
Batelle
HOMELE55
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 20:33:00 -
[1] - 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. |