| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures
BLACK-MARK
56
    |
Posted - 2012.03.08 23:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP beat us to making a new topic about removing ship tiers, and changing allot of everything with ships.
Here is a link
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=9129.
summary
ccp dude- "Introducing ship lines
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.
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.
Industrial 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.
"
Also includes putting destroyers and BC's in the general size progression, and racial prequisites so bc is required for BS.
Generally I support the ideas. Though I kind of like a ship skill that is not bound to a race (train one BC train them all). More interested in removing tiers and balancing within class then the changing of progression, even if it might not affect me much being super trained up to carriers and dreads (only needing to train up to BS 4 will make multi-racing capitals much easier). What do you think? Upvote if you like the blog, and post suggestions. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
845
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 00:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
 I think that the older bitvet guy that has at least 1 pt in each Battleship race:
 Will get free prerequisite in each race he has that point -will it be lvl3 or 4? we'll see
Now the same bit vet has BattleCruisers 5: dilema, because he also have 1pt per BS in 3races and 1 to 5 because carrier.
 will this scrub get racial Battlecruiser 5 in all races? 
Malcanis law
Also: battlecruisers 5 and destroyers 5 in training folowed by frigs4/cruisers4/battleship 1 where it's needed to be sure you will not have to train stupid amounts of time for something where another one spent a few hours only.
|
mxzf
Shovel Bros
919
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 05:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Personally, I'm fairly concerned about the changes to Dessies and BCs, specifically because I have BCs 5 and was considering training Dessies 5 soon. I just don't see this change to them ending well; either I end up getting the SP back for training one of them up to the level that I have now (and get robbed of access to the other three races due to an arbitrary change of CCP's) or I get SP for all 4 of them (and younger players have to train 4x as long to get access to the same stuff). Personally, I prefer the second option, but neither one is a 'good' solution.
Personally, I think they should just leave the BCs and destroyers how they are now, since it will cause the least pain overall. Otherwise, someone's going to end up getting pissed off and hurt, either way.
I do like the idea of the tiericide though, I'm hoping they balance and execute it well. |
Buzzy Warstl
Huron Syndicate
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.09 14:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
The tone of the comments from the devs indicates that they intend to err on the side of generosity.
|
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
110
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 11:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
With T2 battlesips as they are, probably, except for PvE people who a marauder. Luckily the changes will make it easier to balance, say, BlOps and make them worth flying.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. |
Diamaht Nevain
Avatar Union
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 16:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
In reading the feedback thread and this one it seems the major objection people have is time spent retraining. Assuming we don't have to retrain or the retraining impact is small, is everyone in favor of these proposed changes? |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.10 23:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
If there will be a new battleship design, I want it to have bonus to medium guns.
Lets face it, for most ship to ship combat, cruiser guns offer more damage than battleship guns.
The only practical uses of battleship guns now is fleet sniping, PVE, and maybe some POS bashing - all of which are well covered by existing ships
A battleship with cruiser gun bonus is going to be different enough to justify its existence. It's something new. |
Marlona Sky
EntroPrelatial Vanguard
EntroPraetorian Aegis
557
|
Posted - 2012.03.11 00:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Oh look. Yet another thread that should have just been in the dev blog feedback thread.
|
|
|
| |
Reply to Topic |
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |