
Lijhal
Innoruuks Wrath
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 03:16:00 -
[1] - 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! |