Over the past few years there has been an enormous amount of well-deserved discussion regarding the balance of capitals in general and supercaps in particular. This is an ongoing problem in EVE Online, but CCP appears to be making meaningful steps towards a positive resolution. With the changes to battleship production complexity, and the decrease in cost to battlecruisers and below, it's clear that CCP is trying to make the game more accessible to new players, and less painful for them. I think these are great ideas. The game should get harder as you increase the "level" of gameplay. But there's another balance issue, an elephant in the room so to speak, that's just as important - especially if CCP wants to make a game that's friendlier to newbros.
The issue I'm talking about is Tech2 and Meta.
Tech2 is oppressive for newbies. When I was in Faction Warfare back in the early 10's, I encountered a lot of newbies: this was during EVE Online's "Golden Age", when PCU numbers kept breaking records. There was a huge influx of new players, and many of those new players made their way to FW. I found myself, even being a bit green myself, in the position to teach these players.
What I noticed was that there was a pressure, almost immediately, to train up for and use Tech2 everything in order to be competitive and useful. New players did not feel it was really worth it to try solo PvP until they could at least fill every module slot with Tech2. Tech2 was the "end game" for "gearing your toon". And newbies - even though I would argue this is not completely the case - felt pretty helpless until they could use Tech2. And they were mostly right: if your opponent does twice your DPS and has 20% more tank, taking player skill/ship matchup out of the equation, what hope do you have?
On the industry side of things: I encountered so many players who liked the idea of building at least some of their own ships and modules, but who abandoned it because Tech1 production, while accessible, would only produce obsolete garbage. Tech2 production required an army of alts. So they abandoned these projects and would just haul stuff in from trade hubs. Many of these players left.
There are some exceptions to this Tech1 vs Tech2 paradigm; sometimes Tech1 is just as good. For example: Tech1 destroyers vs interdictors. A Thrasher performs equivalent, roughly, to a Sabre - because a Sabre fulfills a specialized role (bubbling) but otherwise isn't an upgrade in terms of DPS and EHP. So you'd almost never bring a Sabre over a Thrasher unless you need a bubble (more on these "niche specializations later) or you have some kind of crazy fit that requires a Thrasher with 4 mids.
Tech1 vs Tech2 Modules: Not a Meaningful Choice
Tech2 modules are a problem in a particular way. Once you can fit Tech2, why would you ever use Tech1? There are a few special cases, such as with MWDs or scrams, where the Meta version is just about as good, but you save a little bit of CPU or something. You "meta" a module to make a fit work. Okay - fine. But for the most part, once Tech2 is available, it becomes a necessary upgrade, because it just performs that much better. And the necessity applies to all module slots. Yes, Tech2 modules have higher fitting requirements; but once a character has their core fitting skills trained up this higher fitting requirement isn't even noticed. It's a thoughtless decision; T2 the entire fit. If you go over on CPU (for example, oversized prop mod), just meta your scram or something.
A quick and dirty remedy for this is to make T2 rohibitively expensive to fit to ships: give players the meaningful choice of whether or not they want a full rack of T2 in their highs, lows, or mids. Or, a rack of T1 guns and a mixture of T2s in mid and low. I think this should apply for both T1 and T2 ships; the fitting resources should be pretty much the same.
Tech2 Modules: Should provide great performance upgrade but at the cost of major fitting requirements. No ship should have everything upgraded to Tech2. Create meaningful choices instead of just "Tech2 everything". If you can only fit, at best, 8 Tech2 modules on a ship, this would allow newbies to reach 'parity' with veteran players at a much faster rate - they could decide which set of modules they want to be able to Tech2 first. And this is what you want; you want newbies to have goals, but you also want them to start being at least competitive with veterans as early as possible to get them 'hooked'.
What About Meta Modules?
Another paradigm I think is problematic is the fact that NPCs drop Tech1 and Meta modules. Players either refine these modules or sell them on the market, putting downward pressure, however slight, on the value of minerals and modules manufactured by players. I think everything, perhaps with the exception of Officer/Faction modules, should have to be built by players. No module should drop off an NPC, only salvage and perhaps some components, and you increase the yield by actually salvaging.
Meta module BPCs should drop from data and relic sites and should require the Tech1 module itself + a tiny bit of salvage, or data cores or something, to build. Meta should come in just a couple of varieties: either increased performance ("Upgraded") or decreased fittings ("Compact"). But whichever choice you make (Tech1, Meta, Tech2) - it's something players built, instead of just something that was looted as an afterthought in a mission or anomaly.
UPDATE: Perhaps meta module BPCs and some components needed to build them can be acquired through mission NPCs (not FW). This would create an ISK sink and a useful way to spend LP.
Tech1 vs Tech2 Hulls: The Relationship
Tech2 hulls are clear upgrades from Tech1. And that makes sense to a certain degree. Tech2 should be better than Tech1 - in some way. But they are such clear upgrades across the board that they render their Tech1 versions obsolete. Nothing should ever be obsolete - this is a clear sign of power creep which serves only to hurt games. And in EVE Online, it serves to hurt the newbies who have to wait a long time for all that fancy Tech2 stuff, meanwhile feeling powerless and ineffective unless they're in a fleet.
What is a healthy relationship between Tech1 and Tech2 hulls? If you look at Tech1 hulls and then look at Tech2 hulls, Tech2 hulls get a ton of bonuses. They get bonuses from the Tech1 hull skill as well as bonuses for the Tech2 hull skill. I want to take a moment to explain how one set of bonuses is a bit ridiculous when you think about it: level V for the Tech1 hull is requisite to flying the Tech2, so the bonuses "per skill level" for the Tech1 are really a role bonus.
So Tech2 ships get 2 sets of role bonuses and 1 set of bonuses from the advanced ship skill. Why ever use Tech1 except for cost? And as history has shown: cost is not really a factor for players. Unless, of course, you're a newbie, in which case it just means a lot of grinding before you can "get into" the game.
What if, ignoring cost, we balanced Tech1 and Tech2 around performance instead? How should Tech1 and Tech2 perform compared to each other? Well, originally, the relationship between Tech1 and Tech2 had Tech1 as the generalist and Tech2 was supposed to be specialist, as shown below.
Stitch Kaneland, writing in 2019, had this idea:
The problem with both visions is that they have Tech2 and Tech3 as a significant upgrade to, as well as a specialization from, Tech1. So Tech2 is both a linear upgrade, and a specialization. Tech1 is way down at the bottom, and doesn't even occupy any niche; it's not that versatile (read: generalized) nor is it that specialized. And it's the weakest as well. I think this is sad: a lot of developer time went into reworking Tech1 hulls over the years, in particular the work of CCP Rise when he was first hired. This time and effort is wasted if these ships are obsolete.
I've modified Kaneland's chart:
What I've done is reduce the overall "improvement" of Tech3 and Tech2, and pushed them further into either specialization or generalization. Tech3 would be "generalization" only insofar as 1 ship can be configured to assume any role that a cruiser can assume (in the case of T3Cs, swap fit = new role) or 1 ship that can assume 1 of three roles on the fly (in the case of T3Ds). I've also situated Navy both as an upgrade from, and more of a specialization from, Tech1. Pirate, the highest upgrade, is also more general: pirate ships are very strong, they get two racial bonuses, making them more general, and better overall performance than Navy.
You'll also note that I have two categories for Tech2: one that is a bit of an improvement in a specialized way over Tech1, and another for unique ships that are very much more specialized over Tech1, but otherwise not very effective outside of their special role. For example, Stealth Bombers, HIC/DICtors, and Booshers which have no Tech1 equivalent. These very specialized ships perform worse than Tech1 overall, but are very good at performing a single niche function: bubbling, infinipoints, bombing, booshing, etc. I think these specialized ships are in a good place and not in need of that much attention.
So how do we get there? It's actually pretty simple. You don't nerf Tech2. You buff Tech1 so that Tech1 hulls got *all* the bonuses of their Tech2 variant but to a lesser degree (5% instead of 7.5%, for example) and Tech2 ships either
- Get only 1 set of bonuses, so they are worse than Tech1 in some way, and better in another or
- Tech2 ships can utilize either set of bonuses, but must fit a special high slot module to unlock which they want to use. I think this is the better option: Tech2 ships will be worse in one way, but better in another, and players will have the option (read: meaningful choice) to decide in which way that is the case.
So for example, a Thorax would get all the bonuses that a Deimos currently has, but less powerful. A Deimos would then have the option: Falloff and damage? Or damage and reps? And this would be a meaningful choice: The Deimos would perform better than the Thorax in some way, but would be worse in another, as it would not receive those bonuses.
I think the above changes would go a long way towards making a much more healthy game for both new players and veterans alike. Choices in tech selection would become meaningful. Tech2 would not just be an automatic "Iwin" button. New players would be competitive earlier on, promoting retention. And there'd be more "good fights" instead of one sided washes.
No comments:
Post a Comment