Member of the EVE Tweet Fleet

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Voting done.

Just as controversy erupts.  Well not controversy, more tempest in a tea pot.  The balancing team realized what any intelligent being would realize about the ship scheme in EVE.  The current structure is a patch work of various add-ons and upgrades that have happened over the years result in a rather messy progression of skills to get in various ships.

I can see the desire to rework the skill dependency tree.  I don't necessarily agree that the exact direction they are taking is the correct way to do things.  But so long as I can keep flying what I currently am able to fly, I don't have too much of a problem with making changes.

A much bigger concern to me would be the eventual re-balancing of the ships themselves to make them work within their "line".  Don't get me wrong.  I can see how some people will freak at the changes to the skill requirements and the skills structure.  But a more critical issue is the eventual rebalancing of all the ships and the "bringing up to snuff" of the basic T1 ships.  The kerfuffle over the skills situation risks overshadowing more important changes.

Meanwhile - go vote.


Knug Lidi said...

The most important image in that dev blog for me, had nothing to do with ship progression, nor SP, nor dependencies.

It was the image showing ship tech levels with improvment being the vertical axis and flexibility (left) to specialization (right) for the horizontal axis.

The image showed improvement increasing from tech 1 to navy to pirate. It also showed T3 ships being far more flexible than T1 and above t1 and navy in terms of improvement but not as high as pirate, and more specifically, not as improved as T2.

Currently, I believe this doesn't match reality. Many T3 configurations are superior to the T2 equivalents. this should not be.

I hope this is a sign from the CCP devs that they recognize that T3's are overpowered, even compared to t2 ships. T3 cruisers (note they are cruiser hulls, not BC hulls) are better brawlers than just about any cruiser or battlecruiser, except perhaps certain t2 field command ships. They are just too strong. As a brawler, they should not be stronger than the T2 cruiser brawler, let alone on par with a t2 battlecruiser.

If that image shows CCP's current wish for T3, I approve. If that image shows CCP's current believe of the relative improvement of the ships, then it highlights how disconnected CCP are from the game's reality

Letrange said...

on the flip side the T3 price vs brawler abilities are prety much in line with relative power

some of them are on par with the T2 field command ships but are (all modules in) about twice as expensive

Stephen McMurtry said...

Cost is absolutely NEVER a way to "balance." Look at Titans, look at -A- being able to field 300 man Tengu fleets. If it is better, people will grind out the money to pay for it.

Ragelle said...

The recent clarification indicate anyone with Destroyer 5 and BC 5 will get the full 4 racial variants at 5 when/if a change is made... so no real SP losses or retraining needed.

It will also guarantee veterans won't patch to find they can't fly the ships they own.