ops", so what isn't arbitrary about these changes?
#***#! **&&$$$! ***$#@@! Shhhhhh Don't remind them.
Damnit, what have I done?!
I guess the only thing left to do is tie myself to a board and wait for the community to mercilessly flay me alive. Warp drive failure indicator: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=887805#post887805 |
Valentyn3
Deep Core Mining Inc.
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:10:00 -
[674] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Looks like the drake nerf will happen after all. Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal. Quote:Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller. The fact that the Drake had the best defense and average DPS was the entire point. Now they will just be alpha bait. And never used considering that FCs are going to be preferring insta long range anyway. With the increased DPS inside Lvl4s these days noobs will yet again lose access to stuff that will keep them in the game.
Lol Ya, I saw them compare the drake to the other 2 missile boats that never see any love in pvp and facepalmed.
They should just put an asterisk next to the entire missile skill tree that reads "Not intended for PvP use" EVE why u no obey Newtonian Physics? Sure wish I could fit med artillery on my frigate to. http://i.imgur.com/PUZou.jpg
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:11:00 -
[675] - Quote
Rhaile Vhindiscar wrote:Kill it with FIRE.
You're going to stick all those people in null with ships they can't fly until they retrain? Think about the poor fools in Wspace. You can either A) Drop your points and regain caine at lvl 5 or B) drop your points and be able to fly the only ship you have in system, a drake. Are you insane?! Good lord, did you run this pas the CSM?
Balance the ships, but can who ever came up with the subdivision of bc and cruiser skills.
Read the first post in the thread, then comment. 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. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:11:00 -
[676] - Quote
Rhaile Vhindiscar wrote:Kill it with FIRE.
You're going to stick all those people in null with ships they can't fly until they retrain? Think about the poor fools in Wspace. You can either A) Drop your points and regain caine at lvl 5 or B) drop your points and be able to fly the only ship you have in system, a drake. Are you insane?! Good lord, did you run this pas the CSM?
Balance the ships, but can who ever came up with the subdivision of bc and cruiser skills. Given the ease of finding Blue posts in this forum, the frequency these knee jerk posts makes me sad. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
960
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:12:00 -
[677] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:We do not need underprepared pilots in carriers. What on earth would make you say a thing like that?
QFT!
-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
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:12:00 -
[678] - Quote
Stanis Myunga wrote:I'm concerned with the fact that this would screw those of us who've progressed directly from frigate to cruiser training. Up until 3-4 months ago I didn't have destroyers trained and I was already flying in battleship-class vessels.
These changes would mean an extremely huge nerf to nullsec PVP and severely disrupt fleet ops as major retraining would be needed, especially for toons under 2 years of age.
Cross-training at present point in time is relatively easy and not so much time consuming. However, with the changes, you're going to rickroll players' abilities to cross-train for other vessels.
In my instance, I can, at this moment in time... fly a Machariel, Vindi and Bhaalgorn. With the changes to the skill trees, I will be locked out most if not all pirate faction vessels that I can currently fly and do own. So will other members from my corp. Which is not making anyone happy.
Then there's those of us with negligible SP in destroyers and battlecruisers. Are we going to be reimbursed with full SP to match our current ship skills to keep continuity or will we be forced change gears and spend even MORE time training destroyers IV and then BC IV to fly battleships AGAIN?
If you can fly it today, you can fly it tomorrow.
Seriously guys, come on. 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. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
163
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:12:00 -
[679] - Quote
I like this idea a lot. Glad it's coming in. I'm going to have to pop Destroyer V and Amarr/Gallente Cruiser V before this hits. |
Sovai Elaaren
Korriban Confederation
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:13:00 -
[680] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:The biggest complaints people have is they fear having to train longer for roughly the same ships in the game. Meaning, to be proficient at the drake and the hurricane takes more time, significantly more time if you aim for BC V. I think many people are complaining because they don't want to "have to" put in the extra training, some people are complaining to get free sp, but very few people are actually focused on what issues this causes. The BC class of ships are one of the primary "cross-training" drivers. BC's are cheap and potent, and it is relatively easy to cross-train between races to quickly fly effectively. With these changes, cross training becomes significantly more time consuming, especially when trying to fly BC+ type ships with lvl V skills. This hurts new players that attempt to train into the standard fleet types, as their time-to-effectiveness is increased. -- Realistically, HTFU people... The BC class of ships are extremely potent and brutal ships, and do you really think you deserve to so easily unlock the full potential of these ships with so little training? BC's easily go toe-to-toe with t2 cruisers, for much less skilltraining and cost. Moving the BC's to racial BC's is a very much needed step. Then their sp investment falls much more inline with their firepower and abilities. -- CS pilots, like myself: It will be a PITA to train 4x Racial BC V to board our command ships again. At the same point in time, granting us all 4x Racial BC V off the bat is pretty over-the-top. We are vets, so a boon from CCP is nice, but realistically, we don't deserve getting 6m sp for the 1.5m we invested in BC V (maybe 3m ). The simple solution is to refund back the BC sps, and lower the CS prereq from BC V to BC IV. We could distribute our sp's to then fly all the command ships again, or we can invest them in a particular race to fly one CS very effectively. -- The future: If there is a racial BC and Dessie skill, it really opens the door for additional BC and Dessie ships. So while you might feel like this is limiting the ships you can fly now, the writing on the wall suggests you will gain more ships to fly in the future. Even moreso, this blog is about changing current useless ships into potential useful combat ships. Suddenly ships like the Atron or Executioner can gain slots and fitting to become a viable combat ship. IMO, this Dev Blog is nothing but win.... and people whining and bitching about how its unfair they can no longer fly a Hurricane, Drake, and Talos perfectly using the same moderately low-cost skill need to HTFU...
Quoting for truth. |
|
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:13:00 -
[681] - Quote
Steelrat diGriz wrote:THIS IS A STUIPED IDEA
that means i have to train battlecruisers another 2 time just so i'm in teh sam eplace i i am unless u get 1.5mil free sp for every race cruiser 5 u have if you as well as cs skills
y u mad? |
FT Diomedes
Factio Paucorum
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:14:00 -
[682] - Quote
I like the proposed changes and I think that CCP will find a good way to implement them. I am not very keen on it becoming easier to train caps. BS V should continue in place for caps. |
Stanis Myunga
Lonetrek Trade and Industries Elite Space Guild
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:14:00 -
[683] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Stanis Myunga wrote:I'm concerned with the fact that this would screw those of us who've progressed directly from frigate to cruiser training. Up until 3-4 months ago I didn't have destroyers trained and I was already flying in battleship-class vessels.
These changes would mean an extremely huge nerf to nullsec PVP and severely disrupt fleet ops as major retraining would be needed, especially for toons under 2 years of age.
Cross-training at present point in time is relatively easy and not so much time consuming. However, with the changes, you're going to rickroll players' abilities to cross-train for other vessels.
In my instance, I can, at this moment in time... fly a Machariel, Vindi and Bhaalgorn. With the changes to the skill trees, I will be locked out most if not all pirate faction vessels that I can currently fly and do own. So will other members from my corp. Which is not making anyone happy.
Then there's those of us with negligible SP in destroyers and battlecruisers. Are we going to be reimbursed with full SP to match our current ship skills to keep continuity or will we be forced change gears and spend even MORE time training destroyers IV and then BC IV to fly battleships AGAIN? If you can fly it today, you can fly it tomorrow.Seriously guys, come on.
I just re-edited my post =D
|
neur0zen
AtlantiA French Corp Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:14:00 -
[684] - Quote
Quote:This is inherently new player UNFRIENDLY, as well as being excessively annoying for veteran players.
DONT YOU HAVE OTHER PRIORITY FOR THIS GAME THAN SPLIT SKILLS ?
Ah yes you do, priority to shithead patch with nonsense change and give a middle finger to players. No one was asking for that kind of ****, no one care about multirace skills (until now).
Once again epic fail CCP
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:15:00 -
[685] - Quote
"ammagaaawd CCP, why u dumbing down mah eve??? u is making it for neewbs"
"baaawww, now I has to train moar skills :(((((("
Make up your minds already. Is it dumbing down or making it more hardcore?
I'm all for this btw. Love the devblog :D |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries Broken Chains Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:15:00 -
[686] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Skill points from trained skills which are removed should be reimposed and value of those skill books returned as isk. Players can then choose how to redistribute their points how they like. They don't even need to put them back to ship skills if they don't want.
It is likely that some won't be able to fly all racial variants after this before some additional training, but in the end this will be same for everyone.
Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone. |
FeralShadow
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:15:00 -
[687] - Quote
I HATE CHANGE EVEN IF IT IS GOING TO MAKE THIS GAME WAY BETTER IN THE LONG RUN OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo
/sarcasm |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
278
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:16:00 -
[688] - Quote
Stanis Myunga wrote:I'm concerned with the fact that this would screw those of us who've progressed directly from frigate to cruiser training. Up until 3-4 months ago I didn't have destroyers trained and I was already flying in battleship-class vessels.
These changes would mean an extremely huge nerf to nullsec PVP and severely disrupt fleet ops as major retraining would be needed, especially for toons under 2 years of age.
Cross-training at present point in time is relatively easy and not so much time consuming. However, with the changes, you're going to rickroll players' abilities to cross-train for other vessels.
In my instance, I can, at this moment in time... fly a Machariel, Vindi and Bhaalgorn. With the changes to the skill trees, I will be locked out most if not all pirate faction vessels that I can currently fly and do own. So will other members from my corp. Which is not making anyone happy.
Then there's those of us with negligible SP in destroyers and battlecruisers. Are we going to be reimbursed with full SP to match our current ship skills to keep continuity or will we be forced change gears and spend even MORE time training destroyers IV and then BC IV to fly battleships AGAIN?
Cruisers don't need the frigate skill to pilot. Just to inject the skill in the first place. replacing the frigate skill with the destroyer skill will make no difference here. Read the first post. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Shang Fei
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:16:00 -
[689] - Quote
Nothing to realy add except I kinda like this change. Will have to be very carefully implemented after extensive testing. Yet I see this change as a positive one. |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard EntroPraetorian Aegis
549
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:16:00 -
[690] - Quote
I honestly had no clue there was this many players who do not know how to read. Sad really.
|
|
ReptilesBlade
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:17:00 -
[691] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:While changes of this scope will always be controversial, and may involve a bit of inconvenience, the fact that CCP is tackling such issues illustrates how much focus and love FiS is getting.
We all can (and should) argue about the best way to refresh various areas of the game, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that CCP is putting a ton of effort into refreshing the game!
I also agree! Trebor is absolutely right. At least CCP is actually doing something good for once.
Crucible. What CCP should have been doing for the last 2 years. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises RED.Legion
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:18:00 -
[692] - Quote
You realized you just managed to **** off a crap load of people, such as myself, who spent so much time training all this **** and now you are going to say "oh you have battleship 5, sorry for that month you no longer need" between my characters I have atleast 10 months of training which is no longer needed.
I do not care about the re-arranging of ship lines as I do of the level 5 req now being 4.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. DO NOT DO THIS. |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:18:00 -
[693] - Quote
FeralShadow wrote:I HATE CHANGE EVEN IF IT IS GOING TO MAKE THIS GAME WAY BETTER IN THE LONG RUN OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo
/sarcasm
Since when has anything on the internet or anything electronic had anything to do with the concept of 'the long run'. If something isn't good people won't play it, even if it MIGHT be good at some random point in the future. |
Smoke Adian
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:19:00 -
[694] - Quote
Huh? This games been out for closing in on a decade now, there are some balancing tweaks to be make, but do we really need to rebalance every ship in the game? It's scary cause this has the potential to be a disaster and the decisions being made are already weird ones.
The skill changes are equally as confusing - the dev blog makes it sound like these are great changes for everyone when all they're doing is making cross-training a *****. Forget about the reimbursements for the vets, it's the new people that this will absolutely suck for. It's quite common for people to switch around from minnie/gallente/caldari BC's (especially w/ the tier 2's now) for various roaming fleets and now new people will need to train all of these to five at some point. Raising the barrier's to entry for new peeps is not what we need.
Finally, a month off carrier training? So someone who can't even fly a BS at full skills can skill caps. This is totally inconsistent with the other changes. Besides the only way someone who doesn't even have BS5 is going to pay for the carrier and cap skills is with plex.... ah, I see what you did there.
Anyways, the last thing EVE needed right now is a complete restructuring of its core after last year. |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
150
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:19:00 -
[695] - Quote
Syri Taneka wrote:Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone.
FFS. Can you people not read the the FIRST POST correctly?
If you can fly a ship now, you'll be able to fly it post patch.
Got it?
Good. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
244
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:20:00 -
[696] - Quote
WOW. Couldn't bother to read all replies but this is AWSOME. Yeah, I do realize there will be lots of problems especially in a transition period and i kind of liked the nonracial destroyer and BC thing. But this has the potential to revitalize the whole ship line and could make specializing and fleet compositions much more interesting. Tiericide ftw.
OMG. My draft is autosaved tooo. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
524
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:20:00 -
[697] - Quote
If the principle on the skills will be
"If you could fly it yesterday, you can fly it today"
then...
Take a player who has battlecruiser V, but only trained frigate and cruiser on one race. That player will want to get frig and cruiser trained up on all other races before this change. That way they can fly all BCs. When the change hits, they get awarded BC V in all races, so they can still fly all BCs with the same skill as before the change.
If fact everyone will want to max out destroyer and BC before this change. If you can fly all 4 races BCs, then every SP you put into destroyer or BC will get multiplied by 4.
Yay! Free skill points! I am running for the CSM. Take a look at my ideas. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:21:00 -
[698] - Quote
let's take a step back...
firstly, after years of patching in "cool" stuff ontop of the original "frig, cruiser, bs" idea the devs have decided to go back to principles and design a system that functions in it's own right.
secondly, they've put a load of work into the idea to make sure they have a direction and decent concept before...
thirdly, they've come out here and pushed the flame me button and started asking us what we think before anything is too far gone. So we can talk about the problems we can see, the problems they can see and get a solution before it gets f***ed up.
this is what we've been shouting for on so many fronts for ages. Coherent redesign of abandoned or crippled game concepts, with good communication.
so many people complaining about losing out on this ship or the other... what about the countless ships that no one bothers to fly at the moment because under the current system they're not worth it. If this shakeup means there are dozens of worthwhile ships to fly instead of the current handful it's definitely worth doing.
and in case anyone missed them:
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.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=898503#post898503
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.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=898503#post898503
Reimbursement and how we get from old to new paradigm is up for discussion, so thinking caps on, let see how we can get the most out of this in a convincing manner to the best solution... Curiosity killed the Kata...
... but being immortal he wasn't too worried about keeping a count. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:21:00 -
[699] - Quote
One thing that is worth pointing out is if you give people an SP refund they can just go and spend it elsewhere (as that's a lot of SP if you're giving out enough for 4x BC and 4x Dest at level 5)
It would be better to set skills appropriately,
Player has all frigates 4 and destroyer 5 They get all Destroyers 5
Player only has Caldari frigate 4 and destroyers 5 they only get Caldari destroyer 5
I'd imagine this would be a PITA to do though. |
Karles
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:24:00 -
[700] - Quote
Buzzmong wrote:Syri Taneka wrote:Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone. FFS. Can you people not read the the FIRST POST correctly? If you can fly a ship now, you'll be able to fly it post patch. Got it? Good.
Ok stop replying the same stupid SHT every time. Ableto fly does not mean able to fly PROPERLY or MAXED. Stop being flashed by all the shiny stuff they throw at you.
CCP should be able to give more content without screwing with the older toons.
I am able to fly all 4 command ship races at level 5 with all mindlinks. Is CCP granting that I could keep being the fleet commander with full bonus for my fleet? C'mon I'm not idiot.
You are really going to **** off a lot of vets, and you know what happened the last time you did this, so think twice before being a bunch of tards again. |
|
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:24:00 -
[701] - Quote
Emissary K'Ehleyr wrote: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
. or , use them please. |
Bruno Bourque
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:24:00 -
[702] - Quote
This is crap to say the least. And saying "if you could fly it before you can fly it after" is hollow... before the change I could not only fly the ship but I was maxed out in it. Now I will be able to reallocate my skill points to have 4 races BC to 4. And the same for Destroyers (and more importantly the T2 variants).
Unless you get to go to the same level of each racial BC as you have of BC and cruiser (which ever is lower for the race) then it is a kick in the teeth for those that have these skills already.
I am also against this lowering of the entry point into a lot of ships. Specifically things like Command ships and Capitals. The point of these were that they take time to get into... now a carrier is going to be really easy to get into.
|
Spectrael
Emerald Cloud
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:24:00 -
[703] - Quote
Even if all players who have Battlecruisers V trained are given Racial Battlecruisers V, it's still 4 skills future players are going to have to train.
Leave it the way it is. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
278
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:25:00 -
[704] - Quote
Turelus wrote:One thing that is worth pointing out is if you give people an SP refund they can just go and spend it elsewhere (as that's a lot of SP if you're giving out enough for 4x BC and 4x Dest at level 5)
It would be better to set skills appropriately,
Player has all frigates 4 and destroyer 5 They get all Destroyers 5
Player only has Caldari frigate 4 and destroyers 5 they only get Caldari destroyer 5
I'd imagine this would be a PITA to do though.
Probably not, actually. I suspect 4 correlated subqueries would do it.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Avena Feint
Hephaestus LLC Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:27:00 -
[705] - Quote
After reading all 35 pages of this, I decided I just had to chime in to support these changes. The only people who have any sort of valid argument are those who seem dead set against the BSV requirement for Capitols. Personally I don't have issues with it, but I can see where some might. Folks here should be making suggestions and having a nice discourse with the company who makes the game we all enjoy, not just splurting emorage all over the forums.
+1 for removal of tiers. +1 for making the ship progression make sense. +1 for the tears of bittervets who fail at reading comprehension. |
Korinne
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:28:00 -
[706] - Quote
"If you can fly it now, you can fly it tomorrow." It sounds an awful lot like "the NeX/PI won't affect the market." All promises from CCP mean nothing until they have proven their intent. Remember monoclegate? What they promise and what they do are hardly the same thing, so you will forgive me if I am skeptical of any sort of promise CCP makes because at this point I believe them about as much as I believe a presidential candidate. |
Gnaw LF
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:30:00 -
[707] - Quote
Buzzmong wrote:Syri Taneka wrote:Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone. FFS. Can you people not read the the FIRST POST correctly? If you can fly a ship now, you'll be able to fly it post patch.Got it? Good.
I dont think thats the issue that people have with the dev blog. Yes, we will still fly it post patch but will we do it perfectly? Thats the issues, people are worried that their BCV and perfect skills to fly Tornadoes, Talos and Oracle will not translate into perfect skills in racial battlecruisers. Yes, under the change we might still be able to fly the three ships I mentioned above, but will we do it perfectly?
The idea is good, but CCP prematurely posted the dev blog. It should not have been made public until a solid plan for SP reimbursement was ready to be published. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
112
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:30:00 -
[708] - Quote
Kitt JT wrote: What I'm talking about is skills like "advanced spaceship command" Why is advanced spaceship command 5 a requirement for capital ships? Would it not make sense to have the requirement at 4? or even 1? or not at all? The point is that its an extra 30 day skill that everybody flying carriers and dreads has to train, that doesn't really change anything (as everyone gets it) its a pointless filler-skill.
Similarly, jump drive operation. Jump drive operation 5 is a requirement for JDC. Fleets will NOT let anybody fly with them without JDC 4 (although JDC 5 requirement is becoming more common). Its another needless 30 day skill that has no progression (you really don't have an extra 30 day skill that EVERYBODY needs for ALL capitals)
It's a subscription based game. There will usually be a couple of timegrinds to pad the bottom line. That's two months of gametime right there.
Which is a bit ****** but it sure beats microtransactions for advantage or convenience.
|
Stanis Myunga
Lonetrek Trade and Industries Elite Space Guild
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:30:00 -
[709] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Stanis Myunga wrote:I'm concerned with the fact that this would screw those of us who've progressed directly from frigate to cruiser training. Up until 3-4 months ago I didn't have destroyers trained and I was already flying in battleship-class vessels.
These changes would mean an extremely huge nerf to nullsec PVP and severely disrupt fleet ops as major retraining would be needed, especially for toons under 2 years of age.
Cross-training at present point in time is relatively easy and not so much time consuming. However, with the changes, you're going to rickroll players' abilities to cross-train for other vessels.
In my instance, I can, at this moment in time... fly a Machariel, Vindi and Bhaalgorn. With the changes to the skill trees, I will be locked out most if not all pirate faction vessels that I can currently fly and do own. So will other members from my corp. Which is not making anyone happy.
Then there's those of us with negligible SP in destroyers and battlecruisers. Are we going to be reimbursed with full SP to match our current ship skills to keep continuity or will we be forced change gears and spend even MORE time training destroyers IV and then BC IV to fly battleships AGAIN? Cruisers don't need the frigate skill to pilot. Just to inject the skill in the first place. replacing the frigate skill with the destroyer skill will make no difference here. Read the first post.
And I have edited my post at the bottom with a quoted passage. So yes, I know of it by now. Thanks anyway.
I'm still concerned with the separation of to individual racial skill trees, will we be given equivalent SP back for each race equal to the level of which we've trained dessi/BC at or will we be given just a general value of SP in compensation? This will be very important for those flying Command Ships which won't affect me as much as I don't fly Command Ships but it's something to ponder on. And yes, I do know CCP has stated it is examining how it will reimburse pilots. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:32:00 -
[710] - Quote
Karles wrote:Buzzmong wrote:Syri Taneka wrote:Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone. FFS. Can you people not read the the FIRST POST correctly? If you can fly a ship now, you'll be able to fly it post patch. Got it? Good. Ok stop replying the same stupid SHT every time. Able to fly does not mean able to fly PROPERLY or MAXED. Stop being flashed by all the shiny stuff they throw at you. CCP should be able to give more content without screwing with the older toons. I am able to fly all 4 command ship races at level 5 with all mindlinks. Is CCP granting that I could keep being the fleet commander with full bonus for my fleet? C'mon I'm not idiot. You are really going to **** off a lot of vets, and you know what happened the last time you did this, so think twice before being a bunch of tards again.
What part of this do you not understand? If you can fly any of the BC's at level 5 now, you will be able to fly any of the BC's at level 5 after the release. Players will not be penalized any capabilities they have now due to the change.
I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you believe this is too good to be true. Regardless, there it is. 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. |
|
Karles
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:33:00 -
[711] - Quote
Avena Feint wrote:After reading all 35 pages of this, I decided I just had to chime in to support these changes. The only people who have any sort of valid argument are those who seem dead set against the BSV requirement for Capitols. Personally I don't have issues with it, but I can see where some might. Folks here should be making suggestions and having a nice discourse with the company who makes the game we all enjoy, not just splurting emorage all over the forums.
+1 for removal of tiers. +1 for making the ship progression make sense. +1 for the tears of bittervets who fail at reading comprehension.
-1 for noobs that did not trained any valuable skill besides the ones used to rat or plex. I have been training for combat for 5,5 years and I think I have the right to complain. So a lot of other vets have. This is nothing else than add game time to spend to the gamers without adding any extra content. |
Cyprus Black
Cowboy Diplomacy
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:34:00 -
[712] - Quote
There's several things I took away from this
The Good 1) Covetors no longer require Mining Barge 5 to fly. It didn't make any sense to have it the way it was because if you had the skills to fly a covetor, you're only a few hours away from flying a hulk instead. I'm glad to see this long overdue fix
2) Cutting needless requirements for T2 ships across classes is a good thing. Why do I have to skill up Assault Ships, then Heavy Assault ships just to train up Command ships? That's just silly
3) Electronic Attack Frigates may finally become viable for once.
The Bad (potentially) 1) I have both Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills to 5. Splitting them up into individual races would be very aggravating to say the least. It took quite a bit of time to train them both to 5, I don't want to repeat that long training 3 more times just to reach the point I was originally at pre-Inferno. That's a nerf and a big one
If the Inferno expansion took away the generic Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills that I trained and instead gave me level 5 of each race, I would consider that a fair trade. I wouldn't have gained anything but neither would I have lost anything. As it stands now it's a major no-no that CCP shouldn't do. Follow my EvE blog at: http://cyprusblack.blogspot.com/ |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:34:00 -
[713] - Quote
Stanis Myunga wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Stanis Myunga wrote:I'm concerned with the fact that this would screw those of us who've progressed directly from frigate to cruiser training. Up until 3-4 months ago I didn't have destroyers trained and I was already flying in battleship-class vessels.
These changes would mean an extremely huge nerf to nullsec PVP and severely disrupt fleet ops as major retraining would be needed, especially for toons under 2 years of age.
Cross-training at present point in time is relatively easy and not so much time consuming. However, with the changes, you're going to rickroll players' abilities to cross-train for other vessels.
In my instance, I can, at this moment in time... fly a Machariel, Vindi and Bhaalgorn. With the changes to the skill trees, I will be locked out most if not all pirate faction vessels that I can currently fly and do own. So will other members from my corp. Which is not making anyone happy.
Then there's those of us with negligible SP in destroyers and battlecruisers. Are we going to be reimbursed with full SP to match our current ship skills to keep continuity or will we be forced change gears and spend even MORE time training destroyers IV and then BC IV to fly battleships AGAIN? Cruisers don't need the frigate skill to pilot. Just to inject the skill in the first place. replacing the frigate skill with the destroyer skill will make no difference here. Read the first post. And I have edited my post at the bottom with a quoted passage. So yes, I know of it by now. Thanks anyway. I'm still concerned with the separation of to individual racial skill trees, will we be given equivalent SP back for each race equal to the level of which we've trained dessi/BC at or will we be given just a general value of SP in compensation? This will be very important for those flying Command Ships which won't affect me as much as I don't fly Command Ships but it's something to ponder on. And yes, I do know CCP has stated it is examining how it will reimburse pilots.
I believe that reimbursement of skills comes into play for something trained unneccessarily, like perhaps BS 5 for some (if they wish).
The simple solution, to fulfil what we have been explicitly told, will simply be to give you the same level in all racial destroyer and BC skills as you currently have in the non race specific skill.
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. |
Taill
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:36:00 -
[714] - Quote
I'm not sure how this is going to work but I know if log on and not able to fly ships I have been flying already I would consider stop playing. I have worked to long to have to start over
Thanks |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:36:00 -
[715] - Quote
First, I do like the idea behind the stuff presented in the dev blog.
So, training ship skills ...
CCP Point of view - Spaceship Command ... (nearly) all you need to know about flying a spaceship - Advanced Spaceship Command ... filling up the gaps - Racial Ship skills (frigate, destroyer, cruiser, ...)
Real life: - car driving licence ... one for valid for all kinds of cars, no matter which "country" tag they have - lorry drifing licence ...
- left hand drive experience - right hand drive experience
So, in real life cross training (licences) are not necessary but mostly you'll have more experience with either left or right hand driving.
From my point of view, the ship size skills correspond to the driving licences while racial handling skills could correspond to the experience (left or right hand drive).
This way the skills would be more "natural", cross-training would be easier, and you wouldn't have to introduce a **** load of new skills each time you come up with something new.
Strategic Cruisers and Subsystems skills were a good example, besides having the racial strategic cruisers skill.
However, you are the ones developing the game, we players will either contiune playing or leave, but I ask you to go the whole way, if you want to rework ship skills, not just half the way as you proposed in the dev blog.
edit: I like the **** |
Karles
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:36:00 -
[716] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Karles wrote:Buzzmong wrote:Syri Taneka wrote:Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone. FFS. Can you people not read the the FIRST POST correctly? If you can fly a ship now, you'll be able to fly it post patch. Got it? Good. Ok stop replying the same stupid SHT every time. Able to fly does not mean able to fly PROPERLY or MAXED. Stop being flashed by all the shiny stuff they throw at you. CCP should be able to give more content without screwing with the older toons. I am able to fly all 4 command ship races at level 5 with all mindlinks. Is CCP granting that I could keep being the fleet commander with full bonus for my fleet? C'mon I'm not idiot. You are really going to **** off a lot of vets, and you know what happened the last time you did this, so think twice before being a bunch of tards again. What part of this do you not understand? If you can fly any of the BC's at level 5 now, you will be able to fly any of the BC's at level 5 after the release. Players will not be penalized any capabilities they have now due to the change. I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you believe this is too good to be true. Regardless, there it is.
You will see mate... You will see... they are not going to give everyone that has bc 5 and command ship 5 all 4 races of BC at 5 and all 4 races of command ship 5, no way. |
Senarian Tyme
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:38:00 -
[717] - Quote
I agree that the end of the curren Tier system is a good thing however CCP should really think twice about tweaking the skills as proposed. (Side note, are Cyclone, Ferox, Prophey, and Brutix going to have a spike in mineral costs to build?)
Suposedly CCP wants to encourage players for pew pew, but this change would only speed up capitals in that regard. (Getting people into covetors a bit faster isn't a bad thing though either on the industrial front.)
Why would you take the Destroyers and the BCs, which are the most adaptive classes for testing out other races hardware and wreck it? If this is being done for the proposed purpose of skill standardization, why not take the revese approach and consolidate the rest of the racial ship skills instead? (Yes it would cheapen the game.)
The Destroyers and the BCs always made sense to be a generic skill since there weren't any true specialty roles. It was all combat, combat in different ways of course, but still all just combat. If CCP were to put in racial BC skills, it would be tolerable if they put in at the exact same time a new wave of BCs (and destroyers) that filled the gaps, ie a tech 1 BC ECM ship that fits between blackbird and scorpion.
However, this in turn really cheapens the purpose and the nature of the T2 ships, which have mostly been filling this role for the combat support side to date.
If CCP plans to simply put in additional combat ships, then I would say dont bother adjusting the skills at all. (Please do put the combat ships in though.) If the new ships provide other values besides direct damage in combat, then only at that point should racial skills realistically be considered, and even then only after careful weighing against impacts on T2 ships. |
Stanis Myunga
Lonetrek Trade and Industries Elite Space Guild
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:38:00 -
[718] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Karles wrote:Buzzmong wrote:Syri Taneka wrote:Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone. FFS. Can you people not read the the FIRST POST correctly? If you can fly a ship now, you'll be able to fly it post patch. Got it? Good. Ok stop replying the same stupid SHT every time. Able to fly does not mean able to fly PROPERLY or MAXED. Stop being flashed by all the shiny stuff they throw at you. CCP should be able to give more content without screwing with the older toons. I am able to fly all 4 command ship races at level 5 with all mindlinks. Is CCP granting that I could keep being the fleet commander with full bonus for my fleet? C'mon I'm not idiot. You are really going to **** off a lot of vets, and you know what happened the last time you did this, so think twice before being a bunch of tards again. What part of this do you not understand? If you can fly any of the BC's at level 5 now, you will be able to fly any of the BC's at level 5 after the release. Players will not be penalized any capabilities they have now due to the change. I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you believe this is too good to be true. Regardless, there it is.
Just to point out quickly...
Quote:If and when such changes occur, we would remove the generic Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills, reimburse the skill points (and possibly the cost) not to penalize players. Due to the way nested requirements work, it would also mean pilots would not need to re-train anything to fly Battleships or Cruisers. All of this is work in progress of course and subject to change, especially since we are still discussing skill reimbursement options.
"...work in progress and subject to change," So you can't say with any certainty that that will be the end-deal we'll get. |
Bruno Bourque
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:38:00 -
[719] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Karles wrote:Buzzmong wrote:Syri Taneka wrote:Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone. FFS. Can you people not read the the FIRST POST correctly? If you can fly a ship now, you'll be able to fly it post patch. Got it? Good. Ok stop replying the same stupid SHT every time. Able to fly does not mean able to fly PROPERLY or MAXED. Stop being flashed by all the shiny stuff they throw at you. CCP should be able to give more content without screwing with the older toons. I am able to fly all 4 command ship races at level 5 with all mindlinks. Is CCP granting that I could keep being the fleet commander with full bonus for my fleet? C'mon I'm not idiot. You are really going to **** off a lot of vets, and you know what happened the last time you did this, so think twice before being a bunch of tards again. What part of this do you not understand? If you can fly any of the BC's at level 5 now, you will be able to fly any of the BC's at level 5 after the release. Players will not be penalized any capabilities they have now due to the change. I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you believe this is too good to be true. Regardless, there it is. I havnt seen any mention that you will get all races BC to 5 if you have BC 5 already. |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
221
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:39:00 -
[720] - Quote
Whilst this look a noble goal (providing a purpose to under utilised ships) Im not 100% its the right means.
In the past players took ships, and created roles from them. As I read this I get the impression that ships will now be assigned roles, which players should then accept. For example a Megathron as an "attack vessel" having "great damage and mobility, but average defense" , and thus it always shall be.
At the deepest layer of design: is this what we actually want?
Regardless of how skill points are assigned or reimbursed, I am yet to be convinced by the underlying argument that ships need to be nested into defined roles in order to achieve wider balance.
Hopefully this can be expanded upon.
C. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:39:00 -
[721] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:There's several things I took away from this
The Good 1) Covetors no longer require Mining Barge 5 to fly. It didn't make any sense to have it the way it was because if you had the skills to fly a covetor, you're only a few hours away from flying a hulk instead. I'm glad to see this long overdue fix
2) Cutting needless requirements for T2 ships across classes is a good thing. Why do I have to skill up Assault Ships, then Heavy Assault ships just to train up Command ships? That's just silly
3) Electronic Attack Frigates may finally become viable for once.
The Bad (potentially) 1) I have both Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills to 5. Splitting them up into individual races would be very aggravating to say the least. It took quite a bit of time to train them both to 5, I don't want to repeat that long training 3 more times just to reach the point I was originally at pre-Inferno. That's a nerf and a big one
If the Inferno expansion took away the generic Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills that I trained and instead gave me level 5 of each race, I would consider that a fair trade. I wouldn't have gained anything but neither would I have lost anything. As it stands now it's a major no-no that CCP shouldn't do.
Cyprus, that appears to be exactly what they are proposing, giving you level 5 in all the racial variants (if you already have level 5 in Destroyers or BC). 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:42:00 -
[722] - Quote
Bruno Bourque wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Karles wrote:Buzzmong wrote:Syri Taneka wrote:Put it this way. As of right now I can fly the Damnation, Absolution, Astarte, Eos, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, and Sleipnir. I own 3 of those across 3 races. If, after this proposed change, I can no longer fly some of them without spending another 23d 17h 34m 53s (BC 5 based on my current attributes) PER RACE, then I will quit. No questions, end of story, done. And I won't be alone. FFS. Can you people not read the the FIRST POST correctly? If you can fly a ship now, you'll be able to fly it post patch. Got it? Good. Ok stop replying the same stupid SHT every time. Able to fly does not mean able to fly PROPERLY or MAXED. Stop being flashed by all the shiny stuff they throw at you. CCP should be able to give more content without screwing with the older toons. I am able to fly all 4 command ship races at level 5 with all mindlinks. Is CCP granting that I could keep being the fleet commander with full bonus for my fleet? C'mon I'm not idiot. You are really going to **** off a lot of vets, and you know what happened the last time you did this, so think twice before being a bunch of tards again. What part of this do you not understand? If you can fly any of the BC's at level 5 now, you will be able to fly any of the BC's at level 5 after the release. Players will not be penalized any capabilities they have now due to the change. I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you believe this is too good to be true. Regardless, there it is. I havnt seen any mention that you will get all races BC to 5 if you have BC 5 already.
Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5. 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. |
islador
Frontier Explorer's League The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:42:00 -
[723] - Quote
Now that the issue of skillpoint reimbursement has been resolved with CCP promising not to screw us out of our ships, I am not as opposed to this change as I was before, but I still think it is going the wrong way. As a small to med (10 to 50 pilot) gang FC, I feel obligated to say that CCP's listed examples are horrible. If CCP changes the ship stats to allow for them to function properly in the roles they're saying, we're going to end up with MASSIVE changes being necessary to certain ships, and those changes will result in a whole new breed of pwn mobile. The best example I have is the megathron, if it becomes mobile enough to be a main battleship, it will be incredibly powerful.
If CCP wants to change ships and create new roles, they need to abolish the tier system, but they don't need to replace it with a bunch of new pseudo titles that require entire reworks of dozens of ships. They need to tap the minds of some of our best FCs, DBRB, Shadoo, Lucian James, are names that come to mind and see what they have to say about the current state of things and then go from there. I say this because the ideas CCP is presenting today are crap. |
Bruno Bourque
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:42:00 -
[724] - Quote
Cailais wrote:Whilst this look a noble goal (providing a purpose to under utilised ships) Im not 100% its the right means.
In the past players took ships, and created roles from them. As I read this I get the impression that ships will now be assigned roles, which players should then accept. For example a Megathron as an "attack vessel" having "great damage and mobility, but average defense" , and thus it always shall be.
At the deepest layer of design: is this what we actually want?
Regardless of how skill points are assigned or reimbursed, I am yet to be convinced by the underlying argument that ships need to be nested into defined roles in order to achieve wider balance.
Hopefully this can be expanded upon.
C. Good point, considering Eve is sold as a "sandbox" |
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
197
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:42:00 -
[725] - Quote
I personally have no problem with the notion of racial Destroyer/Battlecruiser skills, however, any transition is going to cause pain for one group or the other.
Take a pilot with level 5 in all subcap skills, Option 1 gives him all the skills needed to keep flying his ships at the same level, which means he'll get a huge bump in skillpoints. However, the younger pilots without highly trained Dessy/BC skills will get less of a bonus and thus they will be negatively impacted by this scheme.
Option 2 simply reimbursing SP would leave him/her unable to fly ships, it will however be fairer to the younger pilots.
So, putting on my CSM hat I offer a Counter Proposal to the Skill Changes: 1 Keep Destroyers and Battlecruisers as a non-racial skill, so CCP doesn't need to poke at character skills 2 Make Destroyers 4 a pre-req for injecting racial cruiser skillbooks (not for flying ships) 3 Make Battlecruiser 4 a pre-req for injecting racial battleships skills (again, not necessarily for flying BS) 4 Modify all destroyers and battlecruisers to take bonuses from the two relevant skills: Coercer 10% Bonus to Small Energy Turret Tracking Per Level Of Destroyer Skill, -10% reduction in energy turret capacitor usage per level of Amarr frigate Brutix 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level of Gallente Cruiser, 7.5% bonus per level of Battlecruiser.
I do like the idea of the racial versions, but adding it at this stage will negatively impact the younger players more than the older players, CCP needs to keep the new blood in the game.
Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so.. Vote for Scott Manley / Skye Aurorae for CSM 7 An Expert in Dealing with Childish Arguments Over Toys. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68506 |
Bruno Bourque
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:43:00 -
[726] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.
No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3 |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
226
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:44:00 -
[727] - Quote
Ok this thread needs some love now.
SKILLS:
- Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up. |
|
theelusiveyoda
Pioneer's of the Galantic Wars Side Effect.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:45:00 -
[728] - Quote
I personally believe the multiple race battlecruiser skill is fine the way it is, from what i can see all you will be doing is creating more headaches for new players and older players who are looking to cross train into other races.
If the skill requirment for carriers is reduced i can for see alot of new players jumping into carriers and dying because they dont have the support skills to fly a carrier and go oooh shiny ship, buy it when they have no idea what the ship's meant to be used for and think its a bigger battleship without fully realising capital ship mechanics. The idea that a 5 month old character can get into a carrier is going to be a major "annoyance" for older players who spent 30+ days training battleship 5 skill alone when that skill would be redundant for capital ship only characters.
Personally regarding ship balancing i would like to see electronic attack frigates recieve some love, in terms of ehp and slot layout as i believe they are some of the most over looked ships in the game as most people go straight for recons because of there better bonuses and ehp and general fleet usefullness, also electronic attack ships skill is not any use to any other ship and is not required in any other ship except the 4 frigates it unlocks.
Also boost the ferox \o/. |
Bruno Bourque
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:47:00 -
[729] - Quote
Thank you CCP Ytterbium for clarifiing once and for all. |
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:48:00 -
[730] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
Go home - Go to bed - This can all wait till morning. Your only human and odds are you'll end up saying something whilst really tired and high on emotion that you will regret tomorrow (read $1000 pants)
This is no way near on the same level as Fearless so i wouldn't threat too badly. Also i would assume very few people are actually reading the posts now and are just mindlessly posting their thoughts so it might be worth making a separate thread. Teiricide is a great thing and as long as these changes are implemented properly they will drastically improve the game on so many levels :)
Two Step for CSM |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1097
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:48:00 -
[731] - Quote
Bruno Bourque wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.
No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3
I take it back, you ARE a bit thlck. 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. |
Lamperouge Kasenumi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:48:00 -
[732] - Quote
Spectrael wrote:Even if all players who have Battlecruisers V trained are given Racial Battlecruisers V, it's still 4 skills future players are going to have to train.
Leave it the way it is.
So what? I don't have BC 5 on any of my chars and I don't mind the change. Having 1 skill to unlock that many ships was too good, you vets are lucky you had that in the first place.
If this helps them balance ship that are underused while also opening up new possibilities for ships, everybody wins.
HTFU, this is an online game, your experience may changes overtime and that's a great thing.
Also, an Arbitrator line of ship, count me in! |
Tubolard
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:49:00 -
[733] - Quote
If the "if you could fly it before then you can fly it after" hold true why train BC and Desi skills at all, Hell if I need Desi 4 and BC 4 to fly a BS after the fix, but never bought the skills or put any training into them before the fix and can fly a BS, it must mean I get Desi 4 and BC 4 without having to train or buy the skill books! Sounds like I need to train BS 1 in all the other races! |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
248
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:49:00 -
[734] - Quote
Time to do some investments in minerals... Stuff Goes here |
Bruno Bourque
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:51:00 -
[735] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Bruno Bourque wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.
No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3 I take it back, you ARE a bit thlck. Nothing to take back, you were talking to someone else at the time. and that was the first post saying "5 will be 5 for all races"...Soundwaves comment was generic. |
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:51:00 -
[736] - Quote
Bruno Bourque wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.
No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3 *cough* Command ships need BC 5 *cough* Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. |
Baneken
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric The Polaris Syndicate
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:51:00 -
[737] - Quote
Right so time to skill up (racial)frigate IV and cruiser III skills for some serious SP cash in for the future. |
neur0zen
AtlantiA French Corp Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:52:00 -
[738] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:......but allow us to repeat again......
Allow me to repeat myself again too :
DONT YOU HAVE OTHER PRIORITY THAN SPLIT SKILL ???
|
Bruno Bourque
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:53:00 -
[739] - Quote
Grey Azorria wrote:Bruno Bourque wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.
No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3 *cough* Command ships need BC 5 *cough* And those that didnt have CS trained? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
279
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:54:00 -
[740] - Quote
Bruno Bourque wrote:Grey Azorria wrote:Bruno Bourque wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Read Soundwaves post, where he explicitly states you will not lose the ability to fly any ship as you currently do because of these changes. The mechanic to achieve this could go a couple of routes, but the fact remains that you will lose NONE of your current capabilities... which in this case means flying them all at level 5.
No he siad that you will be able to FLY them... you can fly them with BC 3 *cough* Command ships need BC 5 *cough* And those that didnt have CS trained?
Take a look a https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=900335#post900335
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Deo ExMachina
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:54:00 -
[741] - Quote
you know at first look i was like NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. BUT i am gonna put faith in omg im gonna say this, im gonna put faith in ccp they smacked the last patch out of the park and oo soundwave well i think he will do us right. and hey if they dont they will have just thrown away all the trust they got back in the last patch |
Force Colonel
OEG Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:55:00 -
[742] - Quote
CCP what are yo doing, are you playing eve? I think this is just waste of time....
You must do more important things for ex. like this:
1) Rigs. All of them.
Rigs have never been changed (bar very few units) since the very introduction of them in 2006! Some of them are way too good (popularity speaks for itself), some just don't induce proper penalties, some don't have penalties at all, some aren't even stacking penalized while costing merely 50 calibration points and providing very useful bonuses. Insanity, to put it mildly.
2) Buffer vs. active tanking.
Tanking in general is a very powerful ability. It doesn't matter what the ship itself does on a battlefield or how it's affected by other stuff, but it still dies by taking damage. One's ability to tank that damage is to come with proper cost. At the moment active tanking comes with: high CPU and grid requirements, high capacitor usage. On the other hand, current buffer tanking, while being very potent and popular (yet again, numbers speak for themselves), is hardly associated with any significant penalties. That is especially true for shield tanking, where increase of signature radius is simply a (bad) joke.
There's a great number of ways we can improve buffer tanking (so that it becomes balanced), but the idea of decreasing mobility for using HP modules is something hardly anyone will argue with. Decreased mobility should be there no matter whether you go for shield or armor. Wanna move fast(er)? Go for active tanking then. What is really cool, it's the fact this change hardly affects fleet warfare: the difference between everyone going at 1km/s and say 700-800 is pretty much non-existent. Great Nano Fix reduced velocity values by about the same margin, yet people still blob just fine.
I'm surely perfectly fine with CCP introducing instead some other proper penalties for buffer tanking, but these changes should then come in significant shifts - you can not just increase PG usage of pesky Large Shield Extenders by 20 MWs and consider it done. Nothing will change.
As for repairing/boosting values, these are fine as they are. Increasing them will just ruin small-scale PvP. We don't want to meet unbreakable monsters on each gate. The game is meant to be fun and dynamic, so the stuff must explode. Increasing tanking values just forces people to bring bigger numbers with them and that's it. By the way, that's why there are so many blobs around - the whole game is already overtanked (thanks to buffer tanking being so good) and people can't achieve anything within reasonable timeframe without bringing in a gazillion of teammates. Or at least they think they can't, which is a whole another story - I've already tried my best busting these myths with my movies, so please don't make me elaborate on it here with mere words at my disposal.
taken from here... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68075
|
Haleuth
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:57:00 -
[743] - Quote
This looks to me like the start of "lets balance all the classes and dumb the game down"
Strange that the only time i ever need to read these forums is when other people tell me ingame that soundwave wants to make stupid changes.
You should get a grip tbh.
You promised/insinuated a gradual progression in ships and equipment from t1-t2-t3 and beyond, you deliver t3 cruisers and thats it.
You talk about balancing broken ships by increasing training time instead of tweaking the broken ships.
You promised/insinuated that we'd be fighting in space ships within a planets atmosphere, you deliver an FPS.
You promised/insinuated mining revamps to "bring back the gold rush" and deliver nothing.
You set up faction war round tables and dont turn up.
Instead of cunjuring up more crazy ideas how about doing some of the stuff you as a company have been saying your going to do for nearly a decade?
How about dealing with the remote repair agro mechanic thats been pissing folk off for nearly a decade?
Nah dont bother, get yourself back to the pub and magic your next stupid idea out of your arse.
|
anzelotte
well of abyss
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:57:00 -
[744] - Quote
btw.. in blog again - space combat = naval combat. ships of the line, etc.. moreover mentioned cavalry, artillery.. yes it's hard to imagine how real space combat may be look like.. in past sf books and movies autors often use sea analogue.. but it's just wrong ppl.. |
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:57:00 -
[745] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now.
SKILLS:
[list]
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.
I swear 10seconds ago I read that and it said if you have bc 5 you will receive all racial bcs as 5 and now its been edited along with my quoted version :S
Two Step for CSM |
Orion GUardian
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:58:00 -
[746] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
Ytterbium: I am sure I read the phrase "So everyone who has BC V trained, will get all the racial BC V skills" when I first saw your post. I may have been hallucinating (because its gone now) but did you edit that out? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:00:00 -
[747] - Quote
The dev blog says, "Starting with EVE Online: Inferno, we will begin revamping ship classes one after the other, making sure obsolete hulls serve a purpose."
However, I'm unclear if the skill changes will occur with the Inferno Release, or if they will be released prior to Inferno...
Would you please clarify when we can expect these changes to happen? |
Bruno Bourque
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:01:00 -
[748] - Quote
HAHAH, backpeddle from:
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 could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5. |
Sirius Cassiopeiae
Perkone Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:01:00 -
[749] - Quote
This is sooo goooood change!!! Make it happen soon, please... :) |
Mimiru Minahiro
Republic University Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:01:00 -
[750] - Quote
The argument that decreasing the BS V req for a carrier is bad because "all the newbs will race into a carrier before having proper skills" is the epitome of dumb. If someone wants to race into carriers (or any cap for that matter) without proper supports they will already be doing so. Last time I checked training BS V does not grant the intelligence nor experience necessary to pilot a cap proficiently. |
|
Deo ExMachina
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:01:00 -
[751] - Quote
Orion GUardian wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up. Ytterbium: I am sure I read the phrase "So everyone who has BC V trained, will get all the racial BC V skills" when I first saw your post. I may have been hallucinating (because its gone now) but did you edit that out?
ooo no you dont he did write that i even told my whole alliance that over ts3. come on guys dont be cheap. do you all like talk before you post stuff or is it just oo i feel like writing this cuz we gonna get slammed and loose more players. if you dont know what your gonna do dont try to BS us around WE PAY FOR THIS |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
248
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:04:00 -
[752] - Quote
I knew he would edit that line out... Stuff Goes here |
Evanga
Trust Doesn't Rust Ineluctable.
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:04:00 -
[753] - 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 could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5"
Quoted for thruth, too late CCP. |
Orion GUardian
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:07:00 -
[754] - Quote
Well I just fear they will do something cheap like reduce the requirements for Commandships to Skill Level IV so we can still fly them with racial BC IV without having to give us more SP or reduce the Rank of the BC skill ;) |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
221
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:07:00 -
[755] - Quote
I think a more prudent question is why change?
Skills and the skill tree are a route to a ship: not the ships role, performance or capabilities. Im struggling to see how, once the skill route is modified what difference it makes to the ships themselves.
Skills are 'after the fact' - once you have the skill to fly a ship how you got there is history and largely irrelevant.
Does training:
frigate>cruiser>battle cruiser> battle ship or
cruiser>battleship
effect the performance of said battleship?
No.
So why the change? The implication is that this change is in line with the changes to module names: to simplify the surface complexity of EVE Online?
That "might" be a worthwhile objective, but the stated objective in the blog is to balance ships: not reduce complexity for new players.
And, even assuming this process does achieve greater balance (which I'm not convinced of yet) this all becomes rather irrelevant when your ship is instapopped by the focused fire of lots of other ships.
C.
|
Orion GUardian
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:08:00 -
[756] - Quote
PS: I fear being too perceptive in this may have caused a little trouble for Ytterbium here, when his superiors tell him he ****** up perhaps? |
Crasniya
Legio Geminatus Gentlemen's Agreement
123
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:08:00 -
[757] - Quote
I like how people want CCP to give them like 4.6 million free skillpoints to add to their 1.5 million skillpoint Battlecruiser V reimbursement. |
Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:08:00 -
[758] - Quote
First you're changing all the module names to some basic rubbish, you may aswell just have them grey green blue purple LEGENDARY ORANGE modules and be done with it, now you're turning this into a class-based MMO with combat ship, attack vessel, and all this, add all this ontop of WASD in-station gameplay...
...seriously just rename the game WORLD OF SPACESHIPS and be done with it. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
112
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:09:00 -
[759] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
I'll keep hammering on this one because I really, really want an answer.
How will changing the arbitrary limitations of a tier based system into arbitrary limitations of a role based system help?
Couldn't you just throw the tier system out and deal with every hull on its own?
From what I can figure out from the devblog, today you guys can't rebalance the Bellicose how you want to rebalance the Bellicose because it's a tier 2 cruiser. Wouldn't we be having the same problem in twelve months only then it'll be we can't rebalance it like we want to because it's a support cruiser.
|
Kozmic
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:09:00 -
[760] - 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. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
bomb1911
Los Terribles NEM3SIS.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:11:00 -
[761] - Quote
This all looks fantastic! but for the love of god PLEASE give us a choice to get reimbursed with battleship 5 if you do indeed make it redundant for capital ships.. I would very much like that month of my training back |
Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:11:00 -
[762] - Quote
also...
Quote:Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
n1 troll...
|
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:13:00 -
[763] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote:First, I do like the idea behind the stuff presented in the dev blog. So, training ship skills ... CCP Point of view - Spaceship Command ... (nearly) all you need to know about flying a spaceship - Advanced Spaceship Command ... filling up the gaps - Racial Ship skills (frigate, destroyer, cruiser, ...) Real life: - car driving licence ... one for valid for all kinds of cars, no matter which "country" tag they have - lorry drifing licence ... - left hand drive experience - right hand drive experience So, in real life cross training (licences) are not necessary but mostly you'll have more experience with either left or right hand driving. From my point of view, the ship size skills correspond to the driving licences while racial handling skills could correspond to the experience (left or right hand drive). This way the skills would be more "natural", cross-training would be easier, and you wouldn't have to introduce a **** load of new skills each time you come up with something new. Strategic Cruisers and Subsystems skills were a good example, besides having the racial strategic cruisers skill. However, you are the ones developing the game, we players will either contiune playing or leave, but I ask you to go the whole way, if you want to rework ship skills, not just half the way as you proposed in the dev blog. edit: I like the ****
Yeah, I can drive a motorcycle and semi truck with the licence I got when I was 16.
|
Nair Alderau
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:14:00 -
[764] - Quote
I like the direction this is going in.
But I have one quibble with the new ship progression: Some closely related and useful ship class progression should be kept even in the T2 lines.
The bare minimum is Covops --> Recon ( --> Black Ops) Or maybe CovOps --> Recon/BlackOps
It just strikes me as ... odd ... if a Recon Cruiser pilot can't fly a covops frigate.
The interceptor/interdictor/heavy interdictor line is another (but more arguable) candidate.
The rest is fine without those requirements.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:14:00 -
[765] - Quote
Djakku wrote:also... Quote:Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon. n1 troll...
The entire list is troll. Its a bunch of roles that dont exist in this game with a list of hulls that may or may not sort of fit in these categories that again are not eve-online roles |
Victor Twenty
Odyssey Space Exploration
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:14:00 -
[766] - Quote
First, way to fail on the Rokh image instead of the Naga in the Caldari tech tree.
Second, Like the changes to the T2 ship requirements, please consider following up with tech 2 turret progression, it seems a bit unfair that missiles dont require a tiered system to get to Tech 2.
Third, why not just add Destroyers 4 to Cruiser as a required skill and Battlecruiser 4 to Battleship as a required skill. Accomplish the same goal without a. pissing off the community and b. probably is alot less work on your part.
Vic20 |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:15:00 -
[767] - Quote
Evanga 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 could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5"
Quoted for thruth, too late CCP.
I thought that was too good to be true:
BC V = 1.5m sp Dessie V = 0.5 m sp
All Racial BC V & Dessie V == 8 m sp... a 6 m sp boost is an assload of sp to just "give out". That's about 4 Months of free SP's....
I'm sorry, even as a vet, I just don't think we deserve that type of boost.
Reimburse the BC V and Dessie V sp, Lower the prereqs for Dictors and CS's to LvL IV, and then give us all racials at LvL IV. We can train LvL V for the races we desire, and we can apply sp how we want.
Then, let us know that in 6 months from the change, the pre-reqs for CS's and Dictors will be increased to LvL V's.... People will have time to sell or blow up their current ships, time to train up as they desire, and it doesn't cause some huge in-game balance. |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:15:00 -
[768] - Quote
I'm assuming, after Soundwave's poasts, that the skill system, to be fair, would have to be along the lines of:
If you have the racial cruiser to III, and battlecruiser trained to any level, that you'd receive the same racial battlecruiser skill to the level you had BC trained to.
So with Gallente Cruiser V, Caldari Cruiser IV, Minmatar Cruiser III, and Amarr Cruiser II, and BC to V, you'd receive Gallente/Caldari/Minmatar BC V, but not Amarr BC at all. This seems fair to me.
It'd absolutely inflate the crap out of SP totals, but provided the system worked along these lines, I'm fine with it.
We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |
theelusiveyoda
Pioneer's of the Galantic Wars Side Effect.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:15:00 -
[769] - Quote
CCP is it possible to have those charts include the currently required training times next to suggested change time in a differient color so that we can see how much of a differience each proposed change would involve to skill times.
Also if the battlecruiser skill is devided into a individual race skill would the base training time multipler be decreased from x6 to say a x2 multipler or kept the same as that can mean alot of sp's differience when it comes to reimbursments etc. It appears alot of the discusion on the battlecruiser skill is based upon people's understanding that training all the individual race bc skills to level 5 in the future will take longer than it currently does. |
Deo ExMachina
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:17:00 -
[770] - Quote
All i ask is please dont kill the game i love if i wanted to play WOW i would play WOW and to be honest thats what its kinda turning into. with the name changes, the walking in stations, and know even the thought of taking away our ships! i love EVE ONLINE please dont ruin it |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1526
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:18:00 -
[771] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
I don't blame you *at all*. I have requested (and been denied) that CSM be part of the Dev blog review process. This blog is proof that some thought should be paid to that suggestion. Vote Two step for CSM 7 CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog |
Evanga
Trust Doesn't Rust Ineluctable.
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:18:00 -
[772] - Quote
CCP ur horrible |
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:19:00 -
[773] - Quote
Actually I want to thank you CCP for NOT running this by the CSM first.
Considering how much later we hear about the drake nerf from when they did. |
Evanga
Trust Doesn't Rust Ineluctable.
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:19:00 -
[774] - Quote
keep editing your posts with false statements
"Destroyer and Battlecruiser reimbursement: it has been said before, but allow us to repeat again, that we do not want to cut ships you could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5" |
Hothnogg
Versatech Co. Raiden.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:20:00 -
[775] - Quote
ccp have their heads so far up their own backsides, they dont know what they hell they are doing |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
235
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:21:00 -
[776] - Quote
Two step wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up. I don't blame you *at all*. I have requested (and been denied) that CSM be part of the Dev blog review process. This blog is proof that some thought should be paid to that suggestion.
QFT |
Akbhar
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:23:00 -
[777] - Quote
Now that you are at it, you might want to reconsider some ships requiring the Advanced Spaceship Command Skill. I think that skill is rather useless to almost all players (pretty much except capital pilots).
Today that skill is only a prerequisite to skill Capital Ships, but not worth anything else as it only affects those ships requiring it.
Actual Ships that require Adv. Spaceship Command without requiring Capital Ships are as far as I understand it only Freighters and Jumpfreighters as well as Marauders. |
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:25:00 -
[778] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
[list]
I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
Doh :)
My workplace has a usergroup and we routinely forget to put stuff before them before telling the world. They then get annoyed and rant at us similarly. I know how you feel!
Nice one for 'fessing up though! |
Decus Daga
Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:26:00 -
[779] - Quote
I like the fact that your retooling the ships requirements and skills - honestly it can only end well(with a little bit of blood in the water during the process haha).
IF your reducing the dread requirement from 5 to 4 though, can we get that last BS level reimbursed? I dont use BS's normally only trained it for dreads(and i know quite a few other pilots like this).
Keep it up CCP, im liking how things are going :D |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
63
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:27:00 -
[780] - Quote
For all it's worth I thought it was a great devblog, and I'm actually very very excited about it, it's a shame how the eve community received it, and focused on the BC/destroyer skill part, but something like that should have been expected considering how it was delivered and how negative the community can be at times when it's not really needed |
|
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:29:00 -
[781] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
Claiming forgetfulness and/or individual fail works once, maybe twice. But the pattern has and is showing itself to be, well, a typical pattern. In other words; we see this as a bullshit lie and excuse to try and cover CCP's typical way of business.
tl;dr Don't **** down my neck and tell me it's raining
|
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:31:00 -
[782] - Quote
Harrigan VonStudly wrote: Claiming forgetfulness and/or individual fail works once, maybe twice. But the pattern has and is showing itself to be, well, a typical pattern. In other words; we see this as a bullshit lie and excuse to try and cover CCP's typical way of business.
tl;dr Don't **** down my neck and tell me it's raining
Actually, it's really easy to do this if that review stage isn't a formal part of the review process. I.e. just tacked on the end. I know from similar experiences. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5632
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:33:00 -
[783] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
Dude, we talked about some of this stuff at the summit, it's not like it came out of nowhere. I appreciate the apology but there's no need to fall on your sword like this in front of everyone. It's fine.
It's a planning blog, and an interesting one - I'd have enjoyed seeing a draft, but it's not like the anomaly nerf which was HERE IS A CHANGE IT IS IN THE GAME HA HA. Since things are still in the design stages we remain in 'feedback land' instead of 'it is on TQ and you are screwed' land.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:36:00 -
[784] - Quote
Haven't read all the pages yet, will reply in detail when I have done so.
Only this much so far: FINALLY no moar tiers! YAY! FFIIINNAAALLLYYY!!!!!!!!!!! (about time too!)
I also prefer the new, "cleaned up" ship progression. I can also get over the fact that destroyers don't quite sit between frigs and cruisers. Who cares. The progression is quite clear with Cruiser -> BC -> BS, where the BSs actually sit in between.
As it seems I'll be able to fly all the different races' BCs (and obviously command ships) as well as I can now (having BC V) I'm all for this and can't wait for more detailed blogs!
The only thing I've noticed: Support ships in your definition don't include logistics? Where do they fit in? There are T1 and T2 variants currently, as well as capital variants (sort of, depends on fitting in that case). You sure they don't deserve their own Ship Line? |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:36:00 -
[785] - 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. Excellent. |
Yahrr
The Tuskers
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:38:00 -
[786] - Quote
Tsubutai 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. Excellent. I was so waiting for a Drake nerf right after everyone trained Caldari Battlecruiser to V again... |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
966
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:39:00 -
[787] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
The Mittani wrote: Dude, we talked about some of this stuff at the summit, it's not like it came out of nowhere. I appreciate the apology but there's no need to fall on your sword like this in front of everyone. It's fine.
It's a planning blog, and an interesting one - I'd have enjoyed seeing a draft, but it's not like the anomaly nerf which was HERE IS A CHANGE IT IS IN THE GAME HA HA. Since things are still in the design stages we remain in 'feedback land' instead of 'it is on TQ and you are screwed' land.
I'm willing to forgive a lot in the name of tiericide. As long as you do it right. Also, damn you Mittani for making me like a post of yours.
Damn you.
-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
|
UAxDEATH
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
700
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:39:00 -
[788] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
We are here to help, not to blame. Thank you for a good work.
|
M5 Tuttle
The Shadow Plague BLACK-MARK
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:40:00 -
[789] - Quote
Tsubutai 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. Excellent.
Yeah, this instantly makes the changes sound great to me. |
Ira Infernus
Praetorium Illegitimus The.Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:40:00 -
[790] - Quote
Firstly I dont understand why people are claiming THIS will kill the ******* game, you guys are insane, its not like they are adding a mechanic by which you can gain experience points and trade that for SP, which would totally throw the appeal of this game on its head to alot of people. Its not like they are making it so everyone has to retrain completely? - They are just streamlining some skill paths to make far more sense, it will also aid the addition of additional ships in the future (like the so sought after T3 frigates and Battleships, and the missing pirate factions (amarr/gallente (EoM?); caldari/minmatar (Mordu's Legion?))...
I digress...
My biggest issue with this, which I would really, really like answering, along with a lot of other players I am sure, is the following; -What if you havent already skilled for battlecruisers or destroyers????
- I havent skilled for destroyers for example, does this mean I wont be able to fly cruisers, BC's, and battleships untill I skill for this useless ship class (to me)?
I consider myself a cruiser pilot (T3, T2, faction) and use Battleships for PvE; am I to lose time out of my PvP and PvE activities?! |
|
neur0zen
AtlantiA French Corp Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:45:00 -
[791] - Quote
Haleuth wrote:This looks to me like the start of "lets balance all the classes and dumb the game down"
Strange that the only time i ever need to read these forums is when other people tell me ingame that soundwave wants to make stupid changes.
You should get a grip tbh.
You promised/insinuated a gradual progression in ships and equipment from t1-t2-t3 and beyond, you deliver t3 cruisers and thats it.
You talk about balancing broken ships by increasing training time instead of tweaking the broken ships.
You promised/insinuated that we'd be fighting in space ships within a planets atmosphere, you deliver an FPS.
You promised/insinuated mining revamps to "bring back the gold rush" and deliver nothing.
You set up faction war round tables and dont turn up.
Instead of cunjuring up more crazy ideas how about doing some of the stuff you as a company have been saying your going to do for nearly a decade?
How about dealing with the remote repair agro mechanic thats been pissing folk off for nearly a decade?
Nah dont bother, get yourself back to the pub and magic your next stupid idea out of your arse.
Man you should go to csm just for that post
|
Frothgar
V0LTA 0ccupational Hazzard
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:46:00 -
[792] - Quote
Really impressed by CCP's decision to take on the Tier system. I'm excited to see some of the future changes to the current ships, and I'm looking forward to flying some much unloved hulls with far more frequency (LOL PHROPHECY) |
Elena Grimaldi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:46:00 -
[793] - Quote
way to go
Most people will be upset by this, but they always are pissed by any change so
for reimbursement: just give em the Sp for re-train a single racial BC to V, basically they skilled to V for 1 BC skilling BC to V, so, they will chooce wich BC e-skill to V or split up Sp to fly with less efficency all the BC. |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
404
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:47:00 -
[794] - Quote
the only thing i'm worried about is the battlecruiser and destroyer skills. i mean keep them the same, they are middle of the line i fly amarr and caldari BC, but with these changes i would need to train caldari ( or amarr) BC back up to 5??? the only way to do that right is to reimburse skillpoints from it, and then make racial battlecruiser a say, x2 skill, BC is a x5 skill atm i believe, though some would lose ships ready to fly, everyone would be able to get BC4 and a few to 5.
glad tiers are getting killed. |
Zaxix
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:48:00 -
[795] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome. Can you please confirm whether or not the Jump Freighter skill will be broken out into racial variants? How will things be reassigned/handled? Will the "if you could do it before, you can do it later" mantra be applied? (I'm guessing yes, but I'm confused as to how it will be done. Right now I can fly an Amarr JF but all i need is Amarr Freighter 1 to do it along with the JF skill.
The training times for these is heinous, so we'd like to get as much lead time as possible to know how to address this.
Thanks Red Frog--Hisec Courier Black Frog--Losec/Nosec Courier
|
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:48:00 -
[796] - Quote
neur0zen wrote:Haleuth wrote:This looks to me like the start of "lets balance all the classes and dumb the game down"
Strange that the only time i ever need to read these forums is when other people tell me ingame that soundwave wants to make stupid changes.
You should get a grip tbh.
You promised/insinuated a gradual progression in ships and equipment from t1-t2-t3 and beyond, you deliver t3 cruisers and thats it.
You talk about balancing broken ships by increasing training time instead of tweaking the broken ships.
You promised/insinuated that we'd be fighting in space ships within a planets atmosphere, you deliver an FPS.
You promised/insinuated mining revamps to "bring back the gold rush" and deliver nothing.
You set up faction war round tables and dont turn up.
Instead of cunjuring up more crazy ideas how about doing some of the stuff you as a company have been saying your going to do for nearly a decade?
How about dealing with the remote repair agro mechanic thats been pissing folk off for nearly a decade?
Nah dont bother, get yourself back to the pub and magic your next stupid idea out of your arse.
Man you should go to csm just for that post
Quoting for posterity |
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:50:00 -
[797] - Quote
Woa! Wait a minute! I I have not trained Destroyer to lvl4 then I can not fly cruisers and battlecruisers? (which today I can). Not sure I like this.
|
Alpheias
Euphoria Released 0ccupational Hazzard
492
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:51:00 -
[798] - Quote
This is one of those ideas that get people into a lot of trouble, Ytterbium. First it was Zulu and then it was Zinfindel and now it looks like it will be you.
I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
178
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:51:00 -
[799] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: SKILLS:
[list]
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.
I have BC lvl 5. But only fly minnie. Does this mean I will get the other 3 races BC skill at 5 even though I don't have the frigate > dessie > cruiser skills?
And following on, if I don't get the other 3 racial BC's at 5, wouldn't that be unfair? Now thar be a dilemma. http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
178
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:52:00 -
[800] - Quote
Midnight Hope wrote:Woa! Wait a minute! I I have not trained Destroyer to lvl4 then I can not fly cruisers and battlecruisers? (which today I can). Not sure I like this.
This is a really small amount of training. http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2027
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:54:00 -
[801] - Quote
Two step wrote:I don't blame you *at all*. I have requested (and been denied) that CSM be part of the Dev blog review process. This blog is proof that some thought should be paid to that suggestion.
This is the real news story here, folks. There will be plenty of time to discuss the details of the ships, and explain everything, but if we're still having fundamental communications breakdowns after all this that means there's a company culture issue to be resolved. I absolutely agree, the CSM should always know about published material before its released.
If nothing else, its for the good of the company. If the CSM can provide feedback that helps mitigate *rage* over a suggestion, that its just good PR and good business. I don't mean mitigate *rage* by sweeping unpopular ideas under the rug. I mean mitigating *rage* by making sure the most common complaints are pre-empted with thorough explanations. Even if it means a Dev Blog that's twice as long. A lot of us have reacted here before CCP had a chance to clarify everything.
The CSM can only help CCP as much as they allow them too. This insta-threadnought could have been prevented, or at least made a lot more productive instead being 90% emotional like it is right now if the CSM could have given feedback earlier. Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 23:56:00 -
[802] - Quote
Ugleb wrote:Midnight Hope wrote:Woa! Wait a minute! I I have not trained Destroyer to lvl4 then I can not fly cruisers and battlecruisers? (which today I can). Not sure I like this.
This is a really small amount of training.
Whether it's a small amount of training, which reads "must train again" isn't the issue mate. In other words what you are saying is that is ok to be ****** over because it won't take a person "too" long to train that skill back?? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
280
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:00:00 -
[803] - Quote
Midnight Hope wrote:Woa! Wait a minute! I I have not trained Destroyer to lvl4 then I can not fly cruisers and battlecruisers? (which today I can). Not sure I like this.
Not the way the requirement system works. It's a requirement to inject the skill. not use the ship. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Orion GUardian
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:01:00 -
[804] - Quote
Midnight Hope wrote:Woa! Wait a minute! I I have not trained Destroyer to lvl4 then I can not fly cruisers and battlecruisers? (which today I can). Not sure I like this.
Didn't you READ the Dev blog???
"Due to the way nested requirements work, it would also mean pilots would not need to re-train anything to fly Battleships or Cruisers. All of this is work in progress of course and subject to change, especially since we are still discussing skill reimbursement options."
Thats said in tehre so NO you do NOT need to traind estroyers to fly anything above. You WOULD need to train racial destroyers if you want to crosstrain to another race you don't alreay have the cruiser skill trained in though!! |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:03:00 -
[805] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:words words words
Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile?
I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/zoKP9.jpg[/img]
Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already? |
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:03:00 -
[806] - Quote
[quote=CCP Ytterbium]Ok this thread needs some love now.
SKILLS:
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. [/quote
For me personally that was my only concern. But now that you've clarified on this issue i'm really looking forward to these changes. Its going to make a whole load of semi-useless ships viable and will hopefully drastically improve pvp for the better :)
Two Step for CSM |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2027
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:03:00 -
[807] - Quote
Zaxix wrote: The training times for these is heinous, so we'd like to get as much lead time as possible to know how to address this.
Thanks
Everyone, please note that the very first post in this thread confirms that no one will be retraining. They will most likely be throwing skill points at you to grab the stuff you need to fly what you already have. And if everyone complains loudly enough, probably a few more.
Just trying to keep down on the forum thread clutter, no sense going on and on about skill retraining if it there will be no disruptions in game play over it (and you may come out ahead depending on how the bribe goes!)
Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:06:00 -
[808] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:words words words Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile? I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes: This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already?
Confirming that its all about raw HP Two Step for CSM |
Antoine Jordan
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:07:00 -
[809] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now.
SKILLS:
[list]
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. Does this include the races which I don't have the cruiser skill at 4? |
Melienia
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:09:00 -
[810] - Quote
Aase Nord wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ? CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P -Liang Thank you for that ansver.... But.... I would like to hear that from CCP
Seconded, for great justice. I want a definitive answer from CCP, with no ambiguity or having to 'read into it' in general. I want to see someone say "Well, since we're thinking about swapping generic dessy and BC for racial versions, we're gonna give all players who trained these skills the corresponding racial skills at the same level they've trained the generic ones to." How hard would that be? And until I see that, I can't believe the soothsayers claiming that all will be well! After all, the updated Devblog seems to hint (to me anyways) that when the dessy and BC skills go away, they're just going to do a sp refund for the skills in question. This doesn't work for me, as I regularly fly canes, drakes, myrms, etc. and don't feel it's fair that the ships I have will become useless as I don't have enough sp to go around to make it worthwhile to ship up in them (I.E. no bc 4 in a given race).
Edit: And before someone tells me to go back and read the dev posts for my answer, I say again: I want a DEFINITIVE answer on how it will work (sp reimbursement, or level cross-over). |
|
Shade Millith
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:09:00 -
[811] - Quote
Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
Completely stonking useless. Do you guys even play the game? They are NOT artillery. They are used as close range brawlers for a reason. Only fools use missile ships at long range, due to the travel time.
And I shudder to think how you guys will mutilate the Drake with trying to ham fist these ships into this completely stupid 'role'. |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:10:00 -
[812] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
Many thanks for keeping us updated. Please consider linking to the quoted post in the very first post of this thread. Most folk are not going to go through 40 pages of text to find it, which is unfortunate because it addresses the vast majority of concerns.
Please also consider linking to Mittens' post.
Edit: But when balancing ships, please do not pigeonhole them into roles without a very good reason. It is one thing to provide the overall role. It is another to force players to only use a ship in a certain way. Just because certain ships are more popular then others, does not mean that there is a balance issue. And player creativity should not be sacrificed in order to achieve an ephemeral "balance." |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
280
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:11:00 -
[813] - Quote
Melienia wrote:Aase Nord wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ? CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P -Liang Thank you for that ansver.... But.... I would like to hear that from CCP Seconded, for great justice. I want a definitive answer from CCP, with no ambiguity or having to 'read into it' in general. I want to see someone say "Well, since we're thinking about swapping generic dessy and BC for racial versions, we're gonna give all players who trained these skills the corresponding racial skills at the same level they've trained the generic ones to." How hard would that be? And until I see that, I can't believe the soothsayers claiming that all will be well! After all, the updated Devblog seems to hint (to me anyways) that when the dessy and BC skills go away, they're just going to do a sp refund for the skills in question. This doesn't work for me, as I regularly fly canes, drakes, myrms, etc. and don't feel it's fair that the ships I have will become useless as I don't have enough sp to go around to make it worthwhile to ship up in them (I.E. no bc 4 in a given race). Edit: And before someone tells me to go back and read the dev posts for my answer, I say again: I want a DEFINITIVE answer on how it will work (sp reimbursement, or level cross-over).
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=900335#post900335
If you read the dev comments, you'd know.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:13:00 -
[814] - Quote
james1122 wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:words words words Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile? I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes: This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already? Confirming that its all about raw HP
If you're trying to appeal to ridicule, at least try to disprove. |
Bawsk
Celestial Mayhem PROJECT MAYH3M
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:14:00 -
[815] - Quote
Quote: CCP Ytterbium wrote This opens up possibilities in terms of new ships. 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
So are we talking about a Brutix style ship with sensor damp bonus's, and Prophecy tanked ship with tracking disruption bonus's? Maybe even a Typhoon with a target painting bonus?
Maybe mix it up even more and give them some of the Recon ship bonus's. Harby's that can Neut like crazy and cyclones with ranged webbs , Megathron's scrambling people at 30km >:)
Caldari have the scorpion after all, why not spread the love around a bit. Maybe even give them a new/ existing BC that can Jam too. "OMG THE FEROX HAS ME JAMMED, KILLITKILLITKILLIT" lol
I'm interested in seeing some concept idea's of giving the bigger ship classes some ewar options
-Bawsk-
Law of Conservation of Happiness: Happiness is neither created nor destroyed, only stolen from other people.
|
Sovai Elaaren
Korriban Confederation
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:14:00 -
[816] - Quote
Haleuth wrote:This looks to me like the start of "lets balance all the classes and dumb the game down"
Strange that the only time i ever need to read these forums is when other people tell me ingame that soundwave wants to make stupid changes.
You should get a grip tbh.
You promised/insinuated a gradual progression in ships and equipment from t1-t2-t3 and beyond, you deliver t3 cruisers and thats it.
You talk about balancing broken ships by increasing training time instead of tweaking the broken ships.
You promised/insinuated that we'd be fighting in space ships within a planets atmosphere, you deliver an FPS.
You promised/insinuated mining revamps to "bring back the gold rush" and deliver nothing.
You set up faction war round tables and dont turn up.
Instead of cunjuring up more crazy ideas how about doing some of the stuff you as a company have been saying your going to do for nearly a decade?
How about dealing with the remote repair agro mechanic thats been pissing folk off for nearly a decade?
Nah dont bother, get yourself back to the pub and magic your next stupid idea out of your arse.
Where's that dislike button people have been asking for?
CCP is getting back on track, dude. They don't have a magic wand to suddenly fix everything that we've been wanting in this game for years. This dev blog is proof that they are trying to fix things. They're not trying to fix anything by simply increasing training time, but by creating roles for ships to fill and then balancing them to fit within those roles so they're useful. |
AtvMX
Lost Society Get Off My Lawn
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:14:00 -
[817] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:Eugh.... Just what we always wanted... having to spend even *MORE* time cross-training to experience the different races and play styles of EvE.
Battlecruisers is one of the best skills there is for a very good reason; you spend a month training it and then it gives you lots of flexibility. You get it, and it opens lots of doors... and variety is what people enjoy.
If you do this, then a lot of people, myself included, are going to be pissed. It's introducing more drag just for the hell of it.
this. |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1060
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:15:00 -
[818] - Quote
Alice Katsuko wrote:Please consider linking to the quoted post in the very first post of this thread.
Already is! But still thank you for the good idea.
CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
Fenrir Ragnarok
Fine Goods for Fine Gentlemen
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:15:00 -
[819] - Quote
With so many broken mechanics in game why the focus on something that is not causing any distress?
Trying to keep the promise of people being able to fly all they flew before the change is a huge undertaking ... firstly the 3 BC and 6 command ships many people will loose, then the 3 dessies and 3 interdictors .
Also what about alts that people use to get ships to their mains involved in wars/piracy etc? , together potentially 15 ships per toon, worst case 45 ships on an account?
How about stop this madness and fix capital blob fests so null sec becomes somewhere everyone can play
Hope the next idea isnt racial training command ships/Hacs/recons/Hics/logistics ...... its a slippery slope |
Tyme Xandr
State Protectorate Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:16:00 -
[820] - Quote
+1 to CCP for finally making all the useless frigates/cruisers and feroxes something applicable to the damned game. I (and many others) have been stating this for years in the F&I section. |
|
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
83
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:17:00 -
[821] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:words words words Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile? I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes: This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already?
Yet another person that didn't really read the blog. Skill changes is the first step in change to abolish tiers and let them balance ships by class and function instead of just where they happen to fit in implied progression. Skills are just the first base change in a class by class balance adjustment. And that these ship classes will get new specialization skills which can and will likely fill in those cap training gaps and add more time to all ships to keep older players still interested (at least to some degree) with the ships that are currently tier 1. |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:17:00 -
[822] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.
As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.
What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now...
Jump Freighters will continue to require Level 5 because they are T2 (all T2 require now and will according to the devblog continue to require Level 5).
The Question about freighters is relevant though (I personally don't care as I have the prerequisites). I personally think they should continue to require Level 5 as they are a significant step up from their "skill predecessor". There should be SOME commitment. It already only takes about a month to get into one anyway... |
Mordo Mordaeus
Mordo's Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:18:00 -
[823] - Quote
sounds good except that we who already got the skills required now, should get them for free.. Otherwise it is like... I go to a shop and buy let's say a car for cash, then efter two years the Dealer comes back to me and says i have to pay the car again.... If that is the plan, you can go stick something up yours ccp... But on the other hand, It's all about squeezing that extra out money out of us, right? |
Basil Wenclas
Redemptions Manifesto SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:18:00 -
[824] - Quote
Akara Ito wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? This is my problem with this blog Skill lines sounds like an awfull euphenism for getting warrior ships, mage ships, shaman ships, etcLimiting ships to a single role is bullshit One of the great things about Eve is that you can fly every ship as you want PvP in Eve is often about finding a fitting that suits your need and getting effects out of ships that people dont expect And yeah, racial BC skills are... weird. Actually I dont know why they are even usefull. Right now the skill system is mostly tree based, it splits up more and more the higher you get Whats the advantage of turning this into a single line system? Its just annoying and a huge oversimplification. Oh and BS 4 for caps is horrible, a shitload of people crossskill caps and I guess there will be no sp reimbursement for BSV . You'd have to reimburse so much skills to get these things done, its pathetic.
This is my main problem with this as well.
I have no problem with racial dessy/bc skills, it always confused me why those weren't around in the first place. But I really don't like this ship classification idea. Let us define what's used for what. After all, as has been evidenced, WE are the ones that play the game.
The particular role bonuses for ships already help define what they are good for. This just sounds like a dumbing down of the game.
Not that this will make a difference, we all know it's going to be rammed through anyways.
|
Melienia
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:19:00 -
[825] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Melienia wrote:Aase Nord wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Aase Nord wrote:So... My dear CCP devs..... I can fly all races T3 cruisers... and comandships... with perfect leadership skills... What am I going to loose ? CCP Soundwave has repeatedly said you'll lose nothing. I suspect that you may lose ISK when you get podded because it'll push your total SP high enough to need a new clone type! :P -Liang Thank you for that ansver.... But.... I would like to hear that from CCP Seconded, for great justice. I want a definitive answer from CCP, with no ambiguity or having to 'read into it' in general. I want to see someone say "Well, since we're thinking about swapping generic dessy and BC for racial versions, we're gonna give all players who trained these skills the corresponding racial skills at the same level they've trained the generic ones to." How hard would that be? And until I see that, I can't believe the soothsayers claiming that all will be well! After all, the updated Devblog seems to hint (to me anyways) that when the dessy and BC skills go away, they're just going to do a sp refund for the skills in question. This doesn't work for me, as I regularly fly canes, drakes, myrms, etc. and don't feel it's fair that the ships I have will become useless as I don't have enough sp to go around to make it worthwhile to ship up in them (I.E. no bc 4 in a given race). Edit: And before someone tells me to go back and read the dev posts for my answer, I say again: I want a DEFINITIVE answer on how it will work (sp reimbursement, or level cross-over). https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=900335#post900335If you read the dev comments, you'd know.
Much appreciated. When I started writing my post, that dev response hadn't been written yet. Kudos to Ytterbium for the clarification! I feel much better now... |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
78
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:19:00 -
[826] - Quote
Good grief, 40 pages of posts already.
Sorry if I repeat anyone previously, but I haven't read the whole thread.
My first reaction to the early part of the blog was..... "Oh great, a skill tree massive change that will inevitably mean more training to fly the ships we can fly currently....just what we've all been begging for....WTF (sarcasm)"
Further reading though suggests you CCP funambulist boffins might actually be doing these changes for the right reasons.... Reasons such as the current tier system breaking dow2n every time you add a new ship, and to reinvigorate and find useful applications for the masses of currently useless (and correctly overlooked by players') ships that for slot layout and/or base stats dont compete with the better more useful ships of their class.
This approach will hopefully see a return of more unique racial flavours to ships and fundamentally shake up the game allowing for a better, more expansive list of useful current ships with a potential for easier expandable base of future ships. This all makes good sense.
The major concern I have is CCP timescales.
You appear to be keen and ready to go with rolling out skill system changes (fine), but what use is that to us players if the ship lines are not brought up to date?
By proceeding so (inevitably) slowly in a 1 by 1 manner of balancing you're really going to make a mockery of game continuity. Today the taranis is excellent, tomorrow it might be awesome, but the following week the 'new' rifter is actually better.
In summary CCP: I forsee you embarking on this journey on a bright sunny day, full of vim and vigour, walking down a clear path towards the promised land of some balanced ship Utopia, only to find the surrounding environment changes unpredictably and dramatically with each step, and unsurprisingly a few steps in you're in a mire with storm clouds gathering round and great pressure upon you to speed up before you sink further into the mire, however with each step the path ahead becomes less clear.
My message to you is this: Tread very carefully CCP.
I feel you might be better for example trying to bang out the massive required ship changes in big blocks of ships like week 1 - All t1 frigates, week 2 All t1cruisers, week 3 all t2 frigates. week 4 all t2 cruisers etc etc You'd need to move THAT quickly imho to actually keep true to any ideal of a full rebalance/restructure of ship classes.
Thats all I have to say about it for now though. Cheers. |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:20:00 -
[827] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Zaxix wrote: The training times for these is heinous, so we'd like to get as much lead time as possible to know how to address this.
Thanks
Everyone, please note that the very first post in this thread confirms that no one will be retraining. They will most likely be throwing skill points at you to grab the stuff you need to fly what you already have. And if everyone complains loudly enough, probably a few more. Just trying to keep down on the forum thread clutter, no sense going on and on about skill retraining if it there will be no disruptions in game play over it (and you may come out ahead depending on how the bribe goes!)
I don't want to just be able to "fly" what I can already fly. I want to EFFECTIVELY fly what I can already EFFECTIVELY fly. And that effectiveness is a lot related to the skill level ie; I II III IV V, bonuses applied for that ship hull. In other words I have Minmatar and Amarr cruiser V which does not affect the Myrm or Drake because I have BC V from which their bonuses are derived. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:21:00 -
[828] - Quote
Antoine Jordan wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now.
SKILLS:
[list]
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. Does this include the races which I don't have the cruiser skill at 4?
This is a good question. I'll probably train cruiser 4 in all races just to be super sure and I suggest everyone does the same. |
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies THE UNTHINKABLES
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:22:00 -
[829] - Quote
I love you long time ccp. |
Sovai Elaaren
Korriban Confederation
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:23:00 -
[830] - Quote
Basil Wenclas wrote:Akara Ito wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? This is my problem with this blog Skill lines sounds like an awfull euphenism for getting warrior ships, mage ships, shaman ships, etcLimiting ships to a single role is bullshit One of the great things about Eve is that you can fly every ship as you want PvP in Eve is often about finding a fitting that suits your need and getting effects out of ships that people dont expect And yeah, racial BC skills are... weird. Actually I dont know why they are even usefull. Right now the skill system is mostly tree based, it splits up more and more the higher you get Whats the advantage of turning this into a single line system? Its just annoying and a huge oversimplification. Oh and BS 4 for caps is horrible, a shitload of people crossskill caps and I guess there will be no sp reimbursement for BSV . You'd have to reimburse so much skills to get these things done, its pathetic. This is my main problem with this as well. I have no problem with racial dessy/bc skills, it always confused me why those weren't around in the first place. But I really don't like this ship classification idea. Let us define what's used for what. After all, as has been evidenced, WE are the ones that play the game. The particular role bonuses for ships already help define what they are good for. This just sounds like a dumbing down of the game. Not that this will make a difference, we all know it's going to be rammed through anyways.
There's nothing in here to suggest that they won't still be versatile in the way the ships are now. Except maybe that more of them will be useful because they won't be arbitrarily pre-nerfed (ie. tier 1 battlecruisers).
Besides, we already have roles, they're just not classified in those terms. There's a logi cruiser, a mining cruiser, combat cruisers, etc for each race currently. They aren't called that, but their bonuses dictate what their roles are. |
|
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:24:00 -
[831] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:james1122 wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:words words words Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile? I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes: This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already? Confirming that its all about raw HP If you're trying to appeal to ridicule, at least try to disprove.
Not quite sure what i'm supposed to be disproving ?
I don't understand how a graph of hp can be called proof that longer training time is needed.
A maller gets more hp than a vagabond does this mean a maller should take more time to train for that a vagabond ? Your argument is extremely linear and just out right stupid Two Step for CSM |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:24:00 -
[832] - Quote
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Zaxix wrote: The training times for these is heinous, so we'd like to get as much lead time as possible to know how to address this.
Thanks
Everyone, please note that the very first post in this thread confirms that no one will be retraining. They will most likely be throwing skill points at you to grab the stuff you need to fly what you already have. And if everyone complains loudly enough, probably a few more. Just trying to keep down on the forum thread clutter, no sense going on and on about skill retraining if it there will be no disruptions in game play over it (and you may come out ahead depending on how the bribe goes!) I don't want to just be able to "fly" what I can already fly. I want to EFFECTIVELY fly what I can already EFFECTIVELY fly. And that effectiveness is a lot related to the skill level ie; I II III IV V, bonuses applied for that ship hull. In other words I have Minmatar and Amarr cruiser V which does not affect the Myrm or Drake because I have BC V from which their bonuses are derived.
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. Repeating this because apparently it literally cannot be repeated enough. |
Jodie Amille
Rape of Virtue
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:24:00 -
[833] - Quote
Just posting to say I'm laughing at all the self-righteous, indignant rage posts in this thread. Especially the people whining about higher clone costs as if they were gonna stop training before they got to the next clone level or something. lol.
Blog sounds awesome to me, it's making me really look forward to the next expansion |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:25:00 -
[834] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:words words words Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile? I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes: This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already? Yet another person that didn't really read the blog. Skill changes is the first step in change to abolish tiers and let them balance ships by class and function instead of just where they happen to fit in implied progression. Skills are just the first base change in a class by class balance adjustment. And that these ship classes will get new specialization skills which can and will likely fill in those cap training gaps and add more time to all ships to keep older players still interested (at least to some degree) with the ships that are currently tier 1.
Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING. |
Zaxix
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:26:00 -
[835] - Quote
Creat Posudol wrote:Zaxix wrote:Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.
As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.
What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now... Jump Freighters will continue to require Level 5 because they are T2 (all T2 require now and will according to the devblog continue to require Level 5). The Question about freighters is relevant though (I personally don't care as I have the prerequisites). I personally think they should continue to require Level 5 as they are a significant step up from their "skill predecessor". There should be SOME commitment. It already only takes about a month to get into one anyway... Actually, it doesn't require a freighter V skill. Racial freighter 4 is all that is required. There are other level 5 skills required, but they aren't quite the same progression as other ships.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Nomad for example Red Frog--Hisec Courier Black Frog--Losec/Nosec Courier
|
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:27:00 -
[836] - Quote
People are going to freak out at this massive rebalancing, because a lot of players hate change (bitter vet syndrome). DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM! Everything in the blog is golden; make it happen. This is going to revamp Eve in brilliant and innovative ways |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:31:00 -
[837] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:Creat Posudol wrote:Zaxix wrote:Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.
As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.
What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now... Jump Freighters will continue to require Level 5 because they are T2 (all T2 require now and will according to the devblog continue to require Level 5). The Question about freighters is relevant though (I personally don't care as I have the prerequisites). I personally think they should continue to require Level 5 as they are a significant step up from their "skill predecessor". There should be SOME commitment. It already only takes about a month to get into one anyway... Actually, it doesn't require a freighter V skill. Racial freighter 4 is all that is required. There are other level 5 skills required, but they aren't quite the same progression as other ships. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Nomad for example
I guess if bs V is being removed from the capital ship pre-reqs solely to maintain the continuity of t1 tiers having a lvl4 hull req and t2 lvl 5; then it would follow that racial freighter 5 is going to be needed for jump freighters.
|
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:31:00 -
[838] - Quote
james1122 wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:james1122 wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:words words words Why are you ignoring Black Ops Battleships? Why does it take less time to get into a ******* powerful dreadnought than a gimped overpriced shitmobile? I think having Battleship v as a requirement for training capital ships is pretty frigging necessary. Here's a graph on how raw hit points increase per ship class, notice how it just dwarfs the rest of the ship classes: This is why racial battleship V needs to stay in the prerequisites of everything capital!Surely that sort of massive increase in raw HP warrants a little bit longer training time? Or do you really want this game to turn even more into a capital borefest than it is already? Confirming that its all about raw HP If you're trying to appeal to ridicule, at least try to disprove. Not quite sure what i'm supposed to be disproving ? I don't understand how a graph of hp can be called proof that longer training time is needed. A maller gets more hp than a vagabond does this mean a maller should take more time to train for that a vagabond ? Your argument is extremely linear and just out right stupid
But we aren't talking about mallers and vagabonds here, we are talking about the 'linear approach' to skill training time also being applied to capital ships. A capital ship gets so much more: A jump drive, utility high slots, boatloads of EHP, massive increases in (remote) repair capabilities, and incredible drone capacity to further increase their usefulness.
What I am trying to reason here is that the racial battleship V requirement for the capital ships is justified and there really is no reason to simplify it. I can't believe that you openly support two step but would gladly advocate for removing the single largest hurdle keeping people from training into capital ships.
Also, because I was so nice, here's a graph for fitted EHP. Big ******* difference isn't it? |
GRIEV3R
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:32:00 -
[839] - Quote
On the nerdrage over skills
How many times does CCP have to say if you could fly it yesterday, you can fly it today? Are you guys blind and can't read multiple Devs all confirming that's their approach? Enough's already guys, seriously. They've said very clearly and professionally they're not going to screw over your skills. Shut up and read it. CCP has made enormous strides in their community relations since Monoclegate. Give them some respect.
On classifying ships into broad categories
I see two sides to this; on the one hand, it helps make sense of Eve's bewildering variety of ships to any less experienced players. On the other hand, it seems like CCP is kind of dictating what ships should be used for instead of letting the community improvise. To these two sides of the coin, I say first - the community will continue to improvise regardless. Second, the people who designed the ships are pretty damn knowledgeable about the ins-and-outs of game mechanics. For anyone other than bittervets who already know everything, those designers do have a certain authority to offer general guidance on specific strengths and weaknesses of ships. TL;DR it's a good idea
On BS 4 for capitals
I think capitals should be hard to get into. They should take many months of dedicated training. BS 5 accounts for almost 30 days alone. If you're gonna knock it down to BS 4 to preserve the logical progression, then you should find another prereq to tweak so those 30 days are not lost. |
Morar Santee
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:33:00 -
[840] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Evanga 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 could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5"
Quoted for thruth, too late CCP. I thought that was too good to be true: BC V = 1.5m sp Dessie V = 0.5 m sp All Racial BC V & Dessie V == 8 m sp... a 6 m sp boost is an assload of sp to just "give out". That's about 4 Months of free SP's.... I'm sorry, even as a vet, I just don't think we deserve that type of boost.
This is so hilarious, there is no words.
The situation looks like this: CCP decides to take your **** away. Many players had trained the skills to fly the ships in question perfectly. Now they will get reimbursed to the point where they can still fly the ships, but have to retrain some of the racial skills to V to fly them as well as they did before. In other words: Even veterans have to spend months to train skills that never existed, were never on their skill-plans, and should never exist in the first place.
All new players will have to invest 4x more time to get to where the veteran players are to begin with.
Even if you give CCP all the benefit of doubt in the world, the most harmless explanation for this is that they realized people tend to run out of stuff to train for eventually. If you only fly two races (minus capitals), you'll train for three odd years and be done. With this change, the amount of time required to cross-train suddenly explodes. For no other reason than CCP being too lazy to come up with meaningful content that requires skillpoints. Instead, they give us the same content, but it suddenly takes 4x longer to train for. With the promise there will be more ships available due to these changes soon (CCP speak for: "another abandoned feature"). And the ships we do have get pushed into WoW-ish roles, whether we want to or not.
And after hearing this, you say: "Oh no, the reimbursement is too big. We do not deserve such a SP buff!"
It's no wonder CCP thinks they can get away with whatever. Hell, if I was a Dev and read a comment like that, I'd also put more crack on the pipe and keep pushing **** at my "customers". |
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Intrepid Crossing
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:34:00 -
[841] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
OK, with your first bullet I think this won't be a big deal at all. This is a good idea and I'm glad you are doing it. The tier system needed to be fixed.
For the skill progression, the change to the mining vessels is nice but one thing that limits people from using a covetor is not mining barge, it's astrogeology. That should also be considered here.
On Capitals, I really think it should be kept at 5. Although, that decision is with CCP and where they want their game. If you want more people to fly capitals, feel free to make this update. However, right now I have Gallente BS 5 so I could fly a thanatos. I really don't like the idea that I had to train that to 5 and now it's essentially worthless (yes, I get better gallente BS bonuses but it's not going to justify the 26days of training time). I did that to fly a carrier, nothing else. Now with this change I get to fly all carriers since I have all BS trained to 5. There are no bonuses for the BS skill applied to carriers.
So all of us that fly carriers, we wouldn't have trained to BS 5 with this proposed change. If you want to drop it to 4, will we get a refund? What about Dreds? Same issue? If you keep this change, I suggest a refund for BS 5 for all that trained it.
Finally, if you choose to keep this change (allow only BS 4) then I suggest changing carriers to reflect roles. Right now they are all essentially doing pretty much the same thing with minor changes. When you go to Supers you get a bit different but if I can fly all 4 carriers now, then give me a reason to train the others. Yes, this will be a big change as well since you are going to change the way ships are used - expensive ships - but I really think that flying cap ships should be a limited thing, not something everyone can do. The expense is a limiting factor but cap ships are special and I think it level 5 of BS is appropriate.
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Zaxix
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:35:00 -
[842] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Zaxix wrote: The training times for these is heinous, so we'd like to get as much lead time as possible to know how to address this.
Thanks
Everyone, please note that the very first post in this thread confirms that no one will be retraining. They will most likely be throwing skill points at you to grab the stuff you need to fly what you already have. And if everyone complains loudly enough, probably a few more. Just trying to keep down on the forum thread clutter, no sense going on and on about skill retraining if it there will be no disruptions in game play over it (and you may come out ahead depending on how the bribe goes!) I can and did read the first post. Please consider that not EVERYONE is talking about the same thing. I'm referring specifically to the related prerequisites that may or may not be affected (and there are many level 5's involved), to the need for training specific racial freighter skills (which ones will need to be 4 or 5 if JF is t2?), and to general information that pilots who are mid stream training up to join Black Frog might be interested in for planning purposes. If we're talking a lead time to this change on the order of several months, JF training pilots need to have an idea of how and what to prioritize for skill speccing, etc. Even more relevant, no one has actually specified that the JF skill will be treated in the same manner as the other generic skills. In an election season, you might also consider training Diplomacy to 11. Red Frog--Hisec Courier Black Frog--Losec/Nosec Courier
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Intrepid Crossing
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:37:00 -
[843] - Quote
Zaxix wrote:Creat Posudol wrote:Zaxix wrote:Since 99% of all comments are about SP reimbursement, it sounds like your core idea is getting indirect approval.
As to BS V for capital ships, will you also be lowering the Racial Industrial V requirement for freighters? Or any of the level V skill requirements for jump freighters? Looking at the progressions in the dev blog (and not having evemon at work), I'm not clear on whether training times and SP amounts for freighters/jump freighters in general will be going up, down, or staying the same. While it may have always been the case, I was surprised to see dreads took less time to get into than a jump freighter--that seemed odd to me.
What about the jump freighter skill? It's not race specific. Will you be altering that line as well? Can you afford to reimburse me for some SERIOUS skill point totals? On what basis would those points be awarded? The current discussion seems to be "I can fly all races now, so I should get skill points for all of them when the time comes." Well, I can fly all jump freighters now... Jump Freighters will continue to require Level 5 because they are T2 (all T2 require now and will according to the devblog continue to require Level 5). The Question about freighters is relevant though (I personally don't care as I have the prerequisites). I personally think they should continue to require Level 5 as they are a significant step up from their "skill predecessor". There should be SOME commitment. It already only takes about a month to get into one anyway... Actually, it doesn't require a freighter V skill. Racial freighter 4 is all that is required. There are other level 5 skills required, but they aren't quite the same progression as other ships. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Nomad for example This is a valid concern I would like to see addressed as well as Jump Freighters are T2 Capitals. So this is kind of a blend between the two systems. Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Grimmash
Iron Preists Of the Imperium Ark of the Covenant
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:39:00 -
[844] - Quote
Proposal:
Make a generic skill for each hull class (Frig/destroyer/etc). Make a specialty skill for each race, which can only be trained as high as your core skill. Split hull bonuses between those two skills, for all ship types and classes.
It would let newer players try out more ships, and then decided which ones they really want to focus on. It would also "punish" players who fly fancy tech II ships w/o the racial stats to back them up. So you get both shorter and longer training times, and more/less effective pilots. Then when you implement the new system, give everyone the base skill at highest trained racial variant, and racial skills at the currently trained levels. Key the destroyer and BC specialty skills to what the player has ever flown. No one loses any ships they can fly, and the system (To me) makes more sense anyway.
|
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
113
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:40:00 -
[845] - Quote
Morwen Lagann 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.
I understand the sentiment of wanting to streamline the skill trees, but if you're going to remove the generic Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills, for those of us who have trained both of them to 5, if we don't get *all four* of the racial skills reimbursed all the way to 5, you are going to have a very, very large and angry mob on your hands.
They will a very large mob of angry ex customers on their hands. |
james1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:43:00 -
[846] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:But we aren't talking about mallers and vagabonds here, we are talking about the 'linear approach' to skill training time also being applied to capital ships. A capital ship gets so much more: A jump drive, utility high slots, boatloads of EHP, massive increases in (remote) repair capabilities, and incredible drone capacity to further increase their usefulness. What I am trying to reason here is that the racial battleship V requirement for the capital ships is justified and there really is no reason to simplify it. I can't believe that you openly support two step but would gladly advocate for removing the single largest hurdle keeping people from training into capital ships. Also, because I was so nice, here's a graph for fitted EHP. Big ******* difference isn't it?
I wasn't arguing about the removal of racial battleship 5 from the capital ship requirements
Personally I don't mind it not being there as it just means easy kills off numptys who get into those ships long before they actually have the proper skills to fly them i.e. capital reps, capital rr, capital guns, siege mod, triage etc. etc. Getting into a ship =/= being able to use it.
No the issue I had was you using a graph of hp claiming that to be the perfect reason to increase training times on ships. It makes as much sense as claiming battlecruisers do more dps than hacs therefore they should cost more than hacs. Regardless of if what your arguing for is right or wrong your logic is just non-sense
Two Step for CSM |
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:48:00 -
[847] - Quote
james1122 wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:But we aren't talking about mallers and vagabonds here, we are talking about the 'linear approach' to skill training time also being applied to capital ships. A capital ship gets so much more: A jump drive, utility high slots, boatloads of EHP, massive increases in (remote) repair capabilities, and incredible drone capacity to further increase their usefulness. What I am trying to reason here is that the racial battleship V requirement for the capital ships is justified and there really is no reason to simplify it. I can't believe that you openly support two step but would gladly advocate for removing the single largest hurdle keeping people from training into capital ships. Also, because I was so nice, here's a graph for fitted EHP. Big ******* difference isn't it? I wasn't arguing about the removal of racial battleship 5 from the capital ship requirements Personally I don't mind it not being there as it just means easy kills off numptys who get into those ships long before they actually have the proper skills to fly them i.e. capital reps, capital rr, capital guns, siege mod, triage etc. etc. Getting into a ship =/= being able to use it. No the issue I had was you using a graph of hp claiming that to be the perfect reason to increase training times on ships. It makes as much sense as claiming battlecruisers do more dps than hacs therefore they should cost more than hacs. Regardless of if what your arguing for is right or wrong your logic is just non-sense
It was a simplified and crude graph showing the justification of retaining the battleship V training. |
Xervish Krin
Shiva Furnace
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:48:00 -
[848] - Quote
This looks good. However much people whine about classes and everything being too fair, the fact is that redundant ships are bad. Right now the crappy ones are just not flown. They aren't an affordable-but-not-as-effective alternative with the advantages of price, they're just never used. The Harbinger isn't a level of progression over a Prophecy; you simply never see Prophecies at all because there's no reason not to take the Harb. Give every ship a viable purpose and you'll see more tactics, more skills, more fits and a better game. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Bringers of Death.
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:52:00 -
[849] - Quote
Thinking about my initial proposal on page 28, there is even a more elegant way:
Tech I - Generic Hull Size Skills: Frigates - Rank 1 Destroyers - Rank 2 Cruisers - Rank 2 Battlecruisers - Rank 3 Battleships - Rank 3
Tech I - Race Skills: Amarr Small Spaceships - Rank 1 Amarr Medium Spaceships - Rank 3 Amarr Large Spaceships - Rank 5
Tech II - Specialized Role Skills: Interceptors - Rank 3 Heavy Assault Ships - Rank 4 Logistics - Rank 4 Black Ops - Rank 7
Tech II - Racial Skills: Advanced Amarr Small Spaceships - Rank 1 Advanced Amarr Medium Spaceships - Rank 2 Advanced Amarr Large Spaceships - Rank 3
Each ship could have the bonuses tied directly to the skills like Vexor Cruiser Skill: +5% Hybrid Damage (more generic medium hull bonus) Gallente Medium Spaceships: 10% Drone HP & damage (Gallentean style bonus)
Ishtar Cruiser Skill: +5% Hybrid Damage Gallente Medium Spaceships: 10% Drone HP & damage Heavy Assault Ships: +5km Drone Control Range (special role bonus) Advanced Gallente Medium Spaceships: +50m-¦ Drone Bay
Conversion:
Much easier now. A racial Cruiser skill is just split up: Amarr Cruiser V becomes Amarr Medium Spaceships V + Cruisers V and so on...
If a character has trained more than one Cruiser skill, this will leave some free SP.
If someone has trained T2-skills, they are also split into a generic and a racial component:
Logistics V becomes Logistics V (now rank 3) + Advanced Amarr Medium Spaceships V. If a character could fly 2 different Logistics before the change, he'll need 2 Racial skills now. Which are in the sum more expensive.
But since every T2-ship requires the appropriate lvl V T1-skill, the exact same skill progress CAN ALWAYS BE BOUGHT WITHOUT EXTRA SKILL POINTS.
Example:
old: Amarr Cruiser V - 1.280.000 SP Gallente Cruiser V - 1.280.000 SP Logistics V - 1.536.000 SP total: 4.096.000 SP
new: Amarr Medium Spaceships V - 768.000 SP Gallente Medium Spaceships V - 768.000 SP Cruisers V - 512.000 SP Logistics V - 1.024.000 SP Amarr Advanced Medium Spaceships V - 512.000 SP Gallente Advanced Medium Spaceships V - 512.000 SP total: 4.096.000 SP
If a pilot has lower T2 than T1 skills, there will be unassigned SP left (but less than in my previous proposal). Cross-training T1 becomes easier while cross-training T2 becomes harder. The total number of skill ranks in Spaceship Command stays roughly the same (only Battlecruiser, Interdictors & Command Ship Skills would be easier to learn - they are not split up an would have a higher rank than their bigger counterparts which is not in line with the other skills). |
Morar Santee
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:53:00 -
[850] - Quote
Xervish Krin wrote:This looks good. However much people whine about classes and everything being too fair, the fact is that redundant ships are bad. Right now the crappy ones are just not flown. They aren't an affordable-but-not-as-effective alternative with the advantages of price, they're just never used. The Harbinger isn't a level of progression over a Prophecy; you simply never see Prophecies at all because there's no reason not to take the Harb. Give every ship a viable purpose and you'll see more tactics, more skills, more fits and a better game.
Yes. Except with the proposed changes, every ship will have one role, slot layout for one role, and therefore only one viable fit for its role.
You are advocating to fix a problem in diversity by by forcing everyone to fly one ship with one fit for one role. If you don't see the problem there, you can't be helped.
The solution is to apply a sensible fix to the ships that are currently not used because they are not in line with the other ships in their class. |
|
Texty
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:56:00 -
[851] - Quote
So, is it a good idea to skill up my BC3 and DD2 to V ASAP? >,> |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:58:00 -
[852] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote: Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.
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 snap. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
372
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:58:00 -
[853] - Quote
Let me ask a specific example.
I have BC trained to V. I fly Hurricane and Drakes perfectly.
Now, here comes the catch:
1) The dev blog has to be fallacious. How is it possible I get free SP reimbursement equivalent to 3 x BC V? I will only believe when I'll see it. If I get 4 x BC V "just because" then it's very discriminating to those who didn't train to BC V by the day the patch goes live.
2) If I don't get the reimbursement but just "the ability to fly" (free skill book + BC trained to 1?), then it's garbage. I fly my BCs perfectly I don't want to waste months just to fly again the same ships I own since years already with the same ability.
Also it clashes with the "you will still fly blah blah".
So, I'd like to know how do they plan to achieve fairness both in case 1 and 2. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave Blaumeise
The Executives Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:59:00 -
[854] - Quote
I don't like these changes very much.
It's the same as with the missile name change. Streamlining is clearly better to understand for new player, but a mix of names, usefullness and even messed up stuff is EVE making a game that has more "charme" as it feels more like reality. E.g. in RL we have the metric and the sae system for measurements, for nuts and bolts. We have different wieght systems. And so on. This is what reality makes.
Having everything streamlined is making EVE a bit sterile.
And like someone said already: isn't it OUR job to find a role for the ships?
|
SkyMeetFire
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:00:00 -
[855] - Quote
One issue I have with splitting the destroyer and battlecruiser skills up is that while every current player will likely be reimbursed fairly, you are making new players overcome a larger barrier to cross training then older players. I'm not sure I like the fact that you give older players an even greater advantage on newer players. I do feel that increasing the number of viable ship types per class might help alleviate the need to cross train however, and might make this disparity less noticeable. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
972
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:00:00 -
[856] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Let me ask a specific example.
I have BC trained to V. I fly Hurricane and Drakes perfectly.
Now, here comes the catch:
1) The dev blog has to be fallacious. How is it possible I get free SP reimbursement equivalent to 3 x BC V? I will only believe when I'll see it. If I get 4 x BC V "just because" then it's very discriminating to those who didn't train to BC V by the day the patch goes live.
2) If I don't get the reimbursement but just "the ability to fly" (free skill book + BC trained to 1?), then it's garbage. I fly my BCs perfectly I don't want to waste months just to fly again the same ships I own since years already with the same ability.
Also it clashes with the "you will still fly blah blah".
So, I'd like to know how do they plan to achieve fairness both in case 1 and 2.
They have already specifically stated how this will be handled. Stop the QQ and focus on real issues.
-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
|
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:01:00 -
[857] - Quote
In case this hasn't already been pointed out, I'll mention it here.
If indeed you are going to take players through each class of ship to level 4 before allowing them to train for the next class up, you're going to need more destroyers. A single hull just isn't going to cut it anymore |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:01:00 -
[858] - 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. tbh, I don't want all four variations at 5. I only fly Minnie ships and they would be wasted skills. VoV
Nice devblog. only comment that I can think of is:
Keep the carrier skills at the high level. There are already too many carrier pilots in game and even cutting 30days off training time is too much. Besides, BS V should be a requirement to fly a massive ship like a carrier.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1119
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:03:00 -
[859] - Quote
Aside from the few legitimate issues (how Jump Freighters and BS 5 will be handled) this entire thread reads like "If illiteracy and deliberately obtuse had a love child, what would it look like?" 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. |
Kagumichan
Deorbit Burners Broken Chains Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:03:00 -
[860] - Quote
This has probably already been mentioned/questioned/answered but (i'm too lazy to go through 40+ pages of shouting to find a legible answer :P) there's this one thing that's nagging me
I understand that the battlecruiser skill is breaking into 4 racial battlecruiser skills and anyone who has it trained will be reinbursed in some way (Only viable way I can foresee is that everyone who has it trained automatically get's all 4 racial versions pre-trained when the change comes in, at the level their original skill was at.
However, with the new 'streamlined' ship training including battlecruiser as a requirement for battleship piloting, then if some of us have not trained the battlecruiser skill at all or enough before the changes are made then the reinbursement would result in them not having the correct battlecruiser skill trained to use the battleship that they may have been flying for years
E.g: Current skill tree works as Amarr Frigate Amarr Cruiser Amarr Battleship With no battlecruiser skill trained the pilot can still fly an Abaddo
New skill tree would mean suddenly they couldn't fly that Abaddon, unless of course the reinbursement took into account that the pilot could already fly a ship larger than the new skill tree would allow and therefore reinburse that pilot with the minimum skill requirement for battlecruiser in order to continue to use their battleship.
This would mean that pilot would receive a large sum of free SP that others would not with the reinbursement
In closing though, the current skill tree does make sense to a certain degree, frigates and destroyers use small modules, the frigate skill would teach the pilot basic use of 'small' ship, so having to learn destroyer wouldn't really be needed to advance to a cruiser, in the same sense a battlecruiser is simply a cruiser with more armour and guns (hence *battle*cruiser), it's not necessarily a step up from a cruiser theoretically since it still uses the same modules. You need a basic driving licence to drive any car, be it a front wheel drive Toyota Prias or a 4 wheel drive Mitsubishi Shogun, but you need to gain a truck licence to drive a truck, so then frigate skill is learning to fly a little ship, and destroyer skill is getting a bit of a run-down on how to fly a little ship with a big engine
(sorry for the long message XD) |
|
Laura Dexx
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:08:00 -
[861] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Laura Dexx wrote: Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.
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 snap.
Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1126
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:11:00 -
[862] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Laura Dexx wrote: Bullshit. Not a single word was uttered about replacing the skill training gap, merely REDUCING.
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 snap. Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't.
Last time I checked, Capital Ships were still ships.... 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. |
Luvvin McHunt
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:11:00 -
[863] - Quote
CCP - The opposite direction would have been much better.
One frigate book, one cruiser book and one battleship book - Just how Destroyers and Battlecruisers are at the moment.
That would have been a progressive move, allowing people a greater choice of ships to choose and try before they dedicate their training to the relevant support skills for the one they decide to use in the end.
The way it is at the moment with Battleships as an example:
Train Amarr Frigs a few days , Amarr Cruisers a few days , Amarr Battlehips a few days only to realize - OMG the Abaddon is a bricky, slow piece of crap and my cap skills are too low for it to shoot for more than 2 minutes. One week wasted :(
OK Start again , NEXT - Gallente frigs, cruiser etc etc etc
How applying this bad idea to BC's and Destroyers can be perceived as a step in the right direction is beyond me.
This just creates the same skill training hurdles for new players that removal of learning skills was supposed to remove. Why are CCP countering their own change which was designed to help lessen the gap between older players SP and newer players catching up???? Remove training hurdle - add training hurdle. Think about it CCP. You are undoing previous work. |
Hanbali
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:12:00 -
[864] - Quote
Way too late in the game to be introducing crap like this. |
Chiralos
Merchant Princes
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:13:00 -
[865] - Quote
I salute your willingness to consider changes to old and deeply rooted game design. I really like that you are putting serious effort into making sure ships are not completely overshadowed by "higher level" ships. EVE is not a 60-hour single player game with multiplayer tacked on, so it shouldn't have the skill and gear progression of such.
I like the idea that T2 ships are about specialisation, not just about being "higher level". Ideally there should be occasions for choosing a T1 over T2 that are not just based on cost. That may be too hard though, given player's current expectations of T2 ships. |
Rogatien Soldier
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:14:00 -
[866] - Quote
Train BC V in 20 days now, or train 4x BC V in 80 days later...
Sucks4futureNoobs.
Know what's going in MY queue tonight. |
Rogatien Soldier
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:14:00 -
[867] - Quote
ALSO, need to refund all SP for any pre-req skills if they are removed from any ship's pre-req list. Even if the associated ship isn't trained.
So if SigAnalysis V is, hypothetically no longer a pre-req for Logi, then ANYBODY who has Sig Analysis V should be refunded those SP.
Or else the dude who just spent 6 months on an int-mem remap (ahem...) training pre-reqs for all sorts of ships is getting F'd. |
Cyprus Black
Cowboy Diplomacy
155
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:15:00 -
[868] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
This bit of clarity was necessary. The dev blog sort of hinted at that, but it wasn't clear one way or another. CCP Ytterbium wrote: BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome. I'm all for these changes regarding freighters and jump freighters. I *would* be ok with this change for the capitals as well, however they're a problem in their current state. A handful of them aren't a concern, but the mass proliferation of them and the vast distances they can project themselves is. As it stands many nullsec alliances carry the stance of "Go capital or go home". Reducing the training required to fly one could reinforce this common stance.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up. I can only speak for myself, but the CSM is of no concern. They're made up of members voted in by nullsec power blocks. They represent nullsec and push issues that affect them. They pay little mind to how their issues will affect the rest of the universe. The CSMs speak for their voters, not for the general playerbase (and FYI yes I did vote last election).
Follow my EvE blog at: http://cyprusblack.blogspot.com/ |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:15:00 -
[869] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote: Show me where they said it would affect capitals. Show me where they said they would offset the training time for capitals. You can't.
"reducing training requirements for various ship classes is not a side-effect we are necessarily happy with. That is why we want to introduce new skills, tied with the new concept of ship lines."
Pretty sure that comment can only be directed and the one class that did have a major reduced training time. capitals. Woooooo |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
248
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:16:00 -
[870] - Quote
I officially name this: Skillgate Stuff Goes here |
|
Ragnar STS
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:17:00 -
[871] - Quote
I would like to officially say that I do NOT want these changes. It is currently complicated...such is eve. I really don't see much problem with the way it is set up now.
The only real stupidity that I would like changed is Jump Freighter/Freighter and Carriers. Seriously....if a person needs to move a pair of fit/rigged ships...they should need to train up drone and fighter skills, and other modules and such to fly a carrier. They should use a simple cargo hauler....for cargo.
Carriers could still take ships...but perhaps put pilots in them. How nice would that be...drop a carrier with a squad of people inside it that can then undock. That would be worth training for... |
David Rivard
Republic University Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:18:00 -
[872] - Quote
This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.
This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1131
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:18:00 -
[873] - Quote
Mr LaForge wrote:I officially name this: Skillgate
Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. 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. |
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
113
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:19:00 -
[874] - Quote
This skill change has got to be one of the stupidest things I have EVER heard a game company propose.
Seriously. This is game suicide.
I have been thinking for the last hour trying to come up with one thing, anything at all, that would justify this. One improvement to the game, one benefit to new or veteran players, anything that will overshadow the legion of rage quiting subscribers. The only thing I can come up with is that the skill trees will look nicer on some flowchart.
There is no nice way to say this, so I will be blunt:
Fire whoever it is that came up with this. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1131
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:19:00 -
[875] - Quote
David Rivard wrote:This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.
This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle.
I take it you haven't flown a destroyer lately. 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. |
Indy Rider
Lapse Of Sanity Exhale.
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:20:00 -
[876] - Quote
I'm liking the changes so far.
Unless I'm not 100% clear on how this change is going to happen, say I have BCV, which will then turn into each racial BC 5. What happens if someone doesn't have the prerequisite skills for that racial BC? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1131
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:20:00 -
[877] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:This skill change has got to be one of the stupidest things I have EVER heard a game company propose.
Seriously. This is game suicide.
I have been thinking for the last hour trying to come up with one thing, anything at all, that would justify this. One improvement to the game, one benefit to new or veteran players, anything that will overshadow the legion of rage quiting subscribers. The only thing I can come up with is that the skill trees will look nicer on some flowchart.
There is no nice way to say this, so I will be blunt:
Fire whoever it is that came up with this.
I too hate large boosts to my skill point level.
Get a rope. 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. |
David Rivard
Republic University Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:21:00 -
[878] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:David Rivard wrote:This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.
This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle. I take it you haven't flown a destroyer lately. No, and it's true they're supposed to be better now, but I made a conscious decision not to train them in favor of other ships. I shouldn't be forced to train an offshoot of frigates just to fly cruisers. |
None ofthe Above
111
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:26:00 -
[879] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium,
I do think you deserve credit for what you where trying to do here. You put a lot of effort into explaining your viewpoint and putting out an impressive dev blog.
It came off as a little rushed, but that wasn't really the issue.
As a suggestion, move more in the direction of a "Request for Comments" as opposed to "This is generally what's coming down the pike, even if we've not worked out all the little details" tone. (Even if it's a lie. It'll be better received and gives you room to backtrack later.) And lead with the good news... tiercide in this case.
On the bright side, you got a crap-ton of feedback in record time.
Two step wrote: I don't blame you *at all*. I have requested (and been denied) that CSM be part of the Dev blog review process. This blog is proof that some thought should be paid to that suggestion.
Seems wise. I understand that CCP may want to get stuff out quick and its a pain to run things by the CSM first, but an outsiders view could help A LOT. When you are all invested and living an issue, its easy to loose touch with how it will be perceived by some one looking at it with fresh eyes. I admit to falling prey to that on occasion myself.
The Mittani wrote: Dude, we talked about some of this stuff at the summit, it's not like it came out of nowhere. I appreciate the apology but there's no need to fall on your sword like this in front of everyone. It's fine.
It's a planning blog, and an interesting one - I'd have enjoyed seeing a draft, but it's not like the anomaly nerf which was HERE IS A CHANGE IT IS IN THE GAME HA HA. Since things are still in the design stages we remain in 'feedback land' instead of 'it is on TQ and you are screwed' land.
Agreed fully on that last paragraph.
I do see some foreshadowing of what this blog is presenting in the CSM Minutes. Was the racial split for Destroyer/Battlecruiser discussed with CSM prior? Can it be discussed now what the CSM's reaction to that was?
Anyway, I do hope the racial split on these skills is reconsidered. I don't think the (questionable?) benefits are worth the disruption.
I do love the tiercide idea, particularly if its done by small buffs to the currently useless ships. Still not a fan of nerfing or "refocusing" currently working ships. (Although some tweaks might work, like moving one hull bonus to cruiser makes sense to me on BCs.)
Dropping most requirements from 5 to 4 also makes a fair amount of sense. Particularly in the Coveter's case. Not quite as sure about the BS 5 -> 4 for Capitals though, sounds like there is pros and cons to that one.
Just the idea that you are working on ship balance is worth applauding, although as its a hugely tricky thing it needs a lot of testing and feedback. Do please rely on the CSM for the first response and the community to fine tune.
I hope this spergfest of a response to your blog is in the end encouraging, you are working on something that people care a lot about. Just keep poasting! We can work this out together.
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1131
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:29:00 -
[880] - Quote
David Rivard wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:David Rivard wrote:This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.
This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle. I take it you haven't flown a destroyer lately. No, and it's true they're supposed to be better now, but I made a conscious decision not to train them in favor of other ships. I shouldn't be forced to train an offshoot of frigates just to fly cruisers.
Just like you shouldn't be forced to train for a Cruiser before you can fly a Battle Cruiser... except you are.... and that somehow makes sense to you... but not this...
Seriously? 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. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1131
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:32:00 -
[881] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:David Rivard wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:David Rivard wrote:This is really a shameless way of making is spend way too much time training ships. I never used, don't even have the skill trained for, destroyers. I am NOT going to waste my time and patience training a ship I will never use, just to get into ships that are remotely useful.
This is a few dozen steps backward and must be scrapped. I have seen a multitude of bad ideas from CCP, and this ranks up there with the monocle. I take it you haven't flown a destroyer lately. No, and it's true they're supposed to be better now, but I made a conscious decision not to train them in favor of other ships. I shouldn't be forced to train an offshoot of frigates just to fly cruisers. Just like you shouldn't be forced to train for a Cruiser before you can fly a Battle Cruiser... except you are.... and that somehow makes sense to you... but not this... Seriously?
By the way, if you can currently fly cruisers, you won't have to worry about it to begin with. 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. |
Luvvin McHunt
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:33:00 -
[882] - Quote
PLZ - call the patch that these changes are in.
INCARNA 2.0
And add another statue to Jita. It will be needed.
|
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:35:00 -
[883] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mr LaForge wrote:I officially name this: Skillgate Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold.
This is a huge benefit for veteran players. And depending on how they work the skill changeover, it could be an even bigger hidden buff. -- if they just give us a reimbursement of SP to let us train all 4 (for example) battlecruiser skills to 5, I could instead apply those SP to something non-spaceship command related (since my attributes are tweaked to make that stuff train fastest right now) and then retrain the the BC skills myself. I haven't done the math, but it my head it feels like that would work. As much as I love that scenario, I have to say, in the interests of keeping things fair that they should just give us the racial skills at whatever level we had the other skill at instead of straight SP.
But regardless of potential hidden buffs to vets, I'm thankful they came out and explicitly stated that I'll still be able to fly the same ships post patch day with just as much skill as before.
HOWEVER comma
My present (and any future) alts, not to mention new players, can really only see this as a nerf I think. Sure, everything will be quite a bit more intuitive now, and I'm all for that, but it'll also take those newer characters 4 times as long to crosstrain to the extent that I have. My friends already complain about the huge gap in SP from their new characters to my ancient ones, and this won't help matters. When all is said and done I don't think it'll be the straw that broke the camel's back, or anything, but it won't give me any extra ammunition for getting them to jump on board.
On another note - did they say this was only applying to the T1 versions and not to the T2 versions? (Inty, Logi, Black Ops, etc)
|
Astomichi
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:35:00 -
[884] - Quote
No to the skill changes. The only real reason for most of the proposed changes is "to make the numbers nice." The capitals requiring BS4 instead of 5 just because that's what other class progressions require shows that you care more about pretty numbers than about balanced gameplay.
With regards to the Dictor/BC skill changes, I think these are simply not in the interest of "fun." Historically, the unique nature of these ship classes has allowed players to experiment relatively cheaply and try different things before specializing. Removing this opportunity makes it (even more) imperative that new players min/max for the correct ship classes right from the start to be effective.
Can you articulate any specific gameplay reasons behind these changes, or is it all just about making your graphs look cleaner? Pretty graphs do not equal fun, balanced gameplay in and of themselves, and the focus on them instead of on changes backed by real problems is wrong-headed. Leave the skill tree alone.
The ship changes themselves sound like they have potential, but it will of course depend on the implementation. |
Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:35:00 -
[885] - Quote
Stop your whining about skill training ffs - it's just a few extra days/weeks and once it's done you never have to train it again :D
I really think the EvE ship hierarchy could do with a big shakeup and this sounds great. There are just too many hulls currently underused because they have nothing special to offer. Each ship should be different - personally, I'd prefer it if they were unique.
I'm also in favour of making stuff take longer to train. At the moment people skip flying entire ship classes because in a few days they can leapfrog them and jump into a bigger ship. Bigger ISNT better but you only realise that after you've trained madly to get into a BS and then realise it's just another ship and no more fun than a cruiser or BC.
CCP should decide how it wants people to train/fly ships and organise the hierarchy accordingly. I've always felt specialisation should be essential early on and then once you can fly T2 in your chosen class you can start to diversify.
Also, currently it's so easy to cross-train races that whichever race is currently FOTM (e.g Winmatar for as long as I can remember) ends up being trained by the majority of new pilots - whatever their own race. I never really understood why Destroyer and BC skills were cross-race while Frigate, Cruiser and BS skills are race specific so bringing them all together consistently sounds sensible.
Even if it meant having to train skills again I'd be happy to if I felt the changes would result in more logically consistent hierarchy in which EVERY ship has a USEFUL role to play.
Please don't forget to take a look at those ships which are currently one step away from only being good for reprocessing.
E.g. Prophecy, Cyclone, Eagle, Hyena, Rook
to name a few...
Why are people so afraid of a little change? Especially when it's going to impact SPACESHIPS rather than CQ.
Sheesh - What a bunch of moody grumpy whiners some of you are! |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:36:00 -
[886] - Quote
Do you really plan to introduce tech 2 capitals? If no, why reserve lvl 5 battleship for t2 and drop capital requirement to bs4
It takes 30+ million SP to fly a capital properly (except freighter), I can see no benefit training a few skills 30 days earlier. Except for characters that have no business flying them yet. And I have 5 capital chars, some of whom just now start crosstraining other racial caps (so I would actually benefit a lot from dropping the BS 5 requirements)
Also, why are skills for tech 2 ships "confusing"? I mean, there is a requirements tab. You click it, it lists them. You train them, you happy. If you are incapable of doing that, fly tech 1. A lot more tech 2 ships should have "outside" requirements like for example Recon Ships has with Signature Analysis and Long Range Targeting. Want tech 2, get proper skills. It's not a concept that caused any problems for the last 7-ish years. Why change it
Like the "generic t1" ship skills changes for destroyers / battlecruisers. Although I am unsure how you want to fix that without locking someone out of a current ships I can fly Minmatar and Gallente battlecruisers with BC5. Does that mean I'll get two BC skills at 5? For "the price of one" Should I hurry training the other 2 cruisers skills to 3, so I'll get 4 BC skills at 5 for the one that will be removed
The direction of the changes is good. But reducing training time is bad. As is trying to avoid any possible fallout. There will be fallout, embrace it, own it. Having a character that can fly a cap, or a command ship adds "worth" to your corporation because you can't just vat grow them. It takes time Just like asset-logistics are value-adding since there is no npc teleportation service. The same applies to chars. Want to fly caps, which I regard as a specialization, than you get less diversity for more time. That's just how it is, and should continue to be. |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:38:00 -
[887] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mr LaForge wrote:I officially name this: Skillgate Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold.
It was a joke. It could be Incarnagate Pt 2 Stuff Goes here |
Morar Santee
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:40:00 -
[888] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mr LaForge wrote:I officially name this: Skillgate Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold.
Yes. Introducing artificial barriers and circumventing the protest (and lost subscriptions) of veteran players by "reimbursing" them is the way to go. |
beor oranes
Nex Exercitus Raiden.
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:43:00 -
[889] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
I must admit once I read the blog I was thinking that if I have to retrain 3 out of the 4 again I would be seriously miffed.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
While I can see that having BS to IV for capitals would fit in with the other classes to get to the next size but this would mean that you will be able to get into a carrier, dread or supercarrier way too soon and easy. Consistency is good in general but this is a really stupid idea. Capital proliferation is already bad enough this will just make it worse (yes I know I am in a very super cap heavy alliance, but its still true).
If this does happen can we petition to get our BS V skill that we have trained refunded to us?! Cos I would quite like to put that training time into something else then. And at the same time change the requirements for supercarriers from III to V. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1137
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:43:00 -
[890] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Do you really plan to introduce tech 2 capitals? If no, why reserve lvl 5 battleship for t2 and drop capital requirement to bs4
It takes 30+ million SP to fly a capital properly (except freighter), I can see no benefit training a few skills 30 days earlier. Except for characters that have no business flying them yet. And I have 5 capital chars, some of whom just now start crosstraining other racial caps (so I would actually benefit a lot from dropping the BS 5 requirements)
Also, why are skills for tech 2 ships "confusing"? I mean, there is a requirements tab. You click it, it lists them. You train them, you happy. If you are incapable of doing that, fly tech 1. A lot more tech 2 ships should have "outside" requirements like for example Recon Ships has with Signature Analysis and Long Range Targeting. Want tech 2, get proper skills. It's not a concept that caused any problems for the last 7-ish years. Why change it
Like the "generic t1" ship skills changes for destroyers / battlecruisers. Although I am unsure how you want to fix that without locking someone out of a current ships I can fly Minmatar and Gallente battlecruisers with BC5. Does that mean I'll get two BC skills at 5? For "the price of one" Should I hurry training the other 2 cruisers skills to 3, so I'll get 4 BC skills at 5 for the one that will be removed
The direction of the changes is good. But reducing training time is bad. As is trying to avoid any possible fallout. There will be fallout, embrace it, own it. Having a character that can fly a cap, or a command ship adds "worth" to your corporation because you can't just vat grow them. It takes time Just like asset-logistics are value-adding since there is no npc teleportation service. The same applies to chars. Want to fly caps, which I regard as a specialization, than you get less diversity for more time. That's just how it is, and should continue to be.
Good post.
The only thing I'd worry about is getting all of the BC types trained up before the change, remember, if you can fly it before the update you'll be able to fly it afterwards as well.
The BS 5 issue is worthy of debate, however keep in mind they were also considering some new skills being introduced to even out the shorter training time issue is some cases. 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. |
|
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:43:00 -
[891] - Quote
Cletus Graeme wrote: Also, currently it's so easy to cross-train races that whichever race is currently FOTM (e.g Winmatar for as long as I can remember) ends up being trained by the majority of new pilots - whatever their own race. I never really understood why Destroyer and BC skills were cross-race while Frigate, Cruiser and BS skills are race specific so bringing them all together consistently sounds sensible. !
This. A thousand times this.
Any Skillpoints you have in non-winmatar where already wasted. |
Yasumoto
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:44:00 -
[892] - Quote
What. Da. Phukk?
Not even going to bother reading through this CF of a threadnought. Forgot to involve the CSM because you were busy? Bullsh!t.
I wonder what other nasty tricks CCP has up its sleeve for post-Fanfest release. Remember CCP Greyscale's slick maneuver with the anomaly nerf last year? |
BlitZ Kotare
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:45:00 -
[893] - Quote
I'm not wading through 44 pages of posts about this topic before posting, I read about half the first page.
I like the "if you could fly it yesterday, you'll be able to fly it tomorrow" concession. It's very important that you have this idea in mind - games in the past like Diablo 2 rebalanced themselves without any player concessions and were always worse off for it. An MMO like EVE that is long-term and progression based (and long-term fee based too) should always keep this in mind.
This nicely tiered skill system would have been great if it had been implemented in the first place. It would have made a lot of sense. Now though, from what I can see, it's a pretty blatant revenue grab aimed at newer players. For instance, I have a perfect command ship pilot in my inventory of characters. He has BC V, every Leadership skill at V (except mining, lol) and is finishing up every Cruiser V so I can fly all 4 racial command ships.
It sounds like I'll be getting all 4 BC V's out of this deal, given the "if you could fly it, you'll still be able to" clause above, and have my Cruiser V's too since I actually trained those. But what about a new player that wants a leadership pilot? He doesn't have to train Cruiser V's anymore, (just to 4, for 4d each of wasted SP) but he has to train 4x BC skills to V, and if they're the same tier as the BC skill is now, that's an added ~7d each over the current requirement of Cruisers, for more than a month added to the total skillplan. It only gets worse if you step up to wanting to fly all 4 racial Black Ops or Marauders.
And before, my command ship pilot also got a lot of icing on his cake - with the training of a few simple support skills (Logi, Recon and Heavy Assault Ships) he also unlocked a giant pile of really neat T2 ships to play with. No longer will this be true.
This is right up there with messing with all my module names - your mucking with something that doesn't need fixing. The system works great, it's a little confusing for newbies but they figure it out pretty quickly - just like everything else in EVE.
Also, Ship Lines[/b
[b]What the hell? I can tell from the examples of the ships you gave for each group that you don't play your own game. The Ferox and Maller are not Combat Ships at all - the Maller is almost exclusively used as heavy tackle and the Ferox isn't used for anything by anyone (except bait) because it's so terrible. And the idea of Bobmardment ships "pinning the enemy down" with missile fire is laughable unless you plan on releasing some kind of warp scrambling/stasis webifying missiles (which would be completely broken and I don't recommend at all). There are other inconsistencies too..
I'm not saying I don't like the idea of ship roles, it's an interesting concept, but you might want to take the time to learn which ships already fill certain roles and make relevant roles to existing gameplay instead of rebalancing years of game knowledge out from beneath your players and inventing roles that aren't relevant to PvP in EVE.
|
Badezimmer Zerstorer
TERRIBLE EMO ALTS REGIME
78
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:45:00 -
[894] - Quote
You guys really need to hire a full time customer interaction expert to handle these reveals. You can't just without warning announce "We're changing EVERYTHING" and not expect people to freak out. Where are the dev posts that ask for feedback on whether or not we want any of this?
While I'm always for greater diversity in the game, part of that diversity means that quite a few ship types will suck under most circumstances. There is nothing wrong with that. If everyone you knew had a Ferrari, would yours be special? If everyone was equally smart and beautiful with great personality and character, wouldn't it be a bland and shallow world?
Not everything has to be awesome. If it was, then nothing would be awesome. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:46:00 -
[895] - Quote
Yeah, all this zero-sum reimbursement is crap. It's not like a dread-only chars got their drone skills reimbursed.
The game changes and skills that were needed / awesome yesterday, may be useless tomorrow. And relevant again the day after tomorrow. I get it, noone at CCP can afford to be the Dev that caused the next monoclegate. But don't drop your balls / ovaries at the office entrance either. |
Sloppy Podfarts
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:47:00 -
[896] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:This is AWESOME!
GO GO CC PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE |
Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:47:00 -
[897] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now.
SKILLS:
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. Will it be possible to opt out of receiving new skills we do not want? |
Percelus
Void.Tech BLACK-MARK
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:48:00 -
[898] - Quote
Like a lot of people, I have BC V and all the T2 weapons unlocked across the 4 races. I use it a lot too, and I need at least a couple of those for doctrine fits. If you suddenly screw me out of flying ships that I can already fly, I will be pissed off. Otherwise, I support a lot of the changes.
I would really like clarification that I won't need to train again to be at the current competency I enjoy with drakes, canes, myrms and harbs. If you can do that, I wouldn't be fretting now would I? But as things look, basically I'll be playing catchup for months after this goes live.
Months of training to do what we can already do is just ******. Promise us we won't have to and we'll sleep that much easier tonight, as your loyal customers you owe us that much I think. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1139
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:49:00 -
[899] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Mr LaForge wrote:I officially name this: Skillgate Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Yes. Introducing artificial barriers and circumventing the protest (and lost subscriptions) of veteran players by "reimbursing" them is the way to go.
What artificial barriers? You mean the same type of prerequisites that currently exist for every other ship class in the game?
I'll agree with the rest if by "reimbursing" you mean "infusing a huge amount of skill points into your character so that you lose absolutely nothing personally if you already have these skills trained but gain a more cohesive and logical progression path... and make useful a ton of currently useless ships". 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. |
S0mveraa
Isotope Laboratories The Laughing Men
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:53:00 -
[900] - Quote
I have alot of accounts, lets just say more then 5, all with lots and lots of SP. I don't use destroyers, for example, on any of them, OR assault ships. But i do use T3's and HAC's/Recons alot. On multiple races on allmost all of my characters. So if you implement it as was stated in this dev blog, i'll probably quit, 5 years was a good run i guess.
Oh wait, nevermind I want to train racial skills on alot of accounts now.... |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1139
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:54:00 -
[901] - Quote
Percelus wrote:Like a lot of people, I have BC V and all the T2 weapons unlocked across the 4 races. I use it a lot too, and I need at least a couple of those for doctrine fits. If you suddenly screw me out of flying ships that I can already fly, I will be pissed off. Otherwise, I support a lot of the changes.
I would really like clarification that I won't need to train again to be at the current competency I enjoy with drakes, canes, myrms and harbs. If you can do that, I wouldn't be fretting now would I? But as things look, basically I'll be playing catchup for months after this goes live.
Months of training to do what we can already do is just ******. Promise us we won't have to and we'll sleep that much easier tonight, as your loyal customers you owe us that much I think.
Just... go read the first post in this thread. Don't forget to follow the links. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1139
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:56:00 -
[902] - Quote
S0mveraa wrote:I have alot of accounts, lets just say more then 5, all with lots and lots of SP. I don't use destroyers, for example, on any of them, OR assault ships. But i do use T3's and HAC's/Recons alot. On multiple races on allmost all of my characters. So if you implement it as was stated in this dev blog, i'll probably quit, 5 years was a good run i guess.
Oh wait, nevermind I want to train racial skills on alot of accounts now....
You too. Go. Scoot. First post... read it. 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. |
Morar Santee
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:58:00 -
[903] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Morar Santee wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Mr LaForge wrote:I officially name this: Skillgate Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Yes. Introducing artificial barriers and circumventing the protest (and lost subscriptions) of veteran players by "reimbursing" them is the way to go. What artificial barriers? You mean the same type of prerequisites that currently exist for every other ship class in the game? I'll agree with the rest if by "reimbursing" you mean "infusing a huge amount of skill points into your character so that you lose absolutely nothing personally if you already have these skills trained but gain a more cohesive and logical progression path... and make useful a ton of currently useless ships". Yes. I'm sure new players will really appreciate a cohesive progression path that was not required for 10 years. But that multiplies time required to cross-train by 4 on at least 5 different ship-classes.
And even you as one of the most ******** CCP white-knighters have to realize that them messing with core game mechanics and re-balancing every single ship in the game is probably about as desirable as reading your forum posts. |
Orgasmadrone
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 01:59:00 -
[904] - Quote
Yasumoto wrote:What. Da. Phukk? Not even going to bother reading through this CF of a threadnought. Forgot to involve the CSM because you were busy? Bullsh!t. I wonder what other nasty tricks CCP has up its sleeve for post-Fanfest release. Remember CCP Greyscale's slick maneuver with the anomaly nerf last year?
What if I can't fly it today? Will I be able to fly it tomorrow? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:00:00 -
[905] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Yeah, all this zero-sum reimbursement is crap. It's not like a dread-only chars got their drone skills reimbursed.
The game changes and skills that were needed / awesome yesterday, may be useless tomorrow. And relevant again the day after tomorrow. I get it, noone at CCP can afford to be the Dev that caused the next monoclegate. But don't drop your balls / ovaries at the office entrance either. While related there is one large difference here. Dread pilots had SP they trained for drones become useless, but they could still get in their ships. If there was no compensation on this, multirace CS pilots wouldn't be able to do the same. |
GRIEV3R
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:01:00 -
[906] - Quote
I think a very relevant point to keep focused on is the issue of useless Tech 1 ships. There are several frigate and cruiser hulls in the current schema that are just not good for much of anything. As an example, let's say you're a new Gallente player. You are working on getting your first Myrmidon, but on the way you have to train cruisers, so you decide a Vexor would be a logical choice since it's a baby drone boat. So you hop in a Vexor and go about your merry way doing level 2s or dying in 0.0. But within a couple of weeks, you'll be able to fly a Myrmidon, and then you never, ever need to come back to a Vexor again. You may want to train for an Ishtar, but you can still fly your Myrmidon while you're doing that. There's never a reason to fly that Vexor ever again. That seems wasteful. I think this idea has the potential to change that situation, revitalizing the humble Tech 1 ships and giving veterans like myself a reason to step out of my Ishtar or Proteus or Vindicator, and come back and fly them. I think that potential should not get lost in all the QQ from people who can't read good and think The Man's gonna come take away their skills. |
Percelus
Void.Tech BLACK-MARK
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:03:00 -
[907] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Percelus wrote:Like a lot of people, I have BC V and all the T2 weapons unlocked across the 4 races. I use it a lot too, and I need at least a couple of those for doctrine fits. If you suddenly screw me out of flying ships that I can already fly, I will be pissed off. Otherwise, I support a lot of the changes.
I would really like clarification that I won't need to train again to be at the current competency I enjoy with drakes, canes, myrms and harbs. If you can do that, I wouldn't be fretting now would I? But as things look, basically I'll be playing catchup for months after this goes live.
Months of training to do what we can already do is just ******. Promise us we won't have to and we'll sleep that much easier tonight, as your loyal customers you owe us that much I think. Just... go read the first post in this thread. Don't forget to follow the links.
I hope so, if I have to spend even 1 minute training to do what I already can that is ******.
While you are looking at revamping SP, why not go with mittens suggestion of removing attribute implants. In fact, why not get rid of attributes all together. When PO copypasta'd the system their devs realized rather quickly how stupid attributes were and ripped them out. People will still be limited to SP/hr but it'll give more freedom to what a character can or can't do in an efficient manner. It would actually be a change that benefits new players who are more than anyone else hampered by attributes and carefully have to plan out that first year. |
Kayosoni
Destructive Influence Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:04:00 -
[908] - Quote
CCP: Please don't listen to the whiners in this thread. As someone who has played since beta, this is the most exciting blog I have read ever. I can't believe it took you guys 9 years to figure out the tier system is ******* stupid, but its good that you have.
Every size of ships should have a ship dedicated to those ship line roles you have outlined. For instance, (everyone knows im a BS diehard..) battleships as a whole have no cohesion at all in their roles, and are pretty crap compared to cruisers(bc specifically) these days. I think something along these lines makes sense for BS:
Ships of the line (fleet): Maelstrom, rokh, mega, abaddon.
These should be specialized for fleet warfare. tbh I think they should get 3 bonuses, but less mid/low slots (so they can't be used as true close rangers.)
Each should get a resist bonus, damage bonus, and tracking bonus. And a lot more EHP. probably like 50-75% more. Battleships still die too fast.
EW/support: scorp/dominix/arma/typhoon
Again, I think these should get 3 bonuses. 1 EW bonus. logistic bonuse, and a damage bonus. More ehp since they are also fleet ships. Uncrap the bs remote rep base ranges (like 20km or something instead of 5.)
scorp: please make sized ECMs. give scorp 30% ecm effect bonus, and BS remote shield rep effect bonus, railgun damage.
domi: damp bonus, remote armor effect, drone bonus (damps + drones = ????)
arma: tracking dis, remote armor effect, laser damage
typhoon: target paint, remote shield effect, missile damage.
Close range attack ships:
Raven/mega/tempest/apoc
Kinda like they are now. Just better for close range. same ehp. these should rely on their damage output. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1139
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:05:00 -
[909] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Morar Santee wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Mr LaForge wrote:I officially name this: Skillgate Odd name for the single biggest benefit CCP has bestowed upon veteran players since the game went gold. Yes. Introducing artificial barriers and circumventing the protest (and lost subscriptions) of veteran players by "reimbursing" them is the way to go. What artificial barriers? You mean the same type of prerequisites that currently exist for every other ship class in the game? I'll agree with the rest if by "reimbursing" you mean "infusing a huge amount of skill points into your character so that you lose absolutely nothing personally if you already have these skills trained but gain a more cohesive and logical progression path... and make useful a ton of currently useless ships". Yes. I'm sure new players will really appreciate a cohesive progression path that was not required for 10 years. But that multiplies time required to cross-train by 4 on at least 5 different ship-classes. And even you as one of the most ******** CCP white-knighters have to realize that them messing with core game mechanics and re-balancing every single ship in the game is probably about as desirable as reading your forum posts.
Considering that re-balancing the immense flock of currently useless ships has been one of the most sought after fixes to the game for years now, I take that as a compliment.
It's never too late to close loop holes and fix inconsistent design decisions.
By the way, cross training should be challenging, not a cheap fix to past decisions you made in your characters training plan. 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. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1012
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:07:00 -
[910] - Quote
Combat? Bombardment? Attack?
Here are the ship roles that emerge in actual gameplay: tackle, assault, sniper, siege, scout, bumper, ECM, logistics. Do people actually use Huginns and Celestises in combat? Missile boats are horrible for anything but assault or siege due to missile travel time.
Bombardment isn't about "pinning down" the enemy: there is no terrain to pin them down to. Well, aside from stations in which case you use bumpers to "unpin" the targets from.
A simple tier to role conversion would have, say, caracal rebalanced to assault or siege while the Moa is rebalanced for tackle or sniper work (or both, since the Onyx and Eagle are both based on this ship). Then there is the focus of ship class versus other ship class: tier3 BC vs battleships and supers for example. Destroyers versus frigates. Cruisers versus frigates, cruisers versus battleships. The focus of DPS versus tracking/range, tackle bonuses versus combat.
Probing needs work too, since sniper fleets are too easily countered. No more flying interceptors 200km through space when all you do is probe to get a warp able hit in 5 seconds and have the entire fleet moved at once.
But the fanciful roles indicated in the devblog don't sit quite right with actual gameplay. Sit and watch a few dozen hours of actual gameplay in all the different arenas, and draw roles out of what players are actually doing. Then devise the roles and suggest how that might work in actual gameplay. You do not pin enemies down with gunfire. You pin them with tacklers and bumpers. Snipers are like artillery only in terms of applying damage from a point removed from the firefight.
More later after I get to read the entire thread |
|
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:11:00 -
[911] - Quote
Late to the party, but some observations:
We already have some things like this in the game. Dessies and battlecruisers are already "combined" skills, where you have a racial hull requirement and a role requirement. T2s are similar. Where both of these are a bit silly is that the bonuses are derived from a single key skill - BCs and dessies require a racial hull minimum but ignore the actual level, while T2s require racial hull V so a "per skill level" requirement is a constant.
I really like the idea of giving each T1 hull dual pre-reqs, with racial hull and role skills. I'm not sure that destroyers and BCs necessarily need to be wedged directly into the progression - they could be considered as specialist hulls with a secondary role skill.
But in principle, I like where this is going.
Little concerned about some of the ship classifications. Dominix is classed as an assault hull, and drake as a bombardment hull. On current incarnation, I would put both of these as combat hulls. Specifically in the case of the drake, I'd prefer to see its mobility reduced and focus kept on an combat role, than see it repurposed into a bombardment hull. It's current bonuses to tank and damage vs range naturally put it in a combat role (and consider also the HAM drake, which certainly isn't a bombardment ship). Likewise, anything carrying heavy or sentry drones (eg Dominix) isn't really suited to high-mobility hit-and-run work.
Conversely, the existing bombardment hulls have issues, which I hope will be addressed as part of this. There are a few limited situations where a caracal will absolutely dominate, but in the general case it's a paper-thin tank and delayed DPS sitting at comfortable range for battleships. Ravens, also need some tweaks; seeing a pack of Ravens land at 200km should prompt a response of "either kill them or get out now" (a bit like stealth bombers decloaking), whereas they are currently a lesser threat than most other serious battleships.
It should be possible to turn the long flight time of missiles into a virtue - "There's a huge ball of death arriving in about 10 seconds" forces interesting tactical decisions. Taking mild damage after some delay doesn't; you deal with the nasty damage being applied now instead. Though buffing bombardment fire might create issues for missioning, where the NPCs don't really do much to counter it.
Finally, consider ways that most races can have hulls in most roles. I think it's good that races have clear strengths (eg Minmatar -> assault, Caldari -> bombardment, Amarr -> combat). I think it's poor when choosing a racial specialisation completely cuts you off.
Some ideas: - missile boats in at least combat (close range missiles, unbonused LR missiles) and bombardment (bonused LR missiles) roles, and perhaps CR assault boats also. - bombardment drone boats, with significant boosts to range and travel speed of heavy and/or sentry drones. |
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:12:00 -
[912] - Quote
Akara Ito wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours? This is my problem with this blog Skill lines sounds like an awfull euphenism for getting warrior ships, mage ships, shaman ships, etc Limiting ships to a single role is bullshit One of the great things about Eve is that you can fly every ship as you want PvP in Eve is often about finding a fitting that suits your need and getting effects out of ships that people dont expect
Have you even ever played a WoW-type MMO?
One of the things that 'killed' WoW over the years for me is that fact that there is a constant increase in homogenization. Homogenization is a bad, bad thing. Why, you ask?
Because homogenization means everybody picks the same ship. Because in a homogenized system, there's always going to be one ship that's better at everything than all the other ships. And what that one, best ship is, will change as balances are made; but as long as there's no specialization there will always be that flavor of the month. So you'll get blobs of one ship type, or very few ship types, similar to what we have now. And why do we have that now? Too little specialization.
Having specific roles is a good thing. It means the people who want to play a mage can play a mage, and the people who want to play a priest can play a priest. It gives everyone a viable place... rather than everyone rolling a paladin because they are the best at everything forever.
As for people going "Waah, waah, cross-specialization, waah!" Grow some bloody balls and rip off the bandaid. You'll get your SP and probably monetary cost of books refunded. Reapply those SP to the new skills (IF, and that's a big IF, you will even need to). |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:14:00 -
[913] - Quote
So to be clear, if you start training BC, Destroyers, HACs, HICs, Assault Ships, Command Ships, Logistics, Black Ops, Marauders, Covert Ops, Recon Ships, Interceptors, Interdictors, and Transport Ships to V, you will get all the racial variants at V when generic skill categories go away? Sounds like a good SP investment to me. Sorry cap guns... you will have to wait. 4x SP multiplier FTW!
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1139
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:15:00 -
[914] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Combat? Bombardment? Attack?
Here are the ship roles that emerge in actual gameplay: tackle, assault, sniper, siege, scout, bumper, ECM, logistics. Do people actually use Huginns and Celestises in combat? Missile boats are horrible for anything but assault or siege due to missile travel time.
Bombardment isn't about "pinning down" the enemy: there is no terrain to pin them down to. Well, aside from stations in which case you use bumpers to "unpin" the targets from.
A simple tier to role conversion would have, say, caracal rebalanced to assault or siege while the Moa is rebalanced for tackle or sniper work (or both, since the Onyx and Eagle are both based on this ship). Then there is the focus of ship class versus other ship class: tier3 BC vs battleships and supers for example. Destroyers versus frigates. Cruisers versus frigates, cruisers versus battleships. The focus of DPS versus tracking/range, tackle bonuses versus combat.
Probing needs work too, since sniper fleets are too easily countered. No more flying interceptors 200km through space when all you do is probe to get a warp able hit in 5 seconds and have the entire fleet moved at once.
But the fanciful roles indicated in the devblog don't sit quite right with actual gameplay. Sit and watch a few dozen hours of actual gameplay in all the different arenas, and draw roles out of what players are actually doing. Then devise the roles and suggest how that might work in actual gameplay. You do not pin enemies down with gunfire. You pin them with tacklers and bumpers. Snipers are like artillery only in terms of applying damage from a point removed from the firefight.
More later after I get to read the entire thread
Mara, I think he was trying to give people some examples people could loosely relate to real life vessels/tactics, not trying to reinvent EVE combat.
I'm willing to wait for more details on exactly how they want to break things down. 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. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2301
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:16:00 -
[915] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:By the way, cross training should be challenging, not a cheap fix to past decisions you made in your characters training plan.
timesinks aren't a "challenge", good god "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Morar Santee
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:18:00 -
[916] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Considering that re-balancing the immense flock of currently useless ships has been one of the most sought after fixes to the game for years now, I take that as a compliment. It's never too late to close loop holes and fix inconsistent design decisions. By the way, cross training should be challenging, not a cheap fix to past decisions you made in your characters training plan.
Yes. And instead they "re-balance" every single ship in the entire game. After they didn't manage to correctly balance half of the ships they introduced during the last ten years, which are not commonly used as a result. And then they make the game less appealing to new players. All in one go. Of course this is a ******* brilliant idea, 'cause "Ranger 1" said so.
But as always, you'll keep spouting the same ****, eventually disaster hits, and you are back in the next thread white-knighting like nothing happened. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1139
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:22:00 -
[917] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:By the way, cross training should be challenging, not a cheap fix to past decisions you made in your characters training plan. timesinks aren't a "challenge", good god
Correct. However the skill path you choose should have consequences, and not be one short skill away from changing entirely. One skill providing access to all races ships does just this in many respects, and somewhat renders those past choices pointless.
Make a sound skill plan and stick with it... and realize that if you decide to radically alter it's course it's going to take some time and effort.
Chasing the FOM is bad, making wise decisions is good.
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. |
Anah Karah
Drama Llamas
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:23:00 -
[918] - Quote
This is completely ******** like OMFG WTF are you doing to this game. How many times have people said 'if it is not broken do not try to fix it'
having non racial battlecruiser and destroyer etc skills is great because you dont need to train ANOTHER skill to get all the races. Having milestones like this is eve makes them worth training
If i have to train for another minute tho get to where i already am i am not going to be happy.
You really did well with crucible IMHO, please don't screw all that hard work sideways by destroying my favorite universe. Seriously Anah |
Yasumoto
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:23:00 -
[919] - Quote
Orgasmadrone wrote:Yasumoto wrote:What. Da. Phukk? Not even going to bother reading through this CF of a threadnought. Forgot to involve the CSM because you were busy? Bullsh!t. I wonder what other nasty tricks CCP has up its sleeve for post-Fanfest release. Remember CCP Greyscale's slick maneuver with the anomaly nerf last year? What if I can't fly it today? Will I be able to fly it tomorrow? <3 OD.
I simply do not like the lack of professionalism and arrogance portrayed by CeeCeePee personnel associated with this topic. This was a pre-FanFest rush-job and it shows.
|
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:23:00 -
[920] - Quote
There is 3 choises. Choose your poison as at least I can't see other options out there
1) They reimburse the removed skills points and people can redistribute then so, that you can fly 1 faction with same skill level like before. It will be same for everyone. Points can be also used to some totally unrelated skill. Some other remotely related spaceship skills could also be reimbursed on same go to prevent so called "wasted" points
2) They reimburse the removed skills points and people can redistribute then so, that everyone can fly all 4 factions with same skill level than before. In other words people get 4x refund from these skills. It will not be same for everyone as remaining training time will be 4x greater to those who didn't have the original skills at 5. Also 4x more points from 1 million is 4million and 4x more points from 0,5 million is 2million... In other words some people would get more points than others. Also in this case points can be used to some totally unrelated skill if preferred to do so. Some other remotely related spaceship skills could also be reimbursed on same go to prevent so called "wasted" points
3) Forced change. L5 clients get to fly all factions with max skills. Non maxed clients get to fly all factions with the skill level they had. Training time of individual new skills will be 4x shorter than before to make it even for all. Also in this case points can be used to some totally unrelated skill if preferred to do so. Some other remotely related spaceship skills could also be reimbursed on same go to prevent so called "wasted" points
Get |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1139
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:23:00 -
[921] - Quote
Quote:Of course this is a ******* brilliant idea, 'cause "Ranger 1" said so.
I knew you'd catch on sooner or later. 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. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2301
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:25:00 -
[922] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Andski wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:By the way, cross training should be challenging, not a cheap fix to past decisions you made in your characters training plan. timesinks aren't a "challenge", good god Correct. However the skill path you choose should have consequences, and not be one short skill away from changing entirely. One skill providing access to all races ships does just this in many respects, and somewhat renders those past choices pointless. Make a sound skill plan and stick with it... and realize that if you decide to radically alter it's course it's going to take some time and effort. Chasing the FOM is bad, making wise decisions is good.
reward the long in the tooth veterans and punish the newer players
hell yeah i like your philosophy "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Matuk Grymwal
Lapse Of Sanity Exhale.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:28:00 -
[923] - Quote
Nothing new to add, I'm just echoing the sentiments of many previous posters. I.e. I love the idea in principle, I just don't want to get totally boned when it comes to my current cross training. I have BC5 and CS5 and have cruiser cross training so I can fly all the amarr/matar/caldari BC hulls well. Being a multi-race specialist in BC hulls combined with leadership skills is THE PRIMARY schtick I have created for this char. I have over 80M SP and I can't fly caps on this toon, since I wanted to be awesome in sub-caps, and BC hulls in particular. After this change I would expect to still be able to fly all the same ships I can fly now, at the same skill level. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1143
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:30:00 -
[924] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Andski wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:By the way, cross training should be challenging, not a cheap fix to past decisions you made in your characters training plan. timesinks aren't a "challenge", good god Correct. However the skill path you choose should have consequences, and not be one short skill away from changing entirely. One skill providing access to all races ships does just this in many respects, and somewhat renders those past choices pointless. Make a sound skill plan and stick with it... and realize that if you decide to radically alter it's course it's going to take some time and effort. Chasing the FOM is bad, making wise decisions is good. reward the long in the tooth veterans and punish the newer players hell yeah i like your philosophy
Or to put it another way...
Making sure your veteran players lose nothing and make the skill progression sensible and consistent (finally) for new players.
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. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2301
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:32:00 -
[925] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Or to put it another way...
Making sure your veteran players lose nothing and make the skill progression sensible and consistent (finally) for new players.
i.e. make sure they sink far, far more time and money into subscriptions to train for ships "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:32:00 -
[926] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote: Yes. And instead they "re-balance" every single ship in the entire game. After they didn't manage to correctly balance half of the ships they introduced during the last ten years, which are not commonly used as a result. And then they make the game less appealing to new players. All in one go. Of course this is a ******* brilliant idea, 'cause "Ranger 1" said so.
How exactly does streamlining and simplification make the game less appealing to new players? |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:33:00 -
[927] - Quote
Don't pay too much attention to the (entirely predictable) shitstorm of whinging grognards. Any time you change how skills work you're going to have a different impact on vets and new players. I think it's appropriate to err on the side of favoring new players when this happens; the last thing you want is to give a huge bonus to the bittervets that newbies can't hope to gain. This is exactly what would happen if you translated BC 5 into racial BC 5 for each race--so don't do it.
Reimburse the skillpoints at a 1:1 ratio. This is already quite favorable to vets as you can dump those points into something you're mapped away from but would like to have now. If you really want to maintain the ability to fly each race's BC, you can buy level 4 in each racial skill.
I say this as someone who finished his first long skill grind last night--and yes, it was BC 5. Handing out each racial BC 5 to everyone who currently has BC 5 (to say nothing of those putting it in their queues after reading this devblog) would increase my skill point total by 25% of what it is now. Even so, I can tell it's a bad idea. |
Iris Bravemount
Aliastra Gallente Federation
63
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:33:00 -
[928] - Quote
Hi,
I love the idea of making every ship useful. Good luck with that CCP ! This is a very good idea, but will be hard to implement.
My few ideas about this :
- To settle the reimbursement debade, why don't you just reset ALL the spaceship command skills that will be modified, and allow players to spend the amount required to reach the exact same competency in space ship command skills as they please ? Radical, but people can't complain. All skills "uninjected" in the process could be given back to the players through the item redeeming menu. - Manufacturing prices and required skills will need to be adjusted too (yeah, that's obvious, but still). - Don't give up on your idea of pursuing every shipline from frigates to battleships (or even above ?). More ships is more awesomeness. Worth the trouble ! - The covetor should be a alot easier than the hulk to train for. ATM they are like 2 days apart. This feels broken. How about keeping the mining barge V prereq, but lowering the Astrogeology prereq to IV ?
Keep up the good work ! Improve weapon sound effects |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:36:00 -
[929] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
This I see as a failure of process, and of whoever is in charge of creating processes. ANY project that involves revamping an entrenched part of the game should at the very beginning have the CSM engaged. Not necessarily that they can provide input or review of what is being proposed, as it is likely still not formed at that point. The point is that the CSM would be aware of the project from the start, and could make inquiries of their own should they not get any further updates about it, so that there isn't a single point of failure in communication. This project is such a single point of failure in communication. It could have been avoided, not by relying on one person to remember to talk to the CSM, but by the failure to make sure that it didn't happen in the first place because of that. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1147
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:37:00 -
[930] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Or to put it another way...
Making sure your veteran players lose nothing and make the skill progression sensible and consistent (finally) for new players. i.e. make sure they sink far, far more time and money into subscriptions to train for ships
If they wish to cross train into a completely new line of ships, yes, it should take a while. That's kinda the whole point of how skill training through out the rest of the game is laid out, always has been. 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. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2304
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:40:00 -
[931] - Quote
Silath Slyver Silverpine wrote:Morar Santee wrote: Yes. And instead they "re-balance" every single ship in the entire game. After they didn't manage to correctly balance half of the ships they introduced during the last ten years, which are not commonly used as a result. And then they make the game less appealing to new players. All in one go. Of course this is a ******* brilliant idea, 'cause "Ranger 1" said so.
How exactly does streamlining and simplification make the game less appealing to new players?
Streamlining and simplification is the opposite of what they are doing - they are introducing four rank 6 skills to replace one.
I'm going to exclude a few prerequisites, but to train into an Astarte you currently need Gallente Cruiser V and Battlecruisers V. If you want to crosstrain into, say, a Sleipnir, you'll need to train Minmatar Cruiser V. Now you'll have Gallente Cruiser V and Gallente Battlecruiser V, but to crosstrain into a Sleipnir you'll have to grind another rank 5 skill to V, another rank 6 skill to V and the skills for the racial turrets.
That's not simplification, that's obfuscation.
See through the crap, please. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Sturmwolke
146
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:41:00 -
[932] - Quote
I'm generally positive towards the theme to streamline the ship lines. Loosing the Destroyer 5 multiracial aspect isn't much of a biggie - however, loosing the Battlecruiser 5 aspect eliminates 8 T1 hulls which have been maxed out. In addition, the biggest incentive to train BC5 has always been to be able to pilot all four races' Fleet/Field Command ships. I'm assuming this will be addressed.
Now, if I read the blog right, there are actually several changes that thrust into different areas besides the main smokescreen. The lowering of the bar (from L5 to L4) for both capital ship training and the Covetor mining barge. These will make lowsec/0.0 metagamers and macro/RMT botters very happy as it lowers their cost of operation. Really, I don't think the argument that it "benefits new players" or "to ensure consistency" holds a lot of water. Take a deeper look.
Lastly, I'm hoping that any future changes tabled (for the debuting Amarr fleet) will have some solid intelligence put into it. Suggestions that lead to BLANDNESS or IDIOTIC ideas (as per CCP Gnauton) will taste the fire.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:42:00 -
[933] - Quote
Gogela wrote:So to be clear, if you start training BC, Destroyers, HACs, HICs, Assault Ships, Command Ships, Logistics, Black Ops, Marauders, Covert Ops, Recon Ships, Interceptors, Interdictors, and Transport Ships to V, you will get all the racial variants at V when generic skill categories go away? Sounds like a good SP investment to me. Sorry cap guns... you will have to wait. 4x SP multiplier FTW! Need confirmation that tech 2 ship types will be split to racial variants as well. I seem to have missed that. |
Zye Ainxt
Moo corporation Reverberation Project
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:42:00 -
[934] - Quote
I like that your looking at evrything as whole instead of doing it peace meal. Keep that approach. i like the changes to the skill tree. But not the idea of giving out free sp for it. I don't care that much so i'll leave it at that. I don't like your idea of ship lines at all. This rock, paper, scissors approach is good to a point but it sounds like you want to take it too far. i don't want to undock, look on d-scan and start counting how many rocks are out there. Do you realy want to devolve this game to that. I like not knowing if a ship has a kiting fit or is an in your face brawler. And get rid of that bombardment catagory. Missiles for long range snipping? Realy? Are you planning on revamping how missiles work. What are you planning to do with artillery then? It would help if you broke this down into 2 blogs. Too many questions for 1 thread
|
Soldarius
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
175
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:45:00 -
[935] - Quote
Removing the tier based system has to be one of the best game-balance decisions CCP has ever made. It's a shame that so many ships sit around and never get used because the higher tier varients have completely obsoleted them. Switching to a role-based system will re-energize eve in so many ways.
The proposed reimbursement for BC and destroyer skills seems fair to me.
These changes are full of win. So looking forward to the Caldari discussion. I haven't trained any gunnery skills except AWU in over 2 years simply because there are so few Caldari ships that have any use for them. Perhaps now I will have a reason to train them. "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2304
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:45:00 -
[936] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Andski wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Or to put it another way...
Making sure your veteran players lose nothing and make the skill progression sensible and consistent (finally) for new players. i.e. make sure they sink far, far more time and money into subscriptions to train for ships If they wish to cross train into a completely new line of ships, yes, it should take a while. That's kinda the whole point of how skill training through out the rest of the game is laid out, always has been.
For the stupid nubs, yes, but for you? NO WAY. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andrea Griffin
173
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:49:00 -
[937] - Quote
Now that the SP concerns have been dealt with, I can't see anything bad about this at all. Let's do this! When can we expect to see the initial round of changes on Singularity? CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:51:00 -
[938] - Quote
So it sounds like all the tweaks previously made didn't make it right.
The question is, why do you think this overhaul will be any different from all previously made tweaks. It will break game for some and makes it more noobified. These types of things are designed from the beginning of the game not after years. Players have adapted themselves with own tactics and ship roles.
This is altering the game in a dramatic way. |
Vance Willett
Lost Star Technologies Wild-Cards
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:56:00 -
[939] - Quote
Will T2 generic skills be split into racials as well?
I would also like to point out that part of the fun and challenge of EVE is finding less than conventional ship fittings that suit the task at hand. So while a part of me would like to see some of those unused hulls find purpose again, I'm concerned that we'll end up with overspecialized ships with more limited usage. I'm particularly opposed to further specialization of T1 battlecruisers and battleships - we already have T2 ships for comparable specialization and pigeonholing those hulls doesn't get us anywhere good. In some ways, I think a part of the current problem is that we have too many ships. |
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:01:00 -
[940] - Quote
Andski wrote:[quote=Silath Slyver Silverpine][quote=Morar Santee] I'm going to exclude a few prerequisites, but to train into an Astarte you currently need Gallente Cruiser V and Battlecruisers V. If you want to crosstrain into, say, a Sleipnir, you'll need to train Minmatar Cruiser V. Now you'll have Gallente Cruiser V and Gallente Battlecruiser V, but to crosstrain into a Sleipnir you'll have to grind another rank 5 skill to V, another rank 6 skill to V and the skills for the racial turrets.
That's not simplification, that's obfuscation.
See through the crap, please.
More skills does not necessarily mean more complexity. Most new players are only looking to train their starting factions ships anyway, so the fact that destroyer and BC skills would (potentially) be brought in line with every other racial skill in the game is not additional complication.
But there's more to it than just the splitting up of dessy and BC skills (Which is 90% of what people are moaning about). There's a much more linear progression between ships in the proposed model, and tech 2 ships get a lot more of a sensible training plan.
Want to train a field command ship now? You've got to train Assault Ships, HAC's, Battlecruisers, Command ships, Frigates, and Cruisers. That's SIX different ship classes.
Want to train one after the changes? Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battlecruiser Command ships. Thats FIVE different classes. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1148
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:02:00 -
[941] - Quote
Andski wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Andski wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Or to put it another way...
Making sure your veteran players lose nothing and make the skill progression sensible and consistent (finally) for new players. i.e. make sure they sink far, far more time and money into subscriptions to train for ships If they wish to cross train into a completely new line of ships, yes, it should take a while. That's kinda the whole point of how skill training through out the rest of the game is laid out, always has been. For the stupid nubs, yes, but for you? NO WAY.
I could care less about having all 4 racial variants for Destroyers or BC's gifted to me. My enjoyment of EVE has very little to do with amassing as many skill points as possible, or as many different skills as quickly as I possibly can.
However, I can see other people feeling victimized if they lose access to ships they have already trained for, so I support the decision to go that route.
Newer players that do not have those skills already have loss.... literally.... nothing. They will need to make wiser decisions when they get to that point than older players had to, this is true. It is also true that newer players have significant advantages in gaining skill points compared to older players.
Before I forget:
Quote:That's not simplification, that's obfuscation.
See through the crap, please.
What you are referring to as obfuscation is EXACTLY the way skill progression works in all other aspects of the game currently. If you feel that one skill should grant access to all racial variants of any type of ship that is another matter entirely, one I will happily debate with you in another thread.
Until then give us one good reason why Destroyers and Battle Cruisers should be exempt from the same game design logic that all other ships in game follow.
You might also take a look at the post immediately above. 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. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:07:00 -
[942] - Quote
Andski wrote:Silath Slyver Silverpine wrote:Morar Santee wrote: Yes. And instead they "re-balance" every single ship in the entire game. After they didn't manage to correctly balance half of the ships they introduced during the last ten years, which are not commonly used as a result. And then they make the game less appealing to new players. All in one go. Of course this is a ******* brilliant idea, 'cause "Ranger 1" said so.
How exactly does streamlining and simplification make the game less appealing to new players? Streamlining and simplification is the opposite of what they are doing - they are introducing four rank 6 skills to replace one.I'm going to exclude a few prerequisites, but to train into an Astarte you currently need Gallente Cruiser V and Battlecruisers V. If you want to crosstrain into, say, a Sleipnir, you'll need to train Minmatar Cruiser V. Now you'll have Gallente Cruiser V and Gallente Battlecruiser V, but to crosstrain into a Sleipnir you'll have to grind another rank 5 skill to V, another rank 6 skill to V and the skills for the racial turrets. That's not simplification, that's obfuscation. See through the crap, please. Wouldn't it be "race" cruiser IV then "race" BC V for each Command ship as proposed? |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:07:00 -
[943] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: Newer players that do not have those skills already have lost.... literally.... nothing. They will need to make wiser decisions when they get to that point than older players had to, this is true. It is also true that newer players have significant advantages in gaining skill points compared to older players.
4x 1 million SP = 4 million SP 4x 0,5 million SP = 2 million SP
Player A gets 2 million more bonus SP than player B. Player B realizes this and goes kaboom.
Then next day player B realizes also that he needs 4x more training time to get to same point which A reached with 4x less effort. Then he goes helldeathkaboom.
Get |
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:09:00 -
[944] - Quote
Hi! I'm a new player.
I completely. Absolutely. Positively. Think this does nothing but **** new players in a ******* huge number of ways.
Thanks.
Cross-training, which was already quite difficult, just became even more mindnumbing/frustrating/stupid.
You keep saying you want to draw new people, and then do stuff like this.
The laughable part is the destroyers skill.
One ship per skill?
Bonus.
Again, thanks.
Have some rookie tears, CCP. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:11:00 -
[945] - Quote
[Crumples up paper, throws over shoulder] Well there goes my skill plan... BCV here I come! |
Harrigan VonStudly
The Generic Pirate Corporation
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:11:00 -
[946] - Quote
Just so I have this right.
There are many who think that it is ok to have to retrain what has already been planned, bought, and time spent training because we will be given the isk back and sp needed to retrain what we've already spec'd out and trained ALREADY ?
So you're ok with big brother (CCP) taking what you have already earned and making you do it over again because it's, well,m only a little bit of time? Am I reading right?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2307
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:12:00 -
[947] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Newer players that do not have those skills already have loss.... literally.... nothing. They will need to make wiser decisions when they get to that point than older players had to, this is true. It is also true that newer players have significant advantages in gaining skill points compared to older players.
No, not really. The removal of learning skills also came with the removal of the 5x learning boost. If you don't care about new players, or have some undeserved sense of entitlement because you've been playing longer, please be more forthcoming about it instead of beating around the bush.
For now, I'm just citing Malcanis' Law.
Ranger 1 wrote:Before I forget: Quote:That's not simplification, that's obfuscation.
See through the crap, please. What you are referring to as obfuscation is EXACTLY the way skill progression works in all other aspects of the game currently. If you feel that one skill should grant access to all racial variants of any type of ship that is another matter entirely, one I will happily debate with you in another thread. Until then give us one good reason why Destroyers and Battle Cruisers should be exempt from the same game design logic that all other ships in game follow. You might also take a look at the post immediately above.
So, by your logic, the following skills should be replaced with four ******* skills of equal rank:
Interceptors, Covert Ops, Interdictors, Electronic Attack Ships, Assault Ships, Transport Ships, Recon Ships, Heavy Interdictors, Logistics, Heavy Assault Ships, Black Ops, Marauders, Capital Ships
The Battlecruisers skill does not grant me the ability to fly every battlecruiser hull, it grants me the ability to fly the ones for which I have the racial cruiser skill level required. Just like I can't fly a Huginn and a Lachesis merely by training Recon - I still have to train both racial cruisers to 5. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Vance Willett
Lost Star Technologies Wild-Cards
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:12:00 -
[948] - Quote
It is my estimation, and I suspect many here would agree, that creativity is what makes EVE at its core fun. EVE is a sandbox game, and I at least would like to see changes which enable players to be more creative with what they have, rather than changes that force them to use X ship and Y module when encountering problem Z.
If you want to break down what made WoW suck, I think you could start with the following: - Linear gameplay and progression. - Spectacularly overpowered PVP classes (Rogues, Shamen, Druids, Paladins... probably others). - Gimmicky PVE content. - The need to arrange any group activity based on stacking buffs and having exactly the right number of each class. |
Darth Sith
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:15:00 -
[949] - Quote
Gratz on finally tackling that 900 lb gorilla that has been hiding in the corner :)
This is a beast of a job and I can only sympathize with the people having to pour over spreadsheets to make all this work. Yeah there will be a couple bumps and bruises as it goes in the first time but I think it can only get better with a revamp.
For me what is going to be the most interesting is how these changes will be twisted and warped to some freaky new fleet concepts no one anticipated :) We all know that there are a lot of people that are going to be perma - camped on EFT the day the changes are announced to see what kind of insane fits are to be had .. and that is why I love EVE \o/
After reading Crucible 1.5 patch notes and this .. one can only wonder what CCP has hiding under wraps for fanfest ;)
|
Tim Brewer
Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies.
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:15:00 -
[950] - Quote
Mussaschi wrote:As someone with a lot of cross training the idea of relearning skills for destroyer or battle cruisers is somehow annoying. Specially if you take into account that destroyers are of little use at this point.
Some of the ideas clearly make sense to me, than I still miss handling some points in your current schema.
New types great. I still love to see a frig or destroyer size logistic ship, for fast moving groups.
I totally miss something to counter blob warfare. Is there any incentive in this, that would counter bigger blob wins regardless of strategy? Something that actually would bring FCs to distribute their fleets?
So many interesting ideas out there (direction of hit impacts dps), sensor strength in dense formation ...
So what I see now mostly feels as if you make it more noob friendly instead of more interesting :(
Still change is good, so go on
As quoted above. CCP is looking for a way to bring in more paying customers and by doing this they make the training scheme nice and friendly for everybody new to eve, all the while completely screwing all the older players.
Somehow i see a very large CCP ***** in our near future that will drive its self up all our Ass's
Note: I hope ccp doesnt donkey kick us in the **** with these changes. I among many others have done way to much speccing just to watch it all get washed away . |
|
Lijhal
Innoruuks Wrath
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:16:00 -
[951] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
+1 Ytterbium
also how about:
size: frig destroyer cruiser battlecruiser battleship
role: Combat ships: +attack, +defence, -mobility, -range Skirmish ships: +attack, -defence, +mobility, -range (aka attack ships) Support ships: -attack, +defence, -mobility, +range (aka bombardment ships) Utility ships: -attack, -defence, +mobility, +range
spec: T2 manufactures LaiDai Boundless Creations etc.
then you have:
T1 size -> role
T2 size -> role -> specialization
T3 (if we ever get frig & bs hullls on it) size -> generalization
thx for this and keep up the goddamn good work!
lij CCP Ytterbium As designers, we can tell Caldari have three main points going for them as a race and that is, missile, hybrids and ECM. To be an all-rounded Caldari pilot, one must realize all aspects have to be considered and learned! |
Gorp
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:16:00 -
[952] - Quote
This ideas is so full of fail its hard to know where to begin. First, one skill for all races of destroyer/battlecruiser is a feature not a bug. It gives some much needed flexibility to both newer players (destroyers) and vets (BCs). Getting a taste of different races' capabilities without a tedious slog through skill queues is a GOOD thing.
Second, the whole "lines" vs "tiers" thing seems completely pointless from a player perspective. I guess its designed to make it easier for CCP to make wholesale changes (e.g. delete a midslot from all ships of a certain type) in the pursuit of 'balance'. But this seems wrong as the imbalances are most often found within a class.
Third, the whole exercise assumes CCP will be able to get the balance "right". They never have before, why assume they will do so now? Which leads me to...
Four, relatively painless cross-training is important because it lets players work around CCP mistakes. Their, many, many mistakes.
Finally, there seems to be an underlying assumption that EVERY ship needs to be good at all around PVP. This is nonsense. Some ships will always be better than others. There is no reason that a mining cruiser needs to be 'viable' in PVP (though some players may fit it in a way that is great in one particular circumstance and LOL in every other situation - which is fine). Furthermore, ship viability/popularity often changes as a result of changes to modules rather than the underlying hull. So the Celestis became pretty useless when Damps were nerfed.
tl;dr Not clear that CCP fully understands what problems it needs to fix. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1151
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:17:00 -
[953] - Quote
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Just so I have this right.
There are many who think that it is ok to have to retrain what has already been planned, bought, and time spent training because we will be given the isk back and sp needed to retrain what we've already spec'd out and trained ALREADY ?
So you're ok with big brother (CCP) taking what you have already earned and making you do it over again because it's, well, only a little bit of time? Am I reading right?
Nope. 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. |
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:18:00 -
[954] - Quote
Basically it boils down to this...
People love it if stuff is broken in their favor. (Current situation) People hate it that broken stuff gets fixed.
They don't care if the game is broken (And by this I mean, doesn't make sense and/or is senseless/stupid) they just want it to be broken in a way that works for them. It's like those people who complain about welfare moms and then go collect a disability check. "But it's ok if I play the system, because I benefit. Those other people are just leeching off other people's taxes!!!"
This is why we can't have nice things. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
388
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:19:00 -
[955] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Gogela wrote:So to be clear, if you start training BC, Destroyers, HACs, HICs, Assault Ships, Command Ships, Logistics, Black Ops, Marauders, Covert Ops, Recon Ships, Interceptors, Interdictors, and Transport Ships to V, you will get all the racial variants at V when generic skill categories go away? Sounds like a good SP investment to me. Sorry cap guns... you will have to wait. 4x SP multiplier FTW! Need confirmation that tech 2 ship types will be split to racial variants as well. I seem to have missed that. ...eh? Someone finally noticed. Yah I made that up... but you see, the implication is there. I'm just extrapolating on the basic principal of making this change in the first place. With each new ship roll comes a new hull, and thus a new skill. It seems reasonable to assume that if BC and Destroyers are going to get split and racialized, than so too should the generic support skills. I think this is part of how we brace for specialized caps. EW Dreadnoughts, titan killers, tackle caps, all specialized so as to require specific specializations in racial support skills. This "gives the vets something to train" and addresses the community mission statement for "moar ships" in one swift stroke. I'll make a few predictions while I'm at it: CCP is going to want to rip off the skill change bandaid-« at once, knowing there will be bitter::vet tears. The BC/Destroyer debate proceeding through this thread will provide CCP with a community inspired framework for SP redistribution without necessitating CCP tip their hand on Inferno. Once inferno hits, we are informed all generic skills are going away and SP will be redistributed following the BC/Destroyer model. This will allow CCP to re-balance all the existing ships and introduce a bunch of new ones (probably including specialized caps I would guess) with a lot more future lateral for introducing still more in the future while maintaining the better quality of ship balance the new skill system allows them. That's my take on this. No editing: let's see how close to the mark I hit!
|
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
96
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:20:00 -
[956] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Evanga 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 could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5"
Quoted for thruth, too late CCP. I thought that was too good to be true: BC V = 1.5m sp Dessie V = 0.5 m sp All Racial BC V & Dessie V == 8 m sp... a 6 m sp boost is an assload of sp to just "give out". That's about 4 Months of free SP's.... I'm sorry, even as a vet, I just don't think we deserve that type of boost. This is so hilarious, there is no words. The situation looks like this: CCP decides to take your **** away. Many players had trained the skills to fly the ships in question perfectly. Now they will get reimbursed to the point where they can still fly the ships, but have to retrain some of the racial skills to V to fly them as well as they did before. In other words: Even veterans have to spend months to train skills that never existed, were never on their skill-plans, and should never exist in the first place. All new players will have to invest 4x more time to get to where the veteran players are to begin with. Even if you give CCP all the benefit of doubt in the world, the most harmless explanation for this is that they realized people tend to run out of stuff to train for eventually. If you only fly two races (minus capitals), you'll train for three odd years and be done. With this change, the amount of time required to cross-train suddenly explodes. For no other reason than CCP being too lazy to come up with meaningful content that requires skillpoints. Instead, they give us the same content, but it suddenly takes 4x longer to train for. With the promise there will be more ships available due to these changes soon (CCP speak for: "another abandoned feature"). And the ships we do have get pushed into WoW-ish roles, whether we want to or not. And after hearing this, you say: "Oh no, the reimbursement is too big. We do not deserve such a SP buff!" It's no wonder CCP thinks they can get away with whatever. Hell, if I was a Dev and read a comment like that, I'd also put more crack on the pipe and keep pushing **** at my "customers".
DEV eyes need to see this post. |
Ticarus Hellbrandt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:23:00 -
[957] - Quote
Woohoo, new players will be able to train quicker into ships thay cant afford anyway.
All i can really see is classification of combat into well... classes.
Fighter
Scout
Heavy damage dealer
Healer
Carebear
You can see my disapointment as an experienced player. Once again the players are dictated the game by CCP. |
Waukesha
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:25:00 -
[958] - Quote
Is it time to shoot the monument again? |
Imperialmadman
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:25:00 -
[959] - Quote
I WILL TAKE A BIG **** ON YOUR CHEST IF THIS HAPPENS |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1029
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:26:00 -
[960] - Quote
Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Just so I have this right.
There are many who think that it is ok to have to retrain what has already been planned, bought, and time spent training because we will be given the isk back and sp needed to retrain what we've already spec'd out and trained ALREADY ?
So you're ok with big brother (CCP) taking what you have already earned and making you do it over again because it's, well, only a little bit of time? Am I reading right?
As the choises are here I am thinking that option one is least bad choice. So yes.
Obviously if they do it right, big part of entire spaceship command skilltree will be reimbursed and most likely some no longer needed skills can be used to compensate towards the 3 new factions. Even without those there should be enough points to get all destro and bc skills up to level 4 if original skill was capped. This means that you can fly all factions tech 1 variants but not necessarily tech 2.
This skill reimbursement part of this plan is really something where you just have to pick the least bad option and live with it. Personally I don't see this a reason why entire plan should be cancelled as there is plenty of potential for good stuff when discussed and implemented properly.
Get |
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
750
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:28:00 -
[961] - Quote
WHAT THE **** IS THIS ****???
Any _SANE_ revamp would have aimed at making it easier to crosstrain, having base ship type skills with race-specific specialization.
So that if you train for frigates which improves your frigate skills in general, you got skills for frigates but need to train e.g. Caldari frigates to be able to fly the caldari ones and get bonuses. There would thus be a backbone of ship skills that makes it easier for veteran players to cross over to other races. (The race specific skills would of course require training the lower race ship types)
Instead you've made it so that anyone who wants to try out e.g. another race's BC they'll need to start off as if they're a newbie.
What next, make sharpshooter, tracking, etc, skills for every single weapon type?
Again, **** this **** and how did you get it past the CSM? 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Vance Willett
Lost Star Technologies Wild-Cards
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:29:00 -
[962] - Quote
Ticarus Hellbrandt wrote:Woohoo, new players will be able to train quicker into ships thay cant afford anyway.
All i can really see is classification of combat into well... classes.
Fighter
Scout
Heavy damage dealer
Healer
Carebear
You can see my disapointment as an experienced player. Once again the players are dictated the game by CCP.
You might as well call them Warrior, Hunter, Mage, Priest, and Shadow Priest. In three years, maybe we can get Paladins and Shamen before the two merge >.> |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:30:00 -
[963] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Just so I have this right.
There are many who think that it is ok to have to retrain what has already been planned, bought, and time spent training because we will be given the isk back and sp needed to retrain what we've already spec'd out and trained ALREADY ?
So you're ok with big brother (CCP) taking what you have already earned and making you do it over again because it's, well, only a little bit of time? Am I reading right? As the choises are here I am thinking that option one is least bad choice. So yes. Obviously if they do it right, big part of entire spaceship command skilltree will be reimbursed and most likely some no longer needed skills can be used to compensate towards the 3 new factions. Even without those there should be enough points to get all destro and bc skills up to level 4 if original skill was capped. This means that you can fly all factions tech 1 variants but not necessarily tech 2. This skill reimbursement part of this plan is really something where you just have to pick the least bad option and live with it. Personally I don't see this a reason why entire plan should be cancelled as there is plenty of potential for good stuff when discussed and implemented properly.
Grey, I have two things to tell you. First off, the word you're looking for is choices, not choises. I noticed it the first time you used it a few pages ago, but since you did it twice, it obviously needs to be brought to your attention. Secondly, go back to the first page and read the posts there please. You are spreading speculation that is completely contrary to what the DEVs have said.
Thanks! I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2314
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:30:00 -
[964] - Quote
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:Again, **** this **** and how did you get it past the CSM?
That's the thing, the CSM was apparently left out of the loop on this one. CCP isn't obligated to run anything by them, but it's certainly to their benefit if they do and don't want massive threadnaughts. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Teclador
Stardust Heavy Industries United Pod Service
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:31:00 -
[965] - Quote
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.
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 ?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:32:00 -
[966] - Quote
Ticarus Hellbrandt wrote:Woohoo, new players will be able to train quicker into ships thay cant afford anyway.
All i can really see is classification of combat into well... classes.
Fighter
Scout
Heavy damage dealer
Healer
Carebear
You can see my disapointment as an experienced player. Once again the players are dictated the game by CCP. Similar ship classifications more or less exists as is. This is especially apparent in the T2 lineups. Additionally training time as proposed will increase for every non industrial/barge subcap above a frigate. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1152
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:33:00 -
[967] - Quote
Ticarus Hellbrandt wrote:Woohoo, new players will be able to train quicker into ships thay cant afford anyway.
All i can really see is classification of combat into well... classes.
Fighter
Scout
Heavy damage dealer
Healer
Carebear
You can see my disapointment as an experienced player. Once again the players are dictated the game by CCP.
Yes, allowing the majority of the ships in EVE to finally become useful is a terrible thing. It's much better to let the lower tier cruisers (for example) linger on as useless hanger ornaments because they are totally outclassed by the cruiser at the top of the Tier chain.
Besides, everybody knows you can't take a ship that has bonuses for say damage and actually tank them. It's unheard of now and certainly won't be possible once they are made viable again.
/sarcasm
CCP has always established the ground rules for our sandbox. This is of necessity, because a big sandbox without borders of some sort becomes an empty desert. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1152
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:34:00 -
[968] - Quote
Quote:I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic.
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. |
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:36:00 -
[969] - Quote
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:WHAT THE **** IS THIS ****??? Any _SANE_ revamp would have aimed at making it easier to crosstrain, having base ship type skills with race-specific specialization.
Why?
You're training completely different ships for each race. Different radar types. Different propulsion. Different armor and shield systems.
Look at it like this; just because a pilot is trained to fly an F-22 doesn't mean he's going to be able to fly a MiG-35. Yeah, they're both fighter jets. They both use a flightstick. That's about where the similarities end. |
Stella SGP
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:37:00 -
[970] - Quote
The changes does not have to happen all at once. When CCP has finalized the changes, assuming it is whats been said in the Dev Blog, then -
Step 1 - Release new skill several months in advance while giving out 1 free remap. This gives players the option to start training them early.
Step 2 - On release day, reduce the skills requirements and bonus for T2 Destroyers and T2 Battlecruisers to Racial Frigate 5 and Racial Cruiser 5 respectively, previously requiring Destroyers and Battlecruisers Level 5. Leaving Command Ships and Interdictors skill bonus as it is. While reimbursing trained SPs in Destroyers and Battlecruisers skill.
Step 3 - After several more months, then finalize the proposed changes to the new skill requirements for T2 Destroyers and T2 Battlecruisers, requiring level 5 in the new Racial Destroyers and Racial Battlecruisers skill.
This method maybe a long drawn one, but CCP does not have to give out any free SPs, which I'm totally against. Also, I'm not too concerned about T1 Destroyers or T1 Battlecruisers as training the new Racial skills to level 4 doesn't take long anyway. |
|
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:37:00 -
[971] - Quote
*laughs as EVE servers buckle under the strain of 55,000 people logging in at once to queue BC V*
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:37:00 -
[972] - Quote
Andski wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:Again, **** this **** and how did you get it past the CSM? That's the thing, the CSM was apparently left out of the loop on this one. CCP isn't obligated to run anything by them, but it's certainly to their benefit if they do and don't want massive threadnaughts. CSM posts have been for the changes for the most part. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1029
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:38:00 -
[973] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Just so I have this right.
There are many who think that it is ok to have to retrain what has already been planned, bought, and time spent training because we will be given the isk back and sp needed to retrain what we've already spec'd out and trained ALREADY ?
So you're ok with big brother (CCP) taking what you have already earned and making you do it over again because it's, well, only a little bit of time? Am I reading right? As the choises are here I am thinking that option one is least bad choice. So yes. Obviously if they do it right, big part of entire spaceship command skilltree will be reimbursed and most likely some no longer needed skills can be used to compensate towards the 3 new factions. Even without those there should be enough points to get all destro and bc skills up to level 4 if original skill was capped. This means that you can fly all factions tech 1 variants but not necessarily tech 2. This skill reimbursement part of this plan is really something where you just have to pick the least bad option and live with it. Personally I don't see this a reason why entire plan should be cancelled as there is plenty of potential for good stuff when discussed and implemented properly. Grey, I have two things to tell you. First off, the word you're looking for is choices, not choises. I noticed it the first time you used it a few pages ago, but since you did it twice, it obviously needs to be brought to your attention. Secondly, go back to the first page and read the posts there please. You are spreading speculation that is completely contrary to what the DEVs have said. Thanks!
Thank you for reminding me that engrish is not my native language....
...and yes I am well aware that they have said that people will continue to be able to fly same ships they have been able before. However I am not so sure how they will keep this promise without donating more skill points to those with higher BC/Destro skills than to those who don't have them capped. Also the fact that training towards those would take 4x longer after the change gives me full right to speculate with the promise they made.
Get |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
62
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:38:00 -
[974] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
I would still like to see some more comments on some of the fundamental issues raised in this thread concerning the restructuring of the ship roles and skill dependencies. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:42:00 -
[975] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Moraguth wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Just so I have this right.
There are many who think that it is ok to have to retrain what has already been planned, bought, and time spent training because we will be given the isk back and sp needed to retrain what we've already spec'd out and trained ALREADY ?
So you're ok with big brother (CCP) taking what you have already earned and making you do it over again because it's, well, only a little bit of time? Am I reading right? As the choises are here I am thinking that option one is least bad choice. So yes. Obviously if they do it right, big part of entire spaceship command skilltree will be reimbursed and most likely some no longer needed skills can be used to compensate towards the 3 new factions. Even without those there should be enough points to get all destro and bc skills up to level 4 if original skill was capped. This means that you can fly all factions tech 1 variants but not necessarily tech 2. This skill reimbursement part of this plan is really something where you just have to pick the least bad option and live with it. Personally I don't see this a reason why entire plan should be cancelled as there is plenty of potential for good stuff when discussed and implemented properly. Grey, I have two things to tell you. First off, the word you're looking for is choices, not choises. I noticed it the first time you used it a few pages ago, but since you did it twice, it obviously needs to be brought to your attention. Secondly, go back to the first page and read the posts there please. You are spreading speculation that is completely contrary to what the DEVs have said. Thanks! Thank you for reminding me that engrish is not my native language.... ...and yes I am well aware that they have said that people will continue to be able to fly same ships they have been able before. However I am not so sure how they will keep this promise without donating 4x more skill points to those with higher BC/Destro skills than to those who don't have them capped. Also the fact that training towards those would take 4x longer after the change gives me full right to speculate with the promise they made. I have no issue believing it as the only thing I'll really be gaining is higher clone costs. 4x more SP, if specifically allocated into the newly separated skills provides no benefit to the receiver. It's really the only way to keep their promise if that promise includes command ships and interdictors. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:45:00 -
[976] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:Moraguth wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Just so I have this right.
There are many who think that it is ok to have to retrain what has already been planned, bought, and time spent training because we will be given the isk back and sp needed to retrain what we've already spec'd out and trained ALREADY ?
So you're ok with big brother (CCP) taking what you have already earned and making you do it over again because it's, well, only a little bit of time? Am I reading right? As the choises are here I am thinking that option one is least bad choice. So yes. Obviously if they do it right, big part of entire spaceship command skilltree will be reimbursed and most likely some no longer needed skills can be used to compensate towards the 3 new factions. Even without those there should be enough points to get all destro and bc skills up to level 4 if original skill was capped. This means that you can fly all factions tech 1 variants but not necessarily tech 2. This skill reimbursement part of this plan is really something where you just have to pick the least bad option and live with it. Personally I don't see this a reason why entire plan should be cancelled as there is plenty of potential for good stuff when discussed and implemented properly. Grey, I have two things to tell you. First off, the word you're looking for is choices, not choises. I noticed it the first time you used it a few pages ago, but since you did it twice, it obviously needs to be brought to your attention. Secondly, go back to the first page and read the posts there please. You are spreading speculation that is completely contrary to what the DEVs have said. Thanks! Thank you for reminding me that engrish is not my native language.... ...and yes I am well aware that they have said that people will continue to be able to fly same ships they have been able before. However I am not so sure how they will keep this promise without donating more skill points to those with higher BC/Destro skills than to those who don't have them capped. Also the fact that training towards those would take 4x longer after the change gives me full right to speculate with the promise they made.
On the first thing, no problem. Whenever I try to type in a foreign language, even one i know well, i mess up similar sounding letters ALL THE TIME! :)
For the second, if you think they're lying, just come out and say so. Many other people have. I just didn't want other people who skipped the first page to see your post and think what you said was anywhere near official. As of right now, there is an official answer, and it is much better than your scenario. Benefits old players, makes life a bit harder on new players (which I think is a shame).
I'm not hating on you or your ideas, just trying to keep things clear.
I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
391
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:46:00 -
[977] - Quote
I think some of you are too caught up in your character and not thinking about the game as a whole. F*** my goals. Sometimes s*** changes in life and you need to adapt. Some would argue that's part of what makes life an adventure. You aren't guaranteed that following the path most taken in life will get you to the same place it got the next guy, and you sure as hell can't say that in an internet spaceship. Maybe taking a step back and doing a little revamping of the fundamental EvE experience will breath new life into the game for everyone and make it more challenging and fun. I see, as usual, a lot of rage::quit threats. Relax. EvE is f'n OLD. It's an OLD OLD OLD a** MMO. Maybe a facelift is in order? Maybe it's time for a new EvE experience... an expedition into the unknown? A new battlefield with new variables? ...or maybe you are just too caught up in your current "plan" which was never designed to accommodate change.
|
Olaf4862
Helix Pulse Rolling Thunder.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:46:00 -
[978] - Quote
This has prob been said before but all you people freaking out about not needing Battleship 5 for capitals are forgetting that just cause you can sit in a ship does not mean you can actually use it. Also new pilots are prob not going to be able to be replacing capitals if they decide to hap-hazardously just get into them as fast as they can. I sense more dead capitals on the horizon and more industrial corps profiting from pilots flying ships they are not skilled enough to handle properly.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2314
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:46:00 -
[979] - Quote
Silath Slyver Silverpine wrote:Why?
You're training completely different ships for each race. Different radar types. Different propulsion. Different armor and shield systems.
Look at it like this; just because a pilot is trained to fly an F-22 doesn't mean he's going to be able to fly a MiG-35. Yeah, they're both fighter jets. They both use a flightstick. That's about where the similarities end.
Alright then, refund the skills in the same fashion as the learning skills and have the poor, poor vets make a choice regarding which racial battlecruiser skill they still want at 5. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1155
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:46:00 -
[980] - Quote
Andski wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:Again, **** this **** and how did you get it past the CSM? That's the thing, the CSM was apparently left out of the loop on this one. CCP isn't obligated to run anything by them, but it's certainly to their benefit if they do and don't want massive threadnaughts.
I'll go along with you completely on that one.
They missed a few key points with this opening Dev Blog that really needed to be explained better, and the CSM would probably have caught that.
That being said, the concept has already been discussed with the CSM in part before this Blog and they seem to have been generally in favor... but they sure could have helped fill in the gaps on the presentation.
Of course, they did make a point of saying that they would flesh out their proposal more completely in following blogs. and the that the details and ramifications of the basic idea were what needed to be discussed by the community now.
While we may disagree on many points, I "do" think your point of view is valuable and needed to be outlined here. 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. |
|
Gevlin
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
113
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:46:00 -
[981] - Quote
Go for it!! I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:47:00 -
[982] - Quote
Still amused that the idea to keep destroyers and battlecruisers in the "progression line" as seperate skills made it past a board meeting.
Sounds like you intend to buff the other useless ships, then battlecruisers and especially destroyers as a "tier" will look pretty foolish.
All. You. Are. Doing. Is. *******. New. Players. Who. May. Need. To. Cross. Train. For. A. Corp/Alliance. |
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:53:00 -
[983] - Quote
Andski wrote: Alright then, refund the skills in the same fashion as the learning skills and have the poor, poor vets make a choice regarding which racial battlecruiser skill they still want at 5.
Sounds good. I don't see why anyone should be getting skill points they never invested the time to train for.
"But when I trained BC it let me fly ALL the racial BC's!!!!" Cool story bro. Doesn't change the fact that you only spent the time training one BC skill. You are not losing out on any skill points or training time with the new system.
|
Smoke Adian
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:53:00 -
[984] - Quote
I would suggest dropping the whole roles classification thing. Yes, rebalance the useless ships like the ferox, but the roles thing is just dumb. For example you've got the caracal, drake, and raven in the same category when the only thing they have in common is their caldari origin.
As far as Drakes go, you've got HAM Drakes, MWD Drakes, AB Drakes, Spider tanking drakes, PVE Drakes in various forms and the list goes on and on. You can't just say "oh that's a bombardment ship" especially when the one thing Drakes are not known for is their DPS.
Then you've got the Raven in there which really has nothing to do with drake - it's a pve boat that occasionally gets used for smartbombing.
Finally, the Caracal which has nothing to do with either of the other two. It's a cheap pve starter boat or throw away pvp support for new players
i.e. Just buff the known crappy ships and don't try tp reorganize all of EVE's ships into silly categories. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1030
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:53:00 -
[985] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:Moraguth wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:Harrigan VonStudly wrote:Just so I have this right.
There are many who think that it is ok to have to retrain what has already been planned, bought, and time spent training because we will be given the isk back and sp needed to retrain what we've already spec'd out and trained ALREADY ?
So you're ok with big brother (CCP) taking what you have already earned and making you do it over again because it's, well, only a little bit of time? Am I reading right? As the choises are here I am thinking that option one is least bad choice. So yes. Obviously if they do it right, big part of entire spaceship command skilltree will be reimbursed and most likely some no longer needed skills can be used to compensate towards the 3 new factions. Even without those there should be enough points to get all destro and bc skills up to level 4 if original skill was capped. This means that you can fly all factions tech 1 variants but not necessarily tech 2. This skill reimbursement part of this plan is really something where you just have to pick the least bad option and live with it. Personally I don't see this a reason why entire plan should be cancelled as there is plenty of potential for good stuff when discussed and implemented properly. Grey, I have two things to tell you. First off, the word you're looking for is choices, not choises. I noticed it the first time you used it a few pages ago, but since you did it twice, it obviously needs to be brought to your attention. Secondly, go back to the first page and read the posts there please. You are spreading speculation that is completely contrary to what the DEVs have said. Thanks! Thank you for reminding me that engrish is not my native language.... ...and yes I am well aware that they have said that people will continue to be able to fly same ships they have been able before. However I am not so sure how they will keep this promise without donating 4x more skill points to those with higher BC/Destro skills than to those who don't have them capped. Also the fact that training towards those would take 4x longer after the change gives me full right to speculate with the promise they made. I have no issue believing it as the only thing I'll really be gaining is higher clone costs. 4x more SP, if specifically allocated into the newly separated skills provides no benefit to the receiver. It's really the only way to keep their promise if that promise includes command ships and interdictors. I wish it would be this simple. Those skill points are still at your character, increase your characters value and may be reusable some point in the future. Also the fact that after the change new player needs 4 times more training time to get into the point where you are already,,, This is really unfair and goes to wrong direction really.
I am not saying what CCP has to do here - just trying to raise related stuff up for discussion and to be notified when decisions are being made.
Get |
Grady Eltoren
Aviation Professionals for EVE
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:54:00 -
[986] - Quote
STILL GOING>>>>>>>>
"Nothing outlasts the whiner-gizers. They keep going and going and going....."
Up to page 50 almost!
LOLZ I TOLD YOU GUYS THIS WOULD BE AN EPIC WHINER's THREAD on PAGE 7 :) hehe
I have to flame all the people here with a really poor comprehension in reading. That is the only thing I can think of that explains the amount of tears and internet nerd rage in this thread.
Anyways - MOVING ON.
CCP: I saw someone mention going the opposite route turning cruisers, and BS etc etc into generic and making RACIAL Spaceship command skills instead....that would be interesting.
Something to think about.
ALSO - look at T3 skills - they seem cumbersome as well. If you are going to fix the others - look at this too.
ALSO - I don't agree with you CCP Soundwave when you said "If you can fly it today you will fly it in the future" All this does is cave TOO MUCH to the whiners. Let them train all 4 racial BC's up to 5 again. Reimburse them their skill points and let them decide. If you want to be nice then do something different and reimburse all spaceship command skillpoints besides ORE and let them respec to the race(S) they like best and have the SP to do so. IF you then LOWER the skill points necessary to train the new RACIAL BC to 5 and RACIAL Destroyer to 5 then that will appease 95% of the whiners out there.
P.S. I think Racial BS to 4 might be too easy for cap ships...but maybe not. Needs further discussion. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1157
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:55:00 -
[987] - Quote
Degren wrote:Still amused that the idea to keep destroyers and battlecruisers in the "progression line" as seperate skills made it past a board meeting.
Sounds like you intend to buff the other useless ships, then battlecruisers and especially destroyers as a "tier" will look pretty foolish.
All. You. Are. Doing. Is. *******. New. Players. Who. May. Need. To. Cross. Train. For. A. Corp/Alliance.
No, that is not all they are doing... far from it. There are many other benefits to streamlining the training path, but those have been outlined pretty completely earlier in the thread.
However, what you are saying is true, it does make it more difficult to cross train in those two specific classes of ship.
I suppose this part of the debate boils down to whether you believe it should be easy to cross train or not... and if so does it make many of the choices you've made up until that point, well, fairly pointless. 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. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
751
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:57:00 -
[988] - Quote
Silath Slyver Silverpine wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:WHAT THE **** IS THIS ****??? Any _SANE_ revamp would have aimed at making it easier to crosstrain, having base ship type skills with race-specific specialization.
Why? You're training completely different ships for each race. Different radar types. Different propulsion. Different armor and shield systems. Look at it like this; just because a pilot is trained to fly an F-22 doesn't mean he's going to be able to fly a MiG-35. Yeah, they're both fighter jets. They both use a flightstick. That's about where the similarities end. Yes, and that is why you would need the racial specialization skills.
However someone flying an F-22 trying a MiG-35 would be much more skilled than someone flying a 787 trying out a MiG-35. 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Benjamin Hamburg
Kernel of War Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:58:00 -
[989] - Quote
I welcome this news arm wide open. Make sure that we stay operational with our ships tough. I don't want to know what will happen if 75% of our fleet find a message ''Miss required skills'' when trying to board their ship for a home def the day after the patch.
Removing Tier is also a great idea only if it's followed by concrete upgrade of lower tier ships. Newbie SHOULD be usefull in a Thorax or a Caracal if they can fly anything better than that. Just be creative and people will maybe enjoyed again flying other T1 cruiser instead of shinny Cynabal/Vagabond. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1157
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:59:00 -
[990] - Quote
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:Silath Slyver Silverpine wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:WHAT THE **** IS THIS ****??? Any _SANE_ revamp would have aimed at making it easier to crosstrain, having base ship type skills with race-specific specialization.
Why? You're training completely different ships for each race. Different radar types. Different propulsion. Different armor and shield systems. Look at it like this; just because a pilot is trained to fly an F-22 doesn't mean he's going to be able to fly a MiG-35. Yeah, they're both fighter jets. They both use a flightstick. That's about where the similarities end. Yes, and that is why you would need the racial specialization skills. However someone flying an F-22 trying a MiG-35 would be much more skilled than someone flying a 787 trying out a MiG-35.
Well, actually neither one would be able to get it off the ground. 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. |
|
Zeron II Phenom
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:03:00 -
[991] - Quote
ok please help me , i cant play my game, its keeps telling me ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, server: Tranquility unknown , and it keeps make me upset, cani get a quick fix, ......... send info to my email, [email protected] |
Soporo
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:04:00 -
[992] - Quote
Smoke Adian wrote:I would suggest dropping the whole roles classification thing. Yes, rebalance the useless ships like the ferox, but the roles thing is just dumb. For example you've got the caracal, drake, and raven in the same category when the only thing they have in common is their caldari origin.As far as Drakes go, you've got HAM Drakes, MWD Drakes, AB Drakes, Spider tanking drakes, PVE Drakes in various forms and the list goes on and on. You can't just say "oh that's a bombardment ship" especially when the one thing Drakes are not known for is their DPS.
Then you've got the Raven in there which really has nothing to do with drake - it's a pve boat that occasionally gets used for smartbombing.
Finally, the Caracal which has nothing to do with either of the other two. It's a cheap pve starter boat or throw away pvp support for new players
i.e. Just buff the known crappy ships and don't try tp reorganize all of EVE's ships into silly categories.
^^^ Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H.L. Mencken |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:04:00 -
[993] - Quote
lol
OMG you guys are awesome! Thanks to the barrage of shitpoasting I just won 100m ISK because this thread hit 50 pages in less than 12hrs!!
I especially want to thank all the people debating how CCP should go about dealing with dessie V/ BC V even though they have already settled the issue. Much luv. <3
Now if only this devblog was not just a generalized planning blog.... then we might actually be able to discuss real issues |
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:07:00 -
[994] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Degren wrote:Still amused that the idea to keep destroyers and battlecruisers in the "progression line" as seperate skills made it past a board meeting.
Sounds like you intend to buff the other useless ships, then battlecruisers and especially destroyers as a "tier" will look pretty foolish.
All. You. Are. Doing. Is. *******. New. Players. Who. May. Need. To. Cross. Train. For. A. Corp/Alliance. No, that is not all they are doing... far from it. There are many other benefits to streamlining the training path, but those have been outlined pretty completely earlier in the thread. However, what you are saying is true, it does make it more difficult to cross train in those two specific classes of ship. I suppose this part of the debate boils down to whether you believe it should be easy to cross train or not... and if so does it make many of the choices you've made up until that point, well, fairly pointless.
It's not easy to cross-train as is. Weapons, defense, etc must all be cross trained.
The basis of my argument is that they are basically making an entire seperate class of ship for one. ship. type. that is required to progress along into cruisers. Further, they are taking arguably the only reasonably well designed sub-cap T1 ship class (as in it has more than 2 useful ships) and nerfing it, splitting it into four, rather than buffing the other classes, as they actually need. There was some hinting at buffing them later, but that should be the FIRST priority, not lengthening skill training for reasons that are *ENTIRELY* arbitrary and really do nothing to aid new players, which is...presumably...the reason for changing ship order.
And new players won't be in T2 ships any faster, so long as cost is an issue. So that's complete bullshit.
Thanks, CCP. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
751
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:07:00 -
[995] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:Yes, and that is why you would need the racial specialization skills.
However someone flying an F-22 trying a MiG-35 would be much more skilled than someone flying a 787 trying out a MiG-35. Well, actually neither one would be able to get it off the ground. Reading is hard~~~ 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Chitsa Jason
High Intellion Exhale.
84
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:08:00 -
[996] - Quote
Me and my alliance have talked about it in detail.
Basically what concerns us is CCPs line that they will Give old players additional SP so they can fly what they could before. New players will have to train more. I bet people who read this devblog are already training Battlecruiser from 4 to 5 as it will probably guaranteee that they get all racial skills.
If that will be CCPs way what they will do is widen the SP gap of Old and New players by a huge margin. Just becouse most old players have these skills to 5.
Only smart solution we could come up with is to make all T1 ship skills generic. For example: Frigates Cruisers Destroyers BCs BSs
Other things on the dev blog are more or less agreeable.
|
Vertigo Ren
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:08:00 -
[997] - Quote
I'm liking these changes, though it seems I'm reading them differently from everyone else.
Or at least I can read the part where it says I'll still be able to fly what I already can fly in the new system.
With the dropping of tiers, I understand it as, I'd be able to fly any of the ships at lvl 1 of that skill. So for something like minnie BS, I can fly all three battleships right away. Then each ship has bonuses for different things that stack as I go through the levels.
This makes lots of sense!
This also seems to allow for new ships with various roles, My vote goes for RAMMING. Ramming Battleship! |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1031
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:10:00 -
[998] - Quote
It is time for mandatory [img]http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/files/2011/11/pony.jpg[/img] to make this thread officially important.
Get |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
392
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:11:00 -
[999] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:Silath Slyver Silverpine wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:WHAT THE **** IS THIS ****??? Any _SANE_ revamp would have aimed at making it easier to crosstrain, having base ship type skills with race-specific specialization.
Why? You're training completely different ships for each race. Different radar types. Different propulsion. Different armor and shield systems. Look at it like this; just because a pilot is trained to fly an F-22 doesn't mean he's going to be able to fly a MiG-35. Yeah, they're both fighter jets. They both use a flightstick. That's about where the similarities end. Yes, and that is why you would need the racial specialization skills. However someone flying an F-22 trying a MiG-35 would be much more skilled than someone flying a 787 trying out a MiG-35. Well, actually neither one would be able to get it off the ground. I think you are thinking of another MiG. The 35 is just a revamped 29. The MiG 1.44 might be what you are thinking of... they were calling it a 35 in the early 2000's in some circles but the NATO nomenclature is 1.44.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1157
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:12:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:Yes, and that is why you would need the racial specialization skills.
However someone flying an F-22 trying a MiG-35 would be much more skilled than someone flying a 787 trying out a MiG-35. Well, actually neither one would be able to get it off the ground. Reading is hard~~~
Being obtuse is, apparently, easy.
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. |
|
Elrinarie
Wrecking Shots Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:12:00 -
[1001] - Quote
I have all cruisers to 5, battlecruisers to 5, hacs to 5, and command ships to 5....
If I have to train all separate races to 5 because this won't work out with the amount of skill points this is just plain BS.. just saying |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
148
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:12:00 -
[1002] - Quote
CCP: {redacted} yeah.
The game has needed this for years. This will seriously make me keep playing.
One complaint- if you start tweaking the prereq lines for t2 ships, PLEASE refund those skill points. I do not want to have several weeks or months of training wasted because a prereq for, say, HAC's is no longer in the tree, but I've already got it trained up. This should only apply to prereqs that are themselves t2 skills, like interceptor>interdictors, and not the core piloting, but it would really REALLY suck to get a change this massive and no compensation for time invested in the old system. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:15:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Elrinarie wrote:I have all cruisers to 5, battlecruisers to 5, hacs to 5, and command ships to 5....
If I have to train all separate races to 5 because this won't work out with the amount of skill points this is just plain BS.. just saying
CCP is more concerned that you retain the abilities you had before, not with the raw amount of skill points you have... and seem willing to give you a skill point boost so that you do not lose the ability to fly all the ships you can now. Or perhaps simply give you the necessary skills without boosting your actual skill point amount. That part is still up for debate. 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. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:17:00 -
[1004] - Quote
Vertigo Ren wrote:I'm liking these changes, though it seems I'm reading them differently from everyone else.
Or at least I can read the part where it says I'll still be able to fly what I already can fly in the new system.
With the dropping of tiers, I understand it as, I'd be able to fly any of the ships at lvl 1 of that skill. So for something like minnie BS, I can fly all three battleships right away. Then each ship has bonuses for different things that stack as I go through the levels.
This makes lots of sense!
This also seems to allow for new ships with various roles, My vote goes for RAMMING. Ramming Battleship!
Congratulations. You're one of the few who seems to have read the blog from start to finish. Its a rare honor to meet you, may I shake your hand? |
Elrinarie
Wrecking Shots Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:17:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Elrinarie wrote:I have all cruisers to 5, battlecruisers to 5, hacs to 5, and command ships to 5....
If I have to train all separate races to 5 because this won't work out with the amount of skill points this is just plain BS.. just saying CCP is more concerned that you retain the abilities you had before, not with the raw amount of skill points you have... and seem willing to give you a skill point boost so that you do not lose the ability to fly all the ships you can now. Or perhaps simply give you the necessary skills without boosting your actual skill point amount. That part is still up for debate.
being able to fly the ships and being able to fly the ships with max skills like I have now are two completely separate things however. Let's hope that this is the case :| |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:20:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Chitsa Jason wrote:I bet people who read this devblog are already training Battlecruiser from 4 to 5 as it will probably guaranteee that they get all racial skills. Here's a question: What happens to people who never trained BC or destroyer at all, but just trained Frigate -> Cruiser -> BS? Do they magically get Destroyer IV + BC IV in any race where they have already trained BS I? Because they already had BS . . . and we're "not taking away anything you can fly today." It seems unlikely many people would have skipped BC entirely, but this is an even better scam than those who have BC V winding up with BC V x4.
And the same goes for Cruiser IV . . . if we're auto-magically going to get BC V x4, doesn't that mean we also auto-magically have to get Cruiser IV x4 . . . and of course now Destroyer IV x4 . . . Frigate IV x 4 . . .?
I dunno. I'm starting to like this idea. Cause my epic all-races subcap cross-train just shrank to . . . 10d, 7m, 1s. |
Chicken Pizza
Penumbra Institute
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:21:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Smoke Adian wrote:I would suggest dropping the whole roles classification thing. Yes, rebalance the useless ships like the ferox, but the roles thing is just dumb. For example you've got the caracal, drake, and raven in the same category when the only thing they have in common is their caldari origin.
As far as Drakes go, you've got HAM Drakes, MWD Drakes, AB Drakes, Spider tanking drakes, PVE Drakes in various forms and the list goes on and on. You can't just say "oh that's a bombardment ship" especially when the one thing Drakes are not known for is their DPS.
Then you've got the Raven in there which really has nothing to do with drake - it's a pve boat that occasionally gets used for smartbombing.
Finally, the Caracal which has nothing to do with either of the other two. It's a cheap pve starter boat or throw away pvp support for new players
i.e. Just buff the known crappy ships and don't try tp reorganize all of EVE's ships into silly categories.
Passive Drakes, Bait Drakes, Cyno Drakes, Nano Drakes, Drake Creole, Gangboosted Drakes, Anti-frigate Drakes, Drake Gumbo, pan-fried, deep-fried, stir-fried, there's Pineapple Drake, Lemon Drake, Coconut Drake, Pepper Drake, Drake Soup, Drake Stew, Drake Salad, Drake 'n' Potatoes, Drake Burger, Drake Sandwich.............that's, that's about it. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:21:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Elrinarie wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Elrinarie wrote:I have all cruisers to 5, battlecruisers to 5, hacs to 5, and command ships to 5....
If I have to train all separate races to 5 because this won't work out with the amount of skill points this is just plain BS.. just saying CCP is more concerned that you retain the abilities you had before, not with the raw amount of skill points you have... and seem willing to give you a skill point boost so that you do not lose the ability to fly all the ships you can now. Or perhaps simply give you the necessary skills without boosting your actual skill point amount. That part is still up for debate. being able to fly the ships and being able to fly the ships with max skills like I have now are two completely separate things however. Let's hope that this is the case :|
They specifically said (as an example) that if you can fly a BC at level 5 before, you'll be able to fly it at level 5 afterwards.
I think you're good. 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. |
Chicken Pizza
Penumbra Institute
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:22:00 -
[1009] - Quote
DAMNIT. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:25:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Chicken Pizza wrote:Smoke Adian wrote:I would suggest dropping the whole roles classification thing. Yes, rebalance the useless ships like the ferox, but the roles thing is just dumb. For example you've got the caracal, drake, and raven in the same category when the only thing they have in common is their caldari origin.
As far as Drakes go, you've got HAM Drakes, MWD Drakes, AB Drakes, Spider tanking drakes, PVE Drakes in various forms and the list goes on and on. You can't just say "oh that's a bombardment ship" especially when the one thing Drakes are not known for is their DPS.
Then you've got the Raven in there which really has nothing to do with drake - it's a pve boat that occasionally gets used for smartbombing.
Finally, the Caracal which has nothing to do with either of the other two. It's a cheap pve starter boat or throw away pvp support for new players
i.e. Just buff the known crappy ships and don't try tp reorganize all of EVE's ships into silly categories. Passive Drakes, Bait Drakes, Cyno Drakes, Nano Drakes, Drake Creole, Gangboosted Drakes, Anti-frigate Drakes, Drake Gumbo, pan-fried, deep-fried, stir-fried, there's Pineapple Drake, Lemon Drake, Coconut Drake, Pepper Drake, Drake Soup, Drake Stew, Drake Salad, Drake 'n' Potatoes, Drake Burger, Drake Sandwich.............that's, that's about it.
More to the point, just because the bonuses that a ship has may more reflect it's new role (which is what was being discussed) it in no way means that you can't ignore it, tweak it, take advantage of it to the max, or completely screw it up just as much then as you can now.
Also, you forgot Drake Loaf. 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. |
|
IsTheOpOver
76
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:25:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:... However someone flying an F-22 trying a MiG-35 would be much more skilled than someone flying a 787 trying out a MiG-35. ... Well, actually neither one would be able to get it off the ground.
So not true...
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:28:00 -
[1012] - Quote
IsTheOpOver wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:... However someone flying an F-22 trying a MiG-35 would be much more skilled than someone flying a 787 trying out a MiG-35. ... Well, actually neither one would be able to get it off the ground. So not true...
I loved that movie!!!
But even Clint had to train Russian Experimental Thought Controlled Jet 1 to get it off the ground.
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. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
331
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:36:00 -
[1013] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Ok this thread needs some love now.
Thanks for the update, and looks good to me |
Cyrus Deacon
Grim Henchman Ghosts of Avalon
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:36:00 -
[1014] - Quote
the proposed capital ship skill requirement change is insane, caps should be HARDER to get into not easier ffs! |
AveryFaneActual
Missions Mining and Mayhem Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:39:00 -
[1015] - Quote
WHOSE RESPONSIBLE THIS!!!!1111eleven |
Naradius
DEATHFUNK
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:42:00 -
[1016] - Quote
At this stage, basically, a good dev blog. Respect to CCP for actually having the balls to tackle this and finally get rid of the tier system My only fears 1. BS V should be a pre req for Caps, as should Freighter V for a Jump Freighter
2. EVE is fun because ships at the moment have flexibility in their use (in the way players make use of slots)...please don't shoe horn ships into a specific role so far, that flexibility is lost. I.E. You give us the Eos, as a Command Ship - it suck balls as it stands and is useless as a Command Ship, but as a PVP ship it's OK....expensive, but OK. BTW - when are us Gallente going to get a CS that can actually give useful bonuses?
3. CCP are known for half finished ideas in the past...CCP need to carry this one through to the end. A half finished idea like this could mean the end
4. Screwing up ship balancing, although it could be said, it couldn't be more screwed then it is now!
As I said though, respect to CCP, I have faith that they can pull this off, after the recent wind of change that blew through their offices. "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams |
Lando
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:46:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Everyone seems so concerned about getting their faction battle cruiser skills, what about phase two? When you revamp half the ships in the game and I don't want to fly them anymore? Say I wanted the battleship with the most tank so I crossed trained amarr and now gallente fill that role just as well or even better? I wasted 30 days training a ship I'm not going to fly anymore? Or worse, have to train another 30 days to fly the new "brick"?
Don't get me wrong I love the role idea but the only fair way I see the changes coming about is to refund all spaceship skills AFTER the ships have been rebalanced into their roles and let us pick what we want to fly, as we had already done. The changes to the ships seem to be pretty significant, or at least I'm hoping they are. |
YuuKnow
151
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:48:00 -
[1018] - Quote
This part of the blog didn't seem accurate to me
Quote:Support vessels: mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
Aren't logistic cruisers, carriers, and super carriers considered support vessels themselves? If so where do they fit in this scheme? They certainly don't have "poor defensives" as logistic cruisers have super resist, carriers have huge EHP, and super carriers have uber-massive EHP.
If those ships above are "support" then why are theire stats as "support" so uber tanking, and yet the other support (damps, tracking distruption, jamming) so fragile? Its not consistent.
Also, if a support vessel is made fragile (like EWAR), then doesn't that realistically mean that the support will be nothing really more than cannon fodder in each battle, first primary, and always the first to be insta-popped?
Also...true to life "logistic support" are armed and armored ships that supply ammo and supplies rather than the current *healers* which eve has labeled "logistics". Eve's "logistics" is really no more than the "healer class" that most MMOs have. Will there ever be a vessel that serves true *logistics" role in that it will be armed and have the role of fleet replenishment in terms of cap charges, missiles, ammo, and jump fuel? If not, why not? (Its a classic battle doctrine as old as war itself.)
yk |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:51:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Lando wrote:Everyone seems so concerned about getting their faction battle cruiser skills, what about phase two? When you revamp half the ships in the game and I don't want to fly them anymore? Say I wanted the battleship with the most tank so I crossed trained amarr and now gallente fill that role just as well or even better? I wasted 30 days training a ship I'm not going to fly anymore? Or worse, have to train another 30 days to fly the new "brick"? It sounds even worse than that; look at the title of the blog: "Rebalancing EVE. One ship at a time." They already said Inferno is going to screw Amarr first . . . and then all those people have to wait six months or a year sitting around with nothing to fly, waiting to see how everyone else winds up getting screwed, before deciding how to spend their precious "bonus" of refunded SP. Meanwhile everyone else gets to wonder who gets stuffed next, and stops cross training entirely since it's all either going to be "free" or a complete waste of time. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:52:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Gogela wrote:I think some of you are too caught up in your character and not thinking about the game as a whole. F*** my goals. Sometimes s*** changes in life and you need to adapt. Some would argue that's part of what makes life an adventure. You aren't guaranteed that following the path most taken in life will get you to the same place it got the next guy, and you sure as hell can't say that in an internet spaceship. Maybe taking a step back and doing a little revamping of the fundamental EvE experience will breath new life into the game for everyone and make it more challenging and fun. I see, as usual, a lot of rage::quit threats. Relax. EvE is f'n OLD. It's an OLD OLD OLD a** MMO. Maybe a facelift is in order? Maybe it's time for a new EvE experience... an expedition into the unknown? A new battlefield with new variables? ...or maybe you are just too caught up in your current "plan" which was never designed to accommodate change.
I certainly don't disagree that eve is old. But giving it a face lift to look like WoW is stupid. |
|
FluffyDice
StarFckers Inc. The Jagged Alliance
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 04:54:00 -
[1021] - Quote
The "inferno" will be outside jita station and on the forums again if CCP **** this up.
edit: also why is there a rokh picture where the naga should be on this image? http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Caldarishiptree2_1920.jpg |
Carniflex
StarHunt Broken Toys
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:01:00 -
[1022] - Quote
I would like to point out, that if you drop the requiments for Tech 1 ships to level 4 then technically Freighter is also tech 1 ship while jump freighter is T2 counterpart of a Freighter. So training time for freighter would be rather short (industrial 4) while training time for Jump Freighter would be relatively long (Freighter 5).
As far as ship re-balance and juggling with all the skills goes I'm not particularly happy with it and have to think about it. Especially the skills part as I spent long time training these skills a long time ago before remaps were in game. And ofc the issue that my alts would lose access to all races command ships and would have to re train (spending more SP for getting the same capabilities as they have now, as far as I understand). But overall the idea is still fresh - have to think about it. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1793
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:03:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Cyrus Deacon wrote:the proposed capital ship skill requirement change is insane, caps should be HARDER to get into not easier ffs!
Not quite. Regular caps (carriers and dreads) are awesome and really well balanced. It's just supercaps that need to be rarer.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:05:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Mara, I think he was trying to give people some examples people could loosely relate to real life vessels/tactics, not trying to reinvent EVE combat.
I'm willing to wait for more details on exactly how they want to break things down.
This is the thread for discussing the dev blog and possible ship roles, before those poor example roles end up coded into the game by someone "just testing" :)
There should be more discussion about ship roles, less about skill points. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:09:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Cyrus Deacon wrote:the proposed capital ship skill requirement change is insane, caps should be HARDER to get into not easier ffs! Not quite. Regular caps (carriers and dreads) are awesome and really well balanced. It's just supercaps that need to be rarer. I suppose that, if the Nag becomes the new rifter, those supercaps will become a bit rarer quite quicklyGǪ 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. |
YuuKnow
151
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:10:00 -
[1026] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome. If the Dev teams believes that a ship that is easily going to serve the role of both super tank and super healer simulataneously is not going to be rampantly proliferating, then it has not been paying attention to what the community has been saying about capitals and super capitals. I would be in favor of making the capitals less accessible than what your proposing because look what they truly represent. Lets look at the current ships of Eve in terms of their practical game design.
Most MMOs have the group roles: -Damage dealers (both short range and long range) -Controllers (status effects) -Tank
Eve's unique in its group-roles are: -Any cruiser, BC, BShip, or dreadnaught = Damage dealers both short range and long range -EWAR, interceptors, interdictors = Controllers -Logistics = healer -Carriers = combined healer and tank -Super Carriers = combined super healer and super tank
When the Dev team introduced Carriers and Super Carriers, it introduced a strange, weird, and IMHO unnecessary platform into the fleet for which there still isn't a lot of reason why its so imbalanced that it serves multiple, simulatenous roles. Such a class will become even more viral-like if its so easily trained for.
yk |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:11:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Probably because the intern who did that image was working off a powerpoint from a staff meeting, leftover from 2003; which seems to be about when the person who came up with this plan last logged into the game.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:12:00 -
[1028] - Quote
I would like to see more development of "experimental" ship types such as the arbitrator which uses non-racial weapon systems, but not at the expense of the specialists. Thus it might make sense for Angel Cartel to have a Dominix-alike to parallel the Rattlesnake, but not the Amarr, Blood Raisers or Sanshas. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:21:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:IsTheOpOver wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:... However someone flying an F-22 trying a MiG-35 would be much more skilled than someone flying a 787 trying out a MiG-35. ... Well, actually neither one would be able to get it off the ground. So not true... I loved that movie!!! But even Clint had to train Russian Experimental Thought Controlled Jet 1 to get it off the ground.
Firefox was grrrrrreeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaat! They just don't make em like they used to. And for some reason, that movie and Robot Jocks are mushed together in my brain even though they had nothing to do with one another. Both were awesome though. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
FluffyDice
StarFckers Inc. The Jagged Alliance
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:38:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Oh hey, CCP looking to rebalance ships? This is my fort+¬, prom4csm
If its your fort+¬ why the hell didn't you say anything useful or relevant?
Oh you just wanted to advertise yourself. I see. |
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
441
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:43:00 -
[1031] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Papa Boats wrote:Bitter vet checking in. I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.
As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.
I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out. 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.
I seriously hope you mean "if you could fly it yesterday, you can fly it as well today". I.e. four-race CS 5/Interdictor 5 pilots should have the skills maxed as well, not just the minimum. Reinbursement of SP would be an issue if it doesn't take crosstraining into consideration. A current "dictor 4 single racial frigate 5" pilot should not be on same level as a "all four racial frigs 5, dictor 5"-one. In effect, by training up the (current) t2 ship skills, some of us have trained "one" race while others have trained four. And some of us have all four of them at level 5 as is. I love my four-race cruiser 5 + CS 5, am proud of it, and I know it gives me an edge over almost every other CS pilot I meet. It'd be a damn massive insult to put me on par with someone who wouldn't put in some effort to do the same.
Edit; oh I should add - > Removing the in-class ship tiers looks good, on first glance > Making this new tier progression makes alot of sense, I guess "finally" is a good reaction to this > You guys desperately need to add more subcap ships/modules/skills in game, at 100m+ SP there's not much left to do, we could max out capitals, get all weapon specs 5 and rigs 5 for tiny bit advantage, but you already know players like to specialize and don't want to put SP into industry etc, keyword is subcap. (and making racial destroyer/bc is not the way to go just to add more stuff to train) this is a signature |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:43:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Cleaning the skill tree for ships is not a bad idea, but why should that mean introducing racial destroyer and racial battlecruiser skills?
And a few line later you group the ships with what they have in common. That's the way to start, but start from the begining:
* replace ALL racial ship skills with generic ones, it's the same ship type, only the controls differ * introduce racial Systems Control, that's where they differ from each other * top that with the role skills
I assume that some of you guys at CCP know about Object-Oriented Programming ... apply that stuff to your skill design!
Like the naming change, this is a good idea, but you have to do it right. So, please, lay back and improve the idea, like you did it with naming. You're not in a hurry, because doing this wrong, will make A LOT (close to all players) of people angry/sad.
Another argument: You want to get more people into EVE, so don't make cross-training even harder for them. Doubling the time to get into the BS of another race is not the way to go! In addition, you still have to train the corresponding support skills.
Edit: Decorator Pattern It's a cruiser, decorate it with Amarr Control Systems (see below), decorate it with Combat Ship and get the Maller |
Krops Vont
3 Sun Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 05:59:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Reading this late at night im not at full capacity, but i do get it and how it might work. which is different from how intended. Ofc Reimbursement will happen.
I sincerely hope this happens. it looks great imo! GL o/ |
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
107
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:02:00 -
[1034] - Quote
I love how you are going to give everybody who currently has Destroyers V and Battlecruisers V 6,144,000 skillpoints out of thin air.
You guys are truly idiotic. |
Khan Farshatok
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:04:00 -
[1035] - Quote
This is not an ultimatum. Nor is this a threat. I am simply telling you how things will go.
If, at the end of all of your changes, I am unable to fly every ship that I can now, you will be losing a customer with multiple accounts. That is all. |
AtvMX
Lost Society Get Off My Lawn
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:04:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Making racial destroyer/battlecruiser skills? Unless you shorten the train time for them its going to be horribad. 5 x on 4 skills HA! I feel the folks at ccp missed the fact that a non-racial BC skill does let you FLY all the ships, but pilot them effectively? Nah. Last time i checked i could get into any BC i wanted... but still haven't found a way to fit autocannons on the drake. That's another 20dayish? to train. I don't see anything terribly wrong with the current skill tree, going in the wrong direction here guys. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:16:00 -
[1037] - Quote
AtvMX wrote:Making racial destroyer/battlecruiser skills? Unless you shorten the train time for them its going to be horribad. 5 x on 4 skills HA! I feel the folks at ccp missed the fact that a non-racial BC skill does let you FLY all the ships, but pilot them effectively? Nah. Last time i checked i could get into any BC i wanted... but still haven't found a way to fit autocannons on the drake. That's another 20dayish? to train. I don't see anything terribly wrong with the current skill tree, going in the wrong direction here guys. That's why the change from 1+ù BC skill to 4+ù BC skills isn't as big a change as some claim: because that skill is only a small part of what you need to train in order to fly the ships in question.
Consider this: I can fly all Caldari BCs at full effect (including BC V), and now I want to do the same with Minmatar BCs. What will I need to train with this new system?
Minmatar Frigate IV, Minmatar Cruiser IV, possibly all the armour tanking skills, Small Projectiles up to AC Spec IV and Arty Spec IV, Medium Projectiles up to AC Spec V and Arty Spec V, Large Projectiles up to AC Spec V and Arty Spec V (fortunately, I can reuse all the gunnery support skills from the Larg Hybrid specs I needed for the Naga). All in all, that comes to some 35 ranks worth of lvl V and a smattering of lvl IV skills (not even counting the armour skills you might want to add to provide you with all the variations) before we even get to the BC skill itself. Compared to all that, the Minmatar BC V is a pretty small addition. 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. |
Anah Karah
Drama Llamas
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:31:00 -
[1038] - Quote
i have re-evaluated the situation and decided i have all the skills involved in this change max skilled already and thus resolved on the fact i enjoy killing nubblets in carriers who have nowhere near the skills or brainpower needed to actually fly them and thus will glorify my killboard with minimal effort. This epic sentence was brought to you by "Lets_Turn_EVE_Into_WOW.com" in conjunction with "[email protected]"
Bring on the killmails |
Jack Miton
Lapse Of Sanity Exhale.
140
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:36:00 -
[1039] - Quote
This change is garbage.
I have BC 5 for example so youre telling me that you'll reimburse the SP, fine, but then i have to spend 4x the SP to get my skills back up to where they were pre patch? GET ******. Or will you give me 4x the SP for free? yeah, good work geniuses,,,,
The only way this is even remotely salvageable is if you give people the skills, already trained, not free SP, in all races to the level they have the BC/Dessie skill trained previously.
Dropping cap ship pre requ to BS 4 is also lame. We don't want every noob with no skills in cap ships, kthnx.
All in all this is extremely poorly thought out.
EDIT: Yeah ok, i may have raged a bit and it looks like the reimbursment will be done like i said it should be but this is still a needless change that wont accomplish anything useful. if you want to balance ships, just balance the ships. this does not require changing skill progressions that work just fine.
also, if i have BS 5 specifically for a cap ship, can i get it reimbursed too? there are many people who only trained it to get into caps. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:38:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:This change is garbage.
I have BC 5 for example so youre telling me that you'll reimburse the SP, fine, but then i have to spend 4x the SP to get my skills back up to where they were pre patch? No. Read the OP and follow the links. 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. |
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 06:45:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote:Cleaning the skill tree for ships is not a bad idea, but why should that mean introducing racial destroyer and racial battlecruiser skills?
And a few line later you group the ships with what they have in common. That's the way to start, but start from the begining:
* replace ALL racial ship skills with generic ones, it's the same ship type, only the controls differ * introduce racial Systems Control, that's where they differ from each other * top that with the role skills
I assume that some of you guys at CCP know about Object-Oriented Programming ... apply that stuff to your skill design!
Like the naming change, this is a good idea, but you have to do it right. So, please, lay back and improve the idea, like you did it with naming. You're not in a hurry, because doing this wrong, will make A LOT (close to all players) of people angry/sad.
Another argument: You want to get more people into EVE, so don't make cross-training even harder for them. Doubling the time to get into the BS of another race is not the way to go! In addition, you still have to train the corresponding support skills.
Oh, by the way, you already have racial Systems Control skills ... use the Subsystems skills. -> the ships are the same but you have to be able to handle the systems This will allow you to forget about the tiers and use the subsystem skills to provide access to a single ship. E.g. Amarr Offensive Systems IV for Omen (others at two or three) but Amarr Defensive Systems IV for Augoror (others at two or three).
This way those Subsystems skills get integrated way more into EVE and are not anymore just an add-on for strategic cruisers
edit: in addition you could add Amarr/Caldari/Gallente/Minmatar Control Systems, each level opens access to another size of racial ships Level I - Frigates Level II - Destroyer Level III - Cruiser Level IV - Battlecruiser Level V - Battleships
Amarr/Caldari/Gallente/Minmatar Capital Control Systems, each level opens access to another size of racial ships requires Amarr/Caldari/Gallente/Minmatar Control Systems V Level I - Freighter Level II - Dreadnought, Carriers, Rorqual Level III - Jump Freighter Level IV - Motherships Level V - Titan |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 07:29:00 -
[1042] - Quote
My luck i have all lvl5 subcap skill. This is another dumb idea from CCP, just like the namechanges.
CCP talking about they want to trying to new players (namechanges), but this changes increasing the new players training times. Just increasing the gap between the old and new players. This is very bad gamepolitic toward to playerbase again.
If they continuing this dumb development direction, i think Hilmar need to write another apologetic letter again. |
Slumber Hawk
Shadow on the moon
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 07:36:00 -
[1043] - Quote
ty for the heads up, will start training my missing BS skills asap. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 07:38:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:My luck i have all lvl5 subcap skill. This is another dumb idea from CCP, just like the namechanges.
CCP talking about they want to trying to new players (namechanges), but this changes increasing the new players training times. Just increasing the gap between the old and new players. This is very bad gamepolitic toward to playerbase again. It doesn't increase new player's training times unless the new players decide to do everything at once, which never was a good decision for them to begin with. If they actually decide to specialise, this change reduces the time it takes for them to get to a specific role or ship, and lets them focus on specific tasks much more effectively before.
It's a (very tiny) nerf for the jack-of-al-trades types; a rather significant improvement for everyone else. New players, in particular, will be able to GÇ£catch upGÇ¥ much faster than before since they no longer have to train a whole slew of unnecessary and irrelevant prereqs. 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. |
Jodie Amille
Rape of Virtue
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 07:42:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:My luck i have all lvl5 subcap skill. This is another dumb idea from CCP, just like the namechanges.
CCP talking about they want to trying to new players (namechanges), but this changes increasing the new players training times. Just increasing the gap between the old and new players. This is very bad gamepolitic toward to playerbase again.
If they continuing this dumb development direction, i think Hilmar need to write another apologetic letter again.
Oh please, it changes jack all. New players had to specialize to compete with older ones anyways. All this does is mildly change how long it takes for them to cross-train.(2.5-3 extra months for the 3 other bc 5 skills ain't that long)
**** you people are ********.
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:01:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tiger's Spirit wrote:My luck i have all lvl5 subcap skill. This is another dumb idea from CCP, just like the namechanges.
CCP talking about they want to trying to new players (namechanges), but this changes increasing the new players training times. Just increasing the gap between the old and new players. This is very bad gamepolitic toward to playerbase again. It doesn't increase new player's training times unless the new players decide to do everything at once, which never was a good decision for them to begin with. If they actually decide to specialise, this change reduces the time it takes for them to get to a specific role or ship, and lets them focus on specific tasks much more effectively before. It's a (very tiny) nerf for the jack-of-al-trades types; a rather significant improvement for everyone else. New players, in particular, will be able to GÇ£catch upGÇ¥ much faster than before since they no longer have to train a whole slew of unnecessary and irrelevant prereqs.
Really ? Check my friend the new t3 training time differences and the old one. Just 1.5 month longer with the new idea the learning time.
|
Beckie DeLey
Brigade of Guards SpaceMonkey's Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:06:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Changes are good, bittervets need to remove their collective heads from their asses.
Go Dev Team and try not to listen too much to the crybabies that played for 5 years and are now worried that they could maybe lose a week of skill time. It's The Legendary Extraordinary Me |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
115
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:09:00 -
[1048] - Quote
ITT: Many people who don't understand how skills, nested skill reqs and ship prereqs work screaming very loudly and very incorrectly.
Ranger 1 wrote:Aside from the few legitimate issues (how Jump Freighters and BS 5 will be handled) this entire thread reads like "If illiteracy and deliberately obtuse had a love child, what would it look like?"
Though this can be applied to eve-o in general in most threads (especially those full of passion, RAAAAGE and drool), it's especially apparent here. I'm actually embarrassed that so many EVE players gaze down upon other MMOs condescendingly thinking themselves intellectually superior, yet they produce such fucktastic dumbass shitposts when given an opportunity to speak, so unaware of the hurf blurf that leaks out of the corner of their mouths, collecting in their neckbeards.
I'm looking forward to seeing this change take shape and develop into something good. Getting rid of tiers is long overdue, and I'm happy to see it's no longer just a player lament in features and ideas, or ship improvement suggestion threads. I DO think that the proposed "roles" (e.g. "artillery", "attack ships", etc.) are pretty lol and potentially even worse than the tiers. Let the players decide how they want to use ships, just make sure that every ship has a viable slot layout, reasonable stats like HP, and bonuses that are useful. Don't homogenize ships at that, please. We don't need two energy turret DPS boats, just as we don't really need the Prophecy now anyway. Must the proposed new Support Cruiser (tm) always only do its electronic warfare duty? I think not, it kind of sucks the fun out of playing with fits and roles.
No tiers, no ships that only differ in their model, no T1 ships that can only do one thing well (save that for T2), yes to unique stats and bonuses that can be used in more than one way and work with more than one fit, encouraging player creativity. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:11:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:Really ? Check my friend the new t3 training time differences and the old one. Just 1.5 month longer with the new idea the learning time. What differences are you referring to and where do you get 1.5 months from? No new training times are presented, and the only change for T3 would be the 1-+ day extra needed to get Destroyer IV. 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. |
Ev Xetvvvi
FSPalm
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:11:00 -
[1050] - Quote
First of all i hope 1. the skill req for ship will look like>> frigs>destroyers>cruisers>bcs>bs and so
2. dont give all racial BC to lvl 5 if have arleady bc at lvl 5..i hope CCP will just remove those skill and reimburse with SP, for example from BC lvl 5 only 1.5 mil SP
3. anyway you are doing it right.
|
|
Ranshe
Blackwater Company
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:13:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote: Really ? Check my friend the new t3 training time differences and the old one. Just 1.5 month longer with the new idea the learning time.
Except it's not 1.5 month longer, it's 2 days for training destroyers to 4 between frigate and cruiser skill. |
Jazzmyn
The Ghost Division
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:17:00 -
[1052] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now.
SKILLS:
[list]
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.
Heeeey, u cant change this now, i just changed 10 of my alts skill training into BC5.
Fight ! Fight ! Never surrender, never surrender ! |
Effortless Breeze
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:34:00 -
[1053] - Quote
So CCP, what exactly is it? You've only released incomplete statements about how current skills will translate over to your new system
Dev blog wrote:Split Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills into 4 racial variants, and turn them into requirements for training upper classes. Amarr Battleship would now require Amarr Battlecruiser at 4.
This tidbit makes it seem the progression you are aiming at
Racial Frigate IV unlocks Racial Destroyer Racial Destroyer IV unlocks Racial Cruiser. Racial Cruiser IV unlocks Racial Battlecruiser Racial Battlecruiser IV unlocks Racial Battleship Racial Battleship IV unlocks Racial Capital
This image also supports that idea
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. source
So I could fly any of the destroyers with racial frigate 1 and racial destroyer current on TQ. I could fly any battle cruiser on TQ with racial cruiser III and Battlecruiser III
I could fly Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Battleships and Capitals without destroyers on TQ I could fly Battleships and Capitals without battle cruisers at all on TQ
So if I had neither battlecruisers or destroyers trained but say racial battleship IV trained, I wouldn't be able to fly it without getting both racial destroyer IV or racial battlecruiser IV post patch
So assuming that you will be able to fly all ships you can fly post patch, any level of racial cruiser trained would need to get a racial destroyer to IV added to your characters skills. Any level of racial battleship or capital would require both racial destroyer AND racial battlecruiser IV to be added to the character sheet
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.
source
Alright so any levels trained of Destroyers and Battlecruisers will translate to the 4 new racial variations
But on TQ, you only need racial frigate III and destroyers I to fly a destroyer. You only need racial cruiser III and battlecruiser III to fly a battlecruiser. The new system implies you need all smaller ship classes to IV to move up a ship hull
An example, somebody with Caldari Cruiser III, Battlecruiser V and the skillbook for destroyers not injected at all. What would they get? They could get all racial variants of battlecruiser V added to their skill sheet but they would be lacking not only Racial Destroyer IV, but also Racial Cruiser IV. Would this example get those additional skills as well in order to follow on CCP's soundwave statement that you will be able to fly everything you could pre-patch?
Or say somebody with Battlecruiser III, destroyer II and Racial Battleship V. If you translate the original battle cruiser and destroyer skill levels, they will get all racial destroyers II and all racial battlecruisers III. However, this will not allow them to fly battleships or larger in the new system (since they don't have racial destroyers to IV or cruisers to IV)
In order to get all Racial Battlecruisers to V and all Racial Destroyers to V, do you need to train other things assuming you already have Battlecruisers V and Destroyers V on TQ currently? If you have any battleship or capital skills would you need to train destroyers to IV and battlecruisers to IV to use those? |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation
76
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:34:00 -
[1054] - Quote
I forsee destroyer and BC skill book prices to rocket :D - Nulla Curas |
Baneken
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric The Polaris Syndicate
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:39:00 -
[1055] - Quote
So I take it's that those who have BC V will have all racial BC V skills when this change goes live ?
Only way to have this makes sense is to see what ship you can currently fly, so if I learn all (racial)frigate- to IV and cruiser skills to III and I get all the goodies from BC skill change re: 3x BC V insta learned ? |
Baneken
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric The Polaris Syndicate
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:40:00 -
[1056] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:I forsee destroyer and BC skill book prices to rocket :D
wonder how since they are NPC seeded ? |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
214
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:45:00 -
[1057] - Quote
So I'm going to go from being able to fly 4 different battle cruisers at level 5 to only being able to fly one.... Brilliant
I want at least double the amount of the skill points currently needed to train BC's to 5 back when this change happens.
Edit: okay, after reading a CCP post above, as long as I will be able to fly the ships I can fly now at the same level, I'll be happy... Especially if it paves the way for pirate faction BC's |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:45:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Baneken wrote:ChromeStriker wrote:I forsee destroyer and BC skill book prices to rocket :D wonder how since they are NPC seeded ? NPC seeded items still react to market pressures GÇö if you empty out the supply of an NPC item, it will be restocked at a higher price. Likewise, if you let items sit in the market without anything being bought, the prices slowly adjust downward.
Sure, it's not nearly as direct as for PC-built items, but a mechanism is in place to emulate the behaviour.
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. |
Zimmy Zeta
Battle Force Industries Tactical Invader Syndicate
941
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:45:00 -
[1059] - Quote
I really like the general idea of these changes, looks promising. For now, I will not b+tch about details like skill point reimbursement and stuff, I consider the whole thing "work in progress" and I am just going to assume that those details will be decided upon later with ample feedback by the CSM.
thumbs up for those new ideas. -.- |
Cain Thanatos
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:47:00 -
[1060] - Quote
As long as it's 1) wisely implemented and 2) people are solidly, maybe even a little extra to ease minds in the way of progress - then this would be great.
I think getting at these ships, at such a fundamental level is paramount if proper balancing and even new ship developement can realistically be expected.
My only point in all of this is BS5
!!!!!!!!!!!!
Having to spend an entire month in order to move into caps is a MAJOR deterrent. People - the idiot masses at least, would flock to and flood. Unless we want to work against sanity and move in the direction the players and devs want as far as having more varied fleets then please, leave the BS5 req. alone!!!
Put these fires out quick, I strongly suggest getting input from the CSM to put together a good reimbursement. Once people can relax then true discourse on the actual change can take place. |
|
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
172
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:47:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Initial thoughts are that we'll see even fewer Command Ships being used.
If the time to train figures are accurate then its effectively another "screw you" to a long-suffering ship class. I think you'd have to nerf T3 command boosts into the ground to make this even remotely fair.
It looks like a very very brave decision you're taking on this, might make things better but is more than likely just to lose you existing customers, which you really cannot afford to do as your retention rate for new players is still absymal.
You're obviously going to do it regardless of feedback so may as well get things "set in stone" ASAP so people can decide whether they can be bothered training up stuff again which they can already use now. Might just be the straw which breaks this particular "camel's back"...... |
VIP Ares
BALKAN EXPRESS
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:49:00 -
[1062] - Quote
I am seriosuly worried when I see you spend so much time on such unimportant changes.
Whole list of improvmenets you guys made last year is just great, but this sounds.... weird.
Please switch focus. http://vipares.griefwatch.net |
Katrina Smit
FSPalm
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:53:00 -
[1063] - Quote
About BS at 4 for Capitals, but for what i train BS at 5 aorun 1month 10 days? for what i need this skill on capital pilot who never fly on any ships smaller Capitals.
Do You have plan about reimbush this ? |
Jango Kado
epTa Team Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 08:58:00 -
[1064] - Quote
When we will get skiils such as Amarr Interceptor and other cool racial stuff? |
Bent Barrel
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:00:00 -
[1065] - Quote
Nice can of worms you opened there CCP :-) This will be intersting. Luckily I am not going past frigates, so no problem for me.
I am quite interested in what will happen. I have the destroyer skillbook but not injected. Also I have Gallente cruiser 4. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:05:00 -
[1066] - Quote
Othran wrote:Initial thoughts are that we'll see even fewer Command Ships being used.
If the time to train figures are accurate then its effectively another "screw you" to a long-suffering ship class. I think you'd have to nerf T3 command boosts into the ground to make this even remotely fair. Command Ships should be easier to train for after this change. You no longer have to train for HACs and Logis; that alone shaves off several million SP. By the sound of it, you also don't have to train Cruiser V (since Racial BC V will replace it in the prereq list), and that's another million SP saved compared to now. 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. |
Sidus Isaacs
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:08:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Interesting changes. I hope this brings new uses to the outdated ships that lost out du to the tier system. |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
231
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:09:00 -
[1068] - Quote
I was wondering when someone would put his hand into this particular snake pit.
I tentatively approve of the suggested changes, just make sure that, as you already mentioned that you will, I will be able to keep flying the ships I can now. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:15:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Here's an important question:
Does removing ship tiers also affect production/research cost? Since higher tiers cost more to produce, does the removal of tiers mean that the ships respective production/mineral/research costs will be equalized aswell? |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:22:00 -
[1070] - 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).
Narrowly avoids a 50 page rage thread at CCP. As long as you stick to this CCP, I approve. If you fail and one day I login and cannot fly a ship I can currently fly you'll have more than statues being fired at ;).
Please keep it high to get into capitals though, to many as it is when you should encourage people to fly smaller sized ships and more balanced fleets. |
|
Leana Storm
Domination. NEM3SIS.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:26:00 -
[1071] - 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.
Please put that in the devblog. in bold. in at least 5 diffrent places. and one extra large in red, under the headline. |
Kirin Falense
Some names are just stupid
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:27:00 -
[1072] - Quote
I approve! Although I bet it has been said before this makes the BS5 really useless for capital pilots, it would be nice if we were allowed to put those skillpoints to better use elsewhere, my two cents.... |
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:29:00 -
[1073] - Quote
this:
Quote: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?
this:
Quote: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...
and this:
Quote: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.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=899625#post899625
I do hope these points will be addressed at some point, as I cannot see how the idea, as-is, can be justified otherwise. |
Gravecall
Nordic Innovations BLACK-MARK
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:29:00 -
[1074] - Quote
So does this mean that the Rokh will be getting a large defense buff/Raven getting a defense nerf? According to your new classes the Raven should only have an average defense whereas the Rokh should have a great one. At the moment the Raven is the mission-runners choice because it can pack almost as much damage as the Rokh while having way better defense. Heck you could probably even resolve the issue without touching defense buffs by going after the cap generation so the Rokh can field a better active shield tank than the Raven inspite of the cap drain from it's rails. |
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:31:00 -
[1075] - Quote
People sure are up in arms about the whole cross-training thing.
I wonder why nobody has argued in favor of doing things the other way around? Removing racial ship skills altogether and just having "frigate", "cruiser", "battleship", etc., since that would massively decrease the required training time to be able to pilot all the races' ship variations...
Me, I really don't give a toss. I'm more hoping that ship classes other than battlecruiser actually become worth piloting in PvP. For too long, BCs have been the dominant ship class in EVE simply due to their insane cost-effectiveness. Isn't it time for a bit of change?
I mean, really, if cruisers become worth piloting over BCs, why would you even care about training BC skill again? But whatever, I see a lot of people have lots of trouble thinking laterally... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:35:00 -
[1076] - Quote
RavenNyx wrote: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? What's inconsistent about it?
We already have racial cruiser skills GÇö 2+ù racial cruiser = pirate cruiser. So why would they have to suddenly introduce [pirate] cruiser skills all of a sudden?
Quote: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? Why would they? You'll still be able to use those skills (and ships). 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. |
wallenbergaren
University of Caille Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:39:00 -
[1077] - Quote
I still haven't heard a good reason for this BC skill change. Certainly not one good enough to justify it. Splitting one ship skill into four different ones is a very dramatic change. It needs to be motivated by a very good reason, not "oh, we think it'd be more consistent". |
tasman devil
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:42:00 -
[1078] - Quote
I - for one - am cheering for this!
The same as with the name-change. Reduce illogical stuff and not to keep it just because "It was there from the get go" is a good approach.
Just keep it simple, and please-pretty please do NOT stretch this out to infinity!! Roll it in in ONE iteration! Do not say "we will iterate on it later". It is just like me doing the laundry: I've put the stuff in the washing machine and will iterate on it later (ie. turn on the damn machine)so basically **** got done but I am still short of clean clothes...
|
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:42:00 -
[1079] - Quote
I'm not too fond of the dumbing down I see behind making ship progression more linear, and making capitals easier to get into. I approve of the tiericide, and am pretty impartial about splitting the skills into racial variants, as long as the reimbursement works out as described. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Noran Talidan
Unity College
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:45:00 -
[1080] - Quote
I like this idea, really it adds much needed consistancy!
My only worry is how much is this role system going to effect the use of ships that I can already fly... (IE Armageddon, Apoc, etc) are my fitting's and play style going to have to change after 8 years to compensate? |
|
Vahu Shamy
Tr0pa de elite. G00DFELLAS
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:46:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Finally! Good direction here CCP. But just keep the BS V requirement for caps |
Jane Bahna
Freelance Tech Industries Cascade Associates
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:49:00 -
[1082] - Quote
New ship lines: need more details on how this will affect the ships .. so far nothing to comment New Racial skills: I feel sorry for all new players, who have to train 4times more for more cross-racial training. BC skill with x6 multiplier and aprox 30 days to L V, thats 4 months instead of 1 (lolz). You need to be super-sure you want this to happen. Caps with BS IV: Thats just stupid. That being sad, let's remind us that subcap gunnery skills (small/med/large) require L 3 of their lower versions with caps gunnery skills require large L V. So inhere are caps already different, lets keep 'em that way in ships tree as well. Or this will also change ? Skills reimb.: I foresee huge SP boosts, I bet pro character sellers already adjusted the plans :)
keep the ideas coming :P
EDIT: with the all rebalancing ideas flying around, I would really like to see Drone skills to be adjusted finally |
Tuggboat
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:49:00 -
[1083] - Quote
I would like to see some discussion on why ship tiers prevent you from adding slots and also what ships would make up which ship lines and whether we need an additional line or two. Are the ship lines built around ground or navel metaphors and does it matter are some things I'd like to discuss but.
All I see is a thread about skill point balance rather than ship balance. WOuld it be ok to open up discussion of this in the ships and module section or where does it belong? General will get buried in a day and trolled to death so CCP where do we talk about the dev blog at? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:50:00 -
[1084] - Quote
wallenbergaren wrote:I still haven't heard a good reason for this BC skill change. Certainly not one good enough to justify it. Splitting one ship skill into four different ones is a very dramatic change. It needs to be motivated by a very good reason, not "oh, we think it'd be more consistent". Consistency is a very good reason. This change also decouples a number of skill requirements to create categorical GÇ£roleGÇ¥ and GÇ£hullGÇ¥ skills that combine to give you access to any one specific ship. This, in turn, makes it far easier for new players to specialise and GÇ£catch upGÇ¥ with older players, and the only downside is that cross-training is very slightly more costly than before GÇö it hits the mid-to-long-term players more than anyone and simply presents a new decision point on top of the many new decisions created by the aforementioned decoupling of hull and role.
Tallian Saotome wrote:I'm not too fond of the dumbing down I see behind making ship progression more linear, and making capitals easier to get into. GǪand as a result of these increased choices and decision points, this change does the exact opposite of dumbing the game down: it makes the game smarter. It lets you plan your progression in finer detail and lets the smart player squeeze more out of the system than the dumb one.
More decisions and more consequences GÇ£smartensGÇ¥ the game GÇö it does not dumb it down.
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. |
Kvikindi
Sultans of Shwing
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:53:00 -
[1085] - Quote
I'd say put all racial shipclass prerequisites to lvl V Amarr Frigate V -> Amarr Destroyer V -> Amarr Cruiser V etc.
maybe slightly lower their rank so the total training time isn't so huge. But in general this would mean player needs so specialize/focus either in race or ship class... this way you cant just crosstrain every t1 (capital) ship in game so easily
P.S. all "high sp" toons stop whining about the bc V, ccp will figure out a reimbursement... besides.... changes (good or bad) makes this game interesting for us old farts out there :D |
Noran Talidan
Unity College
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:53:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Tuggboat wrote:All I see is a thread about skill point balance rather than ship balance. WOuld it be ok to open up discussion of this in the ships and module section or where does it belong? General will get buried in a day and trolled to death so CCP where do we talk about the dev blog at?
Exactly I am far more worried about the ships then the skills... skills can be fixed... but please be carful not to break the ships.... I like my navy geddon!!! |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1040
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:54:00 -
[1087] - 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. Yea just make sure that everyone get same amount of "little extra" as in:
Player A gets reimbursed 1 million skill points from his previous skill. That get multiplied by 4 to match new multi faction skill. This = 3 million new free skill points*
Player B doesn't have the skills at all and gets 0 skills as reimbursement. That gets multiplied by 4 and is still 0. This is 3 million new skill points less than player A got*
Player A gets reimbursed 0,5 million skill points from his previous skill. That get multiplied by 4 to match new multi faction skill. This = 1,5 million new free skill points and still 1,5 million less than player A got*
*skill point amounts are fictional but provide their point in their context.
How are you going to deal with this?
1) Shall all players receive same amount of free NEW skill points? 2) ... or are you going to provide those free skill points by making the new skills 4 times faster to train? 3) ... or something else what I yet fail to see?
Get |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:56:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Tippia wrote: More decisions and more consequences GÇ£smartensGÇ¥ the game GÇö it does not dumb it down.
As I see this change, it removes choices by channeling people into a racial path, which in some cases is a VERY bad thing(think Gallente since the nano nerf) which takes considerably more effort to get out of. It also forces training of things you have no intention of using(I have dessie to 2 because I hate the class of hull), which removes choices.
Short version: Not as many choices when you train, much more painful consequences, to the point you are being punished if your races core mechanic is nerfed, or even just falls out of favor as a fleet ship. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 09:58:00 -
[1089] - Quote
having to retrain skills is small price for getting actually useful ships. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:03:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:As I see this change, it removes choices by channeling people into a racial path, which in some cases is a VERY bad thing(think Gallente since the nano nerf) which takes considerably more effort to get out of. No, it just adds a bit more gravitas to the choice GÇö it does not remove any.
Quote:It also forces training of things you have no intention of using(I have dessie to 2 because I hate the class of hull), which removes choices. Actually, it does away with many of those choices and the ones they add (Dessy IV and BC IV) are so insignificant that they don't matter on the scale of things. In exchange, you can specify what you want to train far better than before since they're removing the cross-tier requirements: if you want to train HACs, you can simply train HACs GÇö no need for the frigate nonsense; if you want to train Fleet CS, you can train Fleet CS and not have to care about the Logi nonsense.
You get more choices, and very little in added consequences since the ship skills are still a rather minor part of what you need to train in order to go for width rather than depth. 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. |
|
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:04:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Tippia wrote:RavenNyx wrote: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? What's inconsistent about it? We already have racial cruiser skills GÇö 2+ù racial cruiser = pirate cruiser. So why would they have to suddenly introduce [pirate] cruiser skills all of a sudden? We have inconsistencies now, and we've learned to live with them. Now they're refractoring the whole setup, and that should bring consistency back to New Eden. It makes as much sense to have two different CR-skills given access to one ship, as one BC skill giving access to 8 ships. Consistency, please, or leave it be...
Tippia wrote:RavenNyx wrote: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? Why would they? You'll still be able to use those skills (and ships). They'll take my only reason to have spent 60 days worth of skillpoints away, and that I'm not to see as a problem? No, I would not use reimbursed skillpoints to get Gallente BC to 5, nor would I use it to get Amarr BC to 5. I don't fly AHACs, so no need for lazers and rails on anything is just silly (except for the naga - makes kind of sense there) + my normal PvP routine doesn't take me close enough for blasters anyway, so... They're trained now, because of legacy and because I enjoy to have fun in a Harbinger or a Brutix from time to time, but there's no real reason to have them trained if I can't fly the BC. |
Tizmen
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:12:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Hopefully they are just trolling us.
I can't see how this can be good in any way. More skills for people train? If anything you should be removing skills, not adding more!
we just got rid of learning skills FFS. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:12:00 -
[1093] - Quote
RavenNyx wrote:We have inconsistencies now, and we've learned to live with them. Now they're refractoring the whole setup, and that should bring consistency back to New Eden. It makes as much sense to have two different CR-skills given access to one ship, as one BC skill giving access to 8 ships. Consistency, please, or leave it be... The question remains: where is the inconsistency? Each pirate faction consists of a mix of two races GÇö it's right there in the RP. What's inconsistent about the pirate faction ships requiring the two racial skills? That's like calling it inconsistent that you need Caldari Cruiser to fly the Navy Caracal.
Quote:They'll take my only reason to have spent 60 days worth of skillpoints away, and that I'm not to see as a problem? No, I would not use reimbursed skillpoints to get Gallente BC to 5, nor would I use it to get Amarr BC to 5. I don't fly AHACs, so no need for lazers and rails on anything is just silly (except for the naga - makes kind of sense there) + my normal PvP routine doesn't take me close enough for blasters anyway, so... They're trained now, because of legacy and because I enjoy to have fun in a Harbinger or a Brutix from time to time, but there's no real reason to have them trained if I can't fly the BC. GǪbut you will be able to fly the BC, so what has been GÇ£thrown awayGÇ¥? If you didn't want those skillpoints, why did you get them (and why should they reimburse you for your poor judgement)? If you did want them, and enjoy flying the ships they provide you with, then they're not wasted now are they? 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. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:13:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:As I see this change, it removes choices by channeling people into a racial path, which in some cases is a VERY bad thing(think Gallente since the nano nerf) which takes considerably more effort to get out of. No, it just adds a bit more gravitas to the choice GÇö it does not remove any. Quote:It also forces training of things you have no intention of using(I have dessie to 2 because I hate the class of hull), which removes choices. Actually, it does away with many of those choices and the ones they add (Dessy IV and BC IV) are so insignificant that they don't matter on the scale of things. In exchange, you can specify what you want to train far better than before since they're removing the cross-tier requirements: if you want to train HACs, you can simply train HACs GÇö no need for the frigate nonsense; if you want to train Fleet CS, you can train Fleet CS and not have to care about the Logi nonsense. You get more choices, and very little in added consequences since the ship skills are still a rather minor part of what you need to train in order to go for width rather than depth. Well, you are caldari, and I know you don't take part in large fleets, so you haven't experienced the pain of being a gallente subcap pilot in Eve for the past few years. As things stand, it is fairly easy to cross train to a new race(only takes about a month to train into a battleship able to fit meta 4 large guns, if you are crosstraining). Then again, what we are conditioned to think of as 'easy' in eve is pretty skewed already, considering you can max out at the most popular MMO in the world in 14 days.
If we know that tomorrow minmatar ships will be as good as gallente will be as good as caldari will be as good as amarr, and all will be able to be built to the same performance profiles so they can keep up in a fleet, making cross training harder will be ok. Till that day lets keep race loyalty a personal choice, and let those of us who are trying to compete not be forced to effectively start over.
Edit: having BCs crosstrainable in a week or 2 is a huge help too when you have to comply with fleet doctrines. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:21:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:... Edit: having BCs crosstrainable in a week or 2 is a huge help too when you have to comply with fleet doctrines.
fleet doctrines are derivative. if ships change, fleet doctrines will change. hopefully, EVE will get cured of homogenity in fleet composition. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:23:00 -
[1096] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Well, you are caldari, and I know you don't take part in large fleets, so you haven't experienced the pain of being a gallente subcap pilot in Eve for the past few years. GǪyou mean aside from me training Gallente as my first race and having used those ships pretty much exclusively back in my large-fleet days? Yeah, no, assumptions are bad for you so stop using them because they can only ever make you look foolish.
Quote:As things stand, it is fairly easy to cross train to a new race(only takes about a month to train into a battleship able to fit meta 4 large guns, if you are crosstraining). GǪand after this change, the difficulty is pretty much the same. The only difference is that you need to get Destroyers IV (a day an a half) to go to Cruisers and above, and Battlecruiser IV (4 days) to go to Battleships and above. Unless you absolutely have to have BC V or Dessy V, that's the only difference, and if you're getting that BC V to get into command ships, this new setup is actually faster than the old one.
Quote:having BCs crosstrainable in a week or 2 is a huge help too when you have to comply with fleet doctrines. Fun fact: BC will still be cross-trainable in a week or 2.
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. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
754
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:25:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Edit: having BCs crosstrainable in a week or 2 is a huge help too when you have to comply with fleet doctrines. This is very much the central issue of this revamp.
What we're getting according to the devblog is a segregation of players according to race trained, making it much more difficult for someone to try out ships from other races at a competitive level.
This will make life for new alliance grunts hell. 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Melissa Brown
Project Stealth Squad Avaricious Cartel
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:26:00 -
[1098] - Quote
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.
|
RavenNyx
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:26:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Tippia wrote:RavenNyx wrote:We have inconsistencies now, and we've learned to live with them. Now they're refractoring the whole setup, and that should bring consistency back to New Eden. It makes as much sense to have two different CR-skills given access to one ship, as one BC skill giving access to 8 ships. Consistency, please, or leave it be... The question remains: where is the inconsistency? Each pirate faction consists of a mix of two races GÇö it's right there in the RP. What's inconsistent about the pirate faction ships requiring the two racial skills? That's like calling it inconsistent that you need Caldari Cruiser to fly the Navy Caracal. So, a different pattern of a racial faction ship, that's your argument. It's the same hull? Same goes for all the racial factions' stuff. Read the description of the republic fleet firetail f.ex. - based on a rifter-hull. The navy caracal - even the name is the same, the pattern is not... I don't really care for RP in this context. If the RP-element said that Amarr had the greatest ships in all of New Eden, and it was depicted in the balancing of the ships, you see nothing but amarr ships out there - it'd be Amarr online instead...
Tippia wrote:RavenNyx wrote:They'll take my only reason to have spent 60 days worth of skillpoints away, and that I'm not to see as a problem? No, I would not use reimbursed skillpoints to get Gallente BC to 5, nor would I use it to get Amarr BC to 5. I don't fly AHACs, so no need for lazers and rails on anything is just silly (except for the naga - makes kind of sense there) + my normal PvP routine doesn't take me close enough for blasters anyway, so... They're trained now, because of legacy and because I enjoy to have fun in a Harbinger or a Brutix from time to time, but there's no real reason to have them trained if I can't fly the BC. GǪbut you will be able to fly the BC, so what has been Gǣthrown awayGǥ? If you didn't want those skillpoints, why did you get them (and why should they reimburse you for your poor judgement)? If you did want them, and enjoy flying the ships they provide you with, then they're not wasted now are they? Theory-crafting and nitpicking - I love it :) now go play troll with someone who likes that stuff... |
Echo Mande
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:27:00 -
[1100] - Quote
An interesting blog and one I'll have to think on for a bit.
Some questions (which may already have been answered; I haven't read the threadnaught) - Battlecruisers V is currently a prerequisite for Command Ships skill, with racial cruiser V and (support ship skill) IV needed to fly the ship. I take it that will be changed to avoid creating 4 racial command ship skills
- Will the current requirements for the Covetor be fixed? Currently it has the same requirements (except for exhumers skill) as a hulk resulting in everybody sticking with retrievers while training up. I would suggest changing either the required mining barge skill or astrogeology skill to IV. Dropping both to IV would IMO be overkill
- It's always amused me that flying a freighter required Advanced Spaceship Command skill while flying an Orca, which is the same size, only required Spaceship Command V. Will this be changed
- Any thoughts on integrating the Industrial Command Ships and Capital Industrial Ships skills? The ships involved have broadly the same purpose (boost/haul) and the Rorqual specific bits (Capital ships skill) could easily be taken out. It could result in the following skill: Industrial Command (requires mining barge V, Leadership V, Mining Director I). To fly an Orca you'd need this at level I and Spaceship Command V (or Advanced Spaceship Command I). To fly a Rorqual you might need this skill at III-IV plus Capital Ships II (and Jump skills of course)
- On a further note, any thoughts on removing Spaceship Command/Advanced Spaceship Command/Capital Ships skill as a prerequisite from the various ship type skills and implementing them as a (higher level) ship secondary skill (if they aren't already there)? For instance, an Archon requires Capital Ships I, Amarr Carrier I, and Jump Drive Operations I. However Amarr Carrier skill also requires Capital Ships III which to me seems over the top*. A neater solution would be to have the Archon require Capital Ships III to begin with, with Amarr Carriers skill not having a Capital Ships requirement. In practice this wouldn't change things though the various planning skill trees would be weeded.
* Capital Industrial Ships skill is worse, with Advanced Spaceship Command and Capital Ships skills both being secondary skill requirements. The Rorqual itself also has Capital Ships II as a requirement.
Comments? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:33:00 -
[1101] - Quote
RavenNyx wrote:So, a different pattern of a racial faction ship, that's your argument. It's the same hull? Same goes for all the racial factions' stuff. Read the description of the republic fleet firetail f.ex. - based on a rifter-hull. The navy caracal - even the name is the same, the pattern is not... I'm saying race GåÆ hull skill prereq. Pirate faction = 2 mixed races GåÆ 2 hull skill prereqs.
So again, where's the inconsistency?
Quote:Theory-crafting and nitpicking - I love it :) now go play troll with someone who likes that stuff... So in other words, you don't see it as a problem because you're not wasting any SP. Good.
Echo Mande wrote:Some questions (which may already have been answered; I haven't read the threadnaught) - Battlecruisers V is currently a prerequisite for Command Ships skill, with racial cruiser V and (support ship skill) IV needed to fly the ship. I take it that will be changed to avoid creating 4 racial command ship skills Most likely, we'll go from the two command ships requiring [racial] Cruiser V + Command Ship I + HAC/Logi IV to simply requiring [racial] Battlecruiser V + Command Ship I (and the BC requirement for the Command Ships skill will be removed since it no longer exists and since the ships themslves already carry that prereq).
Quote:- Will the current requirements for the Covetor be fixed? Yes. Specifically mentioned in the blog, at least as far as the Barges skill goes GÇö no mention of the Astrogo skill. 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. |
Jed Mosley
One For A Point Two For A Slap
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:36:00 -
[1102] - Quote
What about making the bc skill a lower training time multiplier so that training the 4 new bc skills to 5 will take the same time or something along those line? |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:37:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪyou mean aside from me training Gallente as my first race and having used those ships pretty much exclusively back in my large-fleet days? Yeah, no, assumptions are bad for you so stop using them because they can only ever make you look foolish.
You mean before they became useless and were the one race of ship absolutely unwelcome in large fleets? Thats my point.
Quote:GǪand after this change, the difficulty is pretty much the same. The only difference is that you need to get Destroyers IV (a day an a half) to go to Cruisers and above, and Battlecruiser IV (4 days) to go to Battleships and above. Unless you absolutely have to have BC V or Dessy V, that's the only difference, and if you're getting that BC V to get into command ships, this new setup is actually faster than the old one.
So frigs 4 -> cruisers 4 -> BS 4 ~ frigs 4 -> dessies 4 -> Cruisers 4 -> BC 4 -> BS 4?
Sure doesn't look like almost twice the training to me
Quote:Fun fact: BC will still be cross-trainable in a week or 2. As pointed out, this change adds unnecessary crap that most people don't need and would never train for. I discovered I could fly a thrasher on accident because I passed it on the way to doctrine fits(only reason I trained outside gallente to begin with, drone boats are the true masters of space).
Do you know how hard it can be to get people to crosstrain as it is with just a few simple skills? It will be much harder if we have to say 'Train everything minmatar so you can fly this one ship required by the alliance' than it is now to say 'grab frigs, cruisers, and BS, plus a couple gun skills'
Even if the time frames were the same(they are not, they stated that they intend them to be longer for subcaps) the sheer number of skills get more intimidating the more there are, and the farther the player feels it takes them from where they want to train. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:48:00 -
[1104] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:You mean before they became useless and were the one race of ship absolutely unwelcome in large fleets? No. About the time when Amarr and MInmatar were the mainstay of fleets, especially for the ship sizes I fly. I'l say it again before I break out the personal abuse: stop assuming things because they only ever make you look foolish.
Quote:So frigs 4 -> cruisers 4 -> BS 4 ~ frigs 4 -> dessies 4 -> Cruisers 4 -> BC 4 -> BS 4? Sure doesn't look like almost twice the training to me Sure doesn't, largely because you forgot to add the things that actually take time when you cross-train. The difference is a few days, which is very little compared to the month you describe, which comes from having to learn new weapons, new tanks, new ewar GÇö the basic ship skills are a very small part of the cross-training slog.
So let's fix that list:
Frigs IV + Cruiser IV + BS IV + Small Guns + Medium Guns + Large Guns + Tank + EWar ~-áFrigs IV + Dessy IV + Cruiser IV + BC IV + BS IV + Small Guns + Medium Guns + Large Guns + Tank + EWar. A far cry from twice the training time.
Quote:As pointed out, this change adds unnecessary crap that most people don't need and would never train for. GǪwhile removing a whole lot more unnecessary crap that people don't want to train for and which sits in the way of people specialising earlier. With those silly prereqs out of the way, you can get further faster.
Quote:Do you know how hard it can be to get people to crosstrain as it is with just a few simple skills? It will be much harder if we have to say 'Train everything minmatar so you can fly this one ship required by the alliance' than it is now to say 'grab frigs, cruisers, and BS, plus a couple gun skills' Since all it is is two more skills that are done away with in very short order (and one of which is very popular for personal use), any added difficulty rather suggest a problem with your leadershipGǪ 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. |
Viscount Hood
Gallivanting Travel Company Band of Wanderers
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:54:00 -
[1105] - Quote
This looks fantastic it has needed overhall for a long time.
I'm really looking forward to the goodies CCP give us as compensation. 6million worth of free skillpoints would be really nice and while were at it can we lower the cost of my clone - 30mill is just plain annoying.
|
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:58:00 -
[1106] - Quote
Still wondering why people think they should get free SP out of this. Namely, 3x more SP than they invested.
Unless you somehow trained your BC skills up 4 separate times, I fail to see why players should be given SP's to cover doing so. You trained it once... reimburse the SP's necessary to train it once again, into a specific race. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
127
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:59:00 -
[1107] - Quote
Here's the problem as I see it and there are many of us in this same boat. I've had Battlecruiser skill trained since they first came out in 2004 (?) and on most days, I will fly any one of three different types of Battlecruisers across two different races - Minmatar and Caldari.
You now propose to introduce racial variants of the Battlecruiser skill and whilst you may reimburse my BC5 skills as allocatable skills, I will not have enough skill points available to train both Caldari and Minmatar Battlecruisers up to level 5 which then means the ships I'm flying are not as effective. I then have to waste training time to bring both those ships up to former effectiveness. On top of this, because I have every racial Cruiser at level 5, I can fly every racial Battlecruiser but after your changes, I'm loosing the ability to fly two of those racial Battlecruisers which means even more time wasted.
This is just on one character. I have five characters that will need to go through this unnecessary change and it will cause a whole lot less aggravation to implement the tier changes without adding racial Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills. |
leich
Nocturnal Romance
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 10:59:00 -
[1108] - Quote
These changes are an awful idea.
they are not needed
stop wasting development time on un needed changes
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:02:00 -
[1109] - Quote
John McCreedy wrote:Here's the problem as I see it and there are many of us in this same boat. GǪand if you look at the posts linked in the OP, you'll notice that they have your problem covered. 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. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:03:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Quote:So frigs 4 -> cruisers 4 -> BS 4 ~ frigs 4 -> dessies 4 -> Cruisers 4 -> BC 4 -> BS 4? Sure doesn't look like almost twice the training to me Sure doesn't, largely because you forgot to add the things that actually take time when you cross-train. The difference is a few days, which is very little compared to the month you describe, which comes from having to learn new weapons, new tanks, new ewar GÇö the basic ship skills are a very small part of the cross-training slog. So let's fix that list: Frigs IV + Cruiser IV + BS IV + Small Guns + Medium Guns + Large Guns + Tank + EWar ~-áFrigs IV + Dessy IV + Cruiser IV + BC IV + BS IV + Small Guns + Medium Guns + Large Guns + Tank + EWar. A far cry from twice the training time. You retrain your tank and ewar skills everytime you crosstrain somehow?
Quote:As pointed out, this change adds unnecessary crap that most people don't need and would never train for. GǪwhile removing a whole lot more unnecessary crap that people don't want to train for and which sits in the way of people specialising earlier. With those silly prereqs out of the way, you can get further faster.[/quote]If youa re crosstraining, you already have the support skills to specialize.
Quote:Do you know how hard it can be to get people to crosstrain as it is with just a few simple skills? It will be much harder if we have to say 'Train everything minmatar so you can fly this one ship required by the alliance' than it is now to say 'grab frigs, cruisers, and BS, plus a couple gun skills' Since all it is is two more skills that are done away with in very short order (and one of which is very popular for personal use), any added difficulty rather suggest a problem with your leadershipGǪ[/quote] Its a mechanics problem. Doctrine Fleets will always follow a FOTM pattern. When CFC switched from drakefleet to alphafleet, people screamed and yelled over it. When you don't use fleet doctrine, first enemy to come along who does kills you.
And I must ask, which skill is popular for personal use? BC? Because as it stand people usually use their normal races BC(I love myrms) or the hurricane they picked up training for alphafleet. If you mean Dessie, I know VERY few people who use any dessie other than the thrasher, and most of them trained dessie just so they could fly dictor.
I know they are used alot in low/highsec gangs, but thats hardly the type of player I am thinking about. I am thinking of the thousands of nullsec grunts who have to deal with this every time ships are rebalanced. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:04:00 -
[1111] - Quote
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. |
Miura Bull
Black Rebel Rifter Club
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:09:00 -
[1112] - Quote
Umm. Is this a troll? |
leich
Nocturnal Romance
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:09:00 -
[1113] - Quote
They have mentioned skill reinbursement for people who already have BC skills
what about char that dont have BC skills but now due to the stupid changes require them like Nyx holding alts.
|
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:15:00 -
[1114] - Quote
leich wrote:They have mentioned skill reinbursement for people who already have BC skills
what about char that dont have BC skills but now due to the stupid changes require them like Nyx holding alts.
BC 4 wouldn't be required to pilot Nyx. it would only be required to *train* Nyx skills. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Broken Toys
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:19:00 -
[1115] - Quote
I thinked over it.
This is not a bad idea. There is some pitfalls ofc involved but with careful navigation this might work out well.
So in a nutshell it would mean that Destroyer, Battlecruiser, Interceptor, Interdictor, HAC, command ship, Logi, etc skills would just converted flatly into the new racial variants (in effect granting these with those skills 3x SP boost over the current number in these skills) and to train these skills the new prerequisties would be presented. Could you please also convert clones automatically one tick up if this change would push pilots over the current clone limit.
Pre requisites are not needed to fly the ships. Unless they are attached to hull itself. I remeber when the skill to control POS guns was changed. It used to be x4 rank skill that did nothing and it changed to x7 skill that allows one to control POS guns. At that time I lacked the new prerequistite (Anchoring 5), but as I had the "old" skill at lev 2 I ended up with new skill at lev 1 and could still control a single POS gun a day one even if I lacked the pre requisties to train the skill any higher. Had to do Anchoring 5 to be able to start training the skill.
In a nutshell its similar to how things go if you get podded and lose some SP in a skill that is pre requisite for training the skill for the ship you usually fly, but which is not actually needed for sitting in that hull.
As far as the ship changes go I'll hold my judgement until I see the changes. |
Echo Mande
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:22:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Jagga Spikes wrote:leich wrote:They have mentioned skill reinbursement for people who already have BC skills
what about char that dont have BC skills but now due to the stupid changes require them like Nyx holding alts.
BC 4 wouldn't be required to pilot Nyx. it would only be required to *train* Nyx skills.
From my reading I would put it a bit different. Prerequisites are only required to *inject* a skill. So a Nyx alt would AFAIK only need BC skill to inject Nyx skills requiring BC skill. I'll admit it's been a theoretical issue for me though. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:27:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Quote:Or the Gallente drone and dampening abilities stop with the Exequror? Well that certainly explains why Gallente has been so f'd-up for so long... Honestly CCP. I resub with the hopes that you're finally figuring #$^! out and fixing your game. And then you give us comments like this? Christ. |
Giullare
Insurgent New Eden Tribe RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:27:00 -
[1118] - Quote
To all people saying " ccp said bc skill point will be refounded " i ask: Why should i train racial bc to V, read again FIVE, to max ships i've already maxed? If someone can fly only lets say cyclone, cane and tornado the bc V refound will cover minmatar bc V, but for the people who crosstrained it's not enough. We have 1 bc V refound and 4 racial bc skill to train, anybody can see the difference??? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:27:00 -
[1119] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:You retrain your tank and ewar skills everytime you crosstrain somehow? I had to retrain my tank at least once, since there are two tanking style, and yes, each race has its own ewar specialityGǪ and if we were talking about T2 ships rather than just T1, I'd add the entire leadership branch for each race as well.
Quote:If youa re crosstraining, you already have the support skills to specialize. I'm not talking about the support skills GÇö I'm talking about the role skills, which will no longer be needed when you skip between sizes and tiers. Want to specialise in HACs? Now you can specialise in HACs without having to bother with AFs (and with AFs out of the way, you don't feel you're wasting SP by not training Frigates V). Want to specialise in command ships? Now you can specialise in command ships without having to bother with AFs, HAC, and Logistics (and with those out of the way, you don't feel you're wasting SP by not training Frigates and Cruisers V). So: you can specialise earlier; you get further faster.
Quote:Its a mechanics problem. Doctrine Fleets will always follow a FOTM pattern. GǪand now that the FOTM pattern changes, the doctrines will follow. The problem will solve itself.
Quote:And I must ask, which skill is popular for personal use? BC? Yup. If you get the weapons for it (which you do when you cross-train) the BC skill is pretty much never wasted. 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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:29:00 -
[1120] - Quote
Giullare wrote:To all people saying " ccp said bc skill point will be refounded " i ask: Why should i train racial bc to V, read again FIVE, to max ships i've already maxed? If someone can fly only lets say cyclone, cane and tornado the bc V refound will cover minmatar bc V, but for the people who crosstrained it's not enough. We have 1 bc V refound and 4 racial bc skill to train, anybody can see the difference???
Go read the links from the first post.
Specifically https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=900335#post900335
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.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:35:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Giullare wrote:To all people saying " ccp said bc skill point will be refounded " i ask: Why should i train racial bc to V, read again FIVE, to max ships i've already maxed? If someone can fly only lets say cyclone, cane and tornado the bc V refound will cover minmatar bc V, but for the people who crosstrained it's not enough. We have 1 bc V refound and 4 racial bc skill to train, anybody can see the difference??? Go read the links from the first post. Specifically https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=900335#post900335Quote: 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.
Malcanis Law at work :) |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:36:00 -
[1122] - Quote
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 ? |
Katarina Reid
Jump.Jump.Jump.
131
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:42:00 -
[1123] - Quote
is bs 5 getting refunded as its not needed for cap pilots? |
RaTTuS
BIG Gentlemen's Agreement
180
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:47:00 -
[1124] - Quote
I generally like but I'd would suggest that BS5 is kept for capitals http://eveboard.com/ub/419190933-134.png
|
Carmizan
DOCS RUFF RIDERS Free Beer.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:56:00 -
[1125] - Quote
TBH i am not worried about the skill point reimbursement if what they say they do ie if your have BC to lvl5 now you will get all 4 racial BC skills to lvl 5.
The one concern i have with this is the increase in SP that could take most if not all the pilots that have these ships crossed trained over their clone's SP limit and bearing in mind te pilots that would be in WH space and unable to ject to a station to upgrade.
Will CCP be looking into this issue at the same time? |
Tub Chil
Heretic University Heretic Nation
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:56:00 -
[1126] - Quote
removing common battlecruiser skill is a horrible idea. removing tiers is great, nobody will argue with that |
Grikath
T.E.L.O.G.S.
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 11:59:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote:is bs 5 getting refunded as its not needed for cap pilots?
Why would they refund BS V? That one is already racial, and in the new scheme would give access to the T2 BS. I see no "waste" SP there to be refunded.
|
Ryoko Matsu
Community against Justice ROMANIAN-LEGION
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:02:00 -
[1128] - Quote
*\o/*
great news about dropping the tier system!
also no problem regarding the "new" skill system...
but: the policy "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today" in general what do you intend here?
let-¦s say i have BC5 will that change to let-¦s say Amarr BC 5 and the rest on 3 (to fly all the tiers)
or will the reimbursement so that i can fly all racial BC at 5? (having the prerequs...)
just wondering... |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:05:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Ryoko Matsu wrote:*\o/*
great news about dropping the tier system!
also no problem regarding the "new" skill system...
but: the policy "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today" in general what do you intend here?
let-¦s say i have BC5 will that change to let-¦s say Amarr BC 5 and the rest on 3 (to fly all the tiers)
or will the reimbursement so that i can fly all racial BC at 5? (having the prerequs...)
just wondering...
Go read the first post. Go to the third link on the first post. Profit. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Valea Silpha
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:06:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Assuming that what's been said here translates to the game, then I love the changes and by extension; you guys .
I know its been said before, but be really really certain that we're going to stay at all fives. Cuz if you think you've seen pissed off vets on the forums before... Well... April Fools is coming up... Post it like that and see what happens. Our rage will be comparable to a gamma ray burst.
Just as a random question... How do the changes effect fully speccing BC and dessie ships ? It seems to me that you gain time with one racial BC, but eventually you'll end up a fair way behind. Now I'm not too fussy about that, because noobies get it too easy these days anyway, but it is worth noting.
To all you guys who want BS 5's reimbursed: SUCK IT UP. If you only trained BS 5 for capitals you are terrible to the nth power. Wanna know whats awesome ? Vindicators. Try them sometime. *shakes head*. |
|
Katarina Reid
Jump.Jump.Jump.
131
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:10:00 -
[1131] - Quote
if i have bc 4.5 do i get lvl 4 all race or all race 4.5? |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:21:00 -
[1132] - Quote
This is a great idea! Cleaning up the roles and ship types will open new possibilities. Also splitting up the destroyer skills is a good and consistent idea even tough the whole reimbursement of SP will be tricky. |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
132
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:25:00 -
[1133] - Quote
I LOVE YOU CCP! DEATH TO TIERS!!! |
Mai Khumm
Apple Construction Inc Northern Associates.
181
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:27:00 -
[1134] - Quote
My only objection is not needing lvl 5 skills to move up the ship chain. If they did lvl 5 frigate needed for destroyers, lvl 5 destroyers needed for cruisers, lvl 5 cruisers needed for battlecruisers. and etc. I would be in full support of it. Otherwise, not needing level 5 skills to jump into Capitals, now that's just plain dumb... "Being drunk is a good disguise. I drink so I can talk to a**holes. This includes me." |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
208
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:27:00 -
[1135] - 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).
I have racial BS's to V, Cruiser to V and BC to V. I would hope this translates into having the racial BC skill to V by default when you roll this stuff out?
/rhetoricalquestion
Edit: Current link suggests yes. Hopefully this holds true. Vote Alekseyev Karrde for CSM7. -áhttp://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=433 Get War Decs, Sov, Low Sec that works.-á |
Raiz Nhell
DEEP CORPS
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:31:00 -
[1136] - Quote
Change is good, I like the idea of the split and lack of tiers...
I also love the ignorance and "jump the gun" rage in this thread... So many shout "CCP have ruined the game for me" without reading or comprehending...
Make the changes, they'll be great...
I'm so carebear my Pod bleeds rainbow...
Beers + nullsec + dodgy fit = Loss mail |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
132
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:32:00 -
[1137] - Quote
:) they could.. just to be a little conservative... not give the racial BC level if they didn't have the cruiser skill trained for that race... :) just an idea |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:32:00 -
[1138] - Quote
I do not think removal of the generic BC and Dest skills are all that bad.
As for people having to retrain their racial battlecruisers skills, Tier1 ships of most Tech1 ship classes are going buffed, so you will be getting a benefit from more capable battlecruisers anyway. If you need to retrain some Battlecruisers skills then so be it.
Also, if you have Battlecruisers at 5 and can fly all races' Battlecruisers currently, but only have 1 or 2 Racial Cruiser skills to 5, then if CCP gives you all Racial Battlecruisers skills to 5 as reimbursement, clearly you are going to be able to fly all race's Command Ships immediately when you couldnt have done so before the change, due to Cruisers not being a requirement for Command Ships anymore... So that would be a net benefit to all the crosstrainers, something that CCP needs to avoid, to stop these crosstrainers having too easy a time. So DON'T give them the Racial Battlecruisers skills to enable them to get to level 5, because many of them will then be able to automatically fly ships they couldn't have done before.
I suspect that there are some people out there with alterior motives for being reimbursed with all Racial Battlecruiser skills. |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
309
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:33:00 -
[1139] - Quote
this would only work if ccp seeded the cerebral accelerator implant on the market making it available to all players for at least 6 months to facilitate the change over process
that way those who cross trained can quickly restore their ability to use all the ships this change would remove. Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:34:00 -
[1140] - Quote
The way it was described, CCP is going to adjust ship stats and capabilities base on role instead of tier. Slow heavy hitters, fast, lightly armoured strike craft etc. This clearly means that ships within the same faction fleet will have differing capabilities. Does it mean, however, that Minmatar ships will no longer be all fast, and Amarr/Caldari as much slower ships overall? Will Amarr pilots have the choice between a slow, heavily armoured cruiser as well as a fast, hunter/killer ship as well? It's an interesting thought in terms of how to rebalance the factions, instead of just having a race that's all speed, another race that only does armour tanking etc.
Oh, and the way I see it, if the ships that are kinda useless atm become useful, cross-training is less essential. Players have had to cherry-pick the good ships from the different races in order to excel, and this may well come to an end in the future. |
|
SPYDERWOLF
Tr0pa de elite. G00DFELLAS
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:39:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Galphii wrote:The way it was described, CCP is going to adjust ship stats and capabilities base on role instead of tier. Slow heavy hitters, fast, lightly armoured strike craft etc. This clearly means that ships within the same faction fleet will have differing capabilities. Does it mean, however, that Minmatar ships will no longer be all fast, and Amarr/Caldari as much slower ships overall? Will Amarr pilots have the choice between a slow, heavily armoured cruiser as well as a fast, hunter/killer ship as well? It's an interesting thought in terms of how to rebalance the factions, instead of just having a race that's all speed, another race that only does armour tanking etc.
Oh, and the way I see it, if the ships that are kinda useless atm become useful, cross-training is less essential. Players have had to cherry-pick the good ships from the different races in order to excel, and this may well come to an end in the future. how quickly we forget gallente ships :( |
Ryoko Matsu
Community against Justice ROMANIAN-LEGION
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:43:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Ryoko Matsu wrote:*\o/*
great news about dropping the tier system!
also no problem regarding the "new" skill system...
but: the policy "if you could fly it yesterday, you can still fly it today" in general what do you intend here?
let-¦s say i have BC5 will that change to let-¦s say Amarr BC 5 and the rest on 3 (to fly all the tiers)
or will the reimbursement so that i can fly all racial BC at 5? (having the prerequs...)
just wondering... Go read the first post. Go to the third link on the first post. Profit.
oh thanks...
/me a bit dizzy at work -.- |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:46:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Galphii wrote:The way it was described, CCP is going to adjust ship stats and capabilities base on role instead of tier. Slow heavy hitters, fast, lightly armoured strike craft etc. This clearly means that ships within the same faction fleet will have differing capabilities. Does it mean, however, that Minmatar ships will no longer be all fast, and Amarr/Caldari as much slower ships overall? Will Amarr pilots have the choice between a slow, heavily armoured cruiser as well as a fast, hunter/killer ship as well? It's an interesting thought in terms of how to rebalance the factions, instead of just having a race that's all speed, another race that only does armour tanking etc.
Oh, and the way I see it, if the ships that are kinda useless atm become useful, cross-training is less essential. Players have had to cherry-pick the good ships from the different races in order to excel, and this may well come to an end in the future. You don't understand how fleet doctrines work, do you?
Everyone in the fleet has to maneuver the same way, and have the same basic damage profile(range, damage type, etc) in order to effectively co-ordinate them to work as a team. This is why you don't see Rohks in Alphafleets, ishtars in ahac fleets, or Hyperions in any fleets. Making it hard to crosstrain will simply make nullsec life harder than it already is. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:48:00 -
[1144] - Quote
David Grogan wrote:this would only work if ccp seeded the cerebral accelerator implant on the market making it available to all players for at least 6 months to facilitate the change over process
that way those who cross trained can quickly restore their ability to use all the ships this change would remove.
Go read the first post. Go to the third link on the first post. Profit. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Silath Slyver Silverpine
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:49:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Galphii wrote:
Oh, and the way I see it, if the ships that are kinda useless atm become useful, cross-training is less essential. Players have had to cherry-pick the good ships from the different races in order to excel, and this may well come to an end in the future.
An excellent point. Wanna do PvP? Train Minnies... wanna do Missions? Train Caldari, etc |
OT Smithers
Cult of Baal
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:50:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Gorp wrote:This ideas is so full of fail its hard to know where to begin. First, one skill for all races of destroyer/battlecruiser is a feature not a bug. It gives some much needed flexibility to both newer players (destroyers) and vets (BCs). Getting a taste of different races' capabilities without a tedious slog through skill queues is a GOOD thing.
Second, the whole "lines" vs "tiers" thing seems completely pointless from a player perspective. I guess its designed to make it easier for CCP to make wholesale changes (e.g. delete a midslot from all ships of a certain type) in the pursuit of 'balance'. But this seems wrong as the imbalances are most often found within a class.
Third, the whole exercise assumes CCP will be able to get the balance "right". They never have before, why assume they will do so now? Which leads me to...
Four, relatively painless cross-training is important because it lets players work around CCP mistakes. Their, many, many mistakes.
Finally, there seems to be an underlying assumption that EVERY ship needs to be good at all around PVP. This is nonsense. Some ships will always be better than others. There is no reason that a mining cruiser needs to be 'viable' in PVP (though some players may fit it in a way that is great in one particular circumstance and LOL in every other situation - which is fine). Furthermore, ship viability/popularity often changes as a result of changes to modules rather than the underlying hull. So the Celestis became pretty useless when Damps were nerfed.
tl;dr Not clear that CCP fully understands what problems it needs to fix.
I largely agree. |
knobber Jobbler
Seniors Clan Get Off My Lawn
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 12:54:00 -
[1147] - Quote
Wacktopia 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. 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). I have racial BS's to V, Cruiser to V and BC to V. I would hope this translates into having the racial BC skill to V by default when you roll this stuff out? /rhetoricalquestion Edit: Current link suggests yes. Hopefully this holds true.
If CCP stick to what they say then its a bonus day for guys like you and me. I've got all the Racial cruisers to V, BC to V, all the BS's to V, spaceship and advanced spaceship command to V and all the other higher cross racial skills.
I wonder if this also means they'll get rid or change the cross weapon system skills and split missiles, projectiles, hybrids and lasers truly up into independent groups rather than have missiles in one group and the rest in another, which makes no sense from a certain point of view.
|
Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:03:00 -
[1148] - Quote
Don't know if CCP is aware of this: If you give all new racial BC skills with level V to every pilot who now has the single generic BC skill trained to V, you effectively quadruple everyone's BC skillpoints. Which is fine when comparing current players because everyone gets the same benefit. BUT new players will henceforth have to train the four new skills separately. So you effectively boost veterans at the expense of new players that join shortly before the change or after it.
For example, a player that joins the game five weeks before the change can train BC to V once and will get the four new skills maxed out for free. A player who joins five weeks later gets nothing and has to train the four new skills the hard way. Thus the newer player will have millions of SPs less even though he is just a few weeks younger. That's pretty rough. |
gfldex
361
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:06:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Before skill changes:
Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.
After skill changes:
Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.
I can't really see where the benefit is. You will spend a lot of time getting the SP reimbursement wrong (every time you did that in the past some players had to ask GMs for help) for no benefit.
Removing the tier concept is something quite a few players have suggested over and over for years. It's an artificial boundary that has made plenty of ships pointless for years. (LOL Augoror!) Just do it.
The game has a tutorial that gives you a mining laser and a railgun and tells you to go shoot rocks and red crosses. It teaches you nothing else. It's been that way for 8 years, so are you really surprised that there are people who aren't aware that this is a pvp game? --Jafit McJafitson |
Sheol Duncan
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:09:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:[quote=Galphii]Everyone in the fleet has to maneuver the same way, and have the same basic damage profile(range, damage type, etc) in order to effectively co-ordinate them to work as a team. This is why you don't see Rohks in Alphafleets
Bad example, we have used Rohks in alphafleet and it works pretty well! |
|
Seb Seba
Polaris Distribution
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:09:00 -
[1151] - Quote
I generally LOVE this idea. But for the love of God, players, your money PLEASE PLESE implement them all at once. If you do it gradually you will screw the balance beyond imagination.
|
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:10:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Effortless Breeze wrote:So assuming that you will be able to fly all ships you can fly post patch, any level of racial cruiser trained would need to get a racial destroyer to IV added to your characters skills. Any level of racial battleship or capital would require both racial destroyer AND racial battlecruiser IV to be added to the character sheet This is why the money move for anyone not "all V" right now is to forget about Dessie / BC and train all racial BS skills to I. Guaranteed you wll get all racial Destroyer and BC to IV for the price of around a 10 day train today. If you can get BC V, Destroyer V before the patch hits, so much the better. |
Marc Callan
Steel Soldier's The Freedom Alliance of EvE
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:13:00 -
[1153] - Quote
Sounds like it could be interesting - in the Chinese curse sense of the word, natch.
But a couple of niggling hypotheticals:
What happens to someone who ignored the Battlecruisers skill entirely and went straight from racial cruisers to racial battleshpis? If BC's become a prereq for BS's, doesn't that kneecap people who skipped BC's as a dead-end skill by locking them out of their battleships?
And ... well, let's take two characters: one who's cross-trained in all races' cruisers and has BC IV, another who's only trained in Caldari cruisers and has BC IV. Player A would presumably have his BC IV skill converted to Amarr BC IV, Caldari BC IV, Gallente BC IV, and Minmatar BC IV, but what would happen to Player B? Caldari BC IV plus reimbursed skill points equal to the other three skills?
Hm ... wonder if it makes sense to set aside one month to prioritize training up BC V now, instead of finding myself having to set aside four months to train up four different BC skills? |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:14:00 -
[1154] - Quote
Something else to look at:
Currently, Destroyers (as a skill) is pretty bland - it enables exactly 1 ship per race. That's OK as a stub skill (that unlocks a hull for each race), but not as a mainline skill. If Racial Destroyer is going to be part of the core progression, it needs to unlock more than a single hull.
Conversely, now that there are three different BC hulls per race, putting Battlecruiser into the mainline is workable.
(More generally, can I recommend that we all forget about our invested skill points and actually discuss the idea on its merits? If the idea itself is a net improvement, there are half a dozen different ways of dealing with "grandfathering" skill points. Moreover, your opinion is much more valuable if it doesn't appear to be smothered in a thick covering of "But I'm gonna be nerfed!")
What I'd like to hear more discussion of is "endgame" ships. What are the advantages and drawbacks of (say) lowering the threshold to actually sit in a carrier?
Note that requiring BS IV vs BS V doesn't actually have mechanical effect on your carrier skills, except an extra 20+ days training time. It won't inherently improve your support skills, since you can't train them in parallel with BS V. I'm not sure that any of the battleships count as a pseudo-carrier, so it's not providing extra opportunity to practice carrier skills. And the training time for the carrier supports is several months, so an extra half-month of experience isn't likely to make a big difference. Comments? |
Galphii
Furnulum pani nolo THE SPACE P0LICE
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:17:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Galphii wrote:The way it was described, CCP is going to adjust ship stats and capabilities base on role instead of tier. Slow heavy hitters, fast, lightly armoured strike craft etc. This clearly means that ships within the same faction fleet will have differing capabilities. Does it mean, however, that Minmatar ships will no longer be all fast, and Amarr/Caldari as much slower ships overall? Will Amarr pilots have the choice between a slow, heavily armoured cruiser as well as a fast, hunter/killer ship as well? It's an interesting thought in terms of how to rebalance the factions, instead of just having a race that's all speed, another race that only does armour tanking etc.
Oh, and the way I see it, if the ships that are kinda useless atm become useful, cross-training is less essential. Players have had to cherry-pick the good ships from the different races in order to excel, and this may well come to an end in the future. You don't understand how fleet doctrines work, do you? Everyone in the fleet has to maneuver the same way, and have the same basic damage profile(range, damage type, etc) in order to effectively co-ordinate them to work as a team. This is why you don't see Rohks in Alphafleets, ishtars in ahac fleets, or Hyperions in any fleets. Making it hard to crosstrain will simply make nullsec life harder than it already is. There are major changes coming to fleets so this statement is shortsighted; you are assuming the ship capabilities are going to stay exactly as they are now, and this is not necessarily the case, given that under-performing hulls are going to be tweaked.
Oh, and the time for cross-training is only a little longer under the guidelines presented thus far; this is hardly the end of the world, given the training time for large tech 2 guns.
Personally, I'd like to see all railguns, cruise missiles and beam lasers give much higher volley damage, akin to artillery, as this seems to be the best implementation of long range weapon systems, and wouldn't require everyone to train minmatar just to do the high alpha thing that alliance fleets use. |
Jack Miton
Lapse Of Sanity Exhale.
140
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:18:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Grikath wrote:Katarina Reid wrote:is bs 5 getting refunded as its not needed for cap pilots? Why would they refund BS V? That one is already racial, and in the new scheme would give access to the T2 BS. I see no "waste" SP there to be refunded.
it is a waste if it's only trained as a capital ship pre requ. my carrier pilot for example havs 2 BS5s but doesnt fly any BSs at all and has no large gun skills or other BS relater support skills, he has them purely to be able to fly carriers. after these changes, those 2 BS5s turn into 60 days of totally wasted training time. |
Marc Callan
Steel Soldier's The Freedom Alliance of EvE
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:18:00 -
[1157] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:...I'm not sure that any of the battleships count as a pseudo-carrier, so it's not providing extra opportunity to practice carrier skills. ...
Well, none of them except perhaps the Dominix.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:21:00 -
[1158] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Before skill changes:
Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.
After skill changes:
Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.
I can't really see where the benefit is. You will spend a lot of time getting the SP reimbursement wrong (every time you did that in the past some players had to ask GMs for help) for no benefit. The benefit is that you can specialise earlier and faster without getting bogged down by semi-irrelevant prerequisites. This lets you be a bit more clever than before in what you choose and when.
It also makes most, if not all, T2 ships conform to standard pattern (hull skill + role skill), which makes it easier to add new ships and roles without creating a tangled mess of prerequisites, and which lets them fiddle with individual skills without creating unwanted side-effects on others. For instance, if for some reason they figured that the HAC skill was too cheap, changing it now would also affect command ships, but by decoupling those two, they can adjust one without affecting the other. 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. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:24:00 -
[1159] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Everyone in the fleet has to maneuver the same way, and have the same basic damage profile(range, damage type, etc) in order to effectively co-ordinate them to work as a team. This is why you don't see Rohks in Alphafleets, ishtars in ahac fleets, or Hyperions in any fleets. Making it hard to crosstrain will simply make nullsec life harder than it already is.
What about logistics, tacklers, command ships, support EWAR and anti-support?
I think fleets already consist of several different kinds of ships playing to their strengths.
Perhaps it would be cool to give people with all 4 races BCs just their own racial BC V, it would mean that people would need to think outside the box and :gasp: maybe start using the wing+squad concept. Lots of whiny babies crying first, then they would either realize that there's nothing wrong with their chosen ship, but it's their lack of imagination and tactics, or ragequit for having to train a few weeks for a ship they absolutely just can't undock without. :P
And lol at "hard nullsec life" |
Tamiya Sarossa
Hedion University Amarr Empire
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:28:00 -
[1160] - Quote
Just adding my voice to the general support for these changes - you've clearly got the right idea with the big picture here, as always the devil will be in the details. Here's hoping the new CCP can carry through on implementation.
|
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:28:00 -
[1161] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:... CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
Honestly, I prefer it that way. The community is eager go give input. The only problem is that it is hard to work through all the input. But with the CSM you already started to get something done in that direction. Would be great to have a way to get more involved while not being a CSM member, e.g. working groups. |
Caterpillar
The Arrow Project CORE.
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:32:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Please forgive me if my interpretation of the proposed removal of generic skills is incorrect, but it might also be that everyone else, who appears to be focussing just on BC and destroyers, is missing something.
My point is, that there are far more generic ship skills in the game than the BC and destroyer skills, including Logistics, Recon, Heavy Interdictor, most of which i have at level 5, if you needed to understand my motive for posting.
I know that CCP have stated that you will still be able to fly the ships that you could before the change, but the bonuses that you get from the generic skill will be at risk. For example the recon skill to 5 will allow far more to be fitted onto a cov ops version, due to the recon skill bonus on the CPU usage of the cov ops cloaking device. If my general recon skill at level 5 is replaced by a whole set of racial skills to level 5, this wont be a problem, but anything less, would mean that i would not be able to use the same fittings that i currently can on at least 3 of the racial variants.
Like I said, i might have got this wrong, but, if not, please let's not just concentrate on the BC and destroyers when far more ship types will be affected.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1996
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:37:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Tippia wrote:gfldex wrote:Before skill changes:
Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.
After skill changes:
Player looks up skill requirements, then acquires skills and learns them in given order.
I can't really see where the benefit is. You will spend a lot of time getting the SP reimbursement wrong (every time you did that in the past some players had to ask GMs for help) for no benefit. The benefit is that you can specialise earlier and faster without getting bogged down by semi-irrelevant prerequisites. This lets you be a bit more clever than before in what you choose and when. It also makes most, if not all, T2 ships conform to standard pattern (hull skill + role skill), which makes it easier to add new ships and roles without creating a tangled mess of prerequisites, and which lets them fiddle with individual skills without creating unwanted side-effects on others. For instance, if for some reason they figured that the HAC skill was too cheap, changing it now would also affect command ships, but by decoupling those two, they can adjust one without affecting the other.
It also allows us to get pirate destroyers and battlecruisers, since we now have racials for both skills . |
Inepsa1987
Critical Mass Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:38:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Quote:"Removing the tier system makes it significantly easier for us to balance ships, as there is no more artificial barrier dictating ship attributes within the same class."
Could you please elaborate on the artificial barrier dictating ship attributes within the same class? What is it? How does removing whatever it is help re balance ships?
Everyone's all worried about getting there sp for bc v, when i think that is the least important thing in this blog to take note of. Spaceship Pilot. |
Gempei
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:39:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:For example, a player that joins the game five weeks before the change can train BC to V once and will get the four new skills maxed out for free. A player who joins five weeks later gets nothing and has to train the four new skills the hard way. Thus the newer player will have millions of SPs less even though he is just a few weeks younger. That's pretty rough. And your solution? On one side bigger skill barrier for new player, on other side 10 000 angry (advanced/veterans) players - what is your choice? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:43:00 -
[1166] - Quote
Caterpillar wrote:Please forgive me if my interpretation of the proposed removal of generic skills is incorrect, but it might also be that everyone else, who appears to be focussing just on BC and destroyers, is missing something. It doesn't look like they will GÇ£racialiseGÇ¥ the role skills you mention GÇö they will work just like now, and in order to fly any given T2 ship, you have to have the hull skill (frigate, dessie, cruiser, whatever) at lvl V and then the role skill (HAC, Recon, Logi, Interceptor) at lvl I+.
So your general recon skill will not be split up; it will still work almost exactly the same way it does now, except it will no longer require CovOps to train. Since you already have the racial cruiser skill for the recon ships you want to fly, and since you already have the Recon skill, everything will be exactly the same as before.
Inepsa1987 wrote:Could you please elaborate on the artificial barrier dictating ship attributes within the same class? What is it? How does removing whatever it is help re balance ships? Right now, there is this strange rule where higher tier (= higher sklll requirement) dictates that the ship will be stronger, have more slots and fitting space, be more expensive, and generally just be GÇ£betterGÇ¥.
The most glaring example of this is the old tier-1 vs. tier-2 BC problem: the tier-2s are better than the tier-1s in pretty much every way for no particular reason.
They want to move away from this and instead assign each ship of a specific class to a particular role, and let the role determine what kind of abilities it gets. So a cruiser that only requires Cruiser I will no longer forcibly be weaker than a different cruiser that requires Cruiser III just because tier-1 is less than tier-3. Instead, if that first (previously tier-1) cruiser is in the GÇ£brick tankGÇ¥ role, it will be a hellalot sturdier than the second (previously tier-3) cruiser, even though the latter has a higher skill requirement because that second cruiser actually fulfils some newly invented GÇ£assaultGÇ¥ role that is built around speed and firepower instead of pure tank.
To continue the battlecruiser example: the new tier-3 BCs are not simply GÇ£betterGÇ¥ than the tier-1s and tier-2s GÇö instead, they simply fill a different role: massive firesupport for fast-moving fleets. This role does not include massive tanks and it is implemented in such a way that they are quite vulnerable to small ships, so even though they are higher-tier than the old BCs, they are not universally better than them. 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. |
Bluespot85
Bricktop's
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:47:00 -
[1167] - Quote
So let me get this right, they remove learning skills to help new players, then there going to increase training for new players.
They spent years balancing the ships from 2003-2012, now they want to fix the broken ships that became broken through constant balancing.
They spend years balancing ships, now they want to spend years balancing all the ships into "roles".
They intorduce ships that ruin 0.0 warfare, now they want to make those same ships more accessable.
All this from a game that is 15 years down the development line?
So many good ideas from the players, so many bad ideas from the devs.
All i can say is that CCP has learnt nothing from the debacle that was last summers expansion.
If your were serious about fixing the broken ships, you could join faction war or RvB, fit up 100 of the broken ships (if you can) test them in combat, realise why they are broken, and fix them.
But you would have to use your product and brain to do that much wouldn't you? |
Alexei Orlov
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:47:00 -
[1168] - Quote
I've gone through the Dev posts, but remain curious (as the focus of the discussion is elsewhere,) just when should we expect these changes to come to Tranquility? The gut instinct says for Inferno... But, I sense a surprise coming.
So, is there even a general timeline for this to begin shaking up our "alternate" lives? (Well, apart from the speculation and panic and such.) |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:50:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:It also allows us to get pirate destroyers and battlecruisers, since we now have racials for both skills .
Oh dear Didn't think of that possibility at all. This change is even more full of win.
Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Laboratories Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:51:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Caterpillar wrote:My point is, that there are far more generic ship skills in the game than the BC and destroyer skills, including Logistics, Recon, Heavy Interdictor, most of which i have at level 5, if you needed to understand my motive for posting.
Those are T2 ship skills, not generic ships. Not on the table to be changed. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Xyrcaryn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:53:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Dafuq?? I fly 3 race BCs on one character and 2 races on another, and got battlecruisers 5 on both, making it awesome. Now I'll have to re-train several months of skills to do same? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:54:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote: They intorduce ships that ruin 0.0 warfare, now they want to make those same ships more accessable.
13 days more accessible, by a newbie.
you save 30 days for racial BS5. you have to spend more for racial Destroyer 4, and racial BC 4 FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:54:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Xyrcaryn wrote:Dafuq?? I fly 3 race BCs on one character and 2 races on another, and got battlecruisers 5 on both, making it awesome. Now I'll have to re-train several months of skills to do same?
Go back to the first post. Read the details on the third link. profit. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Lord Fargo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:55:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Gibbo3771 wrote:oh fuking great.
I have minnie cruiser and gallente cruiser 5, bc 5 and destroyer 5. Obviously not including I will lose use of tornado or talos, my carrier/dreads...complete fukin joke.
I fly the astarte, the sleipner, all of the dictors.
So basically your are going to reimburse BC 5 skillpoints and then I have to choose one of them.
get fuked, shower of ****.
Heres an idea, fix bots, fix FW, nerf the drake, fix drones, make missions less boring, make 0.0 less *****, fix ecm and ecm drones, actually finish WiS, nerf titans, nerf supercarriers, fix the eagle, fix the eos, fix info links, nerf off grid t3's, fix blops jump range/fuel usage.
FIX **** THAT MATTERS
You sound mad bro?you're not mad are you? keep up the tears
Great idea CCP, me and my fellow goon breden approve of this idea :unsmith: |
WhiteCoatBloke
Lazy Twats Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:55:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Caldari Marauder - Gallente Marauder - Amarr Marauder - Minmitar Marauder :- are these racial shiptypes to look forward to as well. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:58:00 -
[1176] - Quote
WhiteCoatBloke wrote:Caldari Marauder - Gallente Marauder - Amarr Marauder - Minmitar Marauder :- are these racial shiptypes to look forward to as well.
Nope. Those are T2 ships, modifications of T1 BSs, so covered by the racial skill + t2 skill.
BCs aren't a T2 ship type, which modify existing hulls. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
371
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 13:58:00 -
[1177] - Quote
58 pages in less than 24 hours
If this has taught anyone anything, it's that spaceships matter
Questions Would you be balancing things like EWar, active tanking and command bonuses at the same time? Or will you be keeping the deficiencies in those systems in mind whilst rebalancing
Are the drone boats really becoming hit and run boats
How will the implementation of this go through? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:00:00 -
[1178] - Quote
Thums up CCP.
Probably not the most populair decision you have ever made, but when you step back and not look at your own character but at EvE as a whole it's good decision.
It will take me longer to fly certain ships but it will open many new oppertunities and challenges.
one question:
Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
Does this mean all missile combat platforms end up being "bombardment ships" or will they get their own versions of combat and attack vessles?
|
Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:01:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Gempei wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:For example, a player that joins the game five weeks before the change can train BC to V once and will get the four new skills maxed out for free. A player who joins five weeks later gets nothing and has to train the four new skills the hard way. Thus the newer player will have millions of SPs less even though he is just a few weeks younger. That's pretty rough. And your solution? On one side bigger skill barrier for new player, on other side 10 000 angry (advanced/veterans) players - what is your choice? Well everyone hates newbies anyway, so **** 'em
But seriously, angering existing players would do more harm than changing the game for potential new players... they will just accept the new reality because they don't know any other. It's easier to deny someone something they never had than taking away stuff people already had.
That said, it's still a serious problem. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:01:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Bluespot85 wrote:So let me get this right, they remove learning skills to help new players, then there going to increase training for new players. One is not like the other.
They removed learning skills because all they did was (more or less) force new players to train skills that had zero effect on what they could do in the game at the very beginning of their characters' lives GÇö they were just a pointless meta-mechanic.
They are splitting up and rearranging the BC and dessie skills to balance them out against the other ship hull skills, and it actually reduces the training required for new players in most cases. It does indeed add a few days once you start to cross-train and if you go for the mid-range ships, but at that point, you are no longer a new player and the additions will be so small as to not really matter on the scale of things. Even in the few cases where it increases the training time, you're training for things that actually make a difference in-game: you unlock new ships; your ships get better; you unlock new skills GÇö it's not just a pointless meta-mechanic.
This change significantly improves things for new players at the cost of slightly inconveniencing middle-aged ones, leaving old players completely unaffected. 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. |
|
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:05:00 -
[1181] - Quote
stupid forum |
Bluespot85
Bricktop's
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:10:00 -
[1182] - Quote
WhiteCoatBloke wrote:Caldari Marauder - Gallente Marauder - Amarr Marauder - Minmitar Marauder :- are these racial shiptypes to look forward to as well.
They say that they wont now, just like they did when they introduced the original gunnery skills, but once people have trained them they will introduce more skills just like they did with gunnerymissiles/drones/ewar.
Its to soften the blow and get all the fanbois on side first you see, then they will introduce amarr hac, recon, mauraders, blops skills at a later date. |
Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:18:00 -
[1183] - 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).
So, question. Does this mean we will be grandfathered in if we can already fly a ship? I like many pilots have cross trained for many ships with my mains. It is not going to be pretty if yall don't grandfather in pilots with skill point reimbursements. |
S'Ryel
Sant Brieg Corp
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:23:00 -
[1184] - Quote
In my world it is called "dumbing down" or "streamlining". I don't like it, specially when it comes to skills. Why in hell do you have to start messing again with things that are perfectly working, can't you just focus yes F O C U S on broken content/stability/upgrade engine ? |
Ogogov
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:25:00 -
[1185] - Quote
If this finally gets the Hyperion fixed (and the mega, and most of the cruisers..), I'm all for it. I'm also hoping some of the more nonsensical support skills (Energy Grid Upgrades V for marauders, I'm looking at YOU) that just seem to pad out training time get relaxed or dropped also. |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:26:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Knug LiDi wrote:Despite the howling wind about SP and BC 5, for me the single most important thing I saw in the blog was the image showing t1 (tech one) ships in the centre at the bottom with navy the pirate ships showing increasing improvement. T2 on the right showing increasing specialization and t3 on the left showing increasing flexibility
BUT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE was T2 being higher in "improvement" than T3
T2 ships are optimized for a single role - a T3 ship, being more flexible can do many things, and all those things better than t1 and possibly Navy ships. But they are not supposed to be "improved" enough to do T2 roles better than T2 ships
T2 logistic ships should be better than T3 ships in that role (repping)
T2 field command ships should be better than T3 ships in this role (brawling)
T2 fleet command ships should be better than T3 ships in that role (boosting)
A cov ops (scanner not stealth bomber) should be a better probing/scanning ship than a T3
Similarly for other T2 roles.
I look forward to seeing the changes that bring T3 ships below T2 ships, for that specific t2 role.
While I agree that in some cases the T3s performance is a bit out of whack with the rest of the ships, I don't agree that they should perform worse than a specialized T2 for that role. I can understand where you're coming from, and in some special cases I agree (repping for example, maybe fleet boosting as well). As a whole they SHOULD be better even though they are quite flexible for many reasons:
- they cost 5 times what most T2 variants of the same size cost (let alone the comparison to a scanning frig!).
- You lose skill points if you die in them.
- Even if you use the flexibility they provide (switching subsystems), changing from one role to another still requires an investment of about as much as that fixed-role T2 ship costs.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should a T3 be worse at scanning compared to a CovOps. Currently T3s are the only ships in the game you can take on a lowsec or nullsec scanning trip where you don't need an additional combat ship to clear the damn stage first. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc. Death Rhubarb
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:27:00 -
[1187] - Quote
2 things...
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.
1. I currently have Battlecruisers 5 and can fly BCGÇÖs of all races.
The quote above mentions that I will still be able to fly all Battlecruisers, but it does not mention at which level. Will my current SPGÇÖs in this skill be converted to, say level 3 of all races ? I could still fly them, but at a greatly reduced efficiency. That is not an acceptable solution.
If this is going to be done, we should not be penalised as to the level of performance we can fly these ships at.
2. It should take time to be able to fly Capital ships. This game has been dumbed down enough over the last year or two, and removing the Battleship 5 requirement from this skill will just be another step down that road. It should not happen. |
Saulc Neslo
0utbreak Outbreak.
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:28:00 -
[1188] - Quote
This is a really bad change if it makes noobs have to train even more skills.
Its annoying to pvp against ppl with bad skills, please get rid of a some skills instead of introducing new ones.
Tier system changes? Tbh idk, but as a general rule i preferr diversity over balance any day. |
The Gonif
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:30:00 -
[1189] - Quote
A lot of people have posted concerns about skill point inflation. The argument typically goes something like this:
Evanga wrote: I thought that was too good to be true:
BC V = 1.5m sp Dessie V = 0.5 m sp
All Racial BC V & Dessie V == 8 m sp... a 6 m sp boost is an assload of sp to just "give out". That's about 4 Months of free SP's....
I'm sorry, even as a vet, I just don't think we deserve that type of boost.
I guess whether or not this is a valid concern will depend on exactly how CCP will be making sure that "if you could fly it yesterday, you will be able to fly it tomorrow"
If CCP accomplishes this goal by giving you the skills, then there should be no "inflation" (though your total SP count would go up). So if people who had Dessie V woke up the morning after patch day and found that they had Amarr Destroyer V, Caldari Destroyer V, Gallente Destroyer V, and Minmatar Destroyer V, they would have been made whole, their total SP would be higher (by 2M SP according to the quoted post) but that's all.
On the other hand, if CCP made you whole by reimbursing SP the effects would be different. In this scenario the morning after patch day the pilot in question would wake up with each racial destroyer skill at 0 but with 2M SP available for reallocation. Now the pilot might spend the points by allocating 500K to each of the racial dessies and end up exactly where he was (capability wise) as scenario 1. However, the pilot could choose to allocate 500K to only one racial dessie class while using the remaining 1.5M SP on some other skill that he did not previously have.
This second scenario does lead to SP inflation as there is an opportunity for arbitrage. You could train dessie V now in the expectaton that post patch you would turn 500K SP into 2M SP that could be moved to any other skill.
I guess this is just one of the many details CCP will tell us "later". This would be ok, I guess, if the player base had any confidence that CCP is thinking through these kinds of issues. Unfortunately for CCP the tone of the responses makes clear that the player base does not trust CCPs ability to fully understand the consequences of its own actions. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:35:00 -
[1190] - Quote
S'Ryel wrote:In my world it is called "dumbing down" or "streamlining". How is it GÇ£dumbing downGÇ¥ when they're making your decisions matter more; whey they open up for more clever planning; when they give you more choices to pick between?
Quote:Why in hell do you have to start messing again with things that are perfectly working, can't you just focus yes F O C U S on broken content/stability/upgrade engine ? They're focusing on the broken content that the ship progression represents and the many useless ships it leaves in its wake.
Saulc Neslo wrote:This is a really bad change if it makes noobs have to train even more skills. No. It will in fact let them do more with fewer skills and less skill points. They are doing exactly what you're asking them to: removing unnecessary skills from ships that have no need for those skills. 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. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:39:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:2 things... 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.
1. I currently have Battlecruisers 5 and can fly BCGÇÖs of all races. The quote above mentions that I will still be able to fly all Battlecruisers, but it does not mention at which level. Will my current SPGÇÖs in this skill be converted to, say level 3 of all races ? I could still fly them, but at a greatly reduced efficiency. That is not an acceptable solution. If this is going to be done, we should not be penalised as to the level of performance we can fly these ships at. 2. It should take time to be able to fly Capital ships. This game has been dumbed down enough over the last year or two, and removing the Battleship 5 requirement from this skill will just be another step down that road. It should not happen.
2 things:
1:Go look at the first post. click on the third link in it. read. Have your questions answered. 2: 13 days quicker. (due to the addition of the racial BC and racial destroyer on the way to battleships.) Just 13 days. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:39:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Morwen Lagann wrote:I understand the sentiment of wanting to streamline the skill trees, but if you're going to remove the generic Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills, for those of us who have trained both of them to 5, if we don't get *all four* of the racial skills reimbursed all the way to 5, you are going to have a very, very large and angry mob on your hands. I understand the feeling, but you shouldn't confuse getting in a ship and actually using the ship.
For example, I have BC5, but with my weapon skills I can only use Gallente and Caldari BC efficiently. I wouldn't know what to do with Amarr BC5 or Minmatar BC5.
So, maybe tie the racial skills attribution to, I don't know, the certificates required to properly fly them ? That means you don't get the racial skill command if you can't use the adequate racial weapon.
|
Gempei
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:40:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Saulc Neslo wrote:... if it makes noobs have to train even more skills. Noobs dont train battlecruiser on lvl 5. Rank 6 lvl4 bc skill is only 4 days.
|
Inepsa1987
Critical Mass Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:42:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Caterpillar wrote:Please forgive me if my interpretation of the proposed removal of generic skills is incorrect, but it might also be that everyone else, who appears to be focussing just on BC and destroyers, is missing something. It doesn't look like they will GÇ£racialiseGÇ¥ the role skills you mention GÇö they will work just like now, and in order to fly any given T2 ship, you have to have the hull skill (frigate, dessie, cruiser, whatever) at lvl V and then the role skill (HAC, Recon, Logi, Interceptor) at lvl I+. So your general recon skill will not be split up; it will still work almost exactly the same way it does now, except it will no longer require CovOps to train. Since you already have the racial cruiser skill for the recon ships you want to fly, and since you already have the Recon skill, everything will be exactly the same as before. Inepsa1987 wrote:Could you please elaborate on the artificial barrier dictating ship attributes within the same class? What is it? How does removing whatever it is help re balance ships? Right now, there is this strange rule where higher tier (= higher sklll requirement) dictates that the ship will be stronger, have more slots and fitting space, be more expensive, and generally just be GÇ£betterGÇ¥. The most glaring example of this is the old tier-1 vs. tier-2 BC problem: the tier-2s are better than the tier-1s in pretty much every way for no particular reason. They want to move away from this and instead assign each ship of a specific class to a particular role, and let the role determine what kind of abilities it gets. So a cruiser that only requires Cruiser I will no longer forcibly be weaker than a different cruiser that requires Cruiser III just because tier-1 is less than tier-3. Instead, if that first (previously tier-1) cruiser is in the GÇ£brick tankGÇ¥ role, it will be a hellalot sturdier than the second (previously tier-3) cruiser, even though the latter has a higher skill requirement because that second cruiser actually fulfils some newly invented GÇ£assaultGÇ¥ role that is built around speed and firepower instead of pure tank. To continue the battlecruiser example: the new tier-3 BCs are not simply GÇ£betterGÇ¥ than the tier-1s and tier-2s GÇö instead, they simply fill a different role: massive firesupport for fast-moving fleets. This role does not include massive tanks and it is implemented in such a way that they are quite vulnerable to small ships, so even though they are higher-tier than the old BCs, they are not universally better than them.
Thanks. Cleared it up for me. This move really makes a lot of sense. As long as the BC skills work out properly ill be happy. Being able to fly every races bc is important for a lot of people. Spaceship Pilot. |
Hotaru Yamato
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:42:00 -
[1195] - Quote
This idea has my full support. It doesn't mean much compared to this threadnaught though. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:42:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Specialization ftw. Make BC V only one racial BC V!
Also, this thread has changed my perception of an average Eve player's cognitive capacity.
|
dasuri
Bad Company DBD Initiative Mercenaries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:43:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Best Solution I can think of, leave the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills as combined skills; if you want consistency, make these combined skill prerequisites (for Battleships and Cruisers, respectively). So the skill tree looks like this:
Racial Frig IV ---> Destroyer IV ----> Racial Cruiser IV ----> Battlecruiser IV ----> Racial Battleship IV
For those who skipped the Battlecruiser and/or destroyer skills, give them the skills to level IV. For those who have them trained, give them 363K free skill points. Leave Racial Cruiser IV (and consequently Racial Frigate IV) as prerequisites for Racial Command Ships.
This is more reasonable than 6M sp free. (I have started training BC V on all my alts. :-)) |
Kirkra
The In-Humane Society Shadow Theory.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:44:00 -
[1198] - Quote
I fully agree to removing ship tiers, however, as already been noted, reducing the requirements for capital ships is not the way to go. Even if you add a bit time back on with support skills needed to compensate, this means that cross-training capitals becomes something unbelievably easy - to switch from Archon to Thanatos you would only require 10 days at most (Gallente BS 4 and MAYBE Capital Shield Transfer if you think you'll need it), same thing for almost all dreadnoughts. This leads to the situation where if you can fly one capital decently, you can fly them all, which is IMHO absolutely stupid. Also, since you're doing skills and balance anyway - why has it happened that T3 vessels have skill prerequisites that are in many cases less than those of T2 cruisers? Especially since T3 can operate as a combat ship better than any T2 cruiser and sometimes better than a CS. Even though there is an argument of their cost, it still seems strange that in most cases you would only want to train into a "specialized" T2 ship for a reduced cost compared to T3. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:44:00 -
[1199] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
But there's a difference here you aren't accounting for.
You aren't training Amarr Battleship V then beginning Amarr Carrier I to hop into a carrier.
You are training Battleship V, and Capital Ships III, and Advanced Spaceship Command V. You are training Jump Drive Operation. You are training Capital Module skills.
racial Battleship is the last skill in the sub capital skill tree. At that point, you are moving to a new category of ships, not just the next class of ship. You can be different, because it is different. You don't need to make it consistent with the model in sub capital training, because it's not a linear progression anymore, and it shouldn't be. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Hatt0ri Hanz0
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:46:00 -
[1200] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Evanga 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 could already fly. Thus, having BC skill at 5 would mean you get all four variations at 5"
Quoted for thruth, too late CCP. I thought that was too good to be true: BC V = 1.5m sp Dessie V = 0.5 m sp All Racial BC V & Dessie V == 8 m sp... a 6 m sp boost is an assload of sp to just "give out". That's about 4 Months of free SP's.... I'm sorry, even as a vet, I just don't think we deserve that type of boost. Reimburse the BC V and Dessie V sp, Lower the prereqs for Dictors and CS's to LvL IV, and then give us all racials at LvL IV. We can train LvL V for the races we desire, and we can apply sp how we want. Then, let us know that in 6 months from the change, the pre-reqs for CS's and Dictors will be increased to LvL V's.... People will have time to sell or blow up their current ships, time to train up as they desire, and it doesn't cause some huge in-game balance.
Except CCP has stated that T2 ships will require lvl 5 for its main ship prereq, which in this case is battlecruisers. And frankly, I don't think that getting all the racial BC at 5 because you can fly all the racial command ships is all that bad. CCP has chosen to make a pretty large change, they should be prepared for having to hand out some free sp, if they want to do it so badly. |
|
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
207
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:47:00 -
[1201] - Quote
dasuri wrote:Best Solution I can think of, leave the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills as combined skills; if you want consistency, make these combined skill prerequisites (for Battleships and Cruisers, respectively). So the skill tree looks like this:
Racial Frig IV ---> Destroyer IV ----> Racial Cruiser IV ----> Battlecruiser IV ----> Racial Battleship IV
For those who skipped the Battlecruiser and/or destroyer skills, give them the skills to level IV. For those who have them trained, give them 363K free skill points. Leave Racial Cruiser IV (and consequently Racial Frigate IV) as prerequisites for Racial Command Ships.
This is more reasonable than 6M sp free. (I have started training BC V on all my alts. :-))
This is an excellent solution I have advocated for many times. I'd also suggest making all destroyer and battlecruiser hulls get bonuses from the two relevant skills .
This way we don't screw over the new player and make it harder for them.
Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so.. Vote for Scott Manley / Skye Aurorae for CSM 7 An Expert in Dealing with Childish Arguments Over Toys. http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=458 |
Grikath
T.E.L.O.G.S.
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:50:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Grikath wrote:Katarina Reid wrote:is bs 5 getting refunded as its not needed for cap pilots? Why would they refund BS V? That one is already racial, and in the new scheme would give access to the T2 BS. I see no "waste" SP there to be refunded. it is a waste if it's only trained as a capital ship pre requ. my carrier pilot for example havs 2 BS5s but doesnt fly any BSs at all and has no large gun skills or other BS relater support skills, he has them purely to be able to fly carriers. after these changes, those 2 BS5s turn into 60 days of totally wasted training time.
Ummm not really... You failed to unlock the potential of the battleships in question by not training their relevant skills... It's only a "loss" from a hyperspecialised viewpoint.
And given the rest of the requirements to make carriers do well, you really pretty much only need to train up the specific guns for the racial BS you trained even to just T1 to turn your "dud" skill into a fully fledged weapon..
Seriously, any "loss" is purely in your perception. |
Amelia Shortcake
Doomheim
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:51:00 -
[1203] - Quote
So many questions... so many answ... oh... wait.
No surprise there then! \o/ |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:55:00 -
[1204] - Quote
GǪalso, since I missed it the first time:The Gonif wrote:A lot of people have posted concerns about skill point inflation. The argument typically goes something like this: Evanga wrote: I thought that was too good to be true:
BC V = 1.5m sp Dessie V = 0.5 m sp
All Racial BC V & Dessie V == 8 m sp... a 6 m sp boost is an assload of sp to just "give out". That's about 4 Months of free SP's....
I'm sorry, even as a vet, I just don't think we deserve that type of boost.
You're quite right: this is not a matter of inflation GÇö it's actually a case of equilibrium. Yes, the amount of SP goes up, but so does the cost of the skills GÇö end result: nothing happens.
Ok, that's not entirely true. What actually happens is that people get more expensive clones. The entire notion of GÇ£SP inflationGÇ£ highest on the idea that total SP has any value. It doesn't. In fact, total SP is a detriment because it has exactly one effect on the game: it determines which clone you need to use in order not to lose SP. Giving people SP is not the boost Evanga thinks it is GÇö it's actually something of a nerf since you gain nothing from it and lose a fair amount of additional skillpoints you can keep in your clone. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:56:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Mara, I think he was trying to give people some examples people could loosely relate to real life vessels/tactics, not trying to reinvent EVE combat.
I'm willing to wait for more details on exactly how they want to break things down. This is the thread for discussing the dev blog and possible ship roles, before those poor example roles end up coded into the game by someone "just testing" :) There should be more discussion about ship roles, less about skill points.
I very much agree. 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. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1040
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:02:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪalso, since I missed it the first time: The Gonif wrote:A lot of people have posted concerns about skill point inflation. The argument typically goes something like this: Evanga wrote: I thought that was too good to be true:
BC V = 1.5m sp Dessie V = 0.5 m sp
All Racial BC V & Dessie V == 8 m sp... a 6 m sp boost is an assload of sp to just "give out". That's about 4 Months of free SP's....
I'm sorry, even as a vet, I just don't think we deserve that type of boost.
You're quite right: this is not a matter of inflation GÇö it's actually a case of equilibrium. Yes, the amount of SP goes up, but so does the cost of the skills GÇö end result: nothing happens. Ok, that's not entirely true. What actually happens is that people get more expensive clones. The entire notion of GÇ£SP inflationGÇ£ highest on the idea that total SP has any value. It doesn't. In fact, total SP is a detriment because it has exactly one effect on the game: it determines which clone you need to use in order not to lose SP. Giving people SP is not the boost Evanga thinks it is GÇö it's actually something of a nerf since you gain nothing from it and lose a fair amount of additional skillpoints you can keep in your clone. As long every single player in EVE gets same amount of these NEW skill points, this is not a problem.
Get |
Xanos Blackpaw
Inadeptus Mechanicus
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:08:00 -
[1207] - Quote
No! No!
Nonononononononono.
No!
We dont want this! please dont make this change! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:08:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:As long every single player in EVE gets same amount of these NEW skill points, this is not a problem. It's not even as complicated as that.
As I keep reiterating every time new players come and complain about how they can never GÇ£catch upGÇ¥ with old players, SP amounts don't really matter GÇö what matters is ability. SP is a way to unlock those abilities, and as long as the abilities of two people are the same, the amount of SP is irrelevant. Same goes here: it doesn't matter if every EVE character gets the same amount of SP GÇö what matters is that every EVE character gets the same abilityGǪ
GǪand since the whole philosophy behind this change is that the abilities will not change as a result of this change, all characters will get the same ability, namely exactly the same ability as before the change. SP may be added or subtracted or shuffled around, but the ability remains the same, so nothing actually changes.
Xanos Blackpaw wrote:We dont want this! Yes, we do. 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. |
flakeys
Arkham Innovations Paper Tiger Coalition
215
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:15:00 -
[1209] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:Changing skill requirements, Yes. Being able to train for, for instance, recons without having to train for covert ops first. That I can agree with.
Changing skill progression, NO. One of the appealing aspects of training for ships was that once I'd trained racial frigate and destroyers, I'd get access to ANOTHER race worth of destroyers, for free, once I trained up the racial frigate.
With these changes, you'll raise the bar for crosstraining further, to a point where it is even more daunting for new players to crosstrain, and makes it even more difficult for them to find useful roles.
Take a new PVPer, for instance. By training caldari and minmatar frigate, caldari and minmatar cruiser, plus battlecruiser, the player would have access to tackling frigates, t1 cruisers including ospreys, blackbirds, stabbers and ruptures, as well as two excellent and newbie friendly battlecruiser hulls, namely hurricanes and drakes. All this from a total of five skills.
With the changes, the same new player would now be forced to train eight skills, raising the bar for skilltraining by 75% and making it more difficult to find useful roles. The incentive to crosstrain would be largely eliminated, as it'd take almost as long to train for a single race's battlecruisers as two races under the current scheme.
Ship tiers: If ship tiers force you into balancing issues, you're looking at the problem in a completely wrong way. The ship tiers should not limit your balancing efforts. Don't make the mistake in thinking that a higher tier "must be better". That's not necessarily so. If anything, tiers should serve as a guideline for the general roles a certain group of ships have, for instance that all ships within a tier are designed as high DPS active tanking platforms, another tier being medium DPS buffer platforms etc, but not that they should be "better" than the previous tier.
What he said.
Unlike most older players in here i could care less if i need to train some bc skills over etc as i hardly even undock anyway and if i can only fly BC X so be it but with this idea you are giving a harder time to new players BIG time.
Also i see no reason why training for a capship should go faster besides for training a holding char for a capship. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1040
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:15:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:As long every single player in EVE gets same amount of these NEW skill points, this is not a problem. It's not even as complicated as that. As I keep reiterating every time new players come and complain about how they can never GÇ£catch upGÇ¥ with old players, SP amounts don't really matter GÇö what matters is ability. SP is a way to unlock those abilities, and as long as the abilities of two people are the same, the amount of SP is irrelevant. Same goes here: it doesn't matter if every EVE character gets the same amount of SP GÇö what matters is that every EVE character gets the same abilityGǪ And I disagree with passion as after the abilities have been "unlocked" to match the previous training state, the players who did not have those abilities at level 5 will have to spend 4 times longer training them to get where L5 clients got without any extra cost.
This is not same - this is unfair and really impossible to pull off without pissing every single character who doesn't have these skills at level 5.
Get |
|
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus S I L E N T.
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:18:00 -
[1211] - Quote
A Lunchbox wrote:After reading all this, I have come to the conclusion:
I must be the only person in eve to train bs 5 for normal bs
Carry on flameage
Oh no you are not. Maxing up something you actually enjoy flying seems foreign to some people. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:23:00 -
[1212] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:And I disagree with passion as after the abilities have been "unlocked" to match the previous training state, the players who did not have those abilities at level 5 will have to spend 4 times longer training them to get where L5 clients got without any extra cost. We'll see. All we know so far is that old BC V GåÆ new BC V +ù4. We have no idea what old BC IV will yield, or old BC IIIGǪ
GǪor, for that matter, old BC V + Only one racial cruiser skill. The reimbursement/translation part is still up in the air and all we've been told is that if we can fly all BCs at lvl V, we will be given all BCs at lvl V. If they are really going with the GÇ£if you could fly it before, you will be able to fly it afterGÇ¥ concept, then the unlocked abilities will indeed match completely and nothing is unduly gained. Either way, ability is what matters GÇö SP (and especially total SP) is completely irrelevant, as always. 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. |
NextDarkKnight
Fury Lords
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:25:00 -
[1213] - 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.
Agreed.. I trained Destroyer 5 and Battlecruiser 5 just for this purpose. Now I feel it will be wasted skill points, It looks like 4 times as much training for you and 2 times as much training for me.
Why not have Amarr Destroyer Specialization and add some new kick ass destroyers. |
VeniVediVici Alto
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:25:00 -
[1214] - Quote
I support the revamp. I like the fact that i can get to the industrial ships faster would enjoy carebearing for a while too. :D
But i love my prophecy, drake, ferox, hurricane, myrmidon, tornado, talos, oracle and naga why would you want to take my lovely battlecruisers away from me. You have no ideea what i did with these ships what i've been through with them.
I have Battlecruisers V. If the revamp will be put in place, i expect noting less then All the Racial BattleCRuisers at 5. or else rable rable rable [i suspect the entire community will create posts with rable rable in the future].
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).
We have a "if you could fly it before, you can fly it now" philosophy ... everybody can chillax now. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:25:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Caius Sivaris wrote:A Lunchbox wrote:After reading all this, I have come to the conclusion:
I must be the only person in eve to train bs 5 for normal bs
Carry on flameage Oh no you are not. Maxing up something you actually enjoy flying seems foreign to some people.
Luckily the change does not affect Exhumer, so I'm fine with Exhumer V ... I'm a lucky Care |
Seb Seba
Polaris Distribution
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:25:00 -
[1216] - Quote
Xanos Blackpaw wrote:No! No!
Nonononononononono.
No!
We dont want this! please dont make this change!
**** you yes we do! We just want it done nicely so it doesn't screw people up. |
Malakai Draevyn
Farts Are Funny
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:30:00 -
[1217] - Quote
Personally speaking, I can see where CCP are coming from regarding wanting to adjust/tweak/screw-with (delete as appropriate) the skilltraining lines.... but I am, as are the 60+ pages of people above me, uncertain as to the effect this is going to have on my characters....
Let's take a look at my rather extensively crosstrained character.... (Dont laugh at the skills trained - skillplans change over 6 yrs of gaming...
The Baseline Racial Frigate x4 : Racial Cruiser x4 : Racial Battleship x3 : 5 (the fourth is at 4 and a bit
The 'Generic skills' which are in question Assault Ships 5 : 1024k S Battlecruisers 5 : 1536k Command Ships 3 : 64 Covert Ops 5 : 1024 Destroyers 3 : 16 Electronic Attack Ships 2 : 5.6 Heavy Assault Ships 5 : 1536 Interceptors 3 : 32 Jump Freighters 2 : 20k is Logistics 5 : 1536 Marauders 3 : 80 Recon Ships 5 : 1536 Transport Ships 3 : 48
Total SP tied up in generic skills : 8,457,600
Depending on the reimbursement philosophy taken (assuming that all of these generic skills are turned into 4x racial skills) I could be left either : 1. Screwed : If that 8457600 SP is reimbursed as a single lump sum, I lose the ability to fly ships I specifically crosstrained the generic skill to 5, at the ability level of L5. This doesn't read right, so I'll try to explain.
If I get the 8457k reimbursed, to return to being able to fly specific areas of ships, I'd have to specialise into a single racial path. If I was to take the track that I wanted to crosstrain again, that 8.4m sp would have to be split over the racial skills, and thus anything trained to 5 would now be in the region of 2-3..... requiring multiple-months worth of extra training time to return it to L5.
The gulf between flying something, and flying it well, is huge. Fittings change between L4 and L5 'generic' skills...
2. Slightly-Screwed : If the Generics are turned into Racials at their existing level, I gain an additional 25,372,800 SP (8,457,600 x3 for the 3 new races of skills that I 'didnt' train) onto my character, shunting it over 100m SP total. The only reason this would slightly screw me would be to increase the cost of clones in the short term
3. Slightly-Screwed again : If the Generics are turned into Racials at 0, with the 25.3m SP 'reimbursed' to spread as I want them, then stuff that I trained earlier in my eve gaming career probably wouldn't be.... Yes, I'd need to invest more isk in the clones.... but then again, I would have just 'saved' myself approximately 16-18 months worth of training through being given a metric crapton of SP to redistribute
Either which way, whichever way CCP goes on the messing-with-training-lines plan, we, the crosstraining players, are gonna be set back a few million isk (for the new clones) or screwed by not being able to fly everything that we could previously at the same level as we could previously
If it comes to having to shell out for the next grade of clone, so be it. Just don't take away the choice I made to be a generalist in eve
** Yes, I realise that my math is slightly off due to one of the BS-4 skills, but it doesn't affect the end-results much. I was using my character as an example, nothing more, nothing less **
** edit : Yes, I kinda misread something too - Dessy and BC skills are the affected ones - but meh - see my post a few down ** |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
856
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:30:00 -
[1218] - Quote
The moment I don't have to re train to use my 3 T3 ships I'm ok. The moment I can use my T2 cruisers I'm ok.
IF I HAVE TO TRAIN 2 weeks to get those again because it's a fair give/take it for everyone including newbs, then I'm also ok. I can perfectly handle 2 weeks of training and use T2 uber frigates that are really awesome now (thx by the way)
Yeah sucks for cry birds that are always crying after something, I'm already sorting my tears chops at the bar for those... |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:31:00 -
[1219] - Quote
I wrote a blog post about ships and ship skills. It might not suck. Read it. If it does suck, it will fit right in with the rest of my blog.
Seriously, getting rid of tiers is a good idea, and allows a lot of flexibility in ship introduction and skill development, but the skill tree change might be easier based on the model I am proposing.
As a model to allow role-based ships and skills, using Spaceship Command as the baseline for ship class, and Advanced Spaceship Command as the baseline for Tech 2 ship class simplifies the skill tree without impacting existing users in any significant way (as long as the NPC price of ASC is reduced to a reasonable level).
That way, if CCP wants to introduce a new Tech 2 Battlecruiser, existing Tech 2 Battlecruiser pilots need only train skills for that specific class, and if someone who doesn't even fly a BC wants to fly it, they train Spaceship Command to 5, the basic Racial Battlecruiser skill to the minimum level for the Tech 1 variant of the ship, Advanced Spaceship Command to 4, and the Tech 2 Ship Skill.
It's a clean, practical, understandable process and model that allows easy introduction of new Tech 2 ship classes, and provides openings for CCP to introduce ships in either Tech 1 or Tech 2 variant that have differing skill bonuses and requirements that actually create variety inherently. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Sernum
Total Mayhem. Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:32:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Just to put this in terms CCP will understand. "incarna and nex store was a better idea than this" Hope this helps. |
|
Lost True
Paradise project
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:32:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Iteresting... |
Tetsel
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:32:00 -
[1222] - Quote
Does this change mean: No more Drake/Cane blob during 1 week, while people retrain ? Nice idea ! Hamsters will be happy ! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:35:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Malakai Draevyn wrote:Total SP tied up in generic skills : 8,457,600 No, only 1,552k GÇö BC V and Dessy III. The rest are not being being split up. Some of the T2 role skills will have their prereqs reduced so as to not require lower-tier skills (HACs no longer requires AFs; CSes no longer require HACs and Logis; Recons no longer require CovOps), but that's all.
Tetsel wrote:Does this change mean: No more Drake/Cane blob during 1 week, while people retrain ? Nice idea ! Hamsters will be happy ! Since the core principle is GÇ£if you have it, you keep itGÇ¥, no, since no-one will need to retrain anything. 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. |
Malakai Draevyn
Farts Are Funny
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:35:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Tetsel wrote:Does this change mean: No more Drake/Cane blob during 1 week, while people retrain ? Nice idea ! Hamsters will be happy !
No drake or cane blob for a week or two... No command ships, recons, logistics, dictors, hictors, ceptors, blah blah blah for that same week or ten..... Oooh, yeah, seeing where this is going yet ? ;)
As I said above, CCP are gonna have to be damn careful how this is applied. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
856
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:37:00 -
[1225] - Quote
Sernum wrote:Just to put this in terms CCP will understand. "incarna and nex store was a better idea than this" Hope this helps.
Return to your cave and don't get out unless I call you out !!
NAO !! |
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
207
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:39:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Another problem now for new pilots is the dearth of choice in the destroyers available, now that pilots willl be required to train them we need to realise that many pilots skip over destroyers completely because they are of little use to them. In particular, most caldari pilots have no interest in railguns, instead they are concentrating on destroyers, now they're going to be forced to spend time training on this gunboat with only one missile slot. Similarly many gallente pilots might want to focus on drones and the Catalyst can only field one.
I would propose adding a second racial destroyer to ameliorate this problem: Caldari would get a tech 1 missile destroyer, Gallente would get a drone based destroyer, Amarr would get a destroyer with a laser damage bonus (and swap a low slot into a mid slot!), Minmatar would get a destroyer with a falloff bonus (and swap a mid slot to a low, drop its shield and give it more armor). These could be as easy as reskins of the existing vessels for a first iteration.
A lesser proposal is to simply give the cormorant many more missile hardpoints without any missile bonuses. The Catalyst would get a 20m^3 drone bay, but would lose a turret hardpoint (and let's face it, the Catalyst is looking a bit OP right now when it can spit out 90% of the dps of the thorax, losing a little bit might make it more balaced).
Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so.. Vote for Scott Manley / Skye Aurorae for CSM 7 An Expert in Dealing with Childish Arguments Over Toys. http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=458 |
Malakai Draevyn
Farts Are Funny
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:39:00 -
[1227] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Malakai Draevyn wrote:Total SP tied up in generic skills : 8,457,600 No, only 1,552k GÇö BC V and Dessy III. The rest are not being being split up. Some of the T2 role skills will have their prereqs reduced so as to not require lower-tier skills (HACs no longer requires AFs; CSes no longer require HACs and Logis; Recons no longer require CovOps), but that's all.
Hrm....
Okay, so if it's 1,552,000 SP tied up, then to return everything else to it's current state, I would need either a reimbursement of 6,208,000 SP to reapply to the racial BC / Dessy skills across the board, or recieve all of the racial BC / Dessy skills at V and III respectively (a 'locked down' increase of 4,656,000 SP to my character) as to not take away from what I can already fly at a certain level of skill. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:43:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Malakai Draevyn wrote:Tetsel wrote:Does this change mean: No more Drake/Cane blob during 1 week, while people retrain ? Nice idea ! Hamsters will be happy ! No drake or cane blob for a week or two... No command ships, recons, logistics, dictors, hictors, ceptors, blah blah blah for that same week or ten..... Oooh, yeah, seeing where this is going yet ? ;) As I said above, CCP are gonna have to be damn careful how this is applied.
'If you could fly it before, you will be able to fly it after'
There will be no retraining required. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:44:00 -
[1229] - Quote
And as for the Destroyers and Battlecruisers, the ABSOLUTE WORST thing CCP could do would be to reimburse skill points in this situation. It makes the most sense to have the skills remapped based on the combination of Destroyer/Battlecruiser and the Frigate/Cruiser levels.
So if you have Destroyers V and Gallente Frigate V, Amarr Frigate V, Minmatar Frigate 4 and Caldari Frigate 3, you get Gallente Destroyers V, Amarr Destroyers V, Minmatar Destroyers 4 and Caldari Destroyers 3.
This might make some players lose T2 access to a couple variations of Interdictors or Command Ships, but if publicized now, the skills can be trained up to actually give you more ship options come Inferno than less. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
856
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:44:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Malakai Draevyn wrote:Tippia wrote:Malakai Draevyn wrote:Total SP tied up in generic skills : 8,457,600 No, only 1,552k GÇö BC V and Dessy III. The rest are not being being split up. Some of the T2 role skills will have their prereqs reduced so as to not require lower-tier skills (HACs no longer requires AFs; CSes no longer require HACs and Logis; Recons no longer require CovOps), but that's all. Hrm.... Okay, so if it's 1,552,000 SP tied up, then to return everything else to it's current state, I would need either a reimbursement of 6,208,000 SP to reapply to the racial BC / Dessy skills across the board, or recieve all of the racial BC / Dessy skills at V and III respectively as to not take away from what I can already fly at a certain level of skill.
Actually if Dessies and BC's become racial then you'll have to train a ton crap more skills than you'll recuperate. I've got 3 races using Dessie and BC's so this means that whatever SP I get reimbursed, accordingly to your calculations, this means that I'll have to completely train from the scratch 2 dessie/BC races?
I don't think CCP didn't figured this out on the contrary, I'm very sure that once again and for the greater good of this game this will be implemented and once again Malcanis law will be applied, this means you'll get more sp to cover the whole races ships you could already fly before. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:46:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Malakai Draevyn wrote:Okay, so if it's 1,552,000 SP tied up, then to return everything else to it's current state, I would need either a reimbursement of 6,208,000 SP to reapply to the racial BC / Dessy skills across the board, or recieve all of the racial BC / Dessy skills at V and III respectively (a 'locked down' increase of 4,656,000 SP to my character) as to not take away from what I can already fly at a certain level of skill. Well, the BC V across the board has already been promised, so that just leaves the question of what will happen with your Dessi skill since that part hasn't been completely clarified. However, since the principle is GÇ£if you have it, you keep itGÇ¥, it would only make sense if you're given all Dessies at III as well.
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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:47:00 -
[1232] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Malakai Draevyn wrote:Tippia wrote:Malakai Draevyn wrote:Total SP tied up in generic skills : 8,457,600 No, only 1,552k GÇö BC V and Dessy III. The rest are not being being split up. Some of the T2 role skills will have their prereqs reduced so as to not require lower-tier skills (HACs no longer requires AFs; CSes no longer require HACs and Logis; Recons no longer require CovOps), but that's all. Hrm.... Okay, so if it's 1,552,000 SP tied up, then to return everything else to it's current state, I would need either a reimbursement of 6,208,000 SP to reapply to the racial BC / Dessy skills across the board, or recieve all of the racial BC / Dessy skills at V and III respectively as to not take away from what I can already fly at a certain level of skill. Actually if Dessies and BC's become racial then you'll have to train a ton crap more skills than you'll recuperate. I've got 3 races using Dessie and BC's so this means that whatever SP I get reimbursed, accordingly to your calculations, this means that I'll have to completely train from the scratch 2 dessie/BC races? I don't think CCP didn't figured this out on the contrary, I'm very sure that once again and for the greater good of this game this will be implemented and once again Malcanis law will be applied, this means you'll get more sp to cover the whole races ships you could already fly before.
Go read the details on the third link of the first post. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Alabugin
The Clean Up Crew S E D I T I O N
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:48:00 -
[1233] - Quote
"but also reducing Battleship requirement from 5 to 4 for capitals."
*SPRAYS DRINK OUT OF MOUTH ALL OVER SCREEN*
WHAAAAAAAAT??? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:50:00 -
[1234] - Quote
Alabugin wrote:"but also reducing Battleship requirement from 5 to 4 for capitals."
*SPRAYS DRINK OUT OF MOUTH ALL OVER SCREEN*
WHAAAAAAAAT??? GǪeffectively reducing a year-long (at the very least) skill plan by 20 days. The difference is negligible once you include all the stuff required to actually make the capships do anything other than sit very still in space. 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. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1996
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:56:00 -
[1235] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:And as for the Destroyers and Battlecruisers, the ABSOLUTE WORST thing CCP could do would be to reimburse skill points in this situation. It makes the most sense to have the skills remapped based on the combination of Destroyer/Battlecruiser and the Frigate/Cruiser levels.
So if you have Destroyers V and Gallente Frigate V, Amarr Frigate V, Minmatar Frigate 4 and Caldari Frigate 3, you get Gallente Destroyers V, Amarr Destroyers V, Minmatar Destroyers 4 and Caldari Destroyers 3.
This might make some players lose T2 access to a couple variations of Interdictors or Command Ships, but if publicized now, the skills can be trained up to actually give you more ship options come Inferno than less.
Why is it the worst? Your plan doesn't allow people to keep flying the ships they currently can, so it will cause riots and rightly so, while CCP's plan doesn't cause such issues. The only ones who really suffer from it are future new players and they're going to get shafted in all cases just the same. Any current player who wants to gain the benefits from this reinbursement can train the skills before the changes and enjoy the same benefits with the rest of us. |
Malakai Draevyn
Farts Are Funny
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:57:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Well, the BC V across the board has already been promised, so that just leaves the question of what will happen with your Dessi skill since that part hasn't been completely clarified. However, since the principle is GÇ£if you have it, you keep itGÇ¥, it would only make sense if you're given all Dessies at III as well.
That would seem to make sense.... either which way, it's still a 4.5m boost to the level of SP that I currently have on this character... Quite honestly, I think I'd prefer the reimbursement of the 6m SP as I dont tend to use Dessy / BC hulls much these days. Then again, beggars can't be choosers. |
Ardent Rage
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 15:57:00 -
[1237] - Quote
Racial Frig ---> Racial Destroyer ----> Racial Cruiser ----> Racial Battlecruiser ----> Racial Battleship
Easiest way to implement this change 1. Reimburse the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skillpoints + a fixed amount of 6 144 000 skillpoints for everyone. 2. Hand out the new racial Destroyer and Battlecruiser skillbooks for free You'd then have the option to inject and train or sell back to Escrow for close to 4mil ISK (according to a quick calculation)
And then bonus remap for us all! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:06:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Malakai Draevyn wrote:That would seem to make sense.... either which way, it's still a 4.5m boost to the level of SP that I currently have on this character... Quite honestly, I think I'd prefer the reimbursement of the 6m SP as I dont tend to use Dessy / BC hulls much these days. Then again, beggars can't be choosers. I don't knowGǪ I think that a sudden SP increase is a quite suitable punishment for not having to train the skills.
In fact, come to think of it, I need to find some kind of suitable dummy skill to stick into EFT to check whether the finished Tippia will still fit in the target clone level. It also reminds me of the other interesting change this will bring: we are now given the additional choice of trying to keep our clones lean to keep those costs down GÇö even for older characters, there's a valuable choice to be made that wasn't available before and which brings benefits and drawbacks to each side. 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. |
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:09:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Still just seeing a big "**** you, new guy, hope you like the race you picked" |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1314
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:12:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Wow the things people rage about.
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is printing more money out of nothing driving up prices as a result of dollar devaluation causing inflation, the USA has SOF in Syria aiding elements of Al Queda while the spokesperson for military intervention was caught cuing fake gunfire in the background during in interview with CNN, the house of representatives is passing laws to limit free speech and already passed the NDAA ensuring you can be detained by the military indefinitely without a trial (no judge no jury) and the G-8 summit was moved off to Camp David indicating that they are planning the next mideast war.
But no, let's all rage about CCP wanting to rebalance ship skills and SP trees.
When I am half starved half worked to death in whatever they call the camp this time around (there will never be concentration camps in the USA, they will simply call them something else and that ploy will actually work), and someone says to me: "Man, CCP messing with those destroyer SPs - really bothers me", I am probably going to rip his face off and stuff it up his ass.
Get a life you morons. |
|
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:13:00 -
[1241] - Quote
This is a spaceship vidya game forum. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:30:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:And as for the Destroyers and Battlecruisers, the ABSOLUTE WORST thing CCP could do would be to reimburse skill points in this situation. It makes the most sense to have the skills remapped based on the combination of Destroyer/Battlecruiser and the Frigate/Cruiser levels.
So if you have Destroyers V and Gallente Frigate V, Amarr Frigate V, Minmatar Frigate 4 and Caldari Frigate 3, you get Gallente Destroyers V, Amarr Destroyers V, Minmatar Destroyers 4 and Caldari Destroyers 3.
This might make some players lose T2 access to a couple variations of Interdictors or Command Ships, but if publicized now, the skills can be trained up to actually give you more ship options come Inferno than less. Why is it the worst? Your plan doesn't allow people to keep flying the ships they currently can, so it will cause riots and rightly so, while CCP's plan doesn't cause such issues. The only ones who really suffer from it are future new players and they're going to get shafted in all cases just the same. Any current player who wants to gain the benefits from this reinbursement can train the skills before the changes and enjoy the same benefits with the rest of us.
You are completely wrong. If CCP reimburses skill points for the battlecruiser (and destroyer) skills, you will not have enough SP to continue to fly the ships you need. If they simply convert those skills to the racial equivalent of the prerequisites, you will.
SP reimbursement doesn't account for the SP required for multiple racial ship types. If you get reimbursed BC V you get 1,536,000 SP. If you've trained Command Ships, multiple racial cruises to V and fly more than one variant of a command ship (which is quite common for null sec Command Ship pilots) you need anywhere from 2-4 times that many SP to fly the ships you can fly today. It makes no sense to reimburse BC V skill points and the cost of a skill book when many players won't be "flying the ship they can fly today" under that model. If you have the prerequisites to fly the ship (Racial Cruiser 4 and Battlecruiser X) you should get the equivalent of the prerequisite level so that you can continue to fly the ship. Unlike Learning Skills, this isn't a broad removal of skills that don't have a replacement - this is a direct conversion of (up to) 1,536,000 skill points to 6,144,000 skill points (n the example of Battlecruiser V) CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Azmodai Draconis
Maekon Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:47:00 -
[1243] - Quote
i can see and understand peoples skill point reservations but my concern is will this be used t reduce the high/mid/low slots of certain ships
yes some ships need rebalance ie drake needs to lose kinetice dmg bonus and shield resist for the missle velocety and rate of fire that was proposed however i dont thing ships need to lose fitting slots |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:48:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Let me ask a specific example.
I have BC trained to V. I fly Hurricane and Drakes perfectly.
Now, here comes the catch:
1) The dev blog has to be fallacious. How is it possible I get free SP reimbursement equivalent to 3 x BC V? I will only believe when I'll see it. If I get 4 x BC V "just because" then it's very discriminating to those who didn't train to BC V by the day the patch goes live.
2) If I don't get the reimbursement but just "the ability to fly" (free skill book + BC trained to 1?), then it's garbage. I fly my BCs perfectly I don't want to waste months just to fly again the same ships I own since years already with the same ability.
Also it clashes with the "you will still fly blah blah".
So, I'd like to know how do they plan to achieve fairness both in case 1 and 2. They have already specifically stated how this will be handled. Stop the QQ and focus on real issues. -Liang
They have already specifically lied or created an huge precedent of unfairness. I have BC V, BS V and so on, on multiple alts. I am not affected at all but I find it extremely bad to set back new players by 70 days or whatever just because a skill book name was not consistent. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Doctor Garamond Trebuchet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:53:00 -
[1245] - Quote
While I am gobsmacked that this does not have a GIANT CHECKBOX on the DELIVERABLES spreadsheet on the project plan or whatever you use, to bring ANY GAMECHANGING IDEA/ITEM to them, wtf are we spending so much effort electing them for??????????????
KUDOS for admitting it and maybe now there will be a GIANT CHECKBOX THAT SAYS CSM Y/N COMPLETE on your workflows so this CANNOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
Again, thanks for admitting it, owning it and if I was able to travel I would love to buy you a beer and tap the bottom of it while you chugged it :P
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
@rickypedia | official #tweetfleet list manager - just post to #tweetfleet to be added-á message me here or ingame if I somehow miss you. Yes I'm in an npc corp on purpose, its a CAS history thing Yes I live in nullsec. |
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:56:00 -
[1246] - Quote
The ship lines idea sounds awesome. Tiers have been obsolete for years now, so I am glad to hear something is being done about. Having more ships that are actually useful is great. In line with that, it seems strange to want to remove the AF -> HAC -> Field command Ship lineup as well as the others, since it is the same sort of progression.
I am neutral on the idea of making destroyers and battlecruiser skills race specific, I'd rather that not happen, but It wouldn't be overly horrible (though, bear in mind it cuts down a bit on the ships you can fly per skill trained). I Do not think the destroyer and battlecruiser skills should be a requirement to train cruiser and battleship, however. Training for destroyer or battlecruiser could be thought of as specializing in a ship size class. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:03:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Since this is just the beginning of a whole streamlining process, I suppose next in line is splitting the capital ships skill into 4 capital ships training. It will be fun training a 14x skill for multiple races! Few quarters and you are done! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Marc Callan
Steel Soldier's The Freedom Alliance of EvE
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:03:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Thought on the reimbursement solution (at least for BC):
Convert the one BC skill into the four racial BC skills for each character. Then reimburse only those racial BC skills for which the prerequisites are not fulfilled.
IE: if you have Gallente and Minmatar cruiser skills up to 3, but not Caldari or Amarr, and you have BC 4, you get it converted to Gallente BC 4 and Minmatar BC 4, and get reimbursed skill points equivalent to Caldari BC 4 and Amarr BC 4.
In any event, sounds like it's time to train up BC5 so I don't have to train up multiple variations for command ships if/when the split happens. |
GreenSeed
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:15:00 -
[1249] - Quote
getting rid of tiers is great news. now how its done might get a few ppl upset...
to those i say, if you have bc to 5 + all support skills... arent you old enough here to know youre expected to take one for the team once in a while?
all i see is good news, the only thing that has me worried is the new modules, of wich no details were given. we already have a few houndreds and unless new Types of modules are introduced, more variations add nothing but clutter.
for starters, how about kill the defender missiles and add a mid slot antimissile module, AND buff the crap out of misiles at the same time?
how about a new set of anti-missile/anti-artyllery frigs via the usage of active defense systems or some kind of aoe smokescreen?
we been mising "anty-blob Warfare" for years now...
if with this new expansion you want to encourage small to mid fleet warfare you need to give small fleets a chance not to get insta-gibbed by 20+ alpha fleets |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:16:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Marc Callan wrote:Thought on the reimbursement solution (at least for BC):
Convert the one BC skill into the four racial BC skills for each character. Then reimburse only those racial BC skills for which the prerequisites are not fulfilled.
IE: if you have Gallente and Minmatar cruiser skills up to 3, but not Caldari or Amarr, and you have BC 4, you get it converted to Gallente BC 4 and Minmatar BC 4, and get reimbursed skill points equivalent to Caldari BC 4 and Amarr BC 4.
In any event, sounds like it's time to train up BC5 so I don't have to train up multiple variations for command ships if/when the split happens.
Gaming the system for free skillpoints? I'm shocked, shocked to see this.
If you didn't have the skills to fly a particular racial BC, why should you get skill points, ISK, or skill books for them? You should only be getting SP conversion if the prerequisites are met for the skill and the ships that skill unlocks. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
|
GreenSeed
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:16:00 -
[1251] - Quote
deleted |
Tetsel
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:17:00 -
[1252] - Quote
Malakai Draevyn wrote:Tetsel wrote:Does this change mean: No more Drake/Cane blob during 1 week, while people retrain ? Nice idea ! Hamsters will be happy ! No drake or cane blob for a week or two... No command ships, recons, logistics, dictors, hictors, ceptors, blah blah blah for that same week or ten..... Oooh, yeah, seeing where this is going yet ? ;)
Fair enought, could be fun ! |
Marc Callan
Steel Soldier's The Freedom Alliance of EvE
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:19:00 -
[1253] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:Gaming the system for free skillpoints? I'm shocked, shocked to see this.
If you didn't have the skills to fly a particular racial BC, why should you get skill points, ISK, or skill books for them? You should only be getting SP conversion if the prerequisites are met for the skill and the ships that skill unlocks.
I dunno. Someone's going to get extra benefits, someone's going to get screwed, somehow, no matter how it shakes out. That's the way of the world.
I wouldn't benefit anyway - I cross-trained for BC's across the board. |
Dilly Dallyer2
Pestis Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:24:00 -
[1254] - 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).
This would suggest to me that CCP do not mind seriously pissing of small sections of the playerbase by massively nerfing the odd ship class at a time but will not do the same when it's a larger proportion of the player base. You need to be consistent with the way ship alterations are carried out. just because you some changed have direct implications on different proportions of the member base does not mean that different thinking should be applied. That is negative reinforcement on specialising on anything in the game because you know that at a drop of the hat CCP can decide to bend you over a desk and shove something large up your rear end.
|
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus S I L E N T.
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:33:00 -
[1255] - 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.
I wonder how you'll balance that with the need for fairness, i.e. not ending up giving more sp to cross trained people than to racially specialized people. |
space ganelon
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:46:00 -
[1256] - Quote
never mind, nothing to see |
Dilly Dallyer2
Pestis Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:46:00 -
[1257] - Quote
Caius Sivaris 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.
I wonder how you'll balance that with the need for fairness, i.e. not ending up giving more sp to cross trained people than to racially specialized people.
Since when have CCP not penalized someone for specialising.
Keep with the masses, updates are 90+% about keeping the masses happy, if you stand out you are liable to get shot.
|
Malissin
The Highwaymen's Society
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:47:00 -
[1258] - Quote
CCP,
Please take this opportunity to make ship manufacturers make sense as well. There's a bullet point in the blog about "Manufacturers, tech 2 schools that specialize in specific roles, like missiles for Khanid or sniping for Ishukone." but the corresponding graphic didn't seem to alter anything. Nagging things that have always bugged me like the Purifier not being made by Khanid, or the general wackiness of the Roden Shipyards line's "Unlike most Gallente ship manufacturers, Roden Shipyards tend to favor missiles..." manufacturing the Enyo and Ares (1 Launcher Hardpoint) or the Phobos and Comet (No Launcher Hardpoints). Actually, it's just sort of odd that a Gallente manufacturer tends to favor missiles, what with none of their ships getting a Missile Bonus...except the Nemesis, which is made by Duvolle Labs.
I don't bring this up from an RP standpoint (although I'm sure that's a concern for some), but rather see the Manufacturers as an opportunity for new players to get an easier idea of what ships they could easily progress through with the most skills in common being made by the same manufacturer. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:00:00 -
[1259] - Quote
Looking forward to this - dropping of 'Tiers' for 'roles'
I think it will enable much better definition of race specific doctrines and, by extension, better balance.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Maru Utama
Blackwell Industries IMPERIAL LEGI0N
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 18:05:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Could we get confirmation on if it will be an SP return or will we just receive the appropriate skills? Overall it is a great idea. If you are going to remove BS5 from using caps you should consider making cap4 only needed for using titans :) |
|
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. |
|
Kogh Ayon
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:29:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Brilliant changes, I was worry if these changes are too big but you got it on yourself awesome |
Tzarr Inzaghi
Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:32:00 -
[1292] - Quote
I want to be able to fly what I can now or be compensated, etc. just like everyone is already talking about.
Other than that...I LOVE IT. |
pashared
Harbingers of Khaos Cant Be Arzed
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:43:00 -
[1293] - Quote
"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
GÇó"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
GÇó"MAGE" ": provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
GÇó"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.
I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.
I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.
you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank. |
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:44:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Like: De-generification of DD/BC skills (pending solutions to the "existing skills" issue as everyone seems to be aware), standardization within the ship-skill progression, allowing specialization by specializing.
LOVE: Plans to obliterate tier system. It's gonna get scary once the changes start to roll in but in the long run things should get a lot better.
Not-So-Sure: T2/T3/Faction.
"Faction is generally better," I can understand (though I think in a lot of cases a few ships are WAY across the line) so long as we're not making things obsolete. Right now, Faction doesn't *seem* to really obsolete anything outside of a couple areas that are themselves problems (*glares at incursion shiny fleets*). They're pricey, and the pirate ones in particular are a pain to replace. Make 'em good.
"T2 (as pertains to ships, at least) is specialized," on the other hand, I think is not currently the case, at least not how I'd expect it to be. Part of this will hopefully go away with the tiers, but partly I think some of what T2 ships "get" means they tend to be specialized *and* just plain better. I'd really like to see the T2 ships to be particularly good at ONE aspect of their base hull's role, but not all-round better. So, if the Caracal moves into the "artillery" line for long-range cruiser-sized bombardment, the Cerberus wouldn't hit harder, from further away, and with better defenses: it might hit more accurately (radius/explosion bonus in exchange for some/all of the caracal's straight-up damage bonus, so it hits fast things harder but slow things not so much) from further away (bigger range bonus), and gets used much as it does now with the exception that it doesn't get a bunch of extra resists and slots and other stats. Or maybe as a "heavy assault" cruiser meant to shoot up BCs/BSs it does hit harder (damage bonus or extra launcher+fit), and has significantly improved defenses, but has a penalty to its radius/speed and maybe range (via lack of bonus) scan res so it isn't nearly as effective against smaller targets as would be a "normal" Caracal.
The notion of "T2 resists" basically needs to be replaced with resists based on roles IMO, with extra-heavy values being reserved for emphasizing specialization, not just as part of being "T2." Similarly with extra slots and hardpoints- they should make sense for the intended role.
Ships built for a specialized purpose should fulfill that purpose, and very well. Command ships are another example where the hulls try too hard to just be "better" and oh by the way here's an extra function. Lots of talk about the how people thing reining in the drake will make the nighthawk more attractive. Strangely, much of this talk seems to be about getting people to use it solo, or to provide missile-based death, and a number of people will happily point out that even if the drake were deleted the nighthawk would still be lackluster. It *should* be underwhelming solo, and as a damage platform- it's a command ship! As the "middle of a big fight" version it should be all about running links and refusing to die, and it might happen to also have some weapons. If it's set up to out-tank and out-buff the base ships, it shouldn't also out-damage them, even at an increased cost. Likewise the "faster sneaky" versions like the vulture should tank and hit like a basic BC at best, but be especially nimble.
As this gets sorted, costs should be adjusted to reflect the fact that you're getting an expensive vessel to perform a specific task, rather than an expensive vessel to "also" perform a specific task, and the roles themselves should be examined to make sure they're relevant (EA Frigs?) and sufficiently attractive to be *worth* the expense/tradeoffs (Command Ships?).
Which leaves T3, the hyper-expensive hyper-effective new toys that seem to do everything... the blog mentions them as "generalization" but in reality they're able to be *quite* specialized and in situations where you aren't afraid to lose them (either because they're not at direct risk or because their cost is no longer significant) the're very often a better choice than a T2 ship for the T2 ship's supposed role. Flexibility in and of itself isn't a problem, but they really *shouldn't* be as good at whatever they're currently doing as a ship entirely built to do that. Perhaps making some adjustments so they could more easily change roles at the expense of being able to excel could be studied... (thus becoming more generalist, and appealing in situations where that really is the best, like wormholes, and possibly being able to do several things at once, and so be better than a T1 cruiser at a number of things at any given time but never quite as good as a T2 at the particular thing the T2 is good at)
td;dr (too disorganized...)- T2 shouldn't automatically be better at everything than T1 so all ships get continual use, T3 should be more about doing lots of things well than about doing one thing great, docking, and going back out to do another thing great. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:53:00 -
[1295] - Quote
pashared wrote:"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
GÇó"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
GÇó"MAGE" ": provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
GÇó"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.
I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.
I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.
you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank. Yet you pointed out ever so eloquently that this approach to roles for ships already exists! A number of parallels with classifications in other games can be found in a variety of the ship classes we currently have. If you want to complain about ships being classed with roles such as healer(logistics), mesmer(recon/EAF's), Tank(BS - specifically tier 3's), etc, you are a few years too late. |
Electra Gaterau
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 20:58:00 -
[1296] - Quote
MadShade wrote:Hello! 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.
Err isn't one of the purposes of this dev blog to let us know what CCP are currently thinking? |
Cindy Marco
Expanse Security
55
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:02:00 -
[1297] - Quote
I like the removal of tiers. Its been needed for a long time.
The skill changes are not needed. Destroyers and BC shouldn't be in the main progression. Destroyers and BCs are basically just big slow frigs and cruisers. Especially destroyers, with 1 ship per race, and such a limited role they don't need to have their own skill.
I also don't see anything to gain by this change. Its not going to change anything for older characters like mine. I'll just be given 6m free sp and can still fly everything I can now.
Younger and new players are going to be punished. Now it will take them 4 times longer to train for BCs and destroyers then it did for me. And for no good reason. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:03:00 -
[1298] - Quote
pashared wrote:"TANK" "ARCHER": ...
GÇó"DPS warrior" ...
GÇó"MAGE" ...
GÇó"CLERIC" ...
I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.
Do you actually play this game? Did you actually read the blog?
The roles suggested in the dev blog are basically design objectives for one ship in a stable supplied by a particular faction: ships designed for assault (i.e.: short range, high DPS, low mobility), sniping (long range, low DPS, moderate mobility), support, etc. At present we have ships that area designed in "tiers" where, for example, you have a useless ship that nobody uses (Ferox), then a better ship that a lot of people use (Drake), then an awesome ship which the better pilots will use (Naga).
You already know that capsuleers are not restricted to flying just one ship. Why the comparison to fantasy role playing games with their rigid class structures?
pashared wrote:I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.
Caldari Achura were popular because they trained all useful skills faster (where "useful" is defined by the jarheads as "not leadership or marketing" ;) - different flavours of ships would not have changed the popularity of that bloodline, simply because the bloodline was superior at training speed and would be able to fly the new FOTM ships faster than anyone else.
pashared wrote:you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there.
That is exactly what they're doing.
|
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:04:00 -
[1299] - Quote
I've posted several times in here I think the destroyers/BC thing is bad for new players.
I do, however, think the new direction you guys are taking towards making all ships useful and have roles is a good thing.
Ships / aircraft are not designed without a role in mind. People likening it to "classes" aren't terribly far off, but it's said in a negative connotation. The clear (VERY GOOD) goal is to get people in a variety of ships, and have every ship be useful and have a purpose in a fleet. I fail to see how diversification of ships seen engaged in regular fleet ops is a bad thing. To me that isn't simplification, it's actually making fleets more dynamic and more difficult to plan for (hopefully leading to interesting fights more often)...assuming it pans out.
I also think the overall goal of making it simpler to get into a specific role is a good thing, and can lead to specialization and stand out performances...which should matter in a one-world game. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:04:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Sigras wrote: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.
For the most part, yes. This is about right. I just want to emphasize the importance of avoiding pigeonholing either in theory or practice (while a ship could do something else, it would be so much better suited to it's CCP defined role that using it for anything else would be as practical as using Carriers for hauling stuff over multiple light years POST carrier hauler nerf). |
|
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:04:00 -
[1301] - Quote
As stated earlier in the thread, my main concern with this Skills tree change is that certain pilots will be able to fly Command Ships they currently cannot do because they have BC 5 but don't have Racial Cruiser 5 i.e. if they get all 4 Racial BC skills to 5 in the update, because Command Ships no longer require Racial Cruiser 5, these pilots will get free access to certain Command Ships.
Clearly this needs to be avoided by CCP to unduely benefit certain players. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:08:00 -
[1302] - Quote
pashared wrote:"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
GÇó"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
GÇó"MAGE" ": provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
GÇó"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.
I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.
I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.
you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank.
I too have strong concerns about this becoming the new model for Eve. This will honestly drive every player who has ever played an MMORPG even loosely based on WoW. If they wanted WoW, Rift, EQ, etc... they would play it. They play Eve, because of the differences that I'm worried this change would remove. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:19:00 -
[1303] - Quote
Mikron Alexarr wrote:pashared wrote:"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
GÇó"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
GÇó"MAGE" ": provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
GÇó"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.
I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.
I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.
you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank. I too have strong concerns about this becoming the new model for Eve. This will honestly drive every player who has ever played an MMORPG even loosely based on WoW. If they wanted WoW, Rift, EQ, etc... they would play it. They play Eve, because of the differences that I'm worried this change would remove. Eve's stong point is it's ability to take a small number of arbitrary limits on each hull and use the tools provided in the game to tweak each hull to your purpose. That being said, there are some choices which while clearly possible, are far from efficient. If I want pure mobility for a tackler I can nano a BS, but would be better off with an interceptor. I can use cruiser to haul but an industrial would probably suit the task better. A hulk makes a more efficient miner than a battlecruiser. Even more focused hulls can be selected for their strong points and fitted to mitigate their weaknesses. That is the way things are NOW. And the proposal is to realigning the roles in a more coherent manner and equalizing general usefulness among the T1's. This isn't adding something that has never been. |
vacilao
Eve Technological Center
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:25:00 -
[1304] - Quote
I am wondering if after ccp will split destroyers and battlecruiser into racial they will continue to do so with the other skills that affect all races as:
assault ship, heavy assault ship, black ops, command ships, covert ops, electronic attac ships, heavy interdictors, interceptors, interdictors, jump freighters, marauders, recon ships and transports ships.
Will we get in time to train another zillion skills to be able to fly what I can fly now? And also to buy all those new skills that will may be implemented later if they will start with battlecruisers and destroyers? |
DamienEx
Three Headed Dog Permanent Transience
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:39:00 -
[1305] - Quote
I ignored 99% of what everyone else posted. I did read the parts where CCP said, "If you can fly it now, you can fly it then.
That being said, I feel these changes are long over due. I never made any sense that someone who was in a different race could over the course of a week train up and be sitting in a ratting drake for the sake of having a ratting drake because their own race lacked something as useful. I feel that the progression from Frig > Dessie > Cruiser > BC > BS > Cap makes more than perfect sense. So the new players have to train stuff for longer periods of time. They also got all the learning skills for free with that one patch not to long ago. You know.... that one patch that the people who trained all the advanced learning skills to 5 b!tched about even though they got all the SP back because anyone making a new toon would be able to skill up just as fast as they could? Well now it seems like the process is being steam lined and it makes logical sense to do what they are doing
I have spent the better part of my EVE life training for and learning to fly every combat ship in the game. I have every races Frig, Cruiser, and BS to level 5. I have all the T2 ship skills to level 4 if not level 5. I have trained every weapon system, e-war, drones, and their T2 counter parts so I can use them with all the ships. CCP has said that if these changes would occur, it would not effect me in anyway. As long as they keep to that, I fully support all the changes they are looking to implement. FFS, right now half the ships I have trained are utterly useless, but I trained them none the less.
This is an opportunity for the game to rebalanced, reformat (for the better), and to make things occur in a more logical fashion. The number of ships that I have never seen in combat is staggering. Everyone is always flying the same ships, in the same fleet, to fight a fleet of identical competetion. Then it turns into a 'blob' game. This is a chance to try to eliminate blob warfare and reintrodue a combat system that takes skill over numbers to work right. Thats not to say we will need a situation where a fleet of 10 can take out a fleet of 200, but it will put an interesting twist on how people change their play styles as well as how fleets will function.
Doing away with tier's, focusing on ship roles father than ship classes, and reformatting the troubled areas of the ship skill tree will all make this game a little easier for new players to manage, old players to organize, as well as giving us an opportunity to reintroduce old ships into the equation of combat again.
As long as myself and other players who have taken the time to specialize in a ship we have trained to fly get to keep that, then I say hats off to CCP and stick with the changes. As a sugestion for determining how players should get the different levels of racial battle cruisers, if they have cruiser 5 for a race and battle cruiser to whatever level, then they should get the races BC skill to that level as well.
Simple examples: I have Caldari, Minmatar, Amarr, and Gallante cruiser at 5 as well as Battlecruiser 5. I should get all Racial battlecruiser skills to 5. Someone else has Amarr and Caldari cruiser to 5 and battlecruiser to 5 as well. They would receive Amarr and Caldari battlecruiser 5. Number three has Amarr and Caldari cruiser to 5 but only has battlecruiser to 4. Well it only makes sense to give them the Amarr and Caldari battlecruiser to 4 A new player has caldari cruiser to 4 and battlecruiser 3. Clearly they only get Caldari Battlecruiser set to 3
One other thing to touch on are the people who have racial battleship skills but lack the battlecruiser skill to go with it. If a player can fly a battleship of a certain race and does not have BC trained to 4 or at all, then they should be given the racial skills to fly those ships. The fact is, if the racial BC skills will have the same multiplier, CCP would only be handing out a weeks worth of training. I am ok with that. As for people with vastly larger skill sets, sure they are giving out a few million SP, but hell, we already worked hard to get where we are, and its not like most of you will catch up to the 100mil SP toons anytime soon. That being said, bring on the changes, and make them work. |
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:40:00 -
[1306] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. Yes that would be the best solution indeed.
Important consequence though, everybody would train all races cruisers and frigate to III to get max free skill points. |
Argus Kell
Fodder.
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:43:00 -
[1307] - Quote
One word: Awesome.
This is a brave change and one that I think will hugely benefit the game. 2012 in EVE has me super excited!
Argus |
Skex Relbore
The Dominion of Light
112
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:45:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Re-balancing ships and the elimination of the tier system = goo Changing generic skills to racial skills = ba Changing pre-req on Covetor to 4 = goo Changing pre-reg of caps to BS4 = Me
I like generic skills they allow a pilot to gain a lot of capability for a low time investment. BC5 is generally considered such a great skill specifically because it offers so much bang for your buck in that one ~30 day train gives you max bonuses on all races BC's, Now I can see the argument of how this might trivialize training for Command ships but honestly you still need racial cruiser 5 and all those leadership skills in addition to BC5 so it doesn't seem all that awful that one can cross train a tad bit easier into another races CS
My objection to the change has less to do with how it affects me since I've already got all 4 racial cruisers to 5 as well as BC5 (same for racial frigs and dessy 5) than the hurdle it puts before new players.
Under the current system once you've trained a T2 ship skill for one race you can relatively easily add additional races for more flexibility. So if you were trained to use a fly-catcher and you join an alliance that prefers sabre's all you'd have to do is train Mini-frig up so in a week you could be flying the new ship, same for HICs.
This is a good thing, because EVE has enough pain in the backside skill training issues as it stands already, The attribute system already sucks in general since to maximize your training time you need to group skills by attribute in your training rather than by specific ships/roles.
Changing the generic ships skills just seems like a whole lot of trouble for no effective gain, if you really wanted to smooth progression out you could simply make the generic skill to 4 be a prereq for the racial specific of the next higher class. So to train Gal cruiser you'd need Gal frig 4 and generic Dessy 4 and skip the whole rage and reimbursement nonsense
This change screws over new players as compared to older players since it would effectively set every player who didn't already have BC5 at the time of the change 3 months further behind.
Hypothetically if it took a vet 12 months to train to be able to use all racial BC's at level 5 it would take the new player 15 months to reach that same level of capability. Considering the perception of newer players being persistently behind in this game it this seems particularly dumb
Covetor no longer requiring Mining barge 5 would be an overdue and welcome change the old requirement was stupid design to begin with.
Lowering the BS requirement to L4 for Caps just seems kind of meh to me. considering the number of insanely long trains required to fly a cap effectively that ~30 days is more of a speed bump than a hurdle (the real hurdle being the navigation and support skills) so I don't think changing that requirement would lead to some sort of massive influx of new cap pilots and the most likely result of such a change would simply be making it easier for cap pilots to train into different races capitals.
Understand I'm not against making changes to the skill system to make it friendlier to new players but if you are going to go mucking about with it then make changes that actually would make life easier on new players.
Like eliminate attributes completely and they serve no real purpose but to frustrate peoples training plans, "Oh I'd like to try flying logistics but oh look I'm on a perception/will map which means all those required electronic and engineering skills are going to take 33% longer to train but if I remap then I'm stuck on that for a year and I'll have to then either lose 33% to train the ship skill or find other stuff that's on map to train for that year so I still won't be able to fly a logi for another year... f -this game
Adding even more skills that add nothing new to the game to the convoluted mess that is the EVE skill system is just dumb and the person who thought up the idea deserving of ridicule. |
Aylat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:55:00 -
[1309] - Quote
The Dev Blog describes T3 ships as generalization ships. CCP do you think that T3 ships are overpowered currently? In reality T3 ships are like T2 ships only better and more expensive. You are talking about buffing many ships but you are not talking about buffing T3 ships. That would effectively nerf T3 ships. I think it is very important to have ships in the game which have the price of T3 ships combined with their current power advantage compared to other ships. IGÇÖm fine with T3 ships being generalization ships instead of improved specialization ships. However, as compensation you definitively would have to add new and improved T2 ships which are comparable to the current T3 ships (price and power wise). |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
407
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:57:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:As stated earlier in the thread, my main concern with this Skills tree change is that certain pilots will be able to fly Command Ships they currently cannot do because they have BC 5 but don't have Racial Cruiser 5 i.e. if they get all 4 Racial BC skills to 5 in the update, because Command Ships no longer require Racial Cruiser 5, these pilots will get free access to certain Command Ships.
Clearly this needs to be avoided by CCP to unduely benefit certain players. Nah... actually I think we currently put way too much stock into skills already. The big games in EvE... the ones worth winning... are usually won because you were lucky, were smart, were prepared, etc... and really I think that's how EvE should be. If a nub can tackle me and fit a ship better to kill me with, he deserves the kill. Personally I would like to see the performance gulf between T1 and T2 narrow so as to give a T2 pilot only the slightest in statistical advantages. Victory or mission accomplishment, whatever that means to you, should be more about better planning and/or execution, and less about how long you have played. ...and so what if a nub is in a Nighthawk? Let 'em! If they can afford it why can't everyone fly Nighthawks? They sure look good on a killboard.
I'm coming up on 100 mil SP. That shouldn't mean a damn thing to anyone.
Let's diminish all skills to where they only keep trial accounts out of good ships and provide only the slightest advantage to anyone maxing them out.
|
|
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:57:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Adunh Slavy 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? 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".
No. If you had BC 5 before, you'd have ABC 5, CBC 5, MBC 5, and GBC 5 afterwards. If you had BC 3 before, you'd have ABC 3, CBC 3, MBC 3, and GBC 3 afterwards. It has no bearing on what your racial cruiser skill is. Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Drajh
Daunt Project
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:57:00 -
[1312] - Quote
I really like the changes as you explained them already but the reinfuding and / or "if you can fly it now you'll be able to fly it then" leaves me baffled a little...
As of now I got every Frigate skill at level 5, Destroyer at level 5, every cruiser skill at level 5 and Command ship at level 5.
This means that after the patch I would have every Frigate skill at level 5, every Destroyer skill at level 5, every cruiser skill at level 5 and every Command ship skill at level 5.
3 * 2 048 000 sp + 3 * 512 000 = 7 680 000 more skill point after the patch. I'm not gonna complain but I can see why people could...
Anyway I'm not saying don't do it, just that you'd better be sure of what you're doing before making this true. |
Lamperouge Kasenumi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 21:59:00 -
[1313] - Quote
Skex Relbore wrote: Hypothetically if it took a vet 12 months to train to be able to use all racial BC's at level 5 it would take the new player 15 months to reach that same level of capability. Considering the perception of newer players being persistently behind in this game it this seems particularly dumb
That's irrelevant, most new players won't know it was like this before. Anyway, they can just train into their favorite BC race first and be on the same level as the vets. Being a vet as always been about flexibility more than power and it remains the same with these changes.
Skex Relbore wrote: Like eliminate attributes completely and they serve no real purpose but to frustrate peoples training plans, "Oh I'd like to try flying logistics but oh look I'm on a perception/will map which means all those required electronic and engineering skills are going to take 33% longer to train but if I remap then I'm stuck on that for a year and I'll have to then either lose 33% to train the ship skill or find other stuff that's on map to train for that year so I still won't be able to fly a logi for another year... f -this game
I agree with this, attributes right now only add complexity for complexity sakes. Just remove them, they add no value to the game. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:00:00 -
[1314] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: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.
Are you ********? Like, seriously, mentally disabled? "A skill that further boosts" translates to "must have" in competitive gameplay. Which means you are forced to train further skills for ships you can currently fly (well) already. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:02:00 -
[1315] - 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.
Kiran, the couple posts I've seen of yours make me think you haven't read the first page and followed the links. You're way off. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:06:00 -
[1316] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:As stated earlier in the thread, my main concern with this Skills tree change is that certain pilots will be able to fly Command Ships they currently cannot do because they have BC 5 but don't have Racial Cruiser 5 i.e. if they get all 4 Racial BC skills to 5 in the update, because Command Ships no longer require Racial Cruiser 5, these pilots will get free access to certain Command Ships.
Clearly this needs to be avoided by CCP to unduely benefit certain players.
As stated earlier, even if you have the racial BC skill to 5, the command ships still require you to have the racial cruiser to 5 in order to sit in them. So you'd get no sneaky bonus and be able to suddenly fly all command ships if you only had one racial cruiser skill to 5. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Electra Gaterau
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:11:00 -
[1317] - Quote
Duriel Walker wrote: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.
As a newer player I see this as a positive change, the entry barrier to Eve (IMO) isn't that it's hard to learn or harsh when you lose a ship/get ganked. It's setting your heart on a ship that you want to fly and realising it's going to take the best part of a year for you to be able to fly it. For me that is Command Ships and a Thanatos.
From what I understand this change will streamline my progression into said ships, currently seeing that you need so many lvl 5 skills is a complete turn off. As it currently stands I have to first train Assualt Ships and Heavy Assualt Ships to 4 when I have no intention of flying them (at this point in time).
Don't get me wrong I was tempted to rush training for BC 5 for my chance at free SP but ultimately, except for the long term it would be useless to me until I trained a lot of other support and weapon skills to fly the other races BC's. Sure older players with BC 5 may get free SP but how how does this affect me, they already have tens of millions more SP than I do and can already fly other races BC that I can't. If anything this change may 'persuade' us newer players to leave cross training until later and focus on flying our chosen race more effectively.
Bring it on... |
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:11:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:
We dont want this!
Yes, we do.
Yeah, because the last 8 years the player base has struggled SOOOOOOO much with this problem.... |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:28:00 -
[1319] - Quote
vacilao wrote:I am wondering if after ccp will split destroyers and battlecruiser into racial they will continue to do so with the other skills that affect all races as: assault ship, heavy assault ship, black ops, command ships, covert ops, electronic attac ships, heavy interdictors, interceptors, interdictors, jump freighters, marauders, recon ships and transports ships. Will we get in time to train another zillion skills to be able to fly what I can fly now ? And also to buy all those new skills that will may be implemented later if they will start with battlecruisers and destroyers ? Those skills are T2 . . . see the difference? |
Pharaik
Social Terrorists
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:31:00 -
[1320] - Quote
This is complete and utter ****, What is the point? really?
Maybe im missing something here, but the only thing that this does is increase training time for newer players.
The problem is with the ships them selfs, Hacs are pretty much ******* usless and too expensive to bother with when Tier 2 battlecruisers and the new tier 3 rule the roost.
Upgrade the ships we have and make them functional before you change silly things like racial battlecruisers and destroyers.
Fix hac's Fix Command ships and all the other ships that are utter shite! |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:31:00 -
[1321] - Quote
AnzacPaul wrote:Tippia wrote:Grey Stormshadow wrote:
We dont want this!
Yes, we do. Yeah, because the last 8 years the player base has struggled SOOOOOOO much with this problem....
Actually, the player base has for the 8 years complained about this very problem... that being the huge number of obsolete ships in game.
Who do you know that flies lower tier Tech 1 vessels if they have the skills to fly the higher tier ones?
With the possible exception of the mining oriented vessels, I'd wager very few. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:35:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Quote:Are you ********? Like, seriously, mentally disabled? "A skill that further boosts" translates to "must have" in competitive gameplay. Which means you are forced to train further skills for ships you can currently fly (well) already.
You would still be able to fly them just as well as you always have, there would simply be new options available. From your point of view there can never be room for improvement because you (and others) might feel the desire to actually take advantage of those improvements.
Seriously my friend, think before you post. 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. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:35:00 -
[1323] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote: Are you ********? Like, seriously, mentally disabled? "A skill that further boosts" translates to "must have" in competitive gameplay. Which means you are forced to train further skills for ships you can currently fly (well) already.
Does it do that now? We have a myriad of skills that enhance us as is. If this is such a barrier we should be feeling it now. I personally like having options with which I can choose specialize and improve my ability with certain ships. I feel it should take a long time to master all aspects of it skill wise as well. I don't feel all is lost when someone has spec 5 guns to my spec 4, or has a bit lower cycle time on a mod. And even if it did make a difference, I didn't have it because I chose to train something else. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:37:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Pharaik wrote:This is complete and utter ****, What is the point? really?
Maybe im missing something here, but the only thing that this does is increase training time for newer players.
The problem is with the ships them selfs, Hacs are pretty much ******* usless and too expensive to bother with when Tier 2 battlecruisers and the new tier 3 rule the roost.
Upgrade the ships we have and make them functional before you change silly things like racial battlecruisers and destroyers.
Fix hac's Fix Command ships and all the other ships that are utter shite!
I highlighted the most pertinent part of your post. 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. |
Leet Magician
Evolution
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:39:00 -
[1325] - Quote
no matter how they are solving this problem, they need to say clearly how they are gonna do it and with some advance so we can plan this change. Players have remap points planned ( my case ) and need to adjust the training plans.
As for my specific case, i hope they go with:
Race frig III + Destroyer X -> Race Destroyer X Race cruiser III + BCruisers X -> Race BCruiser X
since i have all races up to BS 5
I also hope they don't remove the requirements for the T2 ships. it doesn't seem plausible to me that someone can fly a HAC without having atleast Assault Ships 4. |
Pharaik
Social Terrorists
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:41:00 -
[1326] - Quote
Ok then ranger explain?
Adding in new ship skills and more linar systems to the ship skilling does exactly what??
Cos 6 months down the line and i have re-trained all the new **** there gonna put in and my ships are still capable of doing what they can today achieved exactly.......oh wait nothing.
There are too many ships in this game that never get used cos they are simple overpowered by cheaper t1 varients. They need to bring in better ship roles and bonus's to make the ships better and to properly function. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:43:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Are you ********? Like, seriously, mentally disabled? "A skill that further boosts" translates to "must have" in competitive gameplay. Which means you are forced to train further skills for ships you can currently fly (well) already. You would still be able to fly them just as well as you always have, there would simply be new options available. From your point of view there can never be room for improvement because you (and others) might actually feel the desire to actually take advantage of those improvements. Seriously my friend, think before you post.
Yes. Obviously. And I guess you never trained Engineering, Weapon Upgrades, a ship skill past I, or any T2 guns - because those are all totally optional and only "further improve" a ship. Like, totally optional. And if they introduce a new line of support skills that is just as optional (except that it directly increases EHP/DPS) and was not previously required for anything, because, well, it isn't really required to be there in the first place, that is also just as optional.
This change totally doesn't add to the total training time required to fly any single sub-cap in the game.
Just gtfo troll. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:48:00 -
[1328] - Quote
Pharaik wrote:Ok then ranger explain?
Adding in new ship skills and more linar systems to the ship skilling does exactly what??
Cos 6 months down the line and i have re-trained all the new **** there gonna put in and my ships are still capable of doing what they can today achieved exactly.......oh wait nothing.
There are too many ships in this game that never get used cos they are simple overpowered by cheaper t1 varients. They need to bring in better ship roles and bonus's to make them ships better and to properly function. Before responding one should read first post. Follow all links and read the CCP posts in the thread. You will see that the moment you said anything about retraining what you had already trained, you exposed that you were poorly informed. |
Skex Relbore
The Dominion of Light
112
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:50:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Lamperouge Kasenumi wrote:Skex Relbore wrote: Hypothetically if it took a vet 12 months to train to be able to use all racial BC's at level 5 it would take the new player 15 months to reach that same level of capability. Considering the perception of newer players being persistently behind in this game it this seems particularly dumb
That's irrelevant, most new players won't know it was like this before. Anyway, they can just train into their favorite BC race first and be on the same level as the vets. Being a vet as always been about flexibility more than power and it remains the same with these changes.
No it isn't irrelevant. People will know people who started playing prior to the change but hadn't trained all BC to 5 yet will know just like players like me who weren't around prior to the introduction of drone bandwidth know that the Myrmidon used to be able to field a full rack of heavies.
Yeah part of being a vet is having more flexibility but it doesn't change the fact that this change if made would mean that a new player would have to play 3 months longer than someone who trianed BC to 5 prior to the proposed change to achieve the same level of flexibility
This change is exactly the opposite of what you'd want to do if you want to make the game more accessible to new players in that it really is kind of a big FU to everyone who doesn't have BC5 already trained by the time the expansion is launched. The last thing a game as old with as limited a market as EVE has should be doing is making it even harder for new players to start playing.
And we can talk all that specialization nonsense until we're blue in the face and it's not going to change the fact that flexibility is a power issue. Being able to hop into the kind of ship an FC calls for has a big affect on peoples enjoyment of the game. Given the rock paper scissors nature of the game play flexibility directly translates into more power.
Now it's one thing to say "hey you gotta pay your dues just like everyone who came before" it's quite another to say here on top of however many years you are already behind the veterans have an extra 3 months.
Hell under the new system it will actually take even longer to train to level 5 BC than it did under the old system since now in addition to train it again for each race of BC you want to train you have to train racial cruiser to 4 instead of 3. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:50:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Are you ********? Like, seriously, mentally disabled? "A skill that further boosts" translates to "must have" in competitive gameplay. Which means you are forced to train further skills for ships you can currently fly (well) already. You would still be able to fly them just as well as you always have, there would simply be new options available. From your point of view there can never be room for improvement because you (and others) might actually feel the desire to actually take advantage of those improvements. Seriously my friend, think before you post. Yes. Obviously. And I guess you never trained Engineering, Weapon Upgrades, a ship skill past I, or any T2 guns - because those are all totally optional and only "further improve" a ship. Like, totally optional. And if they introduce a new line of support skills that is just as optional (except that it directly increases EHP/DPS) and was not previously required for anything, because, well, it isn't really required to be there in the first place, that is also just as optional. Just gtfo troll.
They're not required. You will be able to keep flying the ships you have right now at the skill level you can fly them at right now. Remember when Advanced Weapon Upgrades came out? It didn't instantly mean all your ships were worthless and you were a sack of useless poo to be flung forth like cannon fodder. No, it meant you were just as good as you always were, but if you wanted to be EVEN better, you now had that option. Sure, I trained that skill up to 3 when it first came out, then I went back to my other skills i was working on at the time. Eventually I trained AWU to 5 just so i could get every last ounce of performance out of my ship without resorting to officer mods, but I wouldn't say it was necessary.
Will we all eventually get the new skills, and probably get them to 5? Sure, that goes without saying, but to complain about having to train up these new skills just to be able to play the game? That's just silly. It would be like complaining about having to buy a second monitor because I just gave you a second video card. It would be like complaining about having to buy a new car just because you got a raise. Your old car works just fine, you're the one deciding you HAVE to buy a new car just because you can afford 500 bucks a month instead of 300 from before. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:52:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Pharaik wrote:Ok then ranger explain?
Adding in new ship skills and more linar systems to the ship skilling does exactly what??
Cos 6 months down the line and i have re-trained all the new **** there gonna put in and my ships are still capable of doing what they can today achieved exactly.......oh wait nothing.
There are too many ships in this game that never get used cos they are simple overpowered by cheaper t1 varients. They need to bring in better ship roles and bonus's to make them ships better and to properly function.
Pharaik, you really need to read the thread.
To hit the high points, in order of the questions you raised...
1: You won't have to retrain any skills to be able to fly them exactly as you do today. 2: New players can specialize far more quickly in a particular path. To cross train will take slightly longer. 3: Removal of the Tier system allows obsolete ships to be redisigned to actually be useful. 4: Existing ships will be easily rebalanced to more accurately reflect their role. 5: New skills can be easily introduced to enhance them in ways not possible today. 6: Better ship roles and bonus's are exactly what these changes will enable.
If you want in depth explanations, you'll have to do some reading. 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. |
Pharaik
Social Terrorists
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:54:00 -
[1332] - Quote
I Appologise i miss read the part where it said they were to remove the tiers from ships.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:54:00 -
[1333] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Are you ********? Like, seriously, mentally disabled? "A skill that further boosts" translates to "must have" in competitive gameplay. Which means you are forced to train further skills for ships you can currently fly (well) already. You would still be able to fly them just as well as you always have, there would simply be new options available. From your point of view there can never be room for improvement because you (and others) might actually feel the desire to actually take advantage of those improvements. Seriously my friend, think before you post. Yes. Obviously. And I guess you never trained Engineering, Weapon Upgrades, a ship skill past I, or any T2 guns - because those are all totally optional and only "further improve" a ship. Like, totally optional. And if they introduce a new line of support skills that is just as optional (except that it directly increases EHP/DPS) and was not previously required for anything, because, well, it isn't really required to be there in the first place, that is also just as optional. This change totally doesn't add to the total training time required to fly any single sub-cap in the game. Just gtfo troll. They ARE optional. Aside from what is specifically stated in the prereqs for a ship, everything IS OPTIONAL. Can you fly a legion without being able to use lasers or missiles at all? YES! Can I train HML's for a tengu but not get T2 trained? YES! Do I just sit in dock for 2 years because I don't have max skills to fly a particular ship? VERY MUCH NO. |
Josef Stylin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:56:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Haven't read through 67 pages, so perhaps this topic has been already covered, but..
Isn't the 'if you can fly it now' kind of screwing over new players? That is, people who can train the skills now will have all the races levelled up - effectively giving 400% return on their SP. New players that cannot start powerskilling up Destroyers and Battlecruisers will, ultimately, have to spend 4x longer to get to the equivalent position with those that skilled up before the system was changed. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:57:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Morar Santee wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Quote:Are you ********? Like, seriously, mentally disabled? "A skill that further boosts" translates to "must have" in competitive gameplay. Which means you are forced to train further skills for ships you can currently fly (well) already. You would still be able to fly them just as well as you always have, there would simply be new options available. From your point of view there can never be room for improvement because you (and others) might actually feel the desire to actually take advantage of those improvements. Seriously my friend, think before you post. Yes. Obviously. And I guess you never trained Engineering, Weapon Upgrades, a ship skill past I, or any T2 guns - because those are all totally optional and only "further improve" a ship. Like, totally optional. And if they introduce a new line of support skills that is just as optional (except that it directly increases EHP/DPS) and was not previously required for anything, because, well, it isn't really required to be there in the first place, that is also just as optional. Just gtfo troll. They're not required. You will be able to keep flying the ships you have right now at the skill level you can fly them at right now. Remember when Advanced Weapon Upgrades came out? It didn't instantly mean all your ships were worthless and you were a sack of useless poo to be flung forth like cannon fodder. No, it meant you were just as good as you always were, but if you wanted to be EVEN better, you now had that option. Sure, I trained that skill up to 3 when it first came out, then I went back to my other skills i was working on at the time. Eventually I trained AWU to 5 just so i could get every last ounce of performance out of my ship without resorting to officer mods, but I wouldn't say it was necessary. Will we all eventually get the new skills, and probably get them to 5? Sure, that goes without saying, but to complain about having to train up these new skills just to be able to play the game? That's just silly. It would be like complaining about having to buy a second monitor because I just gave you a second video card. It would be like complaining about having to buy a new car just because you got a raise. Your old car works just fine, you're the one deciding you HAVE to buy a new car just because you can afford 500 bucks a month instead of 300 from before.
I will just add to this that if you truly feel these skills would be mandatory, and so would everybody else, just exactly HOW are you disadvantaged?
You have lost nothing of your current performance against other ships, you can only increase it... and are in EXACTLY the same boat as everyone else that decides to improve their performance in that particular ship beyond it's current level. 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. |
Benilopax
The Ashen Lion Syndicate
229
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:58:00 -
[1336] - Quote
You guys are all crazy.
It's the first spark of an idea, submitted to us for our feedback, this isn't coming out on tuesday! Sheesh... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:59:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Pharaik wrote:I Appologise i miss read the part where it said they were to remove the tiers from ships.
Absolutely not a problem. This thread is a little hard to keep track of. 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. |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 22:59:00 -
[1338] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Sunviking wrote:As stated earlier in the thread, my main concern with this Skills tree change is that certain pilots will be able to fly Command Ships they currently cannot do because they have BC 5 but don't have Racial Cruiser 5 i.e. if they get all 4 Racial BC skills to 5 in the update, because Command Ships no longer require Racial Cruiser 5, these pilots will get free access to certain Command Ships.
Clearly this needs to be avoided by CCP to unduely benefit certain players. Nah... actually I think we currently put way too much stock into skills already. The big games in EvE... the ones worth winning... are usually won because you were lucky, were smart, were prepared, etc... and really I think that's how EvE should be. If a nub can tackle me and fit a ship better to kill me with, he deserves the kill. Personally I would like to see the performance gulf between T1 and T2 narrow so as to give a T2 pilot only the slightest in statistical advantages. Victory or mission accomplishment, whatever that means to you, should be more about better planning and/or execution, and less about how long you have played. ...and so what if a nub is in a Nighthawk? Let 'em! If they can afford it why can't everyone fly Nighthawks? They sure look good on a killboard. I'm coming up on 100 mil SP. That shouldn't mean a damn thing to anyone. Let's diminish all skills to where they only keep trial accounts out of good ships and provide only the slightest advantage to anyone maxing them out.
"For tech 2 ships, it creates an overcomplicated nest of skill requirements, as you need both the Cruiser and Battlecruiser skills to 5 to train for a Command Ship for example."
The above kind of suggests that CCP are going to drop the Racial Cruiser 5 requirement for Command Ships and replace it with Racial Battlecruiser 5. Unless I am mistaken. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:02:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Will we all eventually get the new skills, and probably get them to 5? Sure, that goes without saying, but to complain about having to train up these new skills just to be able to play the game? That's just silly. It would be like complaining about having to buy a second monitor because I just gave you a second video card.
Yes, except there is no new video card. In fact, there is nothing new at all.
You get the same ships you had before, except you have to retrain to use every single one of them competitively. It simply adds additional time-sinks into a game that already has fairly slow, time-based skill-progression. I actually like that system, but if someone's telling me: "GJ making a skill-training plan for 5 years. Now please retrain for all your ships." Then the answer is: FU.
And that you are incapable of seeing this for what it is, is really sad beyond words.
If this was an instance of introducing something new and saying: "You need new skills to do this." - I wouldn't be saying a word. I happily trained for every Strategic Cruiser. I didn't do any PI, but it made sense it required new skills. But it's an instance of: Same **** as before. Lolol wait 10 more months for the same thing.
Now, before you claim abolishing tiers and rebalancing everything is the most awesome thing in the world and totally makes it worth training those skills: You have no ******* clue how that will turn out. All evidence points to it likely ending in a gigantic clusterfuck. Even if it doesn't: For this to be an improvement, they'd have to make all t1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers equally desirable and competitive - while not rendering other ships useless. And you seriously believe that's going to happen? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:03:00 -
[1340] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:"For tech 2 ships, it creates an overcomplicated nest of skill requirements, as you need both the Cruiser and Battlecruiser skills to 5 to train for a Command Ship for example."
The above kind of suggests that CCP are going to drop the Racial Cruiser 5 requirement for Command Ships and replace it with Racial Battlecruiser 5. Unless I am mistaken. good catch . . . i didnt notice that . . . |
|
Barbens
Uneducated Soldiers
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:09:00 -
[1341] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
[list]
I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
All I see there are excuses about work and how busy you were in your duties. As a company, you have setup the CSM as a representative body of your player base. They're there to give you feedback on changes you're planning on making. The fact that you ignored, not forgot, them is inexcusable. Shouldn't the design process include a reality check in there somewhere?
"Hey guys, lets give all new accounts 1b ISK to get them a head start in game" could have just as easily flown by if you were in charge of the process. Its not about the quality of the work you do, its about checking all the boxes. The CSM is there to make sure ya'll stay on target and give you a gauge of what it is players think about what you're doing.
I asked Bhallgorn if you should click this link, this is what he said... |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:11:00 -
[1342] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Moraguth wrote:Will we all eventually get the new skills, and probably get them to 5? Sure, that goes without saying, but to complain about having to train up these new skills just to be able to play the game? That's just silly. It would be like complaining about having to buy a second monitor because I just gave you a second video card. Yes, except there is no new video card. In fact, there is nothing new at all. You get the same ships you had before, except you have to retrain to use every single one of them competitively. It simply adds additional time-sinks into a game that already has fairly slow, time-based skill-progression. I actually like that system, but if someone's telling me: "GJ making a skill-training plan for 5 years. Now please retrain for all your ships." Then the answer is: FU. And that you are incapable of seeing this for what it is, is really sad beyond words. If this was an instance of introducing something new and saying: "You need new skills to do this." - I wouldn't be saying a word. I happily trained for every Strategic Cruiser. I didn't do any PI, but it made sense it required new skills. But it's an instance of: Same **** as before. Lolol wait 10 more months for the same thing. Now, before you claim abolishing tiers and rebalancing everything is the most awesome thing in the world and totally makes it worth training those skills: You have no ******* clue how that will turn out. All evidence points to it likely ending in a gigantic clusterfuck. Even if it doesn't: For this to be an improvement, they'd have to make all t1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers equally desirable and competitive - while not rendering other ships useless. And you seriously believe that's going to happen?
Someone said it before, but I think you missed it completely. Every time you say "have to retrain", a dev sheds a tear. YOU DON"T HAVE TO RETRAIN ANYTHING. I say it in all caps not to yell, but so that you will hopefully see it. If you can fly with max skills pre-patch, you will fly with the same skills post-patch. As soon as you log in.
A second thing we're talking about is the addition of completely new skills that do new things. No, I'm not talking about racial destroyer/BC skills. Those are new skills to do the same things as before, just split up. I'm not a fan of it, but meh... it doesn't hurt me, I just don't like useless changes. The NEW skills will change NEW things, and we have no idea what those will be, but they certainly aren't mandatory to get the same performance out of the ships you're currently flying.
And the third thing we're talking about is the removal of the tier system. tbh, at this point, they can't mess it up. It was a great system when there were 3 classes of ships and it seemed to take forever to earn the money to go from a tier 1 frig to a tier 4 frig. And the time/isk investment to get from a cruiser up to a BS was M O N U M E N T A L. The economy, the NPE, the support structure for n00bs, everything is different now and it is possible to have the skills and the isk to fly a BC fairly well in just a couple weeks after starting the game. Since that's changed, there are a ton of ships that most new people have probably never even contemplated sitting in. Removing the tier system, if nothing else, has a chance of changing that. And in this case, change is good. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:12:00 -
[1343] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Moraguth wrote:Will we all eventually get the new skills, and probably get them to 5? Sure, that goes without saying, but to complain about having to train up these new skills just to be able to play the game? That's just silly. It would be like complaining about having to buy a second monitor because I just gave you a second video card. Yes, except there is no new video card. In fact, there is nothing new at all. You get the same ships you had before, except you have to retrain to use every single one of them competitively. It simply adds additional time-sinks into a game that already has fairly slow, time-based skill-progression. I actually like that system, but if someone's telling me: "GJ making a skill-training plan for 5 years. Now please retrain for all your ships." Then the answer is: FU. And that you are incapable of seeing this for what it is, is really sad beyond words. If this was an instance of introducing something new and saying: "You need new skills to do this." - I wouldn't be saying a word. I happily trained for every Strategic Cruiser. I didn't do any PI, but it made sense it required new skills. But it's an instance of: Same **** as before. Lolol wait 10 more months for the same thing. Now, before you claim abolishing tiers and rebalancing everything is the most awesome thing in the world and totally makes it worth training those skills: You have no ******* clue how that will turn out. All evidence points to it likely ending in a gigantic clusterfuck. Even if it doesn't: For this to be an improvement, they'd have to make all t1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers equally desirable and competitive - while not rendering other ships useless. And you seriously believe that's going to happen? wow ok, first of all, they mentioned "additional support skills" in passing as a way to keep it from getting too easy to get into T2 ships, and you just naturally assume these skills will do nothing to the ship!
Secondly, what part of "if you can fly it today you can fly it tomorrow" didnt you understand?
Thirdly, its not like you're being singled out for this change, if you have to train additional skills "to be competitive" then everyone else has to train those skills too, and unless you're an idiot youre going to train them just as fast as everyone else
And Lastly, if you're relying on SP to make you good at PvP you've lost already. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
407
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:13:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:Gogela wrote:Sunviking wrote:As stated earlier in the thread, my main concern with this Skills tree change is that certain pilots will be able to fly Command Ships they currently cannot do because they have BC 5 but don't have Racial Cruiser 5 i.e. if they get all 4 Racial BC skills to 5 in the update, because Command Ships no longer require Racial Cruiser 5, these pilots will get free access to certain Command Ships.
Clearly this needs to be avoided by CCP to unduely benefit certain players. Nah... actually I think we currently put way too much stock into skills already. The big games in EvE... the ones worth winning... are usually won because you were lucky, were smart, were prepared, etc... and really I think that's how EvE should be. If a nub can tackle me and fit a ship better to kill me with, he deserves the kill. Personally I would like to see the performance gulf between T1 and T2 narrow so as to give a T2 pilot only the slightest in statistical advantages. Victory or mission accomplishment, whatever that means to you, should be more about better planning and/or execution, and less about how long you have played. ...and so what if a nub is in a Nighthawk? Let 'em! If they can afford it why can't everyone fly Nighthawks? They sure look good on a killboard. I'm coming up on 100 mil SP. That shouldn't mean a damn thing to anyone. Let's diminish all skills to where they only keep trial accounts out of good ships and provide only the slightest advantage to anyone maxing them out. "For tech 2 ships, it creates an overcomplicated nest of skill requirements, as you need both the Cruiser and Battlecruiser skills to 5 to train for a Command Ship for example." The above kind of suggests that CCP are going to drop the Racial Cruiser 5 requirement for Command Ships and replace it with Racial Battlecruiser 5. Unless I am mistaken. No you are right.
I'm just saying 'so what'. You know, early MMOs would just shut down the game and start a new one, or do a skill reset after a time. It was the only way to keep it fresh. Eve's been around since 2003. We are long overdue for a "refresh". I'm not saying reset skills or 'lets start eve over', I'm just saying maybe skills should be diminished in importance as a psudo-refresh. I would like to see how long you've played the game as less important and how well you play as more important. Yes I think some skills should have shorter training times and certain prerequisite skills be removed as prerequisites, and some skills should decrease their time multiplier over time allowing people to catch up quicker.
Quote:... these pilots will get free access to certain Command Ships Yah. So I'm responding to this with "well... good!"
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:14:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote: Yes, except there is no new video card. In fact, there is nothing new at all.
You get the same ships you had before, except you have to retrain to use every single one of them competitively. It simply adds additional time-sinks into a game that already has fairly slow, time-based skill-progression. I actually like that system, but if someone's telling me: "GJ making a skill-training plan for 5 years. Now please retrain for all your ships." Then the answer is: FU.
And that you are incapable of seeing this for what it is, is really sad beyond words.
If this was an instance of introducing something new and saying: "You need new skills to do this." - I wouldn't be saying a word. I happily trained for every Strategic Cruiser. I didn't do any PI, but it made sense it required new skills. But it's an instance of: Same **** as before. Lolol wait 10 more months for the same thing.
Now, before you claim abolishing tiers and rebalancing everything is the most awesome thing in the world and totally makes it worth training those skills: You have no ******* clue how that will turn out. All evidence points to it likely ending in a gigantic clusterfuck. Even if it doesn't: For this to be an improvement, they'd have to make all t1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers equally desirable and competitive - while not rendering other ships useless. And you seriously believe that's going to happen?
I'm sorry, but what aspects of the proposed are you upset about specifically? You lost me. There is no retraining as proposed currently as your BC lvl would be replicated across all the new BC skills. So instead of flying say, a myrm with lvl 5 bonuses you will have... lvl 5 bonuses.
But most importantly, regarding the rebalance and removal of tiers, unless your stance is everything is fine as is and there are no changes that could be made, how is your complaint anything but baseless negativity aimed at efforts to address a problem we all know exists? |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:14:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Someone said it before, but I think you missed it completely. Every time you say "have to retrain", a dev sheds a tear. YOU DON"T HAVE TO RETRAIN ANYTHING. I say it in all caps not to yell, but so that you will hopefully see it. If you can fly with max skills pre-patch, you will fly with the same skills post-patch. As soon as you log in. Yes. Except we already established that if CCP decides to add new support skills that are in fact mandatory to fly a ship competitively, that requires you to retrain to use the ship competitively. As this is a game revolving around competition, you probably want to use your ship competitively. Ergo you have to train those new support skills to fly the same ships as before, ergo you have to re-train.
In fact, that you are not capable of understanding what is being discussed is probably a sign you have no place in this discussion in the first place. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:15:00 -
[1347] - Quote
Sigras wrote:.... And Lastly, if you're relying on SP to make you good at PvP you've lost already.
This was the best part. Thanks! I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:16:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Time to train racial BS IV x4 today:
64d
Time to train racial BS IV x4 after "Inferno":
98d
Here is my offer to you, CCP:
I buy one PLEX, drop it to my hangar at Jita 4-4, and trash it.
You delete this threadnaught and just pretend that whole "racial BC and destroyer skills" thing never happened.
We call it even. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:18:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Morar Santee wrote: Yes, except there is no new video card. In fact, there is nothing new at all.
You get the same ships you had before, except you have to retrain to use every single one of them competitively. It simply adds additional time-sinks into a game that already has fairly slow, time-based skill-progression. I actually like that system, but if someone's telling me: "GJ making a skill-training plan for 5 years. Now please retrain for all your ships." Then the answer is: FU.
And that you are incapable of seeing this for what it is, is really sad beyond words.
If this was an instance of introducing something new and saying: "You need new skills to do this." - I wouldn't be saying a word. I happily trained for every Strategic Cruiser. I didn't do any PI, but it made sense it required new skills. But it's an instance of: Same **** as before. Lolol wait 10 more months for the same thing.
Now, before you claim abolishing tiers and rebalancing everything is the most awesome thing in the world and totally makes it worth training those skills: You have no ******* clue how that will turn out. All evidence points to it likely ending in a gigantic clusterfuck. Even if it doesn't: For this to be an improvement, they'd have to make all t1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers equally desirable and competitive - while not rendering other ships useless. And you seriously believe that's going to happen?
I'm sorry, but what aspects of the proposed are you upset about specifically? You lost me. There is no retraining as proposed currently as your BC lvl would be replicated across all the new BC skills. So instead of flying say, a myrm with lvl 5 bonuses you will have... lvl 5 bonuses. But most importantly, regarding the rebalance and removal of tiers, unless your stance is everything is fine as is and there are no changes that could be made, how is your complaint anything but baseless negativity aimed at efforts to address a problem we all know exists?
Answer:
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.
|
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:18:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: They ARE optional. Aside from what is specifically stated in the prereqs for a ship, everything IS OPTIONAL. Can you fly a legion without being able to use lasers or missiles at all? YES! Can I train HML's for a tengu but not get T2 trained? YES! Do I just sit in dock for 2 years because I don't have max skills to fly a particular ship? VERY MUCH NO.
"optional" is kind of a loose word in a game that is 8 years old when the vets above you have every one of those skills already trained to V, and your trying to be competitive. |
|
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:21:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Moraguth wrote:Someone said it before, but I think you missed it completely. Every time you say "have to retrain", a dev sheds a tear. YOU DON"T HAVE TO RETRAIN ANYTHING. I say it in all caps not to yell, but so that you will hopefully see it. If you can fly with max skills pre-patch, you will fly with the same skills post-patch. As soon as you log in. Yes. Except we already established that if CCP decides to add new support skills that are in fact mandatory to fly a ship competitively, that requires you to retrain to use the ship competitively. As this is a game revolving around competition, you probably want to use your ship competitively. Ergo you have to train those new support skills to fly the same ships as before, ergo you have to re-train. In fact, that you are not capable of understanding what is being discussed is probably a sign you have no place in this discussion in the first place.
we already established? No. You assumed. And I disagree.
I remember a batch of "support skills" that came out, people were all up in arms for those too. but really, all they did was improve the game for the group of players who wanted to train them. I'm talking about the EW support skills that improved cap use, range, duration for each type of ew (tp, dams, ecm, etc). If you wanted to do ew ships and use TP, you could train those skills to be even more badass than before. And you didn't even have to touch the damp skills, the ecm skills, or anything besides what you wanted.
To assume you have to train every new skill just to "be competetive" makes your post the "idiotic post" that should be disregarded without a second thought. Try thinking of things in a new light instead of just presuming the world is out to get you. TBH, you're really not that important. I just happen to have a soft spot in my heart for willfully ignorant and obstinate internet people. I assume they can be taught, but maybe that makes me an idiot too.
Good luck to you being always pissed off and thinking you're the victim. I'll be happy knowing I have more choice, more freedom, and more ability to kick ass and make money than ever before. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Crucis Cassiopeiae
EvE-COM
890
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:24:00 -
[1352] - Quote
I see many ppl that are against this change. I see many ppl that are for this change.
But i don't see against what can you be here.
Its all GOOOOOD changes in my book! |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:25:00 -
[1353] - Quote
Sigras wrote:wow ok, first of all, they mentioned "additional support skills" in passing as a way to keep it from getting too easy to get into T2 ships, and you just naturally assume these skills will do nothing to the ship!
Secondly, what part of "if you can fly it today you can fly it tomorrow" didnt you understand?
Thirdly, its not like you're being singled out for this change, if you have to train additional skills "to be competitive" then everyone else has to train those skills too, and unless you're an idiot youre going to train them just as fast as everyone else
And Lastly, if you're relying on SP to make you good at PvP you've lost already.
Actually, no, those "additional support skills" are for the "new lines of ships that will replace tiers". That is all ships. Learn2read.
And yes, everyone else will have to train those skills as well. Obviously. That is the entire point. It increases training time to fly existing ships, for no other reason than to increase training time to fly existing ships. Because in order for this to be balanced, all advantages gained by training those skills have to be canceled out by the respective support skills of other ship lines.
I really hope you are not relying on your reading comprehension skills, or logical deduction. Because you'd be at least as lost as I am in PvP. That's a given. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:25:00 -
[1354] - Quote
AnzacPaul wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: They ARE optional. Aside from what is specifically stated in the prereqs for a ship, everything IS OPTIONAL. Can you fly a legion without being able to use lasers or missiles at all? YES! Can I train HML's for a tengu but not get T2 trained? YES! Do I just sit in dock for 2 years because I don't have max skills to fly a particular ship? VERY MUCH NO.
"optional" is kind of a loose word in a game that is 8 years old when the vets above you have every one of those skills already trained to V, and your trying to be competitive. Respectfully, my oldest is under 3 years. My ability to play the game is completely vested in the idea that more SP is not the key to success. Do they provide statistical advantages? Yes, but those are not so overwhelming that they cannot be overcome by specializing and learning to fly properly. Many pilots do it in game every day, so yes, optional applies in the majority of cases I imagine. |
Leah Solo
State War Academy Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:27:00 -
[1355] - Quote
New skill tree: meh. It doesn't add anything but confusion with sp relocation, and newbs getting kicked in the crotch.
Why does every skill has to be streamlined? What's wrong with battlecruisers and destroyers being a 'unique' skill? Will it confuse new players? Did it confuse new players?
BS 4 for cap ships is terrible idea imo. Capital ships deserve to have BS 5 prereq. For that feeling of achievement..and the added meaning. If there really is a dire need to lower a training time of that 20 days, I'd rather have the AWU prereq dropped to 4 if possible.
Tiericide is a good idea..all those 'useless' ships should get a buff. But the task will be massive, and potential for screwing up is huge.
Also not quite liking getting ships more into designated roles. The beauty of EVE is that you can use a ship and mould it to your needs with mods. Versatility..let's not destroy it.
With this one, CCP is on a road of make or brake.
|
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:27:00 -
[1356] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:we already established? No. You assumed. And I disagree.
Yes, awesome. Now read the posts above yours. Read the part where I quoted the Ytterbium. Try to understand it. Carefully. |
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:27:00 -
[1357] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:
we already established? No. You assumed. And I disagree.
I remember a batch of "support skills" that came out, people were all up in arms for those too. but really, all they did was improve the game for the group of players who wanted to train them. I'm talking about the EW support skills that improved cap use, range, duration for each type of ew (tp, dams, ecm, etc). If you wanted to do ew ships and use TP, you could train those skills to be even more badass than before. And you didn't even have to touch the damp skills, the ecm skills, or anything besides what you wanted.
To assume you have to train every new skill just to "be competetive" makes your post the "idiotic post" that should be disregarded without a second thought. Try thinking of things in a new light instead of just presuming the world is out to get you. TBH, you're really not that important. I just happen to have a soft spot in my heart for willfully ignorant and obstinate internet people. I assume they can be taught, but maybe that makes me an idiot too.
Good luck to you being always pissed off and thinking you're the victim. I'll be happy knowing I have more choice, more freedom, and more ability to kick ass and make money than ever before.
You just stated the new skills make you "even more badass", then claim that you don't need them to be competitive........
That's a stupid as saying you don't "need" recon ships at 4 or 5..... Try 1v1 a curse or rapier with recon 1 V recon 5. Recon V isn't a requisite, but if you want to be competitive, it is..... |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:31:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Sigras wrote:wow ok, first of all, they mentioned "additional support skills" in passing as a way to keep it from getting too easy to get into T2 ships, and you just naturally assume these skills will do nothing to the ship!
Secondly, what part of "if you can fly it today you can fly it tomorrow" didnt you understand?
Thirdly, its not like you're being singled out for this change, if you have to train additional skills "to be competitive" then everyone else has to train those skills too, and unless you're an idiot youre going to train them just as fast as everyone else
And Lastly, if you're relying on SP to make you good at PvP you've lost already. Actually, no, those "additional support skills" are for the "new lines of ships that will replace tiers". That is all ships. Learn2read. And yes, everyone else will have to train those skills as well. Obviously. That is the entire point. It increases training time to fly existing ships, for no other reason than to increase training time to fly existing ships. Because in order for this to be balanced, all advantages gained by training those skills have to be canceled out by the respective support skills of other ship lines. I really hope you are not relying on your reading comprehension skills, or logical deduction. Because you'd be at least as lost as I am in PvP. That's a given.
I think you might have read a different dev blog on some conspiracy theorist website. You might want to re-check that and make sure it says "eveonline.com" in the address bar somewhere when you do.
If you did read the same blog, perhaps... perhaps you shouldn't ... you know what. perhaps you should. you should think that you have to train every new skill that comes out. and stay docked in the station while you do that.
i, along with most everyone else, will continue to fly amazingly well despite your dark visions of the future. you're basically the homeless guy screaming "THE END IS NIGH!" on the street corner as the rest of civilized life passes you by. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Jinzou
Delsu Foundation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:32:00 -
[1359] - Quote
NO. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:32:00 -
[1360] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Morar Santee wrote: Yes, except there is no new video card. In fact, there is nothing new at all.
You get the same ships you had before, except you have to retrain to use every single one of them competitively. It simply adds additional time-sinks into a game that already has fairly slow, time-based skill-progression. I actually like that system, but if someone's telling me: "GJ making a skill-training plan for 5 years. Now please retrain for all your ships." Then the answer is: FU.
And that you are incapable of seeing this for what it is, is really sad beyond words.
If this was an instance of introducing something new and saying: "You need new skills to do this." - I wouldn't be saying a word. I happily trained for every Strategic Cruiser. I didn't do any PI, but it made sense it required new skills. But it's an instance of: Same **** as before. Lolol wait 10 more months for the same thing.
Now, before you claim abolishing tiers and rebalancing everything is the most awesome thing in the world and totally makes it worth training those skills: You have no ******* clue how that will turn out. All evidence points to it likely ending in a gigantic clusterfuck. Even if it doesn't: For this to be an improvement, they'd have to make all t1 frigates, cruisers and battlecruisers equally desirable and competitive - while not rendering other ships useless. And you seriously believe that's going to happen?
I'm sorry, but what aspects of the proposed are you upset about specifically? You lost me. There is no retraining as proposed currently as your BC lvl would be replicated across all the new BC skills. So instead of flying say, a myrm with lvl 5 bonuses you will have... lvl 5 bonuses. But most importantly, regarding the rebalance and removal of tiers, unless your stance is everything is fine as is and there are no changes that could be made, how is your complaint anything but baseless negativity aimed at efforts to address a problem we all know exists? Answer: 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.
Still lost as to the issue you have here. Are you saying you don't want ship roles to change and possibly invalidate a choice of race? If so your quote states an intent to replicate those roles across all races, though hopefully retaining specific racial flavors. Is the issue additional skills to train to max something out? I don't think of max performance skill wise is a prerequisite for being competitive so this is a non issue for me. Is it the fear that the ship skills will be further broken down to specific lines? Would be a pain, but not an insurmountable one. And even then, that is IF you are interpreting it correctly. |
|
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:34:00 -
[1361] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Moraguth wrote:we already established? No. You assumed. And I disagree. Yes, awesome. Now read the posts above yours. Read the part where I quoted the Ytterbium. Try to understand it. Carefully.
my comprehension is just fine. i'm just not jumping to doomsday conclusions you seem to be. lrn2notsuck? :) I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:35:00 -
[1362] - Quote
so, basically what youre saying is that you would be upset if they added a skill called "gallente ship specialization" which gives "+5% armor to all gellente ships per level" because thats increasing the training time to fly the ship?
you do realize that after you train the skill, the ship is better right?
You saying that they're "required skills to be competitive" is ridiculous. Take mechanic for example; i have that skill to level 5, but 99.9% of the time it doesnt matter if you have the skill at 1 or at 5, it makes no difference because most fights dont end with one person in 25% structure . . . is that skill "required to be competitive"?
And honestly, if you think SP is what makes you good at PvP you have some serious things to learn about this game. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:38:00 -
[1363] - Quote
Sigras wrote:so, basically what youre saying is that you would be upset if they added a skill called "gallente ship specialization" which gives "+5% armor to all gellente ships per level" because thats increasing the training time to fly the ship?
you do realize that after you train the skill, the ship is better right?
You saying that they're "required skills to be competitive" is ridiculous. Take mechanic for example; i have that skill to level 5, but 99.9% of the time it doesnt matter if you have the skill at 1 or at 5, it makes no difference because most fights dont end with one person in 25% structure . . . is that skill "required to be competitive"?
And honestly, if you think SP is what makes you good at PvP you have some serious things to learn about this game.
Quoted because I think some people need the repetition to get it through their skulls =D I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:38:00 -
[1364] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
You saying that they're "required skills to be competitive" is ridiculous. Take mechanic for example; i have that skill to level 5, but 99.9% of the time it doesnt matter if you have the skill at 1 or at 5, it makes no difference because most fights dont end with one person in 25% structure . . . is that skill "required to be competitive"?
And honestly, if you think SP is what makes you good at PvP you have some serious things to learn about this game.
We should all stop fitting damage controls then too hey?
If your not getting into structure, your not pvping enough.... |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:39:00 -
[1365] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:I think you might have read a different dev blog on some conspiracy theorist website. You might want to re-check that and make sure it says "eveonline.com" in the address bar somewhere when you do.
I'll quote it again, just for you. It's really hard to read, I know, but let's try this one more time:
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. Now, he refers to "ship lines". Here are examples of the ship lines:
Ytterbium wrote:Introducing ship lines
- Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
- Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
Even a person that was dropped on the head as a child, repeatedly, can understand that this means each of these lines of ships will be boosted by a new support skill, that directly translates to EHP, DPS etc.
The problem I have with this is: After training those additional skills, we will have the same status quo as before. Because in order for this to be balanced, the effects cancel each other out. Do you understand? Except we had to invest additional training time to fly the same ships. For no reason.
And I have to wonder why you refuse to read the ******* blog. |
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:42:00 -
[1366] - Quote
Sernum wrote:Just to put this in terms CCP will understand. "incarna and nex store was a better idea than this" Hope this helps.
Your mother not swallowing you was a worse idea than incarna. |
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:42:00 -
[1367] - Quote
M'nu wrote:Sernum wrote:Just to put this in terms CCP will understand. "incarna and nex store was a better idea than this" Hope this helps. Your mother not swallowing you was a worse idea than incarna.
Personal insults on the internet make you a tough guy c/d? |
Vigoth Ritic
Frozen Corpse Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:42:00 -
[1368] - Quote
Here we go again, time to hit them in the wallet, removing 6 accounts now..
I VOTE NO!!! 1. remove races from eve, they are dont help anyone.. 2. here we go again, same bumb ideas
REMEMBER 2011 WE WILL NOT FORGET 2011 !!
CQ SUCKS
THIS GAME NOW SUCKS, CCP SOLD OUT TO SONY!!!
DONT BUY INTO CCP's AUR.....
DUST514 WILL FAIL!!!!!
CCP NEEDS TO INVEST INTO EVE 1st
WHERES MY NEW CPU CCP?
CCP ..TEST YOUR PATCH B4 YOU SEND IT TO THE FLOOR...WTF
GOODBYE 5 ACCOUNTS..I QUIT !!!
RECALL THE CSM6 ...PUPPETS OF CCP
EVE IS A CASH COW FOR DUST/WOD |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:46:00 -
[1369] - Quote
AnzacPaul wrote:Sigras wrote:
You saying that they're "required skills to be competitive" is ridiculous. Take mechanic for example; i have that skill to level 5, but 99.9% of the time it doesnt matter if you have the skill at 1 or at 5, it makes no difference because most fights dont end with one person in 25% structure . . . is that skill "required to be competitive"?
And honestly, if you think SP is what makes you good at PvP you have some serious things to learn about this game.
We should all stop fitting damage controls then too hey? If your not getting into structure, your not pvping enough....
You should only be fitting DCUs on BS and above anyway. And if you're going into fleet vs fleet combat, I wouldn't even bother with them on a BS, they don't really matter at that point. Small gang pvp and PVE are completely different subjects entirely. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
kilona
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:49:00 -
[1370] - Quote
This is really is a bad move. If something's not broken don't try and fix it |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:50:00 -
[1371] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Moraguth wrote:I think you might have read a different dev blog on some conspiracy theorist website. You might want to re-check that and make sure it says "eveonline.com" in the address bar somewhere when you do. I'll quote it again, just for you. It's really hard to read, I know, but let's try this one more time: 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. Now, he refers to "ship lines". Here are examples of the ship lines: Ytterbium wrote:Introducing ship lines
- Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
- Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
Even a person that was dropped on the head as a child, repeatedly, can understand that this means each of these lines of ships will be boosted by a new support skill, that directly translates to EHP, DPS etc. The problem I have with this is: After training those additional skills, we will have the same status quo as before. Because in order for this to be balanced, the effects cancel each other out. Do you understand? Except we had to invest additional training time to fly the same ships. For no reason. And I have to wonder why you refuse to read the ******* blog. Ok, I see your issue now. But let me reiterate, even if this does happen, I don't feel it will be particularly bad depending on how it's done. |
Fragwit
Tellurian Works Dark Taboo
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:50:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Skill point reimbursement and skill tree streamlining aside, it seems CCP want us to use all the ships available based on roles. IMO theres always faction uber ship in favour that everyone wants, that caldari one nobody can think what to do with and a whole bunch of ships in the middle I thought this was the sandbox, this was the flavour of eve, it seems CCP wants vanilla. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:51:00 -
[1373] - Quote
kilona wrote:This is really is a bad move. If something's not broken don't try and fix it But it is broken, or does everyone suddenly love the cyclone, prophecy and ferox? |
Lamperouge Kasenumi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:52:00 -
[1374] - Quote
Skex Relbore wrote:Lamperouge Kasenumi wrote:Skex Relbore wrote: Hypothetically if it took a vet 12 months to train to be able to use all racial BC's at level 5 it would take the new player 15 months to reach that same level of capability. Considering the perception of newer players being persistently behind in this game it this seems particularly dumb
That's irrelevant, most new players won't know it was like this before. Anyway, they can just train into their favorite BC race first and be on the same level as the vets. Being a vet as always been about flexibility more than power and it remains the same with these changes. No it isn't irrelevant. People will know people who started playing prior to the change but hadn't trained all BC to 5 yet will know just like players like me who weren't around prior to the introduction of drone bandwidth know that the Myrmidon used to be able to field a full rack of heavies. Yeah part of being a vet is having more flexibility but it doesn't change the fact that this change if made would mean that a new player would have to play 3 months longer than someone who trianed BC to 5 prior to the proposed change to achieve the same level of flexibility This change is exactly the opposite of what you'd want to do if you want to make the game more accessible to new players in that it really is kind of a big FU to everyone who doesn't have BC5 already trained by the time the expansion is launched. The last thing a game as old with as limited a market as EVE has should be doing is making it even harder for new players to start playing. And we can talk all that specialization nonsense until we're blue in the face and it's not going to change the fact that flexibility is a power issue. Being able to hop into the kind of ship an FC calls for has a big affect on peoples enjoyment of the game. Given the rock paper scissors nature of the game play flexibility directly translates into more power. Now it's one thing to say "hey you gotta pay your dues just like everyone who came before" it's quite another to say here on top of however many years you are already behind the veterans have an extra 3 months. Hell under the new system it will actually take even longer to train to level 5 BC than it did under the old system since now in addition to train it again for each race of BC you want to train you have to train racial cruiser to 4 instead of 3.
Alright, look at it this way: these changes will make it easier to balance ships that currently sucks and also make it easier to create new fun ship to fly. The result is that every races will have a wider selection of ships to choose from so cross-training won't be as important. For new players, this is actually a very good news. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:54:00 -
[1375] - Quote
AnzacPaul wrote:Moraguth wrote:
we already established? No. You assumed. And I disagree.
I remember a batch of "support skills" that came out, people were all up in arms for those too. but really, all they did was improve the game for the group of players who wanted to train them. I'm talking about the EW support skills that improved cap use, range, duration for each type of ew (tp, dams, ecm, etc). If you wanted to do ew ships and use TP, you could train those skills to be even more badass than before. And you didn't even have to touch the damp skills, the ecm skills, or anything besides what you wanted.
To assume you have to train every new skill just to "be competetive" makes your post the "idiotic post" that should be disregarded without a second thought. Try thinking of things in a new light instead of just presuming the world is out to get you. TBH, you're really not that important. I just happen to have a soft spot in my heart for willfully ignorant and obstinate internet people. I assume they can be taught, but maybe that makes me an idiot too.
Good luck to you being always pissed off and thinking you're the victim. I'll be happy knowing I have more choice, more freedom, and more ability to kick ass and make money than ever before.
You just stated the new skills make you "even more badass", then claim that you don't need them to be competitive........ That's a stupid as saying you don't "need" recon ships at 4 or 5..... Try 1v1 a curse or rapier with recon 1 V recon 5. Recon V isn't a requisite, but if you want to be competitive, it is.....
yeah... they make you more badass at that one particular weapon system (ecm, tp, whatever), but it doesn't make the ship or me "more competitive". Being able to use less cap each cycle my ECM runs is all well and good, but only if i'm flying an ECM ship. If I'm in my geddon, all the EW skills in the world won't matter.
The point of having skills that do different things is to give you a choice in where you want to specialize in the game. The only thing playing the game longer gives you is more opportunities to cross train and more chances to make money to buy cooler toys.
If they redefine the ships tomorrow, my drake is still going to be max skilled for tank and dps, no matter how many new skills they add. And if they add support skills that change any attribute... if i care about them, i'll train them. If not, I won't. Maybe I'll train the skill that makes my arazu better instead. So really, adding these new skills gives players even more of a chance to out specialize the old vets like me who seem to have everything under the sun trained up. And as it's been said many times, those millions and millions of SP i have more than the average player mean pretty much nothing if I'm in a gang and you're in a gang, and you have superior tactics. And if I train up my tanking skills instead of my DPS skills, I probably won't be able to break your tank anyway.
Since this gives you more of a chance to get your buddies together to come kill me (since I'll be worried about training everything up over all races and all classes and all ship types and all everything, and you'll probably pick the FOTM and boost it to hell and back), you should be happy about these changes, not pissed.
And that's exactly what I'll tell my friends who constantly ***** about the SP gap between their new characters and my ancient character. They can catch up to or even surpass me quickly in a particular spec tree if they go all out. And if they have one other person with them, I'm as good as dead. This game is more about having friends with you than about being the end all be all solopwnmobile badass.
Tactics and Allies win the day, not expensive ships and monstrous SP totals.
I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:55:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Moraguth wrote:I think you might have read a different dev blog on some conspiracy theorist website. You might want to re-check that and make sure it says "eveonline.com" in the address bar somewhere when you do. I'll quote it again, just for you. It's really hard to read, I know, but let's try this one more time: 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. Now, he refers to "ship lines". Here are examples of the ship lines: Ytterbium wrote:Introducing ship lines
- Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
- Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
Even a person that was dropped on the head as a child, repeatedly, can understand that this means each of these lines of ships will be boosted by a new support skill, that directly translates to EHP, DPS etc. The problem I have with this is: After training those additional skills, we will have the same status quo as before. Because in order for this to be balanced, the effects cancel each other out. Do you understand? Except we had to invest additional training time to fly the same ships. For no reason.And I have to wonder why you refuse to read the ******* blog. so in response to the part in bold, you're saying, "its the same ship" which is axiomatic, but you're acting like these skills will have no effect whatsoever and that is totally wrong. sure, if you have combat ships 5 and i have combat ships 5 and we're both flying combat ships then yeah, there is no change, but youre still going to be better against every other type of ship.
it is NOT the exact same ship, its a better ship because its tougher or faster or does more damage or whatever the skill actually does. The point of this game is specialization, not everyone can fly everything you have to choose what you can fly.
Also I love how this whole conversation is purely speculation about what these skills may do and how they may effect game balance if they ever get put into the game. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:56:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Vigoth Ritic wrote:Here we go again, time to hit them in the wallet, removing 6 accounts now..
I VOTE NO!!! 1. remove races from eve, they are dont help anyone.. 2. here we go again, same bumb ideas
REMEMBER 2011 WE WILL NOT FORGET 2011 !!
CQ SUCKS
THIS GAME NOW SUCKS, CCP SOLD OUT TO SONY!!!
DONT BUY INTO CCP's AUR.....
DUST514 WILL FAIL!!!!!
CCP NEEDS TO INVEST INTO EVE 1st
WHERES MY NEW CPU CCP?
CCP ..TEST YOUR PATCH B4 YOU SEND IT TO THE FLOOR...WTF
GOODBYE 5 ACCOUNTS..I QUIT !!!
RECALL THE CSM6 ...PUPPETS OF CCP
EVE IS A CASH COW FOR DUST/WOD CCP, this is why we need the ability to downvote posts . . . |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 23:56:00 -
[1378] - Quote
Vigoth Ritic wrote:Here we go again, time to hit them in the wallet, removing 6 accounts now..
I VOTE NO!!! 1. remove races from eve, they are dont help anyone.. 2. here we go again, same bumb ideas
REMEMBER 2011 WE WILL NOT FORGET 2011 !!
CQ SUCKS
THIS GAME NOW SUCKS, CCP SOLD OUT TO SONY!!!
DONT BUY INTO CCP's AUR.....
DUST514 WILL FAIL!!!!!
CCP NEEDS TO INVEST INTO EVE 1st
WHERES MY NEW CPU CCP?
CCP ..TEST YOUR PATCH B4 YOU SEND IT TO THE FLOOR...WTF
GOODBYE 5 ACCOUNTS..I QUIT !!!
RECALL THE CSM6 ...PUPPETS OF CCP
EVE IS A CASH COW FOR DUST/WOD
canihaveyourstuff? I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Flax Volcanus
It's A Trap It's A Trap Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:01:00 -
[1379] - Quote
NVM. tl;dr and suffered for it. |
Omnathious Deninard
M'Tar Logistics Division Night Sky Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:02:00 -
[1380] - Quote
If this goes through wont that open a large door for the pirate and navy faction battlecruisers that people have been asking for, it also will do the some for destroyers, and make way for new t1 ships as well. I personally favor this change |
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:03:00 -
[1381] - Quote
-1 on the idea of replacing "tiers" with "roles", for T1 ships.
The general-purpose "tier" system allows the players to determine which ships can be best fit to fill specific roles - in large fleets, small gangs, solo PVP, and/or for PVE. Many ships are well suited for a wide range of activities, depending on the fitting. And, a degree of unpredictability exists, since you cannot be certain how a general-purpose ship might be fit when you engage it. Ultimately, the "sandbox" - not the devs - determines which ships and fittings are best suited for each role.
Switching to a specific-purpose "role" system, wherein CCP devs pre-determine which ships are best for each role and bias each ship's stats accordingly , is a poorly considered idea. Specialization limits the number of optimal fits, and the ability of a ship to be used outside of its designed role (BS as a mining ship, anyone?). Ships become far more predictable, more ships will go unused, and FOTMs become even more likely.
And, there are already plenty of examples of failed role specialization in the game already, esp. among the T2 ships, ex. EW frigs. Let's not expand a bad idea further.
Rather than increased role speciaiization, the game would actually benefit from increased generalization. I think that this preference can be seen in most T2 vs T3 ship comparisons. T3 ships are simply more fun to fit and fly than T2 ships.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:03:00 -
[1382] - Quote
Flax Volcanus wrote:Do I have it wrong,... Yes, you do. Please read the first post, follow the links there, and read the CCP posts in the thread. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:03:00 -
[1383] - Quote
Fragwit wrote:Skill point reimbursement and skill tree streamlining aside, it seems CCP want us to use all the ships available based on roles. IMO theres always faction uber ship in favour that everyone wants, that caldari one nobody can think what to do with and a whole bunch of ships in the middle I thought this was the sandbox, this was the flavour of eve, it seems CCP wants vanilla. its always been that way . . . all ships have roles, in fact i submit that it would be impossible to make a ship without a role.
The fact that you CAN take a ship and do something with it that isnt in its role is what makes it a sandbox, IE a battle badger, shield brutix or a hauling thanatos
currently all the ships have roles, just some of them really suck at what theyre supposed to do (prophecy, cyclone, brutix) |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:03:00 -
[1384] - Quote
Flax Volcanus wrote:Do I have it wrong, or would I need to retrain four destroyer skills to 5 and four BC skills to 5 just to get back to where I am now? Um, no thanks. Jesus, you guys just keep giving me more reasons to play less and less.
You have it wrong. re-read the first page, down just a little bit and they explain it better there! I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2359
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:04:00 -
[1385] - Quote
i love how everyone loves this stupid change now that you'll get a few million free SP to dickwave with "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Omnathious Deninard
M'Tar Logistics Division Night Sky Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:04:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Flax Volcanus wrote:Do I have it wrong, or would I need to retrain four destroyer skills to 5 and four BC skills to 5 just to get back to where I am now? Um, no thanks. Jesus, you guys just keep giving me more reasons to play less and less. As it has been stated about 15 times throught the thread IF YOU HAVE DESTROYERS AND OR BATTLE CRUISERS TRAINED LEVEL 5 YOU WILL GET ALL RACES TRAINED TO LEVEL 5 |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:04:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Sigras wrote:[so in response to the part in bold, you're saying, "its the same ship" which is axiomatic, but you're acting like these skills will have no effect whatsoever and that is totally wrong. sure, if you have combat ships 5 and i have combat ships 5 and we're both flying combat ships then yeah, there is no change, but youre still going to be better against every other type of ship.
it is NOT the exact same ship, its a better ship because its tougher or faster or does more damage or whatever the skill actually does. The point of this game is specialization, not everyone can fly everything you have to choose what you can fly.
Also I love how this whole conversation is purely speculation about what these skills may do and how they may effect game balance if they ever get put into the game.
Maaaaaaaaan.
You say: "This new support skill gives my assault ship 10% more DPS! It makes it better!!"
What I'm trying to tell you is: "This other new support skill gives my combat ship X% more EHP, to cancel the effect!! It makes no ******* difference!!"
If this is supposed to be balanced, the new support skills have to cancel each other out. Completely. As if they did not exist in the first place. If they don't, then you have a line of ships that is clearly better than another line of ships. And no, it doesn't matter what their specific role is. It's either completely balanced against each other, or one line of ships has a huge advantage, that only multiplies with larger fleets. So those ships with the advantage will be used, the others won't be used.
Ironically, this is also the same problem we currently have with Tiers in BCs. So they either balance it and the new skills mean absolutely nothing other than added training time to fly the same ships, or they didn't fix the problem.
There is simply no possible outcome that is beneficial for the players. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:06:00 -
[1388] - Quote
Andski wrote:i love how everyone loves this stupid change now that you'll get a few million free SP to dickwave with Cause clone costs are something to be proud of? To be honest it's messing with my current skill plan, but I'll get over that. IIRC this will also up me 2 clone grades with nothing new to show for it. Yeah, bloated SP is wonderful. Now the rebalance though, that I am genuinely enthusiastic about. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:07:00 -
[1389] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Sigras wrote:[so in response to the part in bold, you're saying, "its the same ship" which is axiomatic, but you're acting like these skills will have no effect whatsoever and that is totally wrong. sure, if you have combat ships 5 and i have combat ships 5 and we're both flying combat ships then yeah, there is no change, but youre still going to be better against every other type of ship.
it is NOT the exact same ship, its a better ship because its tougher or faster or does more damage or whatever the skill actually does. The point of this game is specialization, not everyone can fly everything you have to choose what you can fly.
Also I love how this whole conversation is purely speculation about what these skills may do and how they may effect game balance if they ever get put into the game. Maaaaaaaaan. You say: "This new support skill gives my assault ship 10% more DPS! It makes it better!!" What I'm trying to tell you is: "This other new support skill gives my combat ship 10% more EHP!! It makes no ******* difference!!" If this is supposed to be balanced, the new support skills have to cancel each other out. Completely. As if they did not exist in the first place. If they don't, then you have a line of ships that is clearly better than another line of ships. And no, it doesn't matter what their specific role is. It's either completely balanced against each other, or one line of ships has a huge advantage, that only multiplies with larger fleets. So those ships with the advantage will be used, the others won't be used. Ironically, this is also the same problem we currently have with Tiers in BCs. So they either balance it and the skills mean absolutely nothing other than added training time to fly the same ships, or they didn't fix the problem. There is simply no possible outcome that is beneficial for the players.
I see what you're trying to say, I comprehend it, and I don't want this to sound harsh but you're wrong. It does not have to be a 'zero sum game' to be balanced. And it won't be. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Flax Volcanus
It's A Trap It's A Trap Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:09:00 -
[1390] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Flax Volcanus wrote:Do I have it wrong,... Yes, you do. Please read the first post, follow the links there, and read the CCP posts in the thread.
Yeah, complete reading of threads is overrated. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2359
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:13:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:[quote=Andski]i love how everyone loves this stupid change now that you'll get a few million free SP to dickwave with[/quote Cause clone costs are something to be proud of? To be honest it's messing with my current skill plan, but I'll get over that. IIRC this will also up me 2 clone grades with nothing new to show for it. Yeah, bloated SP is wonderful. Now the rebalance though, that I am genuinely enthusiastic about.
clone costs are insignificant until you're past 92M or so "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys EXPLO. KINETIK und ein wenig THERMAL
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:13:00 -
[1392] - Quote
first of all i am shocked. utterly shocked. this thread could be half as long, when everybody who posted something actually read the first page and the clarifiy-links. would have been 5 minutes at max. even less people seem to grasp the meaning of "not yet set in stone" or "subject to change".
ccp will make sure, that you can fly your precious ships after the patch. they will use a script which checks if you can currently fly the ships which are subject to the skill change and give you the new skills accordingly. if not, you can still rant at the poor gm's afterwards and demand justice. no need to get all emotional now. and these 30 days for racial bs5 do not make a big difference, when you are going for caps. just humour yourself and look what you need to fly a cap properly. put it into a relation with the last lvl of the bs skill. i see this as a preamble for t2 capitals.
@ people who are drawing similarities to wow because of the "ship lines": lol.
to your information: there are allready "classes" in eve, as there are dps-ships, tackler, ew-platforms, logistics ... omg. we are playing word of spacecraft. god help us all. if you are really that much disgusted by something that is de facto already in the game, unsub and annoy somebody else.
i think balancing based on some kind of roles is the way to go. it is an effort on making similar ships of all races a viable option. people will allways find ways to use them for something different. the whole module mechanic enables them to do so, and finding an applying unusual tactics is the way to profit in eve. a properly balanced fleet for every race will be a good thing for eve. ccp is trying to make it right. proper testing through an informed and levelheaded playerbase will do the rest. i am intrigued by the dev bloc and i look forward to a more refined version of the ideas. they surely sound promising.
|
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:15:00 -
[1393] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Sigras wrote:[so in response to the part in bold, you're saying, "its the same ship" which is axiomatic, but you're acting like these skills will have no effect whatsoever and that is totally wrong. sure, if you have combat ships 5 and i have combat ships 5 and we're both flying combat ships then yeah, there is no change, but youre still going to be better against every other type of ship.
it is NOT the exact same ship, its a better ship because its tougher or faster or does more damage or whatever the skill actually does. The point of this game is specialization, not everyone can fly everything you have to choose what you can fly.
Also I love how this whole conversation is purely speculation about what these skills may do and how they may effect game balance if they ever get put into the game. Maaaaaaaaan. You say: "This new support skill gives my assault ship 10% more DPS! It makes it better!!" What I'm trying to tell you is: "This other new support skill gives my combat ship 10% more EHP!! It makes no ******* difference!!" If this is supposed to be balanced, the new support skills have to cancel each other out. Completely. As if they did not exist in the first place. If they don't, then you have a line of ships that is clearly better than another line of ships. And no, it doesn't matter what their specific role is. It's either completely balanced against each other, or one line of ships has a huge advantage, that only multiplies with larger fleets. So those ships with the advantage will be used, the others won't be used. Ironically, this is also the same problem we currently have with Tiers in BCs. So they either balance it and the skills mean absolutely nothing other than added training time to fly the same ships, or they didn't fix the problem. There is simply no possible outcome that is beneficial for the players.
And as a second point, no this isn't want is wrong with tiers for BCs. The tanking bonus of the tier 1 amarr bc is not "equaled out" by the dps bonus of the tier 2. The harbinger is a superior ship all around. If I could clone myself and put one copy in a prophecy and one copy in a harbinger and let them fight... i don't think i could ever make a prophecy that would beat the harbinger. maaaaaaaaaaaybe if i knew the exact setup of the harbinger beforehand and he wasn't allowed to change his setup i could work him to a standstill, but that's about it.
The differences in the tiers are kinda nice for, say, the caldari since they use completely different weapon systems. But those two ships aren't even "ballanced" with each other. Even if you had maxed out every possible skill the Ferox wanted to use, the drake is just a superior ship.
In essence, THAT is the problem with the tier system. Not that the bonuses somehow balance each other out to make them more or less negligible in the end - the problem is that the different tiers are so easily seen as superior and inferior. If they make the ships generally balanced, and then add roles, and THEN give you the option to train additional skills to further enhance those roles... well then, it's less about buying the "better ship" and more about having the better game plan.
I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:16:00 -
[1394] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:[quote=Andski]i love how everyone loves this stupid change now that you'll get a few million free SP to dickwave with[/quote Cause clone costs are something to be proud of? To be honest it's messing with my current skill plan, but I'll get over that. IIRC this will also up me 2 clone grades with nothing new to show for it. Yeah, bloated SP is wonderful. Now the rebalance though, that I am genuinely enthusiastic about. clone costs are insignificant until you're past 92M or so Depends on your ability to accumulate isk. Also I hate maintenance like costs. A whine I know, but just pointing out tha realistically there is no advantage for me, yet i still like the change as a whole. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:25:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:What I'm trying to tell you is: "This other new support skill gives my combat ship X% more EHP, to cancel the effect!! It makes no ******* difference!!"
If this is supposed to be balanced, the new support skills have to cancel each other out. Completely. As if they did not exist in the first place. that is a gross assumption which is not necessarily true. Let me put this scenario before you.
Youre in a "combat ship" and you have combat ships 5 giving you 25% more EHP because combat ships are supposed to be tough.
Im in an attack vessel, and I have attack vessels 5 giving me 5% additional damage 5% additional speed and 5% additional agility because attack vessels are supposed to be for hit and run.
now you're going to tell me that the two skills cancel each other out? Just because youre not creative enough to look beyond DPS and EHP doesnt mean that CCP isnt
Morar Santee wrote:If they don't, then you have a line of ships that is clearly better than another line of ships. And no, it doesn't matter what their specific role is. It's either completely balanced against each other, or one line of ships has a huge advantage, that only multiplies with larger fleets. So those ships with the advantage will be used, the others won't be used.
ok, in my scenario above, which ship has the huge advantage you claim is necessary when balancing lines of ships without symmetry? Or does it depend on the situation? which group is better for camping a gate? which group is better for roaming through hostile space?
All balancing needs is creativity. |
Skex Relbore
The Dominion of Light
112
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:25:00 -
[1396] - Quote
Lamperouge Kasenumi wrote:Skex Relbore wrote:
Hell under the new system it will actually take even longer to train to level 5 BC than it did under the old system since now in addition to train it again for each race of BC you want to train you have to train racial cruiser to 4 instead of 3.
Alright, look at it this way: these changes will make it easier to balance ships that currently sucks and also make it easier to create new fun ship to fly. The result is that every races will have a wider selection of ships to choose from so cross-training won't be as important. For new players, this is actually a very good news.
Nonsense, it does nothing of the sort.
They can remove the tier system and re-balance ships just fine without touching the Destroyer and Battle-Cruiser skills. There is quite literally no reason to jack with those skills save that some developer thinks it would be more consistent.
It's change for the sake of change which is dumb. |
Aren Dar
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:27:00 -
[1397] - Quote
There's another new-player related problem here that I haven't seen addressed. Currently the general missioning progression is L1 - Frigates, L2 Cruisers, L3 BCs, L4 BSes.
If you make the racial Destroyer skill a prerequisite for training the racial Cruiser skill, then you increase the time it takes for new players to get from L1 to L2 missions, and destroyers are practically useless in missioning unless you have reasonably good manual piloting skills (certainly better than the vast majority of newer players).
|
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:31:00 -
[1398] - Quote
Aren Dar wrote:There's another new-player related problem here that I haven't seen addressed. Currently the general missioning progression is L1 - Frigates, L2 Cruisers, L3 BCs, L4 BSes.
If you make the racial Destroyer skill a prerequisite for training the racial Cruiser skill, then you increase the time it takes for new players to get from L1 to L2 missions, and destroyers are practically useless in missioning unless you have reasonably good manual piloting skills (certainly better than the vast majority of newer players).
destroyers dominate level 1 missions. just like a BC would dominate a level 2. Hell, with great skills you can take a cruiser into a level 3 and finish it given enough time.
this is just my experience though. i haven't run l1-3 missions in a loooooong time, so maybe they made them alot harder since then? if so, completely disregard what i just said and we'll call it even. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:32:00 -
[1399] - Quote
-1 on replacing generic skills with racial skills.
BCs are popular specifically because you *can* train up for all of the BCs quickly, and switch to any new FOTM due to race balancing issues. Unlike BSs, you can't make a "bad" decision by picking a race-specific path, which ends up on the wrong end of a CCP nerf bat, wasting months worth of training time. This is a sore spot with many new and intermediate players.
Doesn't this tell you that it would make more sense to make all racial specific ship skills into generic ship skills, and thus allow players to fly a wider range of ships, with less risk of becoming disgruntled because Winmatar gets nerfed and Amarr becomes the new FTW race? I think so. More fun, less unnecessary hassle and whinage.
As for the cross-trained vets, just refund us our SP and skillbook costs. For the record, cross-training racial ships skills was neither fun nor interesting. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:33:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Mora, I don't think you or I will be able to get through to him. He actually believes that EVE is set up around Zero Sum balancing, and refuses to see HOW you apply a ships capabilities and your personal skills is (and will always be) to their best advantage far more important.
In his mind that Prophecy vs Harbringer battle MUST end in a tie or the system is invalid, (totally ignoring the subtleties of how your tactics can leverage your ship abilities differently in different situations)... and that combat is all about sitting at optimal range and blasting away at each other.
Balance does not equal "the same", nor does it mean "cancels each other out". Until he understands that, no amount of common sense is going to make a dent.
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. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:38:00 -
[1401] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:-1 on replacing generic skills with racial skills.
BCs are popular specifically because you *can* train up for all of the BCs quickly, and switch to any new FOTM due to race balancing issues. Unlike BSs, you can't make a "bad" decision by picking a race-specific path, which ends up on the wrong end of a CCP nerf bat, wasting months worth of training time. This is a sore spot with many new and intermediate players.
Doesn't this tell you that it would make more sense to make all racial specific ship skills into generic ship skills, and thus allow players to fly a wider range of ships, with less risk of becoming disgruntled because Winmatar gets nerfed and Amarr becomes the new FTW race? I think so. More fun, less unnecessary hassle and whinage.
As for the cross-trained vets, just refund us our SP and skillbook costs. For the record, cross-training racial ships skills was neither fun nor interesting.
Chasing the FOTM is bad, and only encourages bad balance decisions in game.
As for simply refunding cross trained pilots SP, it doesn't matter to me but why would you shoot yourself in the foot like that.... 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. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:39:00 -
[1402] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:-1 on replacing generic skills with racial skills.
BCs are popular specifically because you *can* train up for all of the BCs quickly, and switch to any new FOTM due to race balancing issues. Unlike BSs, you can't make a "bad" decision by picking a race-specific path, which ends up on the wrong end of a CCP nerf bat, wasting months worth of training time. This is a sore spot with many new and intermediate players.
Doesn't this tell you that it would make more sense to make all racial specific ship skills into generic ship skills, and thus allow players to fly a wider range of ships, with less risk of becoming disgruntled because Winmatar gets nerfed and Amarr becomes the new FTW race? I think so. More fun, less unnecessary hassle and whinage.
As for the cross-trained vets, just refund us our SP and skillbook costs. For the record, cross-training racial ships skills was neither fun nor interesting.
This was actually the first thing I thought of. And I think I saw a couple other posts that were similar. Something about making a generic racial spaceship command skill. (rank blah, level 1 gives you frigs, 2 destroyers, 3 cruisers, 4 battlecruisers, 5 battleships..?) one of those for each race. I imagine that would be a HUGE rank skill (not sure what other people said though). And then have generic ship class skills... frigs skill, destroyer skill, cruiser skill, ... etc. Then you just make the ship requirements the racial skill to the proper level and the ship class skill to 1 to sit in it. Every level of the ship class skill gives you the ship bonuses we see today.
With that model cross training would be as simple as training the rank (16?) racial skill up slowly but surely giving you access to all the same class ships you could fly with your primary race, at the same skill level. Gunnery, and whatever else would still be trained separately i suppose. Meh, I really do like that idea better, but there are ALOT of people who would go insane screaming about the "Dumbing down of eve".
And maybe they'd have a point?
Anyway, Good idea, but it seems like they're already set on making more skills for spaceship command, not less. =/ I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:43:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Time for a public service message:
SAVE THE EARTH... it's the only planet that has chocolate.
I now return you to your previously scheduled confusion. 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. |
Aren Dar
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:47:00 -
[1404] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Aren Dar wrote:There's another new-player related problem here that I haven't seen addressed. Currently the general missioning progression is L1 - Frigates, L2 Cruisers, L3 BCs, L4 BSes.
If you make the racial Destroyer skill a prerequisite for training the racial Cruiser skill, then you increase the time it takes for new players to get from L1 to L2 missions, and destroyers are practically useless in missioning unless you have reasonably good manual piloting skills (certainly better than the vast majority of newer players).
destroyers dominate level 1 missions. just like a BC would dominate a level 2. Hell, with great skills you can take a cruiser into a level 3 and finish it given enough time.
Which is why I'm specifically talking about L2s and not L1s. (and great skills aren't likely to be prevalent in really new players, as opposed to alts of existing old vets). |
Lamperouge Kasenumi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:49:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Skex Relbore wrote:Lamperouge Kasenumi wrote:Skex Relbore wrote:
Hell under the new system it will actually take even longer to train to level 5 BC than it did under the old system since now in addition to train it again for each race of BC you want to train you have to train racial cruiser to 4 instead of 3.
Alright, look at it this way: these changes will make it easier to balance ships that currently sucks and also make it easier to create new fun ship to fly. The result is that every races will have a wider selection of ships to choose from so cross-training won't be as important. For new players, this is actually a very good news. Nonsense, it does nothing of the sort.
Actually yes, that's their plan with all these changes, read their post again.
Skex Relbore wrote: They can remove the tier system and re-balance ships just fine without touching the Destroyer and Battle-Cruiser skills. There is quite literally no reason to jack with those skills save that some developer thinks it would be more consistent.
It's change for the sake of change which is dumb.
Or you could say it's change for the sake of opening up new possibilities.
For example, what if they want to create two new destroyers for each race? That would be pretty badass right? Well currently they won't, because it would mean that training 1 skill open up 12 ship which is too much.
In other words, these change must happen in order for us to have new and better toys. Don't you want new toys?
|
Tigernos O'Cuinn
Special Situations TOHA Conglomerate
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:49:00 -
[1406] - Quote
The way this sounds so far is that to avoid alienating a lot of players they will "refund" enough SP to cover every Dessy and BC skill level for each race you have trained up for. So assuming you have BC V and all races cruisers, they will refund 5x the amount of BC V so you can just allocate them back into the correct skills. If that is what happens then fine, I don't mind that. So aside from logging in and having to throw some points around for five minutes most longer term players wont notice a difference. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:54:00 -
[1407] - Quote
Aren Dar wrote:Moraguth wrote:Aren Dar wrote:There's another new-player related problem here that I haven't seen addressed. Currently the general missioning progression is L1 - Frigates, L2 Cruisers, L3 BCs, L4 BSes.
If you make the racial Destroyer skill a prerequisite for training the racial Cruiser skill, then you increase the time it takes for new players to get from L1 to L2 missions, and destroyers are practically useless in missioning unless you have reasonably good manual piloting skills (certainly better than the vast majority of newer players).
destroyers dominate level 1 missions. just like a BC would dominate a level 2. Hell, with great skills you can take a cruiser into a level 3 and finish it given enough time. Which is why I'm specifically talking about L2s and not L1s. (and great skills aren't likely to be prevalent in really new players, as opposed to alts of existing old vets).
I'm pretty sure most new players (actual new players, not alts of experienced players) try destroyers out in missions not really knowing any better. In them they destroy L1 missions and learn the strengths and weakness's of them very quickly in L2 missions. This is not a bad thing.
Also, keep in mind training destroyers to level 4 takes at most a few days... what is it... 4 I think. (I could be wrong on the time).
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. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 00:56:00 -
[1408] - Quote
\o/ most polemic Dev blog ever!!! |
Siren mu
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 01:06:00 -
[1409] - Quote
This is going to make cross training so much harder for new players...
|
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 01:13:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Siren mu wrote:This is going to make cross training so much harder for new players...
agreed :(
the only thing we have going for us is they won't know it. so we have to all keep it quiet so they never know. it's for their own fragile little ego's good. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
|
Tigernos O'Cuinn
Special Situations TOHA Conglomerate
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 01:19:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Siren mu wrote:This is going to make cross training so much harder for new players...
agreed :( the only thing we have going for us is they won't know it. so we have to all keep it quiet so they never know. it's for their own fragile little ego's good.
And to think it's usually the older generations who say the kids get it too easy. Role reversal? |
Buzzy Warstl
Huron Syndicate
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 01:20:00 -
[1412] - Quote
As someone who used the Skiff as a lowsec hauler (until the tier 3 BC's came out) I assure everyone concerned that whatever uses CCP says the ships are for, we will continue to be able to use them for whatever demented purposes we please. |
Oliver Duncan
Kick B0rt Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 01:38:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Who cares about the SP totals? Yes, giving people five in all four racial battlecruiser skills and destroyer would give people a 6m SP boost, but the utility is the exact same. Raw SP totals affect nothing besides medical clones, the utility is all that matters. |
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 01:48:00 -
[1414] - Quote
OK so CCP is only messing with destroyer and battle cruiser.
CCP, can you confirm you will have no intentions in the future to screw "Recon", "Heavy Assault" and "Logistics" into racial skills?
Also, bring BS to level 4 for cap is noobifying the game.
Again and Again, again and again you've been noobifying EVE showing your disregard and disrespect for older players who have invested skills and time to do what they can do now.
Example given in the blog about combat ships, attack vessels, bombardment ships, support vessels is not for EVE player base - this is for new DUST 514 players who will be joining eve. EVE players know what each ship does, how to fit it, and what to do with it. I can say this is probably why most of us play EVE - we took our time and interest to learn it.
|
Hound Halfhand
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 01:57:00 -
[1415] - Quote
I am not sure why CCP wants to mess around with the destroyer/battlecruiser skill tree. They are fine and I have never seen an EVE player complain about how they are. Make destroyers more useful but do not change the skill trees. Leave everything about battlecruisers alone except maybe doing something about the Myrmidon. They are the ships CCP has done best and allow new players to fly with 5 year vets.
Again their is no way that you make major changes to the battlecruiser skill trees and do anything but lose subscriptions.
Listen to EVE players. The number one non bug issue out there right now are Incursions. Turn off the ISK faucet and you make everyone happy. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:03:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Morar Santee wrote: Maaaaaaaaan.
You say: "This new support skill gives my assault ship 10% more DPS! It makes it better!!"
What I'm trying to tell you is: "This other new support skill gives my combat ship 10% more EHP!! It makes no ******* difference!!"
If this is supposed to be balanced, the new support skills have to cancel each other out. Completely. As if they did not exist in the first place. If they don't, then you have a line of ships that is clearly better than another line of ships. And no, it doesn't matter what their specific role is. It's either completely balanced against each other, or one line of ships has a huge advantage, that only multiplies with larger fleets. So those ships with the advantage will be used, the others won't be used.
Ironically, this is also the same problem we currently have with Tiers in BCs. So they either balance it and the skills mean absolutely nothing other than added training time to fly the same ships, or they didn't fix the problem.
There is simply no possible outcome that is beneficial for the players.
And as a second point, no this isn't want is wrong with tiers for BCs. The tanking bonus of the tier 1 amarr bc is not "equaled out" by the dps bonus of the tier 2. The harbinger is a superior ship all around. If I could clone myself and put one copy in a prophecy and one copy in a harbinger and let them fight... i don't think i could ever make a prophecy that would beat the harbinger. maaaaaaaaaaaybe if i knew the exact setup of the harbinger beforehand and he wasn't allowed to change his setup i could work him to a standstill, but that's about it. The differences in the tiers are kinda nice for, say, the caldari since they use completely different weapon systems. But those two ships aren't even "ballanced" with each other. Even if you had maxed out every possible skill the Ferox wanted to use, the drake is just a superior ship. In essence, THAT is the problem with the tier system. Not that the bonuses somehow balance each other out to make them more or less negligible in the end - the problem is that the different tiers are so easily seen as superior and inferior. If they make the ships generally balanced, and then add roles, and THEN give you the option to train additional skills to further enhance those roles... well then, it's less about buying the "better ship" and more about having the better game plan.
Okay... one more time because saving drafts works as intended.
It's time to give up here.
My point was: The new skills have to cancel each other out or otherwise one line of ships will have an advantage, and will thus be used more while other lines will not be used at all. That would mean the entire change does not achieve what it set out to achieve. Because the problem it intends to fix is that currently certain ships are not being used, usually based on their Tier.
...... And you start telling me how Prophecies and Feroxes are currently not balanced compared to the respective upper Tier of BCs, and how Ferox and Drake have different weapon systems? Are you ******* serious?
I wrote a long paragraph insulting your intelligence, but by now I have to assume that neither you nor Ranger would understand it. It's simply not worth discussing game mechanics and game design changes with people who do not understand the topic of discussion (until I write 4 different posts explaining it), much less understand the mechanics in question or how fleet doctrines are designed as a result. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:15:00 -
[1417] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Sigras wrote:[so in response to the part in bold, you're saying, "its the same ship" which is axiomatic, but you're acting like these skills will have no effect whatsoever and that is totally wrong. sure, if you have combat ships 5 and i have combat ships 5 and we're both flying combat ships then yeah, there is no change, but youre still going to be better against every other type of ship.
it is NOT the exact same ship, its a better ship because its tougher or faster or does more damage or whatever the skill actually does. The point of this game is specialization, not everyone can fly everything you have to choose what you can fly.
Also I love how this whole conversation is purely speculation about what these skills may do and how they may effect game balance if they ever get put into the game. Maaaaaaaaan. You say: "This new support skill gives my assault ship 10% more DPS! It makes it better!!" What I'm trying to tell you is: "This other new support skill gives my combat ship 10% more EHP!! It makes no ******* difference!!" If this is supposed to be balanced, the new support skills have to cancel each other out. Completely. As if they did not exist in the first place. If they don't, then you have a line of ships that is clearly better than another line of ships. And no, it doesn't matter what their specific role is. It's either completely balanced against each other, or one line of ships has a huge advantage, that only multiplies with larger fleets. So those ships with the advantage will be used, the others won't be used. Ironically, this is also the same problem we currently have with Tiers in BCs. So they either balance it and the skills mean absolutely nothing other than added training time to fly the same ships, or they didn't fix the problem. There is simply no possible outcome that is beneficial for the players. Why is there a problem with skills that counter each other? Pointing to current skills, shield management, hull upgrades and mechanic already serve as opposites to the damage granting skills in gunnery and missiles. And even then, only to the extent that one is willing to train them which adds another dynamic. Sure, once we're all vets that have trained for 8 tears the training may be a moot point, but there are a large number not at that point as the skills are now. Also, if the skills are selective by role, who is to say that your 10% more DPS will be going against someones 10% more EHP? What of you find yourself against someone else 10% faster, or 10% more range? |
Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
69
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:21:00 -
[1418] - Quote
I think it's impossible to oversee the consequences of this. I guess I don't care since the playing field will be the same for everyone.
I just hope the skill point reimbursement is fair. I've been working for a long time on the skill set I have and I wouldn't look forward to being put back to square one.
Also, rebalancing one ship at a time shouldn't start from frigate level and go from there. Nobody cares that T1 frigates are useless. We *DO*, however, care that null-sec is filling up with more and more supercaps that are gettting harder and harder to beat and making the game less and less playable. Taking away people's battlecruiser skills isn't going to fix that, imho.
T- |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:23:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote:I think it's impossible to oversee the consequences of this. I guess I don't care since the playing field will be the same for everyone. I just hope the skill point reimbursement is fair. I've been working for a long time on the skill set I have and I wouldn't look forward to being put back to square one. Also, rebalancing one ship at a time shouldn't start from frigate level and go from there. Nobody cares that T1 frigates are useless. We *DO*, however, care that null-sec is filling up with more and more supercaps that are gettting harder and harder to beat and making the game less and less playable. Taking away people's battlecruiser skills isn't going to fix that, imho. T- I don't quite understand how this post is possible. |
Moraguth
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:26:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:Moraguth wrote:Morar Santee wrote: Stuff.
More stuff Okay... one more time because saving drafts works as intended. It's time to give up here. My point was: The new skills have to cancel each other out or otherwise one line of ships will have an advantage, and will thus be used more while other lines will not be used at all. That would mean the entire change does not achieve what it set out to achieve. Because the problem it intends to fix is that currently certain ships are not being used, usually based on their Tier. ...... And you start telling me how Prophecies and Feroxes are currently not balanced compared to the respective upper Tier of BCs, and how Ferox and Drake have different weapon systems? Are you ******* serious? I wrote a long paragraph insulting your intelligence, but by now I have to assume that neither you nor Ranger would understand it. It's simply not worth discussing game mechanics and game design changes with people who do not understand the topic of discussion (until I write 4 different posts explaining it), much less understand the mechanics in question or how fleet doctrines are designed as a result.
Okay, the first thing you typed is actually relevant, the last paragraph is just silly.
I'll say this as simply as possible. Tier 1 BCs are NOT balanced with Tier 2 BCs. They just aren't. Tier 2s are FAR superior in just about every respect. That's what they want to change, making the tier system go away.
Making the skills equal so one ship doesn't have an advantage? are you serious? The skills don't balance out, they buff different things. Which would you say is "better" a caracal or a blackbird? If all you're concerned about is dps and ehp, then you're going to say the caracal, obviously. It has better fittings, more slots, etc. However... 1v1, the BB will make it a standstill every time. They have different roles and that's why they're nearly balanced. This is the rare exception to the rule. Imagine if all the races had different bonuses that were useful for specific situations? It would mean you don't automatically pick the "highest tier" ship for combat, you pick the one that has the most use for the situation or tactical plan you have.
Read through my examples again, and try not to be so stubborn about it. You're flat out wrong in this. I give you solid examples and you're just calling people names. Bad form for a debate. Give specific reasons why you're right, or try giving specific reasons why I'm wrong, because so far you haven't done either. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic. |
|
Aren Dar
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:49:00 -
[1421] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:As someone who used the Skiff as a lowsec hauler (until the tier 3 BC's came out) I assure everyone concerned that whatever uses CCP says the ships are for, we will continue to be able to use them for whatever demented purposes we please.
Which is why the entire idea is dubious to start with. The present state of EVE is reflective of CCP's ability to 'balance' things. If they try to balance everything from the ground up, they'll create a whole new set of unintended consequences (as well as making a lot of existing players annoyed that some of the skills aren't as useful as they used to be).
Eve's 'rebalancing' is brought to you by the same team that gave you titan blobs. |
Mariner6
EVE University Ivy League
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:51:00 -
[1422] - Quote
"Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon."
Am I seeing the Dominix being described as having great damage and mobility? Is there some speed boost to the Domi I don't know about? |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
754
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:55:00 -
[1423] - Quote
Well, at least this will give me more SP in my unallocated pool (atm some 4.5M or so) and something to train... 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:57:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Why is there a problem with skills that counter each other? Pointing to current skills, shield management, hull upgrades and mechanic already serve as opposites to the damage granting skills in gunnery and missiles. And even then, only to the extent that one is willing to train them which adds another dynamic. Sure, once we're all vets that have trained for 8 tears the training may be a moot point, but there are a large number not at that point as the skills are now. Also, if the skills are selective by role, who is to say that your 10% more DPS will be going against someones 10% more EHP? What of you find yourself against someone else 10% faster, or 10% more range?
There is no problem with skills countering each other on a basic level. There is a problem with that if those skills are introduced arbitrarily as a time-sink, so people have to train longer to reach the same level of overall efficiency with the same ship as before.
The 10% number for both skills was picked at random, and would actually not be balanced at all. I later edited the post to change the EHP number to "X" instead.
As a rule, there's two different types of engagements with very different parameters: Small scale and large scale. They have different requirements in terms of fleet doctrines. On a very basic level, though, it's usually a mixture of DPS(or Alpha)/EHP ratio, engagement range, maneuverability. (There are other values, obviously, but let's keep it simple.) Balancing those against each other - on one ship compared to all other ships, inside its class and out - is incredibly difficult in the first place. Now if you start adding skills that simply give a certain line of ships more of one of those attributes, how much of a different attribute do you have to assign to a different line of ships with a different skill to make up for that? At a guess: You won't get that right the first couple of tries. Nor will CCP.
The issue is if they get it wrong, and one line of ships ends up with a better DPS/EHP ratio at an acceptable range, that line of ships will instantly be fathom of the month. And other ships will be neglected. At the moment you have certain fairly useless Tiers of ships. If you get this change wrong, you have a ton more useless and unused ships than before.
So no matter where they go with this plan, it more or less can't work well. And from a player perspective, there's definitely no advantage in adding those skills in particular. |
Ecks Ghe
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:57:00 -
[1425] - Quote
I lol'd at Tier 3 ships being more general than but otherwise equal in power to other ships. |
Overs
Battlestars S E D I T I O N
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:57:00 -
[1426] - Quote
The reference to the "ship of the line" is somewhat lacking in allegorical relevance since, in EVE, conga-line combat has dubious tactical value. I suggest that CCP Ytterbium and all involved in ship rebalancing take that into consideration and hence forth refer to the subjects of their efforts as "ship of the blob". |
Mr M
Agony Unleashed
141
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 02:59:00 -
[1427] - Quote
I rather take skillpoints than litter my character sheet with Amarr battlecruiser and such skills.
|
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 03:02:00 -
[1428] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:Morar Santee wrote: Okay... one more time because saving drafts works as intended.
It's time to give up here.
My point was: The new skills have to cancel each other out or otherwise one line of ships will have an advantage, and will thus be used more while other lines will not be used at all. That would mean the entire change does not achieve what it set out to achieve. Because the problem it intends to fix is that currently certain ships are not being used, usually based on their Tier.
...... And you start telling me how Prophecies and Feroxes are currently not balanced compared to the respective upper Tier of BCs, and how Ferox and Drake have different weapon systems? Are you ******* serious?
I wrote a long paragraph insulting your intelligence, but by now I have to assume that neither you nor Ranger would understand it. It's simply not worth discussing game mechanics and game design changes with people who do not understand the topic of discussion (until I write 4 different posts explaining it), much less understand the mechanics in question or how fleet doctrines are designed as a result.
Okay, the first thing you typed is actually relevant, the last paragraph is just silly. I'll say this as simply as possible. Tier 1 BCs are NOT balanced with Tier 2 BCs. They just aren't. Tier 2s are FAR superior in just about every respect. That's what they want to change, making the tier system go away. Making the skills equal so one ship doesn't have an advantage? are you serious? The skills don't balance out, they buff different things. Which would you say is "better" a caracal or a blackbird? If all you're concerned about is dps and ehp, then you're going to say the caracal, obviously. It has better fittings, more slots, etc. However... 1v1, the BB will make it a standstill every time. They have different roles and that's why they're nearly balanced. This is the rare exception to the rule. Imagine if all the races had different bonuses that were useful for specific situations? It would mean you don't automatically pick the "highest tier" ship for combat, you pick the one that has the most use for the situation or tactical plan you have. Read through my examples again, and try not to be so stubborn about it. You're flat out wrong in this. I give you solid examples and you're just calling people names. Bad form for a debate. Give specific reasons why you're right, or try giving specific reasons why I'm wrong, because so far you haven't done either.
In fact, the last paragraph was the most important, as you just demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt. Thank you for that. |
Bob Niac
Acting Neutral NEM3SIS.
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 03:23:00 -
[1429] - Quote
Funny story: I suggested this a few months back. Methinks CCP watches forums. It was not this per say... but a decent chunk of it. I <3 Logistics: Pilot of all -áT2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 03:45:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:"Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon."
Am I seeing the Dominix being described as having great damage and mobility? Is there some speed boost to the Domi I don't know about? You're reading right. Whoever wrote this "plan" hasn't got a ****ing clue. |
|
Krystal Flores
Missions Mining and Mayhem Northern Coalition.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:19:00 -
[1431] - Quote
At first i was worried about having to train BC V again three times.
Miss President wrote: CCP, can you confirm you will have no intentions in the future to screw "Recon", "Heavy Assault" and "Logistics" into racial skills?
Then i realized if they changed Desy and BC, then it would set a precedent to change all of those classes too. Why not while you at it have racial interceptor, racial hic, all the general ship skills. Heck while there at it what about Black Ops.
Or i am just over reacting? |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:24:00 -
[1432] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Ok this thread needs some love now. SKILLS:
- 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.
- BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
CONFUSING BLOG PICTURES:
- Confusion between the skill tree change and the ship tree charts: the skill change displays where we want to bring you in the long term future with the overhaul, while the ship tree chart display the current, in-game TQ ship tree. We will show the updated, long term ship trees in the next blogs when they have been fleshed out a bit.
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
- I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
I will not attempt to justify myself however, this was a professional blunder on top of showing a serious lack of courtesy toward them as individuals, but also as elected representatives of the player base.
Yes, I do fully acknowledge the value they could have brought to this blog before it was released. Trust me, had I remembered about it, this would have been done as it would have saved a lot of confusion here .
That is why, not only as a CCP employee, but also as an individual, I would sincerely like to apologize to every and each member of the CSM I forgot to include here. CSM, feel free to smack me in the back of my head during Fanfest to remind me that being absent-minded has life threatening, rage inducing consequences that should be avoided at all costs.
We will keep monitoring this thread and post updates in the next days if there are more issues coming up.
Well, all this stuff was not expected, we didn't tough that you guys would make something like this! This is why this is becoming a treadnought! =D
And despite CSM not being consulted, directly about the post. They was all asking for ballance and now we will have it!
Although, we wore expecting that ccp would hit this problem with a handgun as always, but you guys are using a doomsday device!!! This is awesome!!! That is why everyone is with the "WTF" expression! And contrary to the handgun this will leave no corpse behind, but you will have to fix the crater that it will make on players skills =D
So good job! This was great!!!
|
Gevlin
EXPCS Corp SpaceMonkey's Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:31:00 -
[1433] - Quote
I am looking to the new ships this bring in
I would love to see a Capital Collection ship. Specialize in collecting low end ores for easier production in Null sec.
Mining Veld in Null sec really sucks I agree with several people: CCP needs to focus most of eve's recources on FIS, but the development of WIS still needs to continue, just as a slower and more efficient pace. In eve I wish to be more than just a machine. |
Skex Relbore
The Dominion of Light
112
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:35:00 -
[1434] - Quote
Lamperouge Kasenumi wrote:Skex Relbore wrote:
Nonsense, it does nothing of the sort.
Actually yes, that's their plan with all these changes, read their post again. I have read it and there isn't a thing they are talking about that would require splitting of those skills. Even if they wanted to make BC4 a requirement for BS all they have to do is add keep the racial cruiser 4 prereq and add the generic BC4 prereq to all the ships. (same for Dessies) though honestly I don't know why they'd even bother with that.
Quote:Skex Relbore wrote: They can remove the tier system and re-balance ships just fine without touching the Destroyer and Battle-Cruiser skills. There is quite literally no reason to jack with those skills save that some developer thinks it would be more consistent.
It's change for the sake of change which is dumb.
Or you could say it's change for the sake of opening up new possibilities. For example, what if they want to create two new destroyers for each race? That would be pretty badass right? Well currently they won't, because it would mean that training 1 skill open up 12 ship which is too much. In other words, these change must happen in order for us to have new and better toys. Don't you want new toys?
Why not they added the tier 3 BC's and it didn't cause any problems.
Besides the last thing this game really needs is more ship types considering they can't get the existing ones balanced worth a damn. |
Rogatien Soldier
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 04:45:00 -
[1435] - Quote
Dude. Just make the ship requirements Frigate or Cruiser or Battleship level I for ALL in that class and then F with whatever slots and HP you want for each ship... you're gods so you can put whatever you want on ships if your prime directive is to get rid of tiers and balance ships.
Drop the whole racial dessy / bc BS. Benefits? Ok, so it makes things "tidy" and pigeonholes new players into a racial line (which is criminal unless you do some serious rebalancing at the same damn time). Negatives??? Creates SOOOOOOOOOOooooo many issues. You're either going to **** off a ton of old bittervets (which you promised not to do), or you're going to give old bittervets a huge buff relative to newbs (newbs get to play catchup on a free 6mil SP?! to get the same benefits later on)
... unless you nerf skill multipliers to hell and let everybody train these ships faster, there is literally no way to cut a decent middle ground here. |
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 05:48:00 -
[1436] - Quote
I like the idea of spreading the specializations a bit more. The removal of battleship 5 for capitals makes no sense. Same with frigate and cruiser 5s for T2 battlecruisers and cruisers. You have to train something that does not benefit the ship you are trying to pilot. Myself, I fly straight up support. T2 cruiser was good for logistics and that is it. It was 30 days on a skill that had zero bearing on my command ship training. Other skills, yeah they have an affect at least needing level 5. Capital, same thing. 30 days for a skill which has no bonus I would really ever make good use of. 30 day time sink. I think that is what prompted one of these changes
Second, hopefully seen. Idea on how to institute the change. Good/bad/possible, I don't know, but to make sure is seen
Idea how to institute the change
Idea how to institute the change.
Prior to main expansion, maybe after, I would say 30 days, do like what happened with the avatar icon changes. On logging in, a mandatory check occurs. This is part of a prepatch to remove the bc/dessy skill from market, and replace it with the faction skillbooks. First thing on log in, a check is performed of skills, If I only say battlecruiser, same applies for destroyer as well
1. First check is if the battlecruiser/destroyer skill has any levels. If no, problem solved, logs in normal, else..
2. Checks for frigate/cruiser lvl 3s since the new prereq will be four. If example bc exists, and skill shows cruiser 3, cruiser will auto bump to cruiser 4.
3. If cruiser 3 or greater exists and bc skill exists, player will have current level of battlecruiser applied to the applicable racial battlecruiser
4. Skill training in progress. Partial trained battlecruiser or destroyer skillpoints at the time the patch occurs/benchmark location will be reimbursed. This means that if 1 day before patch day person plugs in bc lvl 5, it will not ghost train. On login, they will have the bc 4s, and the bc 5 sp would be reimbursed
5. how much sp might be free? Well, as was quoted earlier, there will be free skillpoint boosts. Maximum gain would be somebody who had battlecruiser 5 and all faction cruisers to 3. Result would be essentially a free level 3-4 boost (plus same for frig if applicable) or equal to a couple weeks training. In addition the lvl 5s that would be required
Necessary?
Absolutely
Know maxed out command ship pilots. To do so is very sp and dedication intense. The leaderships to max out is almost 16m, approx 8 months. Command ship pilots also had to invest in Cruiser lvl 5s. Personally, I have only flown some logistics ships in incursions to make use of the T2 cruisers, that and I originally trained amarr cruiser 5 to run exploration. Well, combined with Tech 3, it can be useful
Oops, back to topic, Time. 8 months for leaderships, 4 months of cruiser 5, 1 month battlecruiser 5, and more skills, just to fly the command ships usably. Moreso if command ships is to level 5. Command ships are a specialty of mine, love them, almost only thing I fly. Because it is the only thing I can truely fly awesome is support. When all is done, regardless of how, that ability needs to be maintained; really it is eve for me. I wouldn't have it in me to stick in eve spending months getting back to that level. Hopefully my idea is a feasable one. For most players the most inconvenience might be a message saying
"Battlecruiser training progress halted ________ sp reimbursed
I am sure there are players out there who are starting out like I did, wanting that full commandship, but I feel that such groups would be in the more minority and in the end after a month, might not notice so much. overall time, well those training for command ships would become more specialized since it no longer is just a little bump up from HAC or whichever. In terms of training time, it is the same to train for one faction the full T2 cruiser and T2 battlecruiser. Overall unlock for all four factions would have a time progression of 3 months more tops? Anyway, Looking at it from a bc specialist. It would be a bit worse for new players wanting to command spec over all faction, but in the big scheme, time training that is no different than if somebody wanted to hac, recon, bomber or any other spec. Just instead you are training the links over weapons. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 05:53:00 -
[1437] - Quote
It's impossible to say how this is going to shake out until CCP rolls out a test. The devil is truly in the details, here.
This may be entirely impossible to do, but:
EVE canon says that cruisers were among the very first ships. They're also among the most flexible, and they're easy to fit. So why wouldn't Cruiser be the first skill trained, then BS (also an old kind of ship). BC, Frigate and Destroyer would be next, which makes sense: Great skills benefit a cruiser pilot, but anything less than great skills makes frigate piloting even more hazardous. n00bs could start out with a rickety old cruiser that's worse than any of the standard lines, but which has settled into retirement as an educational platform. Among other things, this would dispense with the notion that bigger ships are better, right at the outset, and build the canon into the game. (However, you would not get a new one every time you docked!)
In any event, CCP should either give the Destroyer class a full slate of options, or just make them require Frigate IV (or V for the T2 Destroyers) and eliminate the category altogether. (And while you're at it, could ORE Industrial be useful for more than just the Noctis? Thanks!) |
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae ROMANIAN-LEGION
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 05:53:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Krystal Flores wrote:At first i was worried about having to train BC V again three times. Miss President wrote: CCP, can you confirm you will have no intentions in the future to screw "Recon", "Heavy Assault" and "Logistics" into racial skills?
Then i realized if they changed Desy and BC, then it would set a precedent to change all of those classes too. Why not while you at it have racial interceptor, racial hic, all the general ship skills. Heck while there at it what about Black Ops. Or i am just over reacting?
Well, the difference I think is in terms of tech level. Dessy and battlecruiser are t1 hull types. Lvl 5 training requires determination of what is needed for the T2. Like I had in my above post, the current tree for T2 bc and dessie requires training a skill that has nothing to do with helping the ship, just a time sink. The others are your T2 skill specialization, and require you to specialize in that racial already. Your Dic->hic would be natural progression, like AS->HAS (hmm, can we get the assaults renamed to assault frigate and heavy assault cruiser skills?) Just my two bits on that tree idea. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 06:16:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:pashared wrote:"TANK" "ARCHER": designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
GÇó"DPS warrior" or "berserker": Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
GÇó"MAGE" ": provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
GÇó"CLERIC" or " CC spec mage": mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
I really REALLY hate this whole dev blog. making cookie cutter rolls IMHO flys in the face of the whole eve skill system. your supposted to be able to train as narrow or wide as you wish. making ship rolls as such your might as well remove the SP system and add ship levels. since in the end that is what would work best in a roll type system.
I was miffed when they removed racial skill sets at character creation, since in a way it opened up the line for this type of system. you took meaning away for race choice, yeah sure caldari achura was wayyy popular at the time but the changes to mini ships took that away faster then gate guns popping a noob ship.
I understand you want to move the game forward but roots and culture run deep, I dont want a WOW type system were every nerf and game change causes the whole community to follow the min max, OP in order to stay relavent.
you can still do alot with ships by adding % bouns and features, and just tweak whats already there. T1 ships are supposted to be just what they are, and you learn alot of tactics and game play by using what you can. and there is still room for variants and roll crossing fits that allow players to fill out a gang. no one wants to wait for the cleric or need a better tank. I too have strong concerns about this becoming the new model for Eve. This will honestly drive every player who has ever played an MMORPG even loosely based on WoW. If they wanted WoW, Rift, EQ, etc... they would play it. They play Eve, because of the differences that I'm worried this change would remove. Eve's stong point is it's ability to take a small number of arbitrary limits on each hull and use the tools provided in the game to tweak each hull to your purpose. That being said, there are some choices which while clearly possible, are far from efficient. If I want pure mobility for a tackler I can nano a BS, but would be better off with an interceptor. I can use cruiser to haul but an industrial would probably suit the task better. A hulk makes a more efficient miner than a battlecruiser. Even more focused hulls can be selected for their strong points and fitted to mitigate their weaknesses. That is the way things are NOW. And the proposal is to realigning the roles in a more coherent manner and equalizing general usefulness among the T1's. This isn't adding something that has never been.
That's what I'm talking about. The roles are fine as is. Mining cruisers will still mine, logistics cruisers will still be useful to new pilots doing group missions... etc... I don't want the game to increase the mining role of a mining cruiser to make it more viable for mining. If it's suffering from uselessness, change those arbitrary limits to make the ship as a whole more desirable to fly.
As an example, I don't want the mining bonus to increase for an osprey, because CCP want more people to use it for mining. I want it to get another high slot and turret point. This can open up a whole new set of possibilities for the osprey to be used for more than just mining/logistics.
What is being discussed in this thread implies the former case (CCP sayeth this ship shall do this). CCP is a successful company, because they leave the game so open ended. Pigeonholing any t1 hull into a specific role is detrimental to the one thing that sets eve apart from all other successful MMOs: The Sandbox. |
Xurr
Angelic Insurrection Corp
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 06:29:00 -
[1440] - Quote
I look forward to seeing the ******** mess you all make of this. |
|
progodlegend
101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 07:03:00 -
[1441] - Quote
I'm really worried about the changes you guys are considering. A lot of them sound great in theory, but CCP has a long track record of not understanding the finer details about the PVP that is happening in EVE, especially large scale fleet combat (why alliance's choose certain ships over others, how exactly fc's use these fleets in combat, etc. etc.).
I know you were probably just throwing ship names out there, but your "EVE examples" of long range bombardment, calvary ships, and pretty much everything on that list worried the **** out of me. Maybe you were saying what those ships would be used for after the changes were made, but even if that's true i'm still worried because some of the roles you defined don't even make sense in the context of how EVE combat works.
I would hope that the players get a significant chance to test out all of these changes you are considering and I'm confident you will follow through there, but this worries me as well. It is very important and i'm vehemently hoping that you also get a smaller group of more experienced players together to consult with on these changes independent of the public forums or mass testing(mostly FC's preferably), because a large portion of the general EVE population does not understand the finer details of what is going on in the fleet fights they are themselves participating in. I know the CSM is there, but they are only 9 people, and I think only a few of them even have more than a small amount of FC experience.
A great example of how the EVE population's opinion for pvp can be dangerous is the "Drake is overpowered" rage that came out at the end of 2010-2011. People whined constantly about how OP drakes were at the end of 2010, because a few alliances were using them in large fights and winning. What most of the pilots didn't know is that drakes were getting a significant advantage in lag because missile launchers were cycling significantly more often than guns in lag instead of getting consistently stuck. Once a few improvements were made to gun cycling thanks to team gridlock, a lot of this complaining went away as drake fleets were getting properly murdered again.
Now the Drake whine is slightly there again, but not nearly as loud with the CSM is suggesting a few changes that are at the very least much better than the old changes that were suggested. Even now though, the drake is not as good as people make it out to be, and maybe in need of only some very minor tweaking here and there. (By the way here's a hint, drakes get a lot of there OP from heavy missiles, if you are going to consider any changes to the drake, looking at heavy missiles is a better start than the ship itself.)
So yes in conclusion, Fleet combat has evolved significantly and very quickly over the past 2 years despite there being only moderate changes in balancing. The number of competent FCs in this game who can win at the highest levels of combat has been dwindling due to innovations in fleet combat building on one another. So it's important that CCP talks not only to the general eve population but also to a certain group of people who understand fleet combat, because minor tweaks and add on's to pvp often end up creating new dominate fleet comps or obsoleting other parts of the game, and it sounds like yall are trying to avoid doing that this time.
P.S: Another thing that needs to be explained, is that a lot of changes have occurred to fleet combat over the years, despite very little changes in mechanics, and it's important that CCP understands why this has happened (and is still happening.) Once again for example, the drake has not changed at all since quantum rise (I think that expansion was 4 years ago now, can't remember) changed missiles and signatures etc.etc., yet the drake was widely regarded as a terrible pvp ship for years. It is only over the past 2 years that drakes have really become regarded as a viable pvp ship by some people. Despite having the same bonus's, attributes, slot layouts, everything the same 3 or 4 years ago, no one would have thought to start up a "nerf the drake" thread during that time, and in fact many people were saying that missile PVP needed to be buffed. Now there are multiple caldari based fleet concepts that use missiles as their primary weapon system. Missiles 3 years ago were regarded as useless because fleets of the time were almost always made up of ships from all races, and did not rely heavily on logistics. This meant that high resist ships were not as important as they are now, and that a mix of gun's and missiles from having ships of different races meant that the guns always hit first, giving the missile ships their "useless" title at the time.
P.P.S: No i'm not making this post just because I'm an FC, but being an FC has allowed me to see some of the fallacy's in what the EVE population occasionally calls for when it comes to PVP balancing, which is why I felt the need to make this post. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 07:28:00 -
[1442] - Quote
Mikron Alexarr wrote:As an example, I don't want the mining bonus to increase for an osprey, because CCP want more people to use it for mining. I want it to get another high slot and turret point. This can open up a whole new set of possibilities for the osprey to be used for more than just mining/logistics. When is the last time you really say someone use an osprey for anything other than mining/pos repping unless it was for a lark?
We discuss trying to work those T1 logis into fleets all the time, but in the end it just doesn't happen. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
275
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 07:40:00 -
[1443] - Quote
Mikron Alexarr wrote:
As an example, I don't want the mining bonus to increase for an osprey, because CCP want more people to use it for mining. I want it to get another high slot and turret point. This can open up a whole new set of possibilities for the osprey to be used for more than just mining/logistics.
What is being discussed in this thread implies the former case (CCP sayeth this ship shall do this). CCP is a successful company, because they leave the game so open ended. Pigeonholing any t1 hull into a specific role is detrimental to the one thing that sets eve apart from all other successful MMOs: The Sandbox.
I disagree with this. Increasing the combat abilities of T1 special-purpose ships to a competitive level is impossible from a balancing point of view. What would happen to the pure combat cruisers, if the logis and ewars had equal combat stats? Right, the combat ships would not be used, because they wouldn't have anything special.
Celestis with more drone bay, grid, turret slots and tank? Obsoletes Vexor.
Celestis with more damping? Makes it a viable addition to a fleet.
Also, consider the bigger picture- do we want more, similar general combat ships and fleets consisting mainly of those, emphasizing numbers and F1-F8 tactics?
Or combat that emphasizes the efficient use of force multipliers, requiring more tactical planning and rewarding competency?
In the end I find specialization the right solution. |
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 07:40:00 -
[1444] - Quote
Now is the time to train Destroyer V and BC V!!!! CAVEAT RICHARDUS VOLVERE - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 |
Clyde ElectraGlide
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 07:47:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Bringing Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills in line with frig, cruiser and battleship skills? Awesome. Lowering the cap ship requirement to BS IV? Also awesome.
Tiericide! Oh god YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. Finally CCP is doing something about this. The specifics of tweaking currently useless ships to become useful can be talked about later, just the fact that something is finally being done about this is absolutely amazing. Fix incursions today! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=60460 |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 07:52:00 -
[1446] - Quote
What a bold move. I congratulate CCP for taking the bull by the horns on this one. Ship balancing has gradually become a more and more polarised issue with an ever decreasing proportion of ships being used by the majority as time and tweaks have progressed.
I trust you to find a suitable way around the 'ships-I-can-currently-fly' dilemma. I applaud anything that adds skill that, as an older player, I would want to train. My skill training has largely been without a driven goal for the past 1-2 years and it has definitely been missed.
As for your analogies for the new ship lines I do have some criticism, hopefully constructive;
"Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller."
Ok, taking this as your opening definition lets accept this a s a baseline comparison.
"Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon."
Firstly, hit-and-run would require major changes to the mobility of these ships to result in them all being as effective as the hurricane in this role (the only one I'd say currently fits this description here) This leaves you with a quandary. The cane works because it has an extended engagement range due to it's autocannon weapon systems - how would you overcome this for blasters? Drones take too long to travel to the target and are easily destroyed - unlike any other weapon system in eve. How do you envisage this being able to work in this role? We have seen previously the rise and fall of nano-ships yet you have listed several battleships on this list. If they are to become hit and run does this mean you will countenance the return of nano-ships to a degree? If so, what about the previous problems this led to for other ships, being unable to engage this form of piloting? Finally - flanking does not exist as a concept in eve combat - for that matter almost no nuance of tactical planning matters. The only contributory factor to a fleet's success is calling the rights targets in order and having everyone shoot it. If you have some way to introduce the viability of other tactical decisions then that would be more ground-breaking than a ship balance.
"Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal."
There is no pinning down of an enemy by firepower. Only tacklers can do this. You have imagined a role that cannot exist within eve. What you have done here is to condemn these ships to the second or third rate combat ship pile in one fell swoop. Artillery has an advantage of being non-direct fire- yet everything in eve is direct-fire. Artillery does not require line-of-sight but can be directed by a spotter from tremendous range (off-grid essentially), yet eve has only line-of-sight (on-grid). Without major changes to the game, which are so far beyond what is technically possible without a huge rewrite of combat mechanics, then this role is a ship graveyard.
"Support vessels: mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator"
With average defence and mobility these ships will die quickly at their operational ranges; currently they have fair to good defences and mobility. Lowering this relative to the combat ability of other ships will render them almost entirely useless - not in role but in their ability to function in that role on a battlefield. Also there is a major distinction between support vessels of an aggressive nature (electronic warfare) and of a logistical nature (remote reps). Grouping these 2 classes together might simplify a chart, but leads to incorrect assumptions about the very different needs of these 2 ship types.
I very much hope that CCP can pull this off. It will not, and never could, keep all the player-base happy - but then no changes of this magnitude could ever do that. The changes alluded to are very much needed however and CCP has my support at least in this endeavour, but please tread carefully. Your initial outlines are naive at best, misguided by non-existent functionality at worst. Remeber how eve works before you make these changes, otherwise you'll merely trade one set of useless ships for a different set and that will be a serious failure to seize a wonderful opportunity and would set eve in it's current rut for another half-decade. |
Artyom Hunter
Battlestars S E D I T I O N
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 08:02:00 -
[1447] - Quote
I agree With the streamlining of the current skilltree, but making BCs a requirement is annoying. It is an intermediate stage, and splitting it into 4 groups and forcing us to train it for a BS I definately do not like.
And also the addition of shiplines is a rather backwards concept in my opinion, as eve has always been about the ability to jump from one ship type to another no sweat. But the shiplines idea reverses on this notion and throws it into a threshing machine by forcing players to specialise BEFORE they can use the goodies. Sure we can always cross train, but MORE training is one of the things that scares alot of new players away.
Unless the specialisations ONLY apply to T2 ships then I would prefer no change at all. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 08:31:00 -
[1448] - Quote
-30 days capital ships training time ? CCP ruined this game with capitalships, but they need more capitalships in the game. Really we need this or they just want to create another ISK sink ??? |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
546
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 09:08:00 -
[1449] - Quote
Moving away from tiers is something that has been suggested for years now so I like that part of the concept and like the fact that it would provide more breathing room for balancing and new ships!
However I personally don't like the idea of having to train battlecruisers before I can train battleships for instance. The whole idea behind the fact that you can specialize early means that you are not obliged to train one thing to achieve another. It puts in a barrier for "neatness" sake.
I like most of your ideas in terms of tweaking the skilltree, but I'd very much prefer it if the destroyers and battlecruisers skills remain as they are, independent of the "skilltree". The other enhancements I can live with.
I don't like the naming categories or the way they are implemented in the last part of the dev blog though. While I understand the reasoning behind it I very much doubt that they are useful in any practical way and add more confusion then they solve. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 09:10:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Krystal Flores wrote:At first i was worried about having to train BC V again three times. Miss President wrote: CCP, can you confirm you will have no intentions in the future to screw "Recon", "Heavy Assault" and "Logistics" into racial skills?
Then i realized if they changed Desy and BC, then it would set a precedent to change all of those classes too. Why not while you at it have racial interceptor, racial hic, all the general ship skills. Heck while there at it what about Black Ops.
Frigate, dessy, cruiser etc. skills are for tech 1 ships, interceptors, logistics etc. skills are for tech 2 ships. The former are racial the latter are not. I find it hard believe CCP would introduce racial T2 ship skills.
Krystal Flores wrote:Or i am just over reacting?
Most likely, yes.
Then again this is CCP we are talking about so... Funny things have happened before.
Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Laboratories Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
|
Oxylan
1 Caldaryjski Pluton Uderzeniowy
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 09:23:00 -
[1451] - Quote
Nikuno wrote: Ship balancing has gradually become a more and more polarised issue with an ever decreasing proportion of ships being used by the majority as time and tweaks have progressed.
How aboout Meh Golem and big ship unification, since t3 relase meny ships lose own roles espetialy marauders and commands, i remember time while people still uses ravens and commands in mission now every player use tengu, also tengu is like win button.
Another wired thing Amarr electionc frigate got 60m3 drone bay and 20 drone bandwich while Gallente electronic frigate as we know (drone ships) only 10m3 drone bay 5m3 drone bandwich... :D
Ps.Tengu on my alt whtaut any nano items and aglility implants, got same agility like my buzzard on my main (cov ops frigate) with one nanofiber t2 + one implant to ship agility on my main... i dont need to algin to gate with both ship to get fleet warp, they always warp togewer, this is balance ? t3 strategic cruiser with agility compared to small t2 frigate ? |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 10:05:00 -
[1452] - Quote
Oxylan wrote:Nikuno wrote: Ship balancing has gradually become a more and more polarised issue with an ever decreasing proportion of ships being used by the majority as time and tweaks have progressed.
How aboout Meh Golem and big ship unification, since t3 relase meny ships lose own roles espetialy marauders and commands, i remember time while people still uses ravens and commands in mission now every player use tengu, also tengu is like win button. Another wired thing Amarr electionc frigate got 60m3 drone bay and 20 drone bandwich while Gallente electronic frigate as we know (drone ships) only 10m3 drone bay 5m3 drone bandwich... :D Ps.Tengu on my alt whtaut any nano items and aglility implants, got same agility like my buzzard on my main (cov ops frigate) with one nanofiber t2 + one implant to ship agility on my main... i dont need to algin to gate with both ship to get fleet warp, they always warp togewer, this is balance ? t3 strategic cruiser with agility compared to small t2 frigate ? Funny thing, Gallente isn't the only race meant to have pwn droneboats, we just have more of them. Amarr has one or 2, as well as the Khanid missileboat platforms.
The races do have a fair amount of diversity in them.
Edit: also, ever notice the proteus is a terrible droneboat? Even if you fit it for drones, its pretty sucktastic next to an ishtar for a fraction of the price. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Infininte escher
Aliastra Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 10:22:00 -
[1453] - Quote
would tracking dissruption/missile's and ewar/lasors and nos/drones and sensor dampers/projectiles be a better compliment to each other |
StoneDwarf
The Curse of Distant Stars Bright Side of Death
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 11:19:00 -
[1454] - Quote
For now, I can fly Caldari+Gallente+Minmatar ships. All of, them begining from frigates and ending the BS. All of them, T1 and T2. After this update I will have to learn all of them again separated race by race? This smells like ****!!!! What is this for? |
Crucis Cassiopeiae
EvE-COM
890
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 11:24:00 -
[1455] - Quote
StoneDwarf wrote:For now, I can fly Caldari+Gallente+Minmatar ships. All of, them begining from frigates and ending the BS. All of them, T1 and T2. After this update I will have to learn all of them again separated race by race? This smells like ****!!!! What is this for?
PLEASE TRY TO READ THREAD. Its said that if you can fly something, you will fly it.
They will give you for dessy skill, all 4 dessy skills. and for BC skill, all 4 BC skills.
So you dont need to learn anything. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 11:26:00 -
[1456] - Quote
StoneDwarf wrote:For now, I can fly Caldari+Gallente+Minmatar ships. All of, them begining from frigates and ending the BS. All of them, T1 and T2. After this update I will have to learn all of them again separated race by race? This smells like ****!!!! What is this for? Go read the OP/devblog. If you can fly it now you will still be able to fly it.
Sheesh people, if you are gonna get worked up about something, make sure it hasn't been resolved already Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Kahz Niverrah
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 11:42:00 -
[1457] - Quote
I know I'm late to the threadnaught, but this proposal just seems like it's making things different and not necessarily better.
I think we can all agree that getting rid of tiers and rebalancing ships is a good thing. You don't need to change the skill trees to do this. They're fine, leave them alone, imo. Different != better in this case. I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 11:43:00 -
[1458] - Quote
I am amazed at the old players comming to the "rescue" of the younger players, Usualy the answers are when I started playing it was way harder bla bla bla.
And now when the older players fear (not even justified at the moment) they might lose a couple of days training, it would not be nice towards the younger players.
I consider myself one of those younger players about 1.25 years old, and I'm realy thrilled to see this change.
I'm Caldari, yes with in 3 months I could fly a Drake without to much troubles and then came the long waiting, little to nothing happens then for a long time.
This would give you a more gradual way of progressing, the fact ships get role bonusses which in a way they already have, makes it more intresting for younger players to enter the world of eve since you can become a rather usefull asset in a short time instead of being pushed in to the tackler role when you enter a pvp group. It's more fun to get a new toy every other month then get half in 3 months and then need to wait half a year to fly somthing else that can be used more than on a few occasions.
a second pro I see in these changes is that it might no longer be intrsting to fly cane of drake blobs; 1) it takes longer to fly them 2) with specialisation of (bombardment ships, Ships of the line, and attack vessles) it might not be so wise to put your bets on one horse, so more diversion of ships in a fleet, new tactics ect ect.
The fact every body flies them very often (almost every players guide tells you to rush to your racial Battlecruiser) points out exactly why it is broken.
And to every one that fances with the streamlining and dumbing down of EVE because of the roles, realy using EFT to calculate what does the most DPS against EH is a "very" complex system. Now you will need to think more about the ballance your fleet or the capacity of your piliots |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 11:56:00 -
[1459] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote: The fact every body flies them very often (almost every players guide tells you to rush to your racial Battlecruiser) points out exactly why it is broken.
You do realize that this is because BCs are the largest ship that are still fairly forgiving of a lack of skillpoints in support skills, right? Once you get into BS and T2 ships, those 2s and 3s in armor comp skills and navigation skills just don't cut it anymore.
BCs are the current ship of the line for smaller gangs of less experienced players, while battleships are for larger fleets (where a few people short on SP is averaged out of existance) and more experienced players in small gangs tend to favor T2 and faction frigs/cruisers.
That is why you are told to rush to BC when you start the game(also, :drake:) Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
334
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:06:00 -
[1460] - Quote
We have been following this thread closely and compiled a Q&A list to the most commonly asked questions, we hope this helps a bit.
- Q: Will all of these ship balancing changes be applied in one go for Inferno?
A: No, the nuance is we will begin this general ship balancing plan with Inferno. Not only trying to revamp everything for Inferno would require a massive commitment, but even if it was possible, doing so in one move would be quite risky as ship balancing is a delicate process.
That means we will proceed slowly, one step at a time, starting with the ship classes that need the most love (most likely tech 1 frigates and destroyers), then moving our way up. This blog is describing future vision changes in an effort to increase transparency. We definitely want to have more blogs, discussion and feedback along the way.
- Q: With the skill changes, I will have to train for [racial cruiser V] and [racial battlecruiser V] to train for a Command Ship, how does that make it easier for me?
A: This is a misunderstanding, the changes don't work that way. While training for the next tech 1 ship class size will require that you train the racial skill to 4, training for the tech 2 version will only require the main racial skill at 5. That is the whole point with splitting destroyers and battlecruiser skills into four variants in the first place.
Example:
- Before, training for a Harbinger required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 3 and Battlecruisers at 2
- Before, training for an Absolution required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruiser at 5 and Heavy Assault Ships at 4
- Now, training for a Harbinger requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and then Amarr Battlecruiser at 1.
- Now, training for an Absolution requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and Amarr Battlecruiser at 5. There is no more need for the Amarr Cruiser 5 and Heavy Assault Ship at 4.
- Q: Isn't forcing us to train [Racial Destroyer] at 4 is lame considering there is only one ship for each race?
A: absolutely, we have been discussing that before this blog went out, and we will keep considering options until we come up with a solution that improves this situation. One way could be adding more destroyer hulls, if we can find a role for them.
- Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process?
A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
Example:
- If we go for option 1: you will get Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar Battlecruiser skills at 5 if you previously had the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5.
- If we go for option 2: you will get Amarr Battlecruiser skill at 5 only if you previously fulfilled all conditions to fly Amarr Battlecruisers, which means having the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5, PLUS the Amarr Cruiser at 3.
To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan.
- Q: Are you going to split the tech 2 skills into four racial variants as well?
A: No. Tech 2 skills already are specializations over tech 1 hulls, there is no need specialize them further. The skill change main purpose is to make the progression between tech 1 and tech 2 clearer and more consistent, not to create more skill variants for the sake of it. Besides, training for a tech 2 vessel already requires you to train for the relevant tech 1 racial ship skill anyway.
Example: There is no point splitting Recon Ships to Amarr Recon Ships, because flying a Pilgrim already requires you to have Amarr Cruiser at 5. This also covers the question with the Jump Freighters. While Freighters may only require [Racial Industrial 4] to train, Jump Freighters will not be split up.
- Q: DonGÇÖt you believe requiring [Race Industrial / Battleship 4] to train for Freighters / Capital ships make them too easy to aim for?
A: Possibly. Most likely. Again, there is nothing preventing us from increasing other skill requirements on Freighters or Capital Ships to keep the average training time identical if that is an issue. Such a change is quite far ahead in the future anyway, there is plenty of time to discuss and reconsider this.
- Q: You said in the Dev Blog that Amarr would be the first to be looked at, does that mean they are going to be screwed with Inferno?
A: No. This line of Dev Blogs presents our theoretical, long term plan for ship balancing. Such changes are just too massive to be released in one go, thus we need as much feedback as possible before going forward. As said before, we want to implement this massive change into small, iterative steps, focusing on one ship class at a time.
- Q: Fail!!11!! ShouldnGÇÖt there be a Naga instead of the Rokh in the Caldari ship tree?
A: There is a Rokh instead of a Naga because we used backgrounds from last year Fanfest presentation as they were looking great and suiting each tree theme. This choice was purely cosmetic.
|
|
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
334
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:06:00 -
[1461] - Quote
- Q: Isn't such a skill change and reimbursement defeating the very purpose of getting new players in, since they will now have to train four times as much to get all destroyer and battlecruiser variants?
A: if you only consider raw skill requirement, certainly. We estimate that with the changes, training for a battlecruiser would jump from 5 to 11 days. However, flying a ship properly means much more than just being able to hop into it. You have to consider weapon, tanking, engineering, electronic, navigation skills as well, where 6 days aren't that much in the grand picture.
Besides, we always encourage players to specialize in a specific hull to be as competitive as veterans, and this will not change here. Splitting destroyers and battlecruisers into four racial variants is aimed to achieve exactly that, as we assess the current, generic battlecruiser skills is giving access to too many ship hulls (12 for training one skill), while being inconsistent with the Frigate, Cruiser, Battlecruiser and Capital skills, which all are race based.
- Q: If you want to make skills consistent, why donGÇÖt you make all of them generic instead of inserting racial variants for destroyer and battlecruiser classes?
A: That is mainly because turning all ship racial skills into generic copies would achieve the opposite of what we want to fix here: having access to too many hulls by training one skill. Besides, it would create even large skill reimbursement issues, as we would now have to merge all four racial copies of frigate, cruiser, battleship and capital skills into one.
- Q: Are you not afraid that creating and sorting ships by arbitrary lines is going to achieve the same results than tiers in the long run?
A: Yes, we are, and that is a point we want to keep in mind during all this balancing aspect. However, unlike tiers, ship lines have the advantage of being more a flexible guideline than a fixed restriction. With tiers, slots are arbitrary decided between two ships of the same class depending on when they were created, while lines emphasize role, which is a far better metric in a sandbox game, where every ship is supposed to have a purpose.
- Q: Why are you not balancing ship by individual role instead of using lines then?
A: While, in theory that would be a very good move indeed, in practice it is simply impossible to follow. EVE has hundreds of different ships scattered all over the place, whose size, roles, purpose most often than not overlap closely. Not having guidelines to follow and bound ships with would quickly degenerate into chaos, as it would be much more difficult to ensure ships are not overstepping their purpose from another one closely related. As an example, this specifically is the situation we have right now with some battlecruisers being too broad in their purpose, which thus overlap and make Cruisers, Heavy Assault Ships and even sometime Command Ships redundant.
- Q: Why are you doing this, donGÇÖt you have anything more important to do with your time?
A: What could possibly be more important? EVE skills and ships are one of the very core elements that make this game unique; however, they havenGÇÖt been touched in years, mainly as our attention was focused elsewhere. This is a part of our long-awaited effort to improve Flying In Space gameplay, requested by our player base for years, so how could this possibly not be worth our time?
- Q: Are you not aware you are dumbing the game down with such changes?
A: Dumbing down implies making the game simpler, easier in the long run. We are not only considering specializing skill trees, making sure they are consistent, implementing visual representation for them and the various EVE careers you can undertake, but attempting to rebalance most of the currently useless ships to provide more combat, industrial options in general. This actually is the opposite of dumbing the game down.
- Q: Training turret specialization requires you to go for small and medium skills first, are you considering changing this to make it consistent with this plan?
A: We havenGÇÖt considered this yet, but this definitely is something that needs to be extensively discussed indeed.
|
|
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1040
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:15:00 -
[1462] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: That means we will proceed slowly, one step at a time, starting with the ship classes that need the most love (most likely tech 1 frigates and destroyers), then moving our way up. This blog is describing future vision changes in an effort to increase transparency. We definitely want to have more blogs, discussion and feedback along the way.
Thanks for keeping us in the map and letting us to provide the comments we have. Lots of emotion in this thread and around this issue, but it will end up fine when corner stones find their places.
Get |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:16:00 -
[1463] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:-30 days capital ships training time ? CCP ruined this game with capitalships, but they need more capitalships in the game. Really we need this or they just want to create another ISK sink ??? For one, it'll only be 20 days by the time you get there as a new player GÇö the new requirements for destroyer and battlecruiser make sure of that. For another, -20 days compared to the 1GÇô2 years required to get a proper cap pilot trained is just a rounding error and will be gobbled up by accidentally straying from the plan every now and then anyway. Also, people planning to go for caps will do it sooner or later anyway so the ISK sinking won't be any different.
Oh andGǪ
CCP Ytterbium wrote: To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan.
This still leaves the question of Jump Freighters. They're pretty much the only ships right now that don't require the base hull skill at lvl V, and if you're going to apply the schema all over the place, this will have to changeGǪ
GǪbut doing so will require you to pretty much bump all Freighter IV-skilled characters to Freighter V if you're going to go with the GÇ£keep what you haveGÇ¥ philosophy, and it has a similar kind of GÇ£qualification bingoGÇ¥ as BCs GÇö does the character have Freighter IV, Jump Freighter I, and Jump Drive Calibration I? If so, bump to Freighter V; if notGǪ bwahahahah! 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. |
Kahz Niverrah
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:25:00 -
[1464] - Quote
Tippia wrote:it has a similar kind of GÇ£qualification bingoGÇ¥ as BCs GÇö does the character have Freighter IV, Jump Freighter I, and Jump Drive Calibration I? If so, bump to Freighter V; if notGǪ bwahahahah!
Remind me to buy the JF skillbook for my alt with Freighter IV... I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
Revman Zim
Babylon Holdings United Interstellar Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:26:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Patient 2428190 wrote:I love how you are going to give everybody who currently has Destroyers V and Battlecruisers V 6,144,000 skillpoints out of thin air.
You guys are truly idiotic.
What would be TRULY idiotic is for any current player, that has this knowledge, not to immediately start skilling Desy V and BC V.
I don't know how this will all play out, but CCP is basically telling you what to do to benefit from this, but only if you act.
I personally already have Desy V and BC V, however, I only have the the Amarr frig and cruiser skills to support flying those Destroyers and BC's.
Only 6 days to get the other 3 races frig and cruiser skills up to support flying their respective BC. Just in case....
If you are reading this and not preparing for the change, then you are the idiot.
Of course 4 months from now when they abandon this line of thinking there will be another 70+ page ragethread about how everyone got screwed. |
kyrieee
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:39:00 -
[1466] - Quote
You really shouldn't remove the BS V requirement for caps. Caps are the main reason people train it to V. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:40:00 -
[1467] - Quote
Kahz Niverrah wrote:Tippia wrote:it has a similar kind of GÇ£qualification bingoGÇ¥ as BCs GÇö does the character have Freighter IV, Jump Freighter I, and Jump Drive Calibration I? If so, bump to Freighter V; if notGǪ bwahahahah! Remind me to buy the JF skillbook for my alt with Freighter IV... Actually, that raises another important question: what are you (CCP) going to do with any free-floating or player-resold BC and Dessy skillbooks on the market and in people's hangars when the switch-over happens?
For those in hangars, one could imagine that a simple solution would be to simply replace them with a full set of racial BC books; for market-orders, maybe just cancel them and once again replace the returned books with a full set of racial variants. Or maybe just leave them be and set up a one-month (or whatever) respite period during which there are NPC buy orders for the books at the normal sell prices so people can trade them in for whatever new book(s) they would like. 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. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys EXPLO. KINETIK und ein wenig THERMAL
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:40:00 -
[1468] - Quote
ytterbium, thank you for your q&a. it clarifies the big questions. maybe you can link it very prominently in the very first post of this thread, so that guys who just read the dev blog do not rage-spam the same questions over and over again?
i really like this ship lines idea getting more refined and put into context with the rest of eve.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Q: Fail!!11!! ShouldnGÇÖt there be a Naga instead of the Rokh in the Caldari ship tree? A: There is a Rokh instead of a Naga because we used backgrounds from last year Fanfest presentation as they were looking great and suiting each tree theme. This choice was purely cosmetic. [/list]
i guess it is not the rokh in the backround which triggered the lol, but the one which replaces the little picture representing the naga next to the drake and ferox in the ship tree.
edit:
kyrieee wrote: You really shouldn't remove the BS V requirement for caps. Caps are the main reason people train it to V.
thats not quite true. it may be true for every cap-ship alt, but there are a lot of people who have other reasons. but lets here your arguments, if you have any despite "the training queue for caps is 30 days shorter. everybody will fly caps now". |
SwissChris1
Battlestars S E D I T I O N
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:44:00 -
[1469] - Quote
I got Battlecruiser V / Destroyer V and crosstrained all races...if you give me SP for all 4 races: 4x 1'536'000 + 4x 512'000 = 8'192'000 skillpoints ROFL...I doubt that's going to happen and you are just going to screw over all vets. The capital ship requirement skill change is very awesome though but please stop smoking crack |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:49:00 -
[1470] - Quote
SwissChris1 wrote:I got Battlecruiser V / Destroyer V and crosstrained all races...if you give me SP for all 4 races: 4x 1'536'000 + 4x 512'000 = 8'192'000 skillpoints ROFL...I doubt that's going to happen and you are just going to screw over all vets. This keeps coming up, and I just have to wonderGǪ
GǪwhy wouldn't they hand out the SP? All it does is make your clone more expensive, and it doesn't give you anything extra in return. So where does this assumption that it wouldn't/shouldn't happen come from? 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. |
|
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:50:00 -
[1471] - Quote
SwissChris1 wrote:I got Battlecruiser V / Destroyer V and crosstrained all races...if you give me SP for all 4 races: 4x 1'536'000 + 4x 512'000 = 8'192'000 skillpoints ROFL...I doubt that's going to happen and you are just going to screw over all vets. The capital ship requirement skill change is very awesome though but please stop smoking crack They already stated that if they do this, you WILL get the SP, tho your math is off as you will only gain for the SP for 3 races(you already had SP for 1).
You have a problem with that, yet like that they are encouraging noobs to fly carriers? Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Kahz Niverrah
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:53:00 -
[1472] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪwhy wouldn't they hand out the SP? All it does is make your clone more expensive, and it doesn't give you anything extra in return. So where does this assumption that it wouldn't/shouldn't happen come from? I think people are quietly rubbing their hands together, muttering "Excellent" under their breath, at the extra SP that new players will have to train to have the same skill in flying dessies / BCs. I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
Xyla Vulchanus
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:55:00 -
[1473] - Quote
So, there will be little incentive now to train cruiser V, BS V, etc. the current system isn't broken, so why fix it?
I am reassured somewhat by the fact they are going to implement these changes slowly over time (like sov, faction warfare, PI, etc) because it will clearly never get finished. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:57:00 -
[1474] - Quote
They would likely get a lot of backlash if they did this from the people who didnt manage to get Dest&BCV done in time (with the other skills at required levels)...
Last night I took my Caldari-Only char and injected some of those old "learning" SP's so I could get battleship 1 and cruiser III for the other races. After this change happens pro's will slap themselves if they miss out.
Even new players who feel they cant meet the deadline should try to perhaps get all battleship skills injected.
Also.... The ROKH picture people are talking about is in the tree under BattleCruisers - Not the picture in the background!..
|
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation
76
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:58:00 -
[1475] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Q: With the skill changes, I will have to train for [racial cruiser V] and [racial battlecruiser V] to train for a Command Ship, how does that make it easier for me? A: This is a misunderstanding, the changes don't work that way. While training for the next tech 1 ship class size will require that you train the racial skill to 4, training for the tech 2 version will only require the main racial skill at 5. That is the whole point with splitting destroyers and battlecruiser skills into four variants in the first place.
Example: Before, training for a Harbinger required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 3 and Battlecruisers at 2 Before, training for an Absolution required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruiser at 5 and Heavy Assault Ships at 4 Now, training for a Harbinger requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and then Amarr Battlecruiser at 1. Now, training for an Absolution requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and Amarr Battlecruiser at 5. There is no more need for the Amarr Cruiser 5 and Heavy Assault Ship at 4.]
So if i read this bit right...
Now, training for an Absolution requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and Amarr Battlecruiser at 5. There is no more need for the Amarr Cruiser 5 and Heavy Assault Ship at 4. ... because i have battle cruisers V, and not command ships, i will (after the change) be able to fly comand ships without training anything new???? (Command ships V is a looooong skill train) - Nulla Curas |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 12:59:00 -
[1476] - Quote
Xyla Vulchanus wrote:So, there will be little incentive now to train cruiser V, BS V, etc. There's exactly the same incentive as now: it gives you access to T2 and it gives you max performance for your T1 ships.
Quote:the current system isn't broken, so why fix it? Because it is kind of broken? What they're doing is making specialisation easier; FOTM-chasing harder, and opening up for a much cleaner way to introduce new roles and ship classes.
ChromeStriker wrote:So if i read this bit right...
Now, training for an Absolution requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and Amarr Battlecruiser at 5. There is no more need for the Amarr Cruiser 5 and Heavy Assault Ship at 4. ... because i have battle cruisers V, and not command ships, i will (after the change) be able to fly comand ships without training anything new???? You still have to train the Command Ship skill, which has its own set of prerequisites. It's just that they're removing HAC as a prereq for field command ships, and cruiser as the GÇ£hull skillsGÇ¥ requirement. In fact, I'll just repost my comparison from here:
Nighthawk:
Caldari Cruiser V (×5) Caldari Frigate IV (×2) Command Ships I (×8) Battlecruisers V (×6) Warfare Link Specialist IV (×6) Leadership V (×1) Spaceship Command V (×1) Heavy Assault Ship IV (×6) Assault Ships IV (×4) Engineering V (×1) Mechanic V (×1) Weapon Upgrades V (×2) Gunnery II (×1)
becomesGǪ
Caldari Battlecruiser V (×6) Caldari Cruiser IV (×5) Caldari Frigate IV (×2) Command Ships I (×6) Warfare Link Specialist IV (×6) Leadership V (×1) Spaceship Command V (×1)
Likewise, the Vulture will go from
Caldari Cruiser V (×5) Caldari Frigate IV (×2) Command Ships I (×8) Battlecruisers V (×6) Warfare Link Specialist IV (×6) Leadership V (×1) Spaceship Command V (×1) Logistics IV (×6) Signature Analysis V (×1) Long Range Targeting V (×2) Electronics II (×1)
GǪto having the exact same prereqs as the Nighthawk (for any other race's CS:es, just search/replace GÇ£CaldariGÇ¥ with whatever race you're looking at). So training BC V + Command Ships I will give you both field and fleet command ships without any additional training required. 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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:00:00 -
[1477] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium? I don't suppose I could get you to say that it won't be an SP reimbursement, but instead just sticking the new skills onto people, at the appropriate level? I'm pretty sure that's what you've been meaning, but it's also obvious some people are thinking they'll get the chance to respend the points at will.
As for Destroyers:
Typically, a destroyer is a fleet defense boat. It already handles the anti-frigate line ok, so how about something for handling fleet missile defense? Or maybe an E-Warfare role. Maybe something cloaky or Bomb defense related?
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
334
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:02:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: i guess it is not the rokh in the backround which triggered the lol, but the one which replaces the little picture representing the naga next to the drake and ferox in the ship tree.
Doh! I just noticed that on the ship tree Of course that's supposed to be the Naga, not the Rokh
FAIL, BAD YTTERBIUM, BAD. |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:03:00 -
[1479] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:... because i have battle cruisers V, and not command ships, i will (after the change) be able to fly comand ships without training anything new???? (Command ships V is a looooong skill train)
Other than the command ships skill (and it's requirements). That's not going anywhere. It's the tertiary skills that are.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:05:00 -
[1480] - Quote
OMG SNOT SHOT IS A CCP DEV!!!!
You have too many alts, Ytterbium. Starting to think we are all your alts
Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
334
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:05:00 -
[1481] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:... because i have battle cruisers V, and not command ships, i will (after the change) be able to fly comand ships without training anything new???? (Command ships V is a looooong skill train)
You will still need to train the Command Ship skill, which means having the leadership requirements like Warfare Link Specialist. |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
334
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:10:00 -
[1482] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:CCP Ytterbium? I don't suppose I could get you to say that it won't be an SP reimbursement, but instead just sticking the new skills onto people, at the appropriate level? I'm pretty sure that's what you've been meaning, but it's also obvious some people are thinking they'll get the chance to respend the points at will.
As for Destroyers:
Typically, a destroyer is a fleet defense boat. It already handles the anti-frigate line ok, so how about something for handling fleet missile defense? Or maybe an E-Warfare role. Maybe something cloaky or Bomb defense related?
Well reimbursement is tricky, can't say about details yet, because we still need to think about them. Whatever this is going to be SP reimbursement or just sticking new skills, or whatever options in the middle still need to be considered.
Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch *insert tinfoil hat theory here* |
|
Demolishar
Syndicalis Immortalis The Skeleton Crew
241
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:13:00 -
[1483] - Quote
I don't think any changes should be made to the training system like this. I trained certain things only as prerequesites for other things. If you are removing the need for these prerequesites then you should refund the SP from the prerequesites. For example, I would not need BSV to fly capitals - all BSV should be reimbursed. I would not need useless (to me) skills like Electronics Upgrades or Covert Ops to be able to fly Recons. I never wanted to fly covops, or have -5% less cpu use on my passive targeter and ship scanner. That's almost a million SP wasted completely.
I think it is foolish to consider such radical changes to a system that many of us have built our entire characters around. The changes are too radical to just reimburse the skills that are being removed and think everyone will be happy. I trained 2 BSVs to be able to fly two races capitals. That's 60 days training time. And that's only two of the many prerequisite skills that will be affected. That's -ú30 worth of gametime, effectively wiped out. Sure, I still have the SP, but it's worthless SP in skills that I don't actually want.
I urge CCP not to go ahead with changes to the existing skill system. Build on what is there already by all means, but don't change things that represent a huge time investment to players that they will not get back.
The only acceptable way to go through with this, in my eyes, is to reimburse all skillpoints that are in ship command, and all skillpoints that are in skills that are pre-requesite to any ship command skills. However, I still prefer this does not go ahead at all, as it is unnescessary. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:13:00 -
[1484] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch *insert tinfoil hat theory here*
It's because I'm that person's alt. They just don't know it. isn't dissociative personality disorder fun?
(It's not fun. No offense to people with actual mental illness.) FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1040
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:18:00 -
[1485] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:CCP Ytterbium? I don't suppose I could get you to say that it won't be an SP reimbursement, but instead just sticking the new skills onto people, at the appropriate level? I'm pretty sure that's what you've been meaning, but it's also obvious some people are thinking they'll get the chance to respend the points at will.
As for Destroyers:
Typically, a destroyer is a fleet defense boat. It already handles the anti-frigate line ok, so how about something for handling fleet missile defense? Or maybe an E-Warfare role. Maybe something cloaky or Bomb defense related?
Well reimbursement is tricky, can't say about details yet, because we still need to think about them. Whatever this is going to be SP reimbursement or just sticking new skills, or whatever options in the middle still need to be considered. Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch *insert tinfoil hat theory here* If defender missiles would target any incoming unfriendly missile (including those heading towards fleet members too), this kind of role would be rather easy to create. It would also work in certain type of pve content.
Get |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:19:00 -
[1486] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:CCP Ytterbium? I don't suppose I could get you to say that it won't be an SP reimbursement, but instead just sticking the new skills onto people, at the appropriate level? I'm pretty sure that's what you've been meaning, but it's also obvious some people are thinking they'll get the chance to respend the points at will.
As for Destroyers:
Typically, a destroyer is a fleet defense boat. It already handles the anti-frigate line ok, so how about something for handling fleet missile defense? Or maybe an E-Warfare role. Maybe something cloaky or Bomb defense related?
Well reimbursement is tricky, can't say about details yet, because we still need to think about them. Whatever this is going to be SP reimbursement or just sticking new skills, or whatever options in the middle still need to be considered. Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch *insert tinfoil hat theory here* One actual question for you. I only have destroyers to 2(because dessies were not that good when I was at that point in the game). I am currently training various capital skills. When I go to inject/train dreadnaught(as an example), will I have an issue(either way) because I lack that very deeply nested prereq, or will dreadnaught only check for BS skill and capital skill? Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:36:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:One actual question for you. I only have destroyers to 2(because dessies were not that good when I was at that point in the game). I am currently training various capital skills. When I go to inject/train dreadnaught(as an example), will I have an issue(either way) because I lack that very deeply nested prereq, or will dreadnaught only check for BS skill and capital skill?
No, the dreadnaught skill (or any skill) only cares about it's direct prerequisits. If those are trained it can be injected (and trained). Once a skill is injected in can be trained even if you lose the prerequisites as far as I know, but of course this normally can't happen
This was actually answered in the devblog, even though it was not exactly explained in immense detail:CCP Ytterbium wrote:If and when such changes occur, we would remove the generic Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills, reimburse the skill points (and possibly the cost) not to penalize players. Due to the way nested requirements work, it would also mean pilots would not need to re-train anything to fly Battleships or Cruisers. All of this is work in progress of course and subject to change, especially since we are still discussing skill reimbursement options. |
Valei Khurelem
433
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:41:00 -
[1488] - Quote
I was about to prepare myself for a wall of text rant about the way CCP are ******* up the balance yet again, but this actually looks fairly promising. The only problem is you're doing it on tranquility, if you want to keep the current playerbase you should make a seperate server for those who actually like this current balance system ( god knows why ) but you may as well cater to them first.
I'm actually impressed CCP, well done, just don't go the star wars galaxies route and you'll be fine.
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:49:00 -
[1489] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: - Q: If you want to make skills consistent, why donGÇÖt you make all of them generic instead of inserting racial variants for destroyer and battlecruiser classes?
A: That is mainly because turning all ship racial skills into generic copies would achieve the opposite of what we want to fix here: having access to too many hulls by training one skill. Besides, it would create even large skill reimbursement issues, as we would now have to merge all four racial copies of frigate, cruiser, battleship and capital skills into one.
There are ways to handle that but it looks like you just don't care about that.
Oh, and please help me, what is bad about "having access to too many hulls by training one skill"? I can't accept that argument, since you could also use it to introduce racial T2 ship skills. Hence, your argumentation is inconsistent.
edit: answer provided by Tippia a few post down |
Simvastatin Montelukast
Irregular Warfare Mean Coalition
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:56:00 -
[1490] - Quote
75 pages.
Is there anyway to get an updated Dev blog? or make the first page full of Dev updates, comments?
Thank you
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 13:59:00 -
[1491] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote:Oh, and please help me, what is bad about "having access to too many hulls by training one skill"? I can't accept that argument, since you could also use it to introduce racial T2 ship skills. Hence, your argumentation is inconsistent. The devil's in the detailsGǪ
T2 ship skills allow you access to any hulls GÇö they just unlock special versions of hulls you can already fly. If you train Caldari Cruiser, you gain access to the Osprey, Blackbird, Caracal and Moa hulls. If you train Logistics, you gain access to absolutely nothing. However, if you train Caldari Cruiser and Logistics, you gain access to the Osprey hull and its Basilisk variant.
It's all in the theoretical bit at the end: ships are basically slotted into a big matrix of hulls and roles, with the T1 skills deciding which hulls you can use and the T2 skills deciding what specialities you've unlocked. 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. |
Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:04:00 -
[1492] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch *insert tinfoil hat theory here*
One of the devs started a thread a while back (could even be a year or two now ) asking for ideas for "non combat / utility" destroyer sized roles... might be worth a look at.
Come to think of it, it was shortly before the Noctis was released... which was suspicious as the most common idea was a dedicated salvage hull.
My googlefu is failing me on finding it to link though Curiosity killed the Kata...
... but being immortal he wasn't too worried about keeping a count. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:06:00 -
[1493] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:Oh, and please help me, what is bad about "having access to too many hulls by training one skill"? I can't accept that argument, since you could also use it to introduce racial T2 ship skills. Hence, your argumentation is inconsistent. The devil's in the detailsGǪ T2 ship skills allow you access to any hulls GÇö they just unlock special versions of hulls you can already fly. If you train Caldari Cruiser, you gain access to the Osprey, Blackbird, Caracal and Moa hulls. If you train Logistics, you gain access to absolutely nothing. However, if you train Caldari Cruiser and Logistics, you gain access to the Osprey hull and its Basilisk variant. It's all in the theoretical bit at the end: ships are basically slotted into a big matrix of hulls and roles, with the T1 skills deciding which hulls you can use and the T2 skills deciding what specialities you've unlocked.
Thx, Tippia |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2359
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:06:00 -
[1494] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:Oh, and please help me, what is bad about "having access to too many hulls by training one skill"? I can't accept that argument, since you could also use it to introduce racial T2 ship skills. Hence, your argumentation is inconsistent. The devil's in the detailsGǪ T2 ship skills allow you access to any hulls GÇö they just unlock special versions of hulls you can already fly. If you train Caldari Cruiser, you gain access to the Osprey, Blackbird, Caracal and Moa hulls. If you train Logistics, you gain access to absolutely nothing. However, if you train Caldari Cruiser and Logistics, you gain access to the Osprey hull and its Basilisk variant. It's all in the theoretical bit at the end: ships are basically slotted into a big matrix of hulls and roles, with the T1 skills deciding which hulls you can use and the T2 skills deciding what specialities you've unlocked.
That is exactly how the Battlecruisers and Destroyers skills work. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:08:00 -
[1495] - Quote
Andski wrote:That is exactly how the Battlecruisers and Destroyers skills work. GǪexcept that they do unlock hulls, unlike the T2 skills.
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. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:10:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tippia wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:Oh, and please help me, what is bad about "having access to too many hulls by training one skill"? I can't accept that argument, since you could also use it to introduce racial T2 ship skills. Hence, your argumentation is inconsistent. The devil's in the detailsGǪ T2 ship skills allow you access to any hulls GÇö they just unlock special versions of hulls you can already fly. If you train Caldari Cruiser, you gain access to the Osprey, Blackbird, Caracal and Moa hulls. If you train Logistics, you gain access to absolutely nothing. However, if you train Caldari Cruiser and Logistics, you gain access to the Osprey hull and its Basilisk variant. It's all in the theoretical bit at the end: ships are basically slotted into a big matrix of hulls and roles, with the T1 skills deciding which hulls you can use and the T2 skills deciding what specialities you've unlocked. That is exactly how the Battlecruisers and Destroyers skills work.
Well, I just hope that if they do that racial destroyer (and battlecruiser) skill, they will at least introduce more destroyer hull! Having to train one skill providing access to a hull class with one T1 ship per race only to get on to cruisers is really a very bad idea!
But hey that's the way CCP Ytterbium wants to go as it seems. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:11:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tippia wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:Oh, and please help me, what is bad about "having access to too many hulls by training one skill"? I can't accept that argument, since you could also use it to introduce racial T2 ship skills. Hence, your argumentation is inconsistent. The devil's in the detailsGǪ T2 ship skills allow you access to any hulls GÇö they just unlock special versions of hulls you can already fly. If you train Caldari Cruiser, you gain access to the Osprey, Blackbird, Caracal and Moa hulls. If you train Logistics, you gain access to absolutely nothing. However, if you train Caldari Cruiser and Logistics, you gain access to the Osprey hull and its Basilisk variant. It's all in the theoretical bit at the end: ships are basically slotted into a big matrix of hulls and roles, with the T1 skills deciding which hulls you can use and the T2 skills deciding what specialities you've unlocked. That is exactly how the Battlecruisers and Destroyers skills work.
The T2 skills let you access variations of ships you can already fly. Generally limited in some fashion, and with other entry requirements.
Battlecruiser only has a spaceship command requirement (like the other T1 ship types) and lets you use entirely new hulls. Of which there are then T2 versions. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2359
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:12:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Andski wrote:That is exactly how the Battlecruisers and Destroyers skills work. GǪexcept that they do unlock hulls, unlike the T2 skills.
They don't unlock any hulls on their own. I currently have BC 4 and I can't fly a Harbinger, simply because I don't have Amarr Cruiser III. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:16:00 -
[1499] - Quote
Andski wrote:They don't unlock any hulls on their own. I currently have BC 4 and I can't fly a Harbinger, simply because I don't have Amarr Cruiser III. Sure, but they still unlock hulls, unlike the T2 skills. That's why they're inconsistent and are now being shoved back into their proper place. 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. |
Alsyth
Night Warder
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:18:00 -
[1500] - Quote
As a crosstrained T2 Cruiser/BC focused character, I really don't like this "racial battlecruiser" idea... I don't want to spend 4,5M new SPs just to be able to fly all my command ships again.
We crosstrainers already have to skill many weapon systems, all lvl5 cruisers... All lvl5 racial BC on top of that??? Really CCP...
What's the point in making capital ship that much easier to skill for, besides? 0.0 farming/repping alts? So bad...
I don't know CCP, try to favor crosstraining, making the first cruiser you skill for rank 5, the second rank 4, the third rank 3, the fourth rank 2 ??? Same with BC, rank 6-5-4-3, and so on?
|
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:21:00 -
[1501] - Quote
And fix the Eris please, asap. I was so excited when I just got the skills to fly it, and then I tried to fit it, and almost cried. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:21:00 -
[1502] - Quote
Andski wrote:Tippia wrote:Andski wrote:That is exactly how the Battlecruisers and Destroyers skills work. GǪexcept that they do unlock hulls, unlike the T2 skills. They don't unlock any hulls on their own. I currently have BC 4 and I can't fly a Harbinger, simply because I don't have Amarr Cruiser III.
And the T2 skills don't unlock any hulls. The Battlecruiser and destroyer skills do.
the Scimitar isn't a new hull. It's a modified Scythe. The Hurricane is a new hull. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:22:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:As a crosstrained T2 Cruiser/BC focused character, I really don't like this "racial battlecruiser" idea... I don't want to spend 4,5M new SPs just to be able to fly all my command ships again.
We crosstrainers already have to skill many weapon systems, all lvl5 cruisers... All lvl5 racial BC on top of that??? Really CCP...
What's the point in making capital ship that much easier to skill for, besides? 0.0 farming/repping alts? So bad...
I don't know CCP, try to favor crosstraining, making the first cruiser you skill for rank 5, the second rank 4, the third rank 3, the fourth rank 2 ??? Same with BC, rank 6-5-4-3, and so on?
Can we report people for not reading the freaking OP, and just making knee jerk posts? Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:22:00 -
[1504] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:As a crosstrained T2 Cruiser/BC focused character, I really don't like this "racial battlecruiser" idea... I don't want to spend 4,5M new SPs just to be able to fly all my command ships again.
Still? People /still/ aren't reading the links from the very first post on this topic?
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:25:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:As a crosstrained T2 Cruiser/BC focused character, I really don't like this "racial battlecruiser" idea... I don't want to spend 4,5M new SPs just to be able to fly all my command ships again. Go read the OP and the links in it.
Quote:What's the point in making capital ship that much easier to skill for, besides? It's not that much easier. 20 days less on a project that stretches over one or two years is an insignificantly minute change.
Quote:I don't know CCP, try to favor crosstraining No. Nerf-proofing yourself and/or chasing the FOTM should be hideously costly. 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. |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:25:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Mike Whiite wrote: The fact every body flies them very often (almost every players guide tells you to rush to your racial Battlecruiser) points out exactly why it is broken.
You do realize that this is because BCs are the largest ship that are still fairly forgiving of a lack of skillpoints in support skills, right? Once you get into BS and T2 ships, those 2s and 3s in armor comp skills and navigation skills just don't cut it anymore. BCs are the current ship of the line for smaller gangs of less experienced players, while battleships are for larger fleets (where a few people short on SP is averaged out of existance) and more experienced players in small gangs tend to favor T2 and faction frigs/cruisers. That is why you are told to rush to BC when you start the game(also, :drake:)
If that where true why are 5 of the top 20 ships Battlecruisers, 4 of the top 10, 3 of the top 5 and 2 of the top 3.
those are responceble of more than half of the total kills.
only 4 other t1 (non faction) hold that list
2 battleships 1 destroyer and 1 frigate.
Now ofcourse I don't know how you define experienced, but it would mean:
1) there are very few experienced players according to your definition 2) Experienced players shoot eachother but don't kill eachother very often. 3) Or many people including experienced players fly Battlecruisers
I would go with 3: and if there is a game where every body uses the same toy, it means that it, or all the others are broken.
Source
ofcourse these are only PvP figures, but there are quite some people flying Battlecruisers in PVE as well, although that is ofcourse pure speculation. |
Jhaelee de'Auvrie
The Peerage Amarr 7th Fleet
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:26:00 -
[1507] - Quote
In the end this sounds like it will be the GÇ£Learning SkillsGÇ¥ issue all over again a huge change that affects a lot of how training time works. Much like the learning skills, it mostly affects the older characters and players who have gotten used to how things have always been. For those characters that are newer or are created after the change has been implemented, it will likely just be an improvement.
The real question I have at this point is if they are planning on splitting the Command Ships into two skills? On the little charts, the Recons are pair up, despite having different roles but the Command Ships are pointedly split and titled with their role title. |
Alsyth
Night Warder
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:32:00 -
[1508] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Alsyth wrote:As a crosstrained T2 Cruiser/BC focused character, I really don't like this "racial battlecruiser" idea... I don't want to spend 4,5M new SPs just to be able to fly all my command ships again. Go read the OP and the links in it. Quote:What's the point in making capital ship that much easier to skill for, besides? It's not that much easier. 20 days less on a project that stretches over one or two years is an insignificantly minute change. Quote:I don't know CCP, try to favor crosstraining No. Nerf-proofing yourself and/or chasing the FOTM should be hideously costly.
CCP giving me 4.5M free SP won't make it any better if my new pvp recruits have to spend 6M SP instead of 1.5M to be efficient crosstrainers.
This "you won't have to re-train for something you can already fly" is fine, but not satisfying for new characters. And I care about new characters too.
Capital alt trained for remote repping carriers are already too easy to have imo.
Crosstraining is not "nerf proofing" or "FOTM chasing", it's just being versatile, which is very important in pvp. And it's already costly (guns and missiles, racial cruisers, frigs, BSs, shield and armor tanking...). |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:37:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:Oh, and please help me, what is bad about "having access to too many hulls by training one skill"? I can't accept that argument, since you could also use it to introduce racial T2 ship skills. Hence, your argumentation is inconsistent. The devil's in the detailsGǪ T2 ship skills allow you access to any hulls GÇö they just unlock special versions of hulls you can already fly. If you train Caldari Cruiser, you gain access to the Osprey, Blackbird, Caracal and Moa hulls. If you train Logistics, you gain access to absolutely nothing. However, if you train Caldari Cruiser and Logistics, you gain access to the Osprey hull and its Basilisk variant. It's all in the theoretical bit at the end: ships are basically slotted into a big matrix of hulls and roles, with the T1 skills deciding which hulls you can use and the T2 skills deciding what specialities you've unlocked. I was about to answer his questions, but then I saw your post. Excellent explanation
Andski wrote:That is exactly how the Battlecruisers and Destroyers skills work. No, it isn't! They give access to hulls, meaning T1 base versions, not specialized variants. Yet they are cross-race, like T2. In order to make Battlecruisers themselves race-specific they also require the cruiser skill. But they are NOT cruisers or variants of cruisers, as HACs f.ex. are (which therefore require racial cruiser V)! They are clearly their own size-class.
This is sort of a hack that initially made sense because when they were introduced there was just one BC per race, it's rather clear why they didn't want to sqeeze in a new skill (between cruiser and BS) at the time. Now though we have 3 per race, we have T2 specializations that build on the hulls (Command ships). This also goes for Destroyers (the specialization part), and Ytterbium has acknowledged that there is an issue there (possibly creating more variants or finding another solution). |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:39:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Mike Whiite wrote: The fact every body flies them very often (almost every players guide tells you to rush to your racial Battlecruiser) points out exactly why it is broken.
You do realize that this is because BCs are the largest ship that are still fairly forgiving of a lack of skillpoints in support skills, right? Once you get into BS and T2 ships, those 2s and 3s in armor comp skills and navigation skills just don't cut it anymore. BCs are the current ship of the line for smaller gangs of less experienced players, while battleships are for larger fleets (where a few people short on SP is averaged out of existance) and more experienced players in small gangs tend to favor T2 and faction frigs/cruisers. That is why you are told to rush to BC when you start the game(also, :drake:) If that where true why are 5 of the top 20 ships Battlecruisers, 4 of the top 10, 3 of the top 5 and 2 of the top 3. those are responceble of more than half of the total kills. only 4 other t1 (non faction) hold that list 2 battleships 1 destroyer and 1 frigate. Now ofcourse I don't know how you define experienced, but it would mean: 1) there are very few experienced players according to your definition 2) Experienced players shoot eachother but don't kill eachother very often. 3) Or t many people including experienced players fly Battlecruisers I would go with 3: and if there is a game where every body uses the same toy, it means that it, or all the others are broken. Sourceofcourse these are only PvP figures, but there are quite some people flying Battlecruisers in PVE as well, although that is ofcourse pure speculation. By 'experienced' I was referring to SP values.
And ofc BCs are the most flown, because they are the common denominator between different groups. They are, as I said the easiest big ship for a rookie to get into, and its not like they become less useful as you gain skills. They are mobile, and versatile. Perfect non-specialized ship class, it does everything it might do decently to well(based on pilot skill), with very few actual vulnerabilities. As a class they need very few adjustments. The cane is a perfect example of this, since you can refit it to do anything, tho a specialized ship will do it better.
Drakes do, admittedly, break my point because they do everything TOO well, but they are being adjusted to fix that.
Thats what a battlecruiser class should be. A ship used for medium to long range patrols, designed to stand on its own against a variety of threats. Battleships are for actual war, and cruisers are more short range by nature(tho should fill roughly the same role).
So, to sum up, you find it remarkable that a ship class that should, by definition, be the most versatile of them all, and is the easiest large warship to get into, is the most used?
Sources for definition of Battlecruiser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser which names it an evolution of this that focuses more on speed less on armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_cruiser
Feel free to tell me that the terms have nothing to do with real life Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:40:00 -
[1511] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:CCP giving me 4.5M free SP won't make it any better if my new pvp recruits have to spend 6M SP instead of 1.5M to be efficient crosstrainers.
This "you won't have to re-train for something you can already fly" is fine, but not satisfying for new characters. And I care about new characters too. New characters don't need all four BCs at lvl V. That's a long-term project, and making it a bit harder isn't all that bad. New characters will have it a lot easier now that the T2 requirements are reduced GÇö you can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less after these changes.
Quote:Crosstraining is not "nerf proofing" or "FOTM chasing", it's just being versatile GǪwhich makes you nerf-proof and which lets you go for the FOTM, both of which should be quite costly.
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. |
Zaxix
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:58:00 -
[1512] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:This also covers the question with the Jump Freighters. While Freighters may only require [Racial Industrial 4] to train, Jump Freighters will not be split up. Thank you for the clarification. I will go fret about something else now. Red Frog--Hisec Courier Black Frog--Losec/Nosec Courier
|
Alsyth
Night Warder
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 14:58:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Alsyth wrote:CCP giving me 4.5M free SP won't make it any better if my new pvp recruits have to spend 6M SP instead of 1.5M to be efficient crosstrainers.
This "you won't have to re-train for something you can already fly" is fine, but not satisfying for new characters. And I care about new characters too. New characters don't need all four BCs at lvl V. That's a long-term project, and making it a bit harder isn't all that bad. New characters will have it a lot easier now that the T2 requirements are reduced GÇö you can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less after these changes.
New character usually don't go for T2 cruisers as they are expensive, while being able to switch between average-skilled Drake, Cane and Myrmidon is not -that- skill intensive, but VERY interesting for a pvp character.
"you can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less after these changes." -> it's not true, unless they lower the SP cost of skills. Or unless you're speaking of your capital and CS alt instead of a real character. A real pvp character will train HAC and Cruiser 5 before CS ANYWAY. Will crosstrain ANYWAY, at least 2 races.
Tippia wrote:Quote:Crosstraining is not "nerf proofing" or "FOTM chasing", it's just being versatile GǪwhich makes you nerf-proof and which lets you go for the FOTM, both of which should be quite costly.
You don't understand. You don't do pvp, do you? Or only 0.0 or fleetfights? You aren't crosstrained either?
You should know that crosstraining is already costly, and this idea of CCP won't make it any harder EXCEPT for BC, CS and destroyers/interdictors pilots.
You should know that as far as small gang pvp goes, being versatile is more important than being skilled all5, or able to fly every ship of a given race. And it doesnt have anything to do with FOTM or nerfproof, it's just being EFFICIENT in pvp. |
TheButcherPete
Titan Inc. Bloodbound.
96
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:07:00 -
[1514] - Quote
I'm okay with this change, as long as either: CCP gives us the new skills to 5, like if we had Battlecruisers 5 beforehand, we should get Amarr/Minmatar/Gallente/Caldari Battlecruisers 5.
or, CCP reimburses Skill Points at a rate of 1.5x minimum, skills needing 1.024m sp to obtain lvl 5 will be reimbursed at 1.536m at least.
or, they could just screw us and tell the playerbase to retrain. /me shrugs
My moncole doubles as a cigarette lighter, a flashlight, a laser and x-ray goggles. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm in love with Punkturis. -á-á-á
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:17:00 -
[1515] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:New character usually don't go for T2 cruisers as they are expensive, while being able to switch between average-skilled Drake, Cane and Myrmidon is not -that- skill intensive, but VERY interesting for a pvp character. GǪand now the T2 cruisers aren't that skill intensive either, and will thus become more interesting for a PvP character.
Quote:"you can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less after these changes." -> it's not true, unless they lower the SP cost of skills. It's true because you don't need to train as much to get those ships.
Quote:You don't understand. You don't do pvp, do you? Or only 0.0 or fleetfights? You aren't crosstrained either? Resorting to idiotic assumptions is fun, isn't it? Crosstraining costs, but it's not all that much and this doesn't change it in any significant way. Also, if you had actually looked into the matter rather than just go on an assumption spree, you would have noticed that it drastically reduces the amount of training for CS and dictor pilots.
Quote:You should know that as far as small gang pvp goes, being versatile is more important than being skilled all5 GǪwhich means that the additional cost for cross-training isn't nearly as big as you claim it is. And no matter how much you don't use it that way, denying that it has anything to do with FOTM-chasing and nerf-proofing just shows that you haven't really though that hard about the matter, since those are very common reason for people to cross-train. Versatility can be had without cross-training by picking ships that are inherently versatile. 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. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:22:00 -
[1516] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Q: Isn't forcing us to train [Racial Destroyer] at 4 is lame considering there is only one ship for each race? A: absolutely, we have been discussing that before this blog went out, and we will keep considering options until we come up with a solution that improves this situation. One way could be adding more destroyer hulls, if we can find a role for them.
CCP Ytterbium,
Go for the T2 cloak hunter destroyer for this!
Pros: - There will be a way to fight agains cloaked ships. - There will be more players in null-sec and WH Space if there are less griefers and afk cloakers to provent their gameplay. - There will be more industrials in Null-sec, since more minners will be able to mine there again without worring with an afk cloaker hotdrop. - There will be more action on eve, on a hide and seek style. - Possibility to add a new destroyer hull and a T2 variant. - If there is a feature, there should be a counter for it, but there is nothing against cloak yet. - More game content!
Cons ( But not really): - A minority of players that have fun leaving their char afk in enemy territory will have to actually play. ( And they will not be happy) - A minority of player that uses bot that cloaks when neutrals enter the system will have to put aside the bot and actually play ( And they will not be happy ) - More skills to train to specialize on this. - Complainers will complain anyway. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:23:00 -
[1517] - Quote
Hi, Ytterbium! Your answers overall seem sound, but I'd like to address one thing.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Q: With the skill changes, I will have to train for [racial cruiser V] and [racial battlecruiser V] to train for a Command Ship, how does that make it easier for me?
A: This is a misunderstanding, the changes don't work that way. While training for the next tech 1 ship class size will require that you train the racial skill to 4, training for the tech 2 version will only require the main racial skill at 5. That is the whole point with splitting destroyers and battlecruiser skills into four variants in the first place.
Example: Before, training for a Harbinger required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 3 and Battlecruisers at 2 Before, training for an Absolution required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruiser at 5 and Heavy Assault Ships at 4 Now, training for a Harbinger requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and then Amarr Battlecruiser at 1. Now, training for an Absolution requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and Amarr Battlecruiser at 5. There is no more need for the Amarr Cruiser 5 and Heavy Assault Ship at 4.
Here's the thing that makes me a sad nublet who loves flying all four races: this method penalizes you the more you crosstrain if you are not all about command ships and nothing else. It is, I think, a difference in perception of how much time one devotes to training for a command ship. I will do my best to explain why I made a sad face, even though technically I should be dancing around the house because it technically takes less time to train for command ships. (I'll focus on command ships since there are more tragic things in the world than training a 2x to V to unlock a single ship, but as that does seem silly I hope you'll look into more T2 destroyers to make it really worthwhile. I'll also forgo the discussion of how one 6x currently makes a bucketful of T1 ships awesome and people loved that, since it seems that this is something that you found suboptimal and I'll let the Drake lovers fight that one out.)
If you just want command ships, all the command ships, to have and to hold and to have no other, then yes, this is a step up. Overall you will come out ahead, because you train a 6x four times. Currently you have to train a 6x once and a 5x four times and that's pretty sad for someone specializing in command ships, since they have a mess of other 5x skills to train if they're going for booster roles. You're also eliminating the other T2 ship requirements, which cuts down on the time some more. Hooray!
For those who are not specialized toons and want to fly more than one race of command ships, this feels like a step down. This is a perception issue, I will admit, but when many people think about training for command ships, the single 6x of BC V is the major training hurdle. There are so many other reasons to train a cruiser to V that that 5x doesn't matter to them. They probably already have the racial cruisers they want to V by the time they're looking at command ships or plan to pick up other races as they train the cruiser to V for super mega T2 ship crosstrain goodness. So, to these people, now it feels like that single 6x has become up to four 6x skills. Cue forumrage.
I understand that the goal may be to make it so that training a cruiser to V doesn't unlock as much T2 goodness. If that's what you're aiming for, okay, I see why you've done this. That's fair. But for people for whom training multiple cruisers to V is just something you do without thinking about it, the new system doesn't feel as good.
I see that this unlocks the potential for a lot of awesome new ships in the future. If you're thinking thinky thoughts about introducing more T2 battlecruisers/destroyers to make the separate racial training really worthwhile, I will be thrilled to bits (recon battlecruisers pls). Likewise, pirate battlecruisers have been on my wishlist. But right now, under the current circumstances, I'm not as thrilled because in my mind, training racial cruisers to 5x had nothing to do with command ships other than "these are the races I'll be able to fly when I finish a single 6x", and command ships are the big reason that I trained (well, am training -- here's to having that in my training plan before it was cool) that 6x.
Thanks for being so responsive; I hope you'll take the time to address this. |
Sephira Galamore
Nemesis Holdings Corp Luna Sanguinem
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:32:00 -
[1518] - Quote
While I like the general idea, I also like the fact that Destroyers and Battlecruisers currently have an in-between role. The are supposed to use the same size of guns and the same size of other class-specific modules (the new BCs excluded). So why not proceed like you wrote in the article BUT leave the Destroyer->Cruiser and BC->BS dependency out. Just as now, you wouldn't have to train BC for battleships, but the racial(!) BC skill is relevant for the T2 variant as you suggested in the blog. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:37:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Roime wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:
As an example, I don't want the mining bonus to increase for an osprey, because CCP want more people to use it for mining. I want it to get another high slot and turret point. This can open up a whole new set of possibilities for the osprey to be used for more than just mining/logistics.
What is being discussed in this thread implies the former case (CCP sayeth this ship shall do this). CCP is a successful company, because they leave the game so open ended. Pigeonholing any t1 hull into a specific role is detrimental to the one thing that sets eve apart from all other successful MMOs: The Sandbox.
I disagree with this. Increasing the combat abilities of T1 special-purpose ships to a competitive level is impossible from a balancing point of view. What would happen to the pure combat cruisers, if the logis and ewars had equal combat stats? Right, the combat ships would not be used, because they wouldn't have anything special. Celestis with more drone bay, grid, turret slots and tank? Obsoletes Vexor. Celestis with more damping? Makes it a viable addition to a fleet. Also, consider the bigger picture- do we want more, similar general combat ships and fleets consisting mainly of those, emphasizing numbers and F1-F8 tactics? Or combat that emphasizes the efficient use of force multipliers, requiring more tactical planning and rewarding competency? In the end I find specialization the right solution.
I'm not saying that can't happen. I'm saying that relying on those stats to make the ship more usable is a bad idea. The level of specialization that you're talking about is achieved with Tech 2.
Let's look at your example the other way around. I want to fit my caracal with an electronic warfare tank. It has enough mid slots that I could put sensor damps on or ECM. Because this caracal still has the CPU for it, I can still fit heavy missiles allowing me to contribute to the fleet dps. This allows me to sacrifice the ability to take a direct hit for the ability to remove someone from the fight for a duration, reducing overall damage that my fleet is taking.
Again, I'm not saying that all ships should be equally good at all roles. I simply wish to allow that kind of change of tactics if the situation warrants it. I'm with you in allowing more force multipliers. I'm just talking about doing it with allowing more modules, rather than boosting the use of some modules to the point that it is senseless to use anything but those modules. |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:41:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:As an example, I don't want the mining bonus to increase for an osprey, because CCP want more people to use it for mining. I want it to get another high slot and turret point. This can open up a whole new set of possibilities for the osprey to be used for more than just mining/logistics. When is the last time you really say someone use an osprey for anything other than mining/pos repping unless it was for a lark? We discuss trying to work those T1 logis into fleets all the time, but in the end it just doesn't happen.
I would say that it's not seeing any fleet action because of it's limited utility. It can't damage anything significantly. It can't exactly fit a lot of EW to go along with it's garbage dps. It's ability to survive any kind of direct onslaught or keep range is worse than it's potential dps. These are the reasons why you don't see them in fleets. These reasons are what need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Making a ship that can't move, can't take a hit, remote rep more isn't going to make it more viable in a fleet. |
|
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:45:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:What a bold move. I congratulate CCP for taking the bull by the horns on this one. Ship balancing has gradually become a more and more polarised issue with an ever decreasing proportion of ships being used by the majority as time and tweaks have progressed.
I trust you to find a suitable way around the 'ships-I-can-currently-fly' dilemma. I applaud anything that adds skill that, as an older player, I would want to train. My skill training has largely been without a driven goal for the past 1-2 years and it has definitely been missed.
As for your analogies for the new ship lines I do have some criticism, hopefully constructive;
"Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller."
Ok, taking this as your opening definition lets accept this a s a baseline comparison.
"Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon."
Firstly, hit-and-run would require major changes to the mobility of these ships to result in them all being as effective as the hurricane in this role (the only one I'd say currently fits this description here) This leaves you with a quandary. The cane works because it has an extended engagement range due to it's autocannon weapon systems - how would you overcome this for blasters? Drones take too long to travel to the target and are easily destroyed - unlike any other weapon system in eve. How do you envisage this being able to work in this role? We have seen previously the rise and fall of nano-ships yet you have listed several battleships on this list. If they are to become hit and run does this mean you will countenance the return of nano-ships to a degree? If so, what about the previous problems this led to for other ships, being unable to engage this form of piloting? Finally - flanking does not exist as a concept in eve combat - for that matter almost no nuance of tactical planning matters. The only contributory factor to a fleet's success is calling the rights targets in order and having everyone shoot it. If you have some way to introduce the viability of other tactical decisions then that would be more ground-breaking than a ship balance.
"Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal."
There is no pinning down of an enemy by firepower. Only tacklers can do this. You have imagined a role that cannot exist within eve. What you have done here is to condemn these ships to the second or third rate combat ship pile in one fell swoop. Artillery has an advantage of being non-direct fire- yet everything in eve is direct-fire. Artillery does not require line-of-sight but can be directed by a spotter from tremendous range (off-grid essentially), yet eve has only line-of-sight (on-grid). Without major changes to the game, which are so far beyond what is technically possible without a huge rewrite of combat mechanics, then this role is a ship graveyard.
"Support vessels: mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator"
With average defence and mobility these ships will die quickly at their operational ranges; currently they have fair to good defences and mobility. Lowering this relative to the combat ability of other ships will render them almost entirely useless - not in role but in their ability to function in that role on a battlefield. Also there is a major distinction between support vessels of an aggressive nature (electronic warfare) and of a logistical nature (remote reps). Grouping these 2 classes together might simplify a chart, but leads to incorrect assumptions about the very different needs of these 2 ship types.
I very much hope that CCP can pull this off. It will not, and never could, keep all the player-base happy - but then no changes of this magnitude could ever do that. The changes alluded to are very much needed however and CCP has my support at least in this endeavour, but please tread carefully. Your initial outlines are naive at best, misguided by non-existent functionality at worst. Remeber how eve works before you make these changes, otherwise you'll merely trade one set of useless ships for a different set and that will be a serious failure to seize a wonderful opportunity and would set eve in it's current rut for another half-decade.
Quoting for Truth. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:45:00 -
[1522] - Quote
I'd like to throw in an observation about this statement made earlier discussing various ship roles as decribed in the Blog.
Quote:There is no pinning down of an enemy by firepower. Only tacklers can do this. You have imagined a role that cannot exist within eve. What you have done here is to condemn these ships to the second or third rate combat ship pile in one fell swoop. Artillery has an advantage of being non-direct fire- yet everything in eve is direct-fire. Artillery does not require line-of-sight but can be directed by a spotter from tremendous range (off-grid essentially), yet eve has only line-of-sight (on-grid). Without major changes to the game, which are so far beyond what is technically possible without a huge rewrite of combat mechanics, then this role is a ship graveyard.
First, I believe he was throwing out general examples that people could associate with real life easily.
However, your point does bring something to mind.
While it is true that you cannot gain the advantage for missile ships to "pin down" a ship during combat (unless they gain the ability to knock a ship out of alignment), perhaps it is time to offer (in addition to the standard line up of missiles currently available) a line of missiles that offer a significant area of effect blast radius.
Torps used to do area of effect damage, but were removed due to people getting themselves killed due to accidental aggro in high sec. Fair enough.
However, if say torps were available in two varieties (AOE and non-AOE) or if their behavior could be modified with a script, it could breath new life into missile boats during fleet combat.
Your missiles may take a while to get there, but when they do they affect multiple ships and drones within the blast radius. Used properly, this could be devestating... especially to RR fleets.
Now would be the time to consider something like this since we are about to redefine ship roles/capabilities within EVE.
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. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:54:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Mikron Alexarr wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:As an example, I don't want the mining bonus to increase for an osprey, because CCP want more people to use it for mining. I want it to get another high slot and turret point. This can open up a whole new set of possibilities for the osprey to be used for more than just mining/logistics. When is the last time you really say someone use an osprey for anything other than mining/pos repping unless it was for a lark? We discuss trying to work those T1 logis into fleets all the time, but in the end it just doesn't happen. I would say that it's not seeing any fleet action because of it's limited utility. It can't damage anything significantly. It can't exactly fit a lot of EW to go along with it's garbage dps. It's ability to survive any kind of direct onslaught or keep range is worse than it's potential dps. These are the reasons why you don't see them in fleets. These reasons are what need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Making a ship that can't move, can't take a hit, remote rep more isn't going to make it more viable in a fleet. But if its role is to give newbies a chance to help posrep/mine from with good bonuses, and not go in fleets, thats not a bad thing.
They fill the very important role of a bridge to mining hulls, and the less important role of helping with gruntwork. Why should the vets in logis/carriers carry all the load?
I'm more worried about more useless hulls, like the Celestis. Might not see many ospreys, or Bellicoses, but when is the last time you saw anyone at all in a Celestis, or a Breacher? Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 15:59:00 -
[1524] - Quote
ok, so I did some calculations with all sub capital ships (including industrials) ...
training all sub capitals to level V:
one race: current system: 8'394'786 proposed system: 8'394'786
two races: current system: 14'302'228 proposed system: 16'789'572
three races: current system: 20'209'670 proposed system: 25'184'358
all races: current system: 26'117'112 proposed system: 33'579'144
all sub capitals of one race to level V: 8'394'786
additional skillpoints for adding another race: current system: 5'907'442 (corresponds to rank 19 skill) proposed system: 8'394'786 (corresponds to rank 27 skill)
So, if you replace all racial ship skills and introduce a racial control system skill that skill would have to have rank 19 or 27
the big disadvantage... you have to wait long until you can use the BS ships but once you can jump in you are at level 5 Hence, don't do it that way, although I proposed it before.
However, in addition with the "style" skills (Bombardment, and so on) you could reduce that E.g. Caldari & Artellery -> Kestrel, ???, Caracal, Drake, Raven
Advantage: you could really specialize, e.g. all bombardment ships of all races Disadvantages: I'm sure there are some
Conclusion: I confess that dropping the racial tag from the ship skills is not as easy as I thought, but it would be possible, especially with the "style" skills you proposed.
Sorry, for making waves
|
C LaForge
Kruxwaffe
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 16:22:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Problem is not with the tier system but with the ships themselves. Tiers = ship lines. It's just a name for inequality between ships. Please stop with the "CCP tells us how to use the ships". They already did when they designed them, only they didn't include them into what's pompously called "ship lines". There was only the tier system, which is also something really unofficial (i.e. the Tech variations is official, you get that little tiny icon in the upper left corner).
Anyone want to take a wager that a flood of "kill ship lines" threads will ensue after the expansion if not done correctly?
Yterbium drew the short straw with this dev-blog, lots of interesting stuff but really a nerd raeg generator.
Cletus Graeme wrote:Also, currently it's so easy to cross-train races that whichever race is currently FOTM (e.g Winmatar for as long as I can remember) ends up being trained by the majority of new pilots - whatever their own race. I never really understood why Destroyer and BC skills were cross-race while Frigate, Cruiser and BS skills are race specific so bringing them all together consistently sounds sensible.
Destroyers are frigates on steroids and Battlecruisers are pumped up cruisers. Basically that is why they were cross-race. What I always wondered is why they didn't get any bonuses from the frigate/cruiser skills.
This is what made possible specializing an alt. My main is a "subcap master", whilst I want an alt that will fly exclusively capitals - no point in training dessies or battlecruisers or cruisers or frigates to V, only the racial battleship.
I also want an alt that is an all around booster -> train command ships V and by having BC V this particular alt will get all of them, nobody knows when some links become useful.
I also want an alt that is a small ship master for zipping around in small crafts for recon, tackle, whatever.
This is also why I don't think Dessies/Battlecruisers will ever be prerequisites for Cruisers/Battleships, just doesn't make any sense.
|
Korbin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 16:24:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Ok my first toon is on this account. I have him remapped for max training. He's training at 2700 skill points per hour and has been for a few years. I've had him remapped intel / mem for probably about 2 years to get all of my support skills out of the way. I've had to create another account to have a useful toon. You can make fun of my OCD skill training all you want but thinking long term with regards to my skills is how I like to play the game.
Because of my long term training I do not have very much spaceship command trained on him. So I'll use Battlecruiser for an example. If you take 1.5 million skillpoints away from pilots that now have BC 5 trained and give them 6 million to spend on 4 races worth then that kind of makes the past two years of maxing out skill training worthless as I will be missing out on 4.5 million free skillpoints that I would have had had I trained differently
Further more I'm considering burning one of my remaps to get those trained before this expansion hits but that would really mess up my long term plan
On my other toon I've dropped everything that I was working on to train BC and dessi so I don't miss out on skill points and will train caldari cruiser 4 then caldari BS to make sure I can fly the nightmare without having to train caldari BC 4 just to get BS 1. But that's not what I want to be training now and it messes up my skill queue for the next tow months on that toon
The speculation that you have caused with this has people jumping all around and I don't think it's good. You tell us don't worry you will be able to fly what ever you can fly now but that is not the only concern. I think you need to let people know what is going to happen in enough time for them to burn up remaps and do what ever they need to do to make the most out of the changes with regards to long term plans.
If I wake up the day after the expansion hits and find out that I'm 6 million skill points behind everyone else I'll be more than a little pissed to say the least. Maxing out skill training is the absolute main thing I focus on in this game. Everything else comes secondary. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 16:28:00 -
[1527] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Alsyth wrote:CCP giving me 4.5M free SP won't make it any better if my new pvp recruits have to spend 6M SP instead of 1.5M to be efficient crosstrainers.
This "you won't have to re-train for something you can already fly" is fine, but not satisfying for new characters. And I care about new characters too. New characters don't need all four BCs at lvl V. That's a long-term project, and making it a bit harder isn't all that bad. New characters will have it a lot easier now that the T2 requirements are reduced GÇö you can do a whole lot more for a whole lot less after these changes. Quote:Crosstraining is not "nerf proofing" or "FOTM chasing", it's just being versatile GǪwhich makes you nerf-proof and which lets you go for the FOTM, both of which should be quite costly.
Your opinions sound a bit too much patronizing.
EvE was not exactly the faceroll game you learn in 1 day before the change. The streamlining (including the ammo / modules name changes) were aimed at making it more accessible. Making training time for popular ship classes quadruplicate is not a move aimed at new players for sure.
"They will have a lot easier now that T2 requirements are reduced".
Wow... I foresee the 50M in wallet newbies all rolling onto T2 ships! Oh wait, this would be dumb and also wrong.
Per Malcanis law, only the multi-accounts owners who already know the game will send 1B to their new alt and get it up to T2 fast.
Is this going to benefit newbies (like the one above)? No. It'll benefit those who will roll them in their twink pilots. Opposite effect.
Tippia wrote:Quote:Crosstraining is not "nerf proofing" or "FOTM chasing", it's just being versatile GǪwhich makes you nerf-proof GǪwhich makes you nerf-proof and which lets you go for the FOTM, both of which should be quite costly.
One of the things I HATE in other MMOs is being stuck in one class. One day a random developer decides to make them crap and you are stuck with a piece of garbage you worked for 3-4 years to make as good as possible.
EvE is different. It lets developers decide which ship needs a nerf and the players don't feel robbed in their investment. They play something else. The more they segregate ships the more they become like the other MMO companies.
The poor sod who started EvE past you or me, trained BC V to fly it at best and... WHAM nerfbat. Enjoy wasting weeks because the developers poorly implemented their own ship!
Now, BCs are still at the "tolerable slap in face" level, but it sets a precedent for other generalistic skill books (or no books at all). And that time it will be 12x and 14x slaps in face. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 16:46:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Vanessa Vansen wrote:ok, so I did some calculations with all sub capital ships (including industrials) ...
training all sub capitals to level V:
one race: current system: 8'394'786 proposed system: 8'394'786
two races: current system: 14'302'228 proposed system: 16'789'572
three races: current system: 20'209'670 proposed system: 25'184'358
all races: current system: 26'117'112 proposed system: 33'579'144
all sub capitals of one race to level V: 8'394'786
additional skillpoints for adding another race: current system: 5'907'442 (corresponds to rank 19 skill) proposed system: 8'394'786 (corresponds to rank 27 skill)
So, if you replace all racial ship skills and introduce a racial control system skill that skill would have to have rank 19 or 27
the big disadvantage... you have to wait long until you can use the BS ships but once you can jump in you are at level 5 Hence, don't do it that way, although I proposed it before.
However, in addition with the "style" skills (Bombardment, and so on) you could reduce that E.g. Caldari & Artellery -> Kestrel, ???, Caracal, Drake, Raven
Advantage: you could really specialize, e.g. all bombardment ships of all races Disadvantages: I'm sure there are some
Conclusion: I confess that dropping the racial tag from the ship skills is not as easy as I thought, but it would be possible, especially with the "style" skills you proposed.
Sorry, for making waves
doh ... my assumption: racial control skill provides access to hull, i.e. level I -> Frigates level II -> Destroyer level III -> Cruiser level IV -> Battlecruiser level V -> Battleships
Way better level I -> provides access to all sizes and 20% of the bonus is granted level II -> 40% level III -> 60% level IV -> 80% level V -> 100%
You start with level V of your race, when cross training to another race level I of that racial system control skill would give you access to the ships of that race (given that you fulfill the ship skill requirement) but only 20% of the bonus is applied.
This way there is no big disadvantage that you'll have to wait ages until being able to fly the battleships of that race. You would still have to wait quite long until you can fly them as good as the ships of your own race.
Hence, dropping the racial tag from the ship skills is a valid scenario again. And redistributing the skill points is not a big topic then (the big topic will be applying the bonus but everything has its price) |
Li Charen-Teng
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 16:54:00 -
[1529] - Quote
I welcome these changes. As a veteran pilot with a few character with high skillpoints and crosstrained in at least two races this is a big bummer. There is no automated way I could think of to see why people actually trained specific spaceship command skills.
For my main I skilled AF cause I wanted HACs - but I never flew an assault frig, I even don't have T2 weapons trained for it. I trained covert ops cause I wanted to use bombers. On an alt I had to train Covert Ops for Recons - he never uses any Covert Ops frigs. I wanted to fly both Command Ship classes on my main, so I had to train Logistics, that I don't use at him. That list is very very long if I put everything together. Both my main pvp characters are crosstrained and the addition of new racial BC and Destroyer skills will need me to put more effort into training both to 5 again since with current ship stats I still need them at 5 even if the req is just 4.
Do yourself a favour CCP and reimburse all skillpoints in the spaceship command group and add x-times the reimbursement for BC and Destroyer for x-amount trained racial frigate 5 and racial cruiser 5. Checking EVE GATE every few minutes... |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
407
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:03:00 -
[1530] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:(...wal of text) Hm... welp, so much for training recon ships to V. Back in the skill que with you, large guns!
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:10:00 -
[1531] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Making training time for popular ship classes quadruplicate is not a move aimed at new players for sure. But that's just it: they don't increase by that much. The SP required to get in a BC hull at all increases from 177k SP to 363k:ish SP; the SP required to get in a BC hull competently, but still uselessly increases from 447k to 664k SP. At this point, not only hasn't the training time increased fourfold, but you still can't actually fly the ship because you aren't able to do anything with it. For new players, the difference is a matter of days per race, which isn't much considering everything else they have to train to make those ships flyable. Include all of that and the training time for this popular ship class is pretty much the same as before.
If you absolutely have to have all twelve BCs and if you absolutely have to have them all at lvl V, then yes, the skill cost for the ship hulls alone will have increased from 1,832k SP to 7,954k SPGǪ which would suggest that it now costs more than 4+ù as much to fly those ships. But guess what: at that point you still can't fly any of the ships because we haven't finished piling on the skill requirements. Once we do, the 6M SP that differs between the two systems will once again have been eaten up by the equipment and support skills (which will be much higher than in the previous example due to that lvl-V-itis we're suffering from here).
If we're talking about 4+ù BC V, we're talking about an SP difference on the scale of 35.7 M SP in the old system vs. 41.5 M SP in the new one (and I've actually dialled back the lvl-V-itis a whole lot with those numbers GÇö they could and probably should be a lot higher than that), which means that, once again, it's nowhere near a 4+ù multiplier on the training time. Saying that it's GÇ£four times as muchGÇ¥ is just ignorant on every level. Saying that it affects newbies is equally ignorant. It may affect the middle-aged player who isn't clever enough to figure out how to prepare for this change (which, incidentally, also deflates any argument that this GÇ£dumbs downGÇ¥ the game, since it benefits the clever ones and punished the dumb ones GÇö a dumbing down would do the opposite).
Quote:Wow... I foresee the 50M in wallet newbies all rolling onto T2 ships! It's about as likely as newbies with 36 million SPGǪ The point I'm making is that while new players will have a very very very tiny bit harder time to cross-train, they will have a whole hell of a lot easier time to specialise, which has always been the way to Gǣcatch upGǥ with older players.
Quote:One of the things I HATE in other MMOs is being stuck in one class. One day a random developer decides to make them crap and you are stuck with a piece of garbage you worked for 3-4 years to make as good as possible.
EvE is different. GǪand this switch in skills doesn't change that. In fact, it makes it easier than ever to train for a new specialisation.
Quote:The poor sod who started EvE past you or me, trained BC V to fly it at best and... WHAM nerfbat-áno-actual-change-at-all-bat GǪsuddenly he can fly exactly the same things exactly as well as he could before. Oh wait, that's not sudden at all. 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. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:12:00 -
[1532] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:CCP giving me 4.5M free SP won't make it any better if my new pvp recruits have to spend 6M SP instead of 1.5M to be efficient crosstrainers.
This "you won't have to re-train for something you can already fly" is fine, but not satisfying for new characters. And I care about new characters too.
Capital alt trained for remote repping carriers are already too easy to have imo.
Crosstraining is not "nerf proofing" or "FOTM chasing", it's just being versatile, which is very important in pvp. And it's already costly (guns and missiles, racial cruisers, frigs, BSs, shield and armor tanking...).
Cross-training is one method of being versatile. If CCP actually works out ships with roles (as a baseline) and makes the other ships in each class a viable ships in a fleet, it introduces versatility on it's own. In addition, your recruits shouldn't have to train BC 5 or Dessy 5 to be efficient cross trainers. Battlecruiser 2 is what, a 4 hour skill? so to cross train into all 4 battlecruisers is less than a day. Your recruits can be in all 8 battlecruisers quickly, and then (as your fleet comps build) you can have them focus on one particular racial variant if necessary. And they still have to train two tanking methods and 4 weapons systems, so that single day to sit in all four racial variants is a fragment of time. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:13:00 -
[1533] - Quote
/me gets the popcorn Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Electra Gaterau
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:18:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Tippia has pretty much summed it up for me. Theres bound to be differing opinions but the view I have been given after researching the forums was that if I want to be effective I have to specialise/focus and leave the cross training till later. |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:26:00 -
[1535] - Quote
Electra Gaterau wrote:Tippia has pretty much summed it up for me. Theres bound to be differing opinions but the view I have been given after researching the forums was that if I want to be effective I have to specialise/focus and leave the cross training till later. What you might be missing is that as things stand now, you can specialize and still crosstrain, while with the new system, you are effectively starting over to get a new races dictor(or other specialized ship) meaning if you go caldari, and missiles get nerfed tomorrow, it will be that much harder for you to retrain to amarr. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Dormax
Immortalis Mortis Angelus Mayhem.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:32:00 -
[1536] - Quote
Just from the basic examples they give, it looks more like they want to "dumb it down." I find that concept very disappointing. I know EVE's complexity is one of the hardest things for new players to deal with, but I also know that it's one of the things that draws me to it -- and has made me want to play year after year.
I did my hard-time to get battlecruiser 5 so I could grind command ships 5 so that I could have (my opinion) an awesome mission running monster. Somehow this makes my time feel cheapened if it's going to be so much easier to train. And now, years later, I'm finally backtracking to train some T2 cruiser skills for PVP -- and cross training at the same time.
For newbies, I'm all about making things easier! But, it's the steep learning curve and complex skill training, especially in the upper end of the game, that make it fun for me. T2 manufacturing (including invention), PI, moon mining, POS's, sovereignty... all complex aspects that make EVE such that one can ALWAYS find something new to explore / do. It's what seperates EVE from ever other game out there and is exactly WHY we keep coming back.
On the other side, making things more "line" based simply turns EVE into a psudo-class system (tank, DPS, healer, mule, etc etc. -- might as well throw mage and shamen into the mix) and could force players to conform to the given expectations. Take the smartbombing Rokh. That's clearly not the design of the ship, but it's certainly effective for what it is. Or the exploration Ishtar? Or the almighty (if a little passe) battlehulk. Will rolls seriously gimp these possibilities? Ingenuity is the hallmark of EVE. I'll reserve judgement at this point, I always do. But if I wanted to play WOW or Battlestar Galactica, I wouldn't be playing EVE.
|
Kusanagi Kasuga
Ferocious Felines
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:33:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Electra Gaterau wrote:Tippia has pretty much summed it up for me. Theres bound to be differing opinions but the view I have been given after researching the forums was that if I want to be effective I have to specialise/focus and leave the cross training till later. What you might be missing is that as things stand now, you can specialize and still crosstrain, while with the new system, you are effectively starting over to get a new races dictor(or other specialized ship) meaning if you go caldari, and missiles get nerfed tomorrow, it will be that much harder for you to retrain to amarr.
You seem to be under the impression that nerfs are forces of nature, unpredictable, unwanted, and unnecessary. If missiles got (more than accidentally) nerfed, it would be after some discussion, it would be when it benefited the game to do so, and it would be because they needed to be nerfed.
If you were using something that needed to be nerfed, you were getting the benefit of your training, and you were at that time using FOTM. If you switched to Amarr, it would be because you decided that was now FOTM.
You are really hurting your own argument, because before you were talking about versitility, and now you're framing it as nerf-dodging and quickly switching to the next FOTM, which is exactly what you said it wasn't about. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:41:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:What you might be missing is that as things stand now, you can specialize and still crosstrain, while with the new system, you are effectively starting over to get a new races dictor(or other specialized ship) meaning if you go caldari, and missiles get nerfed tomorrow, it will be that much harder for you to retrain to amarr. GǪexcept that Gǣthat much harderGǥ will not actually be that hard at all.
Going from a Flycatcher to a Heretic under the current system means you have to train Amarr Frigate V (+ù2) GÇö 512k SP GÇö plus training all the small laser stuff, armour tanking (if not for the Heretic, then for all the other Amarr stuff you intend to train to replace your Caldari ships), and some other crap for, oh, let's say in total another 2M SP.
Going from Flycatcher to a Heretic under ther new system means you have to train Amarr Frigate IV (+ù2) and Amarr Destroyer V (+ù3) GÇö 859k SP GÇö plus all the same ancillary skills. GÇ£That much harderGÇ¥ equates to requiring 2.8M SP instead of 2.5M SP. But wait! Under the new system you do not have to train Interceptors IV to get that Dictor skill, so the character making the switch actually has some 850k SP GÇ£savedGÇ¥ that he doesn't have to train under the new system but which he had to train under the old one, which means the poor fellow is actually 500k ahead of where he would be under the current system.
SoGǪ
Current system: 2.5M SP to switch from Flycatcher to Heretic. New system: 2.8M SP to switch from Flycatcher to Heretic, but 850k SP less required to fly either of them.
Flying both under current system: n + 2.5M SP (where n is the SP required to get into the Flycatcher). Flying both under the new system: n + 2.0M SP
As a point of comparison, getting all eight command ships will require some 2.5 million less SP under the new system than under the current oneGǪ yes, even including the four BC V:s you have to train. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:44:00 -
[1539] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:CCP Ytterbium? I don't suppose I could get you to say that it won't be an SP reimbursement, but instead just sticking the new skills onto people, at the appropriate level? I'm pretty sure that's what you've been meaning, but it's also obvious some people are thinking they'll get the chance to respend the points at will.
As for Destroyers:
Typically, a destroyer is a fleet defense boat. It already handles the anti-frigate line ok, so how about something for handling fleet missile defense? Or maybe an E-Warfare role. Maybe something cloaky or Bomb defense related?
Well reimbursement is tricky, can't say about details yet, because we still need to think about them. Whatever this is going to be SP reimbursement or just sticking new skills, or whatever options in the middle still need to be considered. Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch *insert tinfoil hat theory here*
A Destroyer variant that has a "Point Defense" role would be excellent.
A Destroyer variant that is in effect a "Heavy Bomber" would be MORE than excellent. ; Not a cloaky bomber, but a tanky bomber that can stay on station and defend itself from drones/frigs with small guns in it's left over slots... but it's main armament being two or possibly 3 bomb launchers.
Imagine the absolute necessity of a fleet to focus fire on a group of heavy bombers swinging around for another pass. :)
Of course, you would leave the mechanic that after a certain point you end up blowing up your own bombs in place so as to limit the size of these bomber groups, or at least force them to concentrate on different area's of the enemy fleet.
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. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:45:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Minimum time to sit in a battleship, from scratch, with no remaps or implants: 16 days, 14 hours, 56 minutes
Racial Battlecruiser 4: 16 days, 13 hours, 49 minutes. Racial Battlecruiser 1: 10 days, 7 hours, 48 minutes. (Spaceship control 4 needed here. + 20 hours or so the first time) Racial Cruiser 4: 9 days, 10 hours, 16 minutes Racial Cruiser 1: 4 days, 5 hours, 16 minutes Racial Destroyer 4 : 4 days, 4 hours, 34 minutes. Racial Destroyer 1: 2 days, 2 hours, 34 minutes Racial Frig 4: 2 days, 2 hours 17 minutes
So, cross training into someone else's battlecruiser will take you 9 days 12 hours (give or take) (at the lowest level. add 6 days for level 4)
Currently: Racial Cruiser to 3 - 3 days, 30 minutes (from nothing in that race)
6 days, 12 hours longer. (or 12 days for racial BC4)
Oh such a terrible imposition. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
SkyMeetFire
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:47:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Also, not sure if anyone else has noted it, but it looks like you have the Scimitar and the Rapier in the wrong spots on the Minmatar skill tree, since the Scimi uses the Scythe hull, and the Rapier uses the Bellicose hull, not the other way round. |
DarkXeRoX
Biohazzard TaskForce
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:55:00 -
[1542] - Quote
ccp insuring u will never run out of skills to train -.-
they sure love trolling their community -.- |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 17:56:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:What you might be missing is that as things stand now, you can specialize and still crosstrain, while with the new system, you are effectively starting over to get a new races dictor(or other specialized ship) meaning if you go caldari, and missiles get nerfed tomorrow, it will be that much harder for you to retrain to amarr. GǪexcept that GÇ£that much harderGÇ¥ will not actually be that hard at all. Going from a Flycatcher to a Heretic under the current system means you have to train Amarr Frigate V (+ù2) GÇö 512k SP GÇö plus training all the small laser stuff, armour tanking (if not for the Heretic, then for all the other Amarr stuff you intend to train to replace your Caldari ships), and some other crap for, oh, let's say in total another 2M SP. Going from Flycatcher to a Heretic under ther new system means you have to train Amarr Frigate IV (+ù2) and Amarr Destroyer V (+ù3) GÇö 859k SP GÇö plus all the same ancillary skills. GÇ£That much harderGÇ¥ equates to requiring 2.8M SP instead of 2.5M SP. But wait! Under the new system you do not have to train Interceptors IV to get that Dictor skill, so the character making the switch actually has some 850k SP GÇ£savedGÇ¥ that he doesn't have to train under the new system but which he had to train under the old one, which means the poor fellow is actually 500k ahead of where he would be under the current system. SoGǪ Current system: 2.5M SP to switch from Flycatcher to Heretic. New system: 2.8M SP to switch from Flycatcher to Heretic, but 850k SP less required to fly either of them. Flying both under current system: n + 2.5M SP (where n is the SP required to get into the Flycatcher). Flying both under the new system: n + 2.0M SP As a point of comparison, getting all eight command ships will require some 2.5 million less SP under the new system than under the current oneGǪ yes, even including the four BC V:s you have to train.
Oh god, both of you. The Heretic is the worst example you could use, as it's a Rocket-bonused interdictor. From Flycatcher to Heretic is easy. I know it's only an example, but please, choose something actually differentiated, like Flycatcher to Eris. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:01:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:Oh god, both of you. The Heretic is the worst example you could use, as it's a Rocket-bonused interdictor. From Flycatcher to Heretic is easy. I know it's only an example, but please, choose something actually differentiated, like Flycatcher to Eris. GǪok, fine. The numbers are for Flycatcher to Eris GÇö for Flycatcher to Heretic, it's actually even cheaper to switch and the improvement with the new system is even greater, relatively speaking.
Or, use the same number and consider it a sensible inclusion since you probably want to fit your newly-trained Amarr frigates with something. Either way, the new system allows for specialisation far better than the old one, and cross-training isn't nearly as awful as people want to believe (in fact, cross-training into T2 is often significantly cheaper). 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. |
Li Charen-Teng
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:02:00 -
[1545] - Quote
DarkXeRoX wrote:they sure love trolling their community -.-
New main attribute for racial BC is Charisma.
Checking EVE GATE every few minutes... |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
73
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:15:00 -
[1546] - Quote
kyrieee wrote:You really shouldn't remove the BS V requirement for caps. Caps are the main reason people train it to V.
This says much more about the poor state of the T2 battleships than it does about capitals.
|
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:34:00 -
[1547] - Quote
CCP, the responses were greatly appreciated.
I think, overall, the changes are good.
I would like to say, though, as a new combat char, Battlecruisers is one of those few skills that I think "Oh **** yes, I can almost train it." Or..."Thank ****, I am training it and can soon cross train"
There are very few skills that are exciting to train. I think the first turret specialization, finishing core skills, finishing minmatar frigate V and Battlecruisers of any level are the things I'm most looking forward to...and I know core skills aren't exciting to raise.
I hope that is considered when you rebalance ships. If that's the case, if ship balance is redone in such an awesome way that the current break/relief skill that is Current-Era-Battlecruisers is overshadowed...then there'd be no cause for complaint, really. Well, with regards to cross-training, that is. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:34:00 -
[1548] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process?
A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
So, the idea of the change is to stop skills that give access to too many hulls, to promote specialization, but one is actually "punished" for not training every ship under the sun prior to the change since it will mean getting less free candy? Does that really make sense to you?
As a fairly specc'ed char (Minmatar/Angel only), my options are to ruin my character with another two cruiser skills I have no interest in flying, or missing out on 4.096m SP less candy (16 ranks, 2 race's destroyer/battlecruiser 5)? 2 months of skilltime?
No good thing will come out of any of the options presented so far. If a char has the destroyer skill, drop him the 4 books in his home station and give him the SP he actually has in that skill as unallocated SP. Same for BC. Or, if you want to keep the "can fly the same ships before and after" constraint, give everybody 4 times the SP they had in the skills. So they can decide.
And maybe give us the option to permanently unlearn a skill, losing (!) the SP in it, so we can clean up orphaned requirement skills if they offend us optically in our character sheet.....
Also, trying to offset reduced capital skill-training times with the new requirement design with additional requisites either means meaningless requisites that everyone is guaranteed to have (Mining I), or even MORE candy that needs to be handed out so noone loses the ability to fly a ship. I already see the mad scramble of supercap pilots trying to get the needed skillbooks that they had dropped in some corner of New Eden to their ship so they can officially fly and use it again.
TL;DR: I support the idea and the intent of the change. But the implementation concepts presented so far scream "whiteboard now!" |
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:45:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Came expecting some info and announcements of long overdue ship rebalancing so the game stops degenerating into Drakes and Tengus (and supercaps) online. Left disappointed.
Why are you messing with the skill tree? Seriously, this is not needed. Is this some way to slow the race to BC that new players pursue? If so just get on with making cruisers worth flying, proceed with abolishing tiers and replacing them with roles, and nerf the overused BCs.
Also, read only snippets of this thread because - 77 pages - serious timesink. So I can see that others have said it but I'll say it in my own way - You are dumbing down the game.
Command ships requiring logi 4 or hac 4 is not a bad thing. But now you will be allowing people to get into those ships much faster. BS 5 for capitals is not a bad thing, . . .
This dev blog is a serious disappointment. It indicates misdirected energy and effort on the dev team and more changes that dumb down progression in the game. Abolishing tiers for roles is the only good thing in the wall of text and pretty flowcharts on the blog page. Please get back to focusing on fixing sov mechanics, faction warfare, and ship balancing. These are desperately needed and long overdue. Messing with the skill tree is not. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:46:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Baah, all relevant and irrelevant skills already maxed .. looking forward to Tiericide bickering though so good stuff.
Now that you are making it easier/faster to fly a significant number of ships, how about adding a bit of incentive for maxing requisite skills, ex. if BS will require BC 4 then taking BC to 5 gives you +2% to some not entirely insignificant BS attribute. Could be particularly effective at promoting the "specialization" concept when it comes to T2 as persons taking the time to 'finish' the requisite T1 skills would be just a smidgen better in his role than the commoner.
You are looking at ways to reward old-timers right? |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:47:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process?
A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma. So, the idea of the change is to stop skills that give access to too many hulls, to promote specialization, but one is actually "punished" for not training every ship under the sun prior to the change since it will mean getting less free candy? Does that really make sense to you? As a fairly specc'ed char (Minmatar/Angel only), my options are to ruin my character with another two cruiser skills I have no interest in flying, or missing out on 4.096m SP less candy (16 ranks, 2 race's destroyer/battlecruiser 5)? 2 months of skilltime? No good thing will come out of any of the options presented so far. If a char has the destroyer skill, drop him the 4 books in his home station and give him the SP he actually has in that skill as unallocated SP. Same for BC. Or, if you want to keep the "can fly the same ships before and after" constraint, give everybody 4 times the SP they had in the skills. So they can decide. And maybe give us the option to permanently unlearn a skill, losing (!) the SP in it, so we can clean up orphaned requirement skills if they offend us optically in our character sheet..... Also, trying to offset reduced capital skill-training times with the new requirement design with additional requisites either means meaningless requisites that everyone is guaranteed to have (Mining I), or even MORE candy that needs to be handed out so noone loses the ability to fly a ship. I already see the mad scramble of supercap pilots trying to get the needed skillbooks that they had dropped in some corner of New Eden to their ship so they can officially fly and use it again. TL;DR: I support the idea and the intent of the change. But the implementation concepts presented so far scream "whiteboard now!"
While your post screams "Obsessive/ Compulsive".
Quote:And maybe give us the option to permanently unlearn a skill, losing (!) the SP in it, so we can clean up orphaned requirement skills if they offend us optically in our character sheet.....
Really? REALLY?!?
Here is what you really need to understand:
In this issue the amount of skill points you have is MEANINGLESS. Actually, they always have been, but I don't want to confuse you further.
The only thing that matters are the abilities your character possess.
Having 100million skill points means absolutely nothing, except the clone you need to keep around. What matters are the abilities you have as a character... and in this case that the proposed changes do not take away any abilities you had before.
Until you understand this, you're not going to understand much else about this issue. 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. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
371
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 18:55:00 -
[1552] - Quote
The more I think about the SP distribution issue, the more of a wash it becomes. From the POV of someone new to the game, the biggest issuse is that training racial frigate v opens up significantly more than any racial destroyer or BC lvl V can, (and ultimately BS) and would be a very tough sell to a new player who just wanted more ships to try.
The only way you can solve that is by adding more ships... :yarrr:
Beyond that there are a significant list of questions building up. I hope you've made notes, will come up with CSM approved answers and implement prior to heaps of play testing and construtive, collaborative feedback. ;) Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Mukuro Gravedigger
Republic University Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:00:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Call me a pessimist, but until I see the final effects within my skill tree and skill points, I'll take whatever is stated in this thread with a grain of salt.
I have this feeling that similar to the old Learning skills, whereas most people came out ahead, those that were maxed out lost in the long run with the removal of the percentage modifier. Hopefully the same will not happen here.
But we shall see. |
Lord Helghast
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
53
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:01:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:
The only way you can solve that is by adding more ships... :yarrr:
HELL YA YOU CAN SAY DAT AGAIN... More destroyers, i'd like to see more realistic frigate and destroyer roaming squads. variation of more destroyer hulls sounds great. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:03:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:While your post screams "Obsessive/ Compulsive". Quote:And maybe give us the option to permanently unlearn a skill, losing (!) the SP in it, so we can clean up orphaned requirement skills if they offend us optically in our character sheet..... Really? REALLY?!? Yes. Petitioned the removal of Mining I once. Didn't work. *Sniff*
|
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:09:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Lord Helghast wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:
The only way you can solve that is by adding more ships... :yarrr:
HELL YA YOU CAN SAY DAT AGAIN... More destroyers, i'd like to see more realistic frigate and destroyer roaming squads. variation of more destroyer hulls sounds great. No. There are ships in the game that need fixing. These will be your new ships once they are fixed. Totally new ships are not needed. Changing the skill tree is not needed.
What good is a new line of destroyers. What would be the purpose. They would just further obsolete so many of the cruisers already in the game with no utility. |
Gabriel Grimoire
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:13:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Mioelnir wrote:Insanely OCD-riddled whine post.
Holy dogshit... are you one of those dudes who goes around doing everything in threes? |
Haifisch Zahne
HZ Corp
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:14:00 -
[1558] - Quote
More CCP tinkering where it is not needed. Just unimportant, but difficult (read "time-consuming" for devs) changes we don't need.
Can we say, "Increase skill requirements to draw out membership times to bring more revenue"?
As someone who prefers the Faction battleships but can only use one of them currently, has cruddy dessie and battlecruiser skills, and needs lots of work on two of the other kinds of Faction spaceship command skills, this adds a lot of time to my future training plans. Like a month. Read $15.
Finally, looked at from the real world, I hardly believe that Navy Captains have to train Frigates--> Destroyers --> Cruisers --> Battlecruisers --> Battleships. My grandfather was the captain of a cruiser, never heard any word of him even on a frigate, let alone a destroyer.
And, I just have to say, I loved the line that the Dominix have "great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry." That might be true, if the Dominix could actually MOVE. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:17:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Lord Helghast wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:
The only way you can solve that is by adding more ships... :yarrr:
HELL YA YOU CAN SAY DAT AGAIN... More destroyers, i'd like to see more realistic frigate and destroyer roaming squads. variation of more destroyer hulls sounds great. No. There are ships in the game that need fixing. These will be your new ships once they are fixed. Totally new ships are not needed. Changing the skill tree is not needed. What good is a new line of destroyers. What would be the purpose. They would just further obsolete so many of the cruisers already in the game with no utility.
The whole point of the skill changes, and the end of the Tier system, is to rectify the problem of obsolete hulls in the cruiser line (among others)... AND to make it far easier to introduce new varients of hulls that they would have liked to have done in the past but could not.
There have been literally dozens of excellent proposals for new, unique, useful Destroyer hulls made over the years... Point Defense Destroyers, Counter Covert Ops Destoyers, Heavy Bombers, Ninja Salvaging Craft to name a very few. The old system made their introduction problematic, the new system makes their serious consideration realistic... and at the same time addressess the core issues that make a great many existing ships obsolete. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:20:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Haifisch Zahne wrote:More CCP tinkering where it is not needed. Just unimportant, but difficult (read "time-consuming" for devs) changes we don't need.
Can we say, "Increase skill requirements to draw out membership times to bring more revenue"?
As someone who prefers the Faction battleships but can only use one of them currently, has cruddy dessie and battlecruiser skills, and needs lots of work on two of the other kinds of Faction spaceship command skills, this adds a lot of time to my future training plans. Like a month. Read $15.
Finally, looked at from the real world, I hardly believe that Navy Captains have to train Frigates--> Destroyers --> Cruisers --> Battlecruisers --> Battleships. My grandfather was the captain of a cruiser, never heard any word of him even on a frigate, let alone a destroyer.
And, I just have to say, I loved the line that the Dominix have "great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry." That might be true, if the Dominix could actually MOVE.
Can we say "I have completely misunderstood the intent, and more importantly the actual end result, of everything being discussed in this thread"? 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. |
|
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:22:00 -
[1561] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:Mikron Alexarr wrote:As an example, I don't want the mining bonus to increase for an osprey, because CCP want more people to use it for mining. I want it to get another high slot and turret point. This can open up a whole new set of possibilities for the osprey to be used for more than just mining/logistics. When is the last time you really say someone use an osprey for anything other than mining/pos repping unless it was for a lark? We discuss trying to work those T1 logis into fleets all the time, but in the end it just doesn't happen. I would say that it's not seeing any fleet action because of it's limited utility. It can't damage anything significantly. It can't exactly fit a lot of EW to go along with it's garbage dps. It's ability to survive any kind of direct onslaught or keep range is worse than it's potential dps. These are the reasons why you don't see them in fleets. These reasons are what need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Making a ship that can't move, can't take a hit, remote rep more isn't going to make it more viable in a fleet. But if its role is to give newbies a chance to help posrep/mine from with good bonuses, and not go in fleets, thats not a bad thing. They fill the very important role of a bridge to mining hulls, and the less important role of helping with gruntwork. Why should the vets in logis/carriers carry all the load? I'm more worried about more useless hulls, like the Celestis. Might not see many ospreys, or Bellicoses, but when is the last time you saw anyone at all in a Celestis, or a Breacher?
It's been awhile since I've done recruiting in minnie space, but breacher ~ bantam. It's the mining frigate that matar start out a mining career with. Celestis useless? It's got more tank and more dps than the EAS for the gallente while maintaining all of it's ability to sensor damp. It's in the same boat as a blackbird.
Those ships are flown by people that want support for T1 gangs. Boosting their general usability doesn't require a rewrite of the system. Another midslot for the celestis would mean they could take 2 ships down to minimum range targeting. I don't see how those ships you mentioned are useless. In fact, the celestis is almost more useful in gangs than the osprey, because it can interrupt targeting of other ships that might want to kill it, adding to both survivability and utility. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:23:00 -
[1562] - Quote
Haifisch Zahne wrote:Finally, looked at from the real world, I hardly believe that Navy Captains have to train Frigates--> Destroyers --> Cruisers --> Battlecruisers --> Battleships. My grandfather was the captain of a cruiser, never heard any word of him even on a frigate, let alone a destroyer.
Ok RL /= EVE. But here goes. A Naval (as in government naval) Captain commands cruisers or larger. However, a civilian ship's captain must have a license to pilot a vessel. There are different licenses depending on the gross tonnage of the vessel. Which, strangely enough, sounds very similar to skills for different sized ships.
Why are we talking about this? CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:24:00 -
[1563] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:The whole point of the skill changes, and the end of the Tier system, is to rectify the problem of obsolete hulls in the cruiser line (among others)... AND to make it far easier to introduce new varients of hulls that they would have liked to have done in the past but could not.
There have been literally dozens of excellent proposals for new, unique, useful Destroyer hulls made over the years... Point Defense Destroyers, Counter Covert Ops Destoyers, Heavy Bombers, Ninja Salvaging Craft to name a very few. The old system made their introduction problematic, the new system makes their serious consideration realistic... and at the same time addressess the core issues that make a great many existing ships obsolete. You don't need to mess with the skill tree to rectify obsolete hulls in the cruiser line. You just have to redesign their stats and bonuses. As with any ship the more levels in that ship skill the better you are at the role the ship has.
Certainly all the roles you mentioned for "new" destroyers could be assigned to the worthless cruisers and frigs we presently have in the game. No need for new destroyers. |
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:33:00 -
[1564] - Quote
What about those who have only trained a certain races skills i.e all caldari or minmatar for rp reasons? i wouldn't like my skill tree polluted with arbitrary bc lvl5 for a race of ships i never wanted.
Can we have a choice of which skills we want or where to put the skillpoints? |
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:36:00 -
[1565] - Quote
This would imply you already "polluted" it with another race of Cruiser 4 it seems. So nbd |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:43:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law Malcanis law
...
"Therefore newbs will have it easier"
Ok, I suppose that seals the deal, no need to discuss further. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dormax
Immortalis Mortis Angelus Mayhem.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:48:00 -
[1567] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:There have been literally dozens of excellent proposals for new, unique, useful Destroyer hulls made over the years... Point Defense Destroyers, Counter Covert Ops Destoyers, Heavy Bombers, Ninja Salvaging Craft to name a very few. The old system made their introduction problematic, the new system makes their serious consideration realistic... and at the same time addressess the core issues that make a great many existing ships obsolete.
Help me understand. Why would adding new destroyers into the current system be problematic? Destroyers 5 + Cloaking 4 + Missile Bombardment 4 = Heavy Bomber 1 Destroyers 5 + Assault Ship 5 = Medium Assault Ship 1 Interdictor 5 + Propulsion Jamming 5 + Graviton Physics 5 = INTERDICTION SPHERE LAUNCHER II (with new anti-cloak bubble)
Doesn't seem that difficult to me, unless there's something I'm not understanding.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:50:00 -
[1568] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:The whole point of the skill changes, and the end of the Tier system, is to rectify the problem of obsolete hulls in the cruiser line (among others)... AND to make it far easier to introduce new varients of hulls that they would have liked to have done in the past but could not.
There have been literally dozens of excellent proposals for new, unique, useful Destroyer hulls made over the years... Point Defense Destroyers, Counter Covert Ops Destoyers, Heavy Bombers, Ninja Salvaging Craft to name a very few. The old system made their introduction problematic, the new system makes their serious consideration realistic... and at the same time addressess the core issues that make a great many existing ships obsolete. You don't need to mess with the skill tree to rectify obsolete hulls in the cruiser line. You just have to redesign their stats and bonuses. As with any ship the more levels in that ship skill the better you are at the role the ship has. Certainly all the roles you mentioned for "new" destroyers could be assigned to the worthless cruisers and frigs we presently have in the game. No need for new destroyers.
You really need to go back and read the dev posts describing the problems inherent with the current system. More importantly you need to understand them.
Additionally they already have plans for the current obsolete hulls in game, allowing them to seriously consider (for the first time) the frequently asked for inclusion of some new Destroyer variants.
You may feel that new destoyer hulls are not wanted or needed, but most of the EVE community disagree's with you... and has elaborated on why countless times.
The Dev responses in this thread have very completely spelled out why these changes are being considered, and their reasoning is sound. You would probably be better served promoting your idea's of how best to impliment them rather than arguing a patently lost cause.
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. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 19:54:00 -
[1569] - Quote
dont like the changes, why you guys fix things which arent broken instead of focusing on real broken aspects of the game?!?! Dumbing down the game is only brings short term success. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:00:00 -
[1570] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:dont like the changes, why you guys fix things which arent broken instead of focusing on real broken aspects of the game?!?! Dumbing down the game is only brings short term success.
Says game is broken other places than anywhere CCP fixes things. --- Does not say what exactly they think are broken
A certain hat comes to mind |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:05:00 -
[1571] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:dont like the changes, why you guys fix things which arent broken instead of focusing on real broken aspects of the game?!?! Dumbing down the game is only brings short term success. Good thing, then, that they're fixing something that's a bit broken and that, in doing so, they're smartening the game up a fair amount. 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. |
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:07:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:You really need to go back and read the dev posts describing the problems inherent with the current system. More importantly you need to understand them.
Additionally they already have plans for the current obsolete hulls in game, allowing them to seriously consider (for the first time) the frequently asked for inclusion of some new Destroyer variants.
You may feel that new destoyer hulls are not wanted or needed, but most of the EVE community disagree's with you... and has elaborated on why countless times.
The Dev responses in this thread have very completely spelled out why these changes are being considered, and their reasoning is sound. You would probably be better served promoting your idea's of how best to impliment them rather than arguing a patently lost cause.
Yes, your polling data surely backs up your claim that "most of the EVE community" agrees with you. And, of course this question should be determined by majority vote anyway whether true or not.
Also, got no problem reading, budd, so you can shove that argument back where it came.
edit- oh and the just shut up and fall in line with the powers that be argument is a gem |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:10:00 -
[1573] - Quote
Dormax wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:There have been literally dozens of excellent proposals for new, unique, useful Destroyer hulls made over the years... Point Defense Destroyers, Counter Covert Ops Destoyers, Heavy Bombers, Ninja Salvaging Craft to name a very few. The old system made their introduction problematic, the new system makes their serious consideration realistic... and at the same time addressess the core issues that make a great many existing ships obsolete. Help me understand. Why would adding new destroyers into the current system be problematic? Destroyers 5 + Cloaking 4 + Missile Bombardment 4 = Heavy Bomber 1 Destroyers 5 + Assault Ship 5 = Medium Assault Ship 1 Interdictor 5 + Propulsion Jamming 5 + Graviton Physics 5 = INTERDICTION SPHERE LAUNCHER II (with new anti-cloak bubble) Doesn't seem that difficult to me, unless there's something I'm not understanding.
To put it simply this allows 1 skill to open the door to WAY too many different hull varients.
The goal is to reward specialization and to make cross training at least slightly more challenging. Having one skill (Destoyers) open the door to a huge number of hull varients is extremely counter productive from a game design point of view. 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. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:15:00 -
[1574] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:...Dumbing down the game. Those words, I don't think they mean what you think they mean (more specifically the idea that more focused training and more relevant ship choices is somehow "dumbing down" anything). |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:16:00 -
[1575] - Quote
Gabriel Grimoire wrote:Mioelnir wrote:Insanely OCD-riddled whine post. Holy dogshit... are you one of those dudes who goes around doing everything in threes? No, most certainly not.
I just think these changes need to be looked at under more angles than they had been in the last few pages. Everyone has an agenda. Especially those that claim not to have one. Never forget that.
If my agenda being math makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, not mine. Maybe you have noone-should-be-able-to-do-math-OCD?
And if the change is based on the numbers, instead of - one possible - interpretation of them, we will at least avoid threadnoughts like after the last round of christmas gifts, where thousands of players could either not read, understand or both. |
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:19:00 -
[1576] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:To put it simply this allows 1 skill to open the door to WAY too many different hulls variants.
The goal is to reward specialization and to make cross training at least slightly more challenging. Having one skill (Destoyers) open the door to a huge number of hulls is extremely counter productive from a game design point of view. Racial destroyer and racial BC is not the most objectionable part of the blog. That increases training reqs per ship. Fine.
Reducing the reqs for command ships by removing (AF 4 + HAC 4, or Logistics 4) and frig 5 + cruiser 5 , and removing BS 5 from flying Carrier or Dread, these are major dumbing down of the game and exacerbate the supercaptital proliferation problem. That is poor game design, at least as far as what EVE has been. So many changes have been dumbing down the game (removal of learning skills, etc) and these two changes would add to it. |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
577
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:21:00 -
[1577] - Quote
Mini-derail:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:One way could be adding more destroyer hulls, if we can find a role for them. Glass cannon destroyers with medium-sized guns. The idea worked well for BCs. ;-)
With the roles you have defined, you should be able to come up with 3 different destroyers per race anyhow. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:23:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Reducing the reqs for command ships by removing (AF 4 + HAC 4, or Logistics 4) and cruiser 5 , and removing BS 5 from flying Carrier or Dread, these are major dumbing down of the game No.
It smartens the game up by giving you more options, more choices, more ways to optimise and (consequently) more ways of making bad choices that give you less bang for the buck. By removing those prereqs, you are no longer given a single path that everyone has to follow, but rather let people mix and match to suit their perceived needsGǪ and then it's up to them to figure out what those needs actually are. It smartens the game up by allowing for far more concentration and specialisation, and thus further removing the meaning (and interpretation) of character age and the perennially meaningless SP count.
More choices = smarter. Fewer choices and more railroading = dumber.
This change creates the former by removing the latter (and that's without even going into how it's making the game conceptually smarter by removing illogical and inconsistent prereqs that serve absolutely no purpose for, and have zero relation to the skills and ships they open up). 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. |
Diamaht Nevain
Avatar Union
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:27:00 -
[1579] - Quote
I know a lot of people are worried about retraining, and you guys have said that we won't have to. However, IMO if retraining for a couple weeks is the price we have to pay for solid, long lasting ship changes then it's a non-issue.
If it comes down to a choice of making a really good change or sparing us from a small amount retraining time, then make the change. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:29:00 -
[1580] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:You really need to go back and read the dev posts describing the problems inherent with the current system. More importantly you need to understand them.
Additionally they already have plans for the current obsolete hulls in game, allowing them to seriously consider (for the first time) the frequently asked for inclusion of some new Destroyer variants.
You may feel that new destoyer hulls are not wanted or needed, but most of the EVE community disagree's with you... and has elaborated on why countless times.
The Dev responses in this thread have very completely spelled out why these changes are being considered, and their reasoning is sound. You would probably be better served promoting your idea's of how best to impliment them rather than arguing a patently lost cause.
Yes, your polling data surely backs up your claim that "most of the EVE community" agrees with you. And, of course this question should be determined by majority vote anyway whether true or not. Also, got no problem reading, budd, so you can shove that argument back where it came. edit- oh and the just shut up and fall in line with the powers that be argument is a gem
Tell you what, you come up with a few threads devoted to "For gods sake, we don't want any new ships", and I'll take a few seconds to come up with dozens of threads asking for new ships and capabilities.
I didn't say you had a problem with reading, I am saying you seem to be having trouble understanding the logic underlying what you have read.
You might consider that a good idea, whether it comes from the "powers that be" or from the man on the street, is still a good idea.
The new skill system would make it much quicker, meaningful, and streamlined to specialize in a particular type of ship (including T2 varients)... while making it slightly more time consuming (in some cases) to cross train.
It also acts to enable sensible expansions to existing hull classes, and dove tails nicely with the rebalancing of existing hulls.
I don't really see much to argue about there, but to each his own. 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. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:29:00 -
[1581] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:To put it simply this allows 1 skill to open the door to WAY too many different hulls variants.
The goal is to reward specialization and to make cross training at least slightly more challenging. Having one skill (Destoyers) open the door to a huge number of hulls is extremely counter productive from a game design point of view. Racial destroyer and racial BC is not the most objectionable part of the blog. That increases training reqs per ship. Fine. Reducing the reqs for command ships by removing (AF 4 + HAC 4, or Logistics 4) and frig 5 + cruiser 5 , and removing BS 5 from flying Carrier or Dread, these are major dumbing down of the game and exacerbate the supercaptital proliferation problem. That is poor game design, at least as far as what EVE has been. So many changes have been dumbing down the game (removal of learning skills, etc) and these two changes would add to it. Having prereqs which never added anything to the performance of the ships that required them makes things smarter? I can potentially see the argument that they should follow the precedent set by the T1 ship skills of requiring smaller hulls trained to 4, but their function is different enough to justify making them independent IMHO as you've already trained to a level of competence with the ship class to justify being able to pilot more specialized hulls. |
Mukuro Gravedigger
Republic University Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:31:00 -
[1582] - Quote
As I read this thread further, this is my prediction on what shall happen.
CCP will refund the skill points for the Battlecruiser and / or Destroyer skill(s) or allow a player to convert them into specific racial type. They may grant you one or more of the racial varients in skill books too while leaving the basic version of the skill "locked" in your character. The players will have a grace period to learn the other racial varient skill books (if desired) before CCP alters the requirements for the various ships. Afterwards, the players will be allowed to train (or trade in skill points) to change the basic version into a racial type.
As myself as an example, I have both skills at level 5 while remaining basically a "pure" Minmatar pilot. If CCP decides to grant me level 5 in all racial varieties, suddenly I do not have the lower ships skills to actually utilize these new skills (frigate or cruiser). Should I be punished for not training the other three races? Should I lose out on ~free~ skill points because another pilot could use the skills across multiple races and gets them granted while I will not? Or everyone gets an even number but has the option to place them anywhere? So the multiple raced pilot has to spend them on four types while I can spend mine on but one type and now ~free~ skills to spend elsewhere?
So yes, the blog does state that nobody will be hurt by this change. But I have a feeling this stance will be altered to allow time to pass for training purposes so those that want one or two or three or four types will have the time while others can train elsewhere. In the end, everyone still has the same number of skill points.
Just my thoughts at the moment. |
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:34:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:This would imply you already "polluted" it with another race of Cruiser 4 it seems. So nbd
What are you on about?
My point for those who missed it:
If i have caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5 - battelcruiser 5 and no other races trained (for rp reasons) i would be a little annoyed that afterwards it would go caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5- caldari battelcruiser 5 / amarr battelcruiser 5 / gallente battelcruiser 5 / minamtar battelcruiser 5
if they then have to add in the racial frig / cruiser then it's even worse.
CCP please consider reimbursement of sp rather than shoving other racial bc 5 for those who dont need or want it. Better yet don't 'fix' the skill tree. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:35:00 -
[1584] - Quote
Mukuro Gravedigger wrote:As I read this thread further, this is my prediction on what shall happen.
CCP will refund the skill points for the Battlecruiser and / or Destroyer skill(s) or allow a player to convert them into specific racial type. They may grant you one or more of the racial varients in skill books too while leaving the basic version of the skill "locked" in your character. The players will have a grace period to learn the other racial varient skill books (if desired) before CCP alters the requirements for the various ships. Afterwards, the players will be allowed to train (or trade in skill points) to change the basic version into a racial type.
As myself as an example, I have both skills at level 5 while remaining basically a "pure" Minmatar pilot. If CCP decides to grant me level 5 in all racial varieties, suddenly I do not have the lower ships skills to actually utilize these new skills (frigate or cruiser). Should I be punished for not training the other three races? Should I lose out on ~free~ skill points because another pilot could use the skills across multiple races and gets them granted while I will not? Or everyone gets an even number but has the option to place them anywhere? So the multiple raced pilot has to spend them on four types while I can spend mine on but one type and now ~free~ skills to spend elsewhere?
So yes, the blog does state that nobody will be hurt by this change. But I have a feeling this stance will be altered to allow time to pass for training purposes so those that want one or two or three or four types will have the time while others can train elsewhere. In the end, everyone still has the same number of skill points.
Just my thoughts at the moment. Unless something changed from CCP Ytterbium's post on the matter, linked in the op, why would you believe it to be different from what was stated there? As far as missing out, if what is granted is based on ones current capabilities and choices, it wouldn't be through any fault of CCP if you missed out. That aside, the static number of skill points should really be irrelevant to the discussion IMHO. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:37:00 -
[1585] - Quote
prolix travail wrote:Lili Lu wrote:This would imply you already "polluted" it with another race of Cruiser 4 it seems. So nbd What are you on about? My point for those who missed it: If i have caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5 - battelcruiser 5 and no other races trained (for rp reasons) i would be a little annoyed that afterwards it would go caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5- caldari battelcruiser 5 / amarr battelcruiser 5 / gallente battelcruiser 5 / minamtar battelcruiser 5 if they then have to add in the racial frig / cruiser then it's even worse. CCP please consider reimbursement of sp rather than shoving other racial bc 5 for those who dont need or want it. Better yet don't 'fix' the skill tree. What are you on about?
If you have caldari frig 5 - caldari cruiser 5 - battelcruiser 5 and no other races trained then you will get Caldari Battlecruiser 5 and no other racial skills. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Kasenada
Suzaku Enterprises Banji wa Yume
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:37:00 -
[1586] - Quote
Should the skill destroyers (for example) be devolved into 4 racial destroyer skills, and those that have the skill already then get all 4 racials at the same level, which seems to be the only appropriate way to handle this, have they considered that they will also likely be increasing clone costs for those characters? Especially if they are going to do this for:
destroyers, battlecruisers, interdictors, heavy interdictors, assault ships, heavy assault ships, marauders and black ops (did i miss any generic ship skills?)
as would only be proper in creating a new intuitive ship skill set under the terms they set forth in dev blog. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:42:00 -
[1587] - Quote
Kasenada wrote:Should the skill destroyers (for example) be devolved into 4 racial destroyer skills, and those that have the skill already then get all 4 racials at the same level, which seems to be the only appropriate way to handle this, have they considered that they will also likely be increasing clone costs for those characters? Especially if they are going to do this for:
destroyers, battlecruisers, interdictors, heavy interdictors, assault ships, heavy assault ships, marauders and black ops (did i miss any generic ship skills?)
as would only be proper in creating a new intuitive ship skill set under the terms they set forth in dev blog.
First, were you going to stop training skills when you reached a particular SP total? If not, then so what?
Second, you need to work on comprehension.
Tech 1 ships are prerequisites for Tech 2 ships. Tech 1 ships will all have racial variants. Tech 2 ships are not being changed in that regard. There will be no racial variation for Tech 2, as it is merely a sub-specialty of Tech 1. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Minabunny
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:44:00 -
[1588] - Quote
Now cut all skill training times by 50% and it will be perfect. |
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:49:00 -
[1589] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Tell you what, you come up with a few threads devoted to "For gods sake, we don't want any new ships", and I'll take a few seconds to come up with dozens of threads asking for new ships and capabilities.
I didn't say you had a problem with reading, I am saying you seem to be having trouble understanding the logic underlying what you have read.
You might consider that a good idea, whether it comes from the "powers that be" or from the man on the street, is still a good idea.
The new skill system would make it much quicker, meaningful, and streamlined to specialize in a particular type of ship (including T2 varients)... while making it slightly more time consuming (in some cases) to cross train.
It also acts to enable sensible expansions to existing hull classes, and dove tails nicely with the rebalancing of existing hulls.
I don't really see much to argue about there, but to each his own. You argue with premises that aren't proven. "a good idea" according to what? Just because you think it's a good idea?
Is quicker into T2 variant really better? I don't think it is.
I'm expressing opinions and so are you. Stop couching yours as inherently "good."
Tippia wrote:It smartens the game up by giving you more options, more choices, more ways to optimise and (consequently) more ways of making bad choices that give you less bang for the buck. By removing those prereqs, you are no longer given a single path that everyone has to follow, but rather let people mix and match to suit their perceived needsGǪ and then it's up to them to figure out what those needs actually are. It smartens the game up by allowing for far more concentration and specialisation, and thus further removing the meaning (and interpretation) of character age and the perennially meaningless SP count.
More choices = smarter. Fewer choices and more railroading = dumber.
This change creates the former by removing the latter (and that's without even going into how it's making the game conceptually smarter by removing illogical and inconsistent prereqs that serve absolutely no purpose for, and have zero relation to the skills and ships they open up). You are looking at it from a different direction, that being number of choices. I'm looking at it from sp requirements to get into command ships or capitals where the changes are decidedly dumbing down.
As for the logi and HAC prereqs they are not meaningless and have logic. A HAC is a tanky combat ship. A field command is an even tankier and gankier BC variant on that. Noone (well few) is flying a field command for the ability to fit a link. And with the Logi > Fleet command ship it is, to borrow the rp fantasy game analogy, the progression of a front line priest/healer into a super buffing preventive healing hierarchical position. There is no stupidity in the reqs as they are now.
And if you want to fly a capital ship no problem with requiring the mastery of a BS.
Sure, you say that the changes force more choices. OK. But they simultaneously reduce the pre-reqs for certain ship classes that were distant end goals for players progressing in the game. They will now be too easy to attain I believe. They will lose meaning with that ease. And making it easier to get into capitals and supsequently supercaps will further harm the game. |
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:53:00 -
[1590] - Quote
Minabunny wrote:Now cut all skill training times by 50% and it will be perfect. Excellent troll post. Thanks |
|
Aphoxema G
Teraa Matar
254
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 20:58:00 -
[1591] - Quote
What I see here isn't really proposing one frustrating thing, it's proposing one thing that makes the ugly ducklings find their lost swan siblings and another thing that is kind of infuriating because it doesn't really seem to make any sense.
Ship roles balance on a triangle of defense, offense and mobility to help "lesser" T1s pull their weight in the valuable minerals that have otherwise been wasted on them is a wonderful idea. I'd love to see the Bantams and the Scythes matter for once.
That digs deeply here is the arguable necessity in restructuring the way we train (as in, wait) to use non tech-1 ships. If we're going for homogeneity, it would be practical to the players to eliminate racial training entirely. What isn't practical is dictating a place for things the players have already long decided.
However, if we're going to go with racial specialization, please at least make Racial Destroyer a 1x skill and Racial Battlecruiser a 2x or 3x skill. These ships really are just frigate +1 or cruiser +1, they still rely on small and medium sized rigs and modules (with the exception of BC3s) and their prices scale up fairly well with their fittings. Warp drive failure indicator: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=887805#post887805 |
Mukuro Gravedigger
Republic University Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:00:00 -
[1592] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Unless something changed from CCP Ytterbium's post on the matter, linked in the op, why would you believe it to be different from what was stated there? As far as missing out, if what is granted is based on ones current capabilities and choices, it wouldn't be through any fault of CCP if you missed out. That aside, the static number of skill points should really be irrelevant to the discussion IMHO.
Unless I am misunderstanding...
At the moment, with both Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills, I can fly any of the four racial varieties of ships. But after the change, I will need the lesser ship classes (frigate and cruiser) trained to fly the same racial varieties I can fly now. So how will CCP decide which skills to grant to players? A blanket case where everyone gets all four racial types equivalent to their current trained level? Or depending upon your trained lower class ships whether you are given one or more skill point sets? That is, since I only have Minmatar trained, I will be given the racial variety only in skill points compared to one that trained everything who will get four times the amount of skill points.
Yes, skill points in the long run does not matter. But whereas right now I can take a Ferox and turn it into a gas mining ship, once this change goes through, if I decide I want that Ferox, I will need to train from frigate on up - spending time for something I can do right now. I will not have a grandfather clause stating I was able to fly the Ferox before but suddenly ~forgot~ now.
As for the dev's post on the matter, again I have not read the whole thread through, but from what I have seen - everyone will get everything from today into tomorrow to "we're not sure how we'll redistribute skill points". So call me a bit skeptical. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:00:00 -
[1593] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:You are looking at it from a different direction, that being number of choices. I'm looking at it from sp requirements to get into command ships or capitals where the changes are decidedly dumbing down. I have to say this statement genuinely sums up something I truly don't understand. How is it that we've made the association that time sinks = intelligence. In the case of capitol ships, what is it that is expected to happen during the ~25 days of BS V to make a pilot more competent, that wouldn't happen during the time they had to train all the other prerequisites associated with flying those ships? In the case of command ships, time to get them in more than one race is increasing, isn't it? If that is the case I'm not sure what the issue is there. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:06:00 -
[1594] - Quote
Quote:You argue with premises that aren't proven. "a good idea" according to what? Just because you think it's a good idea?
No, my point was that you were inferring that because the idea came from the "powers that be" that they were automaticially not worthy of consideration, and anyone agreeing with those ideas was doing so because of their source.
In this you are, of course, incorrect.
A good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from, this is simple truth regardless of what idea's are being discussed.
Making the insinuations you did is simply trollish and undermines any legitimate points you might have made.
I think I'll let Tippia explain the realities of what your new choices would mean, and why... assuming Tip feels the need to lay it all out again. 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. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:06:00 -
[1595] - Quote
Mukuro Gravedigger wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Unless something changed from CCP Ytterbium's post on the matter, linked in the op, why would you believe it to be different from what was stated there? As far as missing out, if what is granted is based on ones current capabilities and choices, it wouldn't be through any fault of CCP if you missed out. That aside, the static number of skill points should really be irrelevant to the discussion IMHO. Unless I am misunderstanding... At the moment, with both Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills, I can fly any of the four racial varieties of ships. But after the change, I will need the lesser ship classes (frigate and cruiser) trained to fly the same racial varieties I can fly now. So how will CCP decide which skills to grant to players? A blanket case where everyone gets all four racial types equivalent to their current trained level? Or depending upon your trained lower class ships whether you are given one or more skill point sets? That is, since I only have Minmatar trained, I will be given the racial variety only in skill points compared to one that trained everything who will get four times the amount of skill points. Yes, skill points in the long run does not matter. But whereas right now I can take a Ferox and turn it into a gas mining ship, once this change goes through, if I decide I want that Ferox, I will need to train from frigate on up - spending time for something I can do right now. I will not have a grandfather clause stating I was able to fly the Ferox before but suddenly ~forgot~ now. As for the dev's post on the matter, again I have not read the whole thread through, but from what I have seen - everyone will get everything from today into tomorrow to "we're not sure how we'll redistribute skill points". So call me a bit skeptical. I must be wrong regarding the prerequisites for BC's, but i thought they required cruiser 3 of the respective race to pilot, so for a ferox one would have to have Caldari Cruiser 3 which required Caldari Frigate 4 anyways. So, were I designing the system I'd provide the racial BC skills at the level the BC skill was trained to for each race a person had cruiser 3 in. Last I read and understood one may get all 4, but I'd have to double check as I don't recall specific clarification on that point. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1063
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:15:00 -
[1596] - Quote
As of right now, you get BC 5 for two things: the max out your T1 BC stats, or to fly command ships. I'm mostly concerned with the latter.
Command ships are already woefully underpowered for the skills they require. They are upstaged almost completely by T3s that require half the time investment for command skills. One redeeming factor of them today is that once I have BC5, I have access to any race's command ships at the same time I have access to the T2 cruisers.
What's worse is how unfair this is going to be for those people who DON'T have BC5 when this is released and find themselves having to train it four times while I only had to train it once. I certainly appreciate the free SP this will give me, but it's hardly fair to newer players who haven't had a year or two to get to the point that BC5 is an worthwhile skill to have. |
Random Womble
Emo Rangers Electric Monkey Overlords
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:20:00 -
[1597] - Quote
I dont like the BC and destroyer skill changes. For various reasons but i also think it will discourage people from trying other races and different play styles which brings me on to my main bug bear (and forcing people to train destroyers when there is only 1 per race is just daft).
While balancing is never easy and some ships are used to a lesser or greater extent that is always going to be the case as different play styles (influenced by mechanics, lag and so on) become more or less popular. The changes will not stop this happening even if they go through however they may reduce the degree to which it happens and that in fact points to stagnation for the game which is a bad thing. The change will also make all the races to a larger extent much more homogeneous again something that is not good. Finally it destroys the creativity in pvp EVE. Occasionally people will take mediocre ships and make them work in new ways. Something that is fun and challenging and is best seen in the alliance tournament (which is admittedly like conducting a drug test in a lab vs in real world trials).
Don't make the game bland and predictable.
Chaos must rule |
Aren Dar
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:31:00 -
[1598] - Quote
Random Womble wrote:I dont like the BC and destroyer skill changes. For various reasons but i also think it will discourage people from trying other races and different play styles which brings me on to my main bug bear (and forcing people to train destroyers when there is only 1 per race is just daft)
In the absolute best case everyone will start to gravitate towards one particular race, because balance is very hard to do correctly and CCP have never ever got balance correct (if you take their meaning of making every ship of a given level equally desirable). I imagine it will further increase the monocultures of null-sec fleets.
Or you can assume that CCP has discovered a group of developers with a mutant gene that enables them to do what they have never been able to do in the past. |
Dormax
Immortalis Mortis Angelus Mayhem.
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:34:00 -
[1599] - Quote
Random Womble wrote:I dont like the BC and destroyer skill changes. For various reasons but i also think it will discourage people from trying other races and different play styles which brings me on to my main bug bear (and forcing people to train destroyers when there is only 1 per race is just daft).
While balancing is never easy and some ships are used to a lesser or greater extent that is always going to be the case as different play styles (influenced by mechanics, lag and so on) become more or less popular. The changes will not stop this happening even if they go through however they may reduce the degree to which it happens and that in fact points to stagnation for the game which is a bad thing. The change will also make all the races to a larger extent much more homogeneous again something that is not good. Finally it destroys the creativity in pvp EVE. Occasionally people will take mediocre ships and make them work in new ways. Something that is fun and challenging and is best seen in the alliance tournament (which is admittedly like conducting a drug test in a lab vs in real world trials).
Don't make the game bland and predictable.
Chaos must rule
/sign
If I wanted predictable I'd be playing WOW or TOR. OK, so smart bombing drakes and disco beam canes are unlikely, and probably stupid... but you never know... all depends on how they are used and the ingenuity of the pilot. I've seen stranger killmails! |
Aph3xus
Focused Annihilation Detrimental Imperative
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:40:00 -
[1600] - Quote
I support the re-worked ship skill tree. |
|
Lili Lu
189
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:41:00 -
[1601] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:No, my point was that you were inferring that because the idea came from the "powers that be" that they were automaticially not worthy of consideration, and anyone agreeing with those ideas was doing so because of their source.
In this you are, of course, incorrect.
A good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from, this is simple truth regardless of what idea's are being discussed.
Making the insinuations you did is simply trollish and undermines any legitimate points you might have made.
I think I'll let Tippia explain the realities of what your new choices would mean, and why... assuming Tip feels the need to lay it all out again. Bolded where you aren't getting it. You say it is a good idea, therefore it must be? Again, this is your opinion, and mine differs. Neither is objectively true, still just subjectively true to each of us. You continue to "insinuate" that your favorable opinion of the changes means they are inherently good.
"my new choices" what are you talking about? I amd not introducing anything new. Instead I'm arguing against most of the proposed changes, except for the proposed replacing of the tiers with roles, which has been a long existing request on the threads (notice I didn't say majority request), and the proposed racial destroyer and BC skills are fine as they will actually increase overall sp investment in order to progress. It seems this is important to Tippia, to force choices to be made, fine. But removing skill reqs for some tech II and captial ships is a mistake, imo. Easy goals are not necessarilly better. What has been Eve's strength is the quest, not the summiting.
As to the person who says what's one 30 day train for BS 5 matter (sorry tired of creating another tab and quoting). Well you see, it's not just the 30 days. It is the perception of difficulty. If that goes then way too many people become focused on Titan or bust. Regardless, every diminution, no matter it's size in the totality of training time, just makes the supercap proliferation problem worse. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 21:57:00 -
[1602] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:No, my point was that you were inferring that because the idea came from the "powers that be" that they were automaticially not worthy of consideration, and anyone agreeing with those ideas was doing so because of their source.
In this you are, of course, incorrect.
A good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from, this is simple truth regardless of what idea's are being discussed.
Making the insinuations you did is simply trollish and undermines any legitimate points you might have made.
I think I'll let Tippia explain the realities of what your new choices would mean, and why... assuming Tip feels the need to lay it all out again. Bolded where you aren't getting it. You say it is a good idea, therefore it must be? Again, this is your opinion, and mine differs. Neither is objectively true, still just subjectively true to each of us. You continue to "insinuate" that your favorable opinion of the changes means they are inherently good. "my new choices" what are you talking about? I amd not introducing anything new. Instead I'm arguing against most of the proposed changes, except for the proposed replacing of the tiers with roles, which has been a long existing request on the threads (notice I didn't say majority request), and the proposed racial destroyer and BC skills are fine as they will actually increase overall sp investment in order to progress. It seems this is important to Tippia, to force choices to be made, fine. But removing skill reqs for some tech II and captial ships is a mistake. As to the person who says what's one 30 day train for BS 5 matter (sorry tired of creating another tab and quoting). Well you see, it's not just the 30 days. It is the perception of difficulty. If that goes then way too many people become focused on Titan or bust. Regardless, every diminution, no matter it's size in the totality of training time, just makes the supercap proliferation problem worse. I guess I'm missing the source of that perception of difficulty. Mainly due to the fact that training is very straightforward, but if time is actually being viewed as a barrier to proliferation of caps/supercaps then we are long past their effective period of 30 days and proliferation should be expected. Since this method is neither difficult or intelligent and doesn't accomplish the stated goal of preventing proliferation, why keep it? It we just want a time sink, lets be honest and say that, but if were talking about having some specific benefit to the game, I'm not seeing it.
Edit: And if we do see alot of people go "titan or bust" who aren't prepared as pilots to do so, we end up with alot of dead titans, which is a good thing for just about everyone. |
CyberGh0st
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 22:07:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote:Patient 2428190 wrote:I love how you are going to give everybody who currently has Destroyers V and Battlecruisers V 6,144,000 skillpoints out of thin air.
You guys are truly idiotic. What would be TRULY idiotic is for any current player, that has this knowledge, not to immediately start skilling Desy V and BC V. I don't know how this will all play out, but CCP is basically telling you what to do to benefit from this, but only if you act. I personally already have Desy V and BC V, however, I only have the the Amarr frig and cruiser skills to support flying those Destroyers and BC's. Only 6 days to get the other 3 races frig and cruiser skills up to support flying their respective BC. Just in case.... If you are reading this and not preparing for the change, then you are the idiot. Of course 4 months from now when they abandon this line of thinking there will be another 70+ page ragethread about how everyone got screwed.
You made me lol, thanks :p
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
530
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 22:34:00 -
[1604] - Quote
I see potential problems with reimbursement.
1. Skill points before changeover Gëá skill points after changeover.
2. Disparity between skill points given based on current abilities, as skill level progression is not linear.
You'd be penalized if you didn't already train Battlecruisers 5 and Destroyers to 5.
Skill points in Battlecruisers 1 <<<< Skill points in four [racial] Battlecruiser 1 Skill points in Battlecruisers 5 <<<<<<<<<< Skill points in four [racial] Battlecruiser 5 Skill points in four [racial] Battlecruisers 1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Skill points in four [racial] Battlecruiser 5 |
Martineth
Sihars Little Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 22:41:00 -
[1605] - Quote
CCP is about to make one of the most common mistakes that game developers on MMO's are doing, but unike a handflull of them they think they ought too cause time has cought up with them. Rebalancing ships my big shiny greek Buttweiser.
You find cyclones scythe's desies and the lot obsolete? Yes they are. But they are part of a history that served us and served us well. Eve has a privillege only a handfull of MMO's has ever had. It matured, so did its content and so do its players. There is no need to rebalance an old cyclone to give it some more use. Its time is over, let people fly it like an old car model is driven.
We got the right to preserve what is a nearly 10 year history. Out with new Tiers and let us choose what we like.
Dont take my word cause i say it, HILMAR did as well. In last or overlast fanfest a player asked him if it is possible to make eve items more basic and condensed cause he was against the plethora of items in game. Hilmar replied that the tools are given for players to use and we choose-vote for out items by choosing or neglecting an item. True sandbox.
But.... you want to give old hulls a new polish right? OK here it is how i think it should be done.
e.g, a Cyclone. Players should have the right to take the basic hull and send it over to an NPC corporation that will enchance it slightly on certain fileds. Brutors would give it some more gunpower. Creodron some more drone cababilities. Sisters of EvE some more cargo etc. Make some of these echancements stackable up to a degree, make the ship unsellable and make it unique in a way. Make it smt like a new F16 block 52 adv. Same hull as the 1976 F16 but with new capabilities. Good and better cyclone but under no circumstance a better ship then a tier 2 or tier 3 ship. Its time has passed.
If we dont respect the fact that in our universe old and obsolete ships are rare yet here to show to new players how it was in the good old days we miss th chance to point out a simple fact that no other game in my humble opinion can with the same degree.
To show to new players we got roots, we got history and by stickign around you are participating into a better eve. So lets roll out these tier 4 BC's and tier 2 desies and let the older models become obslete. It is NOT a condition. It is a rightfully earned privillege of Ageing. Let them age with grace and respect them by letting them as they are.
They served, and served us well. |
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 22:46:00 -
[1606] - Quote
Seems like a lot of rage in here. Ship balancing and fixing the ship tree has been long over due. This is a great step in the right direction. I look forward to this change. |
Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 22:54:00 -
[1607] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We have been following this thread closely and compiled a Q&A list to the most commonly asked questions, we hope this helps a bit.
- Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process?
A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
Example:
- If we go for option 1: you will get Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar Battlecruiser skills at 5 if you previously had the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5.
- If we go for option 2: you will get Amarr Battlecruiser skill at 5 only if you previously fulfilled all conditions to fly Amarr Battlecruisers, which means having the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5, PLUS the Amarr Cruiser at 3.
To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan.
In response to your not being sure why the noted concern:
There is a certain sense of acute gratification from building an extremely focused character.
If you've built a specialized single race alt or two over several years both as functional characters and in particular as exercises in execution...you've completely ruined the lengthy focus and effort invested in the character once an off-race specific skill is added to the sheet. it's a bit like throwing the entire character 'concept' out the window.
If you want examples of this take a look at my accounts & characters.
I'll likewise add it's for this same precise reason, i'd love to be able to strictly train "pirate faction" Frigate, Cruiser & Battleship skills without cross-racial skill requirements to fly 'em. For instance, i'd love to build a true pirate starter character that can only fly angel ships without access to Minmatar / Gallente. If you wish to balance this with more/less training time, cost of skill books, etc... That'd be fine, run with whatever works for balance. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 23:18:00 -
[1608] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:No, my point was that you were inferring that because the idea came from the "powers that be" that they were automaticially not worthy of consideration, and anyone agreeing with those ideas was doing so because of their source.
In this you are, of course, incorrect.
A good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from, this is simple truth regardless of what idea's are being discussed.
Making the insinuations you did is simply trollish and undermines any legitimate points you might have made.
I think I'll let Tippia explain the realities of what your new choices would mean, and why... assuming Tip feels the need to lay it all out again. Bolded where you aren't getting it. You say it is a good idea, therefore it must be? Again, this is your opinion, and mine differs. Neither is objectively true, still just subjectively true to each of us. You continue to "insinuate" that your favorable opinion of the changes means they are inherently good. "my new choices" what are you talking about? I amd not introducing anything new. Instead I'm arguing against most of the proposed changes, except for the proposed replacing of the tiers with roles, which has been a long existing request on the threads (notice I didn't say majority request), and the proposed racial destroyer and BC skills are fine as they will actually increase overall sp investment in order to progress. It seems this is important to Tippia, to force choices to be made, fine. But removing skill reqs for some tech II and captial ships is a mistake, imo. Easy goals are not necessarilly better. What has been Eve's strength is the quest, not the summiting. As to the person who says what's one 30 day train for BS 5 matter (sorry tired of creating another tab and quoting). Well you see, it's not just the 30 days. It is the perception of difficulty. If that goes then way too many people become focused on Titan or bust. Regardless, every diminution, no matter it's size in the totality of training time, just makes the supercap proliferation problem worse. Training time isn't what limits supercaps.
It takes years to be able to fly a supercap or even a capital well. Shaving 30 days off that isn't going to suddenly make people jump into a supercap. |
L'Acuto
Old Timers Guild Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 23:27:00 -
[1609] - Quote
Why not make all of the ship skills (frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battle cruiser, battleship, carrier, dreadnaught, etc) generic and have the racial skills (amarr, caldari, gallente, and minmatar starship command) complementary. If you're worried about skill point allocation you could divide up the racial flavors into starship command, advanced starship command (for tech2 and tech3), and capital starship command. |
Emiko Luan
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 23:57:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Valei Khurelem wrote:I was about to prepare myself for a wall of text rant about the way CCP are ******* up the balance yet again, but this actually looks fairly promising. The only problem is you're doing it on tranquility, if you want to keep the current playerbase you should make a seperate server for those who actually like this current balance system ( god knows why ) but you may as well cater to them first.
I'm actually impressed CCP, well done, just don't go the star wars galaxies route and you'll be fine.
You can't split the server. Tiericide is good, they just need to leave it on Sisi UNTIL IT'S READY, having it take slightly longer to get into battleships isn't really a bad thing.
What I'm more interested in is the new support skills, I can't wait for more skills, I have hardly anything left to train that's quick :P +welcome to my world+ http://venomzer0.deviantart.com |
|
Decus Daga
Nasgul Collective Cascade Imminent
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 00:09:00 -
[1611] - Quote
posting to remove notifications :P |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 00:14:00 -
[1612] - Quote
I generally support the ideas proposed by ccp of bombing the tier system.
I'm a but neutral on putting destroyers and BC's into the main tree leading on to other things. Cross training racially is kind of cool, and I don't like it going away. Destroyers are kind of a odd support ship, now they may be skipped less. Seems odd to have a skill though for just one racial hull.
Looking forward to inferno.
Personally I prefer the current size system, of small (frig), medium (cruiser), large (BS), extra large (capital).
But guess could get used to 5 normal classes of sub caps that are linerar progressions and not having two 'independent' branching off points that go nowhere. But I am vexed to think of how to categorize the two new ones that are part of the 'real' progression, small/medium, medium/large?
BC's and destroyers also have few tech 2 variants. Where as cruisers and frigs have around 3 each with widely varying roles, even multiple in same tech 2 spec that have different variants. So they have less of a flair for training them long to unlock stuff.
Over all, much rage will be had in changing requirements, but it really doesn't matter. If you already trained you have less training to do as a noob. If you a noob deal wiz it. If you got bs 5, just consider yourself extra trained for one racial bs for more power and ability to use tech 2, and be happy you can cross train to other capitals much simpler, BS 5 is a serious forever skill. Its the kind of skill you train if you going to be gone for a month or more. The only reason I got it was because of ghost training and patience, no one else should have to do it, unless they really want to. To wish more people to have to train BS 5 is a horrible thing to wish on someone else. Its like the plauge it should go away, just because you had to deal with it old days doesn't mean future generations have to deal with it as well.
The big cool thing is removing teirs, and balancing roles. I don't want nerd skill calculators obsessing and detracting from that about how training something takes 5 more days in one spot, and 30 less in another to get to a capital by the odd chance if they made a alt to train to start to finish, which is unlikely because super nerds are bitter vets with all the junk trained anyway. Just deal wiz it, who cares, the real game is using space ships, and balancing them would be great, not so much doing spreadsheets on skills. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 01:36:00 -
[1613] - Quote
After coming back from a couple years break I can say that I'd definitely welcome these changes. Ships forgotten now become useful again and have their own place. It's too bad it's such a long way off, though. I seriously can't wait for this. |
Bhaal Chinnian
Hedion University Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 02:50:00 -
[1614] - Quote
forum QQ best QQ TESTES..TESTES..1...2..........3? |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
160
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 02:55:00 -
[1615] - Quote
I like the reduction in training time these changes bring for someone that is focused on one race. While they do make crosstraining more of a grind, it does teach players quickly that focusing on something is better than dipping into everything. The more players that lose the "Level 1 is enough" before jumping into a ship the better.
In regards to the retraining, a rather simple but possible unpopular option would be just to give every toon currently training on active accounts 3m skill points to cover the BC 5 dealie. Then slap in a button that returns all skill points to a pool and all injected books to the hanger. This way they can then readd however they want.
Not the prettiest way to fix it, but its simply. It will deal with people unhappy and having to retain to fly more then 1 Commandship, gives people the option of reducing BS 5 to 4 for Carrier alts, and im sure theres some super keen 3m SP player that will love having their SP doubled. |
Castor Narcissus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 03:11:00 -
[1616] - Quote
I'm loving this thread. Old vet's tears, trying to explain CCP how many years they spent training Destroyers/Racial BS/BC's to level V and how they want it refunded multiplied by x4.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2359
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 03:18:00 -
[1617] - Quote
May I propose a new line of skills:
Racial Gunnery Racial Sharpshooter Racial Advanced Weapon Upgrades Racial Surgical Strike Racial Mechanics Racial Shield Management Racial Hull Upgrades "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2359
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 03:19:00 -
[1618] - Quote
Introducing new skills simplifies and streamlines things, apparently! "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2359
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 03:20:00 -
[1619] - Quote
"In order to simplify ship progression, we're going to split these two skills into rank 6 racial variants and make them prerequisites for further training. This will benefit new players" - CCP Ytterbium, 2012 "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 04:43:00 -
[1620] - Quote
looks good to me, aside from the whole getting rid of battlecruisers. man I love that skill, sure it would simplify stuff for new players, well at least until they wanted to try out another race. having destroyers and battlecruisers as is makes it a lot easier to try training another race |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 04:53:00 -
[1621] - Quote
Andski wrote:May I propose a new line of skills
Racial Gunner Racial Sharpshoote Racial Advanced Weapon Upgrade Racial Surgical Strik Racial Mechanic Racial Shield Managemen Racial Hull Upgrades :Start obvious troll counter proposal: No, lets leave the as is, but make super carriers and titans just use one general skill across all races to be consistent. They're kinda like dreads and carriers just abit bigger and obviously don't deserve their own racial skills :End obvious troll counter proposal:
Edit: But in all seriousness, is making those 2 classes function like all the others that big an issue to you? |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 05:45:00 -
[1622] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Andski wrote:May I propose a new line of skills
Racial Gunner Racial Sharpshoote Racial Advanced Weapon Upgrade Racial Surgical Strik Racial Mechanic Racial Shield Managemen Racial Hull Upgrades :Start obvious troll counter proposal: No, lets leave the as is, but make super carriers and titans just use one general skill across all races to be consistent. They're kinda like dreads and carriers just abit bigger and obviously don't deserve their own racial skills :End obvious troll counter proposal: Edit: But in all seriousness, is making those 2 classes function like all the others that big an issue to you? Just out of curiosity, you know that the only skill difference between carrier and super carrier is fighterbombers, right? Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 05:49:00 -
[1623] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Andski wrote:May I propose a new line of skills
Racial Gunner Racial Sharpshoote Racial Advanced Weapon Upgrade Racial Surgical Strik Racial Mechanic Racial Shield Managemen Racial Hull Upgrades :Start obvious troll counter proposal: No, lets leave the as is, but make super carriers and titans just use one general skill across all races to be consistent. They're kinda like dreads and carriers just abit bigger and obviously don't deserve their own racial skills :End obvious troll counter proposal: Edit: But in all seriousness, is making those 2 classes function like all the others that big an issue to you? Just out of curiosity, you know that the only skill difference between carrier and super carrier is fighterbombers, right? Yes, though really my post was more about the hyperbole than the actual comparisons in the ways the skills work. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1996
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 05:56:00 -
[1624] - Quote
Castor Narcissus wrote:I'm loving this thread. Old vet's tears, trying to explain CCP how many years they spent training Destroyers/Racial BS/BC's to level V and how they want it refunded multiplied by x4.
Why not? Benefits come from trained skill levels and not your total SP count, so it's not like we're asking to gain free new abilities. We just want to keep the abilities we have today and the only way to do that is to get the new skills at an equivalent level. If we get the new skills at a level corresponding to our old skill levels, all we get is a potentially more expensive clone and we retain the abilitities we have had for years. Anything less than that and CCP is removing our abilities for no good reason. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
754
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 06:34:00 -
[1625] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process? A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
Example: If we go for option 1: you will get Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar Battlecruiser skills at 5 if you previously had the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5. If we go for option 2: you will get Amarr Battlecruiser skill at 5 only if you previously fulfilled all conditions to fly Amarr Battlecruisers, which means having the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5, PLUS the Amarr Cruiser at 3. To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan. You do realize that suddenly adding 6 million SP to everyone who happens to have 4 racial cruisers at 3 is rather broken?
It's going to cause huge amount of whine due to unfairness, and the first option of giving it to everyone will cause huge amount of whine from people who suddenly have to pay more for their clones.
If you're going to do this then do it like a man, reimburst the BC skill and inject the racial BC skills for anyone who is eligible. Then they can choose which racial BC to put SP into, and train up the rest at their own leisure.
It's not like I'm at a loss as to what to train anyway. 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 06:39:00 -
[1626] - Quote
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:You do realize that suddenly adding 6 million SP to everyone who happens to have 4 racial cruisers at 3 is rather broken? Aside from them suddenly having much more expensive clones, what's broken about it? 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. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 07:11:00 -
[1627] - Quote
Assuming this goes through, will it be the first time that prerequisite skilles for existing hulls or items have been retrospectively added? I thought that to date the only skill requirement changes had been reducing levels of training needed for particular items. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
754
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 07:21:00 -
[1628] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Rakshasa Taisab wrote:You do realize that suddenly adding 6 million SP to everyone who happens to have 4 racial cruisers at 3 is rather broken? Aside from them suddenly having much more expensive clones, what's broken about it? The... uhm... what you said.
And also there's going to be a lot of players who don't receive the boost, and if CCP announces it with enough time to train up then people will be driven to skilling something just in order to get included. 84,000 AUR ($420) spent on NeX store for Troll and Profit. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 07:54:00 -
[1629] - Quote
Andski wrote:"In order to simplify ship progression, we're going to split these two skills into rank 6 racial variants and make them prerequisites for further training. This will benefit new players" - CCP Ytterbium, 2012
Someone stole my point Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 08:01:00 -
[1630] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process? A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
Example: If we go for option 1: you will get Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar Battlecruiser skills at 5 if you previously had the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5. If we go for option 2: you will get Amarr Battlecruiser skill at 5 only if you previously fulfilled all conditions to fly Amarr Battlecruisers, which means having the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5, PLUS the Amarr Cruiser at 3. To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan.
Please go for option 2. Or enable us to opt out racial skills, we don't want.
I have characters crosstraining heavily (racial cruiser at 3 would be no issue here) and I have some, that are very focused on race. And I definitely want the latter to continue that way.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 08:09:00 -
[1631] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:Please go for option 2. Or enable us to opt out racial skills, we don't want. Yes we do.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Andski wrote:"In order to simplify ship progression, we're going to split these two skills into rank 6 racial variants and make them prerequisites for further training. This will benefit new players" - CCP Ytterbium, 2012 Someone stole my point Come to think of it, if new players were given slight pause for thought before they rush for battleships, that probably would benefit them. 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. |
Tesco Yogurt
OMFG Industries
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 08:11:00 -
[1632] - Quote
Kozmic wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Kozmic wrote: 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. Sorry for being a bit bitter, but it will take more than one half-decent expansion to get back into my good graces.
LOL who gives a **** about your good graces? Entitlement much? Don't like it, don't play it. |
Shannae Darkehart
New Eden Logistics Detrimental Imperative
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 08:16:00 -
[1633] - Quote
As a heavily cross trained pilot myself, count in my vote for being concerned about my ability to continue flying ships I already own. Thank you, CCP, for taking the time to get feedback before making any such critical changes to the game. I look forward to reading the CSM8 minutes of this discussion (That's a hinthint with a lil nudgenudge for you.).
I have to say, that if done correctly, the changes outlined within the devblog hold significant promise, but I am less concerned with the minutae of reimbursements (trusting that we will be able to fly something tomorrow if we can fly it today) and more concerned with the efficacy with which we fly them. Just being able to get into say, my Drake, isn't the same thing as flying a Drake that has the level 5 shield resists bonus. On that note, I link back to a blog snagged from an earlier posters signature and get on with the meat of my feedback:
http://carebearconfessions.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-ships-skills-and-balancing.html
This idea, as the kernel for a line of ship role specific skills and associated bonuses, has a lot of merit. I especially like the part where a dedicated alt can skip significant amounts of training in ship sizes they don't care about. Simultaneously, a new player being guided by an existing player or solid corporation can begin to contribute to that group much sooner, despite having fewer ship bonuses in whatever they fly ('cause let's face it, if you come to EVE to play with a friend who runs missions, your tech 1 frig isn't gonna help that much on a level 4, as an example). A similar pass of weapon related skills is required.
Expanding upon the framework of Spaceship Command and Advanced Spaceship Command presented in the blog, there could be an assortment of new skills sorted along the "Ship Lines" referenced in the CCP Devblog. You could add, say, a line of skills all labeled with a "Captain" designation. Industrial Captain, Logistics Captain (defensive support), Electronic Superiority Captain (offensive support), Artillery Captain, Assault Captain, Blockade Captain could be the list, for an example.
There is some satisfying potential in the thought of dropping your Certificate for Elite Assault Captain on a virtual table in an Establishment while engaged in a genital size contest. (This is your subtle reminder not to forget the poor mutant bastard child that is Incarna amidst all of this Crucible and Inferno business.)
These skills could apply an additional role suitable bonus that is the same across the board for all ships of the appropriate "line". For an example, Assault Captain could provide small increases to rate of fire, maximum velocity, and ship agility for all ships of the Assault line, regardless of race or size category. Blockade Captain, fitting in the "ship of the line" category, could provide an additional amount of shield, armour, and structure to all Blockade line ships, contributing to their ability to actually serve as the solid core of a firing line. Artillery Captain will require a larger number of effects to accommodate the fact that missiles and turrets calculate their ranges in different fashions. Industrial Captain, similarly, has a lot of ground to cover.
In my suggestion, these are flat out in addition to the existing statistics of sub capital ships. Cap ships would not receive this bonus, as a small part of combating the proliferation of cap ship fleets. The Captain line shouldn't, in of itself, render cap ships obsolete, but provides a more interesting assortment of skill choices and possibly some additional decision making tension. For example, a small fleet of cap ships that might laugh at a fleet of battleships (below an obscene critical mass of battleships, anyway) might be a lot more respectful when an entire Wing of Assault line ships tears into one of them. I don't have any further thoughts on cap warfare balance at this time, but a small and universal increase in sub-cap ship capabilities couldn't hurt the situation.
I would suggest seeding these skillbooks some amount of time in advance of enabling their effects, to give our intrepid wormhole folks (amongst others) time to acquire copies and train up.
I feel like I'm forgetting something, but I'm sure I got the point across. I do have a pet peeve for you, though, in regards to the CCP Devblog: Considering the semi mythical status of the Drake as a tank, the Drake and Ferox ought to be switched in your list. A lot of other ships should be classified out as examples, too, such as putting say, the Apoc into the Artillery Captain / Bombardment Line category.
Ah, I just reminded myself the thing I was forgetting. As a few other posters have referenced, you should also not go overboard on the new ships or any redesigns that result form sorting ships into role categories. The different races should feel MORE distinctive, not less, as a result of this implementation. For example, my beloved golden fleet should embrace primarily Blockade Captains, while our corporate Caldari friends should represent the masters of Artillery. The Gallente Federation can take an emphasis on Blockade Captain ships to provide the backbone for the dramatic proportion of their rebel, ahem, Republic, allies that are Assault Captains.
There's my two kredits. |
Shannae Darkehart
New Eden Logistics Detrimental Imperative
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 08:42:00 -
[1634] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:CCP Ytterbium? I don't suppose I could get you to say that it won't be an SP reimbursement, but instead just sticking the new skills onto people, at the appropriate level? I'm pretty sure that's what you've been meaning, but it's also obvious some people are thinking they'll get the chance to respend the points at will.
As for Destroyers:
Typically, a destroyer is a fleet defense boat. It already handles the anti-frigate line ok, so how about something for handling fleet missile defense? Or maybe an E-Warfare role. Maybe something cloaky or Bomb defense related?
Well reimbursement is tricky, can't say about details yet, because we still need to think about them. Whatever this is going to be SP reimbursement or just sticking new skills, or whatever options in the middle still need to be considered. Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch *insert tinfoil hat theory here*
Scanning through the thread again, I came across this and immediately thought, "You know, additional base tech 1 Destroyer hulls and some tech 2 variants of them might be worth investigating." The faster moving lower throughput Logistics ship idea is popular on the forums, for example, and could find a home here.
You could even throw down something in the same vein as the Battlecruisers with oversized guns approach. The question would be, 8 medium turrets, or a single solitary large turret? ... both? >.> |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 08:57:00 -
[1635] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:Please go for option 2. Or enable us to opt out racial skills, we don't want. Yes we do. Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Andski wrote:"In order to simplify ship progression, we're going to split these two skills into rank 6 racial variants and make them prerequisites for further training. This will benefit new players" - CCP Ytterbium, 2012 Someone stole my point Come to think of it, if new players were given slight pause for thought before they rush for battleships, that probably would benefit them.
Yet, you stated it's good for them to be able and rush into T2 ship sooner! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 09:18:00 -
[1636] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet, you stated it's good for them to be able and rush into T2 ship sooner! I said it's good for them to be able to specialise sooner, and the inherent allure of T2 isn't nearly as great as that of a BS (largely because new players have a tendency to think in flawed bigger = better terms).
Newbies rushing to battleships in an age-old problems, and while having to wait a few more days won't keep them from rushing there, it gives them a tiny bit more time to think about it. Reducing the time to specialise from 100+ days to 80 days simply means the mountain won't seem as insurmountable and will maybe hint that this is actually a useful way to go. We're still talking about timeframes where GÇ£rushing into T2GÇ¥ is a gross exaggeration. 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. |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation
76
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 09:27:00 -
[1637] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet, you stated it's good for them to be able and rush into T2 ship sooner! I said it's good for them to be able to specialise sooner, and the inherent allure of T2 isn't nearly as great as that of a BS (largely because new players have a tendency to think in flawed bigger = better terms). Newbies rushing to battleships in an age-old problems, and while having to wait a few more days won't keep them from rushing there, it gives them a tiny bit more time to think about it. Reducing the time to specialise from 100+ days to 80 days simply means the mountain won't seem as insurmountable and will maybe hint that this is actually a useful way to go. We're still talking about timeframes where GÇ£rushing into T2GÇ¥ is a gross exaggeration.
Tippia are you on some crusade against stupidity? i think you have pretty much crushed evey stupid comment that cpp hasn't been bothered with - Nulla Curas |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 10:19:00 -
[1638] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet, you stated it's good for them to be able and rush into T2 ship sooner! I said it's good for them to be able to specialise sooner, and the inherent allure of T2 isn't nearly as great as that of a BS (largely because new players have a tendency to think in flawed bigger = better terms). Newbies rushing to battleships in an age-old problems, and while having to wait a few more days won't keep them from rushing there, it gives them a tiny bit more time to think about it.
1) I would not illude anyone about "thinking about it". We are talking about human beings here, not about wise forms of life.
2) You call "rushing to battleships" a problem, I call it a learning opportunity.
Flying a crappy fit Raven with crappy skills and getting owned in the first L4 = good. Next time he L2notPLEXhisWayInEvE.
This is the sandboxy, player caused and centered way to put a bar into rushing in content.
Making an artificial bar / enabler by delaying skills (because this is the end what CCP wants to do. Else they'd split into racial skills whilst reducing the total learning time to get all BC to V) is not as sandboxy nor is player centered. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 10:22:00 -
[1639] - Quote
Its what he does, personally I'm very grateful as constant facepalming makes my head hurt after a while |
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 11:09:00 -
[1640] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet, you stated it's good for them to be able and rush into T2 ship sooner! I said it's good for them to be able to specialise sooner, and the inherent allure of T2 isn't nearly as great as that of a BS (largely because new players have a tendency to think in flawed bigger = better terms). Newbies rushing to battleships in an age-old problems, and while having to wait a few more days won't keep them from rushing there, it gives them a tiny bit more time to think about it. Reducing the time to specialise from 100+ days to 80 days simply means the mountain won't seem as insurmountable and will maybe hint that this is actually a useful way to go. We're still talking about timeframes where GÇ£rushing into T2GÇ¥ is a gross exaggeration.
I always thought people beeing able to fly large and expensive ships before they actually know how to use them is a good idea. Every time I see somebody crying because he lost his Nightmare with his 6m sp char is awesome.
Let people be dumb, if only for the fun of the rest of EvE.
Oh and I'd say beeing forced to skill Destroyers sucks a lot more as theres only a single damn ship you get with that, and thats mostly useless after L1 Missions and forced unloading of Industrials in Jita. |
|
Gempei
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 11:14:00 -
[1641] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[Racial] Frigate III + Destroyer n GåÆ [racial] Destroyer n. [Racial] Cruiser III + Battlecruiser n GåÆ [racial] Battlecruiser n. Why so overcomplicated? You have bc or destroyer skill on lvl X, you will get racial bc skill on this level (skill, no free skill points) - you can fly exact the same ships as before. Only clones are more expensive.
Btw, when you have bc on lvl5, training 3 racial battlecruiser are 6 day - everybody train them, exact same situation as with training bc and destroyer skill on lvl5
|
Gempei
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 11:28:00 -
[1642] - Quote
Cindy Marco wrote:Younger and new players are going to be punished. Now it will take them 4 times longer to train for BCs and destroyers then it did for me. And for no good reason. How many new player fly with 2 or 3 racial bc/destroyer? Battlecruiser lvl 4 is only 4 days and destroyer 1,5 day, that is nothing in EVE. |
Calladad
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 11:47:00 -
[1643] - Quote
I like the changes on the skills needed for flying certain ships. Where the changes needed, maybe not, but they are ok.
I think that rebalancing ships is great thing, helps to change the current meta (I play lol) and keep FC changing their tactics and evolve which is good.
However, when it comes to ship balancing issues looking forward, I would like you to keep a few things in mind when determining a role for ships not currently being used much.
As a player in a corp doing primarily small gang pvp, 10-30 people including links, scouts etc, there are times when you do highly specialised fleets such as alpha tornados. Those fleets are so specialised that you can only engage under certain conditions meaning that sometimes you cant take a fight and often other fleets wont fight you (who jumps into a alpha fleet sitting 70k of a gate with a sabre on the gate?)
Same thing with rr bs being neutralised by bombers and other examples like that. My point is, that while having counters to specialised fleets is good, it shouldnt be that way that people set out looking for fights in specialised fleets and end up going home without a fight simply because the right target wasnt there.
I understand that theres a huge difference from roaming fleets and fleets meant for tower/customs/SBU bashing but at least for roaming fleets finding the right fleet to fight can be difficult at times. So, when rebalancing, I would like to see you create ships that will either fit into existing fleets, or will make it possible to create new fleets which can engange several diffierent kinds of fleets.
Good fights are the ones, that last for more than 30 seconds, where people on both sides die and where the individual pilot makes a difference. Good fights are not pressing F1 and see that lone straggler instapop.
I dont like the drake fleets much, but I understand why its being used as much as it is. It can engange a wide variety of enemies meaning the risk to go home with blue balls is reduced (if you fly a drake blob, then its prolly the blob rather than the drake). Tengues are another good example (albeit expensive), they can snipe and brawl depending on enemy and the individual pilot skill is important.
Does it make sense? I DONT want fleets that are identical and which doesnt evolove because counters are found, but tbh a good fight means everything in eve and any change that will bring more of those are welcome. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 12:02:00 -
[1644] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Making an artificial bar / enabler by delaying skills (because this is the end what CCP wants to do. Else they'd split into racial skills whilst reducing the total learning time to get all BC to V) is not as sandboxy nor is player centered. It has roughly zero to do with the sandbox GÇö the tools are still there and the uses for them are exactly the same.
Also, the overall improvements made by this changes makes it player-centred as hell.
Akara Ito wrote:Let people be dumb, if only for the fun of the rest of EvE.
Oh and I'd say beeing forced to skill Destroyers sucks a lot more as theres only a single damn ship you get with that, and thats mostly useless after L1 Missions and forced unloading of Industrials in Jita. Oh don't worry, there's still plenty of opportunity to be dumb GÇö even more so with this change than before it, since this one means you're not lead by the nose quite as muchGǪ and that always leads to new opportunities to screw up. Also, new players can still be just as dumb and rush to it. Now they're just given a slightly bigger hint that maybe this is farther up the ship progression scale than they want to be GÇö giving them a week an a half to figure that out rather than a week is just some gentle prodding.
As for Destroyers, sure, but they're aware of that and are thinking of ways to remedy it.
Gempei wrote:Why so overcomplicated? You have bc or destroyer skill on lvl X, you will get racial bc skill on this level (skill, no free skill points) - you can fly exact the same ships as before. Only clones are more expensive. Because that's as simple as you can get if you want to follow the GÇ£keep what you haveGÇ¥ philosophy. What you're suggesting would actually allow people to fly more than they already can. As for free skill-points, it's inevitable no matter how you do it, but it's also completely irrelevant (unless you meant that they shouldn't dump any SP in our redistribution pools, in which case, yes, I agree). 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. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 13:40:00 -
[1645] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Example:
Before, training for a Harbinger required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 3 and Battlecruisers at 2 Before, training for an Absolution required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruiser at 5 and Heavy Assault Ships at 4 Now, training for a Harbinger requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and then Amarr Battlecruiser at 1. Now, training for an Absolution requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and Amarr Battlecruiser at 5. There is no more need for the Amarr Cruiser 5 and Heavy Assault Ship at 4. The reason your answers to these questions aren't making any sense is because you are still dancing around the one simple problem that obviously drives this entire plan: The Drake.
The whole thing comes down to this: We put some ships called BCs in the game a while back, and one of them was stupidly OP. In fact it was so stupidly OP that our T2 cruisers are an embarassment compared to it. This is even more of a problem since the T2 cruiser takes 5x as long to get into. We see now that this stupidly OP ship never should have happened, or should have been just another Tech 2 hull. But we can't nerf it, because people will scream bloody murder. And we can't buff the T2 cruisers, because then they would be stupidly OP.
So what we're gonna do is: move all the BCs far enough up the training curve to put them out of the reach of vile noobs; pull the T2 cruisers down the curve a bit to make them seem like a better deal; then make all the other BCs just as stupidly OP.
Balance achieved.
Also we'll throw in some new dessies. Maybe. And caps will be 30 days shorter. So it all works out in the end. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 13:46:00 -
[1646] - Quote
double post |
Amanda Sterling
Amphysvena E C L I P S E
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:00:00 -
[1647] - Quote
After reading the blog I just felt the urge to do this |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1063
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:24:00 -
[1648] - Quote
What I'm taking away from all of this is that I need to throw out any training plans I have and make sure I have destroyer, battlecruiser, and all racial cruiser skills to 5 JUST TO BE SURE I get the maximum number of free skill points and don't have to waste time training multiple skills later if I want to try out a specific ship.
THIS is why I'm opposed to this change, as well as my previous post in this thread. CCP is forcing us into a course of action, lest we be penalized with additional training to achieve the same results. This is NOT a good thing. |
Lee Dalton
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:36:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Seed the Racial Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills now. |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:38:00 -
[1650] - Quote
"For example, that means lowering the Covetor's Mining Barge requirement from 5 to 4, but also reducing Battleship requirement from 5 to 4 for capitals."
This single sentence is going to be quite possibly the biggest change to the EVE Economy for a while. Unlocking Covetors for the thousands of characters that don't have Mining Barge 5, will increase access to that additional 50% yield you get on the Covetor over the Retreiver and also the Rokh. Ore and Ice is going to flood the market.
All Combat oriented non-Mining characters across the EVE cluster will be able to join in on their corp's mining activities for the 3-4 day's training time it takes to get Mining Barge 4, and start achieving decent mining yields for Ore and Ice.
Not saying it is a good or a bad thing, just putting it out there for everyone
Makes me wonder how it going to affect botting too, for better or for worse. |
|
Xyla Vulchanus
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:45:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:" For example, that means lowering the Covetor's Mining Barge requirement from 5 to 4, but also reducing Battleship requirement from 5 to 4 for capitals." This single sentence is going to be quite possibly the biggest change to the EVE Economy for a while. Unlocking Covetors for the thousands of characters that don't have Mining Barge 5, will increase access to that additional 50% yield you get on the Covetor over the Retreiver and also the Rokh. Ore and Ice is going to flood the market. All Combat oriented non-Mining characters across the EVE cluster will be able to join in on their corp's mining activities for the 3-4 day's training time it takes to get Mining Barge 4, and start achieving decent mining yields for Ore and Ice. Not saying it is a good or a bad thing, just putting it out there for everyone Makes me wonder how it going to affect botting too, for better or for worse.
Yeah apparently CCP believe that the best way to improve the game at this point is to make mining even less profitable and to get more people into caps quicker. It's like they don't know anything about their own game at times.
|
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:51:00 -
[1652] - Quote
I, for one, would like to hear at least one semi-concrete idea/plan for the improvement of one low-tier Tech 1 hull
For example, tell us (in general terms) what you're going to do to make the Crucifier be something anyone in EVE would actually fly
Second, I think with the change to "Racial Destroyer" there needs to be more than just a vague "we're thinking about it" response in re: additional Destroyers being added to the game, and in short order
The announcement would, IMO< have been far smoother if it coincided with an announcement that each race will get two more Dessie Hulls (not reskins either, new hulls), doing X and Y. And two new Tech 2 variants as well
Then, instead of rage, most folks are going "wow, tiericide and new hulls, yay!". Sure, most would want to be sure they won't lose the abillity to fly tomorrow what they can fly today, but the focus would shift to the new shineies, not to complaints. |
Ursula LeGuinn
EVE University Ivy League
151
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:52:00 -
[1653] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:What I'm taking away from all of this is that I need to throw out any training plans I have and make sure I have destroyer, battlecruiser, and all racial cruiser skills to 5 JUST TO BE SURE I get the maximum number of free skill points and don't have to waste time training multiple skills later if I want to try out a specific ship.
That's what I'm taking away from this, too. You shouldn't need the racial cruiser skills at V, though GÇö III should be enough, or IV if you want to be safe. "The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community."-áGÇö-áEVElopedia |
Galen Gallente
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 15:19:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Q: If you want to make skills consistent, why donGÇÖt you make all of them generic instead of inserting racial variants for destroyer and battlecruiser classes?
A: That is mainly because turning all ship racial skills into generic copies would achieve the opposite of what we want to fix here: having access to too many hulls by training one skill. Besides, it would create even large skill reimbursement issues, as we would now have to merge all four racial copies of frigate, cruiser, battleship and capital skills into one.
******************************************************************************************** WoW False argument is False.
1 - If you make it so many hulls are opened up you allow players to experiment much faster, because we all know that players day one in EVE know exactly what they want to do and specialize in.... oh wait that is only new characters that are usually experienced players training up alts.....
2 - Keep Racial Specializations by class be a secondary bonus that makes that racial hull better, really getting all you can out from the ship. This would parallel the current training system and would then be directly convertible between the 2. Maybe drop them down a multiplier and keep the generic skills a low multiplier so when converting current characters over the total skill points remains approximately the same.
3 - Also the whole "dumbing down the game" argument is crap to begin with. Making the system more consistent is a good thing. However this should also be applied across guns/missiles/drones/support skills.
So take a couple more steps back and look at the monstrosity that is the current skill training tree/graph and really look at it.
When you figure out a pattern you like for one set of systems apply it to ALL THE SYSTEMS FOR CONSISTENCY!!!!! |
Blue Harrier
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 15:31:00 -
[1655] - Quote
Tinfoil hat on;
Reading between the lines of text I have a small inclination that the Devs have hit a wall. I think this is all tied in to Dust.
There has been some mention of using aerial bombardment on to planets (possibly even aerial mercenary drops) and CCP donGÇÖt have any GÇÿslotsGÇÖ to put these new ships in.
By streamlining the skill trees it would open the way for extra ships and skills to fly them to fit the above rolls.
Tinfoil hat off.
Otherwise, on paper it all looks a GÇÿgood ideaGÇÖ, how it will work in practise remains to be seen but I guess itGÇÖs a simple case of GÇÿAdapt or DieGÇÖ.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 15:35:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Xyla Vulchanus wrote:Sunviking wrote:" For example, that means lowering the Covetor's Mining Barge requirement from 5 to 4, but also reducing Battleship requirement from 5 to 4 for capitals." This single sentence is going to be quite possibly the biggest change to the EVE Economy for a while. Unlocking Covetors for the thousands of characters that don't have Mining Barge 5, will increase access to that additional 50% yield you get on the Covetor over the Retreiver and also the Rokh. Ore and Ice is going to flood the market. All Combat oriented non-Mining characters across the EVE cluster will be able to join in on their corp's mining activities for the 3-4 day's training time it takes to get Mining Barge 4, and start achieving decent mining yields for Ore and Ice. Not saying it is a good or a bad thing, just putting it out there for everyone Makes me wonder how it going to affect botting too, for better or for worse. Yeah apparently CCP believe that the best way to improve the game at this point is to make mining even less profitable and to get more people into caps quicker. It's like they don't know anything about their own game at times.
Because everyone has Astrogeology 5... FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Revman Zim
Babylon Holdings United Interstellar Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 15:39:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Blue Harrier wrote:Tinfoil hat on;
Reading between the lines of text I have a small inclination that the Devs have hit a wall. I think this is all tied in to Dust.
There has been some mention of using aerial bombardment on to planets (possibly even aerial mercenary drops) and CCP donGÇÖt have any GÇÿslotsGÇÖ to put these new ships in.
By streamlining the skill trees it would open the way for extra ships and skills to fly them to fit the above rolls.
Tinfoil hat off.
Otherwise, on paper it all looks a GÇÿgood ideaGÇÖ, how it will work in practise remains to be seen but I guess itGÇÖs a simple case of GÇÿAdapt or DieGÇÖ.
I don't agree or disagree with the above line of thinking. However, +1 for an "out of the box" thought that has been missing for some 80 pages. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys EXPLO. KINETIK und ein wenig THERMAL
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 15:47:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Martineth wrote:CCP is about to make one of the most common mistakes that game developers on MMO's are doing, but unike a handflull of them they think they ought too cause time has cought up with them. Rebalancing ships my big shiny greek Buttweiser
You find cyclones scythe's desies and the lot obsolete? Yes they are. But they are part of a history that served us and served us well. Eve has a privillege only a handfull of MMO's has ever had. It matured, so did its content and so do its players. There is no need to rebalance an old cyclone to give it some more use. Its time is over, let people fly it like an old car model is driven.
We got the right to preserve what is a nearly 10 year history. Out with new Tiers and let us choose what we like.
Dont take my word cause i say it, HILMAR did as well. In last or overlast fanfest a player asked him if it is possible to make eve items more basic and condensed cause he was against the plethora of items in game. Hilmar replied that the tools are given for players to use and we choose-vote for out items by choosing or neglecting an item. True sandbox
But.... you want to give old hulls a new polish right? OK here it is how i think it should be done
e.g, a Cyclone. Players should have the right to take the basic hull and send it over to an NPC corporation that will enchance it slightly on certain fileds. Brutors would give it some more gunpower. Creodron some more drone cababilities. Sisters of EvE some more cargo etc. Make some of these echancements stackable up to a degree, make the ship unsellable and make it unique in a way. Make it smt like a new F16 block 52 adv. Same hull as the 1976 F16 but with new capabilities. Good and better cyclone but under no circumstance a better ship then a tier 2 or tier 3 ship. Its time has passed.
If we dont respect the fact that in our universe old and obsolete ships are rare yet here to show to new players how it was in the good old days we miss th chance to point out a simple fact that no other game in my humble opinion can with the same degree.
To show to new players we got roots, we got history and by stickign around you are participating into a better eve. So lets roll out these tier 4 BC's and tier 2 desies and let the older models become obslete. It is NOT a condition. It is a rightfully earned privillege of Ageing. Let them age with grace and respect them by letting them as they are.
They served, and served us well.
i do not know what you had for breakfast, but it must be one hell of a cereal... you are proposing flatly stat-creep and loss of diversity and even think its a good idea. i do not even know where to start explaining why this is a ridiculous idea... so instead of fixing/balancing a game, just throw in new tiers of ships every now and then? until the new tier 20 punisher mk-x puts out around 500 dps and tanks with 20k ehp? something like that? let the player choose which new toy he enjoys the most? simplyfied: bad game design. and talking about dumbing eve down...
to the matters at hand
all the proposed skill changes are far from beeing final and ccp got the importance of this issue since the 30th page in this thread. ccp may have some weak spots but i guess the devs are not mentally challenged. in fact the skill change will not occur in the next expansion, if they get implemented at all. that would be in like 3 months? they never get things sorted out in that time frame. most people in here still seem to forgett, that the dev blog was an outline/ a proposal. there will be changes to the plan. in my opinion the whole skill change idea smells like new ships across the size spectrum, which ccp likes to bring into a freshly balanced and coherent environment. you can call me an hopeless optimist for that, but believe me, feels better than raging hard all day over some unconfirmed and not established changes. |
Korbin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:07:00 -
[1659] - Quote
I recently moved into a space that has Sansha rats. Since I had BC 4 already I trained Amarr cruiser and jumped in a Harby to try out lazors. It did not take much for me to transition from Galenete to Amarr to give lazors a try that way. I liked the lazors enough that I started training Amarr so that I can fly an Amarr BS soon
I almost never see all level 5 days on SiSi. So the destroyer and the Battlecruiser class ships are an important part of the game. It is a spot where players can try other races out without having to commit 6 months of training to find out you don't like it. Especially now with the Tier 3 Battlecruisers, you can try small medium and large guns out of any race without having to train all the way up to Battleship 4 just to get a taste. I think removing that is a really bad move. If you insist on doing so i suggest that you alternate weeks or days or something like that where on some regular schedule you have all level 5 on SiSi so people can fly other ships to decide which direction to go with training
When I first started playing this game I made a minmatar toon. I am a PvE only player and rapidly grew to hate minmatar ships for mission running. I was a bit upset when 4 months into the game I discovered that I've been training the wrong race the whole time. No biggie because I was able to try out the drake and discover what an awesome mission boat it is and then started cross training.
In this game currently each race has a definite role and use. Minmatar are supposed to be the PvP kings. Caldari the PvE kings. Amarr are the dps king and Galenete are very versatile, not king of anything but good at everything. The new player making their first character does not know that. It would seem to me that you are locking new players into one race for a long time before they are competent enough to crosstrain. The only way I can see this working out is if you dumb down all the races and re-balance everything so each race is exactly equal. WoW did this and it's a big part of why that game sucks, If you guys are going to head down the wow path of balancing all the races and classes it will be the end of this game. Please stop trying to be WoW. That game sucks and is dying. If you try to be like them you will die also
Keep the different roles of the different races and leave these 2 points of experimentation of small, medium and large turrets. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys EXPLO. KINETIK und ein wenig THERMAL
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:22:00 -
[1660] - Quote
Korbin Dallaz wrote:I recently moved into a space that has Sansha rats. Since I had BC 4 already I trained Amarr cruiser and jumped in a Harby to try out lazors. It did not take much for me to transition from Galenete to Amarr to give lazors a try that way. I liked the lazors enough that I started training Amarr so that I can fly an Amarr BS soon
I almost never see all level 5 days on SiSi. So the destroyer and the Battlecruiser class ships are an important part of the game. It is a spot where players can try other races out without having to commit 6 months of training to find out you don't like it. Especially now with the Tier 3 Battlecruisers, you can try small medium and large guns out of any race without having to train all the way up to Battleship 4 just to get a taste. I think removing that is a really bad move. If you insist on doing so i suggest that you alternate weeks or days or something like that where on some regular schedule you have all level 5 on SiSi so people can fly other ships to decide which direction to go with training
When I first started playing this game I made a minmatar toon. I am a PvE only player and rapidly grew to hate minmatar ships for mission running. I was a bit upset when 4 months into the game I discovered that I've been training the wrong race the whole time. No biggie because I was able to try out the drake and discover what an awesome mission boat it is and then started cross training.
In this game currently each race has a definite role and use. Minmatar are supposed to be the PvP kings. Caldari the PvE kings. Amarr are the dps king and Galenete are very versatile, not king of anything but good at everything. The new player making their first character does not know that. It would seem to me that you are locking new players into one race for a long time before they are competent enough to crosstrain. The only way I can see this working out is if you dumb down all the races and re-balance everything so each race is exactly equal. WoW did this and it's a big part of why that game sucks, If you guys are going to head down the wow path of balancing all the races and classes it will be the end of this game. Please stop trying to be WoW. That game sucks and is dying. If you try to be like them you will die also
Keep the different roles of the different races and leave these 2 points of experimentation of small, medium and large turrets.
in order to "quickly" test another race with a bc you need to train to frigs and cruiser of that race plus the weapon system, atm. a few days (we are talking about max. 4 days here?) more will not change that experience drastically.
and a word to your "race roles": let's keep that, NOT! a game, where every race has a place in every aspect of the game sounds like much more fun to me. racial flavors are good, though, but in ways of play style. but a pvp-race, a pve-race ... just no. one reason for the rebalancing of ships to get rid of that. |
|
Korbin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:35:00 -
[1661] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
but a pvp-race, a pve-race ... just no. one reason for the rebalancing of ships to get rid of that.
And I"m telling you that is the main thing that ruined WoW and I feel it will ruin this game as well. The removal of specialization from WoW is one of the biggest reasons that I came to Eve. To have all 4 races be the same except for the look of the ship is pointless. Why even have different races then? This is very much a step in the wrong direction and I'm not looking for you to agree or disagree with me. Just watch and see. If they do "balance" the races it will dumb this game down and turn it into WoW / Spaceship Barbie.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:37:00 -
[1662] - Quote
Globally the skill change is a good idea. But it represent a lot of work for practically no change for most of eve players, and a huge possibility to annoy most of them.
Concerning the new "ship roles" however, I'm very scared about what I read. Actually, if you guys design the new balance with the same attention you gave to the "eve ship examples" that you wrote for each "ship role" in the dev blog, we will have an enormous problem. Because what I read proves that you haven't understand how your own ships are working.
One of my pleasure in eve is the do exotic fittings to surprise and have fun. The other is to discover a new extention with interesting content, around two times a year. With the changes you're planning to do, I think that you will kill one of this pleasure, while the second will be substantially reduced because of the bad balance of devs involved in developping new tangible content. Remember the last two years...
Al. |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:55:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:The reason your answers to these questions aren't making any sense is because you are still dancing around the one simple problem that obviously drives this entire plan: The Drake.
The whole thing comes down to this: We put some ships called BCs in the game a while back, and one of them was stupidly OP. In fact it was so stupidly OP that our T2 cruisers are an embarassment compared to it. This is even more of a problem since the T2 cruiser takes 5x as long to get into. We see now that this stupidly OP ship never should have happened, or should have been just another Tech 2 hull. But we can't nerf it, because people will scream bloody murder. And we can't buff the T2 cruisers, because then they would be stupidly OP.
So what we're gonna do is: move all the BCs far enough up the training curve to put them out of the reach of vile noobs; pull the T2 cruisers down the curve a bit to make them seem like a better deal; then make all the other BCs just as stupidly OP.
Balance achieved.
Also we'll throw in some new dessies. Maybe. And caps will be 30 days shorter. So it all works out in the end. (emphasis mine)
What on earth are you smoking? It has been said dozens of times in this thread, the mere hurdle for getting into a BC for a completely new player is only a couple of days longer than it is now. The change is a far cry from "out of reach" for anyone with this change. Most new players currently also don't train 2-3 races' cruiser skill to get access to 6+ BC the skill itself might allow, but will stick with one race in the beginning (and for good reason). It takes enough time to train up one weapon system in the beginning anyway...
They also said that they intend to rebalance all ship classes one by one (most likely starting with frigs and destroyers), which will eventually come round to BCs as well. The Drake will be brought in line somehow, or at least taken down a peg.
But yea, +1 to hoping they will include at least one more destroyer in Inferno! Having a racial skill for just one ship per race is a bit... thin. |
Knarf Truesdale
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:57:00 -
[1664] - Quote
I like the way CCP is stating unequivocally that "if you can fly it today, you can fly it after the change". When did CCP start making absolute statements?
Anyone else notice that the Minmatar Ship Tree shows the Scimitar as a Rapier and vice versa? Right manufacturer, wrong hull/icon. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 16:59:00 -
[1665] - Quote
Creat Posudol wrote:What on earth are you smoking? Good point. Rank 6 skill x4 + Rank 2 skill x4 is "only a few days longer" than Rank 6 skill x1.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. |
Korbin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 17:42:00 -
[1666] - Quote
Creat Posudol wrote:
Most new players currently also don't train 2-3 races' cruiser skill to get access to 6+ BC the skill itself might allow, but will stick with one race in the beginning (and for good reason). It takes enough time to train up one weapon system in the beginning anyway.. .
This is different for different Races. Minmatar pilots for example due to mixed weapon systems and mixed tank already have to train: Sheild, Armor and speed tanks as well as projectile and missile skills. So a brand new minmatar pilot is working up through the ships and gets to level 3 missions and is having a rough time in his Hurricane but has T2 heavy launchers already and BC5 he can just train Caldari cruiser 3 and be a good drake pilot. This allows him to mostly stick with his Minmatar specialization as we moves on in the game towards low and null sec stuff where the minmatar ships will serve him better
Remove that option and CCP seems to be wanting to " balance " all races and make them all equally competent at all things. If you do that then a new player will be able to learn everything that he needs to know by looking at the images of the different race's ships by looking at them in the new ship viewer on the Eve website before they ever start an account or hit the character creation screen. So once you decide which ships look prettier that's as much as you'll ever need to know. Cross training will be simply for looks or style since there is no real functional difference. That is removing a huge part of the flavor of this game. |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 17:46:00 -
[1667] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Creat Posudol wrote:What on earth are you smoking? Good point. Rank 6 skill x4 + Rank 2 skill x4 is "only a few days longer" than Rank 6 skill x1. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
It is, because my reply was in reply to his statement about ships being out of reach for noobs. They will only train the skills as far as they need them (Frig, Destroyer, Cruiser to 4, BC to 3 or 4). It was not about someone who wants to be "perfect at everything with all Vs"!
Context. It matters! |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys EXPLO. KINETIK und ein wenig THERMAL
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 17:50:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Korbin Dallaz wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
but a pvp-race, a pve-race ... just no. one reason for the rebalancing of ships to get rid of that.
And I"m telling you that is the main thing that ruined WoW and I feel it will ruin this game as well. The removal of specialization from WoW is one of the biggest reasons that I came to Eve. To have all 4 races be the same except for the look of the ship is pointless. Why even have different races then? This is very much a step in the wrong direction and I'm not looking for you to agree or disagree with me. Just watch and see. If they do "balance" the races it will dumb this game down and turn it into WoW / Spaceship Barbie.
please do not bring wow into this. it is a completly different story. in a nutshell, you think it is better to do pvp with only one race. and pve only with another one? am i the only one who thinks that is terrible? for that matter: minmatar is a much better "pve-race" because minmatar can switch ammo types with all their weapons and thereby maximize the damage done on different npc-factions. caldari has that ability only with missile boats. so you reduce caldari to kestrel, caracal, drake und raven. 4 ships out of an entire fleet. caldari sports a lot of ewar -> far more useful in pvp. can you make out a trend there?
all 4 races should not be the same. that you got right. but every race should offer good possibilities for pve, pvp, ... other wise 0.0 and low would be populated by minmatar pilots only, because there is a lot of pvp going around in that areas. having only one race for one aspect of the game is dumbing the game down. giving alternatives creates different ways to achive the same goal -> diversity => complexity i can understand your anxiety for 4 races which are exactly the same. but that is not going to happen. balancing does not equal homogenisation. in fact, thats what makes proper balancing such a pain in the a.... |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule IMPERIAL LEGI0N
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 17:57:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Ship updates are great -its been needed for a long time.
One minor concern is cross training for new players. It appears training into different battle cruisers is going to take significantly longer under this system. This is perhaps an acceptable side affect, but will hinder a new player's ability to participate in fleets. Other then that I have no complaints.
As a player of the current game, being forced to train more skills on characters (even if its just new characters) is nothing but an annoyance. However if additional ships and roles are added to Eve the long term benefit is worth it. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:01:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Mirei Jun wrote: Ship updates are great -its been needed for a long time.
One minor concern is cross training for new players. It appears training into different battle cruisers is going to take significantly longer under this system. This is perhaps an acceptable side affect, but will hinder a new player's ability to participate in fleets. Other then that I have no complaints.
As a player of the current game, being forced to train more skills on characters (even if its just new characters) is nothing but an annoyance. However if additional ships and roles are added to Eve the long term benefit is worth it.
About 6-12 days (bc 3 or bc 4) per race. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
|
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:05:00 -
[1671] - Quote
Mirei Jun wrote: Ship updates are great -its been needed for a long time.
One minor concern is cross training for new players. It appears training into different battle cruisers is going to take significantly longer under this system. This is perhaps an acceptable side affect, but will hinder a new player's ability to participate in fleets. Other then that I have no complaints.
As a player of the current game, being forced to train more skills on characters (even if its just new characters) is nothing but an annoyance. However if additional ships and roles are added to Eve the long term benefit is worth it.
It won't hinder new players participating in fleets, as getting into the first BC still takes roughly the same time (+1 days or so for added destroyer 4, which obviously can be skipped at the moment). It will however hinder them in being able to quickly fly BCs from different races. That does take a few days extra (dessie + bc skill of the new race are both needed). But even that is negligible considering that they generally need a new weapon system for that race as well (and potentially a new tank, depending on the the races obviously). |
Jame Jarl Retief
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:12:00 -
[1672] - Quote
Mirei Jun wrote:This is perhaps an acceptable side affect, but will hinder a new player's ability to participate in fleets. Other then that I have no complaints.
The hope is that after ship rebalancing, people won't have to cross-train any more. That is, every race will have a perfectly viable ship for any role in the game. Which should include solo, gang, fleet, blob, etc.
At least that's what I'm hoping for. I always found it a little bit silly how almost everyone is forced to learn to fly almost everything (within reason), simply because some race's ships vastly outperform other races' ships for a specific task. After the ship rebalance, if it is done well, there should no longer be a need for it. A true min/maxer will still do it, but for majority of players one race's lineup should be sufficient. Though, again, that's just what I'm hoping will happen. For me personally it's somewhat immersion-breaking to see faction militia members flying enemy ships.
|
Nair Alderau
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:27:00 -
[1673] - Quote
Got one question... when Is this change likely to happen?
Training for BC V and the racial cruiser skills III takes some time. As I am currently Int/Mem I'd probably wait for my yearly remap at the end of may to start the train. But would that be in time?
When is Inferno supposed to come out and is this happening in Inferno 1.0? |
Exitar Stormscion
Black Aphelion Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:34:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Full support to your ideas here and for what you are trying to do and i hope you implement them fast and well.
Also make UI / ART department add those tech tress in game please visual representation in game ftw ! |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
164
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:35:00 -
[1675] - Quote
One thing to consider for Command Ships is that in the past you needed any one Racial Frigate V (for Assault Ships), Racial Cruiser V, and Battlecruiser V.
To fly all of the Field CSs, you would need 1 Frigate V (2x), 4 Cruiser V (5x) and 1 Battlecruiser V (6x) which is 28x. In the new system, you only need the 4 Racial Battlecruiser V (6x) skills which is 24x. The four Racial Destroyer IV (2x) skills will take less time than Assault Ship IV (4x) and Heavy Assault Ship IV (6x).
Yes, if you want to fly ALL ships, it will take you longer, however if you just want to specialize in one tier, you will be able to get there faster. Besides, most people commenting on this thread already have most of these skills.
There is no need to argue about the new players either (as opposed to alts). Yes, they can theoretically get into a Command Ship or a Carrier earlier, however, new players are heavily gated on ISK. They don't have 20M laying around to drop on a T1 Battlecruiser, let alone 1B for a Capital. |
Galen Gallente
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:37:00 -
[1676] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Andski wrote:May I propose a new line of skills
Racial Gunner Racial Sharpshoote Racial Advanced Weapon Upgrade Racial Surgical Strik Racial Mechanic Racial Shield Managemen Racial Hull Upgrades :Start obvious troll counter proposal: No, lets leave the as is, but make super carriers and titans just use one general skill across all races to be consistent. They're kinda like dreads and carriers just abit bigger and obviously don't deserve their own racial skills :End obvious troll counter proposal: Edit: But in all seriousness, is making those 2 classes function like all the others that big an issue to you?
Yes, it is when the core system is of a poor design.
The design for Destroyers and BCs is better than the core system and the core system should become more like them. |
SwindonBadger
0utbreak Outbreak.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:46:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Id just be aware of two things,
I understand you will do your best to give back the same ships skills., I hope you also take into account that if we loose the ability to fly all destroyers / BC ect then we would have not trained other things until this was done for all races ( some of us) so Id happily triad X amount of skills I trained after for all races again....
Secondly try to remember that if the new ship classes are too generic you will loose something special in this game, by this I mean if the ship role is defined so easily and there is no effective way to set it up differently the element of surprise will be hugely reduced., and there for :
If its too easy to see a ship type and know that's its 90 percent setup in one way this game will get very dull and bland much faster after the initial rush of finding out the one and only max fitting/role.
Good Luck, bag of popcorpse waiting, ( any sign of a digested Nova mouse matt)?
|
Korbin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:52:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
all 4 races should not be the same. that you got right. but every race should offer good possibilities for pve, pvp, ... other wise 0.0 and low would be populated by minmatar pilots only, because there is a lot of pvp going around in that areas having only one race for one aspect of the game is dumbing the game down. giving alternatives creates different ways to achive the same goal -> diversity => complexit i can understand your anxiety for 4 races which are exactly the same. but that is not going to happen. balancing does not equal homogenisation. in fact, thats what makes proper balancing such a pain in the a....
That is a gross over simplification and I realize that I did the same but I intend to clarify. I am speaking strictly of T1 ships as it has been stated else where that T2 and T3 are totally different classifications and different situations
So minmatar have speed over the other races and do damage into huge falloff's. So in a one on one brute force battle the minmatar ships can typically choose engagement distance and eat up their competition. But minmatar ships also typically have the absolute worst tank to even things out.
Caldari have ECM and awesome tanks and are very useful in PvP as is shown by their dominance in the Alliance tournaments in recent years. I'm not saying that Minmatar should be the only race that can PvP. I'm saying that it is well known that if you want to learn to PvP you go out and get a bunch of rifters and look for 1 v 1's
On a similar note, Again T1 ships only, Caldari have the drake and Raven which are both excellent mission boats especially for new players that have not learned about transversal velocity. Good tank decent damage no need to worry about distance things like that. Minmatar though you either fly a typhoon where your damage mods only affect half your highslots or you fly a Tempest or Maelstrom and are stuck choosing between Artillery which can hit nothing either close or small or autocannons which can't hit most of the mission BSs that orbit at 35 km or more. The apoc with it's optimal bonuse and scortch do not have that issue. Galenete have drones. So yes Minmatar damage wise are idealized for PvP and penalized for PvE. I'm not saying you can't mission as a Minmatar pilot and I'm not saying you can't PvP as any of the other races. I'm just saying the the Minmatar weapon system is idealized for PvP and the worst choice for PvE.
The versatility of the Galenete ships make them wonderful choices see the neut domi for examples of this. Amarr ships as well have their place in PvP. As things are now you can do all things with every race it's just that some races do specific things better than other races. That is difference and that is flavor. I'm saying we should keep that.
What I've seen recently is changes to hybrids to make them faster thereby removing the speed benefit of Minmatar ships in PvP . Well speed is all the minmatar ships had. They had the worst tanks and did the worst damage already the falloff and ability to keep people in their falloff was the only benefit they had. Now you will see they have to do something to compensate for their compensation. This will be a perpetual nerfy/buff cycle like you see in WoW in an attempt to make things " equal and balanced" |
Wolf TheFallen
Deafening Silence Syndiate
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 18:53:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Ship re balancing is a something that needs to be addressed in this game. There are a lot of ships out there that are just completely and utterly worthless.
Yes by addressing these issues, Skill points and time it takes to train up for a ship comes part of the play. All we ask is don't take away more game time we have already spent training up to do something, just to take it away.
So if we have BC skill already and the racial skill for a Courser haul at 4. THEN MAKE SURE WE CAN FLY THAT DAMN BC for that race when you do this change.
Or what ever you do it better be equivalent exchange or You will had an Angry Community all Trying to all Jump into JITA again too shoot your stuff, and stressing a server to death again.
Just saying.............. |
Escape513
Perpetua Umbra Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 19:04:00 -
[1680] - Quote
the only thing why u guys are "balancing" the skills to get a ship is becose u want more ******* noobs who play this game whitout getting frustrated...... |
|
Electra Gaterau
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 19:20:00 -
[1681] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:CCP Ytterbium? I don't suppose I could get you to say that it won't be an SP reimbursement, but instead just sticking the new skills onto people, at the appropriate level? I'm pretty sure that's what you've been meaning, but it's also obvious some people are thinking they'll get the chance to respend the points at will.
As for Destroyers:
Typically, a destroyer is a fleet defense boat. It already handles the anti-frigate line ok, so how about something for handling fleet missile defense? Or maybe an E-Warfare role. Maybe something cloaky or Bomb defense related?
Well reimbursement is tricky, can't say about details yet, because we still need to think about them. Whatever this is going to be SP reimbursement or just sticking new skills, or whatever options in the middle still need to be considered. Funny, I got somebody suggesting the very same idea regarding destroyers having a fleet defense role to me during lunch *insert tinfoil hat theory here*
I wouldn't mind seeing a dedicated exploration destroyer with some combat capability like a drone boat! |
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions The Laughing Men
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 19:22:00 -
[1682] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:Mirei Jun wrote:This is perhaps an acceptable side affect, but will hinder a new player's ability to participate in fleets. Other then that I have no complaints. The hope is that after ship rebalancing, people won't have to cross-train any more. That is, every race will have a perfectly viable ship for any role in the game. Which should include solo, gang, fleet, blob, etc. At least that's what I'm hoping for. I always found it a little bit silly how almost everyone is forced to learn to fly almost everything (within reason), simply because some race's ships vastly outperform other races' ships for a specific task. After the ship rebalance, if it is done well, there should no longer be a need for it. A true min/maxer will still do it, but for majority of players one race's lineup should be sufficient. Though, again, that's just what I'm hoping will happen. For me personally it's somewhat immersion-breaking to see faction militia members flying enemy ships.
This is the kind of thing that wow did when they gave paladins to the horde and shammans to the alliance. It make the game boring as hell. If this is implemented, it will remove yet another thing special about Eve. I can understand wanting more subscribers, but this will only pull in those people who just left a game looking for something different. In trying to pull in those transient gamers, we should remember that Eve stands apart for a reason. Keeping people playing is not about doing what the other games are doing. Other games are losing people specifically because of changes like what you are suggesting.
That being said, there are ships that don't get to see as much use as others. Changes should not be made for the sake of change, but for an improvement (or extension) of what has made Eve so wildly successful. The last thing I want to see is a dumb down of game mechanics to appease a crowd of people that never had the intention of staying for the long haul anyway. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 19:40:00 -
[1683] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:The hope is that after ship rebalancing, people won't have to cross-train any more. That is, every race will have a perfectly viable ship for any role in the game. Which should include solo, gang, fleet, blob, etc. At least that's what I'm hoping for. What you're hoping for is a boring game that sucks. If you want Red v. Blue classes and RP-PvP, then there are games that do those things. EVE survives, at least in part, because it does not do them. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 19:48:00 -
[1684] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Jame Jarl Retief wrote:The hope is that after ship rebalancing, people won't have to cross-train any more. That is, every race will have a perfectly viable ship for any role in the game. Which should include solo, gang, fleet, blob, etc. At least that's what I'm hoping for. What you're hoping for is a boring game that sucks. If you want Red v. Blue classes, go play SWTOR.
Look at the following scenario. Person 1 is an EVE vet, person 2 is considering starting EVE.
1: So what do you want to do in EVE? 2: I mainly want to PvP. 1: Ok, thats cool, PvP is really fun. You have to train Minmatar then. 2: But I think Gallente looks awesome. 1: Well, Minmatar is superior in most aspects of PvP, so that is what you want to train. 2: But... 1: No. Minmatar. Now.
So here we are, a game that has one option if you want to do one thing, and CCP wants to give us the same possibilities with all the races. How the hell is that a boring, dumbed down, WoW, SWToR game? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 19:51:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Jame Jarl Retief wrote:The hope is that after ship rebalancing, people won't have to cross-train any more. That is, every race will have a perfectly viable ship for any role in the game. Which should include solo, gang, fleet, blob, etc. At least that's what I'm hoping for. What you're hoping for is a boring game that sucks. If you want Red v. Blue classes and RP-PvP, then there are games that do those things. EVE survives, at least in part, because it does not do them.
So you /have/ to cross train. You /have/ to spend some time on skills, just so you can try out a role that your chosen race doesn't have a ship for.
Personally, I find that more boring.
On top of the other skills I need for the role, I /have/ to train up that ship as well. Fun fun fun. Honest.
edit:
Hi! We're the Amarr. We can't make a Battlecruiser that's as likeable as the Drake, for, umm, religious reasons. Yes. That'll work. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 19:55:00 -
[1686] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:1: Ok, thats cool, PvP is really fun. You have to train Minmatar then. Yeah, you're right. Now that I think about it, I know a TON of Drake and Tengu pilots who could have used this advice like a year ago. And all those idiots flying around in Abaddons who definitely did not get the memo. And all those Guardian and Basilisk pilots . . . and who the hell keeps bringing these Blasterthrons to small gang fights? Those guys just don't get it. And those Nyx pilots . . . man, don't even get me started on the Nyx pilots.
And don't you even THINK about training a Taranis. If I EVER see you flying a Taranis, I will pod you myself.
You should maybe write a blog or something though, cause people need your help. |
Caldain Morrow
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:03:00 -
[1687] - Quote
One thought on what to do with the issue of WTF do we need destroyers 4 for since there is only one hull: (IE hull ideas)
The obvious one is to do a variant of the new BCs. The current hulls are frigate hunters make a cruiser hunter glass cannon hull that can fit either medium guns or has a significant damage bonus without the tracking bonus.
desties have the potential to be a good entry level exploration ship for solo exploration where you want lots of high and mid slots for your probe launcher, salvager, analyzer and hacker. there's four slots gone if you do solo exploration. Frigates have issues losing that many slots and current destroyer hulls suffer more due to the lack of mids and lows. The othre thing you want for exploration is a good solid survivability. Desties are tougher with higher DPS than frigates which, face it, get blasted in combat plexes an have issues with all but the easiest anomalies.
Why not bring the current hulls in line with a ship role appropriate to it's race (IE the thrasher becomes an attack ship, the cormorant a bombardment platform) then start adding hulls to fit the other roles that are missed.
The fact is we have a whole pile of frigates and cruisers, three kinds of BS, three BCs an only one Destroyer hull (by race). Until crucible the primary reason to buy a desty hulls was for lvl1 missions and before that, salvaging. If we're going to make it mandatory to study Destroyers to fly cruisers then lets have a reason to fly the creatures or at least have some choice in what to fly. Four skills to fly four T1 ships, not really a lot of fun. |
Skex Relbore
The Dominion of Light
112
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:14:00 -
[1688] - Quote
Aphoxema G wrote:What I see here isn't really proposing one frustrating thing, it's proposing one thing that makes the ugly ducklings find their lost swan siblings and another thing that is kind of infuriating because it doesn't really seem to make any sense
Ship roles balance on a triangle of defense, offense and mobility to help "lesser" T1s pull their weight in the valuable minerals that have otherwise been wasted on them is a wonderful idea. I'd love to see the Bantams and the Scythes matter for once
That digs deeply here is the arguable necessity in restructuring the way we train (as in, wait) to use non tech-1 ships. If we're going for homogeneity, it would be practical to the players to eliminate racial training entirely. What isn't practical is dictating a place for things the players have already long decided
However, if we're going to go with racial specialization, please at least make Racial Destroyer a 1x skill and Racial Battlecruiser a 2x or 3x skill. These ships really are just frigate +1 or cruiser +1, they still rely on small and medium sized rigs and modules (with the exception of BC3s) and their prices scale up fairly well with their fittings.
^^^this^^
My primary problem with the proposed changes have to do with the additional SP requirements that will be placed on characters after the change as opposed to before.
One can argue as Tippia has tried that 6mil sp is relatively trivial when it comes to the difference between a fully cross trained and a specialized character when it comes to BC's because of weapon and other support skills but this ignores that what we're actually talking about is an additional 20+ days added to the process of adding a different races BC at the level it takes today
Consider today you fly exclusively Gallente (hypothetical) up to BC and because you are a BC specialist you have BC trained to 5 . you have T2 hybrids, good armor and Drone skills, Now you decide that you want to fly a Drake
Under the current system you have to train Caldari Frig to 4 and Caldari Cruiser to 3 at which point you can actually "fly" a Drake with max bonuses, to properly use it you then have to train missile, and shield skills.
Under the proposed system you'd have to train everything above plus Caldari Destroyer and Caldari Cruiser to 4, and then be facing a Rank6 train to level 5 to achieve the exact same results.
So no matter how you try to twist it or spin it this means that players who don't meet what ever qualifications are set to get handed all 8 racial skills at 5 on patch day will be facing somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 additional months of training compared to those who did meet said qualifications.
To me that's a permanent 3 month advantage being granted to players who qualify. and you know what this character qualifies no matter what criteria they set up since I already have all 4 racial cruisers to 5 as well as BC and Dessy to 5
Oh and screw the argument about easing access to command ships. Most people don't train BC5 in order to get access to command ships they train BC5 to maximize the performance of their T1 Battle Cruisers
The only way I can see splitting those two skills into 4 racial specific skills and while not screwing over new players would be to lower their rank to the point where training all 4 would add up to roughly the same amount of skill time as under the current system as Aphoxema G suggests above. This would be fair, no one would "lose" and it would give the developers the ability to split the skills as they desire.
Another thing that needs to be considered in this proposed change, what do you do about people who fly BS and above but haven't trained Destroyers or Battle-cruisers to 4? The character I'm training to be my main capital pilot is currently training BS5 but since I never really used him in smaller hulls (he started as a miner then I moved him to a Domi and now he's going capital) I only trained Dessies on hi to 1 and BC to 2. Now I'm not too worried about him losing access BC's since he's pretty much going to live in a Capital or a BLOPS but this means he technically wouldn't be qualified to fly the ships I'm training him specifically for. Does he suddenly get Gal Dessy and Gal BS to 4
Oh and all the people crying about the BS5 requirement being removed from CAPs being the end of the world, obviously haven't actually trained a capital pilot. Believe me that 26 days is pretty trivial in the larger scheme of stuff you have to train to use a Cap ship properly. For a proper Carrier for instance you need Jump drive operation to 5 so you can train jump drive calibration so you can actually jump a decent range. Drone interfacing to 5 for fighters Logistics to 5 to use a triage module. Then there are all the engineering and tanking skills plus level 5 in all the repping/transfer prereqs. No the biggest affect of lowering the BS req on Cap ships will shortening the cross train to another races capitals by that ~26 days. Of course I won't care that much s
TL:DR if you are going to insist on splitting the Dessy and BC skills into racial types then the only fair way to do it would be to lower their ranks to the point where training all 4 to a given level would take approximately the same amount of time that training the unified skill does under the current system |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:16:00 -
[1689] - Quote
Compared to the abolishment of the tier system the changes of the skill tree is insignificant. I welcome the initiative. Now lets hope CCP actually manages to pull it off correctly... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:27:00 -
[1690] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:1: Ok, thats cool, PvP is really fun. You have to train Minmatar then. Yeah, you're right. Now that I think about it, I know a TON of Drake and Tengu pilots who could have used this advice like a year ago. And all those idiots flying around in Abaddons who definitely did not get the memo. And all those Guardian and Basilisk pilots . . . and who the hell keeps bringing these Blasterthrons to small gang fights? Those guys just don't get it. And those Nyx pilots . . . man, don't even get me started on the Nyx pilots. Talk about CLUE. LESS. You should maybe write a blog or something, cause people need your help.
Actually Minmatar would indeed be the race you would recommend to a character wanting to specialize in PVP. They have the best ships for PVP at almost every level and fitting the largest variety of different types of PVP a character might want to get into.
Now if they said "Well first I want to be financially secure, so I'd like to be really good at missions... but would still like to participate in large scale PVP to support my corp". then you would suggest perhaps Caldari with an eye towards the Drake or Tengu.
Other races have their niche's where they shine as well, but overall most PVP pilots are Minmatar (or heavily cross trained in Minmatar) for a reason.
Additionally, if he did write a blog, perhaps you should take the time to read it. 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. |
|
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:35:00 -
[1691] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:1: Ok, thats cool, PvP is really fun. You have to train Minmatar then. Yeah, you're right. Now that I think about it, I know a TON of Drake and Tengu pilots who could have used this advice like a year ago. And all those idiots flying around in Abaddons who definitely did not get the memo. And all those Guardian and Basilisk pilots . . . and who the hell keeps bringing these Blasterthrons to small gang fights? Those guys just don't get it. And those Nyx pilots . . . man, don't even get me started on the Nyx pilots. Talk about CLUE. LESS. You should maybe write a blog or something, cause people need your help.
Really? Really?
Tell you a secret EVE Uni. You probably train people into Drakes (and then Tengus) for PvE. You probably train people in to Rifters and then Hurricanes for PvP. I'm guessing because I'm not a member, but please, share. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:40:00 -
[1692] - Quote
Swearte Widfarend wrote:Tell you a secret EVE Uni. Here's our real secret, brother: In the blob, nobody knows you're flying a Bantam. |
Jame Jarl Retief
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:41:00 -
[1693] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Jame Jarl Retief wrote:The hope is that after ship rebalancing, people won't have to cross-train any more. That is, every race will have a perfectly viable ship for any role in the game. Which should include solo, gang, fleet, blob, etc. At least that's what I'm hoping for. What you're hoping for is a boring game that sucks. If you want Red v. Blue classes and RP-PvP, then there are games that do those things. EVE survives, at least in part, because it does not do them.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
First, realize that like this very Dev Blog says, half the ships in the game are suboptimal. Meaning very rarely flown. If they balance the system so that each ship becomes just as desirable for a specific role as its equivalent of another race, it will lead to MORE variety in the game world, not less!
Go to some random high level system, preferably one with popular L4 agent. Sit there and count how many strategic cruisers go past you, and their type. I guarantee you that Tengu will beat any other by at least 2 to 1 margin. But if they are balanced, suddenly you'll start seeing not just a 4 Tengus, you'll see a Tengu, a Proteus, a Loki and a Legion. How is that bad if variety is what you want?
Plus, people like myself are not asking that the devs copy the ships over, along with stats and slot layout, which is what Bioware did with their classes in SWTOR. All races can keep their designated styles. Gallente can still have more drone bay space on average, Caldari can still mostly use missiles and shields, etc. What needs to be done is obvious imbalances being ironed out. Half the ships in the game are currently hopelessly outclassed by an equivalent ship of another race, which virtually forces people to cross-train.
I'm not against variety. I'm for variety. And making all of the game's ships equally desirable will increase variety of the ships you see flying around, not reduce it. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:45:00 -
[1694] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:1: Ok, thats cool, PvP is really fun. You have to train Minmatar then. Yeah, you're right. Now that I think about it, I know a TON of Drake and Tengu pilots who could have used this advice like a year ago. And all those idiots flying around in Abaddons who definitely did not get the memo. And all those Guardian and Basilisk pilots . . . and who the hell keeps bringing these Blasterthrons to small gang fights? Those guys just don't get it. And those Nyx pilots . . . man, don't even get me started on the Nyx pilots. Talk about CLUE. LESS. You should maybe write a blog or something, cause people need your help.
Rifter: best in class Jaguar: best in class Thrasher: best in class Sabre: best in class Rupture: best in class Hurricane: best in class
I'm starting to see a trend. And if you could read properly, you would have noticed that I did in fact not say that ONLY Minmatar have PvP ships. I said that Minmatar is the race you want to train if you mostly want to PvP. And you mention Megathron and Nyx. Yeah, I would also encourage a new player to have to train for 2 years before he could fly the ships effectively. If the three other races are so good in PvP, why don't you give me some examples? Which ship in each shiptype in each race outclasses their Minmatar counterpart? And are they as versatile as their Minmatar counterpart? This is talking about PvP only. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:54:00 -
[1695] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Swearte Widfarend wrote:Tell you a secret EVE Uni. Here's our real secret, brother: In the blob, nobody knows you're flying a Bantam.
let me fix that for you:
Danny Husk wrote:In the blob, nobody cares you're flying a Bantam. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Danny Husk
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 20:55:00 -
[1696] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:I'm not against variety. I'm for variety. And making all of the game's ships equally desirable will increase variety of the ships you see flying around, not reduce it. I can't really dis-agree with anything you said. But there is a difference between balance and equality.
Racial balance, in itself, is not a good target, but anything that makes cross-training harder will turn up the volume on the calls for exactly that. It is fine if one race does lots of things reasonably well; and another race does only one thing really, really well; and another is the only race that does a third thing at all. As long as it is reasonable for people to pick and choose, and get to the ships that fit what they want to do from the races that do those things well, it all works out. It also lets CCP be pretty loose about adding a new ship that does something fun and unique, without worrying about keeping every other little thing in "balance" all the time.
There are obviously, painfully obviously, a small number of hulls that need some serious adjustment. There are also a lot of hulls that deserve some long overdue attention, to give them some viable role for some situation, or to make them good for at least one thing, rather than subpar for everything. But there is also a difference between balance and symmetry. Symmetry is one way to achieve balance, but it's not the only way, or even the best way. It might be the easiest way, but it's also the most boring way. And a-symmetry is at the root of what makes EVE, EVE. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 21:22:00 -
[1697] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:Creat Posudol wrote:What on earth are you smoking? Good point. Rank 6 skill x4 + Rank 2 skill x4 is "only a few days longer" than Rank 6 skill x1. Thanks for clearing that up for us. They were talking about GÇ£moving all the BCs far enough up the training curve to put them out of the reach of noobsGÇ¥. Now you're talking about something completely different.
N00bs do not need all four BC skills. BCs are not moved out of the reach of n00bs. You're also misinformed about the costs. Compared to the current setup, they will need to train a rank 5 skill to IV (186k SP more than before), and a rank 3 skill to IV (136k SP more than before). That's 322k SP more, which can indeed be trained in a matter of days.
If they do indeed want all twelve BCs, it takes 1,384k SP more than before GÇö about three weeks extra, but again, that's not really a n00b goal.
Quote:Racial balance, in itself, is not a good target, but anything that makes cross-training harder will turn up the volume on the calls for exactly that. It is fine if one race does lots of things reasonably well; and another race does only one thing really, really well; and another is the only race that does a third thing at all. It's worth reminding that there are quite a few axes that GÇ£balanceGÇ¥ can work on, and that balance does not need to mean equality or complete identicalness between the various races.
One race could simply be good at Gǣlarge shipsGǥ (Gallente and Amarr have classically been quite close to this), where their battleships and caps are better than the others for various reasons, meaning that if you slog though all the slush at the bottom, it gets really good at theend. Another race might have the opposite (for all the talk about winmatar, their caps have always been considered woefully inadequate, and the only thing that saved their battleships was the arty-alpha doctrine), meaning it was kind of a dead-end path to go downGǪ and even the Caldari trilemma (pvp/solo/successful) needs to be contrasted against their vastly superior, and memetastically popular, ewar capabilities.
Balance can be had by simply ensuring that each race has enough going for it to be worth-while in most circumstances, and you can have balance just fine without necessarily having the kind of boring sameness you're talking about. Racial balance is a good target; it's just something completely different than racial uniformity. 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. |
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 21:35:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: Rifter: best in class Jaguar: best in class Thrasher: best in class Sabre: best in class Rupture: best in class Hurricane: best in class
I'm going to argue that a couple of those become questionable, but the broad swath of your point is clear and accurate. For the sake of generalization, Minmatar has been an "I WIN" button in EVE PVP for a while.
Jaguar is not obviously best in class. Enyo is a valid competitor for that. Rupture...Vexor can be a nasty cruiser. Hurricane...Drake... it really depends on the situation. Drakes can be a terrifying PVP boat in fleets. Solo, not so much.
And for the fun of it, Rifter is only best in class because of the ease of fitting it. WIth perfect fitting skills, a Tristan will give a rifter a run for it's money, based on stock Rifter combat fits. This isn't a good comparison because an average skilled player in a Rifter has a much higher success rate than an average skilled Tristan pilot. It only starts to become challenged when you go with perfect skills, and there aren't many people out there flying perfect-skill Tristans. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Korbin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 21:54:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Look at the following scenario. Person 1 is an EVE vet, person 2 is considering starting EVE.
1: So what do you want to do in EVE? 2: I mainly want to PvP. 1: Ok, thats cool, PvP is really fun. You have to train Minmatar then. 2: But I think Gallente looks awesome. 1: Well, Minmatar is superior in most aspects of PvP, so that is what you want to train. 2: But... 1: No. Minmatar. Now.
So here we are, a game that has one option if you want to do one thing, and CCP wants to give us the same possibilities with all the races. How the hell is that a boring, dumbed down, WoW, SWToR game?
Ok so maybe calling minmatar the PvP race is misleading and I should not have said it. It's a specific type of PvP. They are brawlers or scrapers what ever you want to call it. Minmatar ships typically have the worst tank and the weakest electronics but the fastest speed and most falloff and are immune to neuting at least dps wise. So that will dictate a specific style of fighting that has a specific counter. If that style suits you then great.
Caldari have awesome tanks and specialize in sniping and ECM. I'm not going to go over all the pluses and minuses but if you like that style then great.
Amarr are awesome tanks high damage but slow and very sensitive to capacitor warfare ( neuting )
I'll skip Galenete for TL;DR sake but if looks are important to you and you think the Amarr ships look great then fly them for their looks and their looks only. If fighting style is what is important to you then pick the fighting style that is important to you and ignore looks. If you want to compromise and pick a race that you like the look and style then do that.
But when you remove what makes the different races special from a functional standpoint and make looks the only difference then you are indeed dumbing down the game and removing much of it's complexity
If all the races looked the same or similar that would be bad. If all the races performed the same or similar then that would be bad. As things are now all races can and do PvP. All races can and do PvE. I'm just asking to not dumb down. The different styles which give the game some very interesting aspects that make it fun.
What it seems you are proposing in removing one type of variation to make the other choose-able by all and what I'm saying is leave the different type of variations so different people can choose look or function or both and not make the looks based people all important. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 22:13:00 -
[1700] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
Actually Minmatar would indeed be the race you would recommend to a character wanting to specialize in PVP. They have the best ships for PVP at almost every level and fitting the largest variety of different types of PVP a character might want to get into.
Now if they said "Well first I want to be financially secure, so I'd like to be really good at missions... but would still like to participate in large scale PVP to support my corp". then you would suggest perhaps Caldari with an eye towards the Drake or Tengu.
Other races have their niche's where they shine as well, but overall most PVP pilots are Minmatar (or heavily cross trained in Minmatar) for a reason.
If this is the case would you please tell me why more caldari ships are flown in the Alliance tournament than any other race? This is the tournament with the wealthiest most skilled pilots in the game so race and isk are not issues. If you can only fly Minmatar ships in PvP then explain the ATs. If you want a brawl then yes minmatar ships are the ships to fly. But that's not the only way to PvP. Minmatar ship put delivering damage to the target above all else. It's flat out stated in the ship descriptions, but they most certainly are not the only race capable of PvPing. People need to stop implying that when it has proven to not be the case. |
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys EXPLO. KINETIK und ein wenig THERMAL
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 22:22:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Korbin Dallaz wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:
Look at the following scenario. Person 1 is an EVE vet, person 2 is considering starting EVE.
1: So what do you want to do in EVE? 2: I mainly want to PvP. 1: Ok, thats cool, PvP is really fun. You have to train Minmatar then. 2: But I think Gallente looks awesome. 1: Well, Minmatar is superior in most aspects of PvP, so that is what you want to train. 2: But... 1: No. Minmatar. Now.
So here we are, a game that has one option if you want to do one thing, and CCP wants to give us the same possibilities with all the races. How the hell is that a boring, dumbed down, WoW, SWToR game?
Ok so maybe calling minmatar the PvP race is misleading and I should not have said it. It's a specific type of PvP. They are brawlers or scrapers what ever you want to call it. Minmatar ships typically have the worst tank and the weakest electronics but the fastest speed and most falloff and are immune to neuting at least dps wise. So that will dictate a specific style of fighting that has a specific counter. If that style suits you then great. Caldari have awesome tanks and specialize in sniping and ECM. I'm not going to go over all the pluses and minuses but if you like that style then great. Amarr are awesome tanks high damage but slow and very sensitive to capacitor warfare ( neuting ) I'll skip Galenete for TL;DR sake but if looks are important to you and you think the Amarr ships look great then fly them for their looks and their looks only. If fighting style is what is important to you then pick the fighting style that is important to you and ignore looks. If you want to compromise and pick a race that you like the look and style then do that. But when you remove what makes the different races special from a functional standpoint and make looks the only difference then you are indeed dumbing down the game and removing much of it's complexity If all the races looked the same or similar that would be bad. If all the races performed the same or similar then that would be bad. As things are now all races can and do PvP. All races can and do PvE. I'm just asking to not dumb down. The different styles which give the game some very interesting aspects that make it fun. What it seems you are proposing in removing one type of variation to make the other choose-able by all and what I'm saying is leave the different type of variations so different people can choose look or function or both and not make the looks based people all important.
you do realize, after your clarification, we want to achive the same? i wanted to emphazise, that based on the dev blog you can not determine wether ccp wants to make it all the same or if they want to achive a balanced state and ceeping the racial flavors intact. i say the latter is the goal which is a good thing. but you have to agree, that having a race which is de facto the best choice for pvp is not a good thing. you voiced concern, that making other races than minmatar more competitive in pvp will leave minmatar in a weak spot and overall not desireable. that will not be the case ;) but minmatar can really afford to loose some edge in pvp, especially in small gang pvp.
and projectiles are a powerful weapon in pve. believe me :D
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 22:23:00 -
[1702] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:If this is the case would you please tell me why more caldari ships are flown in the Alliance tournament than any other race? Historically, it has been for two reasons:
Because people mistakenly think that tanks win matches. Because of Falcon (or, more accurately, Rook and Kitsune).
Lately, it has also been because of Tengu GÇö very little offers the same comprehensive mix of tank and gank in such a neat package (and it has pretty consistently been called imbalanced for that reason).
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. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 22:28:00 -
[1703] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Rifter: best in class Jaguar: best in class Thrasher: best in class Sabre: best in class Rupture: best in class Hurricane: best in class
I'm starting to see a trend. And if you could read properly, you would have noticed that I did in fact not say that ONLY Minmatar have PvP ships. I said that Minmatar is the race you want to train if you mostly want to PvP. And you mention Megathron and Nyx. Yeah, I would also encourage a new player to have to train for 2 years before he could fly the ships effectively. If the three other races are so good in PvP, why don't you give me some examples? Which ship in each shiptype in each race outclasses their Minmatar counterpart? And are they as versatile as their Minmatar counterpart? This is talking about PvP only.
Best in class at what? At PvP? so you are telling me that a skilled ECM pilot in a griffin with racially appropriate ECM mods could not win against a rifter? I've flown hurricanes into PvP before. Due to their reputation they are usually primaried and you often can not get 2 or 3 cycles off of your autocannons. On the other hand the drake pilots with their huge EHP are allowed to live until the end and deliver more total damage at a much lower dps. This is just one example but the differences make you fight differently. If what you said above was true then you would only see those ships in PvP and that is most certainly not the case with maybe the exception of the sabre.
|
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 22:50:00 -
[1704] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Actually Minmatar would indeed be the race you would recommend to a character wanting to specialize in PVP. They have the best ships for PVP at almost every level and fitting the largest variety of different types of PVP a character might want to get into.
Now if they said "Well first I want to be financially secure, so I'd like to be really good at missions... but would still like to participate in large scale PVP to support my corp". then you would suggest perhaps Caldari with an eye towards the Drake or Tengu.
Other races have their niche's where they shine as well, but overall most PVP pilots are Minmatar (or heavily cross trained in Minmatar) for a reason.
If this is the case would you please tell me why more caldari ships are flown in the Alliance tournament than any other race? This is the tournament with the wealthiest most skilled pilots in the game so race and isk are not issues. If you can only fly Minmatar ships in PvP then explain the ATs. If you want a brawl then yes minmatar ships are the ships to fly. But that's not the only way to PvP. Minmatar ship put delivering damage to the target above all else. It's flat out stated in the ship descriptions, but they most certainly are not the only race capable of PvPing. People need to stop implying that when it has proven to not be the case.
Sorry, you are incorrect.
In Alliance Tournament 9 Caldari ships were second most fielded. Behind.... Minmatar. In Alliance Tournament 8, they were third. Behind Angel Cartel and... Minmatar In Alliance Tournament 7 Caldari Ships were the most fielded. Followed by ... Gallente.
Sadly the AT site doesn't go back further, so I can't get more data to disprove your error. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 22:55:00 -
[1705] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:If this is the case would you please tell me why more caldari ships are flown in the Alliance tournament than any other race? Because ATs are not an accurate reflection of real PvP. They are a make believe contest. In ATs you don't need to keep a point on the target. There are no worries of your opponent warping or cynoing in the rest of his corp or alliance. You know your opponent has certain restrictions on the make up of his gang. There are restrictions on how far you can mov-...
Oh wait... I just been trolled. LOL, nice one.
|
Swearte Widfarend
Mortis Noir.
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 22:58:00 -
[1706] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:ergherhdfgh wrote:If this is the case would you please tell me why more caldari ships are flown in the Alliance tournament than any other race? Because ATs are not an accurate reflection of real PvP. They are a make believe contest. In ATs you don't need to keep a point on the target. There are no worries of your opponent warping or cynoing in the rest of his corp or alliance. You know your opponent has certain restrictions on the make up of his gang. There are restrictions on how far you can mov-... Oh wait... I just been trolled. LOL, nice one.
Not trolled. Last year it really seemed like it was the Tengu Tournament to me. That's why I looked it up. All of your logic is, actually, relevant. CCP is changing ship skill trees. How ship skills should be |
Wun NgoWen
Unforeseen Consequences. THE UNTHINKABLES
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 23:13:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Quote: 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?
This is interesting !
Please bring out new role oriented ships first |
FIX IT
The Midnight Sun
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 23:17:00 -
[1708] - Quote
Fine. Call me ocd as well (or use any other ad hominem attack), however if ccp creates more skills out of thin air and stuffs them onto my character sheet without giving me ability to remove them I will be upset. Already we have skills we got during character creation that we are stuck with and now we are threatened with more.
"Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma." - ccp dev
IT IS NOT CAKE. How about its free steak for the vegetarian? Free pork for the muslim? Free milk for the lactose intolerant? Or maybe it is free cake, for the diabetic. I can keep going with the food analogies too.
And now there is no longer any excuse "ow this will take away from developer time", ccp has already gotten a skill removal system in place. It will cost them no time to NOT stick new unwanted skills on my sheet.
The character sheet is ours to customize in this game. If developers can not possibly bother to give us a way to remove unwanted things from it, fine. But please please please don't put things onto it that we did not choose. Is choice such a horrible thing?
|
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 23:48:00 -
[1709] - Quote
One alternative to making Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills racial is to make the ships dual-skill. Put half the bonuses on racial frig / cruiser and half on the core skill. It still leaves some oddities, but helps mitigate the current issues with Battlecruiser skill. Essentially, BC becomes a "role" skill.
(I assume this is coupled with other ship rebalance stuff like removing tiers) |
Korbin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 23:49:00 -
[1710] - Quote
So my very first toon was minmatar. I started training minmatar because that's what I was and I did not know any better. I don't PvP and I don't like PvP. When I first found out that Minmatar ships were supposed to be ideal for PvP I was pissed. Very shortly after that I realized that this is not WoW and I could cross train so I did. I trained up the Drake and if served me well, I was able to run level 4's in it.
After my skills got better I realized that all the training in the world was not going to do anything to improve the DPS of the drake or reduce the 4 hours it took me to run some missions.
So then I flew the Raven but was still a little unhappy with the DPS. Every one told me that Marauders were the ultimate mission runners so I looked into them and what I found was disappointing. I saw 4 ships from 4 different races and all 4 had rep amount bonuses. No caldari / amarr resist bonus? No Galenete drone boat? All 4 ships have very similar stats and there really is not much of style difference on how you fight or run missions in them. Yes I trained the Vargur due to the falloff and tracking bonus but I know plenty of people that are just as happy in the Kronos or Paladin and you see Golems at every mission hub.
I honestly don't have an issue with Minmatar ships being the best at PvP and I am a hard core mission runner. If the minmatar ships are the best then train them. You can be in a rifter in a matter of days. But the fact is that all kinds of ships are flown in PvP and all kinds win. Pirate faction ships are clearly better than empire faction ships but you still see people fly the empire race's ships in PvP. This is not WoW. You are not locked into a race or a class. If Minmatar ships are better in PvP then cross train them. That's the beauty of this game. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 00:09:00 -
[1711] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:One alternative to making Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills racial is to make the ships dual-skill. Put half the bonuses on racial frig / cruiser and half on the core skill. It still leaves some oddities, but helps mitigate the current issues with Battlecruiser skill. Essentially, BC becomes a "role" skill.
(I assume this is coupled with other ship rebalance stuff like removing tiers) While true this is an alternative, it's more convoluted than either the proposed or leaving things as is, but it does leave me with a question. Is the reason CCP decided to propose this related to the number of hulls currently receiving bonuses from the BC skill? At first I understand there was only 1 BC per race thus a whole new racial skill that was part of the progression chain may have seemed less than justified. With 12 tech 1 BC's maybe it was time to change that. but then, that does nothing to explain destroyers... |
Torothanax
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 00:53:00 -
[1712] - Quote
Currently I can fly all the (sub capital) tech 1 ships with max skill, minus Gal battle ship, which is at level 4. I can fly most tech 2 ships with max skill. I have all the tech 2 weapons systems maxed or near maxed for these ships. I can fly just about whatever I want whenever I want. Took me a while to get here.
I understand that you want to balance and move forward with the game and improve the ships. Getting rid of tiers is awesome, been saying it for years. BUT I'd rather not have to train more skills to do what I can do right now. Been plenty of that all ready. Keep that in mind when you go about adding, splitting, and refunding skills and skill points. |
Lost True
Paradise project
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 02:31:00 -
[1713] - Quote
I think that it'll be ok, if you just reimbush an SP from current Battlecruisers and Destroyers.
Because: 1. It's fair, instead of huge giveaway of SP for those 6 free skills, while new players will have to train them 2. It's ok, we still will be able to fly a favorite Command Ship, and for those who can fly all 4 races... well, it's not such a big deal for them to to train 3 more skills. (i'am one of them)...
I duuno, why there is so much whine about that: if you so worried about your training time then you don't need to train another races in near future anyway. |
Kvetha Fricai
NARC Tech
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 03:37:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Torothanax wrote:Currently I can fly all the (sub capital) tech 1 ships with max skill, minus Gal battle ship, which is at level 4. I can fly most tech 2 ships with max skill. I have all the tech 2 weapons systems maxed or near maxed for these ships. I can fly just about whatever I want whenever I want. Took me a while to get here.
I understand that you want to balance and move forward with the game and improve the ships. Getting rid of tiers is awesome, been saying it for years. BUT I'd rather not have to train more skills to do what I can do right now. Been plenty of that all ready. Keep that in mind when you go about adding, splitting, and refunding skills and skill points.
COME ON PEOPLE! READ THE POSTS!
If you can actually read and comprehend what you read, these already say (and have been restated several times) "What you can fly today, you will be able to fly tomorrow." And for the love of all that is good and holy, this was the FIRST POST.
Fly Safe! |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 04:05:00 -
[1715] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Isn't it our job to define roles for particular ships, not yours?
true, but teircide will help that. A ship with a bonus can be used in all sorts of ways depending on fiting (tank, gank, tackle, speed), useful bonuses on all ships and decent baseslots for its class help.
currently its top tier or bust. If you touch a ferox instead of a drake people laugh at you. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 04:19:00 -
[1716] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Actually Minmatar would indeed be the race you would recommend to a character wanting to specialize in PVP. They have the best ships for PVP at almost every level and fitting the largest variety of different types of PVP a character might want to get into.
Now if they said "Well first I want to be financially secure, so I'd like to be really good at missions... but would still like to participate in large scale PVP to support my corp". then you would suggest perhaps Caldari with an eye towards the Drake or Tengu.
Other races have their niche's where they shine as well, but overall most PVP pilots are Minmatar (or heavily cross trained in Minmatar) for a reason.
If this is the case would you please tell me why more caldari ships are flown in the Alliance tournament than any other race? This is the tournament with the wealthiest most skilled pilots in the game so race and isk are not issues. If you can only fly Minmatar ships in PvP then explain the ATs. If you want a brawl then yes minmatar ships are the ships to fly. But that's not the only way to PvP. Minmatar ship put delivering damage to the target above all else. It's flat out stated in the ship descriptions, but they most certainly are not the only race capable of PvPing. People need to stop implying that when it has proven to not be the case.
tournaments are not the same as small scale pvp, which is not the same as massive fleet battles.
Matar are good because in massive battles, speed is important, to GTFO and catch targets, if your a massive fleet outnumbering a foe your biggest issue is catching things. Better active tanking for 1/1 will be worthless with a alpha fleet. and arts got alpha.
Align time, catching, and escaping are things you never use in a tournament, nor are having so many ships fit for alpha that you can primary a target in one volley.
drake is also a winship, it helps to have the two most perfect bonuses and being able to fit as many large sheild extenders as possiable to give it a tank of a bs, try fitting a armor BC with all 1600 plates. Gallente have BC failships because of a active repair bonus that is useless as... something very useless. And ammar, if they traded the bonuses of the propocy and harbringer bonueses you would have a ammar drake equivalent. |
Nigel Steele
Tax Evader
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 05:12:00 -
[1717] - Quote
Sweet... I already have BC and Destroyers 5, so I just need to know how soon this is planned to take place? I have 62 days remaining on int / mem but am willing to train all the racial cruisers to 3 at less than peak rate if it means free skillz! |
Ariak Rykard
Shadow Naval Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 07:13:00 -
[1718] - Quote
While you guys are addressing this issue, i'd also like to highlight one particular category of pirate faction ships that's noteably missing from current availability: Caldari/Minmatar.
I find it insulting that there are two pirate faction available for Gallente/Minmater, for every ship class category: Frigates: Daredevil, Dramiel Cruisers: Cynabal, Vigilant Battleships: Machariel, Vindicator
.....but none for the Caldari/Minmatar version? Don't pilots also deserve the ability to harness skills acquired from both these racials and be able to fly ship/s that reflect this calling? Mayhap, it's got something to do with Eve-fiction? Can't you introduce a new pirate faction that provides this service?
While we're on the same line of thought, and in par with your new ship-skill restructuring....how about introducing MOAR pirate ships, namely, destroyer and battlecruiser class versions?
But wait, there's more! Following -that- line of thought...... PIRATE FACTION CAP SHIPS! wru?
Hate me all you want, if there's one cross-training that's too over powered in this game, it's Gallente/Minmatar. FIX THIS PLEASE.
Thank you.
|
SB Rico
the united Negative Ten.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 07:20:00 -
[1719] - Quote
So being as I fly all 4 races BC and Command Ship (max skills) I have a significant amount of leadership SP and tend to use specifc CS for specific mods (I am aware a t3 could do this better with warefare links but I gimp the fit to do it and can't be on the field) this means that to keep me where I am I would need my BC skill refunded at 4 times the amount of SP. Do this and ofc I am happy, nothing has changed.
On the other hand some dudes would be rightly annoyed that I got a 3mil SP bonus from CCP
BC at this time are basically the most used ship type in PVP and not exactly unused in PVE, messing with them is going to annoy a lot of people regardless of how you do it.
In summary, potentially I get put back 9 weeks of training or I get an advantage over other people, neither of these options is exactly fair...
|
Col Crunch
Aperture Reach Hades.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 08:16:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Szilardis wrote:Grideris 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.
Is it possible to instead of refunding the SP, just give the skills instead? Because if you can do so, here is what I would do:
- If a player has Racial Frigate III and Destroyers X - give player Recial Destroyer X for every race they have Racial Frigate III in
- Ditto for Battlecruisers
I could support this. I think this makes perfect sense, and is most likely the best solution.
Also: The Rokh is not the teir 3 BC... I find it funny that CCP of all people made that mistake |
|
Florio
Miniature Giant Space Hamsters
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 10:14:00 -
[1721] - Quote
I have wanted an existing-ship overhaul for years, with every ship having a viable role to play, so I fully support this. If it means many of us will have to train up a few racial BC skills then it will be worth the benefit these changes will bring to the game world. HTFU you whiney whinging self-centered wimps ;P |
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
243
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 12:00:00 -
[1722] - Quote
Ariak Rykard wrote:While you guys are addressing this issue, i'd also like to highlight one particular category of pirate faction ships that's noteably missing from current availability: Caldari/Minmatar.
I find it insulting that there are two pirate faction available for Gallente/Minmater, for every ship class category: Frigates: Daredevil, Dramiel Cruisers: Cynabal, Vigilant Battleships: Machariel, Vindicator
.....but none for the Caldari/Minmatar version? Don't pilots also deserve the ability to harness skills acquired from both these racials and be able to fly ship/s that reflect this calling? Mayhap, it's got something to do with Eve-fiction? Can't you introduce a new pirate faction that provides this service?
While we're on the same line of thought, and in par with your new ship-skill restructuring....how about introducing MOAR pirate ships, namely, destroyer and battlecruiser class versions?
But wait, there's more! Following -that- line of thought...... PIRATE FACTION CAP SHIPS! wru?
Hate me all you want, if there's one cross-training that's too over powered in this game, it's Gallente/Minmatar. FIX THIS PLEASE.
Thank you.
Incorrect. Damn nature, you scary! |
Ariak Rykard
Shadow Naval Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 12:39:00 -
[1723] - Quote
DelBoy Trades wrote: Incorrect.
So's your right eye. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2359
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 13:11:00 -
[1724] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Actually Minmatar would indeed be the race you would recommend to a character wanting to specialize in PVP. They have the best ships for PVP at almost every level and fitting the largest variety of different types of PVP a character might want to get into.
Now if they said "Well first I want to be financially secure, so I'd like to be really good at missions... but would still like to participate in large scale PVP to support my corp". then you would suggest perhaps Caldari with an eye towards the Drake or Tengu.
Other races have their niche's where they shine as well, but overall most PVP pilots are Minmatar (or heavily cross trained in Minmatar) for a reason.
If this is the case would you please tell me why more caldari ships are flown in the Alliance tournament than any other race? This is the tournament with the wealthiest most skilled pilots in the game so race and isk are not issues. If you can only fly Minmatar ships in PvP then explain the ATs. If you want a brawl then yes minmatar ships are the ships to fly. But that's not the only way to PvP. Minmatar ship put delivering damage to the target above all else. It's flat out stated in the ship descriptions, but they most certainly are not the only race capable of PvPing. People need to stop implying that when it has proven to not be the case.
Because all PvP in EVE goes by AT rules, right?
A good AT team composition is just that, an AT composition. Such a gang would get absolutely destroyed in any other TQ PvP situation. Stick to missions, thanks! "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Caldain Morrow
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 16:56:00 -
[1725] - Quote
so here's an idea for SP reimbursement. It seems obvious if difficult to implement: "IF [Race[ FRIGATE LVL = >3 THEN [Race] DESTROYER LVL = Curren DESTROYER LVL" "IF [Race] FRIGATE LVL = <4 THEN [Race] DESTROYER LVL = 0"
IE if you have Caldari frig 4, Minmatar frig 3, Amarr Frig 5, no Gallente frig skill and Destroyers 3 you would get Caldari and Amarr Destroyers 3 but not Minmatar or gallente Destroyers at all.
Just a thought. |
Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 17:04:00 -
[1726] - Quote
The change to skills is poorly thought out. If it ends up as a giveaway to vets, I disapprove. If it ends up as a pointless new timesink, I disapprove. If it does neither of these things, then it isn't really much of a change and you shouldn't bother with it. It's particularly unfair to those who aren't on their per/wil remap because they've trained all the pertinent skills (at least for the stuff they fly) to V and now you're introducing new essential per/wil skills.
For the rest, it's nice to see you focusing on existing ships and not introducing new ones. |
Khun Suway
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 17:06:00 -
[1727] - Quote
Finally - some sanity to the ship and race chaos !!
After all - this is a ROLE playing game - anything to make both ships and races ROLE SPECIFIC, instead everyone can fly everything, is a move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.
But go the rest of the way and make training a specific skill of a different race more difficult than training the skills of your race - in addition to a racial bonus for the skills of your race - - caldari trains caldari BC in normal time and gets a % bonus for missiles, but if they train minmatar BC it takes longer to train and bonus does not apply - - projectile arty on an amarr ship so you can divert the power/cap to your tank? What kind of nonsense is that!
Sure it 'reduces' the 'diversity/unpredictability' - so what! back to the original point - this is a ROLE playing game. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
657
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 19:15:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Khun Suway wrote:Finally - some sanity to the ship and race chaos !!
After all - this is a ROLE playing game - anything to make both ships and races ROLE SPECIFIC, instead everyone can fly everything, is a move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.
But go the rest of the way and make training a specific skill of a different race more difficult than training the skills of your race - in addition to a racial bonus for the skills of your race - - caldari trains caldari BC in normal time and gets a % bonus for missiles, but if they train minmatar BC it takes longer to train and bonus does not apply - - projectile arty on an amarr ship so you can divert the power/cap to your tank? What kind of nonsense is that!
Sure it 'reduces' the 'diversity/unpredictability' - so what! back to the original point - this is a ROLE playing game. Pretty sure that's not the kind of "role" the term is referring to, bro. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 20:42:00 -
[1729] - Quote
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 would like to know if CCP is going to expand the ORE Tree. It seems that the ORE tree could use: Destroyers, Covert Ops, Transports, Black Ops. |
Bilaz
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 20:52:00 -
[1730] - Quote
once again - removal of tiers is good and all, but there are some conserns. A qick stare on line roles you propose - shows that basicly what you propose is well known paladin, rogue, archer and buffer - roles. Which is quite disturbing becouse i dont want to have la2 is spare or something like that. And franly this whole bombardment stuff is utter bullshit - people shot other people to kill not to scare away or bore opponent to death while cruize missiles fly 200+ km
Back to roles - what i would like to see and what makes sence to me is broader roles than you have for t2 ships - you cann see and you would see that every unused ship have narrow role - pilgrim - close ranged, solo recon, munin - long range, arty hac. and every used ship - have roader role: rapier - good in small and large gangs, armor and shield tanked, have range, zealot - great range with close range and long range weapons, great tank when armor tanked but its possible to shield tank it. (Zealot and legion is overpowered becouse it have 2-3 awesome range, damage and tracking with pulse weapons). i dont want ships that can do only one thing good, especially if that thing is something ccp thought is a good idea to do with ship
Roles are olrady there in tier ships all you have to do is look how and why it is used and give others abilities to compete with it. I'm not talking about drake - if speaking about bc, but hurricane instead - utility, versality, good agility and damage at close range, possible to fit long range variant. Dominix and scorpion show that tier 1 bs - may be a good platform for drone + e-war bs for all races - being used as solo close range ship and/or e-war support bigger fleets. Each ship must have 2-3 purpose
Its also obvious that one line of roles for all shipsizes is not so smart when you think about it - ship of the line - its battleship anything smaller thrying to overtank and outdamage the opposition would look quite bizzare, something fast and agile - its clearly not a battleship - becouse why would anyone would fly a vagabond if the is something fast like a machariel (but fot t1 ship price)? When you want to tackle something you take inti - not cruiser or bs, when you keep something tackled you take recon - so all roles and purposes are already there, no need to invent wheel and paint everyone in 4 colors - that would lead to gedradation of pvp in eve, you would lose motivation and there (again) wont be any balancing in next 4 years
Last but not least concern is... balance. You plan to level the field for all ships but weapons and tank - are not balanced. Range issues - 70 km repair range is too much and unlike e-war stack very well, 1400 have too much alpha, scortch m and l have too much range and damage, heavy missiles fly too far and hit better than they should. armor tanked ships lack mobility shield tanked ships enjoy, gang bonuses give too much advantage (and cloaked bubble-proof bonus giving t3's on spots are much worse than 200km falcons)- all that would make proper balancing between diferent shiptypes and races next to impossible. So i think it would be a good idea to fix all this before work on rewamping cruisers and bs's. |
|
Jonuts
The Arrow Project CORE.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 22:53:00 -
[1731] - Quote
Oddly, as a low SP player annoyed by how long it takes to be able to upgrade to the next set of ships, my ***** is the exact opposite of most the ones here. Why can't we just remove all the racials and go Frigate-->Destroyer-->Cruiser-->Battlecruiser-->Battleship? I just find the idea of EXPANDING the ship command tree to be pretty silly, because it's completely filled with redundant skills as is. So sayeth the noob less concerned about waving an epeen in the form of SP and more concerned about being able to fly ships. No, I don't expect anyone to really agree with me, I just wanted to say it :) |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 01:03:00 -
[1732] - Quote
Jonuts wrote:Oddly, as a low SP player annoyed by how long it takes to be able to upgrade to the next set of ships, my ***** is the exact opposite of most the ones here. Why can't we just remove all the racials and go Frigate-->Destroyer-->Cruiser-->Battlecruiser-->Battleship? I just find the idea of EXPANDING the ship command tree to be pretty silly, because it's completely filled with redundant skills as is. So sayeth the noob less concerned about waving an epeen in the form of SP and more concerned about being able to fly ships. No, I don't expect anyone to really agree with me, I just wanted to say it :)
So what you are saying is that you want only one race in eve? Sounds a bit boring tbh... The racial ship skills are the only things that makes the 4 races. without it we have one race with different guns. |
Gotrek Gurnisson
Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc The Company LLC
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 02:03:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Firstly, I havent yet read through all 87 pages in this thread - though I have read enough to understand the basics of what has been proposed, and what the arguments for and against it are.
Personally, I would like to see another option on the table:
A ONE -OFF REFUND OF ALL SKILL POINTS GAINED TO DATE, ALONG WITH A FULL SET OF SKILL BOOKS FOR THE SKILLS THAT YOU ORIGINALLY HAD (minus Destroyer or Battlecruiser books that would be refunded an ISK cost).
The only reason I am suggesting a full respec as an option is because the introduction of niche ship roles, and role specific training is something that never existed before, and that most people will never have considered when they were developing their training plans.
REASONING: This would leave existing players in the same state they were in before the proposed change, except that this option would also allow players to RE-SPECIALISE into one or more of the new proposed ship roles. This will become increasingly important as CCP seem to be looking to add additional ship role-based skills as time/SP sinks.
ARGUMENTS FOR: The ability to swap skill points from skills that will no longer be of use to you when you change your ship specialism. We all have skills that we regret training, or that we know wont be of much use when these changes come in - so why not allow players a one-off chance to refund their skills and spend them on the racial skills plus the new role based skills?
ARGUMENTS AGAINST: The only one I can think of is that you might have to retrain multiple racial Battlecruiser skills. However this should be offset to some extent by the ability to swap your existing skill points around to concentrate on the ships you use most.
EXAMPLE: My main character can fly 3 races (Amarr, Minmatar and Caldari) up to BC (plus HAS), including racial weapons and EWAR, and can also fly Caldari and Amarr Battleships. After these changes then I might decide that I would like to concentrate on the 'Attack Vessel' and 'Support Vessel' ship lines, so I drop all the Minmatar skills plus HAS and then reassign these skill points to the Amarr 'Attack Vessel' and Caldari 'Support Vessel' lines - in addition to reassigning my other support skills to be more in line with the new ships roles I have chosen to concentrate on.
As far as I can see a single one-off respec per character would not hurt the game - people would still have the same amount of ISK and skill points, and could either spend the skill points in exactly the same areas as they previously had, or have the option to spend them in new areas - freeing up underused skill points.
In order for this to work however, each player would need to receive an EVE mail detailing what their allocation of skill points was before the respec - because players with several hundred skills trained will have a job remembering exactly what they had trained originally!
Im guessing that my idea is probably going to attract a fair amount of flaming - but wouldnt you gladly trade the ability to reallocate your skill points as a one-off against the inconvenience of possibly having to re-train the racial destroyer and battlecruiser skills?
Just a thought.............. |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 02:47:00 -
[1734] - Quote
Noticed something odd in there...a bit off topic, but how come the Hyperion is labeled as a slow, heavy "ship of the line", but the the mega is labeled as a faster attack vessel, despite the hyperion being the more mobile of the two? Also, unlike the mega, the hyperion is specifically geared for small, quick, close range engagements...it's even purposefully gimped in some areas to prevent it from being good in fleet fights, unlike the mega, which does relatively fine in large engagements in the exact roles described in the "ship of the line" bit. What have I missed here?
Also: "Or the Gallente drone and dampening abilities stop with the Exequror?"
The exequror has a bonus to neither of those...? |
James Damar
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 02:50:00 -
[1735] - Quote
If you are gonna reimburse people for losing ability to fly other races BC PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE think of the people that don't have all races trained and only give the racial BC skill to the ones that have the cruiser skill trained. I would really really hate to get Amarr/Minmatar BC 5 on my Gallente/Caldari character! |
AnzacPaul
Invictus Australis Northern Coalition.
100
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 03:35:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote: Also: "Or the Gallente drone and dampening abilities stop with the Exequror?"
The exequror has a bonus to neither of those...?
This is what worries me about the people balancing this game |
Soporo
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 03:58:00 -
[1737] - Quote
I think I understand the reasoning behind moving away from tiers but, tbfh, the whole ship line part is what makes me pucker up.
Quote:That is why we want to remove ship tiers altogether, then refocus our balancing philosophy to be based on role. 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.
GÇóCombat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
GÇóAttack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
GÇóBombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
GÇóSupport vessels: mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
GÇóIndustrial ships: provide the mining and logistic backbone to replace military losses and cover operating costs. Poor offense, average defense and poor mobility. An Oil platform is a fairly accurate depiction of industrial ships . EVE examples: Covetor, Orca, Rorqual, Iteron V.
Great, or even Very Good, damage coupled withGreat range simply cannot be used to currently describe any of the listed Bombardment type ships. Ps Devs: Do not, ever, calculate using Rage torps or even maybe Fury Cruise for pvp endeavors unless you are talking Structures. Hint: Massive ship bonuses and high skills and painters are required for the Golem and SB's in order to make REGULAR Torps not utterly fail. But anyway, the fact that ONLY missile ships are used to describe this category is...unnerving, considering what has happened to missiles in the past. *looks at Torps, Cruise*
Does all this this mean, for instance, that when they assign the Drake to the Bombardment line they will nerf the tank and up the rof/dps?
What about the BetterOffUsingProjectiles Ferox? it's in the Combat Ship line, but atm has neither Great damage or Great defense?
Where do the Field and Fleet Command ships fit in these Lines, or do they at all?
People have mentioned ships in the Attack vessel Line, like the Domi (average defense?), Mega Great mobility?
What about ridiculously unused and highly unpopular ships like the lolEagle and others?
Presumably, all these and others will be changed to conform to someones ideal of the assigned role, IF I'm reading all this correctly, and that's what I'd like to hear more about. Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H.L. Mencken |
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 11:31:00 -
[1738] - Quote
Quote: Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
Attack vessels: Made for hit and run assault, or flanking opportunities. Have great damage and mobility, but average defense. Similar in role with cavalry. EVE examples: Armageddon, Megathron, Tempest, Oracle, Thorax, Hurricane, Dominix, Myrmidon.
Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
Support vessels: mainly focused on assisting a friendly force, or disrupting an enemy fleet. Have average damage, poor defense, average mobility. Electronic warfare is the prime illustration of this line. EVE examples: Scorpion, Blackbird, Celestis, Arbitrator.
The examples above are kinda bad, the biggest problem that I see is that you don't give the proper role to missile & drone users. You see these weapon systems have delayed damage, but at the same time the damage is constant over the entire range. The only way for this type of damage to be useful is either having the tank necessary to survive long enough to apply your damage (Drake) or just kite it through massive speed and engagement range (Tengu, Ishkur).
Here are my current thoughts:
[Combat] *tank based* Line Combat (direct DPS, good buffer tank, poor mobility) Bombardment (delayed DPS, good constant tank, poor mobility) Brawler (short DPS, good tank, poor mobility)
[Attack] *speed based* Assault (great short DPS, poor tank, good mobility) Artillery (direct long DPS, poor tank, good mobility) Kiter (delayed long DPS, average tank, good mobility)
[Support] speed or tank Defense Support (poor damage, good tank or mobility) EW Support (poor damage, good tank or mobility) Command Support (average damage, good tank or mobility) Tackling Support (average damage, cloak or good mobility)
ps. To really be able to balance out EW, CCP needs to move EW modules to the high slots. So that all races have to choose between weapons or EW.
|
Liberty Belle
MBT Interstellar
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 12:11:00 -
[1739] - Quote
I would like to see a return of our T2 rigs any time that a particular ship is going to be modified. Otherwise we're going to be stuck with worthless ships that we're going to try and sell to some poor sucker, or we're going to have to destroy rigs. Please don't let that happen. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys EXPLO. KINETIK und ein wenig THERMAL
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 14:44:00 -
[1740] - Quote
[quote=Shin Dari]Quote: [..]
ps. To really be able to balance out EW, CCP needs to move EW modules to the high slots. So that all races have to choose between weapons or EW.
i do not know how i feel about that. has its pros for sure. but just imagine a cane, with 6 autocannons, only dmg-mods in the lows and a shield tank. would leave two highs for e-war, with useful tank and a lot of dmg. scarry.... that would require delicate balancing with cpu and pg. ewar in mediums collides directly with shield tank and while armor tank leaves space for ewar, it reduces the possibilities of using dmg-mods.
|
|
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom Best Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 15:32:00 -
[1741] - Quote
Raph Koster wrote: The secrets to a really long-lived, goal-oriented, online game of wide appeal
- have multiple paths of advancement (individual features are nice, but making them ladders is better) - make it easy to switch between paths of advancement (ideally, without having to start over) - make sure the milestones in the path of advancement are clear and visible and significant (having 600 meaningless milestones doesn't help) - ideally, make your game not have a sense of running out of significant milestones (try to make your ladder not feel finite)
I love to quote this guy.
My first question is: What would EVE gain, if we would make a linear skill training process, instead of a multiple paths where players argue about the best way to sort their training queue?
My second question is: Doesn't your picture of a navy->pirate ships vision reminds you of those tiers we want to get rid of? __________________________________ Member of CSM 4&5, your CSM 7 candidate. |
Lunce
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 17:56:00 -
[1742] - Quote
[quote=Shin Dari]Quote: ps. To really be able to balance out EW, CCP needs to move EW modules to the high slots. So that all races have to choose between weapons or EW.
This makes total sense. |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
248
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 19:54:00 -
[1743] - Quote
awesome changes Save the Miners! |
Gin Doom
d o o m
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 19:59:00 -
[1744] - Quote
Here's a simple approach to tier ships.
Each tier allows one module spot to be relocated i.e high to low, mid to high , etc..
tier 1, allows player to move 1 module tier 2, allows player to move 2 module tier 3, allows player to move 3 module
Simple and refreshing. Players will now have much more diversity in fitting ships allowing seasoned pilots greater challenges and options on the battlefield.
that is my 2 cents...
|
Zimmy Zeta
Battle Force Industries Tactical Invader Syndicate
941
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 20:29:00 -
[1745] - Quote
I really like the ideas in the dev blog- all of them.
BTW, I followed another link on the the wiki-link for "ship of the line" from the devblog that took me to razee. And I think this might also be a very good idea. If the Gallente Navy just realized that some of their ships are just fail and no longer useful for their intended purpose, maybe they would also "cut down" the hulls and turn them into a lower class of ships.. like the Hyperion gets beefed down to become a battlecruiser...something like this...just a thought.. -.- |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity
74
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 20:39:00 -
[1746] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:I really like the ideas in the dev blog- all of them. BTW, I followed another link on the the wiki-link for "ship of the line" from the devblog that took me to razee. And I think this might also be a very good idea. If the Gallente Navy just realized that some of their ships are just fail and no longer useful for their intended purpose, maybe they would also "cut down" the hulls and turn them into a lower class of ships.. like the Hyperion gets beefed down to become a battlecruiser...something like this...just a thought..
The Brutix says hi. |
Daemon Ceed
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 20:42:00 -
[1747] - Quote
James Damar wrote:If you are gonna reimburse people for losing ability to fly other races BC PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE think of the people that don't have all races trained and only give the racial BC skill to the ones that have the cruiser skill trained. I would really really hate to get Amarr/Minmatar BC 5 on my Gallente/Caldari character!
A fair point indeed. Post with your main or GTFO! |
Dairokuten Maoh
High Flyers RED.OverLord
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 23:59:00 -
[1748] - Quote
Great, catergorizing ships by roles.
How it used to be - In fleet engagement FC had to carefully calculate the hostile fleet composition, judging by their logi and their support. Since a ship like drake can be just as much long range or short range, and can be mobile or slow. The uncertainity is what makes the fleet intel vital, and fleet fight exciting. There is so many factors to play, and the one who can calculate the most factor into the fight shall be victorious. - In skirmishes Intel reported a 8 man fleet consists of vagas and canes with sabre and rapier. It's a composition that you don't take lightly with. Because you never know if the cane is armor fit or shield fit, or vaga is ab fit or mwd fit. They can be tanky or fast and still carry out a good mid range dps, and massive close range dps. A general solution is either to pick them off gate, split them between system, or out blob them. BUT YOU NEVER KNOW FOR SURE, what they might do.
-In solo pvp You saw a lone cane flying around, you are in a dramiel, and you think "pffff, I got this *****.", you tackle the cane, and BOOM WEBED AND SCRAMED LIKE A MOTHERF***KER, you thought, "trololol a armor cane", and next thing you know the cane is waving at your pod.
or your in a vaga, and you saw a lone phantasm flying through. and again you thought "pffft, I got this *****!!" you burns toward the phantasm, and point, and start shooting, everything is going so well you wonder why phantasm was ever in production. UNTIL HE TURNS ON HIS DUAL TRACKING DISRUPTOR AND ORBIT YOUR SHIP AT 24KM, next thing you heard is the alarm sound for your hull breach. (btw that's me in the phantasm, hasn't lose to any ship that use guns solo.)
What's going to happen? - In fleet engagement. FC recive intels on enemy ship "role", for example and fleet of "combat ships. FC can make instant decision on how to engage them. Because they can only do certain rolls effectivly, and order the fleet to stay the F away from them while picking out their Logistic and Ewars one by one.
- In skirmishes You saw a small skirmish fleet on intel channel and their ships to be in roles that are meant for quick skirmishes. AND SINCE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THIS SHIP WOULD FLY FOR THEIR ROLE. You warp a onyx into them with 3 or 4 zealot at 50k off with a couple hyena, boom a dead skirmish fleet. Or a drag bubble with snipers like sebo oracle, and hyena. BOOM ANOTHER DEAD F****ING FLEET.
-In solo pvp pfff, solo pvp would be extinct, since your ship ROLE is predetermined. The result is also predetermined based on the proper counter ship ROLE and tactics.
And in case of mixed roles in a fleet composition. It's still gonna be easy to figure out how every single one of the hostile ship is going to perform based on their ROLEs, and therefore apply proper tactics into target calling and counter maneuvering. S+Öpü«sëìpü½S¦¦pü»täípüÅpÇüS+Öpü«s+îpü½pééS¦¦pü»täípüù Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.
|
Dairokuten Maoh
High Flyers RED.OverLord
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 00:19:00 -
[1749] - Quote
Lunce wrote:[quote=Shin Dari] Quote: ps. To really be able to balance out EW, CCP needs to move EW modules to the high slots. So that all races have to choose between weapons or EW.
This makes total sense.
This does not remove the cloaky falcon alt's OMGWTFBBQPWN button. S+Öpü«sëìpü½S¦¦pü»täípüÅpÇüS+Öpü«s+îpü½pééS¦¦pü»täípüù Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.
|
bongpacks
Mudbug Acquisition Of Empire
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 00:37:00 -
[1750] - Quote
As long as I can still fly all the ships I can currently fly now, after the change...without having to do anything/spend any isk/waste any training time then I'm completely fine with this. If however you change the skill progression in spaceship command and don't immediately make the next project doing the same thing to the gunnery skill progression, I will be very disappoint. If it's good enough for our ships it's good enough for our turrets too! How many god damn attempts does it take to post something successfully to this forum? 4 so far |
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order Villore Accords
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 02:33:00 -
[1751] - Quote
bongpacks wrote:As long as I can still fly all the ships I can currently fly now, after the change...without having to do anything/spend any isk/waste any training time then I'm completely fine with this. If however you change the skill progression in spaceship command and don't immediately make the next project doing the same thing to the gunnery skill progression, I will be very disappoint. If it's good enough for our ships it's good enough for our turrets too! How many god damn attempts does it take to post something successfully to this forum? 4 so far
This is where the new skill progression pattern falls down. Capital guns are only T1, but require level 5 bs guns. Dropping that requirement to 4 along with dropping the bs skill prereq to 4 would make training for dreads almost trivial.
They should rethink the progression at the capital level.
The changes to the sub cap tree make sense (assuming that we are reimbursed like-for-like across all racial skills), but following these changes through to capitals becomes problematic and could represent more than just reorganising the skill tree and in itself introduce major imbalance as you essentially almost instantly create thousands of cross trained dread pilots.
I dont mind that idea, specially with all the poco shooting going on lol, just wondering if that was intentional. |
S McKellop
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 04:53:00 -
[1752] - Quote
So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super.
Actually now that I think about it, what about our super sitters, they like dont dock....ever. Cant exactly JC him to empire to buy the _____BC skillbook and leave the supercarrier floating in space.
If you were to do that the only reasonable way would be to grant all bitter vets all four racial BC skills trained to the level that vanilla BC is trained to....actually now that I think about that, I only have BC 3..thats still an issue for me because according to the blog you will need L4, also why would I waste time training my supersitter for a BC?
My brain hurts now.
I have concluded that the whole idea is ruhtarded. Stick to fixing the game like you have been doing so well since crucible, dont break it again. |
Venkul Mul
Vikramaditya
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 06:49:00 -
[1753] - Quote
I doubt it will be noticed, so late in the discussion, but wouldn't be better to do it the other way?
What I mean is having:
- a relatively costly racial (or organization, for ORE as an example) skill, with a minimum requirement to use ship of that race/organization - a generic skill for each class of ships, with separate skill trees for combat/industrial/mining ships - a advanced racial skill for capital ships
To make some clearer example:
Piloting a Amarr cruiser would require - Amarr ships at 3 - frigates at 4, destroyers at 4, cruisers at 1
Piloting a Gallente battleship would require: - Gallente ships at 5 - frigates at 4, destroyers at 4, cruisers at 4, battlecruisers at 4 and battleships at 1
The above Gallente Battleship pilot to cross train to Minmatar ships would only have to train the Minmatar ships skill. As soon as he get it to 1 he would be capable to use the Minmatar frigates at 2 he would be capable to use Minmatar destroyers and so on.
The racial skill should be a big factor when determining the ship efficiency but it shouldn't be the only one.
I think it would represent fairly well hot it work in reality too. When you buy a new vehicle don't have to relearn everything simply because a different firm has made it. It could have a few different quirks but they are relatively minor. What matter is if it is a truck or a sport car.
|
Katy Ling
Crimnson Concept Flame Flaming Nebula
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 06:58:00 -
[1754] - Quote
S CCP Ytterbium wrote: ... lowering the Covetor's Mining Barge requirement from 5 to 4 ...
that sounds like a very wise chance, as for years, players have looked how ridiculous it looked, to have such a small training time difference betwin the Covetor and the T2 Hulk
how about Astrogeology down from 5 to 4 too ?
S McKellop wrote:So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super.
Actually now that I think about it, what about our super sitters, they like dont dock....ever. Cant exactly JC him to empire to buy the _____BC skillbook and leave the supercarrier floating in space.
If you were to do that the only reasonable way would be to grant all bitter vets all four racial BC skills trained to the level that vanilla BC is trained to....actually now that I think about that, I only have BC 3..thats still an issue for me because according to the blog you will need L4, also why would I waste time training my supersitter for a BC?
My brain hurts now.
I have concluded that the whole idea is ruhtarded. Stick to fixing the game like you have been doing so well since crucible, dont break it again.
geeeshhh and i thought i could have some reasons to be wary of ccp changing BC as requirement for battleship and so on, as i fly all races ... but players that have trained for years, planed and remapped to follow a path, and suddenly get all they're train and goals sabotaged, would be immensely annoyed. good thing ccp is looking to make sure people do not get unable to fly ships they could before.
i wish ccp the best of luck implementing this, knowing they'll need God's help to deal with unnecessary player base frustration and agro, if they handle this in a way to hinder player progression. good luck =) |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 07:46:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Shannae Darkehart wrote:Scanning through the thread again, I came across this and immediately thought, "You know, additional base tech 1 Destroyer hulls and some tech 2 variants of them might be worth investigating." The faster moving lower throughput Logistics ship idea is popular on the forums, for example, and could find a home here.
Well, im not sure . . . smaller logistics ships would be great, but wouldnt we want those in the faster/lighter frigate hulls than the easier to hit destroyer hulls? i mean up until recently, cruiser logistics ships were about the same size as destroyers.
Shannae Darkehart wrote:You could even throw down something in the same vein as the Battlecruisers with oversized guns approach. The question would be, 8 medium turrets, or a single solitary large turret? ... both? >.>
ummmm . . . 8 medium turrets >>>> 1 large turret
maybe 4 large turrets?
What about a small command ship? something that can only use two command mods at a time and provides no bonus to those mods, but is light and fast enough to travel with frigate packs?
I would also like to see the destroyer equivalent of a combat command ship with solid tank and gank but limited utility.
|
Shannae Darkehart
New Eden Logistics Detrimental Imperative
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 08:41:00 -
[1756] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Shannae Darkehart wrote:Scanning through the thread again, I came across this and immediately thought, "You know, additional base tech 1 Destroyer hulls and some tech 2 variants of them might be worth investigating." The faster moving lower throughput Logistics ship idea is popular on the forums, for example, and could find a home here. Well, im not sure . . . smaller logistics ships would be great, but wouldnt we want those in the faster/lighter frigate hulls than the easier to hit destroyer hulls? i mean up until recently, cruiser logistics ships were about the same size as destroyers. Shannae Darkehart wrote:You could even throw down something in the same vein as the Battlecruisers with oversized guns approach. The question would be, 8 medium turrets, or a single solitary large turret? ... both? >.> ummmm . . . 8 medium turrets >>>> 1 large turret maybe 4 large turrets? What about a small command ship? something that can only use two command mods at a time and provides no bonus to those mods, but is light and fast enough to travel with frigate packs? I would also like to see the destroyer equivalent of a combat command ship with solid tank and gank but limited utility.
I'm just throwing out ideas, there, under the assumption that our current standards of effectiveness may well change when they abolish the tiering system.
I like the small Command Ship idea.
The notion of specialized exploration vessels has come up, too.
Truly, there needs to be more variety in the tech 1 hulls of destroyers, too. A good source of inspiration for their loadouts actually comes from the battlecruisers, which are organized (primarily) into: dominant racial weapon system, secondary racial weapon system, and oversized weapon system categories.
Tech 1 Destroyer size launcher and drone boats, perhaps? An 8 launchers Caldari boat, a drone ship for the Gallente... Minmater perhaps 8 launchers with the bonus on rockets whereas the Caldari one gets it for Standard Missiles? Amar could get a drone boat, shoring up the races overall line of drone using ships some (the Arbitrator and its tech 2 variants really stick out like a sore thumb in this regard), or another Khanid vessel once again favouring launchers. For the oversized weapons group, Caldari should stick with launchers again while the others get their primary turrets.
Mentioned in the thread is the notion that if Defender Missiles worked to protect ships around you, a launcher based Destroyer immediately gains a fleet defense role via loading in defender missiles, while retaining an anti frigate capacity by reloading standard missiles. If the Destroyer sized drone ships bonus also applies to logistics drones, they can aid in more defensive pursuits, as well.
Just to continue throwing out ideas of a minimum level of merit wildly here: The "Exploration Vessel" could go off the same hull as Interdictors, retaining 4 turret slots for dealing with NPCs in sites. The "Vanguard Command Ship" type you mention, Sigras, could be off the new tech 1 hull, along with a "Rapid Response Vessel" logistics boat of some kind from that hull.
I like giving things names. Sue me. :D
It also amuses me greatly to imagine "swarm fleets" with Assault Ships. Interceptors, Electronic Attack Ships, Rapid Response Vessels, and Vanguard Command Ships squaring off in much the way current blobs of big ships do. I just might fall out of my chair laughing if I ever see a post QQing about a "battleship drop" during a high sec war. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 10:08:00 -
[1757] - Quote
S McKellop wrote:So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super.
Actually now that I think about it, what about our super sitters, they like dont dock....ever. Cant exactly JC him to empire to buy the _____BC skillbook and leave the supercarrier floating in space.
If you were to do that the only reasonable way would be to grant all bitter vets all four racial BC skills trained to the level that vanilla BC is trained to....actually now that I think about that, I only have BC 3..thats still an issue for me because according to the blog you will need L4, also why would I waste time training my supersitter for a BC?
My brain hurts now.
I have concluded that the whole idea is ruhtarded. Stick to fixing the game like you have been doing so well since crucible, dont break it again.
Ahem.
Go back to the first post. read the posts linked to from it. (Or read just the dev posts on the thread).
You'll find the concern is dealt with. 'If you can fly it before, you'll be able to fly it after'
One small thing about how the requirements work. A Battleship doesn't need Crusier to fly. It's not tested for. It's the top level only that's tested, not the prereqs for them. Because there's no way (in normal play) to get the requirements, without meeting the requirements for them. It'd be a pointless test.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5424
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 10:14:00 -
[1758] - Quote
S McKellop wrote:So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super. GǪand you've come to this conclusion, how, exactly? 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. |
Tesco Yogurt
OMFG Industries
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 10:44:00 -
[1759] - Quote
Danny Husk wrote:The reason your answers to these questions aren't making any sense is because you are still dancing around the one simple problem that obviously drives this entire plan: The Drake.
The whole thing comes down to this: We put some ships called BCs in the game a while back, and one of them was stupidly OP. In fact it was so stupidly OP that our T2 cruisers are an embarassment compared to it. This is even more of a problem since the T2 cruiser takes 5x as long to get into. We see now that this stupidly OP ship never should have happened, or should have been just another Tech 2 hull. But we can't nerf it, because people will scream bloody murder. And we can't buff the T2 cruisers, because then they would be stupidly OP.
So this 1 ship that was stupidly OP was flown by PVPers all over the map when it was first introduced, was it? Don't make general, sweeping assumptions like that. It makes you look stupid.
1. The drake was considered a 'meh' ship when it was introduced. 99% of drakes were used in PVE, and 99% of PVPers used ships OTHER than the drake (yes I'm pulling these '99%' numbers out of my arse, but the majority in both cases anyway)
2. People only started realizing that drakes were pretty good, after the nano-nerf, where heavy missiles could actually catch ships in the class they're meant to hit.
3. As it is, the Drake only started seeing heavy usage in 0.0 blobs and small gang PVP post 2009/2010. Prior to that I don't think I've ever seen any 0.0 blobs specifically ask for drakes. In fact you'd be laughed out of the alliance if you told them all you could fly was a drake.
4. The tier 2 BC class are one of the most balanced classes as it is (myrm is slightly underpowered, mainly due to the current state of the game).
5. Personally, I think the Drake is fine as it is, but could always do with a little tweak. Idiotic posts crying "NERF NERF" with no basis are pretty stupid and make me want to kill a kitten.
6. I really don't see the point in nerfing something that didn't undergo any massive changes (bar HP recharge nerf) since its introduction and is only really in demand due to current metagame. Balancing isn't just about tweaking the stats on 1-2 ships.
Danny Husk wrote:So what we're gonna do is: move all the BCs far enough up the training curve to put them out of the reach of vile noobs; pull the T2 cruisers down the curve a bit to make them seem like a better deal; then make all the other BCs just as stupidly OP.
Balance achieved.
Also we'll throw in some new dessies. Maybe. And caps will be 30 days shorter. So it all works out in the end.
Far enough up the training curve? What's your basis for this whine? If CCP implements Racial Cruiser 4 -> Racial BC 1 in place of the current method, that means training cruiser 3 -> 4, hardly THAT much longer to skill for. The only potential people it would hurt are people who cross train extensively (and even then it's not known what the final implementation will be), and don't tell me all newbies have BC 5 trained up (where new players are under 6 months old) and are capable of flying 3-4 races BC EFFECTIVELY.
tl;dr Danny Husk > WAHHH WAAAAHHHHH CCP IS DOING SOMETHING I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT BUT I'M GONNA CRY NERFDRAKENERFDRAKENERFDRAKE ANYWAY Me > you're an idiot, stfu stop crying and wait until we actually know something concrete. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 10:48:00 -
[1760] - Quote
Tippia wrote:S McKellop wrote:So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super. GǪand you've come to this conclusion, how, exactly?
Probably by ignoring the fact that you already need Amarr Cruiser trained in order to fly an Amarr BC, so anyone who can fly a Harbinger now should still be able to fly a Harbinger when it requires "Amarr Battlecruiser" instead of "Battlecruiser". And if you can't fly a Drake today because you don't have Caldari Cruiser trained, why would it matter to you that you can't fly a Drake after the change?
So many people. So few braincells. |
|
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
445
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 10:50:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Tesco Yogurt wrote:Danny Husk wrote:The reason your answers to these questions aren't making any sense is because you are still dancing around the one simple problem that obviously drives this entire plan: The Drake.
The whole thing comes down to this: We put some ships called BCs in the game a while back, and one of them was stupidly OP. In fact it was so stupidly OP that our T2 cruisers are an embarassment compared to it. This is even more of a problem since the T2 cruiser takes 5x as long to get into. We see now that this stupidly OP ship never should have happened, or should have been just another Tech 2 hull. But we can't nerf it, because people will scream bloody murder. And we can't buff the T2 cruisers, because then they would be stupidly OP. So this 1 ship that was stupidly OP was flown by PVPers all over the map when it was first introduced, was it? Don't make general, sweeping assumptions like that. It makes you look stupid. 1. The drake was considered a 'meh' ship when it was introduced. 99% of drakes were used in PVE, and 99% of PVPers used ships OTHER than the drake (yes I'm pulling these '99%' numbers out of my arse, but the majority in both cases anyway) 2. People only started realizing that drakes were pretty good, after the nano-nerf, where heavy missiles could actually catch ships in the class they're meant to hit. 3. As it is, the Drake only started seeing heavy usage in 0.0 blobs and small gang PVP post 2009/2010. Prior to that I don't think I've ever seen any 0.0 blobs specifically ask for drakes. In fact you'd be laughed out of the alliance if you told them all you could fly was a drake. 4. The tier 2 BC class are one of the most balanced classes as it is (myrm is slightly underpowered, mainly due to the current state of the game). 5. Personally, I think the Drake is fine as it is, but could always do with a little tweak. Idiotic posts crying "NERF NERF" with no basis are pretty stupid and make me want to kill a kitten. 6. I really don't see the point in nerfing something that didn't undergo any massive changes (bar HP recharge nerf) since its introduction and is only really in demand due to current metagame. Balancing isn't just about tweaking the stats on 1-2 ships. Danny Husk wrote:So what we're gonna do is: move all the BCs far enough up the training curve to put them out of the reach of vile noobs; pull the T2 cruisers down the curve a bit to make them seem like a better deal; then make all the other BCs just as stupidly OP.
Balance achieved.
Also we'll throw in some new dessies. Maybe. And caps will be 30 days shorter. So it all works out in the end. Far enough up the training curve? What's your basis for this whine? If CCP implements Racial Cruiser 4 -> Racial BC 1 in place of the current method, that means training cruiser 3 -> 4, hardly THAT much longer to skill for. The only potential people it would hurt are people who cross train extensively (and even then it's not known what the final implementation will be), and don't tell me all newbies have BC 5 trained up (where new players are under 6 months old) and are capable of flying 3-4 races BC EFFECTIVELY. tl;dr Danny Husk > WAHHH WAAAAHHHHH CCP IS DOING SOMETHING I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ANYONE IS TALKING ABOUT BUT I'M GONNA CRY NERFDRAKENERFDRAKENERFDRAKE ANYWAY Me > you're an idiot, stfu stop crying and wait until we actually know something concrete. From everything I heard in the days of drake army, the main reason they became so prevalent in nullsec pvp is because they exploited the lag issues, but by working better than turrets under high lag conditions, and be making the servers work harder so they could cause said lag conditions under which they worked better.
After missiles were reworked at the code level to use considerably less CPU overhead, drakefleets started falling back into a less used role, being replaced by alphafleet(whos slow cycling guns had the advantage in lag over faster cycling guns).
Lag has driven a large part of fleet doctrine evolution over the years. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Sasha Azala
Blood and Decay
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 11:20:00 -
[1762] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:[list] Q: Isn't such a skill change and reimbursement defeating the very purpose of getting new players in, since they will now have to train four times as much to get all destroyer and battlecruiser variants? A: if you only consider raw skill requirement, certainly. We estimate that with the changes, training for a battlecruiser would jump from 5 to 11 days. However, flying a ship properly means much more than just being able to hop into it. You have to consider weapon, tanking, engineering, electronic, navigation skills as well, where 6 days aren't that much in the grand picture.
Besides, we always encourage players to specialize in a specific hull to be as competitive as veterans, and this will not change here. Splitting destroyers and battlecruisers into four racial variants is aimed to achieve exactly that, as we assess the current, generic battlecruiser skills is giving access to too many ship hulls (12 for training one skill), while being inconsistent with the Frigate, Cruiser, Battlecruiser and Capital skills, which all are race based.
Good thing about generic destroyer and battleship skills is that it completes a main skills for 4 race varients. More choice of ships to fly the better so reducing that choice (making it longer to train) is not a good thing. I know it might be quicker to learn to fly one race's command ship due to the restructure but it still limits you to what you can fly. Might be better to be more competetive in one hull, but people will get bored quicker with just one hull.
As it is at the moment training I never minded training a ship type skill (interceptor for example) as part of the skill tree. For the simple fact interceptor is also generic.
You're adding about 3 months to training battlecruisers (3 races, 4th not counted as you would train that in any case) and 1 month to training destroyers, but you're not taking anytime away from the skill tree just rearranging it as far as I can see.
We do need to know what you intend to do as a reimbursement sooner rather than later, this decision to have destroyers and battlecruisers no longer generic is already having an effect of my game. Reason being I've put my training plan on hold and moved the battlecruiser skill to the main priority.
Started training BC V about 10 hours ago, so there's now 23 days still to train until it's completed. But what you decide to do as a reinbursement will make the difference between me wasting my time at the moment or investing the time wisely.
If you say anyone with BC V gets all 4 race BCs at V (although anyone without Bc V or destroyer V gets 4 months added to their training skill tree, so it's not fair for them), or if you decided to reimburse the sp to use again after changing destroyers to rank 1 and battlecruisers to rank 2 then the BC V I'm training won't have been wasted assuming I can finish it in time.
If, however you also insist on having all 4 races cruiser skill to 3 or 4 which ever applies then the training presently is more likely to have been wasted (as it's likely I won't train it up in time) especially as I'm not that interseted in the Minmatar command ship as I think it looks crap (I know some like it, but that just highlights the importance of having choice).
With the proposed change with the destroyer skill to having to train all 4 race destroyers to 4 is a waste to me as I don't fly destroyers and have no reason to do so. That unless you add some other interesting destroyer hulls which I guess is a possibility. Although I don't think much of the new BCs (role) and hope that's not a sign of what the future holds. |
Red Templar
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 12:06:00 -
[1763] - Quote
I have a question. not sure if it was answered or cleared before, too much posts, no time to skimm through it all. So i apologize beforehand if this was already answered.
So the question: will these changes also affect pirate faction ships?
Specifically this quote :
by ensuring all navy ships and entry requirement for upper classes have a skill level 4 requirement
Does this mean i will be required to have both minmatar and gallente BS skills 4 to fly machariel?
The reason i ask is because thats how it was translated to some russian websites and it causes confusion for some players. So i wanted to clear this. Because i understood is as only racial "navy" ships will be affected by this?
Thank you!
EDIT: thats how its actually translated for your official russian version and on russian wiki. So clarification would be nice. For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
Gotrek Gurnisson
Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc The Company LLC
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 13:00:00 -
[1764] - Quote
Dairokuten Maoh wrote:And in case of mixed roles in a fleet composition. It's still gonna be easy to figure out how every single one of the hostile ship is going to perform based on their ROLEs, and therefore apply proper tactics into target calling and counter maneuvering. As I understand it the roles will determine the ship bonuses, but players will still feel free to fit the ships however they like with modules?
I know the slot layout of some ships may change slightly - but that wont prevent a good variety of fits even within the same 'role'??
By your reasoning then ships that already have dedicated roles in game determined by bonuses and slot layout (like AFs) should all be fitted identically?? And yet there are still a good variety of fits out there - and you never quite know which one until you engage or scan them?? |
Alfred Mahan
Task Force 42
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 13:15:00 -
[1765] - Quote
The planned SP reimbursements are nuts. It will make the gap between vets and newbies even bigger. If the requirements for a professional certification changes you have to do the exam again. If you have BC 5 you get to choose which racial BC 5 you want. HTFU.
btw, lowering the prerequsites (i.e. BS 5) for Capitals is not the way to go IMHO Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM. Vote Here: http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/CandidatesView.asp |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
215
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 14:42:00 -
[1766] - Quote
Alfred Mahan wrote:The planned SP reimbursements are nuts. It will make the gap between vets and newbies even bigger. If the requirements for a professional certification changes you have to do the exam again. If you have BC 5 you get to choose which racial BC 5 you want. HTFU.
btw, lowering the prerequsites (i.e. BS 5) for Capitals is not the way to go IMHO
Agreed. The way BC's are now are the perfect thing for noobs to train for as they can contribute to a PVP fleet quicker and they can also experiment with the different race weapon systems.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5432
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 14:46:00 -
[1767] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Agreed. BC's now are the perfect thing for noobs to train for as they can contribute to a PVP fleet quicker and they can also experiment with the different race weapon systems. This doesn't particularly change with the new system. 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. |
Irongut
Sex Money Guns Unprovoked Aggression
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 15:04:00 -
[1768] - Quote
If this is CCP focusing on spaceships please go back to playing with space Barbie.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 15:13:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Irongut wrote:If this is CCP focusing on spaceships please go back to playing with space Barbie.
How is rebalancing ships not focusing on ships? |
S McKellop
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 15:24:00 -
[1770] - Quote
Tippia wrote:S McKellop wrote:So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super. GǪand you've come to this conclusion, how, exactly?
Because it says in plain english that you need ___racial____ Battlecruiser to L4 before you can train __racial___ battleship. Racial BS is a requirement for capitals.
that is all
|
|
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 15:38:00 -
[1771] - Quote
S McKellop wrote:Tippia wrote:S McKellop wrote:So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super. GǪand you've come to this conclusion, how, exactly? Because it says in plain english that you need ___racial____ Battlecruiser to L4 before you can train __racial___ battleship. Racial BS is a requirement for capitals. that is all Can you fly them now?
if yes: you will be able to fly them afterwards
if no: why on earth would you be able to fly them afterwards if you can't do so now?
for more explanation: read the first post and it's links. It's not hard. This is almost page 90. You didn't expect someone official to have clarified some stuff by now? Seriously... READ!
Edit: just to be clear, the part you are complaining about is explained in the devblog! Go read that again as well, this time pay attention... |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5433
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 15:50:00 -
[1772] - Quote
S McKellop wrote:Tippia wrote:S McKellop wrote:So on this day. I will get out of bed. Log into Eve. I will find that I cannot fly a BC, BS, Carrier, Dread, or Super. GǪand you've come to this conclusion, how, exactly? Because it says in plain english that you need ___racial____ Battlecruiser to L4 before you can train __racial___ battleship. Racial BS is a requirement for capitals. that is all GǪto train them, yes. Do you need them to fly the ships in question? No. Do you already have the skills required to fly the ships in question? Yes. So can you fly the ships? Yes.
This change doesn't affect what you can and cannot fly (except for the BCs, but they're going to give you the skills required to fly what you already can fly, so that's a non-issue) GÇö it changes what you can train, and you don't need to train anything.
So no, you will get out of bed, log into EVE, find that you can fly BS, Carrier, Dread or Super regardless of what your skills in BCs or Destroyers are, just like now, and you will find that you can fly BCs and Destroyers just as well as before as well.
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. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 15:52:00 -
[1773] - Quote
Katy Ling wrote:S CCP Ytterbium wrote: ... lowering the Covetor's Mining Barge requirement from 5 to 4 ...
that sounds like a very wise chance, as for years, players have looked how ridiculous it looked, to have such a small training time difference betwin the Covetor and the T2 Hulk how about Astrogeology down from 5 to 4 too ? This way the minning barges retriever and covetor would get too close.
Also the first mining barge is useless compared to the retriever. so you guys could reduce the requirements for it, i mean, you could remove the Industry 5 prerequisite from the mining barges skill and place it as a secondary or tertiary requirement for the mining barges. this would ballance things.
Proposal:
Procurer: ( 3d 12h - from- 8d 8h) Mining Barge:1 Astrogeology:3 Science:4 Minning:4 Industry: 3 (Down from 5, about 5 days reduction in training for this ship, making it useful for starters to use.)
Retriever: (11d 16h) Mining Barges:3 Astrogeology:4 Science:4 Minning:4 Industry: 5
Covetor: ( 29d 18h -from- 49d 6h) Mining Barges:4 ( Down from 5, making it an option before hulk) Astrogeology:5 Science:4 Minning:4 Industry: 5
Skiff: (50d 4h) Mackinaw: (50d 4h) Hulk: (51d 1h) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
293
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 15:59:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Main reason a Procurer isn't used.
Most people have trained up Racial Cruiser. And use their mining cruiser till they get a Retriever. After all, it provides a better yield, while allowing for a little defense against rats.
Procurer is pretty much a useless boat. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
67
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 18:27:00 -
[1775] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:For a new player:
Drake: 3 skills (current scheme) vs 4 skills (new scheme) - 33% increase in skills. +Hurricane: 5 skills vs 8 skills - 60% increase in skills required. +Harbringer: 7 skills vs 12 skills - 71% increase in skills required. +Myrmidon: 9 skills vs 16 skills - 78% increase in skills required!
Effectively, you're almost doubling the amount of skills a new player will have to train in order to crosstrain.
Additionally, you're removing one of the big incentives for crosstraining, namely if I train up two skills, I get access to a whole new range of ships for free! Training racial frigate and cruiser, two skills that can be trained in a short amount of time, would give a new player access to battlecruiser at whatever level they had battlecruisers trained to before.
Under this scheme, crosstraining for another race instead becomes a chore.
This is inherently new player UNFRIENDLY, as well as being excessively annoying for veteran players.
Seems to me like that more newer players will make training decisions that they find themselves regretting.
I understand the simplifiying of tiers to help you balance ships.
I don't really understand why forcing racial battlecruiser skills simplifies anything.
Why must that be done ?.. its just going to make it harder for newer players to decide they want to fly different ships after 6 months of training .. at a fairly important point in their game commitment.
Also, aren't there already bonuses from getting cruiser v in a race ? when flyining that races BC ? it isn't entirely irrelevant now, and on top of that, there is already speicialized training incentives for types of weapons etc.
I'm not really getting why it needs to be changed.
Just becaues it makes it more consistant doesn't make it better.
How about get rid of battlecruiser skills all together and make it take cruiser V to fly a BC ? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 18:33:00 -
[1776] - Quote
Diomedes Calypso wrote:Pallidum Treponema wrote:For a new player:
Drake: 3 skills (current scheme) vs 4 skills (new scheme) - 33% increase in skills. +Hurricane: 5 skills vs 8 skills - 60% increase in skills required. +Harbringer: 7 skills vs 12 skills - 71% increase in skills required. +Myrmidon: 9 skills vs 16 skills - 78% increase in skills required!
Effectively, you're almost doubling the amount of skills a new player will have to train in order to crosstrain.
Additionally, you're removing one of the big incentives for crosstraining, namely if I train up two skills, I get access to a whole new range of ships for free! Training racial frigate and cruiser, two skills that can be trained in a short amount of time, would give a new player access to battlecruiser at whatever level they had battlecruisers trained to before.
Under this scheme, crosstraining for another race instead becomes a chore.
This is inherently new player UNFRIENDLY, as well as being excessively annoying for veteran players. Seems to me like that more newer players will make training decisions that they find themselves regretting. I understand the simplifiying of tiers to help you balance ships. I don't really understand why forcing racial battlecruiser skills simplifies anything. Why must that be done ?.. its just going to make it harder for newer players to decide they want to fly different ships after 6 months of training .. at a fairly important point in their game commitment. Also, aren't there already bonuses from getting cruiser v in a race ? when flyining that races BC ? it isn't entirely irrelevant now, and on top of that, there is already speicialized training incentives for types of weapons etc. I'm not really getting why it needs to be changed. Just becaues it makes it more consistant doesn't make it better. How about get rid of battlecruiser skills all together and make it take cruiser V to fly a BC ?
Focused training, wise skill planning, tree = pretty
FOTM chasing, cross training, poor planning, fire = bad 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5441
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 18:37:00 -
[1777] - Quote
Diomedes Calypso wrote:I understand the simplifiying of tiers to help you balance ships.
I don't really understand why forcing racial battlecruiser skills simplifies anything. They're not simplifying the tiers GÇö they're removing them because they impose pointless restrictions on what the ships can do.
The racial BC/destroyer skills are not so much about simplifying things as about making them consistent (which, granted, is a simplification of sorts too). The simplification effort lies more in the T2 role skills and ensuring that you don't need a bunch of largely unrelated other-sized role skills to get into a ship you want.
Quote:Also, aren't there already bonuses from getting cruiser v in a race ? when flyining that races BC ? No.
Quote:How about get rid of battlecruiser skills all together and make it take cruiser V to fly a BC ? That would do the exact opposite of what they want. One of the reasons they splitting the BC skill is that it unlocks too much. Shifting it to Cruiser V just creates both the old problem and the new one that people are complaining about: one skill unlocks too much, and it also takes ages to train.
Requiring Cruiser V for BCs is even less newbie- and cross-training-friendly than having racial destroyer and cruiser prereqs. 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. |
Old Religion
The Paganism Council The Paganism Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:19:00 -
[1778] - Quote
This is a load o F**king s**t yet again your p***ing all over the older pilots making it easyer for the new one's |
Maplefox
Black-Watch Corporation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:38:00 -
[1779] - Quote
Yeah, okay this kinda looks stupid - sorry to say that some of the things like AUR were obnoxious, as was nerfing some of the ships but that's whatever - that happens all the time. Speaking for myself, and hopefully others - this is probably the stupidest and most destructive idea that could be implemented into EVE, thousands of capsuleers are happy what they are flying at the moment - Canes, Harbingers, Prophecies, whatever. I see no logical explanation for this notion of changing how skills work. People have worked for years to get where they were - we don't need CCP to f*ck sh!t up for them, for us.
We play your game, we pay for it, I doubt anyone in game asked for this to be considered. There should be a friggen vote whether or not capsuleers feel this would be benefitial or not because I see no reason to change something that has been working for over 7 years?
I hope CCP reads these comments because honestly - bleh there's no way to explain how I feel about this. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:52:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Fact: CCP reads this thread more closely than 90% of you people read the devblog + much related CCP replies. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:55:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Maplefox wrote: The whole issue about changing battle cruiser skills into seperate ones is gonna cause a lot of stress for those of us who already own and fly Canes, Harbingers, Prophecies, whatever.
If you get all racial skills to V if you have BC V, how is this going to cause any stress?
Maplefox wrote:I see no logical explanation for this notion of changing how skills work. People have worked for years to get where they were - we don't need CCP to f*ck sh!t up for them, for us. We worked for our fits and our skills - why in god's toilet must you take it all away. Where is it stated that anything will be taken away from you? If you get all racial skills to V if you have BC V, how is this going to f*ck sh!t up? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:57:00 -
[1782] - Quote
Old Religion wrote:This is a load o F**king s**t yet again your p***ing all over the older pilots making it easyer for the new one's Older pilots with BC V will get Racial BC V. Free SP for older players, more training for new players. Please elaborate on your reasons for rage. |
Maplefox
Black-Watch Corporation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:57:00 -
[1783] - Quote
they would take away battlecruiser skills from you and give you points to allocate it to a specific race of battlecruiser; Amarr BC, Caldari BC, Minmitar BC, Gallente BC.. etc. and not everyone has BC V ~ |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 20:04:00 -
[1784] - Quote
Maplefox wrote:they would take away battlecruiser skills from you and give you points to allocate it to a specific race of battlecruiser; Amarr BC, Caldari BC, Minmitar BC, Gallente BC.. etc. and not everyone has BC V ~ I think it has only been said a few hundred times or so, but I'll repeat. "If you could fly it yesterday, you can fly it tomorrow"
And where did you read a CCP statement that they will reimburse SP and let you allocate to only one race? Please quote. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 20:07:00 -
[1785] - Quote
Maplefox wrote:they would take away battlecruiser skills from you and give you points to allocate it to a specific race of battlecruiser; Amarr BC, Caldari BC, Minmitar BC, Gallente BC.. etc. and not everyone has BC V ~ Before requesting CCP read and consider your opinions please do them the favor of reading the replies they've already made regarding skill point compensation and take the time to understand what they have proposed. |
Temmu Guerra
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 20:49:00 -
[1786] - Quote
Well glad to see that 70 some odd pages later people are still not reading...
CCP just go ahead and make another dev blog so everyone can stop the panic and absolute hissy fits. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
72
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 21:08:00 -
[1787] - Quote
Reaching 90 pages?! Treadnought FTW!!!
Go ahead CCP! Bring the changes!!!! Start with the rokie ships! If noone complain about the tier removal and skills reimbursement than you can DO it with the rest!!!! LOL |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1226
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 21:23:00 -
[1788] - Quote
Temmu Guerra wrote:Well glad to see that 70 some odd pages later people are still not reading...
CCP just go ahead and make another dev blog so everyone can stop the panic and absolute hissy fits.
If they did people would...
A: Not bother reading it either.
B: Not understand what they read, or alternatively try to twist it to the worst possible what if scenario possible.
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. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 21:28:00 -
[1789] - Quote
It would be cool if CCP had graphs of what skills are being trained. I would love to see the BC spike on that graph :3 I must admit, I am training BC V atm. I just figured wth; gonna have to train it some day, might as well do it now.
Can't be arsed to train up for Amarr BC tho. Gallente/Minmatar will do |
stoicfaux
776
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 00:25:00 -
[1790] - Quote
In regards to the newbies getting 'forced' into a potential path ship skill path, in theory, the ship rebalancing, aka tiers2roles, should, if done right, make "every" ship in a faction lineup worth flying thus minimizing the "need" to cross-train.
On the downside, the potential benefit wouldn't be appreciated if CCP takes forever to re-balance the ships, or if CCP screws it up.
On a side note, since newbies will be "forced" into a faction skill-tree, there should be a training bonus if they join the faction militia (i.e. participate in FW.)
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
YuuKnow
151
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 00:58:00 -
[1791] - Quote
Please don't make capital ships a level 4 skill.
A stepwise increase in the requirement is more logical.
Frigate level 3 leads to Destroyers Destroy level 3 leads to Cuisers Cruiser level 4 leads to Battlecruisers Battlecruisers level 4 leads to Battleships Battleships level 5 leads to Capitals ships Capital Ships level 5 leads to Titans (plus lots of level 5 ancillary skills).
More logical and keeps capitals from being so common. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
89
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 08:09:00 -
[1792] - Quote
If they raised the rank of advanced spaceship command to 11 would it stop all of your whining? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 08:52:00 -
[1793] - Quote
Sigras wrote:If they raised the rank of advanced spaceship command to 11 would it stop all of your whining? inb4 shitstorm |
Crellion
Parental Control HELL4S
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 10:21:00 -
[1794] - Quote
Hello friendly Devs,
How nice all those shiny excel sheets and diagrams and whatitsnames. I am overjoyed!
Can I please add my punny little input:
1) If you somehow manage to make all unused ships useful with this, without in the process making those that are used today useless or nerfed down to do only half of what they can do today I will wuv you long time. I am a sceptic for now but will give you the benefit of a doubt.
2) Because this is heavily impacting on combat balance and no one wants a doe eyed college graduate making decisions that look nice on coloured diagram paper alone please make a rule that the dev team needs to include at least one person with say 3k+ kills and 500+ solo kill on battle clinic and that this person would need to sign for the final go ahead on the changes.
If you did this I would not even be half miffed about who it would be... it would definately reign in at least 50% of the madness potential this has...
Good luck and all the best,
King Regards,
Crellion
|
Alfred Mahan
Task Force 42
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 11:35:00 -
[1795] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:Katy Ling wrote:S CCP Ytterbium wrote: ... lowering the Covetor's Mining Barge requirement from 5 to 4 ...
that sounds like a very wise chance, as for years, players have looked how ridiculous it looked, to have such a small training time difference betwin the Covetor and the T2 Hulk how about Astrogeology down from 5 to 4 too ? This way the minning barges retriever and covetor would get too close. Also the first mining barge is useless compared to the retriever. so you guys could reduce the requirements for it, i mean, you could remove the Industry 5 prerequisite from the mining barges skill and place it as a secondary or tertiary requirement for the mining barges. this would ballance things. Proposal: Procurer: ( 3d 12h - from- 8d 8h) Mining Barge:1 Astrogeology:3 Science:4 Minning:4 Industry: 3 (Down from 5, about 5 days reduction in training for this ship, making it useful for starters to use.) Retriever: (11d 16h) Mining Barges:3 Astrogeology:4 Science:4 Minning:4 Industry: 5 Covetor: ( 29d 18h -from- 49d 6h) Mining Barges:4 ( Down from 5, making it an option before hulk) Astrogeology:5 Science:4 Minning:4 Industry: 5 Skiff: (50d 4h) Mackinaw: (50d 4h) Hulk: (51d 1h)
Good suggestion. We also need the mining drone bonus to Gallente and Amarr T1 Cruisers beefed up, so they don't have to mine in T1 Frigs while training Retriever (Procurer with above implemented) Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM. Vote Here: http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/CandidatesView.asp |
i hatechosingnames
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 15:23:00 -
[1796] - Quote
If when this goes live we could potentially be logged off in hostile space, the added skill points in the racial destroyer / battle cruiser skills could then put us over our current clone skill point limit.
Should we get podded before we make it back to friendly station to upgrade our clone will we get reimbursed for any lost skill points if this giving us free skill points ends up losing us skill points? Or perhaps a free clone upgrade to the next grade for anyone you add skill points to? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
89
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 17:12:00 -
[1797] - Quote
^^ this is the first legitimate problem I have heard with the plan to just give everyone the SP for the additional skills; however, this should not be a problem if they give you 1+ week of lead time which should be enough for even the deepest WH corp to get all of it's members into more advanced clones. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 18:33:00 -
[1798] - Quote
I guess they will just bump you up a clone class if that happens. Would be pretty ****** if you went a few mill over and died because of location. On the other hand, now u have the chance to just bump it up yourself. Would be pretty stupid not to do it, if you know what is gonna happen.
I'll wait for a CCP response on this though. As we know (we know this RIGHT?!) they are thinking hard about how to do this, so I don't think they will leave this question unanswered. |
Soldarius
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
179
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 23:57:00 -
[1799] - Quote
I've already commented once. But what the hey. I'll do it again.
If you already have BCs trained, but only trained the racial cruiser skills to 3, you are a failboat.
First the difference in SP is about 1 day of training per race per level. This will only improve your performance in cruisers. So HTFU.
The secondary (perhaps primary by CCP's reckoning) effcet, will be to have folks in cruisers longer, thus perhaps generating more use and interest in those already vastly under-utilized hulls.
Most people (imo) only train cruiser 5 to get into recons or logistics because the BCs seem so much better. But a lot of the T1 cruisers are actually quite viable in pvp. We won't talk about the pirate faction cruisers (cough*Cynabal*cough).
tl;dr: train+fly more cruisers. You might actually enjoy it. "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Seraphiel Cherubim
Sub Par.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 00:03:00 -
[1800] - Quote
Say if these changes go through, Marauders are the only ship that require Battleship V? I also agree with all those who posted before me - battleship V should be a requirement for Capitals. it make sense... after all if you can't fly a 1.5km long battleship perfectly, who says you're ready to jump into a carrier or dreadnought.
Also since majority of ships are having their skill requirement lowered from V to IV on prerequisites only to have the destroyer skill brought up instead - isn't that counter intuitive? Personally I have only put one point ever in Destroyers since they are only good in the beginning for level 2 missions and of course later for salvaging until you get the noctis.
Quote:Example: # Before, training for a Harbinger required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 3 and Battlecruisers at 2 # Before, training for an Absolution required you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruiser at 5 and Heavy Assault Ships at 4 # Now, training for a Harbinger requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and then Amarr Battlecruiser at 1. # Now, training for an Absolution requires you to train for Amarr Frigate 4, Amarr Destroyer 4, Amarr Cruiser 4 and Amarr Battlecruiser at 5. There is no more need for the Amarr Cruiser 5 and Heavy Assault Ship at 4.
IMO please don't make it so we have to train up destroyers higher since they aren't that useful. If there were more hulls per say and they each had more uses... then maybe i'd be for it. As for the racial skills all together... have the dev's considered vets who have cross trained? Even if they would grandfather them into their characters race and give them X million SP, who says the players has to put them into those skills? Also with granting SP to players i hope the devs really ask the community more before going through with this change, since once those SP are out they cannot be taken back. |
|
Alexandra Alt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
92
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 00:29:00 -
[1801] - Quote
This comming from a player that can fly 90% of all sub cap ships, along with all their support skill and weapons sorted, I hope with the change I get all racial ships introduced as 5 as been said, no skill refund whatever, if there will be SP refunds effectively ppl are getting more SP's than they trained for and they'll be spent where they want.
People with BC5 and Destroyer 5 get all races BC/Destr 5 simple.
Question now, figuring the tone of the dev blog, are the races keeping their traits ? or are we just mixing everything up where we have basically the same ship for all races where only the name and the gun changes ?! For instance, do gallente still keep the drones bonus and have drone focused boats ? does caldari still keep the ecm perks or all races will get them too ? etc etc.
I'm all in for simplifying the ship skill trees, I'm not all in for streamlining all ships for the same role across races just to make them easier to maintain balance wise. |
M1NeR
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 01:28:00 -
[1802] - Quote
Making racial BCs and destro? Reimbursing skills? Are you serious? So people can fly 4 races bc\destro and after that they have to invest more SP to get that back? WFT? I completed the skill training plan for perception\willpower, used 1 year available remap and went with int\mem plan for another year and now THIS? Training plan screwed.
If you really want to help people get into ships and fix progression why don't you simply make ALL T1 frig\cruiser size ship skills non-racial? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 02:53:00 -
[1803] - Quote
Seraphiel Cherubim wrote:Say if these changes go through, Marauders are the only ship that require Battleship V? You're forgetting black ops BS's, but considering peoples opinions about their usefulness I doubt the omission detracts from your argument.
Seraphiel Cherubim wrote:As for the racial skills all together... have the dev's considered vets who have cross trained? Even if they would grandfather them into their characters race and give them X million SP, who says the players has to put them into those skills? Also with granting SP to players i hope the devs really ask the community more before going through with this change, since once those SP are out they cannot be taken back. One of the options seems to be a direct skill replacement instead of an SP refund in which case abuses from giving out massive amount of SP are negated. |
Sinooko
Viking Tech Industries
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 21:32:00 -
[1804] - Quote
Making all ships useful is a hell of a good idea! Long Live Eve Online! |
Aamrr
260
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 22:13:00 -
[1805] - Quote
Good dev blog. As long as you follow the "if you could fly it yesterday, you can fly it tomorrow" guideline, you should be in good shape.
I think a lot of people here are jumping to conclusions when they don't know how the reimbursement will happen. I trust you guys to make it happen smoothly. When it comes to skill points, you always have. We appreciate that. |
Veryez
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 23:25:00 -
[1806] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:While changes of this scope will always be controversial, and may involve a bit of inconvenience, the fact that CCP is tackling such issues illustrates how much focus and love FiS is getting.
We all can (and should) argue about the best way to refresh various areas of the game, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that CCP is putting a ton of effort into refreshing the game!
"a bit of inconvenience" - well one less vote for you. Does the fact that I will go from flying all commandships at max level, to not being able to fly any of them seem like "a bit of inconvenience"? Or how about the fact, that after it's done I will have to return to empire from Wh space where I've lived for 3 years to buy 4 skills that I've already trained? Lets hope our exit isn't 50j in 0.0. Yeah I spent almost a year training all gang links to 5, and all commandships to 5 (needed 4xCruiser 5 before or was that forgotten), so that I could be useful in any situation. All gone so that I'll start using a Prophecy? Yup sounds well thought out to me. And as for CCP's statement that they will "reinburse SP already trained and look at giving you all racial ships at your current level", quick everyone train BC 5 and Destroyer 5 NOW, as in a few weeks it will be worth four times as much...Sounds way too good to be true.
As far as making "all ships useful" - sounds nice in theory CCP, but lets face it no matter what you do, some ships will always be more popular than others. Besides, I'm never in favor of nerfing any ship (even the ones I don't bother flying) as it always seems to hurt more than it helps, especially since the people screaming "nerf" are rarely the ones that can fly the ship (and sorry being shot by a ship does not make you an expert on that ship, only after you fly a ship for a while and understand it's advantages and disadvantages should you comments on "balance" matter). Not to mention the ships getting "buffed" will in some cases need significant buffs to be used. For example what buffs are you thinking about for the slasher to bring it up to the level of the rifter (as they have the same bonus atm, one would think they perform the same role)...Oh I know, lets nerf the rifter - yeah the players will love that....
Wholesale changes were tried in Revelations I, we've only just recovered from that disaster. Other than making me restock my hanger, as I can fly every sub-cap ship atm, what's the goal? While it sounds good to have every ship be useful, there are simply too many sub-cap ships to find a role for each of them, so there's bound to be overlap. Where there's overlap, one ship is bound to be better/preferred compared to another, sounds like a hopeless task to me, that will only upset people who see their "favorite" ship nerfed and have to spend iskies replacing it. |
Taius Pax
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 02:04:00 -
[1807] - Quote
If I understand the new ship lines correctly - you're trying to introduce a class system similar to Everquest or WoW applied to the ships.
Personally I'd rather have a few to half the ships being suboptimal if it didn't mean a given ship could only be used a certain way. The current system gives room to experiment and try different set ups. It needs some balance, sure, but on the whole it's pretty good. Please don't take more sand out of the sand box. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 03:28:00 -
[1808] - Quote
Veryez wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:While changes of this scope will always be controversial, and may involve a bit of inconvenience, the fact that CCP is tackling such issues illustrates how much focus and love FiS is getting.
We all can (and should) argue about the best way to refresh various areas of the game, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that CCP is putting a ton of effort into refreshing the game!
"a bit of inconvenience" - well one less vote for you. Does the fact that I will go from flying all commandships at max level, to not being able to fly any of them seem like "a bit of inconvenience"? Or how about the fact, that after it's done I will have to return to empire from Wh space where I've lived for 3 years to buy 4 skills that I've already trained? Lets hope our exit isn't 50j in 0.0. Yeah I spent almost a year training all gang links to 5, and all commandships to 5 (needed 4xCruiser 5 before or was that forgotten), so that I could be useful in any situation. All gone so that I'll start using a Prophecy? Yup sounds well thought out to me. And as for CCP's statement that they will "reinburse SP already trained and look at giving you all racial ships at your current level", quick everyone train BC 5 and Destroyer 5 NOW, as in a few weeks it will be worth four times as much...Sounds way too good to be true. As far as making "all ships useful" - sounds nice in theory CCP, but lets face it no matter what you do, some ships will always be more popular than others. Besides, I'm never in favor of nerfing any ship (even the ones I don't bother flying) as it always seems to hurt more than it helps, especially since the people screaming "nerf" are rarely the ones that can fly the ship (and sorry being shot by a ship does not make you an expert on that ship, only after you fly a ship for a while and understand it's advantages and disadvantages should your comments on "balance" matter). Not to mention the ships getting "buffed" will in some cases need significant buffs to be used. For example what buffs are you thinking about for the slasher to bring it up to the level of the rifter (as they have the same bonus atm, one would think they perform the same role)...Oh I know, lets nerf the rifter - yeah the players will love that.... Wholesale changes were tried in Revelations I, we've only just recovered from that disaster. Other than making me restock my hanger, as I can fly every sub-cap ship atm, what's the goal? While it sounds good to have every ship be useful, there are simply too many sub-cap ships to find a role for each of them, so there's bound to be overlap. Where there's overlap, one ship is bound to be better/preferred compared to another, sounds like a hopeless task to me, that will only upset people who see their "favorite" ship nerfed and have to spend iskies replacing it. Edit - In fact the more I think about this the bigger a disaster it becomes, do you mean to tell me I need racial Destroyer 4 and racial BC 4 to fly a battleship? So if you don't give me extra SP, you're telling me I won't be able to fly a battleship in more than one race? Even though I have BS 5 (not to mention all the rest) for every race, I'll be stuck flying one race's ships for 3 months? 3/4's of my hanger becomes useless on patch day. I ONLY fly ships trained to lvl 5, so now I have to make sure I'm on a P/W respec and sit in hanger for 3 months so I can relearn to fly ships I've been flying for the last 6 years? And you thought learning skills were bad (yes I remember sitting in the hanger training them since I trained them early in life) ? This isn't giving us "new" skills to train, it's forcing us to retrain skills to fly the same ships we were flying the day before patch day. Why should Trebor loose a vote to your inability to read CCP Ytterbium's posts regarding SP/skill compensation options? |
Veryez
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 04:48:00 -
[1809] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:[ Why should Trebor loose a vote to your inability to read CCP Ytterbium's posts regarding SP/skill compensation options?
He loses my vote for gross misrepresentation of facts, his statements (made before CCP Ytterbium) are a deliberate miscalculatation.
Lets look at just one of my characters:
4xRacial Frigate 5, 4xRacial Cruiser 5, BC 5, 4xRacial BS 5, every t2 ship to 5 (even dictor), Destroyer 1 (since I never bother with them).
So currently, I can fly Every cruiser class ship in the Game at level 5, Every BC and Commandship @ lvl 5, and Every BS @ lvl 5. After Patch Day do you really believe I'm going to be handed 4xRacial Destroyer 4 (that's what it looks like from the chart, but it could be 5, I can't tell) and 4xRacial BC 5, especially Destroyer 4 as I never trained it? You could almost make a case for 4xRacial BC 5, as I have BC 5 currently, but in any case unless I get handed a skill I've never trained (because it's worthless for what I do), I will not be able to fly Anything I currently have above the frigate level.
Another character is max skilled in 2 races, but again only has destroyers 2, will he too get destroyer 4/5 in those 2 races? If so shouldn't he quickly train Cruiser 3 in the other two races to gain a bunch of free skills?
Lets follow this to it's logical conclusion, if CCP really means "You won't lose the ability to fly any ships" then to be fair, everyone should get 4xRacial Destroyer 4/5 and perhaps 4xRacial BC 4/5 (for BS pilots) which means this "change" is actually a nerf to newer players as they will now have to train skills that we are given for free, because we were playing the day before patch day. This sounds very unlike CCP. Nerfing new players is something they've always opposed.
So bottom line, while I believe CCP is "looking" at this, No where did CCP say you are going to get something for nothing. While I don't expect to lose SP (that CCP did state) I find it hard to believe I will be handed free stuff. I don't believe it can be accomplished and fully expect to logon after patch day and find most of my hanger completely worthless.
Lets look closely at CCP Ytterbium's language:
" 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. " No promises, just what they "want".
"it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5." Again no promise, just a "thought".
About forcing people to train Destroyer 4 - "we have been discussing that before this blog went out, and we will keep considering options until we come up with a solution that improves this situation." No solution mentioned here.
"To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan." Ah but will we gain anything? Because to do what I do at this moment, I will have to gain quite a few SP.
Yes your glass if 1/2 full, mine's 1/2 empty, but perhaps that's because I've been here a while. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 08:26:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Someone likes arguing for the sake of arguing. Less feeding the troll pls |
|
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 11:58:00 -
[1811] - Quote
Veryez you are just being stupid. For a start, you will not need to have destroyer 4 to fly cruiser / BC / BS / Capitals. You will just need destroyer 4 so you can learn (inject) cruiser skill. Same as it is now with the prerequisites. To actually fly a ship you need just that primar/secundar/tercial skill not theyrs prerequisites. I didnt bother reading the rest of yours rant. Please, be so kind and biomass yourself. Thank you. CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Deathwing Reborn
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 13:32:00 -
[1812] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Papa Boats wrote:Bitter vet checking in. I am really annoyed about having to retrain destroyer and BC for 3 races to have them all maxed again. I am at 90mil+ SP and currently have every T1 and T2 ship available to me. I have all T2 weapons at my disposal. I like it this way as I am able to use the very best ships and weapons whenever I need them. I worked hard for this and feel that this would negativly impact the few players who hate supercaps online the way I do.
As I feel what should happen if the racial destroyers and BC if it goes through should be. SP and cost of SB should go back into the pilots account. Also all SP and costs for command ships and interdictors should go back to the pilot. Furthermore any further skills and capital ships that require these ships should be dropped.
I say this for a couple reasons. I will not retrain 4 racial destroyers just so I can fly an interdictor thats outperformed by a HIC which I do not need to train for to have the better and stronger ship. Also for command ships why would I need this skill as the ships do not always match up. I am in the CFC meaning the CMD ship I need is either the cald or minm ships. While the capital ships I fly are the Thanny and the Moros. It is going to make it extremly difficult and add lots of time to getting me into my capital ships if these changes are not well thought out. 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.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but there is alot to read.
So by this logic you will not only be duplicating skill points for people that just have BC 5 but also people that have BC 4. Because today I can fly all Tech 1 BC at a lvl 4 ability. That should mean that after your change I should be able to fly all 4 BC race types at the same level.
Please do not divide by 0. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 21:19:00 -
[1813] - Quote
Veryez wrote: He loses my vote for gross misrepresentation of facts, his statements (made before CCP Ytterbium) are a deliberate miscalculatation.
Lets look at just one of my characters:
4xRacial Frigate 5, 4xRacial Cruiser 5, BC 5, 4xRacial BS 5, every t2 ship to 5 (even dictor), Destroyer 1 (since I never bother with them).
So currently, I can fly Every cruiser class ship in the Game at level 5, Every BC and Commandship @ lvl 5, and Every BS @ lvl 5. After Patch Day do you really believe I'm going to be handed 4xRacial Destroyer 4 (that's what it looks like from the chart, but it could be 5, I can't tell) and 4xRacial BC 5, especially Destroyer 4 as I never trained it? You could almost make a case for 4xRacial BC 5, as I have BC 5 currently, but in any case unless I get handed a skill I've never trained (because it's worthless for what I do), I will not be able to fly Anything I currently have above the frigate level... Lets follow this to it's logical conclusion, if CCP really means "You won't lose the ability to fly any ships" then to be fair, everyone should get 4xRacial Destroyer 4/5 and perhaps 4xRacial BC 4/5 (for BS pilots) which means this "change" is actually a nerf to newer players as they will now have to train skills that we are given for free, because we were playing the day before patch day. This sounds very unlike CCP. Nerfing new players is something they've always opposed.
It would seem entirely within their capability to make 1 change that negates having to give you anything you can't fly currently while leaving you able to fly what you can already. Just make the validation for the ship/item/skill/whatev only look at the actual prerequisite skill and not validate it's dependencies. At which point it wouldn't matter if you never trained "x" because it wasn't a prerequisite at the time. I don't know it that is possible, but I'm sure CCP has a way of dealing with it and wil do so to meet their stated goals, which include keeping people in what they trained for. And yes, new players won't be able to train as fast or reap the benefits of having 1 skill that affects 12 ships, but then, CCP stated that this was part of the issue with that skill.
Veryez wrote: Another character is max skilled in 2 races, but again only has destroyers 2, will he too get destroyer 4/5 in those 2 races? If so shouldn't he quickly train Cruiser 3 in the other two races to gain a bunch of free skills?
If he's ever going to fly those races ships, the answer is clearly yes. Not sure why you have an issue with this. I see it as being no different than a change which revalues an item and speculators act to get in early and make the most profit on the change.
Veryez wrote: So bottom line, while I believe CCP is "looking" at this, No where did CCP say you are going to get something for nothing. While I don't expect to lose SP (that CCP did state) I find it hard to believe I will be handed free stuff. I don't believe it can be accomplished and fully expect to logon after patch day and find most of my hanger completely worthless.
Lets look closely at CCP Ytterbium's language:
" 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. " No promises, just what they "want".
"it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5." Again no promise, just a "thought".
This is just nitpicking about word choices. Looking at both the options presented we get what we trained. There is no loss either way, which means that, as other have stated with expressions of greater certainty, that we aren't loosing capabilities from this change.
Veryez wrote: "To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan." Ah but will we gain anything? Because to do what I do at this moment, I will have to gain quite a few SP.
Yes your glass if 1/2 full, mine's 1/2 empty, but perhaps that's because I've been here a while.
Between my characters there are 3 subcap ship types I cannot fly including T2 and T3. The rest I can fly in all 4 races. If the change happens as the options are stated all of my clones will balloon, but really, a direct measure of SP is pointless. All that matters is that our capabilities be retained. And that is what they are doing. |
Kogh Ayon
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 00:23:00 -
[1814] - Quote
The trick of ""You won't lose the ability to fly any ships"" here is, they do not promise that "you won't lose the effectiveness to fly any ships". If you get BC 5, then the reimbursement will allow you to get BC3-4 for 4 races, then "You won't lose the ability to fly any ships".
For the commander ships, they can simply change the requirement to "racial BC lv.3, Commander ship lv.1", then people already have commander ship skill now will not lose the ability to fly any a commander ship. For people have not get the commander ship skill, the requirement to train "Commander ship" skill will be racial BC lv.5 still. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 00:33:00 -
[1815] - Quote
Kogh Ayon wrote:The trick of ""You won't lose the ability to fly any ships"" here is, they do not promise that "you won't lose the effectiveness to fly any ships". If you get BC 5, then the reimbursement will allow you to get BC3-4 for 4 races, then "You won't lose the ability to fly any ships".
For the commander ships, they can simply change the requirement to "racial BC lv.3, Commander ship lv.1", then people already have commander ship skill now will not lose the ability to fly any a commander ship. For people have not get the commander ship skill, the requirement to train "Commander ship" skill will be racial BC lv.5 still. Command ships say hi. CCP Yitterbum says CS's keep their Racial BC V prereq. |
Veryez
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 06:44:00 -
[1816] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Command ships say hi. CCP Yitterbum says CS's keep their Racial BC V prereq. Why are people so intent on looking for conspiracies? They have given a plan, assurance that skills will be taken care of, prerequisites were explained and examples of how thet may do it, all of which keep their promises and not in a backhanded way.
I don't believe there is a conspiracy, and yes they have a plan and a stated goal. But they also have a history of having unintended consequences.
Do you remember the boot.ini fiasco? How about "free" respec that wasn't (only reset the clock)? How about the removal of learning skills where we veterans actually train slower than before? Do you remember when they released t2 ammo and pre-nerfed it until they got enough data to balance it - took what 6 years? Do you remember how many of us said the boosts to HP during revelations were too much and were ignored? Guess what, it's been years, but every single weapons system has been boosted since then. Do I need to mention the 8 hour hardware upgrade that took over 24? I don't doubt their sincerity, nor do I doubt what they 'want' to do, but their history (especially with significant changes like this) creates doubt.
Look CCP loves this game as much as we do, but that doesn't mean they are infallible. Actually if I were in their shoes, I'd look at removing racial ship training and make frigates/cruisers/battleships like destroyers/battlecruisers and give people the SP back from there. This would have the side effect of making it easier for newer players (though you'd still have to train the correct weapon).
As far as patch day goes, I'll just have to wait and see. Obviously I'm moving Destroyer 5 up in the skill plan significantly in the characters I mentioned, as that should help preclude any problems. Where I work, we have a phrase, "Trust, but verify" - it tends to work well in most areas. |
Aamrr
261
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 12:08:00 -
[1817] - Quote
Veryez wrote:A rather long and poorly-written rant You've missed something very important. It was explained in the dev post and has always worked like this, but you missed it anyway: Only the top of each prerequiste are actually required to fly a ship. If you have Caldari Battleship 1, you don't need Caldari Battlecruiser 4 to hop in a scorpion. You only need that if you want to inject the skill.
CCP's skill reimbursement could be this simple: Give everyone racial destroyers at whatever rank their destroyer skill was at, and racial battlecruiser at whatever their battlecruiser skill was at. Rank the skills appropriately so that new players don't have to train 4x as long to train the same ships, and they're done.
If they did this, you could still fly the same ships you do today, at precisely the same effectiveness you did before. You could still hop into all the ships you did before. If they neglect to add a direct frigate requirement for destroyers and a direct cruiser requirement for battlecruisers, this would allow you to fly some ships you could not before, but you would likely not possess any of the gunnery support skills necessary to use them properly anyway.
In the meantime, I suggest training Reading Comprehension. It's a really useful skill, even if a lot of noobs seem to ignore it. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
102
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 12:38:00 -
[1818] - Quote
1 thing you forgot:
Super carriers are using same skill as normal carriers and is basically tier 3 carriers...
If you want them to follow the changes like all other ships you have to implement a super carrier skillbook requiring carrier 4 or nerf them dramatically which doesn't make sense because they cost much more than a normal carrier? |
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 13:45:00 -
[1819] - Quote
It never fails to amuse me when people argue against balance, as though it were such a terrible thing that would just destroy the game somehow, someway...
Let me say right now that arguing that balance equates to homogenization is a weak assumption and a fallacy. A very common fallacy, one you see pretty often because a lot of devs are terrible at balancing, but a fallacy nonetheless.
For example: Sensor dampeners are blatantly inferior to ECM, but let's face it - they're the same bloody thing under a different title. They both try to prevent the target from being able to target anything, it's just that one changes the speed and range while the other kills it entirely. The fact that they serve the exact same purpose means that they're already homogenized regardless of their state of balance. If their numbers were "balanced" (which is to say, both were equally effective at preventing target lock), it'd be a largely cosmetic choice. The only "choice" these two can have between one another is, effectively, picking which is better than the other, full-stop.
Turrets, on the other hand - the numbers actually change your playstyle. Blasters, being point-blank range, require a different engagement style than ACs, which have insanely high falloff ranges, which require a slightly different style from pulse lasers, which have remarkably high optimals (and thus more reliable sustained DPS). Even if they were "balanced" they would be balanced from the standpoint that blasters would still be point-blank range, it'd just be worth the the trouble of getting into range in the first place. Lasers would still be the go-to option for reliable damage, while ACs would still be random as **** but have the versatility and damage potential to make up for it (though hopefully not to the extent they do now, which makes them a freakin' no-brainer on any ship without turret bonuses). That's not even considering things like cap drainage (lol, poor lasers), ammunition handling, damage types, fitting requirements, and so forth. Plenty of ways to asymmetrically design these things without giving into homogenization - they just have to actually be effective in their respective niches, not just throwaway designs because somebody forgot a 0 here and there.
Further, consider the Drake. Imagine, for a second, that the Ferox were actually as viable a choice as it. "BLASPHEMY!!!" Oh, please. The Ferox would still have a completely different role and playstyle from the Drake, it'd just be worth freakin' flying AT ALL in certain situations. Now, how do you make the other frigates as interesting and worthwhile as the Rifter? Tough call, but it can be done without just blanket-increasing every other ship's speed to keep up with it. Give one race more slots, give another more tank, give another the best sensors in the business (so they can be on-point faster than anyone else), suddenly you have reason to fly other kinds of frigates, and just buff the other Matari frigates. And believe it or not, this kind of asymmetrical setup can achieve balance. It'll take work, certainly, it'll take a lot of math and know-how, but it CAN happen.
And seriously, consider, just for a second, a world where you actually have a choice between all of the Matari frigates because they're all reasonably effective in some way or form. Why is that such a terrible, horrible thing? Are you literally incapable of comprehending the idea that they are STILL all specialized in a particular role while simultaneously being viable because they don't have crippling fitting or slot weaknesses, questionable tank numbers, or are just gimped for no reason at all (lol tiers)? I should hope not.
And the idea that it shouldn't be attempted at all just because it has been done wrong in the past is pure bull hockey. Just giving up on the attempt because it's difficult would just lead to stagnation, and really, are you going to tell all the Gallente enthusiasts out there that they don't deserve to have viable PvP ships? What kind of foolishness is that? An entire race, useless because some folks think that it somehow ADDS FLAVOR (LOLWUT) when a race is gimped beyond all measure? Man, seriously, think about that for a second. Do you really wanna be one of those people? |
Abo'lish
Death Is Eventual
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 14:59:00 -
[1820] - Quote
I cast my vote for the opposite of this:
Instead of splitting Destroyers and Battlecruisers into racials... Combine frigate, cruiser, battleship, etc. into generic versions - set them to 0 and refund all the old racial SP. If you really want to keep people from flying every Race's T2 frigate when they hit the new Frigate 5 - then add a new racial Spaceship Command pre-req.
If you balance the racial spaceship command difficulty properly, then people could come out ahead if they cross-trained a lot. And at least even if they didn't. |
|
DoMe Now
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 15:17:00 -
[1821] - Quote
Balance is death. May as well remove all shjps in game and just hand everyone yor not so new starter ships. I find it harder to login these days and play with how much is changing and becomming a game a 12 year old can play.
|
Terazul
The Scope Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 15:33:00 -
[1822] - Quote
DoMe Now wrote:Balance is death. May as well remove all shjps in game and just hand everyone yor not so new starter ships. I find it harder to login these days and play with how much is changing and becomming a game a 12 year old can play.
This is all I have to say to this. |
Gustaf Heleneto
The Separatists
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 19:21:00 -
[1823] - Quote
When is this BC and Desi 'factionalization' supposed to occur? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 19:45:00 -
[1824] - Quote
Veryez wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Command ships say hi. CCP Yitterbum says CS's keep their Racial BC V prereq. Why are people so intent on looking for conspiracies? They have given a plan, assurance that skills will be taken care of, prerequisites were explained and examples of how thet may do it, all of which keep their promises and not in a backhanded way. I don't believe there is a conspiracy, and yes they have a plan and a stated goal. But they also have a history of having unintended consequences. Do you remember the boot.ini fiasco? How about "free" respec that wasn't (only reset the clock)? How about the removal of learning skills where we veterans actually train slower than before? Do you remember when they released t2 ammo and pre-nerfed it until they got enough data to balance it - took what 6 years? Do you remember how many of us said the boosts to HP during revelations were too much and were ignored? Guess what, it's been years, but every single weapons system has been boosted since then. Do I need to mention the 8 hour hardware upgrade that took over 24? I don't doubt their sincerity, nor do I doubt what they 'want' to do, but their history (especially with significant changes like this) creates doubt. Look CCP loves this game as much as we do, but that doesn't mean they are infallible. Actually if I were in their shoes, I'd look at removing racial ship training and make frigates/cruisers/battleships like destroyers/battlecruisers and give people the SP back from there. This would have the side effect of making it easier for newer players (though you'd still have to train the correct weapon). As far as patch day goes, I'll just have to wait and see. Obviously I'm moving Destroyer 5 up in the skill plan significantly in the characters I mentioned, as that should help preclude any problems. Where I work, we have a phrase, "Trust, but verify" - it tends to work well in most areas. I never said CCP was infallable; I wasn't here for boot.ini, but I was here for the learning SP refund and the useless timer reset that I received. More importantly, I was here when they fixed the way free remaps are given. And when they made the change they explained how it worked and stuck to it. That being the case, why are you so certain that they will lock you out of ships or reduce your skill in them? And even if they did, I'd think we'd see it coming because they would tell us. Basically what is going on right now is that either people aren't reading the methodologies they are proposing or are calling them liars. As for remiving racial ship skills, may as well remove races then. CCP isn't from what I understand trying to make it easier persay, but to make a more logical path with te ability to still specialize in a class/race of ships. Generalizing things removes that ability and would most likely they wouls have to make those generic skills much longer to compensate for the number of hulls they effect giving newer players a harder time specializing into advanced roles. |
Aspherical
101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 20:10:00 -
[1825] - Quote
So to clarify your devblog.
If you currently have in-game assets in the nature of multiple, racial destroyers, interdictors, battlecruisers, or command ships, you are totally screwed.
Because when this is done, you have to choose which one racial ship you want access to now, and then plan to train (up to) an additional 6,144,000 skill points at x2 and x6 to unlock ships you may already own.
Which translates (based on an available remap to per/wil) about FIVE MONTHS of retraining.
Don't the forget gunnery/missile/Shield/armor skills. I count at least 15 mil SP related to race specifical weapons and support skills to actually fly all 4 races with T2 weapons. I have all those skills just because i can fly multiple race's. So this is not only related to the ship commands skills but all lot of others as well.
Pls get a solution to this mess, bcs after the patch I still want to fly a Claymore, Vulture, Absolution, Drake, Hurricane, Harbinger with skills to 5.
The easiest solution is get rid finally of racial shipskills, and get the ranks of these skills increased. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 20:30:00 -
[1826] - Quote
Aspherical wrote:So to clarify your devblog.
If you currently have in-game assets in the nature of multiple, racial destroyers, interdictors, battlecruisers, or command ships, you are totally screwed.
Because when this is done, you have to choose which one racial ship you want access to now, and then plan to train (up to) an additional 6,144,000 skill points at x2 and x6 to unlock ships you may already own.
Which translates (based on an available remap to per/wil) about FIVE MONTHS of retraining.
Don't the forget gunnery/missile/Shield/armor skills. I count at least 15 mil SP related to race specifical weapons and support skills to actually fly all 4 races with T2 weapons. I have all those skills just because i can fly multiple race's. So this is not only related to the ship commands skills but all lot of others as well.
Pls get a solution to this mess, bcs after the patch I still want to fly a Claymore, Vulture, Absolution, Drake, Hurricane, Harbinger with skills to 5.
The easiest solution is get rid finally of racial shipskills, and get the ranks of these skills increased. Go to the first post, read all the linked posts. Also why do some people want T2 ship training to take longer? |
bornaa
GRiD.
110
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 20:32:00 -
[1827] - Quote
please, please, please do ti. |
Caldain Morrow
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 01:12:00 -
[1828] - Quote
The Devblog (with notations and clarifications) as I understand it
"We are trying very hard to *NOT* screw you over. The Skill trees don't make sense, there is no linear progression along the racial ship classes and the BC skill is OP.
The Cyclone and Ferox (for example) serve no purpose other than flavour and a money trap for new players who don't know any better. This needs to change! In Cannon, a Gellente pilot would rather die than get in a Drake built by those murdering, despotic Caldari. Yet in game people flock to the Drake for PVE because it's one of the best ships for it. No Amarr would be caught in a Hurricane under pain of death.... yet how many Amarr fly 'caines in PVP? Why? Because it fits the role! By rebalancing the ships from the ground up, hopefully amarr will want to fly amarr because it is a viable option that doesn't require massive cross training. It will be worth it to fly your races ships.
As was stated earlier, each of the races preferred weapons encourage a certain play style. Why do the ships not reflect that? As a newer player (started around Quantum Rise) I've seen T3 cruisers, tier 3 BCs, and the Noctis added. These are not all the ships that have been added in the history of the game. CCP has been adding ships and trying to make them fit in the current world so as not to blow the system to hell.... miss the mark by 1% once no-one notices (insert big ****-storm debate about the *ACTUAL* accuracy rating of CCP is here. This only an example and I wish I didn't have to explain that to some people. You don't know who you are sadly) miss the mark by 1% a lot and it adds up. The funny thing is that the ship have naturally come to fill roles with out any input from CCP at all. Drakes are PVE mission whores, Caines are PVP gank boats, Rifters are the "go-to" frigate and the Ferox and Cyclone are left molding in the corner because they don't have a role or that role is filled better by something else. "A/Cs are better Blasters than Blasters" was stated back before the blaster re-balancing. Still true? Dunno, I use A/Cs; I'm Minmatar. Period
I think this re-balance is needed to make a cohesive whole of the EVE universe. I wish the Cyclone was useful. I love that ship and have some very fond memories of my first one. I just can't justify buying one now because they are just so gimped. There are the remains of a good ship there.
My biggest concern with a re-balance of this magnitude is that it'll come in stages and not as a whole to the whole system. By coming in stages we run the risk of frigs being well balanced with other frigs but way OP vs Cruises while desties are under powered compared to BCs. I've always understood the way that things are supposed to go (in an ideal world) Destroyers stomp frigs, Cruisers stomp destroyers, BCs stomp Cruisers, etc. Skip a tier and things get a little wierd. IE a *Really* good rifter pilot may just be able to take down a stabber with luck, a good fit and a lot of pilot skill. but a rifter comes up against a thrasher, the rifter is in serious trouble. Right now Things kinda work that way, we have a system that works in a dysfunctional kind of way. I'd rather wait another expansion for a full, cohesive and COMPLETE re-balance than a staged, get bogged down tweaking in one ship type revamp. If it was just tweaking EHP and the like that's one thing and can be done slowly. Re-working slot layouts and skill bonuses is *BIG*! I can live with my powergrid getting tweaked 2% to avoid another Dramiel I can't live with one day having 5 hi slots to play with and the next having 4! But that kind of change may have to happen with a staged roll-out.
That's my bit. Cheers |
EnslaverOfMinmatar
BRAPELILLE MACRO BOT MINERS
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 18:26:00 -
[1829] - Quote
Rebalancing CCP, one dev at a time.... In the next update CCP Ytterbium shall be rebalanced to CCP Ytterrible and the letters 'u' & 'm' will be reimbursed to him. Every EVE player must read this http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=29-01-07 or uninstall and DIAF |
Acac Sunflyier
Burning Star L.L.C.
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 20:17:00 -
[1830] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
CSM NOT INCLUDED?!:
I will be honest by saying this is due to my own failure here, please do not blame CCP, or any other employee on that matter. I just plainly and simply forgot to include them in the feedback process; I know that sounds incredibly stupid, unbelievable or even naive, but you have to realize that between various work duties, procedures that have to be followed, internal meetings and reviews, random design emergencies, questions that pop-up from your team, plus being split into different projects that have to be finished in time, you are bound to forget things in the heat of the moment for being tremendously busy.
C.C.P. I have a written check list that I go through every time I undock. I also made one for the day I will fly a carrier. On it, I have the lists of quantities of drones, fuel, if i'm repaired, etc. I think you should do the same for development. Hilmar approval, artdepartment checks off on it, csm has said something, etc. |
|
Janssen
General Services
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 21:53:00 -
[1831] - Quote
EnslaverOfMinmatar wrote:
Rebalancing CCP, one dev at a time.... In the next update CCP Ytterbium shall be rebalanced to CCP Ytterrible and the letters 'u' & 'm' will be reimbursed to him.
+1 LOL for humor content. ( -1 if intended seriously )
|
Julia Drew
Deaths Head Brigade Vanguard.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 02:07:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Proceed with reckless abandon as as fast as possible please. |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 13:07:00 -
[1833] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Kogh Ayon wrote:The trick of ""You won't lose the ability to fly any ships"" here is, they do not promise that "you won't lose the effectiveness to fly any ships". If you get BC 5, then the reimbursement will allow you to get BC3-4 for 4 races, then "You won't lose the ability to fly any ships".
For the commander ships, they can simply change the requirement to "racial BC lv.3, Commander ship lv.1", then people already have commander ship skill now will not lose the ability to fly any a commander ship. For people have not get the commander ship skill, the requirement to train "Commander ship" skill will be racial BC lv.5 still. Command ships say hi. CCP Yitterbum says CS's keep their Racial BC V prereq. Why are people so intent on looking for conspiracies? They have given a plan, assurance that skills will be taken care of, prerequisites were explained and examples of how thet may do it, all of which keep their promises and not in a backhanded way. Because CCP's word is as solid and trustworthy as the diarrhea-esque beer **** that I took earlier this morning.
Trust only that which is live on Tranquility. All else is smoke and mirrors, subject to CCP's scattershot game design and software development practices. 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
Rimase
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 14:41:00 -
[1834] - Quote
Seems ok to me. |
Morkus Rex
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 16:09:00 -
[1835] - Quote
Fixing things that ain't broke ... |
Aamrr
263
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 16:31:00 -
[1836] - Quote
Morkus Rex wrote:Fixing things that ain't broke ... I'm pretty sure there's a large number of people that would disagree. And judging by the dev blog, the devs are in that group. |
h4kun4
H.E.A.T
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 16:34:00 -
[1837] - Quote
It was told that nobody has to retrain anything, so if I am able to fly all BS now, logically I would get all Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills on 4 with this patch, that are (when multiplicators are same) 1,4m SP for free, if im able to fly all CS now, I would get all BC skills on 5, seems a bit unrealistic that i would get 4,5 Million SP for free (6m in total but i already got BC on 5) and when i can fly all DICs,I would get all Destroyers on 5 (1,5m SP, 2m in total)
Dont think that this may be realistic, dont know how CCP wants to manage it^^
Sometimes things that CCP Devs say are trustworthy, BC 3 and then CS 1 would be just lmaocrap, every nup flys around in Sleipnirs, for sure^^ |
Rimase
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 19:20:00 -
[1838] - Quote
Take too long to train skills to fly other Empire/Race's ships? Shorten it! (Radical new skills idea!)
Suggestion: With these proposed changes or tiering, etc, include 5+ new Spaceship Command skills.
- Foreign Spaceship Compositions
The skills you already know of your Empire individual spaceship compositions are projected in reference on using common foreign spaceship systems. Allows you to fly other Empire's ships equal to your own Small, Medium and Large tiered ships. PRE-REQUISITE: Standard Spaceship Command (your empire)
- Foreign Capital Compositions
The skills you already know of your Empire capital spaceship's compositions are projected in reference on using common foreign spaceship systems. Allows you to fly other Empire's ships equal to your own Capital tiered ships. PREREQUISITE: Advanced Spaceship Command (your empire)
- Hybrid Spaceship Compositions
The skills you already know of your Empire individual spaceship compositions are projected in reference on using uncommon hybrid spaceship systems. Allows you to fly other Faction's ships equal to your own Small, Medium and Large tiered ships. PRE-REQUISITE: Standard Spaceship Command (your empire), Foreign Spaceship Systems. CONTINUATIONS: [a Faction] Composition, [a Faction] Composition, [a Faction] Composition, [a Faction] Composition, [a Faction] Composition, [a Faction] Composition, [a Faction] Composition, [a Faction] Composition, ...
- Hybrid Capital Compositions
The skills you already know of your Empire capital spaceship's compositions are projected in reference on using uncommon hybrid spaceship systems. Allows you to fly other Faction's ships equal to your own Capital tiered ships. PRE-REQUISITE: Advanced Spaceship Command (your empire), Foreign Capital Systems, POST-REQUISITE: (for Pirate ships, etc) [a Faction] Composition.
- Corporate Spaceship Command
The skills you already know of spaceship command are applied in reference on using independent corporate spaceship designs. Allows you to fly unique Corporation ships like ORE's miners, [corp's] explorers & [corp's] other... CONTINUATION: ORE Industrial > Exhumers, [new], [new], Command > ORE Capital Industrial (Mining Barge). (refer to here)
- Foreign Ships: The three Empires that are not yours. e.g. I'm Caldari & my foreign ships are: Amarr, Gallente, Minmatar.
- Hybrid Ships: Pirate faction ships with their own conjoined spaceship systems.
- Corporate Ships: Civilized neutral corporations like ORE.
> KEY INFO: Your chosen Character Race pre-decides the default spaceships you fly (Your Empire's). DO NOT FRET! These proposed skills here opens a parallel gateway to other ships from your character's racial perspective instead of ranking-up a whole knew racial skill-set previously, which is quicker! (This suggestion and key info also implies a free character race migration!) |
h4kun4
H.E.A.T
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.18 22:11:00 -
[1839] - Quote
too complicated, they want to make it easier |
Christopher Merchentson
Enlightened Enterprise
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 00:00:00 -
[1840] - Quote
Solution I pretty simple. Divide training time for battle cruisers and destroyer by 4. I dnt know why it seems like u guys are instead on the path to make training these skills to 5 4 months longer forcing people to train them now. I have been forced. To train my new alts to bc 5 now meking them useless for a while a good while longer because u have no draft plan on what u will do. Also forgetting to include csm is pretty convenient. |
|
Drew Solaert
University of Caille Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 01:33:00 -
[1841] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process? A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
Example: If we go for option 1: you will get Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar Battlecruiser skills at 5 if you previously had the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5. If we go for option 2: you will get Amarr Battlecruiser skill at 5 only if you previously fulfilled all conditions to fly Amarr Battlecruisers, which means having the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5, PLUS the Amarr Cruiser at 3. To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan.
A lot of people have put a lot of time and dedication into their characters as purists for RP or just plain play style reason, please make it option 2. option 1 would be a complete deal breaker for myself personally. Having 3 BC skills just sitting there never being used (as there is no frig or cruiser skill) or supports (lasers/projectiles/missiles) would be horrific.
I made this character purely to deal with slight OCD skill sheet issues. Please consider us. For every player ship that blows up, the wheels of the economy turn slightly faster. -áDo your bit today. -áGo out and PEW.
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 06:43:00 -
[1842] - Quote
All commandships learning time today, battlecruiser5 (22 days) After patch All commandship learning times 4x22days
22 days vs 88 days.
Would be happy the new players for longer learning times ? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 19:37:00 -
[1843] - Quote
Tiger's Spirit wrote:All commandships learning time today, battlecruiser5 (22 days) After patch All commandship learning times 4x22days
22 days vs 88 days.
Would be happy the new players for longer learning times ? You are forgetting the current 4 cruiser V prereqs for the CS's. As actual training time differs posting approximated SP: Now: 4 x5 skills and 1 x6 = 7,936,000 SP Proposed: 4 x6 skills = 6,144,000 SP Additionally if the HAS prerequisite is removed as proposed it would widen the gap in favor of the racial BC skills. |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 21:16:00 -
[1844] - 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.
If that philosophy gets questioned, let me know and i'll fly over with a large stick to stand next to it and 're-programme' anyone trying to tinker with it.
Moving forwards is good .. sending *everyone* back weeks damages spirits, hearts and minds.
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Aamrr
264
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 03:37:00 -
[1845] - Quote
Why does everyone keep assuming that the racial destroyer and battlecruiser skills will be the same rank? They only enable a few ships, compared to the numerous frigates, cruisers and battleships available. I'd expect rank 1 destroyer and rank 2 battlecruiser skills, honestly. |
War Fairy
Scrap Metal Dry Dock Mos Vape Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 07:12:00 -
[1846] - Quote
This is ******* awful.
Ever since CCPingameTransactionandF**kYouPlayerWeJustWantNewFerrari-Gate, they've been doing stupid stuff like this.
Dumbing the **** out of this game to increase playerbase tells me they still just want to fill the money coffers by expanding playerbase, at the expense of the players that form the backbone.
I'm not going to stick around if they start kneejerking their way into my ships and my skills. 2003 I started this damn game, and I'm not interested in CCP stepping in 9 years later and ******* it all up for a quick buck. This game is getting idiotproofed, and I'm not interested. |
War Fairy
Scrap Metal Dry Dock Mos Vape Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 07:17:00 -
[1847] - Quote
There is another amusing possibility to this.... and by amusing I mean stupid.
If they really do just jam a bunch of extra skills into people's heads, already trained, to compensate for the switches..... how much do you want to bet some people end up undocking over their SP clone limit, and get podded?
I can easily see that happening if people start ending up with 4 BC skills at V, or etc. |
Machinegunner Bob
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 05:43:00 -
[1848] - Quote
In current moment, Drake can be classificates as combat ship, hope that after rebalanced Drake won't be changed. Let the Ferox will bombardment ship. |
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 08:41:00 -
[1849] - Quote
About drake it will be nerfed/boosted. Its the only tier 2 bc with both bonuses to its tank and damage. And its should get bonus to damage only and it will as published by CCP. Posibly Mirm will also get rid of armor rep bonus. CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Violet Giraffe
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:15:00 -
[1850] - Quote
Right now many great ships are within 30-60 days reach (I'm a brand new player), and after the rebalance I would only be able to fly my own race's ships within that period of time (if I understand correctly). Could you please advise which skills makes sense to train right now, before the rebalance, to minimize losses/get the most SP reimbursed? |
|
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
131
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 21:14:00 -
[1851] - Quote
Violet Giraffe wrote:Right now many great ships are within 30-60 days reach (I'm a brand new player), and after the rebalance I would only be able to fly my own race's ships within that period of time (if I understand correctly). Could you please advise which skills makes sense to train right now, before the rebalance, to minimize losses/get the most SP reimbursed?
train all race crusier to 3 then bc 5 and destroyer 5. I am fine on my main but need 22days more for my alt i should make it.
|
Dr Cedric
Orbital Industry and Research.
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 22:20:00 -
[1852] - Quote
I'll be honest and confess that I haven't read the entire 93 pages of this epic thread, so if I'm repeating, please forgive me!
I suppose this is more of a comment on an idea that could be added on to this to add value to the fact that you now have to train up the smaller ship to get to the bigger ship.
Why not have an accumulation of ship bonuses based on the smaller ships you have to train. For example:
training frigate gives a small % bonus to agility for all the ship sizes above it, destroyer gives shield/armor hp bonus above cruiser gives velocity BC gives pg/cpu BS gives scan res.
Basically, it gives the pilot who wants to specialize in the larger ship a reason to train the 5th level of the ships below it. I want my capital ship to have buffs for all of those things, even if it only totals to 5% or 7.5% or whatever.
It also fits into the idea that if I specialize Caldari, and know the ins and outs of every class ship, it should make me a better pilot for all of the ships.
Thats all
Ced |
Violet Giraffe
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 05:46:00 -
[1853] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote: train all race crusier to 3 then bc 5 and destroyer 5. I am fine on my main but need 22days more for my alt i should make it.
Thanks! Could you please explain the logic behind this? All plans I could think of involved training all racial cruisers to 5, which is too long.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
310
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 09:52:00 -
[1854] - Quote
Violet Giraffe wrote:Katarina Reid wrote: train all race crusier to 3 then bc 5 and destroyer 5. I am fine on my main but need 22 days more for my alt i should make it.
Thanks! Could you please explain the logic behind this? All plans I could think of involved training all racial cruisers to 5, which is not what you're proposing (and too long to accomplish in time, obviously).
Racial crusier to 3 means you can fly all the battlecruisers (as long as you have battle cruiser)
So at this point, if you have destroyer 5 and BC 5, you should get all the racial variants at 5. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Violet Giraffe
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:02:00 -
[1855] - Quote
At this point I wonder what happens if I learn, say, Heavy Assault Ships to 5, but don't learn any racial cruiser to 5 (which means I can't fly any HAC yet). |
Nigel Steele
Tax Evader
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:44:00 -
[1856] - Quote
When the learning skill reimbursement happened, I recall someone in game say something to the effect that every change CCP makes is always to the advantage of older players while newer players get screwed.
So if CCP's solution to "if you could fly it yesterday then you can fly it tomorrow" is granting free SP, I think to be fair to players that haven't cross trained so much they should also get some skill points... perhaps enough to buy one racial destroyer and BC to at least to level 1, although I believe enough to buy to level 5 wouldn't be uncalled for. This is just in the interest of not creating a whole new class of "bitternoobs." |
Nigel Steele
Tax Evader
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:48:00 -
[1857] - Quote
Violet Giraffe wrote:Katarina Reid wrote: train all race crusier to 3 then bc 5 and destroyer 5. I am fine on my main but need 22 days more for my alt i should make it.
Thanks! Could you please explain the logic behind this? All plans I could think of involved training all racial cruisers to 5, which is not what you're proposing (and too long to accomplish in time, obviously).
If you look at the skill requirements for any BC, it only requires racial cruiser 3.
The theory is that "if you could fly it yesterday, you can fly it tomorrow". So having the minimum racial cruiser is all you need to "fly it" and thus cash in free SP. But they're also proposing the destroyer/BC level you currently have will translate into the racial dest/BC, so you want to max out those so you'd get the racial variants maxed as well. |
Nigel Steele
Tax Evader
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 16:51:00 -
[1858] - Quote
Violet Giraffe wrote:At this point I wonder what happens if I learn, say, Heavy Assault Ships to 5, but don't learn any racial cruiser to 5 (which means I can't fly any HAC yet).
Training T2 variants without the racial T1 skills won't get you any freebies. In fact, since many of the T2 prerequisites are changing (T2 cruisers won't require T2 frigates for example) it's probably best you don't bother with those until after the change. |
Violet Giraffe
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 17:07:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Nigel Steele wrote: Training T2 variants without the racial T1 skills won't get you any freebies. In fact, since many of the T2 prerequisites are changing (T2 cruisers won't require T2 frigates for example) it's probably best you don't bother with those until after the change.
Makes sense, thanks a lot! |
Morkus Rex
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:18:00 -
[1860] - Quote
Aamrr wrote:Morkus Rex wrote:Fixing things that ain't broke ... I'm pretty sure there's a large number of people that would disagree. And judging by the dev blog, the devs are in that group.
The planned changes are a nice idea, but it should have been done years ago, right after BC were put in game! Now CCP just risk ruining more than they fix for a lot of ppl.
There are so many things to take into account.... I have nothing against getting more SP's, it might even save me some isk :) But then I will have to spend even more isk on a new clone... and hope I remember to upgrade my clone too before I get killed the first time The time used training some of those skills to lvl 5, and now I may not even need them all to be lvl 5 anymore
Yes, fix the ships, but I don't really see the point in making new racial skills!
|
|
Aceju
The House Of Cards. Holdings The House Of Cards.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:29:00 -
[1861] - Quote
Yes .......What are you doing ccp? Didn't we go through this last year with that great big apology from the president of your company for not listening to the subscribers? The apology stated that he would LISTEN to what the consumer (us) had to say. If you read this topic.....NO ONE WANTS IT!.....What more do you need to know? Is CCP reniging on their promise that was made by their CEO last year? We do not want this change....Clear enough? |
Mroova Hellbound
Bane Heavy Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 21:26:00 -
[1862] - Quote
To tell the truth, I'm too lazy to read over 90 pages of this thread to see if that what I want to say is here already, but seeing the last few posts I recon it wasn;t suggested.
I somewhat support the new ship tree but I cannot see the reason to destroy the current battlecruisers and destroyer non racial status. Why not leave it non-racial, so the tree for let's say Ammar would be:
Ammar Frigate -> Destroyer -> Ammar cruiser -> Battlecruiser -> Ammar Battleship -> and so on...
so to fly an Ammar Battleship you woul have to have skills:
Primary: Battlecruisers Lv4 --primary: --ANY cruiser skill Lv4
Secondary: Ammar cruiser Lv4 --primary: --Destroyers Lv4 --secondary: --Ammar frigate Lv4
Honestly, the policy "if you can fly it you still will be" is still not fair if the skill is divided by 4. Let's take battlecruiser skill: it takes about 1.2 mil SPs to take this skill from level 4 to level 5 I just can't imagine that peaple who have BCR on 4-th lvl will have 4.8 mil SPs less that people who had it on lvl 5.
Hope CCP You will not do it so anyone will be left further bhind than other (and on this example only on 1 lvl of BCR skill it woud be nearly 5 mil SP!!) |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:11:00 -
[1863] - Quote
Aceju wrote: Yes .......What are you doing ccp? Didn't we go through this last year with that great big apology from the president of your company for not listening to the subscribers? The apology stated that he would LISTEN to what the consumer (us) had to say. If you read this topic.....NO ONE WANTS IT!.....What more do you need to know? Is CCP reniging on their promise that was made by their CEO last year? We do not want this change....Clear enough? You, sir. Does not, represent, the Eve Community, therefore, you does not represent the 'consumer' as a whole.
I (and afaik many people i know, if not most of them infact) support these changes for the sole reason that it will streamline the shipline and skill progression and hopefully will help ccp to fix the current ship line and further improvements which is logical if some of haters here care enough to read the devblogs and posts and watch the fanfest stream. |
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:43:00 -
[1864] - Quote
Ok, now rumours/information are filtering in from fanfest:
The timing of the default destroyer/BC skill -> racial dessie/BC skill change might not be Inferno 1.0, but rather later patches/expansions... more like late in 2012, rather than May 22nd ... with Inferno itself tackling frigate balancing first.
Now, the timing of this change is crucial for a lot of players that are in a hurry/panic trying to get to BC V with all racial cruiser skills at level III. I know people skilling this now on an Int/Mem remap or are (considering) using one of their bonus remaps to getting it NOW.
People might get annoyed if that change then comes months later - (they might get annoyed either way, if its coming early and they didn't get it in time, etc.). Basically, people are hunting free skill points with determination, we are eve players after all.
You might confirm/refute those rumours or release some information on the timing of this change soon, as it significantly impacts people's skill queue planning already.
May or late 2012 is a big difference after all. Some rough timing (Inferno 1.0, soon after, months after) would be much appreciated. |
Rimase
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 00:18:00 -
[1865] - Quote
(SUGGESTION)
Medical Clone policy met - Civil Service
Quote:Security Status: 0.0+ Empire Standing: 5.0+ Civil Service policy condition met: YES
Your Medical Clone policy includes a Civil Service condition which has been met. Your aggressor remains in your solarsystem and your Medical Clone has become potentially compromised, and so you are provided with a well-equipped unique protective ship in promoting you a successful departure from these premises.
Note: This ship and its modules is imperial/state/federal/civil property and must not be resold. (Can Contract but cannot sell on Market!)
Capsuleers are highly valued for their perseverance and successes on the universe and for our Empire, and we wish you a safe continuation. This addresses an obstacle that can happen. With the recent proposed speculated changes of this blog, I suspect some T1 ships may be removed, which is fine by me. If any ship may be proposed to be undeniably obsolete, make use of it instead!: Protecting Vulnerable Medical Clones.
(SUGGESTION)
Medical Clone policy met - Militia Service
Quote:Registered Militia policy condition met: YES
Your Medical Clone policy includes a Militia Service condition which has been met. You were destroyed with an enemy Militia contributing to your failure. As a registered Militant Capsuleer influencing your empire's/state's/federation's/republic's/other's military efforts you are replenished with a branded economic variation of the shipline you were commanding. You have been replenished with a {ship name-link}.
Note: This ship and its modules is imperial/state/federal/republic/other property and cannot be resold. (Cannot Contract and cannot sell on Market!)
Capsuleers are highly valued for their powerful complementaries to our military. We expect you learn from your mistakes and continue successfully. This correlates with DUST endless supply of 'standard' equipment upon respawning in-game. Faction Warfare is really slow-paced. LET'S SPEED DIS **** UP! Both DUST and EVE would have same game-rules in common working alike when respawning. With the recent proposed speculated changes of this blog, I suspect some T1 ships may be removed, which is fine by me. If any ship may be proposed to be undeniably obsolete, make use of it instead!: Promoting Faction Warfare.
Summery: EVE is a ragefest. Ease the impacting pain of 'pod-killed!' by cushioning the blow. Where some T1 ships in this blog may become put to one side--WAIT! We have uses for them! (Civil Service & Militia Service within Medical Clone policy). |
Rimase
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:05:00 -
[1866] - Quote
With EVE Fanfest's notion on keeping ship balance in-check - THAT'S GREAT! However, here's a contributory perspective on the idea of Capital ships amongst their sub-ordinate scale of ships.
(SUGGESTION)
- Small, Medium and Large ships;
- and Capital ships.
Small, Medium and Large ships can be expected to play their roles and balance into each other perfectly like a jigsaw. Their roles inherently would create tactical chaos in fleet battles and co-ordination. Capitals ships could specifically be for fleeting corporations only. Their role would be to stabilize the chaos of fleet battles and co-ordinations.
[IMAGE]
If you read just above this, you should be vaguely imagining their renewed role.
Ok. To continue... Quite simply we'd expect Small, Medium and Large to do most of the work whereas Capitals see the chaos of their sub-ordinates through their tasks. This quite possibly would bring a nice refreshed appreciation for Capital Dreadnoughts, Titans and Carriers, and even a Freighter somehow-maybe. They would regulate a fleet's performance, they secure a solarsystem (with S,M,L), they intimidate the enemy, they additionally protect starbases. Mostly 'aggressive' logistical roles whereas sub-ordinate logistics would be 'defensive'. |
Lady Adalise
The Sponge Bob Square Pants
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:34:00 -
[1867] - Quote
I was only able to read through 3 pages of Whaaa my SP's before I had to stop. How many times does someone have to tell you the pen is blue before you believe them even as you watch them write in blue with it?
My question is how is removing tier's going to affect manufacturing and the indy aspect of things. Does that now mean all my t2 Production is gonna go down the toilet?
and beware pigeonholing though roles sound great the first thing i thought of was any other MMO and how the talent/skill tree's didn't change the fact that everyone even though wearing different clothing where all pretty much the same Char running around in different colors.(and we don't even get different colors on ships so it would be a bunch of ship clones all over eve.) |
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:11:00 -
[1868] - Quote
So, any more on the timing of the BC/dessie-skill change? |
Ceptia Cyna
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:33:00 -
[1869] - Quote
Rumors say 24. April is the first patch.
So if you want to get some cookies (free SP) you maybe should start training BC V / Dest V now.
No idea if you need Cruisers IV aswell but seems everybody whos late will miss out big time on the free SP hahahaha :D |
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:10:00 -
[1870] - Quote
CCP says 24th april is the precursor-patch, and 22nd may is Inferno 1.0 - not rumour.
The question is when this particular change is going to be included. |
|
Adolf Hilmar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:13:00 -
[1871] - Quote
Agreed. Please clarify if the racial battlecruiser and destroyer skill change will happen in the Apr 24 presursor patch or the May 22 release. |
Ceptia Cyna
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:58:00 -
[1872] - Quote
I doubt they will ever clarify the exact date of the change as everybody and their grandparents would jump the free SP train then.
Maybe you know some CSM Member which will accidently skill the right skills in the right time on some alt char... |
Naara Elein
Les Force
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 16:11:00 -
[1873] - Quote
Skill tree change: I want to see a proper suggestion for how this will be handled before I can comment on it. It is nice that you let us know something like this early on, but just reading in this thread shows that it has created a small panic. Information like this should have been backed up with a fleshed out suggestion of how it might be handled.
Free sp's for only some players is just as bad as having others loose their ability to pilot some of their ships. But if one of those routes is required, i think the latter is the best from a game perspective, even though it will hurt me. The battlecruiser skill currently unlocks 15 T1 ships and 8 T2 ships, and that is actually a bit too much.
Ship overhaul: Giving the ships an overhaul is a great idea. Too many worthless ships as it is now.
The idea of introducing ship lines sounded good at first, but I am not so sure anymore. Pushing the tech 1 ships towards a role specialization infringes on what the tech 2 ships are supposed to be about. Blurring the lines between those two might not be a good idea. Also the ship line called "bombardment" sounded very strange, how can you "pin" someone in space with artillery fire when there is no cover to hide behind? If bombardment is going to be just long range damage, their role will compete with the "combat" sniper ships, and with delayed damage and weaker tank i have serious doubts about their attractiveness.
A loose idea here, just to be constructive. I would much rather see something that embraces customizeability. Just like T2 ships gets a pile of free resistance excluded from stacking penalty, maybe T1 ships could get built in modules free from stacking penalty. Nothing extreme, but examples could be: a larger capactior, more hitpoint buffer, more agility, faster target locking. Something that represents a strength of that race and that sets the ship apart from the others. This kind of stuff nudges a ship gently towards a role, but don't exclude the ship from doing other things. An amarr ship with an oversized capactior could use that for better active tanking, keep an MWD active for longer, fitting smartbombs or just about anything that needs a lot of cap. The possibilities are more interesting and much more suited for customization than arbitrarily forcing a ship into a "combat" role with forced limitations.
As for the amarr frigate overhaul. Consider having one anti-frigate frigate, and one big-game-hunter frigate. It is a quite a lot like "combat" and "assault" roles, but I think that frigates really need that diversity instead of having just "crap" and "good" to choose from.
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 02:13:00 -
[1874] - Quote
One of the principal problems with this game and new players (which are always needed) is the absolutely enormous length of time it takes to get proficient with a certain ship in sp terms, or fly and use modules.
It becomes quite depressing for a new player seeing that it'll take him a YEAR!! of subscription to a video game to be able to use a battleship proffiently for instance (t2 guns, bs V, support skills). It really drives players away when they see all the things they won't be able to do until kingdom come ffs.
The battle cruiser skill was one of the saving graces for new players, because even if you changed your mind about your racial preferences (I for instance started in drones and Gallente, then moved to Minmi), that was one skill that was always useful and you wouldn't have to do more than a couple of days training to cross train to another races bc hull and bcs are always useful.
With these changes all your going to do is widen the gap between new players and old players (who like me will get all the bcs bumped to V). It's a very bad idea. I see no reason why it even needs to be done? What's wrong with having access to all bc hulls to V with one skill at V and a few at 4 and 3? There's no reason to make all the skills need to go to IV just for the sake of consistancy, if it works why change it?
The things I do like are getting rid of the requirement to train hacs to get a command ship, though I don't like the idea of removing racial cruiser V for the same. Command ships are damn fantastic and should be difficult to get into.
Removing the tier system for bcs is a good idea.
Removing BS V for caps is a bad idea and your effectively going to have to reimburse everyone with bs V who flys caps, because otherwise it's waisted sp (and dollars more to the point).
There is effectively no way you can do many of these pointless changes without pissing off a lot of people and making life even more difficult for your new players. Do you ask new players (by new I mean a few months old, not 10days) what they think? |
Adolf Hilmar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
85
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 05:01:00 -
[1875] - Quote
I'm a new player (several months old). I think you don't need BC 5 to fly a decent battlecruiser. When you're several months old, most of your training goes in to fitting, tanking, and weapon skills. Training BC 4 is pretty quick in comparison. I don't think racial battlecruiser skills will change this. |
Flux Saissore
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:00:00 -
[1876] - Quote
I believe that the ability to fly a ship should never be removed from a player. That makes sense to me. But I also feel that free skill points should not be handed out to veterans driving a massive wedge between new players and the elite. There are ways to achieve both, but CCP is ignoring the latter and planning on a massive bailout of the experienced players.
I think the proposed skill reimbursement plan is ill conceived and needs to be rethought. Don't hand out free skill points to the players who need them the least. It's daunting enough to get new players to try this game.
In summary:
1) If you can fly it today you can fly it tomorrow 2) You must earn your skill points like everyone else.
I'm happy with any solution that meets BOTH criteria. |
Hennrik
J-CORP
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:29:00 -
[1877] - Quote
What happenes to the people that trained Battlecruisers to V and all racial cruisers to IV or V but NO specialisations such as Logistics IV or Heavy Assault Ships IV? Will they still receive all racial BC at V? |
PinkKnife
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 17:57:00 -
[1878] - Quote
Quote:Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process?
A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
Example: If we go for option 1: you will get Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar Battlecruiser skills at 5 if you previously had the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5. If we go for option 2: you will get Amarr Battlecruiser skill at 5 only if you previously fulfilled all conditions to fly Amarr Battlecruisers, which means having the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5, PLUS the Amarr Cruiser at 3.
To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan.
I DO! For one, I don't want or plan to train min/caldari, getting a random minmatar battlecruiser V skill does nothing to help me, and just screws over my skill tree. Some of us take pride in the skills we have in terms of Min/Maxing and it is annoying to have one random ass skill just pointing out there being unused and pointless. I do not have min frig or min cruiser or min destroyer, it makes no sense to give me min battlecruiser.
If nothing else, please just give me the option to reject the skills if I want to. |
Kyr Evotorin
Psycho Tech Industries Interstellar Hobos
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 19:18:00 -
[1879] - Quote
Is there a counter for how many people like and dislike this change... because I'd rather look at that than read over everyone's bickering about what should really be done and why.... considering most of the people with something to say,.. say nothing useful at all. |
Kush Monster
Big Tobacco
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 21:03:00 -
[1880] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Quote:Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process?
A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
Example: If we go for option 1: you will get Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar Battlecruiser skills at 5 if you previously had the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5. If we go for option 2: you will get Amarr Battlecruiser skill at 5 only if you previously fulfilled all conditions to fly Amarr Battlecruisers, which means having the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5, PLUS the Amarr Cruiser at 3.
To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan. I DO! For one, I don't want or plan to train min/caldari, getting a random minmatar battlecruiser V skill does nothing to help me, and just screws over my skill tree. Some of us take pride in the skills we have in terms of Min/Maxing and it is annoying to have one random ass skill just pointing out there being unused and pointless. I do not have min frig or min cruiser or min destroyer, it makes no sense to give me min battlecruiser. If nothing else, please just give me the option to reject the skills if I want to.
How do I thumbs down your post? since I can't I'll just write this up.
In your charactor sheet, go to the settings tab and click "show skills I currently have" there you go. no more racial skills showing up.
How to make mining enjoyable: An Autocannon, Faction Ammo, Your Mouth
|
|
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 22:36:00 -
[1881] - Quote
I think people don't understand what specialization means with this re-balancing, it means that ships in the same class specialize for different roles. And the major difference is not just scaling with higher tiers getting 'more stuff'.
Current system of tiers, ships get better and better higher on tiers, with increases to HP and slots without penalty for bigger size, so next to no reason to use lolships on lower tiers.
What CCP and others are suggesting with teircide is that tier is not what determines what is the best ship in any class but preference for roles (bonuses). The top teir being 'the best' is a general rule of thumb that unless the top tier for one race in a class that one horribly underpowered, in which case.... yea stuff needs to be rebalanced.
Example, ferox is a joke compared with the drake, but if it were to have the same number of turret slots to drakes missile slots, medium slots, and low slots, along with base HP, and mineral cost. It would be considered a viable alternative for pvp or missions.
Ships will specialize as they do currently, but no specialization will exist for the better or best ship, (teir 2 or 3). It will not overshadow tech 2's because those are specialization and bonuses to the max (4 bonuses compared with 2, ability to accomplish feats no tech 1 ship can do).
For ship choice and balance the systems give, I will summarize
OLD: teirs, ships are differentiated in same race and class by increasing amounts of better stuff; no real choice just use top teir that you can fit the most **** on.
NEW: specalization, ships have different bonuses and slots, different neither absolutely 'better'; actual choice for picking ship other then whatever is top tier. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 22:43:00 -
[1882] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Quote:Q: can we opt out for skills we don't want during the reimbursement process?
A: well, again, it depends on how it is done. We may just bluntly give all four variants at V if you had battlecruiser V for example, or maybe require that you also add the relevant Cruiser skill trained at level 3 to be eligible. On the latter case, just don't train the cruiser 3 skill, and you should not receive the new racial battlecruiser at 5. Not sure why one would do that however, it's like skipping free candy or cake while visiting your grandma.
Example: If we go for option 1: you will get Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar Battlecruiser skills at 5 if you previously had the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5. If we go for option 2: you will get Amarr Battlecruiser skill at 5 only if you previously fulfilled all conditions to fly Amarr Battlecruisers, which means having the generic Battlecruiser skill at 5, PLUS the Amarr Cruiser at 3.
To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan. I DO! For one, I don't want or plan to train min/caldari, getting a random minmatar battlecruiser V skill does nothing to help me, and just screws over my skill tree. Some of us take pride in the skills we have in terms of Min/Maxing and it is annoying to have one random ass skill just pointing out there being unused and pointless. I do not have min frig or min cruiser or min destroyer, it makes no sense to give me min battlecruiser. If nothing else, please just give me the option to reject the skills if I want to.
What about people who trained BC just so they could get access to all racial BC's. Not everyone is you, better to have everyone have access to everything they used too then many not because one person is anal about skills.
|
Caldain Morrow
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:14:00 -
[1883] - Quote
I believe that I posted some pages back with the idea that SP and skill books are refunded/given according to what races of a given skill can be flown. IE if you can fly drakes and caines but not harbies or myrms then you only get caldari and mini BC books and the SP to bring them up to whatever level they were before.
just a thought. make for more hamsters dying of hypertension at CCP but it would be the fairest way to do it IMO |
YuuKnow
157
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:14:00 -
[1884] - Quote
The fanfest presentation still did not address what role that capital ships will play in the new ship rebalancing.
Also there are still balant inconsistency to what CCP is saying it wants ships roles to look like and the actual stats that they are giving the ships. The "support ships" are supposedly weak, but then they give logistic uber resist. At the same time, they give other "support ships" like EW, flimsy EHP and resist and turn them into pure cannon fodder.
Before CCP does anything it needs to do two things: 1. Clearly define where capitals play in the ship rebalancing 2. Clearly define what other changes outside of skill point and traning prerequisits that they are proposing.
yk |
Caldain Morrow
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:16:00 -
[1885] - Quote
YuuKnow wrote:The fanfest presentation still did not address what role that capital ships will play in the new ship rebalancing.
Also there are still balant inconsistency to what CCP is saying it wants ships roles to look like and the actual stats that they are giving the ships. The "support ships" are supposedly weak, but then they give logistic uber resist. At the same time, they give other "support ships" like EW, flimsy EHP and resist and turn them into pure cannon fodder.
Before CCP does anything it needs to do two things: 1. Clearly define where capitals play in the ship rebalancing 2. Clearly define what other changes outside of skill point and traning prerequisits that they are proposing.
yk
I think they're still figuring out HOW they are going to do the rebalancing, by the sounds of it. |
Elbert Ainstein
The Engineer Corp.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 10:59:00 -
[1886] - Quote
All ships in each class should really just be one basic hull, much like the T3-ships are. Let ppl customize them like they want them to = role/color/.... Additional ship skills should then be on the role you want the ship to fit.
Would also make more sense about skill reimbursement, to let ppl pick the skills/roles they usually use the ship for today. Maybe it would actually be possible to make some new roles & skills (ships) for the industial pilots this time too
I'm in this for the money! |
Kill'Boy Bunny
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 11:50:00 -
[1887] - Quote
Been away since last september,
quite a few changes been going on, trying to get up to speed with this now also.
what ever you do CCP please for the love of god test the **** outta it before releasing it
DO A GOOD JOB!
You can do it!! |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 13:28:00 -
[1888] - Quote
Hmm..why not go the reverse route to racial BC skills. Reduce all the Racial Ships skills down to a generic Battleship, Cruiser and Frigate skill. Then leave the Destroyer and BC skills as they are
And to complain about nerfing the Drake and the whole ship lines idea. Instead of improvements to things we will now have entire lines of useless ships. The whole point of the Drake is the tank. Take that away and you have a lame missile spam ship with a crappy tank that will gather dust in my hangar as I switch to flying ahh (i can't believe I'm saying this) a Can
I want to see a Tech 2 Bantam (and the other races versions too) already as well
I'm slightly exaggerating a bit with the whole post, but lets play a little devil's advocate here. |
tasman devil
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 13:30:00 -
[1889] - Quote
How can I unsubscribe from this bloody thread!?!?!
I like this thread but for the love of God I cannot find the "bloody unsubscribe from topic the hell NOW!" button... Just a like and a tag as favorite button... Can anyone help me?
Also I am in the process of making a ship tree myself so as to make a point for 96 pages of rage... |
non judgement
Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance
750
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 13:39:00 -
[1890] - Quote
94 pages is a lot to go through. Of course I didn't.
Just wanted to ask... Did CCP Soundwave say during the EVE Keynote at fanfest that the ship balancing would take 5 years? |
|
Dubaschu
BJ TitsnEvE
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 13:51:00 -
[1891] - Quote
Don't for the love of god change Command Ships to a shorter time "would require 14-20" Don't even go nrear the skill qeueue. If infact don't touch T2 skills please.
First with the PLEX, every noob is richer then 5+years players flying in null and now you want to give them better ships faster. Can Would you be so kind as to explain how you want to balance the older players and new players?
|
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids Pleasure Syndicate
148
|
Posted - 2012.03.28 19:38:00 -
[1892] - Quote
A lot of hand waving in that post and almost zero practical rationalization. So BC unlocks 12 ships, so what? You still can't fly them effectively without racial specialization (missiles, autocannons, hybrids, lasers etc). You want to make it EVEN HARDER? The true source of this i suspect is design team change and they just want to do stuff their own way for no particularly good reason in this case. |
Etheoma
Scarab Empire The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 05:09:00 -
[1893] - Quote
OMFG I'm frightened there going to break eve this is one big mother f***ing change takes some balls though and a little insanity... kind of reminds me of a company I once knew I think it was CCP.
hummmm I don't know if I like it but you definitely maned up... |
Etheoma
Scarab Empire The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 05:56:00 -
[1894] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Doesn't really make sense. Ships don't need roles, just fix ships on a case by case basis, roles will emerge as needed. Absolutely no need to change up the existing skills. Just add new skills and dependencies and bonuses to existing ships if you want to change them.
Dude your plan is worse than there's not only would it not help new players get into better ships but it would add to your skill queue as well. at least the plan in place has 2 upsides rather than 1. if you don't change the existing skills that means you would simply be tacking new once on which means more training time duh. |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:21:00 -
[1895] - Quote
I've been dormant since October, just training my skills (and not very effectively, I might add) until I feel like being a full time pilot again. Every 3-4 weeks, I login to check and see what's up. And then I find this, to which I must say I am not impressed. What I'm seeing is akin to dropping a new transmission into a car to remedy poor fuel economy caused by a clogged exhaust.
The current Frigate -> Cruiser -> Battleship relationship is appropriate, both in skill requirements and theoretical roles. The evolution of these classes should not be changed. Leave the skills alone. All of them. The problem is not with the skills or roles, but with the ships themselves.
The idea of a destroyer is not to be a higher class than a frigate, but to push the frigate class to its limits, and sacrificing mobility and profile efficiency in order to meet these limits. In the case of currently designed destroyers, we have the role of pure offense. (Side note: CCP was too extreme when it came to this, and destroyers were too specific, and were very difficult to fit. The Thrasher was the only exception. It is an ideal example of what a destroyer should be. So the solution here would be to fix the other three destroyers.)
Another concept in the same vein would be a pure defense vessel. Let's call this a Defender. It would use a new skill: Defenders. Not racial Defenders, just Defenders. Same rank and requirement as Destroyers. It's one additional skill instead of three. This would be a good compromise.
One thing that's an issue, however, is Battlecruisers. It seems that CCP got lazy somewhere when they came up with them. Instead of giving them roles and role bonuses, they just made them to be very large cruisers, which actually placed them rather snugly between the cruiser class and battleship class. They have the survivability of battleships and the anti-cruiser capability of a HAC. This is why they are so popular. To top that off, they chose to create tier 3 BCs, which made splitting them into two different roles extremely difficult.
In an ideal world, CCP would have made Battlecruisers pure offense like they did with destroyers. This would have made the cruiser sized equivalent of the defensive role, the Sentinel, a lot more achievable. Unfortunately, I can't see a way to introduce a Sentinels skill and changing BCs to be purely offensive. So the solution here is to figure out how to split the battlecruisers into specific roles without breaking the game, and doing nothing else with them.
Anyway, Destroyers were designed to be nothing more than built up frigates, and battlecruisers were supposed to have the same relationship with cruisers. At no time was a Destroyer supposed to be a light cruiser, nor was a BC supposed to be a light BS. The idea of making dessies and BCs intermediaries (and racial) is going too far and making things far too complicated.
Anyway, if there's anyone still watching this thread (is there?), I respect that you are trying to do the right thing, but you must know that you are going about it the wrong way. Besides, CCP has a long history of leaving things unfinished, unbalanced, and abandoned. Read: Aurora, COSMOS, rigs (yes, rigs.), missile overhaul, Speed Rebalanced (Mork and... Oh, Mindy!), T3, etc. I don't want to see the same thing happen to a major skill tree across the board. On a catastrophic scale of 1 - 10, this would score a "CCP Nozh".
tl;dr - Leave skills as they are. Introduce a frigate defender role and skill equivalent to the frigate destroyer. Fix currently existing destroyers. Find a way to do the same with Battlecruisers. This will **** off far fewer people. |
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids Pleasure Syndicate
148
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 21:02:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Etheoma wrote:Dream Five wrote:Doesn't really make sense. Ships don't need roles, just fix ships on a case by case basis, roles will emerge as needed. Absolutely no need to change up the existing skills. Just add new skills and dependencies and bonuses to existing ships if you want to change them. Dude your plan is worse than there's not only would it not help new players get into better ships but it would add to your skill queue as well. at least the plan in place has 2 upsides rather than 1. if you don't change the existing skills that means you would simply be tacking new once on which means more training time duh.
I missed the getting into new ships part :)
|
non judgement
Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance
750
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 07:56:00 -
[1897] - Quote
Allen Ramses wrote:Yawn .... Not many BC have tanks like BS. Maybe only the drake? When you say Sentinel you are talking about the Amarr electronic attack frigate? Why should the opinion of someone who hasn't played much in the last few months matter?
The adding in the racial Destroyer is a bit odd only cause there is one destroyer for each race. Adding in racial BC wouldn't be that bad. Not everyone uses all the different races of BC. It might even shorten the training, depending on what you're training for.
I think you need to relax a bit. |
Qvar Dar'Zanar
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 13:29:00 -
[1898] - Quote
Dream Five wrote:Doesn't really make sense. Ships don't need roles, just fix ships on a case by case basis, roles will emerge as needed. Absolutely no need to change up the existing skills. Just add new skills and dependencies and bonuses to existing ships if you want to change them.
... I think you didn't read CCP's posts at all, because that's exactly what they said they want to do (change bonuses and slots), to have 3 BC's of equal power but for different pourposes instead of 1 out of 3 useless. "Roles" is just a guiding concept just like you know that a Tornado is a high damage/low defence ship. |
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
227
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 00:03:00 -
[1899] - Quote
So, will they fix the skill requirement for the amarrian industrials? Will we finally need Amarr industrial 3 to fly a bestower? Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so..
|
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 08:08:00 -
[1900] - Quote
non judgement wrote:Blah... Not many BCs have tanks like a souped up cruiser. Maybe only the Hurricane? When I say sentinel, I am talking about a sentinel. Look it up. The word I used was merely a suggestive placeholder. Why should the opinion of someone who hasn't played for more than three years matter any more than mine?
Having there be only one destroyer per faction is not what makes it odd. Frigate destroyers are called frigate destroyers for a reason. Their role is to destroy frigates! Believe it or not, light cruisers and frigate destroyers are not one and the same. Racial BC would be fine if it followed the implicit relationship of frigate -> cruiser -> battleship. Fact is, it does not. In order for it to follow the proper scale, BCs would have to replace the Battleship role, and everything larger than a cruiser would have to be re-done. I wouldn't mind seeing BCs using large modules, BSes using X-L modules, dreads using doomsdays, and titans using god knows what. However, I'd rather the time and energy to make that happen go towards something else... Perhaps fixing BCs.
I think you need to critically examine a bit. |
|
non judgement
Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 11:12:00 -
[1901] - Quote
Allen Ramses wrote:[quote=non judgement]Blah...[/quote Not many BCs have tanks like a souped up cruiser. Maybe only the Hurricane When I say sentinel, I am talking about a sentinel. Look it up. The word I used was merely a suggestive placeholder Why should the opinion of someone who hasn't played for more than three years matter any more than mine
Having there be only one destroyer per faction is not what makes it odd. Frigate destroyers are called frigate destroyers for a reason. Their role is to destroy frigates! Believe it or not, light cruisers and frigate destroyers are not one and the same. Racial BC would be fine if it followed the implicit relationship of frigate -> cruiser -> battleship. Fact is, it does not. In order for it to follow the proper scale, BCs would have to replace the Battleship role, and everything larger than a cruiser would have to be re-done. I wouldn't mind seeing BCs using large modules, BSes using X-L modules, dreads using doomsdays, and titans using god knows what. However, I'd rather the time and energy to make that happen go towards something else... Perhaps fixing BCs
I think you need to critically examine a bit. I wasn't serious about the first few comments.
I only mean that the racial destroyer skill would be odd in that it only unlocks 1 ship while all the other racial ship skills unlock 3+ ships. Not including the capital ships of course
I always thought that BC were called super-cruisers or large cruisers. They evolved from armoured cruisers? And that Dreads were a type of large BS. But recently I've read that some people would say that a fast BS was a BC
If we were really going to have the proper names/classes of ships. The first thing I'd do is stop using the interdictor name for a class of ship. Not sure what I'd replace it with. I guess it does describe what the ships do. |
Severian Carnifex
137
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 11:39:00 -
[1902] - Quote
Will you boost mining ships defences??? Its just too easy to gank them with ten times cheaper ship. You introduced tier3 BCs then and didn't even look what it will do to non combat ships. |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 20:25:00 -
[1903] - Quote
non judgement wrote: I only mean that the racial destroyer skill would be odd in that it only unlocks 1 ship while all the other racial ship skills unlock 3+ ships. Not including the capital ships of cours
I always thought that BC were called super-cruisers or large cruisers. They evolved from armoured cruisers? And that Dreads were a type of large BS. But recently I've read that some people would say that a fast BS was a BC
These are all valid ideas, but you forget one thing. At the very core of EVE, there is an implicit and irrevocable scale between Frigates, Cruisers, and Battleships. The entire game was designed around this philosophy. It is why we have small, medium, and large modules. It is why we have small, medium, and large skills. Battlecruisers break this scale. A supplemental ship line (which is what they were in the beginning) needs to preserve the scale between small, medium, and large vessels. Battlecruisers allow us to bypass this scale, and the ship is able to be present in both ends of the spectrum simultaneously.
A destroyer will likely dominate any frigate it meets, just as a BC will likely dominate any cruiser it meets. However, a destroyer will be shredded in an instant by any cruiser (perhaps too easily) it meets, but the same cannot be said in regards to a BC vs a BS; It will actually give it a very real run for its money. This is where the problem lies. A cruiser will defeat a destroyer a lot easier than it will a frigate. The same relationship needs to happen with the BC.
If this can be fixed, racial skills are no longer required, and the balance between small, medium, and large would be restored. This is what needs to happen. |
non judgement
Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 01:09:00 -
[1904] - Quote
Allen Ramses wrote:non judgement wrote: I only mean that the racial destroyer skill would be odd in that it only unlocks 1 ship while all the other racial ship skills unlock 3+ ships. Not including the capital ships of cour
I always thought that BC were called super-cruisers or large cruisers. They evolved from armoured cruisers And that Dreads were a type of large BS. But recently I've read that some people would say that a fast BS was a B
These are all valid ideas, but you forget one thing. At the very core of EVE, there is an implicit and irrevocable scale between Frigates, Cruisers, and Battleships. The entire game was designed around this philosophy. It is why we have small, medium, and large modules. It is why we have small, medium, and large skills. Battlecruisers break this scale. A supplemental ship line (which is what they were in the beginning) needs to preserve the scale between small, medium, and large vessels. Battlecruisers allow us to bypass this scale, and the ship is able to be present in both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. A destroyer will likely dominate any frigate it meets, just as a BC will likely dominate any cruiser it meets. However, a destroyer will be shredded in an instant by any cruiser (perhaps too easily) it meets, but the same cannot be said in regards to a BC vs a BS; It will actually give it a very real run for its money. This is where the problem lies. A cruiser will defeat a destroyer a lot easier than it will a frigate. The same relationship needs to happen with the BC. If this can be fixed, racial skills are no longer required, and the balance between small, medium, and large would be restored. This is what needs to happen. Except I think the main reason for the battlecruiser skill split into racial is to stop people getting 8-12 ships trained all at once by only training the one BC skill. They only need cruiser to be at lvl 3, which isn't much training at all. There isn't another ship class skill that affects so many ships at once. The Recon and Heavy Assault skills are similar to this, but at least they require the racial cruiser skill to be at 5.
I like the idea of boosting the Battleships a bit more. So they can deal with BC a bit better. Except some BS are already quite strong. Maybe only a slight boost to the defence of weaker BS. |
None ofthe Above
160
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 02:50:00 -
[1905] - Quote
non judgement wrote: ... Except I think the main reason for the battlecruiser skill split into racial is to stop people getting 8-12 ships trained all at once by only training the one BC skill. They only need cruiser to be at lvl 3, which isn't much training at all. There isn't another ship class skill that affects so many ships at once. The Recon and Heavy Assault skills are similar to this, but at least they require the racial cruiser skill to be at 5. ...
Realistically, very few people train more than one racial cruiser skill before training up BC 1. I find this argument to have very little weight.
|
non judgement
Without Fear Flying Burning Ships Alliance
752
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 07:37:00 -
[1906] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:non judgement wrote: ... Except I think the main reason for the battlecruiser skill split into racial is to stop people getting 8-12 ships trained all at once by only training the one BC skill. They only need cruiser to be at lvl 3, which isn't much training at all. There isn't another ship class skill that affects so many ships at once. The Recon and Heavy Assault skills are similar to this, but at least they require the racial cruiser skill to be at 5. ...
Realistically, very few people train more than one racial cruiser skill before training up BC 1. I find this argument to have very little weight. it's pointless talking about training BC to level 1. What was I really talking about?
hint: it has nothing to do with when someone trains BC level 1. It's a bit like saying no one trains frigate to level 3 for each race before they put destroyer on the queue. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 20:28:00 -
[1907] - Quote
Am i missing some things here? as far as i know it, CCP didn't say they 'want' to do these changes, they said they need to do these changes, which are two different things, the most obvious part is, they are not seeking our approval or suggestions, they are informing us that they will do these changes no matter what. CCP knows these are drastic changes and will affect a lot of people and there would be consequences, pros and cons, they realized that, but want to go through with it anyway, that means that this is important not just from the players perspective, but from their side as well.
Is the current system broken? from the players perspective, probably not, it works fine the way it is and it has been that way for quite some time. But is it not broken? from the developer perspective? i don't know and i'm also pretty sure most of the players doesn't either. To me, the changes are logical, it streamlines and group the skills in somewhat 'cleaner' than it is now, if that means that it helps ccp to fix and/or improve the ship line later on, i'm all for it.
|
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
85
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 22:42:00 -
[1908] - Quote
non judgement wrote:Allen Ramses wrote:Yawn .... Not many BC have tanks like BS. Maybe only the drake? When you say Sentinel you are talking about the Amarr electronic attack frigate? Why should the opinion of someone who hasn't played much in the last few months matter? The adding in the racial Destroyer is a bit odd only cause there is one destroyer for each race. Adding in racial BC wouldn't be that bad. Not everyone uses all the different races of BC. It might even shorten the training, depending on what you're training for. I think you need to relax a bit.
add to that, in size and slots (and mineral cost, maneuverability) BCs and destroyers are in between ships of the current system.
It isn't necessary to include them as part of the main progression, but won't kill the game if they are. |
Veonara
Darwins disciples
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 09:34:00 -
[1909] - Quote
I like that they're doing big changes and trying to make more ships viable but I can't say I see the necessity to mess around with the skills like this. Atleast give us a definitive answer on how skill reimbursement will be handled, it represents a huge time investment.
Oh man, this messes with my skilltraining plans so much, should I waste a remap and train up some ship skills before it's too late or not :/ |
Jehan Markow
Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
22
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 15:57:00 -
[1910] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan.
Considering the past changes to skills, it is difficult to believe that the players won't lose something. There is a lot of distrust out here. But considering the way you lay out some options, I do have faith it will be done right this time. But the reality of an extra 8.2M skillpoints doesn't seem realistic, as much as it would be fair. Beyond that, I have two issues.
First and foremost, skills represent the most valuable investment of time within EVE Online. All those people who are pushing for skill changes - the CSMs, the GMs, the dozens of players griping on a daily basis - need to respect our investments and not toy around with it. I just finished training one of my alts for all command ships and did a neural remap for Int/Mem. If I can't fly those command ships anymore, that would not be cool, and others would be affected.
Secondly, one of the greatest features of our current system of one battlecruisers skill for all races is that new players can try out different races' ships with a simple cross-training. It's only one extra racial skill, and a whole new world opens up. It is something I enjoyed as a new player and something that helps us older players when we're helping out the new guys. Get em into a Drake or a Hurricane and learn how much fun this game can be. Now you're talking about dragging out that training process for some fuzzy goal of "overhaul". Is there a clear problem - besides whining - that this solution is intended to fix? Maybe you want to charge another 3 months of subscriptions for players like me to get back to where we were before the change?
If you really want to add more of something, we'd love to see some more destroyer hulls, maybe some more frigate hulls, maybe another cruiser. It would be nice to have some more smaller, cheaper options, or even some variability from race to race, like with the industrial class.
In any event, your player base is wary but willing to see how this one goes. We are hoping for the best.... -JM |
|
Inovy Dacella
Proper Villains
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 19:01:00 -
[1911] - 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.
Please consider the fact that anything you give away extra will only benefit currently trained players. But for new players it only makes it harder to catch up on the skill tree. Unless you decrease training time across the board the skill gap between new and vet players will increase.
|
Preston Vane
Da Regulators Silver Twilight Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 21:25:00 -
[1912] - Quote
Is there an estimate on which date the proposed skilltree changes will be?
From what i read so far i got two different, possible dates: May 22nd and April 24th. The first date is release of Inferno and the second should be a pre-Inferno content patch. Does anyone have information on which one of the two (or even later within the expansion) this changes will happen? Preferably with proof.
If this question is already answered within this thread, i'm sorry that i didn't read all 90+ pages. |
Snatch Pinion
Jita Exiles Strategic Warfare Operations Command
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 22:03:00 -
[1913] - Quote
My first question is the same as above, which update date will it take effect? May 22 or April 24?
If it is April, that means I'll be 1 day short of reaching Battlecruiser 5, which leads me to my next question:
If training for BC5, and these changes occur when it happens, what happens to the partially trained skill/skills? Will the skillpoints for BC5 be reimbursed, or will all 4 racial battlecruiser skills be trained up unto the point in which BC5 was trained to? |
Mari Sinn
Infernal Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 00:14:00 -
[1914] - Quote
Yes, come Inferno I hope I receive 8,192,000 SP to redistribute into the four racial destroyer & four racial battle cruiser skills. |
None ofthe Above
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 00:38:00 -
[1915] - Quote
non judgement wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:non judgement wrote: ... Except I think the main reason for the battlecruiser skill split into racial is to stop people getting 8-12 ships trained all at once by only training the one BC skill. They only need cruiser to be at lvl 3, which isn't much training at all. There isn't another ship class skill that affects so many ships at once. The Recon and Heavy Assault skills are similar to this, but at least they require the racial cruiser skill to be at 5. ...
Realistically, very few people train more than one racial cruiser skill before training up BC 1. I find this argument to have very little weight. it's pointless talking about training BC to level 1. What was I really talking about? hint: it has nothing to do with when someone trains BC level 1. It's a bit like saying no one trains frigate to level 3 for each race before they put destroyer on the queue.
Agreed the Destroyer is similar, but there is only one per race.
So, good question, what were you really talking about when you said "getting 8-12 ships trained all at once"?
I'll grant that you are probably talking about BC1-3, after cross-training. Or maybe talking about getting the 3 BCs at once after cross-training to another race's Cruiser skill to 4 (which is the highest impact scenario).
This 8-12 hulls unlocked at once is pure hyperbole. Even 4 at once would be a very rare occurrence.
So I am still of the opinion that this argument has very little validity.
|
None ofthe Above
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 00:45:00 -
[1916] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:Am i missing some things here? as far as i know it, CCP didn't say they 'want' to do these changes, they said they need to do these changes, which are two different things, the most obvious part is, they are not seeking our approval or suggestions, they are informing us that they will do these changes no matter what. CCP knows these are drastic changes and will affect a lot of people and there would be consequences, pros and cons, they realized that, but want to go through with it anyway, that means that this is important not just from the players perspective, but from their side as well.
Is the current system broken? from the players perspective, probably not, it works fine the way it is and it has been that way for quite some time. But is it not broken? from the developer perspective? i don't know and i'm also pretty sure most of the players doesn't either. To me, the changes are logical, it streamlines and group the skills in somewhat 'cleaner' than it is now, if that means that it helps ccp to fix and/or improve the ship line later on, i'm all for it.
They've gone back and forth on the "need to" "will" and "would like to" on these changes.
Frankly the arguments for the Racial Destroyers and Cruisers aren't logically consistent to me. I've hear the racial cruisers will allow them to rebalance the ships and provide these ship roles, but there is no reasons that I can see that it will actually give them that ability. I think it's someone trying to fix something that has bugged them since its not an instantly intuitive part of EVE and they are trying hard to justify it. It doesn't make sense to me. It harms newer players (by increasing the skill gap), harms veteran players (by increasing the clone cost while giving them no added benefits aside from the aforementioned skillgap) and is going to take a fairly major effort by devs that could be applied elsewhere.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 01:57:00 -
[1917] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:non judgement wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:non judgement wrote: ... Except I think the main reason for the battlecruiser skill split into racial is to stop people getting 8-12 ships trained all at once by only training the one BC skill. They only need cruiser to be at lvl 3, which isn't much training at all. There isn't another ship class skill that affects so many ships at once. The Recon and Heavy Assault skills are similar to this, but at least they require the racial cruiser skill to be at 5. ...
Realistically, very few people train more than one racial cruiser skill before training up BC 1. I find this argument to have very little weight. it's pointless talking about training BC to level 1. What was I really talking about? hint: it has nothing to do with when someone trains BC level 1. It's a bit like saying no one trains frigate to level 3 for each race before they put destroyer on the queue. Agreed the Destroyer is similar, but there is only one per race. So, good question, what were you really talking about when you said "getting 8-12 ships trained all at once"? I'll grant that you are probably talking about BC1-3, after cross-training. Or maybe talking about getting the 3 BCs at once after cross-training to another race's Cruiser skill to 4 (which is the highest impact scenario). This 8-12 hulls unlocked at once is pure hyperbole. Even 4 at once would be a very rare occurrence. So I am still of the opinion that this argument has very little validity. Regardless of the order they are unlocked all 12 of the tech 1 BC's still derive their bonuses from the same skill. As it is now training BC V and cruiser III for one race only yield max bonuses to 3 ships, but training another race to cruiser III on the same character then gives 3 more ships with max skills. |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 03:49:00 -
[1918] - Quote
I'll probably get flamed to death for this, but would it not be better for dessies/BCs to require racial frig/cruiser IV, and make the dessie/BC ships give 3% bonus per lvl instead of 5% per lvl? At the same time, 3 non-high slots can be removed from battlecruisers, making them much more like cruisers. Dessies have the slot layout similar to a frigate, why doesn't a BC have a slot layout similar to a cruiser?
I just pulled this concept out of my ass, but I know it's still better than what CCP have in mind. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 04:46:00 -
[1919] - Quote
Jehan Markow wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan. Considering the past changes to skills, it is difficult to believe that the players won't lose something. There is a lot of distrust out here. But considering the way you lay out some options, I do have faith it will be done right this time. But the reality of an extra 8.2M skillpoints doesn't seem realistic, as much as it would be fair. Beyond that, I have two issues. First and foremost, skills represent the most valuable investment of time within EVE Online. All those people who are pushing for skill changes - the CSMs, the GMs, the dozens of players griping on a daily basis - need to respect our investments and not toy around with it. I just finished training one of my alts for all command ships and did a neural remap for Int/Mem. If I can't fly those command ships anymore, that would not be cool, and others would be affected. Secondly, one of the greatest features of our current system of one battlecruisers skill for all races is that new players can try out different races' ships with a simple cross-training. It's only one extra racial skill, and a whole new world opens up. It is something I enjoyed as a new player and something that helps us older players when we're helping out the new guys. Get em into a Drake or a Hurricane and learn how much fun this game can be. Now you're talking about dragging out that training process for some fuzzy goal of "overhaul". Is there a clear problem - besides whining - that this solution is intended to fix? Maybe you want to charge another 3 months of subscriptions for players like me to get back to where we were before the change? If you really want to add more of something, we'd love to see some more destroyer hulls, maybe some more frigate hulls, maybe another cruiser. It would be nice to have some more smaller, cheaper options, or even some variability from race to race, like with the industrial class. In any event, your player base is wary but willing to see how this one goes. We are hoping for the best.... -JM
I agree with you 100%, you have pretty well hit it on the head. Stuffing around for the sake of giving themselves a reason to get paid frankly. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
49
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 05:28:00 -
[1920] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:They've gone back and forth on the "need to" "will" and "would like to" on these changes. Hmm, interesting, mind pointing me out on where these switches of stance occurred?
None ofthe Above wrote:Frankly the arguments for the Racial Destroyers and Cruisers aren't logically consistent to me. I've hear the racial cruisers will allow them to rebalance the ships and provide these ship roles, but there is no reasons that I can see that it will actually give them that ability.. What i see, what you see, what other people sees, what new player sees and what veteran players see can be 20 different things. The point is, if i'm not really sure what's the real reason behind something or what kind of justification a change has to be done, the most likely case is that i probably don't have enough information related to the issue, same as you, i also see this only from my point of view and i'm pretty sure a lot of people also agree that this might be a good change. The idea and reasoning behind the changes are valid imo, whether ccp will mess this up or not when the time comes is a whole different thing.
None ofthe Above wrote:I think it's someone trying to fix something that has bugged them since its not an instantly intuitive part of EVE and they are trying hard to justify it. It doesn't make sense to me. It harms newer players (by increasing the skill gap), harms veteran players (by increasing the clone cost while giving them no added benefits aside from the aforementioned skillgap) and is going to take a fairly major effort by devs that could be applied elsewhere. Harming new players by increasing the skill gap and giving veteran players no added benefits are contradictive in my opinion, if say, i'm trained in BC5 and got 4 free racial BC skills but i don't need the other 3 aside from minmatar, wouldn't it be the same for newer players to train for the same BC class as i'm flying? as they only need to train minmatar battlecruiser to 5 and with the new skill tree, it's even easier for new players later on to spec to a certain role. I do agree with the increased clone cost, although it probably won't matter much (cost-wise) for older players, it's still would be an unnecessary addition to maintenance cost. |
|
Blaze D'fire
Black-Label GREATER ITAMO MAFIA
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 06:23:00 -
[1921] - Quote
Alright well i spent about 4 hours reading the thread and i am thuroughly confused at this point. I have a couple concerns that everyone has already voiced 11,634 times so i'll say it once more.
I trained all factions ship skills, but i didnt have to for BCS's i can fly any T1 frigate, destroyer, cruiser, BCS will i still be able to?
BCS are not mainstream they are throw away ships for the most part, the T2 cruisers are usually significantly better then a BCS The BCS's are a great way to introduce new players into other factions ships and weapon platforms, which in turn may cause a player to cross train into other faction ships and weapons to use them on frigs, cruisers, BS's, that what happened to me. I was all caldari till i flew an Amarr BCS and decided i was gonna train Amarr ships and lasers.
This seems more like a fix for individuals who have been complaining about other issues that are indirectly related to this.
More specific to me i have 5 accounts, guess how many i'll have if i am faced with 3-6 months of training added to my current plans. If we get to the root of the issue let the whining players buy a month's worth of SP's for 1 plex
Seriously its the only reason 4 of my accounts exist, i train them till they are functional which typically is nearly a year worth of training to get offense/defense/core fitting/ewar to 4's accross the board then i actually play them
People can flame war me all they want i dont surf the forums except when someone tells me theres a huge change coming, but the game is a PAY to WIN, if you want the best equipement you have to buy tons of plexes, so why not just buy SP's?
That way the Whiners can create an account drop $500 down and fly a capital
Without the sarcasm i would say buying SP's is the ony way you will ever have balance, because a player with 10mil SP will loose 99% of the time to the guy with 120mil SPs unless he's AFK in lowsec/nulsec.
I remember when i started playing 2 years ago and it took me forever to kill a tutorial rat Then i went back to get some standing and i was alpha'ing every tutorial rat without even grouping my weapons It takes time to be effective in this game, thats how CCP makes their money, apparently the economic tumoils are affecting CCP to the point they need to extend all of our training times by a few extra months so they can make an extra $50-$100 per account
Pirate faction Ships are the best example of insentivizing Cross faction training. I think CCP did a great job with them
Put more Pirate faction ship in then people will want to cross train instead of them having to train just to fly what they already can fly
Please dont turn this game into WOW its why i started playing EVE because WOW was so babyfied that i stoped playing after 6 years. |
None ofthe Above
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 06:57:00 -
[1922] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:They've gone back and forth on the "need to" "will" and "would like to" on these changes. Hmm, interesting, mind pointing me out on where these switches of stance occurred?
I seem to recall it most strikingly in the beginning of the fanfest session on the subject with CCP Ytterbium. In the DevBlog the OP links to it starts out with "glimpse of things to come" and then changes to "we want to". I get the impression of the reality being "this is what we are going to do.... oh right I am supposed to be giving you guys the impression you have a say in the matter." Maybe that's just my premature bitter vet showing.
Sarah Schneider wrote:The idea and reasoning behind the changes are valid imo, whether ccp will mess this up or not when the time comes is a whole different thing.
While true, I would feel a whole lot more comfortable with this all if I understood and agreed with the basic philosophy they are using to drive the process.
Its true that it doesn't extend training time for new players until they start cross-training. Not really seeing how this contradicts my position though.
You don't understand how anything could harm both new and old players? I didn't go in to the converses, such as the older players not having to worry about the youngins getting those nice pirate hulls for quite so long. But still you should be aware that some changes harm all players, but not necessarily in the same ways.
(Note: I had to cut this down since the forums don't allow enough quotes for me to address the points directly. Grrrr)
|
Noztra Ernaga
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:36:00 -
[1923] - Quote
Ok, I am new to this game but not to the MMO genre.
So basically, if I train all racial Frigate skills to IV, all racial Cruiser skills to III, Battlecruisers and Destroyers to V it should pay off in the near future. I hope so because this is going to postone the start of Raven L4 missioning by many weeks in my case. To be ready for May 22th (if this change goes live that day) I need to start now
|
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:51:00 -
[1924] - Quote
(SUGGESTION)
One slight change: 'Bombardment' to 'Bombard' (2 syllables).
'Why?' Don't know. Obsessive-compulsive, maybe, or pedantic. Com-bat (2) At-tack (2) Sup-port (2) Bom-bard (2)
'Ok?' Well, I dunno...
'Anything else, noob?' Well... Yes.
DESTRUCTION PARADE: Combat, Attack, Bombard, Support, newCovert. HARVEST PARADE: Industrial, newCovert. CRAFT PARADE: Industrial.
What's going on here? Destruction still taking the lead? Nothing new yet? |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:19:00 -
[1925] - Quote
Question @ Fanfest Keynote Players who like deviate setups on Specialised ships. Won't happen imo . |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:18:00 -
[1926] - Quote
So, one thing to keep in mind ...
With all the ship lines ... what's going to happen when you introduce them?
e.g. consider a maxed out (in other words "perfect")hulk pilot ... (not taking leadership bonus into account) What's going to happen when you introduce ship lines?
Will that pilot be still be "perfect" or will there be new skills to train to be "perfect" again?
At the moment I would say that the idea behind ship lines is good BUT you'll have to keep in mind that people will be very sad/angry when they are not "perfect" in their way anymore.
Hence, * you'll be able to fly the same ships after the "change" as you are before the change and * you'll be able to fly those ships after the "change" as before the change
I.e. a perfect hulk pilot will remain a perfect hulk pilot, and accordingly for "combat" ships and so on
And a 2nd input ... T3 and generalization ... once you let us change sub-systems at a POS or a ship main bay of a orca/rorqual/carrier that may be true, until then it does only hold for systems with stations/outposts |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 19:24:00 -
[1927] - Quote
I think the people who are talking about skills in and of themselves are missing the point.
The way it is now, destroyers are not superior to frigates, they are just different. Their lack of speed and tanking ability make them prime targets for cruisers and roaming frigate gangs. They lack the maneuverability to bug out of a fight, and their hulls would not survive a head on attack. Treating them as an evolutionary superior class would not make very much sense. Their role is to pick off frigates from a distance, not front line combat.
The way skills are being proposed to change is like putting a piece of tape on a leaky pipe. The drip may be gone, but another problem will arrive elsewhere. This is a delicate issue which needs to be carefully dealt with. And due to the present state of BCs, the situation needs to be handled with extreme care. Declaring destroyers and BCs evolutionary racial skills and then saying "voila!" is not the way to go
CCP, please tell us if you are still watching this thread! The way you handle this mess is of utmost priority. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
89
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 05:30:00 -
[1928] - Quote
Teircide is a good thing, I don't see changing skill progression as bad but huge amounts of raging about skill changing is creating a ruckus about any amount of change, the one I want.
So... maybe keep it separate, one improvement/change not dependent on the other. Roll out teircide asap, but hold back on any major changes to skill tree until a solution is found that is agree able without so much rage.
|
Kayla Khan
Maverick Fleet Systems AAA Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 05:54:00 -
[1929] - Quote
Soooooooo if i have a toon that i had to train for amarr and caldari freighters can I have the sp i needed for industrial 5 back please? also do i now need freighter 5 for jump freighter?
additionally i have a capital toon that cross trained from amarr caps to gallente caps can i have the battleship 5 sps reimbursed aswell?
and just to clarify if i have battlecruiser 5 and all racial cruisers to 3? is that sufficent to recive these racial battleship 5's ?
you had better make a second blog confiming and denying people fears cause this thread is difficult to navigate and your communication with the public is vital to this very difficult change working properly while causing the least bit of unrest
please layout the skill requirements to recive this all race level 5
battlecruiser 5 cruiser 3 (or 4?)
Destroyer 5, Frigate 5 (shouldn't this be 4? following your statements regarding command ship skill trees)
Also IMO make this simple if you have BC 3 you get all race BC3 reguardless of whether you can fly the ship or not. same thing for destroyers destroyers 4 gets you all race destroyer 4 reguardless of any other skills
PLEASE READ THIS |
Noztra Ernaga
Motion Czechoslovakia
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 06:28:00 -
[1930] - Quote
My assumption is that you need Frigate III to fly a Destroyer. You also need Frigate IV and Cruiser III to fly a Battlecruiser.
They have said you maintain the ability to fly everything you are able to after the change goes live.
I have decided to skill for racial Frigates IV, racial Cruiser III, BCs and Destroyers V postponing my current skill plan.
Hope this is a good decission that is going to pay off in the future and I get my Battlecruiser and Destroyer V for all races :)
This should work if they choose the second approach. Should they select the first one, you will be fine with BCs and Destroyers V without your racial Frigate and Cruiser skills taken into account. |
|
Pietr Serras
Point of No Return Waterboard
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 07:37:00 -
[1931] - Quote
Wow, it just feels like everything ccp announces as of late makes me want to leave. I haven't heard one good idea besides the titan nerf. Quit dumbing down eve. If I want a simple super easy pve game, then I'd just go play SWTOR not this. Inferno may be the end of eve for the hardcore player. |
Korbin Dallaz
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 18:29:00 -
[1932] - Quote
Andski wrote:
Stick to missions, thanks!
I do, I have and I am. Thanks.
|
Justice Comes
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 18:33:00 -
[1933] - Quote
Blaze D'fire wrote:Alright well i spent about 4 hours reading the thread and i am thuroughly confused at this point. I have a couple concerns that everyone has already voiced 11,634 times so i'll say it once more.
It's the release of some but not all information that has everyone so confused. I imagine thousands of people have adjusted their entire queue plan for this, but we have really no idea whether we actually should. Holy lemming-rush.
This webpage is not available
Google Chrome could not load the webpage because forums.eveonline.com took too long to respond. The website may be down, or you may be experiencing issues with your Internet connection. |
Publius Valerius
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
47
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 02:58:00 -
[1934] - Quote
First I havent read all the pages... it is just to much.... is their any new infos what the status quo is?
P.S. My thoughts on rebalancing |
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.05 12:48:00 -
[1935] - Quote
Easy way, how to implement this:
1. Seed the 4 new battlecruiser books. Write in the description of old book, new books, skills and battlecruiser ships, that there will be switch in 2 months. Also state the change will be comming in the launcher. This way everyone will know whats comming and can easily prepare.
2. 2 months later: Remove all the old battlecruiser books and skill from the game, reimbust the isk and skill points. Switch all the battlecruiser to use the new skills.
Same with destroyers but maybe not in the same time. I think this would be easy to implement and fair to everyone.
P.S. If you (CCP) will use this idea, give me credit, isk and a lot of PLEX . Just kidding :-) CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Zyress
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 16:57:00 -
[1936] - Quote
Geez this is a long thread, and there's no way I'll read 97 pages of it so I'll just ask. Does anyone know if they plan to extend this to the generic T2 ship command skills? All the T2 ship skills are generic like the Destroyer and Battlecruiser. I have them all at a minimum of 4. To take them to 5 will I have to train a race specific version for 1 more level each race? While we are on the subject of reimbursement, is My skill point total going to bloom dramatically when this goes into effect or are you downsizing the skills to be equivalent to the generic skillpoints for the skill covering all races? If the skillpoint total blooms will you be upgrading our clones for us when this takes place? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
347
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 17:27:00 -
[1937] - Quote
If it opens up a new hull, it'll be factional. If it's just modified hulls, it'll be generic.
The T2 skills don't open up new hulls, therefore, generic. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 19:07:00 -
[1938] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:If it opens up a new hull size, it'll be factional. FYP, EA.
Destroyers are frigate sized vessels. BCs are horrendously overpowered cruiser sized vessels. Fix the BCs to be what they are supposed to be, and the need for racial skill modifications is gone. |
Hena Muri
Rubicon Extraction Services
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 20:56:00 -
[1939] - Quote
Zyress wrote:Geez this is a long thread, and there's no way I'll read 97 pages of it so I'll just ask. Does anyone know if they plan to extend this to the generic T2 ship command skills? All the T2 ship skills are generic like the Destroyer and Battlecruiser. I have them all at a minimum of 4. To take them to 5 will I have to train a race specific version for 1 more level each race? While we are on the subject of reimbursement, is My skill point total going to bloom dramatically when this goes into effect or are you downsizing the skills to be equivalent to the generic skillpoints for the skill covering all races? If the skillpoint total blooms will you be upgrading our clones for us when this takes place?
This is to fix the confusion in having to train something like Minmatar Cruiser 3 to fly a Hurricane which is a battle cruiser.
There should be less confusion that flying a Cruiser Tech 2 Hull is going to require that factions Cruiser Skill to 5 as all Tech 2 ships work that way. Though, It does mean that you'll only need Minmatar BC skill to 5 to fly a command ship, instead of BC 5 and Minmatar Cruiser 5 which is potentially confusing and makes it take significantly longer to get into these vessels than a Tech 3 hull.
This also makes it possible to add Pirate Faction Destroyers, and Pirate Faction BC's to the game, and I'm looking forward to that as it means more Gurista's stuff (Missile/Drone boats) A destroyer that could field 10 light drones would be epic (just saying)!
Hopefully it means more Destroyer hulls as well as training to level 5 destroyers and only getting one hull the entire time is very "meh"
_WAter_
|
Qvar Dar'Zanar
EVE University Ivy League
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 01:26:00 -
[1940] - Quote
Pietr Serras wrote:Wow, it just feels like everything ccp announces as of late makes me want to leave. I haven't heard one good idea besides the titan nerf. Quit dumbing down eve. If I want a simple super easy pve game, then I'd just go play SWTOR not this. Inferno may be the end of eve for the hardcore player.
Oh please. Go. Quit. I bet you can't even tell why is this going to make eve a super easy game. What a drama queen. |
|
Dr Prometheus
Gears of Construction Gears Confederation
57
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 23:18:00 -
[1941] - Quote
Can i suggest a new tree (just the ship skills dont have the secondary or anything added.) for the ORE ships?
This tree shows also an idea for getting slowly into the mining profession by adding a ORE Frigate, ORE Cuiser, a Battlecruiser sized one. (Noctis/Primea hull with another role?). And then an (in my eyes.) better way to skill for certain sides.
So here is the link to my little schematic;
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1204/oreindustrialchart.png Dude, where is my Charon? |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
50
|
Posted - 2012.04.08 22:16:00 -
[1942] - Quote
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:Pietr Serras wrote:Wow, it just feels like everything ccp announces as of late makes me want to leave. I haven't heard one good idea besides the titan nerf. Quit dumbing down eve. If I want a simple super easy pve game, then I'd just go play SWTOR not this. Inferno may be the end of eve for the hardcore player. Oh please. Go. Quit. I bet you can't even tell why is this going to make eve a super easy game. What a drama queen. +1
Some people just don't get that making things easier to learn <> dumbing down things. |
Dreker71
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.08 23:41:00 -
[1943] - Quote
I'd like to start by saying well done with most of the changes and improvements over the last year, but this is an absolute joke!!!!
I have dedicated my character to flying the different races.........so dedicated it has taken me 4 years to get there, including paying for the account to remain active when I have not been able to play to rack up the skills I needed and now you want to introduce this, how many more years of training is it going to take me to get back to where I am now?
it's going to make most of my skill points useless and I'm not willing to start again from the bottom.
|
None ofthe Above
164
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 02:12:00 -
[1944] - Quote
Dreker71 wrote:I'd like to start by saying well done with most of the changes and improvements over the last year, but this is an absolute joke!!!!
I have dedicated my character to flying the different races.........so dedicated it has taken me 4 years to get there, including paying for the account to remain active when I have not been able to play to rack up the skills I needed and now you want to introduce this, how many more years of training is it going to take me to get back to where I am now?
it's going to make most of my skill points useless and I'm not willing to start again from the bottom.
I'm all up for changes that make EVE more accessible to newer players, after all more players is a good thing imo. Don't overlook the old/loyal players tho, if I log in one day and can't use half my ships it'll be the last time I log in and I'm sure a lot of others share my opinion, of course there's always going to be the odd forum troll who can only fly one race who thinks this is great and it's to these people I extend my favourite finger.
Bring on the hate mail.............
Oi... there are reasons to be upset about these proposals, but they have committed to making sure you won't be locked out of any ships you can already fly.
As they've said ad infinitum now.
|
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
52
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 05:24:00 -
[1945] - Quote
Dreker71 wrote:I'd like to start by saying well done with most of the changes and improvements over the last year, but this is an absolute joke!!!!
I have dedicated my character to flying the different races.........so dedicated it has taken me 4 years to get there, including paying for the account to remain active when I have not been able to play to rack up the skills I needed and now you want to introduce this, how many more years of training is it going to take me to get back to where I am now?
it's going to make most of my skill points useless and I'm not willing to start again from the bottom.
I'm all up for changes that make EVE more accessible to newer players, after all more players is a good thing imo. Don't overlook the old/loyal players tho, if I log in one day and can't use half my ships it'll be the last time I log in and I'm sure a lot of others share my opinion, of course there's always going to be the odd forum troll who can only fly one race who thinks this is great and it's to these people I extend my favourite finger.
Bring on the hate mail............. have you even read what the changes will be? what is wrong with people |
Dreker71
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 07:04:00 -
[1946] - Quote
Bring on the hate mail.............[/quote] have you even read what the changes will be? what is wrong with people [/quote]
Yes but not all 90 something pages |
Dreker71
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 07:11:00 -
[1947] - Quote
Oi... there are reasons to be upset about these proposals, but they have committed to making sure you won't be locked out of any ships you can already fly.
As they've said ad infinitum now.[/quote]
and what about the ones I was due to fly soon....?
|
Justin Ackaris
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 09:43:00 -
[1948] - Quote
I've tried to find the dates the destroyer and battlecruiser skills will change to racial skills but can't find anything. Does anyone know? |
AstarothPrime
Eternal Profiteers Persona Non Gratis
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 12:28:00 -
[1949] - Quote
mhm
Make racial BC skill 1x then and reimburse the original... problem solved...
I. |
bornaa
GRiD.
203
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 12:51:00 -
[1950] - Quote
Please CCP, Look at your, like one guy says, aluminium foil ORE ship design. Why the hell are that expensive ships that weak??? You throw a rock on them and they shatter. 3 mill worth isk fitted destroyer can kill allmost 400mill worth, fitted, hulk??? 90 mill worth isk fitted tornado can kill few exumers that worth close to 1 Billion??? And all that before Concord comes???
So you basically want that one ganker can kill 100 times more expensive mining gear then their whip is worth and that all before Concord comes? That's really ****** design.
Severian Carnifex wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Shouldn't you all like new miner ships so you can just suicide gank them with 1 light drone? If they continue the paper thin hulls on mining barges scaling downward, they should have about 38 EHP. You'll have to fight off the other gangs of real pvpers extracting 'tears' of the 3 hour old players though, so maybe that's why you're upset?
I hope CCP is not that blind. If they were before, i hope they gave a visit to a good opthamologist in the mean time. @ CCP: Your design of ORE ships is garbage. Aluminum foil can can not fly in space. That Ain't Right |
|
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 15:33:00 -
[1951] - Quote
bornaa wrote:Please CCP, Look at your, like one guy says, aluminium foil ORE ship design. Why the hell are that expensive ships that weak??? You throw a rock on them and they shatter. 3 mill worth isk fitted destroyer can kill allmost 400mill worth, fitted, hulk??? 90 mill worth isk fitted tornado can kill few exumers that worth close to 1 Billion??? And all that before Concord comes??? So you basically want that one ganker can kill 100 times more expensive mining gear then their whip is worth and that all before Concord comes? That's really ****** design. Severian Carnifex wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Shouldn't you all like new miner ships so you can just suicide gank them with 1 light drone? If they continue the paper thin hulls on mining barges scaling downward, they should have about 38 EHP. You'll have to fight off the other gangs of real pvpers extracting 'tears' of the 3 hour old players though, so maybe that's why you're upset?
I hope CCP is not that blind. If they were before, i hope they gave a visit to a good opthamologist in the mean time. @ CCP: Your design of ORE ships is garbage. Aluminum foil can can not fly in space. So you basically want the game to be, bigger = better? What about the frig pilots? destroyers? they can't hit anything else besides another frig? what about titans? should they be made so that nothing can touch them, at all? yeah, right.
Eve were designed around the concept that every ship would perform as they supposed to if you fit them right and suited to it's role, you don't fight a nado with exhumers, heck that's a pvp vs pve ship, it's just how it should work. You dont fight a guy holding a $50 sword with a $1200 tennis racket do you? |
None ofthe Above
164
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 17:51:00 -
[1952] - Quote
Dreker71 wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:Oi... there are reasons to be upset about these proposals, but they have committed to making sure you won't be locked out of any ships you can already fly.
As they've said ad infinitum now. and what about the ones I was due to fly soon....?
Well that is where you may be screwed. Best finish up that cross-training now.
|
None ofthe Above
164
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 17:55:00 -
[1953] - Quote
Dreker71 wrote: Bring on the hate mail.............
have you even read what the changes will be? what is wrong with people [/quote]
Yes but not all 90 something pages[/quote]
Try getting through the original post at least. Or for further clarification, the posts linked from the first post that answer this most asked question.
|
bornaa
GRiD.
206
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 18:25:00 -
[1954] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:bornaa wrote:Please CCP, Look at your, like one guy says, aluminium foil ORE ship design. Why the hell are that expensive ships that weak??? You throw a rock on them and they shatter. 3 mill worth isk fitted destroyer can kill allmost 400mill worth, fitted, hulk??? 90 mill worth isk fitted tornado can kill few exumers that worth close to 1 Billion??? And all that before Concord comes??? So you basically want that one ganker can kill 100 times more expensive mining gear then their whip is worth and that all before Concord comes? That's really ****** design. Severian Carnifex wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Shouldn't you all like new miner ships so you can just suicide gank them with 1 light drone? If they continue the paper thin hulls on mining barges scaling downward, they should have about 38 EHP. You'll have to fight off the other gangs of real pvpers extracting 'tears' of the 3 hour old players though, so maybe that's why you're upset?
I hope CCP is not that blind. If they were before, i hope they gave a visit to a good opthamologist in the mean time. @ CCP: Your design of ORE ships is garbage. Aluminum foil can can not fly in space. So you basically want the game to be, bigger = better? What about the frig pilots? destroyers? they can't hit anything else besides another frig? what about titans? should they be made so that nothing can touch them, at all? yeah, right. Eve were designed around the concept that every ship would perform as they supposed to if you fit them right and suited to it's role, you don't fight a nado with exhumers, heck that's a pvp vs pve ship, it's just how it should work. You dont fight a guy holding a $50 sword with a $1200 tennis racket do you?
No, i want what is said in description of exumers: "They are also far more resilient, better able to handle the dangers of deep space." I want that 2 year old kid can not beat up 25 year old man. (look at training time) I want that any ship that pass cant kill ship thats OVER THEN 100 TIMES more expensive I want that its like its in the rest of the game, you want kill more expensive ship, bring more ships - that way stakes are evening to a logical isk value difference between both sides. (where you else find that over 100 times cheaper ship wins the fight and on top of that, wins a fight every time???) I want that EVEs mood is preserved - There is no PVP without risk I want that EVEs mood is preserved - There is no free murders where you even earn ISK.
So its logical to you to earn nice money when you are doing illegal acts in front of police??? You want that one frigate can kill faction BS??? or dessy faction BS??? - that's around isk ratio we are talking about
And if i use $1200 tennis racket I can run - mining ship cant. That Ain't Right |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 20:40:00 -
[1955] - Quote
No, i want what is said in description of exumers: "They are also far more resilient, better able to handle the dangers of deep space." Cerberus Description : No cruiser currently in existence can match the superiority of the Cerberus's onboard missile system. With a well-trained pilot jacked in, this fanged horror is capable of unleashing a hail of missiles to send even the most seasoned armor tankers running for cover. Yes, i want cerberus to be able to own every armor ship with similar hullsize, say, just make the bonus for missile damage to ignore sig radius, that would work :) imbalanced? why? it says so in the description.
I want that 2 year old kid can not beat up 25 year old man. (look at training time) Say, i'm trained in a damnation which took me several long months to train, so, by that logic nothing, below that training time, T3s, faction battleships, HACs, AFs, inties would be able to touch me? tyvm. :)
I want that any ship that pass cant kill ship thats OVER THEN 100 TIMES more expensive Sweet, the vindicator, bhaal and most other billion isk ships are now invulnerable. Oh wait, they have guns too! awesome!
I want that its like its in the rest of the game, you want kill more expensive ship, bring more ships - that way stakes are evening to a logical isk value difference between both sides. (where you else find that over 100 times cheaper ship wins the fight and on top of that, wins a fight every time???) So, to kill my machariel, you need to bring, hmm, 20 drakes? Sweet, with a fleet of machs i can take over new eden!
So its logical to you to earn nice money when you are doing illegal acts in front of police??? If you're talking about CONCORD, they're not there to protect you, they're there to punish people. If protection is what they have in mind, CONCORD would have invaded lowsec and nullsec to kill negstat people by now.
You want that one frigate can kill faction BS??? or dessy faction BS??? - that's around isk ratio we are talking about There are also player skills, the elements of paper, rock, scissors. ship roles, etc. and hey, whaddaya know, the element of Eve Online.
And if i use $1200 tennis racket I can run - mining ship cant You can if the agressor doesn't have a point fitted, in which case it's not a weapon and in which case not analogous to sword vs tennis racket. |
Avila Cracko
306
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 21:15:00 -
[1956] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:No, i want what is said in description of exumers: "They are also far more resilient, better able to handle the dangers of deep space."Cerberus Description : No cruiser currently in existence can match the superiority of the Cerberus's onboard missile system. With a well-trained pilot jacked in, this fanged horror is capable of unleashing a hail of missiles to send even the most seasoned armor tankers running for cover.Yes, i want cerberus to be able to own every armor ship with similar hullsize, say, just make the bonus for missile damage to ignore sig radius, that would work :) imbalanced? why? it says so in the description. I want that 2 year old kid can not beat up 25 year old man. (look at training time)Say, i'm trained in a damnation which took me several long months to train, so, by that logic nothing, below that training time, T3s, faction battleships, HACs, AFs, inties would be able to touch me? tyvm. :) I want that any ship that pass cant kill ship thats OVER THEN 100 TIMES more expensiveSweet, the vindicator, bhaal and most other billion isk ships are now invulnerable. Oh wait, they have guns too! awesome! I want that its like its in the rest of the game, you want kill more expensive ship, bring more ships - that way stakes are evening to a logical isk value difference between both sides. (where you else find that over 100 times cheaper ship wins the fight and on top of that, wins a fight every time???)So, to kill my machariel, you need to bring, hmm, 20 drakes? Sweet, with a fleet of machs i can take over new eden! So its logical to you to earn nice money when you are doing illegal acts in front of police???If you're talking about CONCORD, they're not there to protect you, they're there to punish people. If protection is what they have in mind, CONCORD would have invaded lowsec and nullsec to kill negstat people by now. You want that one frigate can kill faction BS??? or dessy faction BS??? - that's around isk ratio we are talking aboutThere are also player skills, the elements of paper, rock, scissors. ship roles, etc. and hey, whaddaya know, the element of Eve Online. And if i use $1200 tennis racket I can run - mining ship cantYou can if the agressor doesn't have a point fitted, in which case it's not a weapon and in which case not analogous to sword vs tennis racket.
I will not get into this subject now, again... but something caught my eye. If you dont know that all is over in a few seconds then i dont know why do you posting on this subject. Its not fight, its execution, without penalty, and no one can escape it. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 22:26:00 -
[1957] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:Sarah Schneider wrote:And if i use $1200 tennis racket I can run - mining ship cant You can if the agressor doesn't have a point fitted, in which case it's not a weapon and in which case not analogous to sword vs tennis racket. I will not get into this subject now, again... but something caught my eye. If you dont know that all is over in a few seconds then i dont know why do you posting on this subject. Its not fight, its execution, without penalty, and no one can escape it.
I was not talking about whether destruction is inevitable or not, it's about the equation of ship price in relation to whether it should/should not survive and a faulty analogue deduction that i was referring to the ship in whole which in my context of sword vs racket is the ship, which is not. |
Yornic
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 23:21:00 -
[1958] - Quote
So....Alliance Tournament prize ships are completely invincible? I mean by your logic....Wait does this also mean that if you dump expensive officer mods on your expensive faction battleship, you're also completely invincible? OH BOY I AM SO EXCITED I WILL SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON THIS GAME.
By the way, I'd absolutely love to see a tennis racket vs. sword fight. Will pay very small amounts of isk.
Also, you probably should pay attention to A) Hulkageddon B) CFC highsec deployments to go burn everything. If those are happening, you probably don't want to undock. Ever. |
Serenity 159080
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 01:37:00 -
[1959] - Quote
Wow with all the rude players, don't get me wrong, I partly agree with you, but being rude doesn't help persuade CCP to listen to your point of view.
I, like many, have trained BC 5, and would face a couple months of extra training to reach the point that I was already at. A little annoying, but something I would sacrifice so that CCP could fix a mistake that was made when destroyers and battlecruisers were introduced. Frigates, cruisers and battleships are all racial, I see no reason why destroyers and battlecruisers should be any different. If they were originally introduced as racial skills, no one would have complained.
Anyway, thanks Soundwave/all other CCP guys for the free SP, I like your direction. |
Severian Carnifex
163
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 08:11:00 -
[1960] - Quote
Yornic wrote:So....Alliance Tournament prize ships are completely invincible? I mean by your logic....Wait does this also mean that if you dump expensive officer mods on your expensive faction battleship, you're also completely invincible? OH BOY I AM SO EXCITED I WILL SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON THIS GAME.
By the way, I'd absolutely love to see a tennis racket vs. sword fight. Will pay very small amounts of isk.
Also, you probably should pay attention to A) Hulkageddon B) CFC highsec deployments to go burn everything. If those are happening, you probably don't want to undock. Ever.
Oh, so you want that every expensive ship can be killed in one shoot with 100 times cheaper ship? ok, CCP, put this logic on all ships in EVE then, you see that people love it, reduce all tanks on all combat ships by factor of 10 and people will be happy.
p.s. This is good for lag too, less ships on battlefield because they are killed in one shot and battles are shorter. |
|
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
232
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 08:20:00 -
[1961] - Quote
Serenity 159080 wrote: Stuff...
No reason for anybody to be complaining anyhow, unless they missed this..
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
SKILLS:
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.
|
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 14:17:00 -
[1962] - Quote
Since part of the creation of ship lines is to reassess slots as well as armor/shield, can you please reconsider the allocation of hardpoints on the minmatar ships that have an equal number of turrets and missile bays, where the total number of hardpoints equals the number of high slots? These are the Bellicose (and the t2 variants, the huginn and rapier), the scythe fleet issue and the naglfar (the only dread that requires training two XL weapon systems). The non-fleet scythe is in there as well, but it is meant as a mining cruiser, not a combat ship like the fleet issue. The typhoon used to be like that, until it was changed to have 5 turrets and 5 missile bays, so that you could choose to fit 5 of one and either 3 of the other, or more likely, 3 neuts.
Thanks. |
Ackemi
Phenome Tactical
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 17:42:00 -
[1963] - Quote
I only read half a dozen or so pages and especially everything a Dev said. With that in mind let me say my 0.02isk...
The whole mess could be put to rest by resetting everyones SP to 0 and allocating the points previously held (nobody gets free SP) to be re-distributed. Every skill book previously injected into players stays there- everyone who had any destroyer or BC level automatically gets all racial books injected.
Then CCP makes the skill roadmap all the way up the tree look exactly like they want in one fell swoop!
The only real advantage vets over new players get is a few free skillbooks. If a player cannot fly the entire breadth of ships they could before they can just spend the time to finish training that branch just like every other pilot will have to from there-out (I fall in this category btw...).
For the inconvenience of CCP finally fixing (finishing) the skill tree, all the existing players get the advantage of fixing everything they may have wish they done differently.
I'm only recommending this to make it easy on CCP to make a sweeping change, keep existing players happy with the chance to fix poor skill choices, and to be fair to future new players starting. Mainly just to ease all the speculation and 100 page threadnoughts! |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
26
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 18:02:00 -
[1964] - Quote
Hello CCP,
Can we have an update to this devblog please?
It's been over a month since it was first released, so we are very interested to see any progress you have made...
- Sun
|
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 21:31:00 -
[1965] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:Yornic wrote:So....Alliance Tournament prize ships are completely invincible? I mean by your logic....Wait does this also mean that if you dump expensive officer mods on your expensive faction battleship, you're also completely invincible? OH BOY I AM SO EXCITED I WILL SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON THIS GAME.
By the way, I'd absolutely love to see a tennis racket vs. sword fight. Will pay very small amounts of isk.
Also, you probably should pay attention to A) Hulkageddon B) CFC highsec deployments to go burn everything. If those are happening, you probably don't want to undock. Ever. Oh, so you want that every expensive ship can be killed in one shoot with 100 times cheaper ship? ok, CCP, put this logic on all ships in EVE then, you see that people love it, reduce all tanks on all combat ships by factor of 10 and people will be happy. p.s. This is good for lag too, less ships on battlefield because they are killed in one shot and battles are shorter. Which part of the text mentioned a "one shot"? by all means please... point them out. The idea here is that pve, esp. industrial ships should always be susceptible (a correct term should be "doomed" tbh) to pvp ships if they're both fitted specifically for their role, no matter how much their costs are, that's it. A person holding an axe should logically have very remote (if not no) chance to win a fight or run from a guy holding a gun, no matter how cheap the gun is, how expensive the axe is, or how big the guy holding the axe is.
Anyway, hopefully CCP would release another sort-of confirmation on when this supposed to happen, so people could somehow prepare for it and not just waiting in darkness. |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
26
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 09:35:00 -
[1966] - Quote
Dear CCP,
Can you take a look at why some ships have more slots than their counterparts in other races please? i.e. A lot of Minmater ships have more total slots than Caldari ships.
Thank you |
Togrockz
Mythos Corp HELL4S
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 09:41:00 -
[1967] - Quote
Since i havent been able to find some answers and i cant bother to search all those ~100pages for devs posts(CCP should add a button in each post that would warp you to the next official post in the thread) i would like to see if anyone of you guys have heard of something official on the next matter:
supposing i have
rac frigate 4>rac cruiser 3>Battlecruisers 5 no destroyer skill
what will i get after the changes?
I mean ok before every1 starts saying "you will get racial battlecruiser 5" and crap, read on
will i also get rac cruiser 4? since after the changes u will actually NEED the rac cruiser into 4 to be able to fly the racial battlecruiser ship (Every ship in description in the game requires all prereqs).What will happen to my destroyer skills(supposing i have never actually trained them and leave it to 0 till the patch)
Currently to my example i am not able to inject racial battleship.However after the change i would be able to inject it since i will be given the rac bc at 5?
Another (similar) question
Rac battleship 3, 0 bc , 0 destroyer skills. What happens next?What will i be given after patch to be able to still fly the ship i could fly before?Will i be give free battlecruiser 4 and free destroyer skill 4? |
Kronarn
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 10:36:00 -
[1968] - Quote
Re-balance the size of ships too while you re-balance everything else including skills, for example: Machs should not be bigger than carriers considering currently in game the carriers can carry a ship that is larger than the carrier itself. Carriers and super carriers need to get a major size re-scale in game, they are way too small when you look at the size of them in the descriptions, same should apply to stations but that's another thread.
11,925,000.0 m3 (1,000,000.0 m3 Packaged) - Carrier
595,000.0 m3 (50,000.0 m3 Packaged) - Machariel
Yet the Machariel is bigger than the Chimera
Seriously, I have seen these things discussed for years on the forums yet nothing has been done yet... |
Warrior Xena
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 11:09:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Kronarn wrote:Re-balance the size of ships too while you re-balance everything else including skills, for example: Machs should not be bigger than carriers considering currently in game the carriers can carry a ship that is larger than the carrier itself.
lol they are bigger on the inside ( like the 3000m3 containers which can hold 3900m3 )
see T.A.R.D.I.S.
|
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 16:24:00 -
[1970] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:Serenity 159080 wrote: Stuff..
No reason for anybody to be complaining anyhow, unless they missed this. CCP Ytterbium wrote:
SKILLS:
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
Fail
The people complaining about skills are complaining about a Straw Man or Red Herring fallacy. BCs are too versatile in their nature, and CCP's proposed "fix" is to make destroyer and BC skills racial. However, even if BCs were changed to require a racial skill, it does not change their overversatility. It's a remedy that doesn't even begin to affect the real problem
The way I see it, things are panning out like this:
Quote:Lieutenant: "Captain! Our ship's hull has been breached! She is taking on water!"
Captain: "OK, we need to consider our options. Men, what keeps a heavy ship from sinking?"
Helmsman: "Speed? I know a bike becomes more unstable the slower it is, and something glides across the water easier if it is going fast."
Captain: "Terrific! Call up the engineers and tell them 'more power to the engines!"
Crew: "Bawwww, but what about our efficiency?! We'll have less money for food, and the senior staff will get more food than the junior staff!"
Captain: "Don't worry, soldier, we'll give everyone rations to be redeemed. The important thing is that the crisis has been averted!"
Everyone: "Hooray!"
Some of the crew: "Bawww..."
Two hours later, the ship sinks and everyone dies because nobody thought to seal the damaged bulkhead. Game over. |
|
Theia Matova
Frozen Solar Flair Accounting Arctic Light
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 16:28:00 -
[1971] - Quote
Hi everyone
I am very worried about shield tanking superiority compared to armor tanking. I know this is topic many have had before me and there are people that are very much fine how things are and don't wish change. However the truth is that shield tanking vs armor tanking has too many strengths and this superiority is proven in market prices of shield modules, count of shield fleets, values of shield fit shield..
Facts about armor and shield tanking
- Shield modules are highly valued, prices are ridiculous
- Shield modules are more flexible and give more viable ways to tank with: Passive buffer tanking, Passive regen tanking, Active tanking. In comparison armor tanking has only one way to restore armor: Armor repairers (Active tanking), Yes its possible to passive tank but this is not very realistic way to do anything else than rush on to single encounter. This method cannot be considered in solo play in PVP/PVE for more than single encounter.
- Shield modules are more flexible in terms of giving user more low slots for tracking, and DPS mods. Mostly valued in both PVP and PVE
- As an example of shield superiority shield tank BC drake can over tank almost any existing t1 BS when well fit
- When considering industrial ships, industrial ships are more or less forced to build durability through shield. Since low slots are automatically fitted with either warp core stabilizers or cargo space boosters. Leaving industrial ships no space for increase in durability through out armor. Making Amarr and Gallente industrial ship far inferior to Minmatar / Caldari counter parts
- Armor tanked ships especially Amarr are already cap intensive, when armor tanking is included cap stability is very hard or impossible reach. When in passive shield tanked ships this is easily reached, due to cap free weapon systems, missiles & projectile turrets
- Armor tanking shares low slot base with very many mods that you can't miss (cargo, tracking enchancers, DPS mods, damage control), yet there are not significantly more low slots in armor tanked ship. Some Amarr ships actually hold very few med slots combined to this which makes reaching cap stability or wanted PVP flexibility difficult
- Only few ways to scale armor repairing are to either fit second repairer (which btw takes one of the HIGHLY valued low slots), or rig / implant repair amount or armor cycle speed where last is not realistic due to bad cycle bonus including additional capacitor consumption. Including to that if you want to scale armor tanking and fit additional repairer you fight for those few power grid that you have left. In comparison shield can be easily scaled with over fitting extenders that also increase buffer INCLUDING actual regeneration.
- Including to this all armor is the 2nd layer of ship defense, when this layer is penetrated time for destruction is much longer than comparison from lost shield to armor!
Summary, why
- Shield module prices are ridiculous
- Popularity of shield fit fleets
- Armor repairing scales extremely badly due to CAP, POWERGRID, LOW SLOTS
- Armor repairing has one way to restore through repairing which is very cap intensive on ships that are already cap low. In comparison shield tanked ships gain passive shield tanking plus cap free weapon systems Projectiles on Minmatar and Missiles on Caldari
- Armor bonus on ships are either waste or unusable, seriously who fits armor on industrial ships? I ask who? This makes half of the in game industrial ships already in vain and trash material due to unusable bonuses plus smaller cargo space
- Low slots are shared with most valued mods for both PVP and PVE, yes armor tanking gains med slots but most often they are waste into cap rechargers anyway.
If I am wrong or you are seriously happy about how armor tanking works please do reply this post and prove me wrong, but do also note that the forum and the game itself is already full of lot of frustrated people that realize that armor tanking and armor bonus ships are waste of time. People even request removing armor based bonuses in this very thread! Constructive comments are welcome!
So please before fixing any "ship imbalances" please fix the real reason why the ship are imbalances. Armor tanking needs some so much needed love and soon. I have been very frustrated and sad to see that yet such imbalance exists in eve that has already long history.
PLEASE FIX INFERIOR ARMOR TANKING **BOW** |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
105
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:53:00 -
[1972] - Quote
Allen Ramses wrote:JC Anderson wrote:Serenity 159080 wrote: Stuff..
No reason for anybody to be complaining anyhow, unless they missed this. CCP Ytterbium wrote:
SKILLS:
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
Fail The people complaining about skills are complaining about a Straw Man or Red Herring fallacy. BCs are too versatile in their nature, and CCP's proposed "fix" is to make destroyer and BC skills racial. However, even if BCs were changed to require a racial skill, it does not change their overversatility. It's a remedy that doesn't even begin to affect the real problem The way I see it, things are panning out like this: Quote:Lieutenant: "Captain! Our ship's hull has been breached! She is taking on water!"
Captain: "OK, we need to consider our options. Men, what keeps a heavy ship from sinking?"
Helmsman: "Speed? I know a bike becomes more unstable the slower it is, and something glides across the water easier if it is going fast."
Captain: "Terrific! Call up the engineers and tell them 'more power to the engines!"
Crew: "Bawwww, but what about our efficiency?! We'll have less money for food, and the senior staff will get more food than the junior staff!"
Captain: "Don't worry, soldier, we'll give everyone rations to be redeemed. The important thing is that the crisis has been averted!"
Everyone: "Hooray!"
Some of the crew: "Bawww..."
Two hours later, the ship sinks and everyone dies because nobody thought to seal the damaged bulkhead. Game over.
You are right in that racial BC skills won't solve BC balance issues, but that isn't their intent. They are a solution to having 12 hulls derive bonuses from 1 skill and to bring consistency to the skill tree. The actual re-balancing of the ships themselves, once they have their turn to be balanced, will attempt to address the versatility issue. |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:59:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:You are right in that racial BC skills won't solve BC balance issues, but that isn't their intent. They are a solution to having 12 hulls derive bonuses from 1 skill and to bring consistency to the skill tree. The actual re-balancing of the ships themselves, once they have their turn to be balanced, will attempt to address the versatility issue. This is where I think the two would go hand in hand. Granted it's been a while since I last flew a destroyer, but they definitely have their place. They excel at taking frigates out, but they may as well have a bright red sign over them saying, "Shoot me! I'm the biggest threat to your smaller vessels and I can't take a hit!"
Destroyers are field domination vessels. They have role bonuses that greatly affected the ability to do their job; The RoF penalty ensures they are not too powerful, and a large bonus to range provides wider dictation of... well, range. They also have a Destroyers skill bonus dedicated to tracking. It is at this point where things start to become hairy.
Due to the fitting capability of the Thrasher, as well as its damage bonus, it is considered to be the perfect destroyer. Versatile enough to play an anti-frigate role in many different ways, but not versatile enough for front line combat. The Cormorant and Coercer have insufficient fitting and poor slot layout, so they are fair at best. The Catalyst is just an absolute joke (falloff bonus on a sluggish blaster ship? WTF?).
Balancing issues aside, it is plainly obvious that Destroyers are (or are at least meant to be) tactical field deployment ships, not primary engagement vessels. Their role is to go in, cause as much damage as possible, and hopefully take out a frig or two before popping or bugging out. They would fare well against a solo frigate, but in an engagement, they'd be the first to kill, and the first to fall. This is by design.
Either way, CCP's current skill tree modification does not make any sense. It implies that destroyers are the bigger brother to the frigate, and the cruiser is the bigger brother of the destroyer. While destroyers would require a thorough understanding of frigate sized vessels, they would not be a direct evolution. If destroyers required frigate IV instead of frigate III, I'd understand. But for them to be racial, and for cruisers to depend on them? It's absolutely absurd, and which is why I am fully opposed to the combat vessel skill tree change.
If the ships operated in the manner they were intended, we wouldn't need racial destroyer or BC skills. It's a lot easier to fix the problem at hand than to fix a symptom of the problem and have a bigger mess to clean up later. End of story. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
105
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 02:02:00 -
[1974] - Quote
Allen Ramses wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:You are right in that racial BC skills won't solve BC balance issues, but that isn't their intent. They are a solution to having 12 hulls derive bonuses from 1 skill and to bring consistency to the skill tree. The actual re-balancing of the ships themselves, once they have their turn to be balanced, will attempt to address the versatility issue. This is where I think the two would go hand in hand. Granted it's been a while since I last flew a destroyer, but they definitely have their place. They excel at taking frigates out, but they may as well have a bright red sign over them saying, "Shoot me! I'm the biggest threat to your smaller vessels and I can't take a hit!" Destroyers are field domination vessels. They have role bonuses that greatly affected the ability to do their job; The RoF penalty ensures they are not too powerful, and a large bonus to range provides wider dictation of... well, range. They also have a Destroyers skill bonus dedicated to tracking. It is at this point where things start to become hairy. Due to the fitting capability of the Thrasher, as well as its damage bonus, it is considered to be the perfect destroyer. Versatile enough to play an anti-frigate role in many different ways, but not versatile enough for front line combat. The Cormorant and Coercer have insufficient fitting and poor slot layout, so they are fair at best. The Catalyst is just an absolute joke (falloff bonus on a sluggish blaster ship? WTF?). Balancing issues aside, it is plainly obvious that Destroyers are (or are at least meant to be) tactical field deployment ships, not primary engagement vessels. Their role is to go in, cause as much damage as possible, and hopefully take out a frig or two before popping or bugging out. They would fare well against a solo frigate, but in an engagement, they'd be the first to kill, and the first to fall. This is by design. Either way, CCP's current skill tree modification does not make any sense. It implies that destroyers are the bigger brother to the frigate, and the cruiser is the bigger brother of the destroyer. While destroyers would require a thorough understanding of frigate sized vessels, they would not be a direct evolution. If destroyers required frigate IV instead of frigate III, I'd understand. But for them to be racial, and for cruisers to depend on them? It's absolutely absurd, and which is why I am fully opposed to the combat vessel skill tree change. If the ships operated in the manner they were intended, we wouldn't need racial destroyer or BC skills. It's a lot easier to fix the problem at hand than to fix a symptom of the problem and have a bigger mess to clean up later. End of story. Again, the racial destroyer thing has more to do with the number of hulls rather than their performance. BC's, no matter how over/underpowered they may be, are still 12 of them using the same skill. Destroyer is a group they are looking to expand to avoid creating a situation where the skill is to limited in applying only to one hull. right or wrong this makes the analysis of the ships within those classes entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the skill changes. |
Mira Lynne
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 19:43:00 -
[1975] - Quote
Lets Say I have one racial cruiser at 3, and Battlecruisers at 5. I can currently fly that races battlecruiser. According to these changes, i'd need Racial Cruiser 4. Since I can already fly the racial battlecruiser, whould i gain racial cruiser 4? Does "If you could fly it before, you can fly it after" Include the prerequisite skills is what im saying. I'd hate to lose out on racial battlecruiser 5 because i dont have racial cruiser 4 trained... |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 20:25:00 -
[1976] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Again, the racial destroyer thing has more to do with the number of hulls rather than their performance. BC's, no matter how over/underpowered they may be, are still 12 of them using the same skill. Destroyer is a group they are looking to expand to avoid creating a situation where the skill is to limited in applying only to one hull. right or wrong this makes the analysis of the ships within those classes entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the skill changes. Look at it from a different angle. Explicitly, a Rupture requires only the Minmatar Cruiser skill to be trained, nothing else. A Hurricane, on the other hand, requires Minmatar Cruiser AND Battlecruiser skills to be trained, it only gets bonuses from one of them. The battlecruiser skill has zero effect on a Cyclone if Minmatar Cruiser is not trained, as the pilot cannot fly it to begin with.
How many hulls a skill affects is not relevant in its own right. I don't think anyone would argue against the present state of the Destroyers skill being perfectly fine. It is not because it affects only four hulls, but because of the nature of the ships themselves. The destroyer class is not scalar superior to the frigate class, it is an adaptation of the class to fill a different role. The skill determines how well a pilot can exploit this adaptation, but he must have thorough knowledge of how the racial frigates before properly understanding how this adaptation would even operate.
To parallel it to a real life situation, it's akin to automobiles. We have our motorbikes, passenger cars, and coaches. Each of these are their own classification. We'll be looking at cars (which would be a parallel to cruisers) for this example. There are multiple drivetrain configurations for cars; Traditional Rear wheel drive, Front wheel drive, PosiTrac, Four wheel drive, etc (Parallel: Racial cruisers). If I was interested in installing an oversized engine and a performance transmission (Parallel: Battlecruisers {Or what they should be}), I would have to know what the effects of that would be. Once I understand what the added weight, added power, and closer gears do, I can apply that knowledge to any drivetrain I am familiar with, and the coefficients would be similar, if not identical, to all.
Anyway, destroyers are fine skill wise, and can even stand to add a second racial dessie. By introducing tier 3 BCs, CCP screwed the pooch. But there is nothing that can be done about that, the damage is already done. The bigger problem is that CCP is planning to do something that will invalidate several core principles that the entire game was built around. Doing this will make the situation worse, not better.
Once again, CCP is using a blow torch to light a candle. They say they want to do small things incrementally? Then they need to keep the rulebook intact. Change smaller things first. Increase the skill requirement for destroyers/battlecruisers to be frigate/cruiser IV instead of III. Give BCs uniform role bonuses to make them less versatile. Then see how it plays out and go from there. It has a lot less potential for harm than the proposed change.
Frigate -> Cruiser -> Battleship. No exceptions. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
106
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 20:56:00 -
[1977] - Quote
Allen Ramses wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Again, the racial destroyer thing has more to do with the number of hulls rather than their performance. BC's, no matter how over/underpowered they may be, are still 12 of them using the same skill. Destroyer is a group they are looking to expand to avoid creating a situation where the skill is to limited in applying only to one hull. right or wrong this makes the analysis of the ships within those classes entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the skill changes. Look at it from a different angle. Explicitly, a Rupture requires only the Minmatar Cruiser skill to be trained, nothing else. A Hurricane, on the other hand, requires Minmatar Cruiser AND Battlecruiser skills to be trained, it only gets bonuses from one of them. The battlecruiser skill has zero effect on a Cyclone if Minmatar Cruiser is not trained, as the pilot cannot fly it to begin with. How many hulls a skill affects is not relevant in its own right. I don't think anyone would argue against the present state of the Destroyers skill being perfectly fine. It is not because it affects only four hulls, but because of the nature of the ships themselves. The destroyer class is not scalar superior to the frigate class, it is an adaptation of the class to fill a different role. The skill determines how well a pilot can exploit this adaptation, but he must have thorough knowledge of how the racial frigates before properly understanding how this adaptation would even operate. To parallel it to a real life situation, it's akin to automobiles. We have our motorbikes, passenger cars, and coaches. Each of these are their own classification. We'll be looking at cars (which would be a parallel to cruisers) for this example. There are multiple drivetrain configurations for cars; Traditional Rear wheel drive, Front wheel drive, PosiTrac, Four wheel drive, etc (Parallel: Racial cruisers). If I was interested in installing an oversized engine and a performance transmission (Parallel: Battlecruisers {Or what they should be}), I would have to know what the effects of that would be. Once I understand what the added weight, added power, and closer gears do, I can apply that knowledge to any drivetrain I am familiar with, and the coefficients would be similar, if not identical, to all. Anyway, destroyers are fine skill wise, and can even stand to add a second racial dessie. By introducing tier 3 BCs, CCP screwed the pooch. But there is nothing that can be done about that, the damage is already done. The bigger problem is that CCP is planning to do something that will invalidate several core principles that the entire game was built around. Doing this will make the situation worse, not better. Once again, CCP is using a blow torch to light a candle. They say they want to do small things incrementally? Then they need to keep the rulebook intact. Change smaller things first. Increase the skill requirement for destroyers/battlecruisers to be frigate/cruiser IV instead of III. Give BCs uniform role bonuses to make them less versatile. Then see how it plays out and go from there. It has a lot less potential for harm than the proposed change. Frigate -> Cruiser -> Battleship. No exceptions. The only issue with your position is that for max bonuses of the BC's the extra training time from cruiser is trivial. We're talking about cruiser 3, which actually highlights the issue. Training Min cruiser 3 and BC V gives me the cyclone, hurricane and tornado with max bonuses. Training Amarr cruiser 3 then gives me the prophecy, harbinger and oracle at max bonuses with minimal training cost. I'm literally at that point now with no plans to fly Amarr but considering it just because I can and it's extremely inconsequential time wise. Your statement that a ship skill is irrelevant to how many ships it benefits is an opinion I do not share, and apparently neither does CCP. Your statement about core principles seems to also miss the mark. Several times it has been stated that specialization in a particular hull is a superior training goal to being mediocre with everything, and as it is now it is impossible to do that with the BC skills. The BC skill is the epitome of defying this principle of skill training.
You contention about scalar issues doesn't hold due to the obvious and sheer differences in usage and proliferation of certain hulls. If BC's were an evolution of cruisers in the way of a simple specialization in just being oversized then the overall improvement in all ship capabilities which advance from one ship class to the next is unjustified. As such the only way around this is to nerf them to the point where they are about as useful as destroyers are in most people's eyes of acknowledge then in their own class and balance them accordingly. Even at the level of the tier 1 BC's this is true, the tier 2's make it a great deal even more so.
This change provides no harm but rather corrects the situation created by placing a 1 off skill for a 1 off group of ships which expanded over time to being an entire group of ships but still retained the 1 off skill. And again, your arguments about bonuses and versatility are a separate issue. Address those concerns when the actual ships are rebalanced. No amount of skill tweaking can overcome the performance issues surrounding BC's, and equally, neither will keeping the skills the same. |
Raven Zulu
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 23:28:00 -
[1978] - Quote
Refund any obsolete prerequisite skills. Interdictor pilots should have interceptors refunded to 'injected only' status, etc. Otherwise you penalize pilots because they were unable to make a specific training choice that was available post-patch.
Do not penalize people who choose to fly one race's caps, another's subcaps and a third's T2 and a fourth's T3. Due to the wholesale-unbalanced nature of the different race's ships (ie Myrm =/= Cane and so on) at different sizes and tiers this is just natural for experienced pilots to do.
Hopefully the reactions of the player base mean something this go-round.
Personally? Drop this wholesale MESS of a project that needs no work and fix something that is actually broke. |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 01:21:00 -
[1979] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: The BC skill is the epitome of defying this principle of skill training.
No. The BCs themselves are the epitome of defying this principle, not the skill.
Quote:If BC's were an evolution of cruisers in the way of a simple specialization in just being oversized then the overall improvement in all ship capabilities which advance from one ship class to the next is unjustified. THEY ARE NOT (supposed to be) AN EVOLUTION! The evolution you are looking for is called a BATTLESHIP. I don't know how many times I've said that in this thread, but god damn. I'm either not saying it clearly enough, or there is a serious reading comprehension problem on this forum. It's probably both, but my message I'm sending is not the one being received, and It's making me cranky .
Quote:As such the only way around this is to nerf them to the point where they are about as useful as destroyers are in most people's eyes You're getting warmer.
Quote:This change provides no harm but rather corrects the situation created by placing a 1 off skill for a 1 off group of ships which expanded over time to being an entire group of ships but still retained the 1 off skill. No, it tries (and fails miserably) to correct a faulty design philosophy that allowed BCs to remain as powerful as they are for as long as they did. It's the same reason why the nano nerf and missile overhaul were a complete disaster. CCP releases a prototype that is a good, but unfinished product, then abandons it, only later to use this unfinished asset as a blueprint to create a new unfinished product, and people suddenly get confused as to why 2 and 2 is not equal to 4.
If BCs are to be treated as an evolution, they would need to use large modules, forcing Battleships to replace dreads, dreads to replace titans, and titans to form a new role capable of igniting a brown dwarf star. This has also been said by me in this thread.
To reiterate the core fundamentals of eve: Frigates -> Cruisers -> Battleships. No exceptions. EVER. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
106
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 02:57:00 -
[1980] - Quote
Allen Ramses wrote:THEY ARE NOT (supposed to be) AN EVOLUTION! The evolution you are looking for is called a BATTLESHIP. I don't know how many times I've said that in this thread, but god damn. I'm either not saying it clearly enough, or there is a serious reading comprehension problem on this forum. It's probably both, but my message I'm sending is not the one being received, and It's making me cranky . I hear you, and I disagree. You say the next stage is a BS, I look at capabilities and not just things like module size. I think there is a place there which is too big and versatile for a cruiser or even a cruiser specialization. The thing I think is filling that place you are viewing as a cruiser specialization. I don't think it should go away. Nerfed at the high end yes, removed no.
Quote:No, it tries (and fails miserably) to correct a faulty design philosophy that allowed BCs to remain as powerful as they are for as long as they did. It's the same reason why the nano nerf and missile overhaul were a complete disaster. CCP releases a prototype that is a good, but unfinished product, then abandons it, only later to use this unfinished asset as a blueprint to create a new unfinished product, and people suddenly get confused as to why 2 and 2 is not equal to 4. I agree that they are OP for their roles, but their role is apparently not envisioned as you envision it. So rather than accept the place they have been given you are trying to refute a change by redefining it. If BC's are a cruiser spec than HAC's should be removed and BC's should require cruiser V. If not than their difference justifies a different classification. Seeing as they miss the mark of specialization in my opinion they cannot be classed as a cruiser spec.
Quote:If BCs are to be treated as an evolution, they would need to use large modules, forcing Battleships to replace dreads, dreads to replace titans, and titans to form a new role capable of igniting a brown dwarf star. This has also been said by me in this thread.. Question: Considering titans and dreads, as well as carriers and SC's, use the same module size how can you accept them being classified differently but not cruisers and BC's?
Quote:To reiterate the core fundamentals of eve: Frigates -> Cruisers -> Battleships. No exceptions. EVER. When this was decided as a training progression the other classes didn't exist. Last I looked we'd had a few changes since '03. |
|
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
122
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 04:50:00 -
[1981] - Quote
Right, I'm fine with the changes as stated and I don't see a problem with needing to train up racial skills to get racial ships. Makes perfect sense to me.
I find the notion of handing out SP to players who cross-trained for access to all racial variants of Command ship or something to be a bit silly though. Lets face it, it was an early entrant exploit right from the start and shouldn't ever have been that way.
You can't get a Widow and Sin by training 1 BS skill so why should this ever have been possible? It shouldn't have, and while I don't mind some reimbursement of Skill Points, I don't see why it should cover 4 Racial Variants of ship types. Just give them the SP to retrain 1 racial variant of their choice and let them decide if they want to train the others later. You can only ever fly one ship at a time anyway.
No losses, but no easy gains either. The sad thing is most of those complaining are likely the same ones who complain about too much instant gratification in the first place. Well, they had the instant gratification in the first place and willingly took advantage of it, now things will get more focused as I see it and they can learn what it means to have things the other way.
Besides, from what I can see training times will get shorter in many ways rather than longer. Losing requirements to train prerequisite skills to V will make many things much shorter to train for and probably put a lot of people in ships they could never fly.
edit: and btw, just a thought but I'm pretty sure Battleships should be at least a Level IV prereq. for Cap ships. It's not just the size of their guns but the place they hold in the line. TIIP: The Incredible Invisible Poster |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 08:33:00 -
[1982] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:You can't get a Widow and Sin by training 1 BS skill so why should this ever have been possible? It shouldn't have, and while I don't mind some reimbursement of Skill Points, I don't see why it should cover 4 Racial Variants of ship types. Just give them the SP to retrain 1 racial variant of their choice and let them decide if they want to train the others later. You can only ever fly one ship at a time anyway.
No losses, but no easy gains either. The sad thing is most of those complaining are likely the same ones who complain about too much instant gratification in the first place. Well, they had the instant gratification in the first place and willingly took advantage of it, now things will get more focused as I see it and they can learn what it means to have things the other way.
Besides, from what I can see training times will get shorter in many ways rather than longer. Losing requirements to train prerequisite skills to V will make many things much shorter to train for and probably put a lot of people in ships they could never fly.
I can fly 3 Battlecruiser race atm and use 2 intensively (hurricane and drake obviously) at battlecruiser V, as most people i know and probably a lot of people i don't know, especially those who does pvp or people who just love flying those two ships.
Both ships have very different uses and there are specific needs to have them both trained and you're suggesting that CCP remove the ability for us to fly those ships and choose only one and then have to spend at least 1.5 months to train the other two? No losses? seriously? The only 'gratification' for people who actually use the skill is that they have to pay more for their new medical clone class. Are you out of your mind?
Mars Theran wrote: edit: and btw, just a thought but I'm pretty sure Battleships should be at least a Level IV prereq. for Cap ships. It's not just the size of their guns but the place they hold in the line.
You do know that carriers don't have 'guns' don't you? and what 'place they hold in line' you're talking about here? |
Kira Vanachura
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 12:46:00 -
[1983] - Quote
New players will need more time to get to a decent mission ship. Right now it's Frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and finally battleship. They will need to train destroyers to IV in the future to get to cruisers and beyond, but the destroyer class lacks a decent mission ship. First new ship I'd like to see is a destroyer that can fill the gap between frigate and cruiser; nothing fancy: a bit less damage than a normal destroyer, but a bit more tank than a frigate, while less than a cruiser. Just enough to do lvl 2 missions. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
122
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 15:15:00 -
[1984] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:Mars Theran wrote:You can't get a Widow and Sin by training 1 BS skill so why should this ever have been possible? It shouldn't have, and while I don't mind some reimbursement of Skill Points, I don't see why it should cover 4 Racial Variants of ship types. Just give them the SP to retrain 1 racial variant of their choice and let them decide if they want to train the others later. You can only ever fly one ship at a time anyway.
No losses, but no easy gains either. The sad thing is most of those complaining are likely the same ones who complain about too much instant gratification in the first place. Well, they had the instant gratification in the first place and willingly took advantage of it, now things will get more focused as I see it and they can learn what it means to have things the other way.
Besides, from what I can see training times will get shorter in many ways rather than longer. Losing requirements to train prerequisite skills to V will make many things much shorter to train for and probably put a lot of people in ships they could never fly.
I can fly 3 Battlecruiser race atm and use 2 intensively (hurricane and drake obviously) at battlecruiser V, as most people i know and probably a lot of people i don't know, especially those who does pvp or people who just love flying those two ships. Both ships have very different uses and there are specific needs to have them both trained and you're suggesting that CCP remove the ability for us to fly those ships and choose only one and then have to spend at least 1.5 months to train the other two? No losses? seriously? The only 'gratification' for people who actually use the skill is that they have to pay more for their new medical clone class. Are you out of your mind? Mars Theran wrote: edit: and btw, just a thought but I'm pretty sure Battleships should be at least a Level IV prereq. for Cap ships. It's not just the size of their guns but the place they hold in the line.
You do know that carriers don't have 'guns' don't you? and what 'place they hold in line' you're talking about here?
It's better than handing out millions of SP for no other reason than that, but CCP will do what it thinks best, usually guided by players who won't take no for an answer.
The fact that both ships have very different uses should give an indication that CCPs move is the right one. All that extra skill training is used in many other areas for similar purpose anyway. It's not like Heavy Missile Launcher is only used on the Drake, and certainly training Passive and primary shield skills to V comes in useful on every ship class to a greater or lesser degree.
That latter bit was a reference to a comment made earlier about not needing to train for a ship using X-Large Turrets by training up a ship using Large Turrets. I think they were referring to the Dreads specifically, but referenced Capital ships specifically. My thought is the Battleship is just one step in the process. No reason it should be excluded and it looks like they are moving toward a model where you no longer need to train a sub-class to V anyway.
I might add that this isn't so much a problem if nobody has Battlecruiser to V, but starts to become one when they have that and especially when they have only trained one racial variant to get into that particular group of Battlecruisers and have the base requirements for the others.
Now, from what I've briefly read, they will suddenly get boosted to all racial variants of sub-classes to IV to meet the Prereqs and get each racial variant of BC to V on top of that. Suddenly they are not only capable of flying those ships well, but have level IV in all racial sub-classes. Doesn't really seem fair does it? Instead of losing a month and a half, they have suddenly gained it.
Of course I'm not counting exact or even actual time requirements; I'll leave that to the people who can't help doing that just to make a point. TIIP: The Incredible Invisible Poster |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
122
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 15:31:00 -
[1985] - Quote
Kira Vanachura wrote:New players will need more time to get to a decent mission ship. Right now it's Frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser and finally battleship. They will need to train destroyers to IV in the future to get to cruisers and beyond, but the destroyer class lacks a decent mission ship. First new ship I'd like to see is a destroyer that can fill the gap between frigate and cruiser; nothing fancy: a bit less damage than a normal destroyer, but a bit more tank than a frigate, while less than a cruiser. Just enough to do lvl 2 missions.
I used Destroyers to do level 4 missions with friends long before they ever got the buffs they have now, at least until I upgraded to something a little more effective anyway. Nothing wrong with that, unless of course you happen to need to solo run missions straight from level 1 to 5 mission availability in less time than it takes to train the skills.
Yes, I agree that their should be more than one Destroyer available; as it is, the class is lacking in options and is the only class below sub-caps that has only one variant per faction.
Aside from that, the training time requirements are minimal in my book. We're only really talking days here, and the measure helps to restrict straight line training for one specific ship class precluding the others. TIIP: The Incredible Invisible Poster |
Preston Vane
Da Regulators Silver Twilight Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 17:11:00 -
[1986] - Quote
There are plenty of people that either don't like getting a lot of sp for doing nothing, or afraid of loosing the possibility to fly a ship. From what i see no one really got into tweaking the ship skills ranks
The probably easiest option would be to divide the existing dessie and bc skills rank by 4 to get those for races, but you would end up with rank 0.5 for dessies and 1.5 for bc. As we have neither of those atm in the game: Not really a viable option. The second thing to point out here is that bc would need less time to train then cruisers and even frigs which doesn't make any sense as the idea was to make a more fluend and logical progress
So here is another idea: Tweak ALL the skills Atm the ranking is as follows: Frigs 2, Cruiser 5, BS 8 for each race and dessie 2, bc 6 for all together, that's as if we had a single rank 68 skill (4*2+4*5+4*8+2+6) Now we can just redivide those 68 to the 5 race specific versions, e.g. with frigs 2, dessie 2, cruiser 3, bc 4, bs 6, or 1/2/3/4/7 or whatever other combination CCP prefers If this happens all t1 ship management sp should be refunded to rebuild ofc
This has some ups and downs of course. The sum over all t1 sub-cap ship skills combined remains the same. (pro, neither sp gained nor lost The higher ship skills maintain a higher rank. (pro Maxing out a single size of ship is faster as most ranks are a bit lower than they used to be. (this is pro, cause we aim for faster specialisation, some might call this a con tho You might loose the ability to fly one or two ships when rebuilding, or gain the ability to fly more (con, not really any way around this, but the differences should be pretty minor and fast to retrain if need be As they want to redo the prereqs and training times for most t2 ships anyway there shouldn't be a problem on that part. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:20:00 -
[1987] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:I might add that this isn't so much a problem if nobody has Battlecruiser to V, but starts to become one when they have that and especially when they have only trained one racial variant to get into that particular group of Battlecruisers and have the base requirements for the others.
Now, from what I've briefly read, they will suddenly get boosted to all racial variants of sub-classes to IV to meet the Prereqs and get each racial variant of BC to V on top of that. Suddenly they are not only capable of flying those ships well, but have level IV in all racial sub-classes. Doesn't really seem fair does it? Instead of losing a month and a half, they have suddenly gained it.
Of course I'm not counting exact or even actual time requirements; I'll leave that to the people who can't help doing that just to make a point. I doesn't matter if noone has BC 5, even if people only had BC 4 trained and have all cruisers to 3, you were saying that we should only be getting one, that was the problem. CCP didn't say they're going after that route, they might just take the cruiser skills into account, which seems more logical to me, even if they weren't planning to account for the cruiser skills, it's still more fair to reimburse all the racial BC skills solely because racial cruisers 3 are a short train. One and a half months are not a 'short' training time, it's even more of a burden for players if they suddenly have to train for what they should be able to fly in the first place.
Fairness is not a matter of skillpoints, they are infact, useless. What matters is if i can fly those ships now, i should be able to fly them after the change, that's it. Players can train all 4 racial cruiser requirements for a BC in just 2 days, if CCP decides to ignore that requirement for the reimbursement plan, what's the big deal? As for the 'bonus' cruiser level to 4, it's free skills, yes, but that's just it, the bonus, four racial cruiser skills from level three to four and it's negligible compared to losing the ability to fly ships which i don't know about you, but i surely don't want that to happen, on any reason at all. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
122
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 06:28:00 -
[1988] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:Mars Theran wrote:I might add that this isn't so much a problem if nobody has Battlecruiser to V, but starts to become one when they have that and especially when they have only trained one racial variant to get into that particular group of Battlecruisers and have the base requirements for the others.
Now, from what I've briefly read, they will suddenly get boosted to all racial variants of sub-classes to IV to meet the Prereqs and get each racial variant of BC to V on top of that. Suddenly they are not only capable of flying those ships well, but have level IV in all racial sub-classes. Doesn't really seem fair does it? Instead of losing a month and a half, they have suddenly gained it.
Of course I'm not counting exact or even actual time requirements; I'll leave that to the people who can't help doing that just to make a point. I doesn't matter if noone has BC 5, even if people only had BC 4 trained and have all cruisers to 3, you were saying that we should only be getting one, that was the problem. CCP didn't say they're going after that route, they might just take the cruiser skills into account, which seems more logical to me, even if they weren't planning to account for the cruiser skills, it's still more fair to reimburse all the racial BC skills solely because racial cruisers 3 are a short train. One and a half months are not a 'short' training time, it's even more of a burden for players if they suddenly have to train for what they should be able to fly in the first place. Fairness is not a matter of skillpoints, they are infact, useless. What matters is if i can fly those ships now, i should be able to fly them after the change, that's it. Players can train all 4 racial cruiser requirements for a BC in just 2 days, if CCP decides to ignore that requirement for the reimbursement plan, what's the big deal? As for the 'bonus' cruiser level to 4, it's free skills, yes, but that's just it, the bonus, four racial cruiser skills from level three to four and it's negligible compared to losing the ability to fly ships which i don't know about you, but i surely don't want that to happen, on any reason at all.
I'm not really concerned myself, but that may be the result of my not flying anything at the moment. I do have a character trained to V in Battlecruisers incidently and I think it covers all of them.
If I'm not mistaken though, allowing all Battlecruisers means they will be dishing out Frigate, Destroyer, and Cruiser 4 for all races. I also don't consider skillpoints worthless, but that isn't really the issue. I just fail to see the downside of being a little more cautious in the doling out of SP. I'm sure there is a better alternative than that, but I haven't thought of what it may be at this point.
Certainly, one possible option is granting same level skill in all racial battlecruiser skills and simply graying them out until the prerequisite skills are trained if they are not already. That seems a lot easier and fairer than handing out individual skillpoints for each and every plyer who has it trained to one degree or another. TIIP: The Incredible Invisible Poster |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 12:48:00 -
[1989] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:If I'm not mistaken though, allowing all Battlecruisers means they will be dishing out Frigate, Destroyer, and Cruiser 4 for all races. Maybe yes, maybe no, i've stated why, above.
Mars Theran wrote:I also don't consider skillpoints worthless, but that isn't really the issue. I just fail to see the downside of being a little more cautious in the doling out of SP. I'm sure there is a better alternative than that, but I haven't thought of what it may be at this point. Besides e-peen, i see no other advantage of solely having more skillpoints, which in technical standpoint, useless, aside from that, it's a matter of personal opinion (that is, back to e-peen). What you pointed out, from your first post revolves around skillpoints being the issue, if you really doesn't care about the SP, this discussion would have never happened in the first place.
I might have taken a different stance from you on this one, i fail to see why giving out SP in relation to no gain whatsoever in terms of what ships/roles can we play in the game now and later on is an issue. It's the same as for example CCP changes the Propulsion Jamming rank from 3 to 16 and players who already have them to V will gain 1 month/3 million SP for free, so what, we gain 3 mil sp, will there be some super sekrit disaster which will going to happen? i don't think so, well, aside from the obvious rage from people who are planning to train them later on just to find they have another extra month to spend.
Mars Theran wrote:Certainly, one possible option is granting same level skill in all racial battlecruiser skills and simply graying them out until the prerequisite skills are trained if they are not already. That seems a lot easier and fairer than handing out individual skillpoints for each and every plyer who has it trained to one degree or another. If what you meant that we'll have to train the cruiser skills to IV when the changes came out, i must disapprove with this idea, if we already have the skills to fly the ship, why do we have to train for them, again? doesn't make sense and doesn't seems fair, at all. If you're talking about the current skills instead of the new one, this is already been stated as the second option of the reimbursement plan, ofc, w/o the racial battlecruiser skills. |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 18:10:00 -
[1990] - Quote
From this thread: (Fanfest: Ship Balance) Tech Level
-
Helping CCP decide what to do. Helping you to understand, too.
[Fanfest Video 6:25] CCP Ytbritrumin (?): CCP Ytrbymium says that CCP doesn't really know about this one thing, and so I had a contributional idea fitting-in with current plans! Helping CCP's pre-planning. What I think this presentation also suggests is a real gigantic change in whole of EVE's spaceships even to a point where some may disappear forever! Readers, 'open your miiind!'
____________________________________________________________
new Brand (Improvement) | new Militia (Improvement) | (T3) GENERALIZED ---------- (T1) ECONOMIZED ------------ (T2) SPECIALIZED | Other... (Alien?) | Limited (Promotional)
____________________________________________________________
Economized (T1) Ship hulls at value-level prices that fulfil the market, which also set standard for more specialized or generalized variations. These Economized variations are aspiring for manufacturers, traders and even corporate businesses. Because they are economized means they potentially yield more profit than specialized and generalized. But how? Economized will utilize almost any modules and appropriate rigs on the market except Specialized modules and rigs. This allows them a multi-purpose prerogative yet their singular hull constricts them in becoming fully adaptive in their role like Generalized ships. Because they can utilize so many modules and rig on the market, this contributes to financial prosperity of traders and corporate businesses.
(new Brand):- "spaceships are serius biznus" Economized ships are so versatile and excessive that they become branded by corporations including your Militia. NPC corporations and player corporations. This encourages marketing strategies of corporations though the act of branding cannot be varied. You develop a brand and use it or sell it.
- A player-corporation's brand is used to manufacture pre-installed fixated Rigs unto a T1 ship.
- A player-corporation's brand can be sold on the market to other corporations.
- A player-corporation manufacturing a branded variation of a T1 ship will have their logo painted on it.
- A Branded variation of a T1 ship will have pre-set Rigs. This allows repackaging of that ship with Rigs!
- A player un-branding a branded variation of a T1 ship will remove corporation logo, deduce to 'standard T1' and deny Rig-repackaging.
- A player-corporation re-branding a branded variation of a T1 ship is fraudulent (Re-branded cannot be sold in High Sec).
(new Militia):- The war requires an economic solution. Economized ships are the option! Faction Warfare pilots are reimbursed a non-marketable improved variation of Economized T1 ships based on their Militia rank. Upon reimbursement they are provided with multiple options of pre-defined ship Fittings to suit that player's role. These modules are also Militia-branded and are very much non-marketable. These ships are patterned with camouflage and are property of your Militia. You cannot and must not reprocess nor sell.
- Free for faction warfare!
- Limited reimbursements!!!
- Cannot sell on market.
- Cannot create contract.
- Cannot reprocess.
- Can trade with other Militia players!
Specialized (T2) Enhanced singular hulls of their economic counter-part granting one or multiple unique bonuses from their collaborated hulls designed specifically to be exceptional in a role. Their hull exclaims its differentiation from all other ships being easily-identifiable. They allow for Specialized Modules to be fitted! These ships are worthy of a well-commanded fleet of multiple diverse compositions of roles, making fleeting battles most successful.
- Specialized ships are efficient in a purpose they are designed for.
- Specialized ships do no apply to grandular Capital-sized vessels.
Generalized (T3) Multipular hulls. Extremely adaptive yet inefficient. A very much expensive ship but comparable survivability to full-modulated, full-rigged and well-fitted economized variations. Relying mainly on conjunctive modular Subsystems instead of singular versatile Modules they are at risk of being tactically-countered by not being adapted against a particular threat! Exposure of weak spots! Ideal for the solitary player.
- Generalized ships are inefficient in their adaptive shipline purpose.
- They look different with their interchanging hull extensions!
- Very few-to-no accessible Module Fitting slot, maybe?
. (Why CCP no improve Shareholding?): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
|
x420x
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 19:02:00 -
[1991] - Quote
i got an idea ccp, a lot of people will find it extremely radical, but i think it could work
instead of awarding players with all the req's to fly a new class of ship, why not just reimburse ALL SP's in spaceship command and then let players redistribute them as they see fit, to spaceship command only, or even more extreme, reimburse all SP's, reset all to 0, and then redistribute all of them as they see fit
extreme yes, but somewhat plausible in a way as well
i personally think the latter is pure craziness, but allowing players to remap just there spaceship points to go along with the new ship lines would allow players that are crosstrained extensively to focus points on the new lines they would like to fly and would allow cap pilots to dedicate worthless bs5 skill towards cap5 or carrier or dreadnaught 5 (if they dont have it already)
just an idea, let the bashing begin
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
322
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 19:22:00 -
[1992] - Quote
Is this change happening 4/24? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
74
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 19:35:00 -
[1993] - Quote
Probably not. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
322
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 22:24:00 -
[1994] - Quote
Morgan North wrote:Probably not. The producer clip seemed to suggest it was. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity
81
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 23:09:00 -
[1995] - Quote
Mira Lynne wrote:Lets Say I have one racial cruiser at 3, and Battlecruisers at 5. I can currently fly that races battlecruiser. According to these changes, i'd need Racial Cruiser 4. Since I can already fly the racial battlecruiser, whould i gain racial cruiser 4? Does "If you could fly it before, you can fly it after" Include the prerequisite skills is what im saying. I'd hate to lose out on racial battlecruiser 5 because i dont have racial cruiser 4 trained... You would not, afaik. It'll be like with the current frig > cruiser > BS progression. You don't need Frigate 4 to fly the racial cruiser...you only need it to train the cruiser skill. If you already have the cruiser skill (somehow), then there's no need. |
Noztra Ernaga
Motion Czechoslovakia
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 06:07:00 -
[1996] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Is this change happening 4/24?
They said they are gonna start with smaller ships... |
Steven Fonulique
The Phantom Regiment The House Of Cards.
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 23:00:00 -
[1997] - Quote
First I'd just like to say I don't think the current ship skill progression line is broken and thus don't really think it needs changing. However I can accept the alternative ccp is proposing.
My main issue is that the way they are talking of implementing the change won't actually change anything for current players. What I mean by this is ccp is saying the time spent traing to get all battle cruiser ship skill bonuses to max should be 4 times longer but only for people who haven't trained it yet. Now the only reason for giving out these skills to current players is because ccp don't want anyone to go to bed one day being able to fly a ship then wake up the next not being able to fly it.
To my mind a much better way to implement the change would be to introduce the new skills to allow people to train them up well in advance of making the ships require the new skills. That way everyone gets to make the same choice of investing the time to get the skills trained up or not.
If giving current players all four variants of the new racial destroyer and bc skills to the same rank they currently have the generic one is the only option the playerbase will accept then there really is no point in implementing the change as it won't change anything for anyone but new players. |
Razor Rocker
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 00:49:00 -
[1998] - Quote
When is this actually going to be implement? I know I've trained up BC and destroyer to 5 for this patch, but I also know a lot are still training them. What happens if you are 1/2 way done BC 5 when the patch hits? do you get all racial BC skills to 4 1/2 or 4? |
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
58
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 05:38:00 -
[1999] - Quote
Reposting my Idea 4 pgs back, soo lazy ppl can see it. Easy way, how to implement this:
1. Seed the 4 new battlecruiser books. Write in the descriptions of old book, new books, skills and battlecruiser ships, that there will be switch in 2 months. Also state the change will be comming in the launcher and on the community site. This way everyone will know whats comming and can easily prepare for it.
2. 2 months later: Remove all the old battlecruiser books and skill from the game, reimbust the isk and skill points. Switch all the battlecruiser to use the new skills. Remove the mentionning of the change from the descriptions, launcher and site.
Same with destroyers but maybe not in the same time. Also I think that destroyers don't need 2 months between 1. and 2.
Some notes:
- Yes you can't learn all 4 new BC to 5 in 2 months but its better than waiting too long or switching too fast. People who needs BC 5 because of Command ships could train 2 new BC to 5 in that 2 months and invest the pts from old BC to third BC skill. I think this should be OK for them. CCP could definitely tweak the time between 1. and 2. but should not go below 2 months.
- You can't remove the old books in 1. since that way no new player could fly BCs in that 2 months.
- I know, that a lot of players will train BC in that 2 months just to have skill points to redistribute, but this is the only problem with this solution I can think of.
- Also reimbustment of the SP is the only way how to do this because of people who will have partially learned BC skill levels in the time of switch.
I think this would be easy to implement and fair to everypony.
P.S. If you (CCP) will use this idea, give me credit and a lot of PLEXes. Just kidding :-). If I can help my belowed game, I will do so for free any time I can. CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Allen Ramses
Zombicidal Mania Penumbra Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 23:49:00 -
[2000] - Quote
I still don't see why people are talking about compensatory actions when there are bigger things to think about. Not only will this change further solidify BCs roles as being utterly ridiculous, it creates a logistical nightmare in the present as well as in the long run.
I am sure there are pilots that have gone straight for battleships. If they're like most, there is some cross training involved, meaning 2 or more racial battleships. If someone skipped Destroyers and BCs, they'd receive both skills for each race they have at level 4 for free the moment the change went live. Has anyone yet considered this problem?
The REAL solution is simple, but people just refuse to accept it. As I said before, the role and fundamental design for dessies is "first to kill, first to die". BCs were fundamentally designed (with ****-poor implementation) around the same concept. They can already eat cruisers for breakfast, but for the game's scale to be solid and consistent, they must not be able to hold their own against more than one cruiser, or be any kind of threat to a BS. BCs need to follow the same role as dessies; "First to kill, first to die."
BCs don't need to be nerfed, they need to be gimped! The skill change only makes this much needed process much more difficult. That's not just how I see it, it's how it is! |
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
361
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 23:53:00 -
[2001] - Quote
Allen Ramses wrote:I still don't see why people are talking about compensatory actions when there are bigger things to think about. Not only will this change further solidify BCs roles as being utterly ridiculous, it creates a logistical nightmare in the present as well as in the long run.
I am sure there are pilots that have gone straight for battleships. If they're like most, there is some cross training involved, meaning 2 or more racial battleships. If someone skipped Destroyers and BCs, they'd receive both skills for each race they have at level 4 for free the moment the change went live. Has anyone yet considered this problem?
The REAL solution is simple, but people just refuse to accept it. As I said before, the role and fundamental design for dessies is "first to kill, first to die". BCs were fundamentally designed (with ****-poor implementation) around the same concept. They can already eat cruisers for breakfast, but for the game's scale to be solid and consistent, they must not be able to hold their own against more than one cruiser, or be any kind of threat to a BS. BCs need to follow the same role as dessies; "First to kill, first to die."
BCs don't need to be nerfed, they need to be gimped! The skill change only makes this much needed process much more difficult. That's not just how I see it, it's how it is!
You don't need a skill's prereqs to use that skill. Only to inject it.
So no-one needs to be given them, if they had nothing. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Pantorus Necraliss
WEPRA CORP
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 05:38:00 -
[2002] - Quote
- Just reset 'spaceship command' skill tree
- Give players same amout of skillpoints
- Offer the possibility to reset again one time (in case of mistake)
Simple, making the switch easiest, satisfying players cause they can reassigned unused skillpoints |
Sasha Azala
Blood and Decay
226
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 15:42:00 -
[2003] - Quote
Less than 2 hours to go for destroyer 5, already done bc 5 and racial cruisers to 3.
So the question is will I qualify for all racial destroyers and racial battlecruisers at level 5?
Or have other requirements been added? |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:00:00 -
[2004] - Quote
When I initially read this blog , I thought I had a pretty good idea on what the proposed changes were and I was very pleased with proposal. Now that I've watched and re-watched Fanfest video on the same subject, I'm not sure anymore. I understand this is all in the "discussion" stage and thus there's a long way to go before any sort of final changes appear, however I want to voice several concerns I have regarding ship lines.
About Ship lines vs tiers
1. My perception of the proposed changes It seems to me that the ship lines are being confused with ship roles. Tiers/Lines should dictate fittings, slots, hitpoints, etc. while roles dictate ship specific bonuses and hardpoints. Lines should NOT replace roles! Initially, I thought ship lines would dictate stats similar to how tiers do today. For example, Amarr Combat ships would have more lows for DPS and Tank, while Amarr Support vessels would have more medium/high slots. From the fanfest video it seems like you are propsing to not only create lines, but generally shove all ships into certain role or another. For example, giving all Amarr Support Vessel lines tracking EW bonuses and/or turning them into drone boats. I completely disagree with this proposal and I think it will be extremely dangerous and damaging for EVE. The beauty of EVE is the amount of freedom you have with fitting and customizing your ships. That freedom needs to be maintained and remain flexible. The reason lower tiers are not used right now is because the higher tier ships usually have the same overall layout only much better. For example, Prophecy and Harbinger. Why would anyone fly a prophecy when for a few more mil you can get a harbinger which has more DPS, More hitpoints, more med/high slots, more fittings, bigger drone bay, etc. In other words, a Harbinger gives you much more freedom with your fittings than a Prophecy which only has one missile launcher going for it's advantages over Prophecy. Of course the lower tier quickly become outcasts. Changing these ships into different roles ]however will only make things worse!! First of, it would actually reduce the amount of available ships as certain ships will become useless in the general roles. For Example, if I wanted to go with an average DPS/Tank BC, I still have a choice between Prophecy, Harbinger, or Oracle. I might not always chose the Prophecy as other ships offer better value, but it's still an option that I choose sometimes. Turning said Prophecy into an oversized Arbitrator would eliminate it from my options. Second, it will render ships with the same role but smaller size completely useless. The reason why nobody uses crucifiers is because an arbitrator does the same but better. Smaller ships with the same role will only have their size and cost going for them and we all know that this is hardly enough to make them worthwhile.
2. How I think ship lines should be applied A much better way to go about this problem would be to maintain the ships roles while tweaking their stats depending on what line they belond to. That is to dictate the stats like tiers do but not actually take the ship out of it's general purpose. For example, lets use the aforementioned BCs and apply Support Vessel and Combat ship lines to them. For arguments sake, if we put the Harbinger into the Combat Ship line, it should have lower amount of medium/high slots in favor of additional low slots, and reduced dronebay. It should be better tanked and provide more DPS than a Prophecy but not not be faster or more versatile. The Prophecy on the other hand, should still have stats comparable to a battlecruiser, but maybe with additional high and medium slots (to increase it's support/ew abilities) and increased CPU. Make it slightly faster and more agile, give it maybe another or two launcher hardpoints and a bigger drone bay than a Harbinger (to make it more versatile). This way you will still have two battlecruisers which have relatively similar DPS and tank, but one will be more much more versatile and better for those who prefer to go support/ew path, and the other will be much better fit for great tank and/or DPS. Thus making them both very attractive ships to fly depending on your style, skills, composition and needs of the fleet, etc. In other words.... EXPANDING YOUR FREEDOM AND OPTIONS!!! On a similar Case, Scorpion vs Raven do not expand your freedom and options, they're completely different role ships even though they're both battleships, and Scorpion vs Blackbird are a perfect example of two ships with the same roles but different sizes. Scorpion could easily be cast into combat role making it very slow, with a very strong tank and reduced dronebay, reduced turret hardpoints, (basically reducing it's versatility), reduced high slots, while maintaining it's ECM Bonuses and roles. The blackbird could be cast into a support role similarly making it faster, giving it a bigger dronebay, maintaining it's turret/launcher ratio, etc. (making it more versatile)
3. Bombardment Ships Line I seriously have no clue what this line is all about... it makes 0 sense to me, and it seems like it was slapped in there just to sound cool and give the list somewhat of a (meaningless) variety?
About proposed changes to skill trees (racial BCs, t2s)
EXCELLENT PROPOSAL!!!! Should have been like this from the beginning and I'm glad you guys are finally getting around to them. I'm behind you guys on this one 100%!
*It is possible that I completely misunderstood what CCP Ytterbium was hinting on, and his proposed changes are the same ones I'm recommending. In that case I apologize for the long wall of text, otherwise, a discussion of this magnitude deserves no less!!! : p |
Alain Kinsella
101
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:10:00 -
[2005] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote: 3. Bombardment Ships Line I seriously have no clue what this line is all about... it makes 0 sense to me, and it seems like it was slapped in there just to sound cool and give the list somewhat of a (meaningless) variety?
These are the ships that will be assigned to shoot planets (as part of the DUST 514 link). IIRC one of the keynotes show this happening in realtime between a DUST player (marking the target) and an EVE player (shooting the marked target).
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 21:35:00 -
[2006] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote:Niko Lorenzio wrote: 3. Bombardment Ships Line I seriously have no clue what this line is all about... it makes 0 sense to me, and it seems like it was slapped in there just to sound cool and give the list somewhat of a (meaningless) variety?
These are the ships that will be assigned to shoot planets (as part of the DUST 514 link). IIRC one of the keynotes show this happening in realtime between a DUST player (marking the target) and an EVE player (shooting the marked target).
Oh... well from my understanding that was supposed to be handled by a module, specializing entire ships into being able to bombard planets doesn't make much sense unless it's a secondary additional attribute/bonus to their primary line/role.
From what I read it seemed like bombardment ships = all Missile ships.... which made me go... huh?
Thanks for the reply. |
Guardian Stella
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 17:19:00 -
[2007] - Quote
I doubt they will give me 6.144.000 like that for free, i dont know if they ever did, but if they do, it would be a shame not to be here
i'd rather be a pilot with BC and destro at lvl 5 ( if nothing happen ) than a pilot with all racial at 4 and racial destro at 3
but f*ck its a pain in the ass to cut your skill plan by 19 days for that
ps : i think i will also up all cruiser to 4 just to be sure |
Mathieollo
Ind Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 10:38:00 -
[2008] - Quote
Razor Rocker wrote:When is this actually going to be implement? I know I've trained up BC and destroyer to 5 for this patch, but I also know a lot are still training them. What happens if you are 1/2 way done BC 5 when the patch hits? do you get all racial BC skills to 4 1/2 or 4?
yeah, has there been a real (non player, aka credible) answer to this?
personally i hadn't been playing nearly long enough to have enough warning, i'll be able to get BC 4 as well as dessy to 4, but neither to 5, am i looking at a full refund and my BC unusable after this patch or what?
because frankly, SP reimbursement would be nice but too little too late and i know, i've heard the "if you can fly it now, you'll be able to fly it after" PR line, but... they only ever mention those who have both skills trained to lvl 5 when they tout that little snippet. |
jizzah
Royal Black Watch Highlanders RISE of LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 13:57:00 -
[2009] - Quote
Mathieollo wrote:Razor Rocker wrote:When is this actually going to be implement? I know I've trained up BC and destroyer to 5 for this patch, but I also know a lot are still training them. What happens if you are 1/2 way done BC 5 when the patch hits? do you get all racial BC skills to 4 1/2 or 4? yeah, has there been a real (non player, aka credible) answer to this? personally i hadn't been playing nearly long enough to have enough warning, i'll be able to get BC 4 as well as dessy to 4, but neither to 5, am i looking at a full refund and my BC unusable after this patch or what? because frankly, SP reimbursement would be nice but too little too late and i know, i've heard the "if you can fly it now, you'll be able to fly it after" PR line, but... they only ever mention those who have both skills trained to lvl 5 when they tout that little snippet.
From what we can gather (and by no means is this 'set in stone') but if you have, for example, amarr cruiser @ 3, caldari cruiser @ 3 and BC @ 3, when the changes come about, you'll have amarr BC @ 3 and caldari BC @ 3 (so you can still fly the drake and hurricane). This may change prior to the main inferno patch next month, but the worst they'll do, in my opinion, is raise the cruiser req from 3 to 4, which is 2-3 days train per faction. ergo, no biggie.
The reason you're hearing people mentioning level 5 trains is due to command ships. At the monent to get into say an amarr command ship, you need amarr cruiser AND BC @ level 5. By training the faction cruisers to level 3 (or being safe 4) and battlecruisers to level 5, they're opening up all command ships via a 20 day train, as opposed to having that 20 day train plus 4*20 days for the 4 faction cruisers @ 5. This is because the future command ship reqs are being reduced to racial cruiser 4 racial BC 5.
Either way, 'if you can fly it before, you can fly it now' has been said several times by the devs and therein should be the case. |
Mathieollo
Ind Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 14:09:00 -
[2010] - Quote
good to know in that case, it just kind of made me wonder why ccp hadn't said what would happen except if you were at lvl 5, glad to hear that though. |
|
Demonfuge Malevolent
Missions and Logistics Incorporated Paradoxium
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 15:02:00 -
[2011] - Quote
I would just like to add can you please notify us of the implementation date as far in advance as possible?
That way we can remap in time and train up BC 5 before the change.
(If I hold out a month I can use my regular remap, otherwise I need to use a bonus remap, hence the date for implementation will decide what I do with my attributes and skills!) |
Skarned
Inroads
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 16:31:00 -
[2012] - Quote
What's your timeline for implementing this? How many years till it's done? |
ikke bensuper
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 21:21:00 -
[2013] - Quote
jizzah wrote:Mathieollo wrote:[quote=Razor Rocker]When is this actually going to be implement? I know I've trained up BC and destroyer to 5 for this patch, but I also know a lot are still training them. What happens if you are 1/2 way done BC 5 when the patch hits? do you get all racial BC skills to 4 1/2 or 4? come about, you'll have amarr BC @ 3 and caldari BC @ 3 (so you can still fly drake and harbinger. The reason you're hearing people mentioning level 5 trains is due to command ships. At the monent to get into say an amarr command ship, you need amarr cruiser AND BC @ level 5. By training the faction cruisers to level 3 (or being safe 4) and battlecruisers to level 5, they're opening up all command ships via a 20 day train, as opposed to having that 20 day train plus 4*20 days for the 4 faction cruisers @ 5. This is because the future command ship reqs are being reduced to racial cruiser 4 racial BC 5. Either way, 'if you can fly it before, you can fly it now' has been said several times by the devs and therein should be the case.
Don't get people TOO excited about command ships, that 20 days train time you mention is only if they already have the other prerequisites for the other required ship classes to open up Command Ships, such as Logistics V for Fleet Command Ships and/or HAC V for Field Command Ships. As far as I know, those are still going to be required in the new trees. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Amarrshiptree2_1920.jpg
IE, still gonna need Signature Analysis V and Long Range Targeting V before you can train Logistics, before you can train Fleet Command Ships. |
Preston Vane
Da Regulators Silver Twilight Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 21:26:00 -
[2014] - Quote
@ ikke, you posted the tree as is atm, not the one that will be. They specificly stated that they no longer want Command ships to need logistics or hacs. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
626
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 06:18:00 -
[2015] - Quote
Jumpfreighters are tech 2 freighters. They currently require racial Freighter 4.
Will the prerequisite for Jumpfreighters be raised to racial Freighter 5?
If you can pilot a Jumpfreighter now, you would get racial Freighter 5 (about 42 days of training), and the ship bonuses that come with it. If you also have BC 5 and Destroyers 5 (I do), that could be a lot of free SP. |
jizzah
Royal Black Watch Highlanders RISE of LEGION
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 10:53:00 -
[2016] - Quote
ikke bensuper wrote:Don't get people TOO excited about command ships, that 20 days train time you mention is only if they already have the other prerequisites for the other required ship classes to open up Command Ships, such as Logistics V for Fleet Command Ships and/or HAC V for Field Command Ships. As far as I know, those are still going to be required in the new trees. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Amarrshiptree2_1920.jpgIE, still gonna need Signature Analysis V and Long Range Targeting V before you can train Logistics, before you can train Fleet Command Ships.
It's logi 4 and HAC 4 for the field/fleet command just now. Granted, they have a lot of other prereqs-spaceship command 5, warfare link 4, leadership 5, etc. |
Dream Five
Renegade Pleasure Androids Pleasure Syndicate
170
|
Posted - 2012.04.22 20:13:00 -
[2017] - Quote
Naglfar could use a lot of love. Maybe change 2+2 layout to 3+1 turrets + launchers. Currently a Revelation with artillery has higher alpha than Naglfar which is kind of ridiculous. Minmatar are supposed to have the highest alpha at least... |
ikke bensuper
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 08:57:00 -
[2018] - Quote
So, if we're 1 day short of having BC V done, will we then be 1 day short of each racial BC V after the change? Or will we simply be at BC 4 and have to do the entire 5th level all over on each race? Anyone know for sure? |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
462
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 11:12:00 -
[2019] - Quote
Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release.
Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
The estimated process is to start with Tech 1 ships, frigates first, then move our way up. Since Tech 2 and 3 are variations of Tech 1, they will be tackled later when we are confident we have a good baseline to work with.
Hope that helps |
|
Lorginir
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 12:42:00 -
[2020] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
The estimated process is to start with Tech 1 ships, frigates first, then move our way up. Since Tech 2 and 3 are variations of Tech 1, they will be tackled later when we are confident we have a good baseline to work with. Hope that helps
Hope humanity will still exist when rebalansing will be finished. |
|
cApAc aMaRu
Burning Sword
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 12:46:00 -
[2021] - Quote
Lorginir wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
The estimated process is to start with Tech 1 ships, frigates first, then move our way up. Since Tech 2 and 3 are variations of Tech 1, they will be tackled later when we are confident we have a good baseline to work with. Hope that helps Hope humanity will still exist when rebalansing will be finished.
We'll still exist. On the other side of the wormhole from which there is no return.
Protip: re-balancing never ends.
|
Preston Vane
Da Regulators
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 14:23:00 -
[2022] - Quote
At least we now have thousands of ppl with BC V who didn't bother training it before |
ikke bensuper
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:09:00 -
[2023] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
The estimated process is to start with Tech 1 ships, frigates first, then move our way up. Since Tech 2 and 3 are variations of Tech 1, they will be tackled later when we are confident we have a good baseline to work with. Hope that helps
Thanks for the post, but may I ask for a little clarification? When you say Destroyer/Battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno, does this mean it won't be during Inferno's lifespan, or does it mean just not for Inferno's release tomorrow? And how much advance warning are we talking? The date of May 24th for these changes had been floating around, and I was contemplating having to burn 2 bonus remaps to make that date. A little clarification would be much appreciated.
Thanks Ytterbium! |
Mathieollo
Ind Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:48:00 -
[2024] - Quote
Preston Vane wrote:At least we now have thousands of ppl with BC V who didn't bother training it before
ikke bensuper wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
The estimated process is to start with Tech 1 ships, frigates first, then move our way up. Since Tech 2 and 3 are variations of Tech 1, they will be tackled later when we are confident we have a good baseline to work with. Hope that helps Thanks for the post, but may I ask for a little clarification? When you say Destroyer/Battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno, does this mean it won't be during Inferno's lifespan, or does it mean just not for Inferno's release tomorrow? And how much advance warning are we talking? The date of May 24th for these changes had been floating around, and I was contemplating having to burn 2 bonus remaps to make that date. A little clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks Ytterbium!
yeah i'd like to hear the answer on that too, i already used one of the two needed to make the deadline but it's nothing too big of an issue and it'll still be nice to have the training out of the way ahead of time.
|
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
487
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 19:40:00 -
[2025] - Quote
Well that was one remap wasted on an alt... Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
Opa God
Northwest Industries International Technical Exploration Conglomerate of Hemera
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 20:34:00 -
[2026] - Quote
Mashie Saldana wrote:Well that was one remap wasted on an alt...
I am sure we will get a free remap to go back to what we were training before. You know CCP Ytterbium said:
To remind it again, there are other options to consider, but no matter which one which choose, you won't lose anything out of the skill reimbursement plan.
// sarcasm off |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 07:54:00 -
[2027] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
I think it's only understandable you would want to have a longer time frame over which you conduct these changes, considering it took you about 10 years to achieve the fragile balance we are working with right now.
What I don't understand, and please bear with me in this, is how you want to "rebalanc[e] one ship class at a time". Balance it against what exactly? Against all the other ship classes which you are also going to rebalance at a later point in time? Now I'm no pro at this, but logical deduction tells me that if you balance A against B and then change B... A is probably no longer balanced at all?
What I see happening is that you throw us back years and years in terms of actual, live game balancing. As in: The reality we have to make do with in-game, as opposed to the grand plan you have in mind, which may or may not work out, eventually. |
Morar Santee
64
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 16:39:00 -
[2028] - Quote
ikke bensuper wrote:First off, I would think balancing a ship class means balancing all frigates against each other, balancing all bc's against each other, etc. So by balancing one class at a time, they're not upsetting that balance when they move on to the next ship class.
Now, there will likely be some balancing between classes as well, ie balancing cost and effectiveness vs. the next class up of ships. However, I'm sure CCP has enough forethought to make these adjustments based on what they have planned for the next class in line to be balanced. To iterate somewhat on cApAc aMaRu's comment:
While ships within ship-classes have to be balanced against each other, ship-classes have to be balanced against other ship-classes. You can achieve perfect balance within a ship-class, with the ship-class itself still being utterly out of whack with the rest of the game.
And if you then take into consideration how long it took to get Assault Ships balanced, or the Destroyer buff, you have an idea what it means to screw with the entire system, start to finish. By the time they're done "re-balancing" the last ship-class, they can (read: have to) start re-re-balancing the entire thing, because the ship-classes they re-balanced first had no valid reference points. |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
33
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 16:39:00 -
[2029] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
The estimated process is to start with Tech 1 ships, frigates first, then move our way up. Since Tech 2 and 3 are variations of Tech 1, they will be tackled later when we are confident we have a good baseline to work with. Hope that helps
Excellent, so CCP ARE balancing Missiles. Weapon and module rebalancing surely has to come before ship rebalancing, and it looks like it may well be.
Thanks, CCP |
Dersen Lowery
Children of Armok Ushra'Khan
17
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 18:42:00 -
[2030] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:And if you then take into consideration how long it took to get Assault Ships balanced, or the Destroyer buff, you have an idea what it means to screw with the entire system, start to finish. By the time they're done "re-balancing" the last ship-class, they can (read: have to) start re-re-balancing the entire thing, because the ship-classes they re-balanced first had no valid reference points.
So, the odds are that CCP will continue tweaking ships into the indefinite future... as they have going back as far as you please.
I guess I don't see the problem.
The near-term rebalancing is because they're eliminating tiers, so there's no longer any reason for the "fast" frigates to have fewer slots and fitting options than the "brawler" frigates, and so on. Once they have the frigates balanced with respect to each other, they have a good reference baseline for the rest of the ship classes. That isn't perfect, but perfection is impossible under the circumstances, so good enough will have to do.
I'm excited about this. The Atron is a fun ship to fly. It will be nice to have a sound tactical reason to fly it outside of newbie missions. |
|
Ceptia Cyna
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 11:49:00 -
[2031] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. [...]
Do you (CCP) have data about how many capsuleers have trained BC V and Dest V in the time between the announcement and today?
Would be really funny to see these numbers. Cheers!
|
Bridget Banks
Mirrage Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 12:52:00 -
[2032] - Quote
Ceptia Cyna wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. [...] Do you (CCP) have data about how many capsuleers have trained BC V and Dest V in the time between the announcement and today? Would be really funny to see these numbers. Cheers!
I did it on 3 chars, (BC and Destr. to 5) good thing I was already remaped on perc. |
Yoshite McLulzypants
People called Romanes they go the house
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 15:29:00 -
[2033] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
The estimated process is to start with Tech 1 ships, frigates first, then move our way up. Since Tech 2 and 3 are variations of Tech 1, they will be tackled later when we are confident we have a good baseline to work with. Hope that helps
Damn I have been trolled hard by CCP. |
Snowtigers Claws
Harbour Rats
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:36:00 -
[2034] - Quote
When are you going to balance industrial ships ?
Eve cried out for more ships, better ships. And some joker thought "yeah why not. stick BS size guns on a battlecruiser hull. That will make the masses shut the **** up for the next 12 months.."
Thereby ensuring any f***wit with 6 months game time can gank Industrials to their hearts content in high sec space.
Way to go CCP. |
Nate Gordo
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 21:24:00 -
[2035] - Quote
I was wondering whether there are any plans to improve the Minmatar carrier and supercarrier. Compared to their counter parts these ships are both underpowered and poorly protected. Lacking the resist bonus of Amarr and Caldari ships and the damage bonus of the Gallente ships, the Minmatar ships are becoming redundant. Minmatar ships have often been regarding as one of the heavier hitting ships, but this is not the case in the carriers. I understand that the carriers are logistic ships, so where does the 5% bonus per level fit in for the supercarrier Hel. The nidhoggur is as good as ripping other caps as a archon. It comes down to the Nidhoggur and the Hel can not stand in a fight as longs as the Amarr and Caldari equivalents or do as much damage as the Gallente, and so provide less damage to a fight over all and many of the other carriers are just as good as acting as logistics.
Please help these ships have a role, I suggest a 5% bonus to drone rate of fire per carrier level to help these ships have a worthwhile role. |
D3N3R0TH
ANZAC ALLIANCE Executive Outcomes
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 04:23:00 -
[2036] - Quote
I agree to the HEL requiring a touch up. I dont believe the Nidd requires anything though. In triage they are the ultimate repping platform with both armor and shield rep amount/distance.
However the HEL is rather gimped compared to the rest.
Minny ships have always been rather radical in their high/mid/low slot configuration. While i have no issue with the mids/lows on a HEL, i think its ship bonus needs to be poked. Capital Shield Reppers are in the game for a reason. For local reps but no one uses them because they provide inadequate reps per second.
How about a 7.5% to shield boost per level .... bring back active tanking
... while your at it .. let crystal sets effect capital mods.
You still have the weakness of being neuted to death
Do something different ... be radical - as i said earlier .. minny ships have always been different.
|
Tess La'Coil
Lightbringer's Sanctuary Fatal Ascension
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 10:53:00 -
[2037] - Quote
So.. ignoring the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skill for a moment as I understand it takes some time to think about it.. could you please already remove BS5 skill requirement off Caps? Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother.-á |
Winterbliss
E X C E P T I O N Persona Non Gratis
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 11:42:00 -
[2038] - Quote
Tess La'Coil wrote:So.. ignoring the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skill for a moment as I understand it takes some time to think about it.. could you please already remove BS5 skill requirement off Caps?
Battleship V needs to remain a prerequisite for capitals, there are already far too many capital ship pilots in this game and removing said requirement will make it Capital Online. Man up and train it, it's worth it for the extra bonuses on your Battleship anyways.
|
Mathieollo
Ind Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 07:36:00 -
[2039] - Quote
so wait, i heard about missile balancing? does that mean missiles will finally stop bending the laws of physics around their gameplay mechanics and... *shock* work like missiles actually do? or did i read that wrong and they're getting nerfed to stop speed tank QQ? |
Serphas Tisamon
Knights of Free Space The 99 Percent
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 09:27:00 -
[2040] - Quote
and what of the case of partially trained skills..... say you have BC IV trained ~80% of the way... given you have the pre-req skills trained for the racials will you have BC IV ~80% on each racial? |
|
Caldari Meatbag
Insert Corporation Name Here
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 09:43:00 -
[2041] - Quote
Instead of having racial variants for all hull classes how about racial variants for Spaceship Command?
If you know how to fly a Caldari Battleship it shouldn't take too long to learn just how much duct tape is needed to hold the top wingy bit on a Minmatar Battleship.
http://i.imgur.com/8wyFH.jpg
Eg You can fly a Brutix but decide you want to rave it up in the mobile disco Harbinger, all you have to do is train Amarr Spaceship Command IV and you are good to go as you already know how a generic battlecruiser should fly.
Real world analogy - if you learnt to drive in a Ford, you don't need a retest if you want to drive a Toyota, just a short time figuring out they switched the indicator + wiper stalks. |
Headstone Carver
Cool4Cats
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 20:01:00 -
[2042] - Quote
not fussed either way about the skill changes , but I am concerned about the ship balancing. One of the nice things about the current unbalanced system is thatsome ships dont completely fit their intended or presumed role , but bacause they have an odd slot layout they become valuable in another role. nano hacs are not nanos just because they're fast but because they have a slot combination that makes it work adjusting those slots may "fix" them for their role but break the unintended ability.
I mainly use frigattes, i know i can kill interceptors (well some) with a vigil because i can fit an ab , scram and medium extender and in the lows i can use a a dcu and mapc. I dont know if making it fit it's ewar role more effectively will leave me with a ship i can use. This I think may be true for many classes.
In some respects, i like the prospect of being able to utilise more ships , but if they become predictable as "tackler" "ewar" "tank" " etc and unusable in another role then their value will be diminished rather than enhanced. Probably worrying unecesarily, ccp will get balancing wrong anyway, so some will always float to the top. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
108
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 22:41:00 -
[2043] - Quote
Morar Santee wrote:ikke bensuper wrote:First off, I would think balancing a ship class means balancing all frigates against each other, balancing all bc's against each other, etc. So by balancing one class at a time, they're not upsetting that balance when they move on to the next ship class.
Now, there will likely be some balancing between classes as well, ie balancing cost and effectiveness vs. the next class up of ships. However, I'm sure CCP has enough forethought to make these adjustments based on what they have planned for the next class in line to be balanced. To iterate somewhat on cApAc aMaRu's comment: While ships within ship-classes have to be balanced against each other, ship-classes have to be balanced against other ship-classes. You can achieve perfect balance within a ship-class, with the ship-class itself still being utterly out of whack with the rest of the game. And if you then take into consideration how long it took to get Assault Ships balanced, or the Destroyer buff, you have an idea what it means to screw with the entire system, start to finish. By the time they're done "re-balancing" the last ship-class, they can (read: have to) start re-re-balancing the entire thing, because the ship-classes they re-balanced first had no valid reference points.
You shoudn't hold how long it took one thing in the past with how long it will take in the future.
with the rage summer ccp is motivated to change things faster, that is a good thing.
Things happen, when you do them. Do or do not, no try. |
azurefox
Replikatorz
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:28:00 -
[2044] - Quote
I want to focus on training how to fly Battleships better, and not just Gallente Battleships, whilst enjoying flying Ships from other Races, without having to play the Race Specific Ship Skill Training Waiting Game.
Having chosen Gallente when I first discovered New Eden, and didn't know better, it didn't take me long to find out that I would need a highly skilled character to be able to fly their not so attractive ships well compared to the relatively low skills required to fly a Drake well enough to be able to solo Level 4 Missions.
I've visited New Eden three times since 2008. The first two times, I left after a few months because I was restricted to ships that I didn't like the look of and that I couldn't fly properly. I would have loved to have tried out some Ships from other Races but that would have meant waiting for racial ship skills to train. I don't want to pay to wait for skills to train plus that's time that could be better spent training other Skills that would improve my ability to fly Ships better in general. This time, I'm staying, partly because I'm addicted and in love with the new character generator but also because I'm now training to fly a Drake. If you can't beat 'em, train to fly 'em.
I'm all for an easier and more pilot friendly system if it means the system values a pilot's skills and not just a pilot's racial skills.
Caldari Meatbag wrote:Instead of having racial variants for all hull classes how about racial variants for Spaceship Command? If you know how to fly a Caldari Battleship it shouldn't take too long to learn just how much duct tape is needed to hold the top wingy bit on a Minmatar Battleship. |
Keri Stardust
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 19:53:00 -
[2045] - Quote
As it is now, no cruiser skills are required to train battle cruisers (to fly them sure, but not to train the book)
What would happen to people who have BC V and no cruiser skills at all?
|
Amarant'h
Order of the Domain The Polaris Syndicate
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 11:33:00 -
[2046] - Quote
Many people, including me, have used MUCH time and money to head on one way or another. To make all my feelings show on this post against this renewal and hatred, is nearly impossible.
Just make the tech tree go as it should be. Level 5's for every next ship on specific race. Cr 5 allows you to learn BC, BC 5 allows you to go BS... etc. Now if this new plan is going to happen like that, Im going to look forward really carefully and rethink about how all the spent time is going to be worth for me. Maybe shutting down all my 3 accounts might be an ansver for that. No reason to play the game anymore. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
108
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 04:57:00 -
[2047] - Quote
Amarant'h wrote:Many people, including me, have used MUCH time and money to head on one way or another. To make all my feelings show on this post against this renewal and hatred, is nearly impossible.
Just make the tech tree go as it should be. Level 5's for every next ship on specific race. Cr 5 allows you to learn BC, BC 5 allows you to go BS... etc. Now if this new plan is going to happen like that, Im going to look forward really carefully and rethink about how all the spent time is going to be worth for me. Maybe shutting down all my 3 accounts might be an ansver for that. No reason to play the game anymore.
its level 5 for the tech 2, not for training the next level
4 will still be for going from BC to BS, or cruiser to BC |
Farys
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 09:50:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Keri Stardust wrote:As it is now, no cruiser skills are required to train battle cruisers (to fly them sure, but not to train the book)
What would happen to people who have BC V and no cruiser skills at all? Since the cruisers are required for the battlecruisers skill only, not actually required for the ship, you'll be fine.
As long as you meet the top-level prereqs, even if they change the inner ones, it won't matter. |
Ranka Mei
TANoshii Incorporated New Eden Research.
126
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 00:28:00 -
[2049] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
It goes far beyond simply unappealing. It is simply not practical. We've got dozens of battlecruisers in the wormhole we live in and potentially nobody would even be able to fly them for months. The best solution is not to reimburse BC/Destroyer SP but to give everyone the racial skills at the level they have them trained when the books are seeded.
-Liang
easily solvable with a grace period during which the old skill will work and which give you time to train the new ones to level 4, after which the original skill is terminated and SP reimbursed to be used wherever you want
Bull. Because that means I'm forced, as it were, to train these skills back up within the existing grace period (at the penalty of forfeit if I choose not to), whereas my current neural remap may not all be set for that. People *do* plan ahead, you know!?
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".
Well, that's cute, but what is really required is "What you could potentially fly today, you should potentially be able to fly tomorrow." Meaning, if today I had, say, all prerequisites to start tranining Minmatar Battleship, but hadn't actually done so, that tomorrow I should still be able to train it without sudden extra/new requirements. Otherwise you're still taking away (and severely so), only in a less obvious and immediate manner.
-- "All your monies AUR belong to us!" -- CCP |
Keri Stardust
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:28:00 -
[2050] - Quote
Farys wrote:Keri Stardust wrote:As it is now, no cruiser skills are required to train battle cruisers (to fly them sure, but not to train the book)
What would happen to people who have BC V and no cruiser skills at all? Since the cruisers are required for the battlecruisers skill only, not actually required for the ship, you'll be fine. As long as you meet the top-level prereqs, even if they change the inner ones, it won't matter.
I understand that part, but how would they reassign the skills, like for example would I get BCV for all 4 races? even though currently I can't sit in any battle cruiser as I have no cruiser skills trained at all, just BCV. they make mention of if you could use it now then you will be able to use it after, but as i can't use them now, do i just lose the skill?
|
|
Hena Muri
Rubicon Extraction Services
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 00:18:00 -
[2051] - Quote
Keri Stardust wrote:Farys wrote:Keri Stardust wrote:As it is now, no cruiser skills are required to train battle cruisers (to fly them sure, but not to train the book)
What would happen to people who have BC V and no cruiser skills at all? Since the cruisers are required for the battlecruisers skill only, not actually required for the ship, you'll be fine. As long as you meet the top-level prereqs, even if they change the inner ones, it won't matter. I understand that part, but how would they reassign the skills, like for example would I get BCV for all 4 races? even though currently I can't sit in any battle cruiser as I have no cruiser skills trained at all, just BCV. they make mention of if you could use it now then you will be able to use it after, but as i can't use them now, do i just lose the skill?
I suspect in this specific case they would refund the SP. Though, this situation is strange as in order to fly a BC you have to have cruiser 3. You don't need BC for anything that doesn't also require cruiser so training BC to any notable level (4 or 5) means putting a lot of time into a skill that's useless to you without a days worth of training in at least one race of cruiser...
I suspect that "plenty of notice" they refered to means that if you keep watching, you'll have plenty of time to get to cruiser 3 on each race that you want BC V with.
However, unless they want to annoy the RP players that intentionally avoid cross-training, they have to have a secondary qualifier on these skills. Cruisers makes sense because it fits there "if you can fly it now you can fly it after" policy. I don't believe they have an opprotunity cost policy and these changes sound specifically like they are altering the opprotunity cost to get in various vessels. So, if your long term plan doesn't let you get into them, and you're unwilling to train un-optomized for a couple of days, then you probably need to accept that it will be more expensive later. Not sure this is something CCP should be concerned about as real life often does this so people should be used to it now.
_WAter_
|
Ranka Mei
TANoshii Incorporated New Eden Research.
127
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:25:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Hena Muri wrote:Cruisers makes sense because it fits there "if you can fly it now you can fly it after" policy. I don't believe they have an opprotunity cost policy and these changes sound specifically like they are altering the opprotunity cost to get in various vessels. So, if your long term plan doesn't let you get into them, and you're unwilling to train un-optomized for a couple of days, then you probably need to accept that it will be more expensive later. Not sure this is something CCP should be concerned about as real life often does this so people should be used to it now.
As I already stated above, I don't like that at all. Min/maxers like myself carefully use neural remaps in our planning ahead. CCP shouldn't screw with that. If I have already trained BC V, and remapped to somethuing other than perception/willpower, I should not suddenly -- and thru no fault of my own -- be forced, as it were, to train suboptimally to re-acquire something I already had.
-- "All your monies AUR belong to us!" -- CCP |
Syris Khaeraan
Cybran Corporation IMPERIAL LEGI0N
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 05:07:00 -
[2053] - Quote
I trained Heavy assault ship to IV (Which is a class of ship i never wanted to fly) only to get to the command ships.
Will there be a refund or something for the "now useless" intermediary skills along the line for some ships?
If u think about it, i now have 257k SP totally "wasted" when the change will it us...
For some ppl it may be nothing, but for character with less than 20M SP its still some SP u might not want... at least for now.
Sidenote: Saw nothing about t2 ship skill refunds... if i was simply blind, point me in the right direction? |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
97
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:52:00 -
[2054] - Quote
Syris Khaeraan wrote:I trained Heavy assault ship to IV (Which is a class of ship i never wanted to fly) only to get to the command ships.
Will there be a refund or something for the "now useless" intermediary skills along the line for some ships?
If u think about it, i now have 257k SP totally "wasted" when the change will it us...
For some ppl it may be nothing, but for character with less than 20M SP its still some SP u might not want... at least for now.
Sidenote: Saw nothing about t2 ship skill refunds... if i was simply blind, point me in the right direction?
Dont forget the Warfare Link Specialist IV :D But i think this ship changes wont come with May 22 patch. |
Jitoru
The Confederation of Eves good Knights Destiny's Call
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 22:18:00 -
[2055] - Quote
Hello everyone, I have to say: I wanted to read the whole thread before answering... but after the 20th , that was obviously ignoring the posts of ccp posters promising proper reimbursement siding with the sfrathegy of -what you flew yesterday you still can tomorrow- i decided to Not read the other comments.
To ccp: Ship Balance is something i'm looking forward to See from you. As a Personal request: would you please fix the rokh Balance? it is heavily worse then any other bs of its Tier and atm not worth flying. Second request is the scorpion: please make her a battleship... she is a clay nutshell since the ecm nerf .. no One flies her anymore but everyone likes her look.
I as a proud caldari Pilot have high hopes fo the coming ship balancing.
o7 fly save
Jitoru |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
38
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 03:00:00 -
[2056] - Quote
I can't believe the selfishness of so many people posting here about how "unfair" the coming changes are to them. Just because you trained skills that make no sense to get to a certain ship doesn't mean everyone after you has to suffer the same consequences. Not being able to fly what you could yesterday is understandable, and CCP said 1,000 times already that THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN. But people are now complaining about everything else they had to train. HTFU, we all had to train those same stupid skills to get to a ship we wanted, they finally fixing that for the better and all you can think about is your time lost. You're pathetic.
If you bought a car that was giving 20 m/pg and drove it for 2 years and then the same car company released a new model which gives 40m/pg are you going to go back to the dealership and bang down doors demanding a refund because you spent 2 years driving around and wasting all that gas? HTFU!
Now that I got that rant out of my system, CCP, PLEASE in the future release SEPARATE blogs on such huge issues as these. The important stuff that should be discussed (SHIP REBALANCING) is being drowned out and replaced by a sea of whining from a bunch of panicking lemmings. |
Kaena Stark
Assisted Homicide Ace of Spades.
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 01:42:00 -
[2057] - Quote
Ah the panick before rebalancing ^^ Chasing FOTM will just give you a headache, train what you want to fly here and now, Eve has never been any different.
"I want all 4 races command ships" this is coming from people who didnt even enjoy using BC's enough to train the skill to lvl 5 in the first place... It seems that as soon as free SP is mentioned everyone does a Golum and rushes around panicking about the precious skill points.
Hooray for mass hysteria and the inevitable price hike on command ships! =D |
Jame Jarl Retief
Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 15:41:00 -
[2058] - Quote
Did they say WHEN splitting of Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills is going to take place? I understand it's not going to be May 22nd with the initial Inferno patch. Although I could be mistaken. But if not then, then when? A month from now? Three months? Six? |
11eyes
War Trident Trifectas Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 13:44:00 -
[2059] - Quote
I believe that BS IV for carriers is a good move on CCPs part it ups the scale on which carriers will be sold thus making miners and productionists happy as well as letting newer players experience a taste of what capital warfare and piloting is like, however i do not believe that BS V should be taken out of supers nor from Titans as these ships are well worth the training time and do the damage to prove it i also believe adding capital ship IV or V to supers would help to offset the 30 - 40 days that are no longer required to fly a carrier as this would keep all those raging "veterans" who also come from elitist nullsec alliances who like to say hey look at our caps because you dont have this many happy that they can still maintain their image of "power". |
Orion GUardian
137
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 15:35:00 -
[2060] - Quote
Hmm I'd really liek to know what came of these plans. No furtehr information, nothing in Patch notes no news or announcements... |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 15:38:00 -
[2061] - Quote
Orion GUardian wrote:Hmm I'd really liek to know what came of these plans. No furtehr information, nothing in Patch notes no news or announcements... They changed some frigate stats. I think anything else will have to wait till later. |
Phoebe Prime
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 15:26:00 -
[2062] - Quote
Having kept up with this whine-fest thread from the beginning, I immediately trained BCV and DESTV and trained amarr frigate 5 and amarr cruiser 3.
SOOOOOOO... When this whole thing hits like it's been said over 9000 times before, I will probably come out with every racial Destroyers V and every racial battlecruisers V.
Up 4.5m SP + any SP reimbursement for Battlecruisers Up 1.5m SP + any SP reimbursement for Destroyers
As a bittervet, you have to just take what CCP throws and turn it for the better for you. I wonder how many people actually did this grind in preparation.
Even if it doesn't go as planned, BC 5 and Dest 5 are good skills to have to 5. |
Salient Soldier
Cygni Mira Conglomerate Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:21:00 -
[2063] - Quote
Another good example of CCP fixing something that isnt broken.
Moon goo? no. Remove all t2 bpos? no. Flood the game with more low end specialization and lowbee cap ship isk farmers? YES!
All i have to say, is my character better be provided with SP for all 4 racial BC and DES, or im going to re-re-re rage quit. |
Riolenn
Rayn Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 22:47:00 -
[2064] - Quote
I really hope the person that does the balancing is not the person that did the blog
"This opens up possibilities in terms of new ships. 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?"
The Exequror is not the gal dampening ship that's the Celestis, the exequror was balanced last time to be a cargo transport. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 22:52:00 -
[2065] - Quote
Fix the Worm frigate. If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Epyx Nykee
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 05:48:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Ok this is a repeat of questions I had in what was a dead thread. So pasting it here :p Now keep in mind that "NO i have not read the whole flipping thread, i want easy answers and not have to skim through them all. So deal with it."
If nothing below is comprehensible then just ignore this post and troll away (CCP Loves Trolls, hopefully they have one to whip the hamsters tomorrow so the update goes smoothly) Anyways Ya heres my uneducated questions based of like 1 page of ****..
Ok, am i getting this correct.
If say Joe has BC 5 he gets Racial BC 5 across the board, but if you have 4 or less you get that across the board?
Would this not be a big advantage to those who have BC 5 already due to everyone else having to actually take each racial bc to 5 virtually making what took Older players 2 months to do new players would have to spend 8 or so months to get the same racial skillset that older players where just given because they trained BC 5 previously? Or are the racial BC skills going to be reduced in skillpoints and multipliers lowered?
If in fact people with BC 5 currently get a free pass for across the board BC 5 yet that person with BC 4/3/2/1 now has to train 4x the amount of skillpoints to accomplish the same goal is just ridiculous.
Hopefully the above statement is somewhat comprehensible and someone can clarify exactly what is going to be happening.
Also another question is, lets say Joe Shcmoe is currently training BC 5 when the racial class's are implemented, does this person loose out even though he was on the track to BC 5? If so this seems quite unfair also.
If this is the case then Racial BC 5 should not be given to those that already have BC 5. Instead some form of faster multiplier should be given to those that have BC 5 for the other races. Yes this is still unfair but in the end at least those who already have BC 5 will not be given a training advantage (not having to train any Racial BC skillset).
(Below is surely wrong, BC 5 there so. but ya u get the idea)
Someone with BC 5 already = 1,536,000 sp
if all racial bc skills are the same thats 6,144,000 SP to get all racial BC 5. This gives those with BC 5 already literally 4,608,000 free skillpoints.
All in all
WHO THE F--- Cares, we will all get over it, eve will continue, people will rage quit then come slithering back.
****** IF YOUR GOING TO RAGE QUIT FEEL FREE TO CONTRACT ME ALL YOUR ITEMS AND ISK! I'M NOT ABOVE FREE ****!!! ****** |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 07:48:00 -
[2067] - Quote
11eyes wrote:I believe that BS IV for carriers is a good move on CCPs....
I think, that is not good move. The capital ships ruined this game, and now they want to put to game more capitalships. |
Ger Rees
EntroPraetorian Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 08:59:00 -
[2068] - Quote
I'm not a huge fan of the idea of changing requirements such as heavy assault ships IV to be able to fly command ships, I like that eve makes you start at the bottom and get good with smaller ships first, but that's just my opinion...
I Definetely like that you are removing the level V requirement for some of the t1 ships, the covetors barge V req. made no sense at all...
Finally, and most importtantly: I would love to see an Amarr drone or even tracking disruptor battleship... We seriously need one... |
Argyle Jones
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 17:37:00 -
[2069] - 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'm just wondering why the ship progression system is so important that it's worth having to reimburse skillpoints over in the first place?
There seems to be this track of uniformity going on over at CCP. We are getting uniform item names. We are getting uniformity between faction warfare and null-sec in the naming conventions for sovereignty. We are getting a single window unified inventory. Now you want to make all ship progression uniformly identical.
Are you not worried that you're reducing the complexity of the game, the variety that makes it interesting and the learning curve that appeals to many of your more serious players? I certainly fear that if you continue down this track, EVE could lose some of its depth, character and complexity to the point where it becomes another bland MMO in the pile.
Also, please consider that while you would like to draw in more new players, most of your older player base have several characters. For every old bittervet that quits the game, you have to draw in several new players to turn the same profit. A quest to eliminate the learning curve and simplify EVE might backfire economically. |
Phoebe Prime
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 17:43:00 -
[2070] - Quote
Argyle Jones wrote: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'm just wondering why the ship progression system is so important that it's worth having to reimburse skillpoints over in the first place? There seems to be this track of uniformity going on over at CCP. We are getting uniform item names. We are getting uniformity between faction warfare and null-sec in the naming conventions for sovereignty. We are getting a single window unified inventory. Now you want to make all ship progression uniformly identical. Are you not worried that you're reducing the complexity of the game, the variety that makes it interesting and the learning curve that appeals to many of your more serious players? I certainly fear that if you continue down this track, EVE could lose some of its depth, character and complexity to the point where it becomes another bland MMO in the pile. Also, please consider that while you would like to draw in more new players, most of your older player base have several characters. For every old bittervet that quits the game, you have to draw in several new players to turn the same profit. A quest to eliminate the learning curve and simplify EVE might backfire economically.
I sincerely doubt that this is the case. Making it easier to find items or pick out what item does what based on names and location is a matter of convenience. They aren't huge game changers, just cleaning up all the lose ends over the years. |
|
Creh Ester
Presence under Leisure
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 18:48:00 -
[2071] - Quote
I see that a lot of people claim to like this. Well, We'll see. Personally, I hate it. And my gut reaction is: A lot of unnecessary and complex changes for reasons that will only seem good to anal retentive persons suffering from some kind of compulsive organization disorder syndrom. And changes are always bad. Always bad. Sometimes, they are necessary, but even then they are bad.
Yes, I can certainly see that people think a lot of ships are useless or obsolete, and see the tier system as the culprit. And this is true. However the reason it's true, is because of all the other faulty game-design that EVE is full of. In this context I'm thinking specifically of lack of fuel-costs for ships, + lack of costs for ship damage, + the dreadful size handicap system.
Smaller ship sizes immediately makes much more sense when they are coupled to an operating cost! Size handicaps or purchasing costs will never make sense of all ships. They only benefit suicide gankers and goons who can always find something cheap and good enough. (like so many other poor-adviced exploit-enhancing things as: ready trained trial alts, ready trained new alts, crippling modules, gang modules)
Role may seem, to above mentioned anal retentive CODS person, as a better idea than tiers. Granted, tiers was a terrible idea. However, why do we have modules at all if our devs are going to decide the 'role' for everything?
Do I have a personal ax to grind? Yes I do. I've adapted. I've already found roles for many 'obsolete ships'. Now CCP starts by ruining my Merlin and my Incursus. I'm not pleased. Not pleased at all.
I'm also not pleased that this nonsensical, vain, useless, struggle to artificially contrieve all ships useful by assigning impractical and useless balancing just continues and continues, year af. People will continue to fly only a few types of ships. Those who happen to work well, until the inevitable day when CCP desides to nerf those well and deep into oblivion and uselessness (who uses a Raven these days for PvE?). And then we have to find the new best choice, and so on. - Braindead!
My suggestions are far more radical, and I absolutely don't expect to see them. But they would work, unlike this and other potato-mash from CCP (don't they have a single mathematician in their ranks?). Remove hull and armor reppers from the game. (yes, completely change tanking and make armor and hull damage always cost). And make ships need fuel. Now, flying and fighting with those ships will suddenly cost money. Operating costs. A very good reason to think twice before taking that T2 BS out for a spin down to the grocery. It would also give ships a new role-attribute, range.
|
Gishna Okel
Pixies Exploration and Salvage Services
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 07:21:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Creh Ester wrote:
So dear CCP, now the Merlin and Incursus both have three hybrid towers, and the same role, "shortrange brawler". So how are they now different and both valid? And you said this rebalancing was to avoid obsolete ships? Well, since almost regardless of how you fit these two ships now, the Incursus tend to end up with almost twice the tank. And it does that even as it's faster, deals more dps, and still have two empty slots left, and CPU and PG to go. So tell me, dear CCP, how is the Merlin not utterly obsolete now? Does "balance" mean something else to CCP? Explain, please.
Balanced for a Dev who flies Gallente perhaps.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
585
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 13:47:00 -
[2073] - Quote
The level of tank you can get out of an incursus is absolutely absurd, to the point where it makes almost every other frigate look like a joke. |
Picaroon Standoffish
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 13:24:00 -
[2074] - Quote
First thing, Congratulation CCP for looking at a complicated old design as the ship system. I don't care about the SP change of DS and BC. And I agree with the fact that "if you could fly it yesterday, you can fly it tomorrow", it make sense and it's logical for all player.
I can see why the change of skills - pre requiste can bring a better process to change/add ship in the futur, and I do love consistency.
So here is how I see it for great consistency (all racial skills):
Frigate IV -> Destroyer IV -> Cruiser IV -> BC IV -> BS IV -> Capital IV -> Titan
The messy part is the capital ship really Let see the role of the cap ship: Carrier -> Logistic / drones / Booster(for super carrier) Dread -> Damage
A cruiser drone boat require only cruiser skill, a logistic boat require only cruiser skill, and damage board require only cruiser skill, only the booster boat is only a BC specialization but still require only that ship! Only the role change...
So consistency mean that Carrier and Dread require only Capital ship skill. And only their role change...
Now the T2 ships are about specialization, see the problem with the cap ship which have already specialization? T2 ship should require the ship size skill to V as it is the case already. - Should it require smaller size T2 skill? as CCP I don't think so. -Should player decide to train a smaller size T2 with the same specialization? depend on if they want to learn to use that specialization for cheaper. Plus usually big ship mean fleet, small ship mean more roaming.
So again Capital ship specialization? They should exist, Cap ship should have a T2 version requiring Capital V. And here is where you can use the name carrier and Dread and Super Carrier.
So should titan be specialize? well consistency would require yes. Can have damage titan, fleet helper titan.
And here you have consistency for you PvP/PvE ship. In the future is a ship is needed to be added, choose a hull size and get the role of a T1 and a specialization of a T2.
Now about non combat stuff.
Frigate II -> Industrial IV -> Freighter Why frigate II ? At the moment all the frigate that have the role of giving you more cargo require frigate II...
Transport ship require Industrial V, and JF require Freighter V (people gonna hate that one, but T2 ship mean T1 skill at V) Also adding another Freighter specialization would be nice, so specialization are to be chosen... Like adding a specialization for ship transporter, a ship with a small cargo bay and a big ship cargo bay.
About Mining stuff. Frigate II -> Mining Barge IV -> Exhumer IV -> Industrial Operation ship IV (Industrial Command ship) -> Industrial Capital Ship Why frigate II ? At the moment all the frigate that have the role to mine require Frigate II.
Cruiser or not Cruiser? Well Only the Osprey is a Mining cruiser, so it's either Frigate IV -> Cruiser IV -> Mining barge, and introduce a Mining cruiser for each race. or drop the Osprey mining bonus. and keep just Frigate as a requirement for Mining Barge.
Renaming industrial command ship? Well the current name define a specific specialization for the sub cap ship! T2 sub capital and capital? they should exist and require the skill at V of course. Industrial Operation ship: - One would be more on system operation center with better bonuses and a way to store more ore (more ore cargo or compression, less effective that rorqual of course), but lot slower and less agility. - One would be more belt operation center with better assist (drone/remote repair), speed/agility, but less ore storage.
Industrial Capital Ship: About the same idea but more focus for 0.4- aspect - System operation center: more bonus, better compression/ore hold. - Belt operation center: Lot less effective compression (with a loss?), removing the industrial core 0 speed and greatly reducing it's cycle time, better assist (drone/remote repair), less storage, more agility/speed/tank.
That would give plenty of SP to some people (some will love, some will hate, learning skill have done the same thing, veteran gained time before the update and free SP after, new player don't but can start playing on the first day and not a month after!) Some people hate you because they trained skill they wont need anymore (especially titan pilots), for those where the ship can be docked, they should see that as a plus! and for the other ones, well you may be considering reimbursing the SP. In term of time require to train, it can be modify by modifying the other requirement skill.
To my opinion it a consistent way to do it. T1 ship have role, next step require smaller size to IV, and specialization (T2) require the ship size to V. All ship have specialization (and more than one would be better).
- All T1 skill are Racial skills, all T2 skills are Generic. -Easier way to improve/add ships in later increments. - I haven't touch the T3 as I have ever used them and they seem consistent to me. - Add more to capital / Transport / Mining.
As long as again, what you could fly yesterday, you will be able to fly it tomorow, I would just quote the first line of the EULA
Quote:ESRB Notice: Game Experience May Change During Online Play If you hate change, don't play an online game!
Disclaimer: This is not what I think how the change should be, It is a concept (so not fully detailed, I am no game designer!) to what I think changing the ship system for more consistency could be! And sorry for the wall of text, not especially well formatted! |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 11:25:00 -
[2075] - Quote
so you guys announced these changes far enough in advance to allow us to prepare. I burned remaps on 3 toons to be able to train battlecruisers and destroyers to 5 before the changes, including one toon that might never have a need for it. Now the expansion has come and gone and you did not make the skill changes.
If you decided not to make the changes to the skill system I'm glad as it was a bad idea IMHO. However your stating that this was for sure happening cost me 3 remaps. If this was just an idea under consideration you should have said that. I've now wasted over 4 months of training time for skills I may never use.
If you decide not to do this then it may be a good idea to take a look at how many people remaped to Perception / Willpower after this was announced and consider giving out a free remap to everyone if that number is high. |
Integra Arkanheld
Andorra Paradis Fiscal
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 09:18:00 -
[2076] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Destroyer / battlecruiser skill revamp is not coming for Inferno. We will make sure to let you know in advance if and when this happens for a future release. Please remember, the time line for ship balancing spans over several expansions, as:
- There are too many changes to put that in a single release - not only ships need be looked into, but some modules / weapon systems need rebalancing as well (ex: active versus passive tanking, missiles...)
- Even if we could, this would not be wise to change everything in a single release - we want to approach this through iteration steps. That means rebalancing one ship class at a time, gathering feedback / data, iterating on it while balancing the next class and so on.
The estimated process is to start with Tech 1 ships, frigates first, then move our way up. Since Tech 2 and 3 are variations of Tech 1, they will be tackled later when we are confident we have a good baseline to work with. Hope that helps
As you know that you will put the 4 racial destroyer and battlecruisers skills, and that you will do it in months, why do not you seed already the skills so people can begin to train the skills? Then when you make the change, you give back the skill points from the old obsolete skills, and activate the new ones. People will have time to train for the new skills, and also all the points restored from the old skills to not have problems when you make the change. It will take months to make the destroyers change, and again months to do later the battlecruiser changes, so if we can train now the skills, we have more than enough time to be prepared. I already have the 2 skills at L5, but I think it is too much to receive the 8 new skills at L5 when there will be the change. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne
129
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 13:32:00 -
[2077] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:If you decide not to do this then it may be a good idea to take a look at how many people remaped to Perception / Willpower after this was announced and consider giving out a free remap to everyone if that number is high.
It wouldn't be a bad idea - to give everyone a free remap when the change goes live. Because most of us probably did remap Perc/Wil just for that reason. I know I did. |
Nalianna
Rogue Clones Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:09:00 -
[2078] - Quote
Argyle Jones wrote: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'm just wondering why the ship progression system is so important that it's worth having to reimburse skillpoints over in the first place? There seems to be this track of uniformity going on over at CCP. We are getting uniform item names. We are getting uniformity between faction warfare and null-sec in the naming conventions for sovereignty. We are getting a single window unified inventory. Now you want to make all ship progression uniformly identical. Are you not worried that you're reducing the complexity of the game, the variety that makes it interesting and the learning curve that appeals to many of your more serious players? I certainly fear that if you continue down this track, EVE could lose some of its depth, character and complexity to the point where it becomes another bland MMO in the pile. Also, please consider that while you would like to draw in more new players, most of your older player base have several characters. For every old bittervet that quits the game, you have to draw in several new players to turn the same profit. A quest to eliminate the learning curve and simplify EVE might backfire economically. This ^
I'm not that old a player, but I have 4 accounts and have been recently reevaluating my continuing to play. At the centre of my thoughts and feelings on this is the fact that, as above, EVE seems to be becoming all one level. There is less and less variety, any ship, weapon or module that looks too OP gets nerfed (only to have another FOTM take its place), and it doesn't really matter what race you've trained, you get the same relative skill progression. There SHOULD be humps and bumps, as well as easy bits to the training, and different ones at different levels for different races. There SHOULD be some races that excel at some things that noone else does well, and if you want to learn to do that you just have to put up with the fact that it's harder for your race until you get the base skills up, at least. What about a race that only uses and specialises in small, extremely effective ships, while others only really use larger ships, only relying on small ships for shuttles? That opportunity is probably long gone, but that's the general idea and that idea could still find a place to some extent....
The fact that EVE is turning into a game where race means nothing, and everyone gets the same advantages as everyone else in everything regardless of race, is the main reason I'm feeling more and more that it's not the place for me. And before everyone jumps on me because I should be in FW, yes I know I can train anything I want to train - again, that isn't the point - if I specialise in one race, I should expect to get some benefits to that as well as the obvious drawbacks. Right now, I don't see that there is any benefit at all in specialisation, again, (possibly) with the exception of FW. |
Nalianna
Rogue Clones Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 04:36:00 -
[2079] - Quote
Creh Ester wrote:So dear CCP, now the Merlin and Incursus both have three hybrid towers, and the same role, "shortrange brawler". So how are they now different and both valid? And you said this rebalancing was to avoid obsolete ships? Well, since almost regardless of how you fit these two ships now, the Incursus tend to end up with almost twice the tank. And it does that even as it's faster, deals more dps, and still have two empty slots left, and CPU and PG to go. So tell me, dear CCP, how is the Merlin not utterly obsolete now? Does "balance" mean something else to CCP? Explain, please. Firstly, I love your ideas!! I can pretty much agree with everything you wrote.
Your comment about the Merlin rang a bell with me and my "obsession" with specialisation. I learnt, as a Caldari pilot, to see the Merlin as a kiting machine, rather than a short range brawler. And the guns it used had to be railguns to complement its missiles, rather than blasters, because, well, Caldari kite. But now, without missiles, if it's useless for anything other than short range fighting, and for that, you have to use blasters, why would you NOT train an Incursus and be done with it? As a Caldari-specialised pilot, I would not fly the Incursus (although I can, as I have the skills), but I would not fly the Merlin either, as I now see it as a fairly useless ship - I only ever really relied on the missiles anyway. I know others who feel the same. I guess you could say Caldari aren't really short-range brawlers anyway, so why would they ever use the Merlin anymore? It used to be my favourite ship as a noob too! |
Integra Arkanheld
Andorra Paradis Fiscal
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 11:42:00 -
[2080] - Quote
There are more and more modules, but ships have very few slots. Now that you upgrade everything, why not make for example a fitting screen for ships with 2 levels? 1 for active modules, and 1 for passive modules for example? this way, there would be a maximum of double modules slots, increasing a lot the number of possible combinations. Another option would be to have frigates stay normal. Destroyers have 2 levels of fitting slots (so double number of frigates). Cruisers 3 levels, BC 4 levels, BB 5 levels, capitals 10, and super capitals 15. This way the configurations possible would be enormous. There would still be the limit imposed by modules stacking penalties, the maximum cpu and powergrids of the ships, limiting what can be fitted to ships, but we could see the possibility of using many modules that now are no used due to the lack of modules slots. Also to limit usage, small modules might use 1 slot, medium 2, large 3, capital 5 module slots, limiting the number and type of modules used in ships. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2008
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 21:12:00 -
[2081] - Quote
Nalianna wrote:Creh Ester wrote:So dear CCP, now the Merlin and Incursus both have three hybrid towers, and the same role, "shortrange brawler". So how are they now different and both valid? And you said this rebalancing was to avoid obsolete ships? Well, since almost regardless of how you fit these two ships now, the Incursus tend to end up with almost twice the tank. And it does that even as it's faster, deals more dps, and still have two empty slots left, and CPU and PG to go. So tell me, dear CCP, how is the Merlin not utterly obsolete now? Does "balance" mean something else to CCP? Explain, please. Firstly, I love your ideas!! I can pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Your comment about the Merlin rang a bell with me and my "obsession" with specialisation. I learnt, as a Caldari pilot, to see the Merlin as a kiting machine, rather than a short range brawler. And the guns it used had to be railguns to complement its missiles, rather than blasters, because, well, Caldari kite. But now, without missiles, if it's useless for anything other than short range fighting, and for that, you have to use blasters, why would you NOT train an Incursus and be done with it? As a Caldari-specialised pilot, I would not fly the Incursus (although I can, as I have the skills), but I would not fly the Merlin either, as I now see it as a fairly useless ship - I only ever really relied on the missiles anyway. I know others who feel the same. I guess you could say Caldari aren't really short-range brawlers anyway, so why would they ever use the Merlin anymore? It used to be my favourite ship as a noob too!
1: The Merlin is not to be taken lightly now, even compared to the Incursus.
2: Missiles are not a prerequisite weapons system for a kiting vessel, Rail guns do that task quite nicely as well.
I believe there is still room for tweaking these changes, after all they are still getting a handle on how they want ships rebalanced. I also am somewhat excited to see some of the traditional roles for the various races being rethought.
Example: The Caldari have always hamstrung themselves by not developing close range brawlers in all ship classes. The Gallante have always hamstrung themselves by not developing more sniping vessels.
The trick is to cover the necessary bases and yet still retain the "flavor" of your particular race. To do this we will probably further changes in the slot layouts, and also likely see even more modules introduced to allow things like say a shield boosting tackler to exist and be effective. Probably more to the point I have little doubt we will see a great many bonuses replaced, and perhaps new bonuses introduced, to help the process along. 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. |
Martin0
Maximum-Overload M-A-T-R-I-X Allianz
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 09:52:00 -
[2082] - Quote
PLEASE CCP don't make missile armed gallente ships. Gallente are supposed to be the drone race still the amarr recons have more drones than gallente one; i'm fine with amarr having drone, i'm not fine with gallente having LESS drones than amarr).
Having a different kind of ship is cool, if the lanchesis became a TRUE missile boat (4 launcher slot, change the hybrid damage bonus) it wil be awesome. But PLEASE make the arazu a drone boat. |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 11:50:00 -
[2083] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:The level of tank you can get out of an incursus is absolutely absurd, to the point where it makes almost every other frigate look like a joke. Then fly an incursus and keep your mouth shut until someone in CCP figures out your immense wisdom and worships you as the spaceship genius that you see yourself to be. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 14:39:00 -
[2084] - Quote
Martin0 wrote:PLEASE CCP don't make missile armed gallente ships. Gallente are supposed to be the drone race still the amarr recons have more drones than gallente one; i'm fine with amarr having drone, i'm not fine with gallente having LESS drones than amarr).
Having a different kind of ship is cool, if the lanchesis became a TRUE missile boat (4 launcher slot, change the hybrid damage bonus) it wil be awesome. But PLEASE make the arazu a drone boat.
Well Eos would like to have a talk with you, probably the most useless Command ship around and would be far more useful with missiles and huge bonus to speed/agility or speed/tracking.
That would make it useful.
Also: Arazu/Lachesis have such horrible dps, however can carry some drones but the problem about drones is they're bad, fragile and don't bring that much for the ship it self unless specific situations.
A huge boost to Damp bonuses is needed and maybe decrease point bonus making it a ridiculous 106km point with claymore bonus, 70 max with disruptor would be enough and balanced with web bonus but increase slightly for scram up to 30km with max fleet bonus. Take drones away and give those massive missile speed and some dmg bonus (force them to use HAMs)
Capacitor recharge/amount/cpu and agility need some tweaks too so the choice of making those shield tank or armor tank means you loose damps (if they're ever useful even after massive changes) or armor without being very slow ass bricks
Edit: actually Lachesis shield tank goes for about 60K+ ehp with an underused to useless bonus (damps) and the armor version up to 35+K ehp slow brick anaemic dps completely worthless in fleets unless very specific situations. brb |
Tanae Avalhar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 03:26:00 -
[2085] - Quote
Nalianna wrote:Creh Ester wrote:So dear CCP, now the Merlin and Incursus both have three hybrid towers, and the same role, "shortrange brawler". So how are they now different and both valid? And you said this rebalancing was to avoid obsolete ships? Well, since almost regardless of how you fit these two ships now, the Incursus tend to end up with almost twice the tank. And it does that even as it's faster, deals more dps, and still have two empty slots left, and CPU and PG to go. So tell me, dear CCP, how is the Merlin not utterly obsolete now? Does "balance" mean something else to CCP? Explain, please. Firstly, I love your ideas!! I can pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Your comment about the Merlin rang a bell with me and my "obsession" with specialisation. I learnt, as a Caldari pilot, to see the Merlin as a kiting machine, rather than a short range brawler. And the guns it used had to be railguns to complement its missiles, rather than blasters, because, well, Caldari kite. But now, without missiles, if it's useless for anything other than short range fighting, and for that, you have to use blasters, why would you NOT train an Incursus and be done with it? As a Caldari-specialised pilot, I would not fly the Incursus (although I can, as I have the skills), but I would not fly the Merlin either, as I now see it as a fairly useless ship - I only ever really relied on the missiles anyway. I know others who feel the same. I guess you could say Caldari aren't really short-range brawlers anyway, so why would they ever use the Merlin anymore? It used to be my favourite ship as a noob too!
Forget rails and blasters on a Merlin go with autocannons, you'll be much better off for range compared to blasters and dps compared to hybrids. |
Nalianna
Rogue Clones Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 04:09:00 -
[2086] - Quote
Tanae Avalhar wrote:
Forget rails and blasters on a Merlin go with autocannons, you'll be much better off for range compared to blasters and dps compared to hybrids.
Now this just shows me how unbalanced this game has come to be that putting autocannon on a ship that has hybrid turret bonuses can actually out-do hybrids on that same ship. Are you saying that autocannon will have better range than blasters and better dps than rails? That sort of makes sense if it's true, can anyone else verify it? |
Andy Landen
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 12:44:00 -
[2087] - Quote
I support this. Finally, skill progression in ships that makes sense and naturally leads players along their career paths. Combined with the ship tier re-structuring, we are moving in a good direction. |
Thelron
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 14:44:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Nalianna wrote:Tanae Avalhar wrote:
Forget rails and blasters on a Merlin go with autocannons, you'll be much better off for range compared to blasters and dps compared to hybrids.
Now this just shows me how unbalanced this game has come to be that putting autocannon on a ship that has hybrid turret bonuses can actually out-do hybrids on that same ship. You are saying that autocannon will have better range than blasters and better dps than rails? That sort of makes sense if it's true, can anyone else verify it? But what about with lvl 5 training in all appropriate skills? That will bring up both dps for rails and range for blasters. On the same hybrid-bonused ship, wouldn't that change things? Again, can anyone verify this?
Can't verify, but I have my doubts that unless you're fighting something with a *huge* maneuverability advantage that AC's will still be a *really* viable choice unless you're paranoid about cap warfare or something. Also, you'll be (much) worse off on range compared to rails (assuming that's what was meant by 'hybrids') and worse off on dps compared to blasters (again, assuming you're not facing down something that literally flies rings around you).
My big complaint is,
Creh Ester wrote:So dear CCP, now the Merlin and Incursus both have three hybrid towers, and the same role, "shortrange brawler". So how are they now different and both valid? And you said this rebalancing was to avoid obsolete ships? Well, since almost regardless of how you fit these two ships now, the Incursus tend to end up with almost twice the tank. And it does that even as it's faster, deals more dps, and still have two empty slots left, and CPU and PG to go. So tell me, dear CCP, how is the Merlin not utterly obsolete now? Does "balance" mean something else to CCP? Explain, please.
Ranger1 is in fact correct- the lack of real "brawling" ships has always been a problem with the Caldari lineup, just as the obsession with them has always been a problem for the Gallente, especially with the way mechanics have developed over the years and the fact that ships aren't race-restricted (which they shouldn't be, with the exception IMO of at least some aspects of FW). So, having the Merlin go from an attempt at getting people to engage at long-range (which apparently hasn't worked for years, given the predominance of blaster/rocket fits over rail/light fits) to solidly supporting the up-close fighting it inevitably ends up doing (either by choice or not) isn't a problem.
Having it do so with almost the exact same configuration as every other frigate of its type is a HUGE problem. Why 3 +25% turrets, mirroring the 3 +25% turrets on the Incursus, and looking very similar to the 3 +25% turrets on the Rifter and even the configuration of the Punisher (and both of *those* have spare slots which may or may not fire missiles)? Why not 2 +25% turrets and 2 damage-or-ROF bonused launchers? Sure, you need 3 bonuses to make it work (dropping defense bonus wouldn't really be an option), but the scanning frigates tend to get 3 bonuses, and really it's just 2 bonuses anyway because the ship is (well, was) designed under the assumption that it needs all 4 weapons. You still end up favoring brawling (in as much as you don't have a range bonus in sight) but doing it in a way that's pretty well *completely different* from the other 3 candidates for "T1 brawler frigate," even a 2/2 Rifter (which even with equivalent guns would still be much more about using its maneuverability than the "grab and smash" approach the Merlin would have to take). But no, somewhere "brawler = 3 guns" seems to have formed as a fairly solid rule, and it makes me worry that by the end of "Tiericide" we'll also be seeing the effects of "Flavorcide." |
Esheleen
Black Thorne Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 17:15:00 -
[2089] - Quote
I'm really looking forward to this and really can't see why people are moaning so much about loosing the ability to fly some ships or slightly upset their training plan. I'd be really quite happy to loose the ability to fly a few ships:
- It would reintroduce some speicialistion between characters for more experienced players - It provide another round of "adapt or die" as a nice challange - It gives me some "new" old ships to look forward to flying again and something to work towards.
On the actual roles themselves I'm not too certain that we need three direct combat roles and would think bombardment would be better off as just a spec for the combat ships. In its place it would be nice to see a exploration role of ships. |
Nalianna
Rogue Clones Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 03:44:00 -
[2090] - Quote
Thelron wrote:..... the lack of real "brawling" ships has always been a problem with the Caldari lineup, just as the obsession with them has always been a problem for the Gallente, especially with the way mechanics have developed over the years and the fact that ships aren't race-restricted (which they shouldn't be, with the exception IMO of at least some aspects of FW). So, having the Merlin go from an attempt at getting people to engage at long-range (which apparently hasn't worked for years, given the predominance of blaster/rocket fits over rail/light fits) to solidly supporting the up-close fighting it inevitably ends up doing (either by choice or not) isn't a problem.
Having it do so with almost the exact same configuration as every other frigate of its type is a HUGE problem. Why 3 +25% turrets, mirroring the 3 +25% turrets on the Incursus, and looking very similar to the 3 +25% turrets on the Rifter and even the configuration of the Punisher (and both of *those* have spare slots which may or may not fire missiles)? Why not 2 +25% turrets and 2 damage-or-ROF bonused launchers? Sure, you need 3 bonuses to make it work (dropping defense bonus wouldn't really be an option), but the scanning frigates tend to get 3 bonuses, and really it's just 2 bonuses anyway because the ship is (well, was) designed under the assumption that it needs all 4 weapons. You still end up favoring brawling (in as much as you don't have a range bonus in sight) but doing it in a way that's pretty well *completely different* from the other 3 candidates for "T1 brawler frigate," even a 2/2 Rifter (which even with equivalent guns would still be much more about using its maneuverability than the "grab and smash" approach the Merlin would have to take). But no, somewhere "brawler = 3 guns" seems to have formed as a fairly solid rule, and it makes me worry that by the end of "Tiericide" we'll also be seeing the effects of "Flavorcide." I actually don't see the lack of real brawling ships (close-range, high dps, high tank) ships as being all that much of a problem, given that this is not the "Caldari way", which tends to be more kiting and sniping from long range. I know that most players just use whatever ship gives them the best brawling (if that's what they want), and that generally wouldn't in the past have meant that they chose Caldari ships for that purpose. But at least for us committed Caldari-style fighters, the Merlin still gave us a frigate that could kite, snipe with its missiles and rails, and generally hold its own, provided it was used with Caldari tactics to avoid damage and make the best use of its native bonused weapons (kiting and sniping at distance). Without turning the ship into a Gallente lookalike, with heavy armour based tank and blasters, how can this ship ever be a proper brawler? And if it is, what does a Caldari pilot use for a long range kiting assault frigate, at least until they specialise into the Hawk? |
|
Ares Lee
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 14:53:00 -
[2091] - Quote
Finally, I found a topic that is related to ship rebalancing issues and have CCP devs responding, a right place for me to share my opinions about rebalancing issues. I want to restate some known, general balancing issues that must be considered in rebalancing and suggest several solutions. 1.Resistance bonus is superior to repair amount bonus While repair amount bonus only provides a 37.5% increase in self-repair amount. Resistance bonus provides a 33% increase in effective HP, effective self/remote-repair amount. In short, repair bonus is slightly better in self-repair effectiveness, but inferior than resistance bonus in general. Resistance bonus also makes passive shield-tanking much easier. 1.1Solution 1 (choose 1 from the following 3) The resistance bonus will also cause a deduction in self/remote-repair amount by 2%/lvl. As a result, resisteance bonus will be outmatched by repair amount in repairing effectiveness. 1.2Solution 2 The repair bonus will also increase the amount of received remote-repair by 7.5%/lvl. It makes ships with repair bonus much tougher if the repair network is established, but still vulnerable in the first volley fire. 1.3Solution 3 Simply reduce the resistance bonus to 4%/lvl. 2.ROF is superior to damage bonus if the weapon does not consume energy We all knew that ROF bonus provides 33% increase in DPS while damage bonus only 25%. It is fine if the weapon is energy-consuming, like Armageddon, as consuming 33% more energy caused by firing does matter. However, for projectile weapons and missiles, it is completely imbalance. Why the ship can have 8% more DPS by simply consuming 33% ammo. Ammo is cheap, and too easy to carry. I was very disappointed when CCP decided to halve the size of hybrid ammo. It was a wrong decision that tried to balance guns by buffing without nerffing. They should double or triple the size of projectile ammo, as it makes bringing more ammo to be more disadvantaged. 2.1Solution 1 Simply double or triple the size of projectile ammo and missiles. 2.2Solution 2 The ROF bonus will also cause a decrease in damage by 1%/lvl. 3.Deadspace shield booster is by far superior to deadspace armour repairer. Armour tanking is designed to be an energy-efficient way to defense while shield tanking is effective, but not efficient. However, deadspace shield boosters ruin this rule. The activation cost to repair amount ratio is 1.5 for T2 shield booster and 2 for armour repairer. The Gist series is extremely efficient and the Pith series is extremely effective. On the other hand, the deadspace armour repairer only increase that ratio from 2 to 2.2(C Type)-2.8(X Type). It is completely outperformed by the shield booster. It is acceptable to make deadspace shield booster slightly better than armour repairer, but not that far. Moreover, shield tanking has many advantages already, such as, adaptive invulnerability fields, boost amplifiers and an intact armour buffer for escape. 3.1Solution 1 Make the Gist series to be identical as the Pith. The shield booster is designed to be effective, not efficient. 3.2Solution 2 Buff the deadspace armour repairer, make it on par with shield booster. 4It is too easy to increase falloff range than optimal range, as one of the reasons why autocannon is OPed. Since the autocannon overhaul, fallout range can be increase by 30% by using either tracking enhancer or tracking computer. Combined with a common ship bonus and the setting that short-range ammo does not lower the falloff range, the falloff range of autocannon can be increased to a ridiculous level without a big sacrifice of DPS and tracking speed. One strange thing must be noticed. NPCGÇÖs tracking disruptors cannot lower the falloff range, making autocannon an ideal weapon against Sansha. I do not know whether it is intended or a bug, but the fact is it makes the imbaslance problem worse. 4.1Solution 1 Close-range ammo will decrease the falloff range too. It will become impossible to have a great fallout range without sacrifice of DPS. 4.2Solution 2 Lower the falloff bonus from tracking enhancer and tracking computer. Why can fallout range be increased by 30% while optimal range only 15%?
Last but least, CCP should not be too fond of those 5%,7.5% and 10%. If CCP truly wants to make the game more balance, ship bonuses should be more flexible, but not that rigid.
|
Shigamaru Kishame
Tribuo Quod Victum The AirShip Pirates
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:47:00 -
[2092] - Quote
I don't mind the idea of setting it up, just whatever you do, this could potentially, as stated before, create a VAST amount of upheaval. Best idea, I believe would be to treat current players kindly and GIVE them the multiple skills at what level they have trained them, respectively of course.
1.) Keeps are universe from falling into utter chaos 2.) Specialized corps with a majority of pilots in a faction will be given an upper hand in general. 3.)The system will be easier on newer pilots of course, since their at the beginning of the game basically. 4.) If you can't do that, get everyone an accelerator for skill progression that has a strict property to only train for ships.
This is just my opinion of course. I'm no programmer, but honestly, I'd set the skills into the system and take care of the pilots before kicking it into full gear. More or less, prevent chaos across eve as much as possible. As this would be a "New" game mechanic, I can't understand why current long-term players should suffer.
I'm not whining, just putting out a perspective, been a while since I looked at the dev blogs. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:14:00 -
[2093] - Quote
I hope the gallentean ships will be fixed and rebalanced with this patch.
What they need ? Changes unlogic things from CCP.
Short range weapons need faster ships. Already the gallentean ships is horrible slow. They cant reach effective distances enough fast. This is unlogical.
|
Tanae Avalhar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 11:15:00 -
[2094] - Quote
Thelron wrote:Nalianna wrote:Tanae Avalhar wrote:
Forget rails and blasters on a Merlin go with autocannons, you'll be much better off for range compared to blasters and dps compared to hybrids.
Now this just shows me how unbalanced this game has come to be that putting autocannon on a ship that has hybrid turret bonuses can actually out-do hybrids on that same ship. You are saying that autocannon will have better range than blasters and better dps than rails? That sort of makes sense if it's true, can anyone else verify it? But what about with lvl 5 training in all appropriate skills? That will bring up both dps for rails and range for blasters. On the same hybrid-bonused ship, wouldn't that change things? Again, can anyone verify this? Can't verify, but I have my doubts that unless you're fighting something with a *huge* maneuverability advantage that AC's will still be a *really* viable choice unless you're paranoid about cap warfare or something. Also, you'll be (much) worse off on range compared to rails (assuming that's what was meant by 'hybrids') and worse off on dps compared to blasters (again, assuming you're not facing down something that literally flies rings around you). My big complaint is, Creh Ester wrote:So dear CCP, now the Merlin and Incursus both have three hybrid towers, and the same role, "shortrange brawler". So how are they now different and both valid? And you said this rebalancing was to avoid obsolete ships? Well, since almost regardless of how you fit these two ships now, the Incursus tend to end up with almost twice the tank. And it does that even as it's faster, deals more dps, and still have two empty slots left, and CPU and PG to go. So tell me, dear CCP, how is the Merlin not utterly obsolete now? Does "balance" mean something else to CCP? Explain, please. Ranger1 is in fact correct- the lack of real "brawling" ships has always been a problem with the Caldari lineup, just as the obsession with them has always been a problem for the Gallente, especially with the way mechanics have developed over the years and the fact that ships aren't race-restricted (which they shouldn't be, with the exception IMO of at least some aspects of FW). So, having the Merlin go from an attempt at getting people to engage at long-range (which apparently hasn't worked for years, given the predominance of blaster/rocket fits over rail/light fits) to solidly supporting the up-close fighting it inevitably ends up doing (either by choice or not) isn't a problem. Having it do so with almost the exact same configuration as every other frigate of its type is a HUGE problem. Why 3 +25% turrets, mirroring the 3 +25% turrets on the Incursus, and looking very similar to the 3 +25% turrets on the Rifter and even the configuration of the Punisher (and both of *those* have spare slots which may or may not fire missiles)? Why not 2 +25% turrets and 2 damage-or-ROF bonused launchers? Sure, you need 3 bonuses to make it work (dropping defense bonus wouldn't really be an option), but the scanning frigates tend to get 3 bonuses, and really it's just 2 bonuses anyway because the ship is (well, was) designed under the assumption that it needs all 4 weapons. You still end up favoring brawling (in as much as you don't have a range bonus in sight) but doing it in a way that's pretty well *completely different* from the other 3 candidates for "T1 brawler frigate," even a 2/2 Rifter (which even with equivalent guns would still be much more about using its maneuverability than the "grab and smash" approach the Merlin would have to take). But no, somewhere "brawler = 3 guns" seems to have formed as a fairly solid rule, and it makes me worry that by the end of "Tiericide" we'll also be seeing the effects of "Flavorcide." Blasters have always worked better than hybrids whether they be blasters or rails on the Merlin. They are even more attractive now because you have the option to change your damage type. |
Tanae Avalhar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 11:17:00 -
[2095] - Quote
Nalianna wrote:Thelron wrote:..... the lack of real "brawling" ships has always been a problem with the Caldari lineup, just as the obsession with them has always been a problem for the Gallente, especially with the way mechanics have developed over the years and the fact that ships aren't race-restricted (which they shouldn't be, with the exception IMO of at least some aspects of FW). So, having the Merlin go from an attempt at getting people to engage at long-range (which apparently hasn't worked for years, given the predominance of blaster/rocket fits over rail/light fits) to solidly supporting the up-close fighting it inevitably ends up doing (either by choice or not) isn't a problem.
Having it do so with almost the exact same configuration as every other frigate of its type is a HUGE problem. Why 3 +25% turrets, mirroring the 3 +25% turrets on the Incursus, and looking very similar to the 3 +25% turrets on the Rifter and even the configuration of the Punisher (and both of *those* have spare slots which may or may not fire missiles)? Why not 2 +25% turrets and 2 damage-or-ROF bonused launchers? Sure, you need 3 bonuses to make it work (dropping defense bonus wouldn't really be an option), but the scanning frigates tend to get 3 bonuses, and really it's just 2 bonuses anyway because the ship is (well, was) designed under the assumption that it needs all 4 weapons. You still end up favoring brawling (in as much as you don't have a range bonus in sight) but doing it in a way that's pretty well *completely different* from the other 3 candidates for "T1 brawler frigate," even a 2/2 Rifter (which even with equivalent guns would still be much more about using its maneuverability than the "grab and smash" approach the Merlin would have to take). But no, somewhere "brawler = 3 guns" seems to have formed as a fairly solid rule, and it makes me worry that by the end of "Tiericide" we'll also be seeing the effects of "Flavorcide." I actually don't see the lack of real brawling ships (close-range, high dps, high tank) ships as being all that much of a problem, given that this is not the "Caldari way", which tends to be more kiting and sniping from long range. I know that most players just use whatever ship gives them the best brawling (if that's what they want), and that generally wouldn't in the past have meant that they chose Caldari ships for that purpose. But at least for us committed Caldari-style fighters, the Merlin still gave us a frigate that could kite, snipe with its missiles and rails, and generally hold its own, provided it was used with Caldari tactics to avoid damage and make the best use of its native bonused weapons (kiting and sniping at distance). Without turning the ship into a Gallente lookalike, with heavy armour based tank and blasters, how can this ship ever be a proper brawler? And if it is, what does a Caldari pilot use for a long range kiting assault frigate, at least until they specialise into the Hawk? How would you expect to get PvP kills by kiting? Hunting noobs? Ridiculous. |
Andre Coeurl
TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 15:50:00 -
[2096] - Quote
The "pure concept" of rebalancing ships by giving them roles is interesting, the practice is going to be a massive headache, but that may just work.
Again, the "platonic idea" of simplifying ships skilling is interesting too, but there's some more blatantly evident problems there, coupled to a debatable logic approach. Consider someone who trained all races' destroyers and battlecruiser (it's quite common)... How would anyone consider "simplifying" the addition of 8 more skills you need to train again, compared to the 2 skills you trained before? Also, from a logical standpoint, destroyers are conceived as being slightly stronger frigates with more and loger ranged weapons, as much as battlecruisers are slightly stronger cruisers with more or larger weapons. Why would they be a separate racial skill, when the hulls they're based on are mostly the same as frigates and cruisers? It still makes A LOT of sense to me that a captain has to train a single skill to fly all destroyers, because he needs to understand the different weapon structure of those ships, but since the hull is based on an "extended frigate" it's the same for all races.
Also, why destroyers would be the prerequisites of cruisers? Cruisers are the direct derivate of frigates as they have the same balance between hull and weaponry, not at all the unbalanced thing a destroyer is. Same goes for battlecruisers... a battleship is (or should be) a totally different thing.
If the proposed changes stick, why then there shouldn't be racial skills for all and an ship class? Why there shouldn't be an Amarr, Gallente, Caldari and Minmatar HAC skill, as well as Command ships, Recons, Logistics... damn, even Electronic Attack Ships, poor little things, would have 4 skills! Wow that's a nightmare isn't it? But it's just the logical consequence of the proposed skill tree change. I can't see how this will be beneficial to anyone. |
Nalianna
Rogue Clones Yulai Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 06:15:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Tanae Avalhar wrote:How would you expect to get PvP kills by kiting? Hunting noobs? Ridiculous. Kiting is just keeping range for your own weapons while hopefully keeping out of range or at least minimising damage of your opponent's weapons. You can still get PvP kills doing that, even against ships that are otherwise superior to your own. Other than the Drake, there are hardly really any Caldari ships that can survive long in a close range battle. I would contend that the Merlin couldn't, as it is designed around the idea of flying reasonably fast and keeping out of range to keep the damage down. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say they've used a Merlin up close and personal - not saying you can't but it won't be as effective or last as long as, say, the Incursus. You can fit hybrid turrets to both, and will get more or less the same damage with both, but the Incursus will survive a close order fight much better than a Merlin. If one is to fly ONLY Caldari, what sort of frigate is left for heavier engagements? Only by going to T2 ships like the Hawk do you get the longer range necessary to stay out of that sort of trouble. |
Commander Shale
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 07:37:00 -
[2098] - Quote
Quote: Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
To me, this says anyone who missions in a Drake, Raven, or Nighthawk, specialized in missiles will suddenly have to completely stop and turn to train up turrets for a Ferox or Rokh... That or conform to the Tengu.
I've been spending close to a year, specializing in missile/command ship use, because I wanted to fly the Nighthawk. More than anything else I'm a mission runner, and my ultimate desire was to fly this ship.. In missions. Yes, I'm fully aware of the Tengu's capabilities and lower requirements... But I have 0 desire to fly a Tengu after having specialized in another ship that I find much more appealing anyways. (If I didn't like the Nighthawk, I wouldn't have invested all my skill training time in missile use...)
There are a lot of people out there flying Ravens, and Drakes in on their missions too... Are we really just going to have our missile boat defenses struck with the nerf bat so we have to go switch to hybrid turret ships if we want to solo tank through IV and V's? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it just sounds like the Drake/Ferox, and Raven/Rokh are just switching places. |
Tanae Avalhar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:41:00 -
[2099] - Quote
Commander Shale wrote:Quote: Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
To me, this says anyone who missions in a Drake, Raven, or Nighthawk, specialized in missiles will suddenly have to completely stop and turn to train up turrets for a Ferox or Rokh... That or conform to the Tengu. I've been spending close to a year, specializing in missile/command ship use, because I wanted to fly the Nighthawk. More than anything else I'm a mission runner, and my ultimate desire was to fly this ship.. In missions. Yes, I'm fully aware of the Tengu's capabilities and lower requirements... But I have 0 desire to fly a Tengu after having specialized in another ship that I find much more appealing anyways. (If I didn't like the Nighthawk, I wouldn't have invested all my skill training time in missile use...) There are a lot of people out there flying Ravens, and Drakes in on their missions too... Are we really just going to have our missile boat defenses struck with the nerf bat so we have to go switch to hybrid turret ships if we want to solo tank through IV and V's? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it just sounds like the Drake/Ferox, and Raven/Rokh are just switching places in uselessness for a solo pilot.
Hmm always thought a HAM Drake WAS a combat ship of the close variety and a HML Drake a combat ship of the sniping variety just nerfed by low delayed dps. Someones always watching |
Commander Shale
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 23:40:00 -
[2100] - Quote
Tanae Avalhar wrote:Commander Shale wrote:Quote: Combat ships: designed for direct fights, such vessels are usually found spear heading an attack force, or sniping from long range. Have great damage and defense, but poor mobility. A good representation would be 18th century "ships of the line". EVE examples: Abaddon, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Ferox, Maller.
Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordnance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
To me, this says anyone who missions in a Drake, Raven, or Nighthawk, specialized in missiles will suddenly have to completely stop and turn to train up turrets for a Ferox or Rokh... That or conform to the Tengu. I've been spending close to a year, specializing in missile/command ship use, because I wanted to fly the Nighthawk. More than anything else I'm a mission runner, and my ultimate desire was to fly this ship.. In missions. Yes, I'm fully aware of the Tengu's capabilities and lower requirements... But I have 0 desire to fly a Tengu after having specialized in another ship that I find much more appealing anyways. (If I didn't like the Nighthawk, I wouldn't have invested all my skill training time in missile use...) There are a lot of people out there flying Ravens, and Drakes in on their missions too... Are we really just going to have our missile boat defenses struck with the nerf bat so we have to go switch to hybrid turret ships if we want to solo tank through IV and V's? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it just sounds like the Drake/Ferox, and Raven/Rokh are just switching places in uselessness for a solo pilot. Hmm always thought a HAM Drake WAS a combat ship of the close variety and a HML Drake a combat ship of the sniping variety just nerfed by low delayed dps.
Exactly why I'm not understanding the sudden complete shift in roles. Do they really want every Caldari pilot in a Tengu that badly that they're ready to nerf the defense on every other missile boat? Could ships like the Rokh and Ferox (And even command ships) use some balancing to have a more useful role? Of course, but it shouldn't be at the expensive of nerfing ships that are most used...
That's not even to mention how we finally just got an update to missile effects, and now us non-Tengu, Caldari solo pilots should look forward to an update that will make us have to go to turrets anyways? Seems like they should stick the missile boats in combat, and the turret ships in bombardment... Or even better, not try to pigeonhole the ships into "Tank"/"DPS"/"Support" at all.
|
|
atrum dux
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 12:57:00 -
[2101] - Quote
So will i get sp reimbursed from all those crap skills, like assault frigate, that i trained just to advance to the the ships I need or is this just a scam to make me pay more for my clone? |
Samuella IV
SON OF RAVANA
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 02:51:00 -
[2102] - Quote
Why cant we have battleships with more slots for medium and small size guns to be able to defend from frigates. Common these ships are so huge. If you redisigning the ships then now its the time to make it more realistic. It would realy make more sense in the game and we dont mind training more skills for it ..... |
Cid SilverWing
Grim Determination Clockworks Inc. Nulli Tertius
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 03:25:00 -
[2103] - Quote
Splitting any skills = worst design choice no matter how you look at it.
Combine skills instead, de-specialize the menial things. Which means, as stated in one example, removing Heavy Assault Ships prerequisite for Command Ships and so on. Also get rid of weapon specializations and just make Level 5 grant umbrella access to their relevant T2 weapons.
The less grind, the better. There's no excuse for it. Leave the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills as they are, they work perfectly as they are, due to Cruiser prerequisite. Don't change any of their other prerequisites either.
We've been screwed enough with the mess that is the Unified Inventory, don't make us waste more time than we already are with THAT nonsense grinding more skills, veteran or newcomer. It just isn't fair to anyone.
Also inbe4 stupid trolls - Battleship V for capitals, don't change that. Players should logically have to have trained skills at 5 to get into the so-to-speak endgame of EVE. It also rewards them whenever they go back to BS fleets in PvP and PvE (I quite enjoy Marauder ratting in Sanctums). |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
172
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 17:56:00 -
[2104] - Quote
Tanae Avalhar wrote: How would you expect to get PvP kills by kiting? Hunting noobs? Ridiculous.
Not all combat in the game is PvP, and kiting is magnificently effective against NPC's.
You might not like PvE (by the tone of your response I'd guess that it's likely that you don't), but it is still an important part of the game as designed and played. |
Nalianna
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 22:33:00 -
[2105] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:Tanae Avalhar wrote: How would you expect to get PvP kills by kiting? Hunting noobs? Ridiculous.
Not all combat in the game is PvP, and kiting is magnificently effective against NPC's. You might not like PvE (by the tone of your response I'd guess that it's likely that you don't), but it is still an important part of the game as designed and played. Kiting is simply staying out of the effective range of your opponent's weapons while keeping them in range of yours. I can be and is used in PvP as well as PvE. It's the ONLY way to win a fight where your opponent is more powerful than yourself at closer range. It is, however, more difficult to pull off and takes quite a bit of skill, for those who are not used to it. For pilots that are used to just parking and shooting, it's potentially a devastating counter, as they can't reach you and you just don't keep still for long enough for them to get in a decent shot. Webbers, of course, change all that, but if you're fast enough already, and can take them out quickly enough, you will still win.
I don't think you have to like only PvE to use kiting effective. |
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
86
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:23:00 -
[2106] - Quote
Has CCP responded as to why they are limiting the amount of mining crystals the mining ships can carry?
The current setup on sisi severely limits the choices that we have enjoyed for a long time and really it makes no sense.
No other ship in the game faces such limitations on ammo. Senex Legio - Recruiter Team Member
CCP reduce the mining crystal to 1m3, or give me a good reason why they have to be so large. |
Mikoyan Gureyvich
Twilight Star Rangers Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 20:08:00 -
[2107] - Quote
Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordinance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal.
Unless they change how missiles do damage I don't understand how you can "pin" a ship down. Real world artillery pins people down due to the area affect of shrapnel and I suppose to a lesser extent the noise & shock wave that follows. I don't see how this translates to Eve. If I start firing missiles at a ship, what's pinning them down? Nothing. They hit their MWD and start steaming toward me. There is no area/suppression effect to firing a missile.
Also consider that in the real world, you can't win a battle with just artillery. Nor do you normally deploy artillery with a small squad-sized engagements.
Will this come to mean that missile ships will become niche players appropriate only for larger engagements? Will my Drake and Navy Caracal be able to run missions anymore or will I need to train for some Minmitar ship just to run down the Radar/Magnetometric/Ladar/DED site I've scanned down in my Buzzard?
I know CCP aren't morons and I trust that those with missile skills won't be utterly nerfed but the language they used for missile ships makes me nervous. |
Veriton Darkconis
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 09:32:00 -
[2108] - Quote
Ship lines(I.E choosing the use of the ship, and setting it in stone) are taking the choice away from the player.
This game is already the biggest time sink game in existance(1 year min training skills to be mildly good)
this will not end well. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
539
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 14:42:00 -
[2109] - Quote
Mikoyan Gureyvich wrote:Quote:Bombardment ships: provide heavy fire support to pin the enemy down with constant barrage of ordinance. Have great damage and range, average defense and mobility. Can be compared to artillery. EVE examples: Raven, Drake, caracal. Unless they change how missiles do damage I don't understand how you can "pin" a ship down. Real world artillery pins people down due to the area affect of shrapnel and I suppose to a lesser extent the noise & shock wave that follows. I don't see how this translates to Eve. If I start firing missiles at a ship, what's pinning them down? Nothing. They hit their MWD and start steaming toward me. There is no area/suppression effect to firing a missile. Also consider that in the real world, you can't win a battle with just artillery. Nor do you normally deploy artillery with a small squad-sized engagements. Will this come to mean that missile ships will become niche players appropriate only for larger engagements? Will my Drake and Navy Caracal be able to run missions anymore or will I need to train for some Minmitar ship just to run down the Radar/Magnetometric/Ladar/DED site I've scanned down in my Buzzard? I know CCP aren't morons and I trust that those with missile skills won't be utterly nerfed but the language they used for missile ships makes me nervous.
Bombardment's pretty much been removed now. Have a look at the CSM minutes for the ship balancing section. FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
AngelFood
No C0de
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 22:15:00 -
[2110] - Quote
Yea this is what was needed .. not pos changes or drone fix or numerous other things that 90% of the community complain about 90% of the time. You need to completely overhaul and ruin a system which has worked fine for 9 years and had no complaints whatsoever. hey you could do same with inventory? oh you did.
Please put Torfi back in charge.
oh and bring warp to 15 back (and pirates with it)
and leave pirates alone!!! |
|
Dhakamis
Lonetrek Blacksoul Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 00:27:00 -
[2111] - Quote
So, if the tier system is being thrown out and devs want to move to a system with ship lines, has anyone thought about the problems this will cause with race lines? As things are now, the races are not similar in the roles that their ships would have in this new system.
For example, the Caldari line is filled with the "bombardment" role ships, since this race specializes in missile combat, while other races like the Minmatar tend to have more "attack vessel" style ships. These role tendecies are built into the storyline around the 4 main races, and cannot easily be changed without affecting the story of EVE. With all spaceship command skills having 4 racial variants, capsuleers would need to train all the way up the ship progression for each race to access that race's tendencies in ship line.
Why not make each of the ship progression skills generic, like Battlecruisers and Destroyers currently are, since capsuleers still have to train many specific skills (associated to race variant anyway) in order to fly a certain race's ship anyway? For example, to jump from flying the Amarr Abaddon to the Caldari Raven (equivalent to jumping from a combat ship to a bombardment ship), you still have to train up all of the missile and shield skills that are the mainstay of Caldari ships. Why is it necessary to train another set of skills based on just the race of the ship, despite the progression level being the same (still Battleship-level)? If a player can already fly at a Battleship-level in one race, is it really necessary to have make them train Caldari Frigate, Caldari Cruiser, the proposed Caldari Battlecruiser skill, and Caldari Battleship skills in order to fly the same progression level, but a different role ship? In a system based on ship lines and roles, because each race is unbalanced in the roles its ships play, required skills should be based on skills necessary for that race (for Caldari, shield skills) and skills needed for that ship's role (missile skills for bombardment). Throw out the race-variants of each ship progression level (they don't make much sense anyway) so capsuleers can easier access the different roles offered by a certain races of ship.
If my capsuleer already knows how to fly a Minmatar cruiser, what is so different about Gallente cruisers that he has to train more to learn how to fly another cruiser-level ship? It makes sense that he would have to learn armor tanking and different turret systems, because that is required by the new race/roles, but specific race-variant requirements don't make much practical sense... |
Armone Melchezidek
Doom Generation THE H0NEYBADGER
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 03:07:00 -
[2112] - Quote
Dhakamis wrote:If my capsuleer already knows how to fly a Minmatar cruiser, what is so different about Gallente cruisers that he has to train more to learn how to fly another cruiser-level ship? It makes sense that he would have to learn armor tanking and different turret systems, because that is required by the new race/roles, but specific race-variant requirements don't make much practical sense...
Because A: Its how CCP makes their iskies?
or
Because B: Bitter vets will rage at all the time they spent training?
or
Because C: Both A and B?
Not really sure but nothing else makes sense. |
Earth Keeper
Uprising Star
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 18:02:00 -
[2113] - Quote
Someone keep that "smart guy" away from the game!!!!!
"Keep simple and people will accept you"
Is totally enough of your "improvements" You made failures from "sand box" the "force box": PI planetary offices and taxes.. guys, not everyone is interested to farm in 0.0.. Mining - from worse you chosen worse attached the flower and presented as the gold.. If you wanted to "balance" would have had done only 2 type of barges - 1 for Ice, another for mining - plain and simple
Now the BC and Destroyer skills , especially BC.. why do for now I need to care on some "must have BC" skill if i don't even fly it? |
Aren Dar
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
16
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 18:13:00 -
[2114] - Quote
Along with the much heralded changes to the mineral requirements for building the mining barges, it appears that the mineral requirements for all the T1 frigates that were buffed so far have been also adjusted.
At least, I didn't see any announcement to that effect though my look through the patch notes was somewhat cursory. |
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
198
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 00:55:00 -
[2115] - Quote
TBQFH Destroyers skill and Battle Cruiser skill opening all racial ships, if you had the frigate/cruiser skills trained up, was ludicrous to begin with. If this stream lines things and makes all ships viable then training a few more ship skills to 5 is not all that bad. That being said they did mention SP reimbursement and the fact that having to retrain would suck so I doubt you all have too much to worry about. |
Iexo Peoa
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 12:28:00 -
[2116] - Quote
I imagine I will probably be thoroughly flamed for this suggestion, and I apologize in advance if it's been brought up before without my seeing, this thread is 106 pages long after all.
In any case, while we're on the subject of ship rebalancing, it's always struck me as a little counterintuitive that one would need to train Battleships to get into Carriers. Granted, they're the largest subcapital warships before carriers, but they're two different types of ships.
Battleships are gun/missile boats, and regardless of claims that some are droneboats, a droneboat in subcapitals (with the exception of the Arbitrator Cruiser) just means that a ship has greater than average drone capabilities. However, (with the exception of the Arbitrator Cruisier) these ships are still gun/missile boats first, with their main weapons providing the vast majority of their firepower, and drones serving only a secondary role, typically for use against frigates and other small targets.
As such, I've always favored the idea of expanding the carrier line into subcapitals, with two small subcapital carriers, usable in high-sec, that would approximately equal the overall power/tactical value of battlecruisers and battleships, but with similar battlefield roles to their capital counterparts.
NOTE: Drones, in the context of this suggestion, refers to actual moving drones, not sentries, which I never considered true drones to begin with.
The smallest of the two, I like to call "Escort Carriers", would be akin to battlecruisers. About the same size, about the same firepower and tank (though these could be adjusted within this approximate range to balance their effectiveness within their role), and will use drones as their primary, perhaps even sole means of doing damage, with high slots reserved for either support modules or other things that don't require turrets or missile bays. Equivalent damage could be acheived with drone bonuses, in damage, range, controllable number, or some combination of the three.
The largest of the two, I like to call "Light Carriers", would be akin to battleships. Like their smaller counterparts, about the same size, firepower and tank as their gun/missile boat counters, and will likewise use drones as their primary or sole means of doing damage, with bonuses to drone damage, range and number of simultaniously deployed drones giving them this firepower. (Note: As a thought, it may also be worth considering to allow Light Carriers ONLY to deploy small numbers of fighters (balanced by bandwidth), in lieu of equivalent bandwidth worth of standard drones.)
The drone bonuses in both ships could be targeted to apply only to moving drones, not sentries (which I never considered true drones anyway). Such distinctions could be part of a drone overhaul that could accompany these ships.
This would provide an entire line leading smoothly into carriers, and thus (Capital) Carriers would require level 5 (or 4, as I believe was stated in the article) of Light Carriers, rather than Battleships, which is a bit more intuitive. This also allows prospective Carrier pilots to learn carrier tactics in subcapitals before moving into very expensive capitals, as well as bringing carrier tactics into high-sec which, though it would probably require much testing and balancing, would definitely make combat in high-sec much more diverse than it currently is.
It'd also throw droneboaters a long overdue bone (especially if accompanied by long-needed drone overhauls), and, it may sound a bit selfish, but as a droneboater myself, it would make me very happy, as I'd finally have a ship that would suit me, without having to settle for a severe cut in firepower. |
SportBilly
GHOSTS OF THE FIRST AND ONLY
50
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 14:56:00 -
[2117] - Quote
Am i paranoid or are you trying to kill off all of the original and long term players!!!!!
First off the UI still doesnt work either on sisi or here, i still get spinning discs and incomplete functuality in a multi window environment.
We loose material from drone missions?, previously with a little mining you can sustain a small corp with ships, ammo and items .
Not now
The hulk is now a worthless piece of junk !!! i dont fleet mine very often and i used to do 3 cycles before docking now its one.
No sense there at all, the bigger the ship, the more lasers and the bigger the hold and tank. you would think , are you gonna make titans with a paper thin tank?
Now we have a rethink on ships skills, presently i can fly any sub capital in the game,( I play in all regions on all levels it keeps the game interesting, well i did before the UI made it infuriatingly slow and complicated.) I guess there will be more ships added to the worthless pile!
|
Falkia
Removal Services
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.14 22:13:00 -
[2118] - Quote
Quote:SKILLS:
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.
BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome.
What about those of us who only have ever trained for one race and would never train for another because of RP I assume we will get the option to not have those skills implanted? |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
125
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 10:11:00 -
[2119] - Quote
Falkia wrote:Quote:SKILLS:
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.
BS skill at IV for capitals: alright, there is good feedback on that. Point is to make the progression consistent by requiring a skill at 4 to train for the next, higher size class, and 5 for tech 2 ships. If we feel it becomes suddenly too easy to train for capitals, we can always compensate by adding that time back on one of the other, support skill prerequisites for them. Same reasoning applies for freighters. The point of this blog is to specifically discuss such matters before moving forward with them, and for this, you are welcome. What about those of us who only have ever trained for one race and would never train for another because of RP I assume we will get the option to not have those skills implanted?
Should be simpler to just pretend they arent there, after all youre already RPing stuff that doesnt actually exist so why not the other way around. |
Nalianna
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 08:58:00 -
[2120] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote:Should be simpler to just pretend they arent there, after all youre already RPing stuff that doesnt actually exist so why not the other way around. Extra SP requires earlier and/or more expensive medical clones for skills that are not needed. So CCP makes more money ultimately. I can see why CCP would like this but also why a player who only wants to focus train one race would not... |
|
Nalianna
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 09:19:00 -
[2121] - Quote
SportBilly wrote:Am i paranoid or are you trying to kill off all of the original and long term players!!!!!
First off the UI still doesnt work either on sisi or here, i still get spinning discs and incomplete functuality in a multi window environment.
We loose material from drone missions?, previously with a little mining you can sustain a small corp with ships, ammo and items .
Not now
The hulk is now a worthless piece of junk !!! i dont fleet mine very often and i used to do 3 cycles before docking now its one.
No sense there at all, the bigger the ship, the more lasers and the bigger the hold and tank. you would think , are you gonna make titans with a paper thin tank?
Now we have a rethink on ships skills, presently i can fly any sub capital in the game,( I play in all regions on all levels it keeps the game interesting, well i did before the UI made it infuriatingly slow and complicated.) I guess there will be more ships added to the worthless pile!
Yes, I believe that ultimately, CCP are going to disenfranchise older players, that there is someone in CCP that does not like the way the game has worked in the past and is actively working to change it significantly. But this is some sort of selfish thing on their part. I believe there is a rather strong influence from large minority player groups who dislike the old game mechanics because they are not conducive to their game style. I would say to them, and to CCP, that you don't change the rules to win the game. You change your tactics and strategies to work within the existing rules in an effort to succeed, anything else is just cheating, no matter how you achieve it.
Most of the older players I know are more and more unhappy with each and every tweak, buff or nerf that CCP puts into the game, in an effort to satisfy the vocal minorities and/or "balance" it. More than one of these friends has left the game possibly to never return. Most threaten to do that with each further act of vandalism. Ultimately, because of this policy of heavyhanded tweaking at the behest of the vocal minorities and a misguided determination to level all tall poppies, CCP will find itself presiding over a game which has become boring and bland, with very little racial flavor, removing the richness that used to exist. Hopefully, I myself will be long gone by then. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
658
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 11:54:00 -
[2122] - Quote
SportBilly wrote:Am i paranoid...?
Sry but yes you are being one. If something those ship changes are going to benefit once againt to the older players rather than new ones that will now have to train far more than you ever did to complete the full racial tree up to BS.
Plus you're getting back loads of SP provided you've trained your MAIN character for all races witch is not a big deal for older players. If you could fly it before you will be able to fly it after, where's the problem?
Hulk: As Tippia posted in some other thread, Hulk is the ultimate king of yeld of all mining barges provided you are using it in fleets witch was a good change. Giving Hulk the fleet role was one of the best things done with this mining barges changes, if you want to have the best yeld for solo mining with relative safety, you can field a very decent yeld Mackinaw with 40K EHP. Then if you really like to "afk" mine while doing other stuff pick the Skiff, mine gets 3k yeld per cycle with 90k EHP without a single fitting/tank/mining implant or booster, isn't this safe and good enough?? brb |
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
293
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:18:00 -
[2123] - Quote
I'm with Iexo Peoa here. I'd kill for some true sub-cap carriers. |
SportBilly
GHOSTS OF THE FIRST AND ONLY
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 18:58:00 -
[2124] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:SportBilly wrote:Am i paranoid...? Sry but yes you are being one. If something those ship changes are going to benefit once againt to the older players rather than new ones that will now have to train far more than you ever did to complete the full racial tree up to BS. Plus you're getting back loads of SP provided you've trained your MAIN character for all races witch is not a big deal for older players. If you could fly it before you will be able to fly it after, where's the problem? Hulk: As Tippia posted in some other thread, Hulk is the ultimate king of yeld of all mining barges provided you are using it in fleets witch was a good change. Giving Hulk the fleet role was one of the best things done with this mining barges changes, if you want to have the best yeld for solo mining with relative safety, you can field a very decent yeld Mackinaw with 40K EHP. Then if you really like to "afk" mine while doing other stuff pick the Skiff, mine gets 3k yeld per cycle with 90k EHP without a single fitting/tank/mining implant or booster, isn't this safe and good enough??
Sorry to spoil your day, you need to look back into the game history.
I have lost many skillpoints that i and original players have trained that dont exist in the game now, this is due to previous changes you are not even aware of ! so infact you have an easier route than we did. But more impotantly when you have a lot of skillpoints their is very little left to train that would be of use , so a re inbursement of skill points wont help at all.
As for afk mining, never have and never would, i worked up the tree to get the best with a large capacity and a reasonable tank, now its useless. like so many other changes before.
And a fleet boost should apply, no matter what ship you use.
|
James Vayne
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 10:30:00 -
[2125] - Quote
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.
I detect a problem haer.
I'm gallente, but I fly a hurricane. When this new system is introduced it'll lock out my hurricane because my race is Gallente. I don't own any gallente battlecruisers (and don't want to, autocannons FTW).
So, perhaps you could introduce a system whereby you give people the racial skill of their choice rather than simply going with the race that they are? That would make it easier on everyone. What I mean by this is that, rather than give me Gallente Battlecruiser IV, give me Minmatar Battlecruiser IV instead. Thus I don't lose use of my primary ship.
Does it also mean that to train a hybrid ship such as a Cynabal, one would then have to train Minmatar and Amarr battlecruisers? If this is to be the case, then I would suggest just allowing faction ships to become unlocked at IV instead of having to waste time training two skills to get one ship. |
Jonuts
The Arrow Project
294
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 23:05:00 -
[2126] - Quote
I'd like to point out that a Cynabal is a Cruiser. You don't need to train Battlecruiser for it. Requiring two faction skills is a great trade off for the high end awesomeness that is Pirate Faction ships while not requiring T2 train times. Pirate Faction ships are about the only thing I like about having faction ship skills to be honest.
The next point is, you do realize that as it stands now, if they stick with pattern of L4 skill to the next class, you only need one more level in Minmitar cruiser to get into a hurricane? Just train that last level just in case, though I'm pretty sure I saw a reference somewhere saying you only need L3 as is, so anything you can currently fly, you'll be able to fly if this change goes through. So you're kinda complaining about a problem that already has a potential solution the devs are kicking around. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
574
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 23:26:00 -
[2127] - Quote
James Vayne 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.
I detect a problem haer. I'm gallente, but I fly a hurricane. When this new system is introduced it'll lock out my hurricane because my race is Gallente. I don't own any gallente battlecruisers (and don't want to, autocannons FTW). So, perhaps you could introduce a system whereby you give people the racial skill of their choice rather than simply going with the race that they are? That would make it easier on everyone. What I mean by this is that, rather than give me Gallente Battlecruiser IV, give me Minmatar Battlecruiser IV instead. Thus I don't lose use of my primary ship. I don't really need to train Battlecruiser V just yet as I'm training stuff to make things blow up faster. So giving me the racial of my most active ship makes sense. Does it also mean that to train a hybrid ship such as a Cynabal, one would then have to train Minmatar and Amarr battlecruisers? If this is to be the case, then I would suggest just allowing faction ships to become unlocked at IV instead of having to waste time training two skills to get one ship.
Did you not see the stuff in the very first post here?
The second link being the most important, in regards to what you're saying?
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Recoil IV
Knights of the Posing Meat
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 15:22:00 -
[2128] - 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.
yes,reimburse us with 10m sp unalocated to spend it on training :D |
Anaphylacti
Catalyst ops
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.23 10:47:00 -
[2129] - Quote
So do we still know if Battleship V is getting removed form the pre-reqs on carriers?
|
Amaroq Dricaldari
Malicious Mission Murderers
126
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 01:17:00 -
[2130] - Quote
Don't seperate the Destroyers skill and the Battlecruisers skill. Doing so will only make things more complicated, especially for characters who use ships from more than one faction (like me).
I have a Coercer and I have a Thrasher, and I was planning on getting the other two destroyers because I have been hearing very good things about them, but now I have to lose my Destroyer Skillpoints and Re-train Amarr Destroyer AND Minmatar Destroyer, and if I ever want those otehr Destroyers then I will have to train Caldari Destroyer and Gallente Destroyer.
As for Battlecruisers, getting a Battleship is already difficult enough as it is, and now you want to make the Battlecruiser skills a requirement? I looked at the various BCs, and they actually seem a bit more specialized than Battleships.
And what about people who are trying to get Pirate Battleships? Now they need to lose their skillpoints in their two Battleship skills just to train two seperate Battlecruiser skills.
What you are doing with the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills is the opposite of streamlining things.
EDIT: [Reads the post about skillpoint reimbursment] DOH!
Alright, so I will get my skillpoints back, but I am still upset on behalf of the people who can't fly those ships already. Sorry for not reading all of it, I should be ashamed of myself.
So... what is the new In-Game Mark of Shame? This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
|
Nalianna
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 01:33:00 -
[2131] - Quote
Amaroq Dricaldari wrote:Don't seperate the Destroyers skill and the Battlecruisers skill. Doing so will only make things more complicated, especially for characters who use ships from more than one faction (like me).
I have a Coercer and I have a Thrasher, and I was planning on getting the other two destroyers because I have been hearing very good things about them, but now I have to lose my Destroyer Skillpoints and Re-train Amarr Destroyer AND Minmatar Destroyer, and if I ever want those otehr Destroyers then I will have to train Caldari Destroyer and Gallente Destroyer.
As for Battlecruisers, getting a Battleship is already difficult enough as it is, and now you want to make the Battlecruiser skills a requirement? I looked at the various BCs, and they actually seem a bit more specialized than Battleships.
And what about people who are trying to get Pirate Battleships? Now they need to lose their skillpoints in their two Battleship skills just to train two seperate Battlecruiser skills.
What you are doing with the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skills is the opposite of streamlining things.
EDIT: [Reads the post about skillpoint reimbursment] DOH!
Alright, so I will get my skillpoints back, but I am still upset on behalf of the people who can't fly those ships already. Sorry for not reading all of it, I should be ashamed of myself.
So... what is the new In-Game Mark of Shame? Well, yeah, you do "get your skillpoints back". In fact, you never lose them in the first place, and they are duplicated for all races, giving you more skillpoints, not less, by a factor of 4 for the skillpoints concerned. But I am one of those that thinks this is actually not a good thing - more skillpoints, for being able to do exactly the same thing doesn't sound very efficient to me.
However, I have to say I like the fact that for future pilots, having to train more specific races/factions for things, means they have the choice to be more specialised if they wish. They have the choice to train all races equally for 4 times the SP and the benefits of being able to fly all races' ships, but that's their choice, and those who choose to specialise should also gain from that choice. Specialisation is a hard road, and I think there should be some benefits built into the game to encourage it.
JMHO... :) |
Tekniq
Bionic Systems
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 11:52:00 -
[2132] - Quote
I like the idea!
In order to let people fly their ships you could lower the skill requirements and maybe introduce an sixth level? dunno
great ideas though.. |
Shokre O'Corwi
The Squid Squad Slumdogs
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 22:01:00 -
[2133] - Quote
You guys still assume that the new Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills will have the same rank... Fascinating! |
Shane Joven
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 02:35:00 -
[2134] - Quote
Shokre O'Corwi wrote:You guys still assume that the new Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills will have the same rank... Fascinating!
Well Destroyers are already rank 2, same as Frigates. Battle Cruiser is 6 and cruiser is 5, so yes destroyers will defiantly stay at 2 and Battle Cruiser at 6 when Battleship is at 8 seems reasonable. |
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 09:28:00 -
[2135] - Quote
So do we have any idea as to when this change will go into effect? I'm a relatively new player and 1) I certainly don't want to miss out on the BC/Destroyer V skills for all races and 2) I'm not familiar with how frequently CCP releases updates for EVE in general.
Does anyone have any ideas? Speculation?
Have these changes been pushed back? Any thoughts or any info would be most appreciated. I just don't want to get left out in the cold when the changes go into effect and cost me many more months of training that I otherwise wouldn't have to spend.
Thanks pilots! |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Executive Outcomes
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 15:24:00 -
[2136] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:So do we have any idea as to when this change will go into effect? I'm a relatively new player and 1) I certainly don't want to miss out on the BC/Destroyer V skills for all races and 2) I'm not familiar with how frequently CCP releases updates for EVE in general.
Does anyone have any ideas? Speculation?
Have these changes been pushed back? Any thoughts or any info would be most appreciated. I just don't want to get left out in the cold when the changes go into effect and cost me many more months of training that I otherwise wouldn't have to spend.
Thanks pilots!
Aaaaaages (TM) they have to fix all the frigs first (winter expansion ish) then deal with destroyers,, then cruisers, then BC's, then BS's and THEN play with the skills ... ... ...
(Unless they decide to play with the skills of each class once they've done balancing them, in which case might be different).
Edit: BC5 is not a waste of skill points, prob the best thing you can train... Destoyers @5 is also good - Nulla Curas |
Eko Fromtv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 20:04:00 -
[2137] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:So do we have any idea as to when this change will go into effect? I'm a relatively new player and 1) I certainly don't want to miss out on the BC/Destroyer V skills for all races and 2) I'm not familiar with how frequently CCP releases updates for EVE in general.
Does anyone have any ideas? Speculation?
Have these changes been pushed back? Any thoughts or any info would be most appreciated. I just don't want to get left out in the cold when the changes go into effect and cost me many more months of training that I otherwise wouldn't have to spend.
Thanks pilots!
I would like to second this question.
People have been throwing dates left and right, including day 1 Retribution, so having a clear answer would be nice.
"Post Retribution sometime in early to mid 2013" would work as answer, thanks.
Miner for life. |
Uruk8
Toxic Subprime Assets Inc. Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 22:52:00 -
[2138] - Quote
one question. example: I have in the hangar 1 skill book for destroyer, battlecruiser and capital ship. after the patch, which skills books I get in the hangar?
example: destroyer - all skills book racial battlecruiser- all skills book racial capital ship.-all skills book racial
thx |
Arronicus
Vintas Industries Mistakes Were Made.
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 11:05:00 -
[2139] - Quote
Uruk8 wrote:one question. example: I have in the hangar 1 skill book for destroyer, battlecruiser and capital ship. after the patch, which skills books I get in the hangar?
example: destroyer - all skills book racial battlecruiser- all skills book racial capital ship.-all skills book racial
thx
Destroyer - Pax Amarria battlecruiser - Pax Amarria Capital Ship - What? Put down the blunt.
Also. Nice cash grab CCP. Really. Way to make it even harder for new players to try out different races of ships, before actively specializing even deeper into those races. |
Ellendras Silver
Universalis Imperium Tactical Narcotics Team
10
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 12:18:00 -
[2140] - Quote
they announced over a year ago that they gonna lower the preq. for capitals to BS4 i realy would love too know if and when that will happen? |
|
YoYo NickyYo
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 21:37:00 -
[2141] - Quote
After scanning a number of Dev blogs, why do I not see anything regarding FACTION ships?
"Working as intended" |
Mund Richard
57
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 02:23:00 -
[2142] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Q: Training turret specialization requires you to go for small and medium skills first, are you considering changing this to make it consistent with this plan?[/b]
A: We havenGÇÖt considered this yet, but this definitely is something that needs to be extensively discussed indeed.
Didn't read the whole thread, appologies if I missed it. Any word on this one?
Sarcasm can be like drugs. |
Ellendras Silver
Segmentum Solar Nulli Legio
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 00:29:00 -
[2143] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:they announced over a year ago that they gonna lower the preq. for capitals to BS4 i realy would love too know if and when that will happen?
realy this annoys me pretty much as it affects how i train i realy want an answer you cant just announce something big like that and then shut up for a year tell us when we can expect the change give or take a few weeks |
Ellendras Silver
Segmentum Solar Nulli Legio
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 12:07:00 -
[2144] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74234
so according this blog more is to change on the capital rebalance let me get this straight it was said with the destroyer/battlecruisers if you can fly it today you can fly it after.
in the case of lets say a super sitting toon this means that as soon as the cap rebalance is done that sitter toon gets capital ships 4 jump drive operation 2 t/m 5 jump drive callibration 4 jump fuel conservation 4
or else i wont be able to board the ship anymore on my sitter toon |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3943
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 17:03:00 -
[2145] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74234
so according this blog more is to change on the capital rebalance let me get this straight it was said with the destroyer/battlecruisers if you can fly it today you can fly it after.
in the case of lets say a super sitting toon this means that as soon as the cap rebalance is done that sitter toon gets capital ships 4 jump drive operation 2 t/m 5 jump drive callibration 4 jump fuel conservation 4
or else i wont be able to board the ship anymore on my sitter toon
If you have already trained the carrier skill for your chosen race you do not need to train any of those skills in order to fly the ship. Those skills are simply required to inject the skill for people who have not yet injected it.
The only possible exception to the "If you could fly it before you can fly it after" rule is the Tier 1 Navy BS which will require training from level 1 to level 2. For everything else (including supercarriers) the rule holds true. If you can fly a supercarrier before the changes you can fly it after. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
200
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 17:57:00 -
[2146] - Quote
I think we should just go ahead and rename the whole damn game to "If You Can Fly It Before You Can Fly It After: Online." |
Ellendras Silver
Segmentum Solar Nulli Legio
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 18:21:00 -
[2147] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74234
so according this blog more is to change on the capital rebalance let me get this straight it was said with the destroyer/battlecruisers if you can fly it today you can fly it after.
in the case of lets say a super sitting toon this means that as soon as the cap rebalance is done that sitter toon gets capital ships 4 jump drive operation 2 t/m 5 jump drive callibration 4 jump fuel conservation 4
or else i wont be able to board the ship anymore on my sitter toon If you have already trained the carrier skill for your chosen race you do not need to train any of those skills in order to fly the ship. Those skills are simply required to inject the skill for people who have not yet injected it. The only possible exception to the "If you could fly it before you can fly it after" rule is the Tier 1 Navy BS which will require training from level 1 to level 2. For everything else (including supercarriers) the rule holds true. If you can fly a supercarrier before the changes you can fly it after.
thnx for the reply... i am sorry but something isnt realy clear if i have a sitter toon (in training right now) that is able to sit in a nyx do i get the skills that i lack or am i able to sit in it without the skills needed afterwards?
also i realy would like an estimated time where we can expect the capital requirement changes, i understand it isnt realistic to say it when it will be exactly but give us something (as close as possible) for a timeframe |
Arronicus
Vintas Industries Mistakes Were Made.
179
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 22:33:00 -
[2148] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74234
so according this blog more is to change on the capital rebalance let me get this straight it was said with the destroyer/battlecruisers if you can fly it today you can fly it after.
in the case of lets say a super sitting toon this means that as soon as the cap rebalance is done that sitter toon gets capital ships 4 jump drive operation 2 t/m 5 jump drive callibration 4 jump fuel conservation 4
or else i wont be able to board the ship anymore on my sitter toon If you have already trained the carrier skill for your chosen race you do not need to train any of those skills in order to fly the ship. Those skills are simply required to inject the skill for people who have not yet injected it. The only possible exception to the "If you could fly it before you can fly it after" rule is the Tier 1 Navy BS which will require training from level 1 to level 2. For everything else (including supercarriers) the rule holds true. If you can fly a supercarrier before the changes you can fly it after. thnx for the reply... i am sorry but something isnt realy clear if i have a sitter toon (in training right now) that is able to sit in a nyx do i get the skills that i lack or am i able to sit in it without the skills needed afterwards? also i realy would like an estimated time where we can expect the capital requirement changes, i understand it isnt realistic to say it when it will be exactly but give us something (as close as possible) for a timeframe
If you have the skill plugged in pre-patch, you can still sit in it after, regardless of if you have the pre-reqs or not. That is all. Period. Nothing more to it. You will not get free skills, you will not be refunded. You will not get a special bonus. You will just be able to fly it after, if you could before. The end. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3946
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 23:24:00 -
[2149] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74234
so according this blog more is to change on the capital rebalance let me get this straight it was said with the destroyer/battlecruisers if you can fly it today you can fly it after.
in the case of lets say a super sitting toon this means that as soon as the cap rebalance is done that sitter toon gets capital ships 4 jump drive operation 2 t/m 5 jump drive callibration 4 jump fuel conservation 4
or else i wont be able to board the ship anymore on my sitter toon If you have already trained the carrier skill for your chosen race you do not need to train any of those skills in order to fly the ship. Those skills are simply required to inject the skill for people who have not yet injected it. The only possible exception to the "If you could fly it before you can fly it after" rule is the Tier 1 Navy BS which will require training from level 1 to level 2. For everything else (including supercarriers) the rule holds true. If you can fly a supercarrier before the changes you can fly it after. thnx for the reply... i am sorry but something isnt realy clear if i have a sitter toon (in training right now) that is able to sit in a nyx do i get the skills that i lack or am i able to sit in it without the skills needed afterwards? also i realy would like an estimated time where we can expect the capital requirement changes, i understand it isnt realistic to say it when it will be exactly but give us something (as close as possible) for a timeframe
As mentioned above, no skills will be given in these cases, you simply will be able to use the ship as you could before. You'll notice that each skill category (primary, secondary, so on) has a skill at the top, and then requirements to train that skill below it. The only skills the ship cares about are the ones at the top of each category, it completely ignores everything else.
And the most accurate timeframe I can give you is that these changes will be released with our summer expansion. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Kalterox
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 10:20:00 -
[2150] - Quote
This whole Battlecruiser skillpoint distribution plan is a disaster in the making.
One of the factors that has led to BC's being dominant at every level of EVE's pvp is the overpowered effect of the race-spanning BC skill (especially BC5).
BC's have already all but invalidated battleships and cruisers, except recons/logistics and other niche roles, at all levels of PVP bar coalition/large-alliance warfare. And even at the coalition/alliance level, it's taken a recent, crude and rather obvious nerf to the Drake/Cane to stop them trumping more expensive compositions through sheer bang-for-buck value.
By choosing not to reimburse the skillpoints for the BC skill, and instead handing everyone with BC5 free racial maximum skill, CCP have missed an opportunity to de-buff BC's.
In fact worse than that, they've handed an incentive to anyone with a brain to train BC5 before the summer. Meaning in the future we'll have a situation where there will be far, far more people in game with every racial BC skill trained to 5 than there are with racial cruiser and BS skills trained to 5, increasing further the pattern of everybody flying Battlecruisers.
I highly doubt this is being done to be 'fair', or for game balance. It smacks of preempting whines. |
|
Xaphan Jehuti
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 09:29:00 -
[2151] - Quote
erm help?
so if i am a pure Caldari pilot and have BC lvl5 will i get a refund on my other 3 race BC skills? or will you make me train it all over again if i choose to swap race sometime in the future? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1157
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 10:25:00 -
[2152] - Quote
Xaphan Jehuti wrote:erm help?
so if i am a pure Caldari pilot and have BC lvl5 will i get a refund on my other 3 race BC skills? or will you make me train it all over again if i choose to swap race sometime in the future?
No refunds.
If you don't have Racial Cruiser 3, you won't get Racial BC (anything)
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Mund Richard
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 10:52:00 -
[2153] - Quote
Xaphan Jehuti wrote:erm help?
so if i am a pure Caldari pilot and have BC lvl5 will i get a refund on my other 3 race BC skills? or will you make me train it all over again if i choose to swap race sometime in the future? Train all racial cruiser skills to 3 now, and you won't get a headache later when you want to sit in another race's BC.
"Refund" is not happening, poor choice of words. What you get, is every race's BC at your current non-racial BC skill level, assuming you also have every race's cruiser skill at 3. If you don't have a particular race's cruiser, you get left out for that race's BC.
(True refund is happening if you have BC to V and no cruiser to III, which is an ...odd situation usually) >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Haifisch Zahne
Hraka Manufacture GmbH
195
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 07:26:00 -
[2154] - Quote
I still can't get an answer:
If I have Command Ships trained now, but not, say, Amarr Cruisers V trained, can I train Amarr Cruisers to V *after* the changes and fly their Command Ships. Or, MUST I have Amarr Cruisers trained to V BEFORE the changes in order to fly their Command Ships after the changes so I don't have to train ALL those Leadership skills that will be added (at GREAT expense in time).
Please only answer if you can and do read the entire post, understand what I have written, and know what the "h" "e" double-hockey sticks you are talking about (and preferably be a dev).
The point is not academic. It has ramifications to super-cap ships as well, I believe. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1169
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 10:36:00 -
[2155] - Quote
Haifisch Zahne wrote:I still can't get an answer:
If I have, for example, Command Ships trained before the changes, but not, say, Amarr Cruisers V trained, will I be able to fly the Amarr Command Ships after the changes if I meet the new prerequisites *except* the new ones for Command Ships. Or, MUST I have Amarr Cruisers trained to V BEFORE the changes in order to fly their Command Ships after the changes.
Essentially, the talk has been "if you can fly the **SHIP** before, you can fly it after". I want to know if this really means "if you have the **SKILL** before, you will have it after (and can use the skill to fulfill other requirements just as if you had trained it after the changes even though you don't have all of its new prerequisites)".
Please only answer if you can and do read the entire post, understand what I have written, and know what the "h" "e" double-hockey sticks you are talking about (and preferably are a dev).
The point is not academic. It has serious ramifications to capital and super capital ships as well.
If you have, before the change: Amarr Cruiser 3 Battlecruisers 5 Command Ships 1
You will be able to fly, at least, the Damnation (and probably the Absolution, but it's not in the image. The text does read that way though)
As you will end up with: Amarr cruiser 3, Amarr Battlecruiser 5, Command ships 1
Which are the requirements for the Damnation.
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Ted McManfist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 01:57:00 -
[2156] - Quote
I understand what is going to happen with the skills when they split, but I'm wondering what will happen to the battlecruiser and destroyer skill books I have in my hangar and compiled in skill packs for new players. Will they also be split into their racial variants? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1182
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:03:00 -
[2157] - Quote
Ted McManfist wrote:I understand what is going to happen with the skills when they split, but I'm wondering what will happen to the battlecruiser and destroyer skill books I have in my hangar and compiled in skill packs for new players. Will they also be split into their racial variants?
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74234
- 'Removal and refund of all Destroyers and Battlecruisers skill books at the NPC order price.'
FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities.As well as mysql and CSV/XLS conversions of the Static Data Extract. |
Ted McManfist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:49:00 -
[2158] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Ted McManfist wrote:I understand what is going to happen with the skills when they split, but I'm wondering what will happen to the battlecruiser and destroyer skill books I have in my hangar and compiled in skill packs for new players. Will they also be split into their racial variants? http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74234
- 'Removal and refund of all Destroyers and Battlecruisers skill books at the NPC order price.'
Thanks.
I can't believe I missed that. |
|
|
|
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] |