These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Rebalancing Modules in EVE Online, Round Two

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#181 - 2015-01-07 13:45:59 UTC
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
Hello CCP Devs

Can I please get a response here as to the why T2 are not getting buffed to the same stats as the (better) Meta4s your removing from the game? This is going to be clear fitting issue. Why so silent about it?
...
Adding even more faction mods to make up for the meta mods getting the axe.
...
And an ORE SCANNER that is useless with out doing your own math equation just so see how much ore will fit in your holds.

Make a statement regarding your decision not to buff the T2 mods to the better meta4 stats in those cases. I can not believe this is an oversight on your part. Show us you at lest know this is going to be major fitting Nerf to the game. Or you either just don't care or think we are to stupid to see what's going on here.


For the T2 mods which are worse than the Meta 4 modules, which are you referring to? I looked over the old and new stats and found only two cases where the Meta 4 module was better than the T2, and this was in Inertial Stabilizers and Capacitor Power Relays.
In the IS instance, the difference was a 3% less signature radius penalty on the meta 4 variant, which doesn't affect fitting but is a slight nerf.
In the CPR instance, the new Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay is easier to fit than the old Meta 4 module and has nearly the same stats as the old Meta 4 module with the same Shield Boost penalty and 2% less Capacitor Recharge Rate bonus.
If there are other instances I've missed please let me know.

For the new faction modules, we felt there was an opportunity to add some interesting high-end modules to some module types which had no faction variation previously. Even with these new additions most module types are seeing a 33%-50% reduction in the number of modules of that type.

The ore scanner issue is not related to the dev blog or the tiericide project at all, but for the record I also think it's odd. I have no idea why it was done that way originally, and hopefully one day we'll get around to looking at them. Until then, you can do some simple math, or wait one cycle and see roughly what number of ore has been removed from the rock in question.



@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Grookshank
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2015-01-07 14:49:39 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
Hello CCP Devs

Can I please get a response here as to the why T2 are not getting buffed to the same stats as the (better) Meta4s your removing from the game? This is going to be clear fitting issue. Why so silent about it?
...
Adding even more faction mods to make up for the meta mods getting the axe.
...
And an ORE SCANNER that is useless with out doing your own math equation just so see how much ore will fit in your holds.

Make a statement regarding your decision not to buff the T2 mods to the better meta4 stats in those cases. I can not believe this is an oversight on your part. Show us you at lest know this is going to be major fitting Nerf to the game. Or you either just don't care or think we are to stupid to see what's going on here.


For the T2 mods which are worse than the Meta 4 modules, which are you referring to? I looked over the old and new stats and found only two cases where the Meta 4 module was better than the T2, and this was in Inertial Stabilizers and Capacitor Power Relays.
In the IS instance, the difference was a 3% less signature radius penalty on the meta 4 variant, which doesn't affect fitting but is a slight nerf.
In the CPR instance, the new Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay is easier to fit than the old Meta 4 module and has nearly the same stats as the old Meta 4 module with the same Shield Boost penalty and 2% less Capacitor Recharge Rate bonus.
If there are other instances I've missed please let me know.

For the new faction modules, we felt there was an opportunity to add some interesting high-end modules to some module types which had no faction variation previously. Even with these new additions most module types are seeing a 33%-50% reduction in the number of modules of that type.

The ore scanner issue is not related to the dev blog or the tiericide project at all, but for the record I also think it's odd. I have no idea why it was done that way originally, and hopefully one day we'll get around to looking at them. Until then, you can do some simple math, or wait one cycle and see roughly what number of ore has been removed from the rock in question.


I have a slightly different example of a slight nerf to a T2 module:

New: Nanofiber Internal Structure II -15.75 Inertia
Old: Nanofiber Internal Structure II -15.8 Inertia
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#183 - 2015-01-07 15:41:49 UTC
You're getting a slight speed boost in trade though.
You're not going to notice an agility difference that small.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2015-01-07 19:23:36 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
We've made a few changes and clarifications.

You can find the information on the dev blog or on the first page of the comment reserved for clarifications.

Module Tiericide Dev Blog

Comments First Page

Tranks for the update, though I have some doubts the smaller sig penalty will help the new meta 1 inertial stabilizer much. Do you have an update on the mapping at patch day?

I'm my own NPC alt.
Alex PROTOSS
Turbo miners inc
#185 - 2015-01-07 23:39:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex PROTOSS
And no variation in fraction CR, CPR, PDS?What?

Quote:
If there are other instances I've missed please let me know.

target painter
tracking disruptor
stasis webifier
remote sensor dampener
eccm projector
ecm burst
warp scrambler
all ecm jammers and their amplifier
all eccm
sensor booster
small\medium\heavy energy neutralizer
small\medium\heavy nosferatu
armor plating (em\thermal\kinetic\explosive\adaptive)
shield power relay
Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#186 - 2015-01-08 09:35:47 UTC

CCP Terminus wrote
"For the T2 mods which are worse than the Meta 4 modules, which are you referring to? I looked over the old and new stats and found only two cases where the Meta 4 module was better than the T2, and this was in Inertial Stabilizers and Capacitor Power Relays.
In the IS instance, the difference was a 3% less signature radius penalty on the meta 4 variant, which doesn't affect fitting but is a slight nerf.
In the CPR instance, the new Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay is easier to fit than the old Meta 4 module and has nearly the same stats as the old Meta 4 module with the same Shield Boost penalty and 2% less Capacitor Recharge Rate bonus.
If there are other instances I've missed please let me know.

For the new faction modules, we felt there was an opportunity to add some interesting high-end modules to some module types which had no faction variation previously. Even with these new additions most module types are seeing a 33%-50% reduction in the number of modules of that type.

The ore scanner issue is not related to the dev blog or the tiericide project at all, but for the record I also think it's odd. I have no idea why it was done that way originally, and hopefully one day we'll get around to looking at them. Until then, you can do some simple math, or wait one cycle and see roughly what number of ore has been removed from the rock in question."

Thank you for responding. This means more than you can know.
On tight fits the difference tween the T2 Capacitor Power Relay with the same Capacitor Recharge Rate as the Meta4 at 6 more TF. That is is a lot of CPU for a frig. And a larger ship is going to HAVE to change the fit all around for the sake of that much difference. The 2% less Capacitor Recharge Rate bonus is the same as stepping up from T2 to Faction it makes all the difference! It is a fitting nerff plan and simple. Reduced performance. The margins are Tight and to say it's ok you don't need that 2%, well, it feels like a slap in the face. These are not re-changes to some thing you guys put in last year or even 5 years ago these mods and performances have been in the game sense 2002!


"The ore scanner issue is not related to the dev blog or the tiericide project at all"
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time

What Modules Are We Starting With?

In Oceanus, we are starting the Module Tiericide project by applying the process to eight groups of modules. All of these modules represent fairly simple sets of changes as they do not have very many potential variations. They will serve as the launching point as we start the process of applying Tiericide to every module group in EVE.

The module groups being changed in Oceanus are:

Co-Processors
Reactor Control Units
Micro Auxiliary Power Cores
Light Missile Launchers
Capacitor Flux Coils
Cargo Scanners
Ship Scanners
" Survey Scanners"

If it can not get fixed in the first pass it never will, cause 'mining mod'. So who cares right. How bout the 2nd pass take a look? the Ship scanner gives the exact fit and even reads said ship's Capacitor! No calculator needed. And miners can not even get a Survey Scanner that reads in a useful amount. You have to have a cheat sheet of the 16 ores, gas, and ice. Also have the dang calculator open and figure out the amounts. The cargo scanner don't need this or the Ship scanner, but they are pvp related so... go figure.
Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#187 - 2015-01-08 10:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Cledus Snowman Snow
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time

" Module Tiericide

With Module Tiericide, we are taking our aim at another set of tiers that can stifle choice: meta levels.

Our solution to this problem is to replace the meta-based named module system with a new role-based system. Each named module in a class will have roughly equivalent power level, and that power level will be above T1. Each named module will also have a specialization that gives a player interested in shopping for named modules a viable and interesting choice. As part of this system, we may consolidate a number of named modules together since we may not need four variations to represent all the areas of interesting player choice. To make it clear that meta levels will no longer represent power differences within the named modules, we will be changing all the named modules to have a meta level of 1."

This image gives a basic overview of how the meta level attribute is used now and how it will be used after Module Tiericide is complete:

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66535/1/MetaLevels.jpg

This is all pretty clear that ALL meta 4 mods and lower are getting the AXE. This is just the first set of mod groups that has a few Better than T2 meta4s in it and yup CCP is not transferring the the superior stats to the T2 as is the case. This "it's only 2% here and 6 CPU there so whats it matter?" Those are the huge amounts in fitting these ships and having to use faction or higher for the same fit is just plane bunk. And it is not just the 2 mods this round, the plan is all metas 1 to 4 are going away 10 at a time. Sure the lower ones are getting replaced with low lvl mods sure. But all of the Meta 4s are going away forever. Some are just better than the same type of T2 mod.
Yes you and who ever answers for round 3 and 4 are going to do what ever it is you plan on doing. But I ask again why not have the Better stats go to the T2 mods in those cases? Let us keep the same fits we have been using.

CCP you are removing choice in the name of ... choice? Balance is take something away (meta4s) give something back (T2 improved with the same stats as the better Meta4s in those cases), or it's just a straight up fitting Nerf.
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#188 - 2015-01-08 15:59:55 UTC
Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort.
In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Aroye
Mechvale Planetside Productions
#189 - 2015-01-08 18:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Aroye
Expanded Cargohold II – Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%,[u] Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%

-18% ?? Isn't that just too slow? A few cargo expanders and the ship will hardly move at all.

With these cargo expander changes it will be easier to make one shot kills when target haulers fall short when landing on gates and stations. That extra 500m would just take too long to cover! Was that considered?
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#190 - 2015-01-08 20:43:10 UTC
Aroye wrote:
With these cargo expander changes it will be easier to make one shot kills when target haulers fall short when landing on gates and stations. That extra 500m would just take too long to cover! Was that considered?


You never fall short on gates. It's literally impossible. Your ship might still burn toward the gate if it's cloaky and you didn't decloak before coming out of warp, but that's a different issue.

As for stations... if you're hauling valuable cargo, use an instadock.
Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#191 - 2015-01-08 21:37:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Cledus Snowman Snow
CCP Terminus wrote:
Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort.
In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group.



Once again thanks for getting back to me I was afraid this was the case.
What threw me off was the way this "Module Tiericide project" was presented as the same as the "Ship Tiericide project".
And that as you know made some radical changes to a bunch of ships, most likely with some coding involved.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time

"As CCP Ytterbium outlined in his Fanfest 2012 Balancing presentation, followed up with multiple dev blogs, the Tiericide initiative replaced those old tiers with a series of ship lines that represented distinct strengths and weaknesses for distinct roles. Each tech one ship within the same class (like “cruiser” or “frigate”) post-Tiericide is intended to have roughly similar overall power, but that power can and should be expressed in a variety of forms. "


Just so I understand, the Module Tiericide project, is about the following:
The re-naming of most mods, or in some cases the re-re-naming.
The deletion of all Meta1 to 4 with inferior replacements.
The T2 mods that are not as good as the former Meta4 equivalent, are not getting buffed. Leaving us with no option but "want the same Performance of Fit you have to use Faction or better".

I feel I have come to see the light here. Now all the comparisons to the "Ship Tiericide project", had me fooled into thinking that this was to have a positive outcome. Most ships involved they were buffed here and there or had rolls and bonuses changed and an over all improvement of most ships was the result. Good options were added not taken away.

This Module Tiericide project is a diminution of fitting options of quality. Perhaps 1/3rd of the T2 mods have a superior meta4 mod of the same type. CCP you are deleting the meta4s with out buffing those T2s that were inferior, this is one of the more wide spread Nerfs to have ever happened to this game. You do understand that tricking out a T1 ship in 2 or 3 Faction mods to keep the same Performance of Fit is not cost effective with Risk vs Reward? For just one Faction mod in some cases is a dozen times or more, the expense of a T1 ship.

I am not saying 'omg this will end EVE' no it probably wont. And if you only do groups of 10 at a time you are making it less painful and obvious what you are up to. And keeping players from freaking out till you get to the mods 'they care about'. Perhaps I am just too old a vet to understand your CCP wisdom.
Thales
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#192 - 2015-01-09 00:14:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Thales
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
CCP Terminus wrote:
Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort.
In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group.



Once again thanks for getting back to me I was afraid this was the case.
What threw me off was the way this "Module Tiericide project" was presented as the same as the "Ship Tiericide project".
And that as you know made some radical changes to a bunch of ships, most likely with some coding involved.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time

"As CCP Ytterbium outlined in his Fanfest 2012 Balancing presentation, followed up with multiple dev blogs, the Tiericide initiative replaced those old tiers with a series of ship lines that represented distinct strengths and weaknesses for distinct roles. Each tech one ship within the same class (like “cruiser” or “frigate”) post-Tiericide is intended to have roughly similar overall power, but that power can and should be expressed in a variety of forms. "


Just so I understand, the Module Tiericide project, is about the following:
The re-naming of most mods, or in some cases the re-re-naming.
The deletion of all Meta1 to 4 with inferior replacements.
The T2 mods that are not as good as the former Meta4 equivalent, are not getting buffed. Leaving us with no option but "want the same Performance of Fit you have to use Faction or better".

I feel I have come to see the light here. Now all the comparisons to the "Ship Tiericide project", had me fooled into thinking that this was to have a positive outcome. Most ships involved they were buffed here and there or had rolls and bonuses changed and an over all improvement of most ships was the result. Good options were added not taken away.

This Module Tiericide project is a diminution of fitting options of quality. Perhaps 1/3rd of the T2 mods have a superior meta4 mod of the same type. CCP you are deleting the meta4s with out buffing those T2s that were inferior, this is one of the more wide spread Nerfs to have ever happened to this game. You do understand that tricking out a T1 ship in 2 or 3 Faction mods to keep the same Performance of Fit is not cost effective with Risk vs Reward? For just one Faction mod in some cases is a dozen times or more, the expense of a T1 ship.

I am not saying 'omg this will end EVE' no it probably wont. And if you only do groups of 10 at a time you are making it less painful and obvious what you are up to. And keeping players from freaking out till you get to the mods 'they care about'. Perhaps I am just too old a vet to understand your CCP wisdom.



Yes it is certainly a concern.
One should NOT be removing meta 4 modules without considering the effect of weaker T2 modules.
Whilst all players are equally affected, certain ships and roles are seriously nerfed by this action.
If that is deliberate and considered, then fine, that is your choice as a game designer.

Because the effect is that you are rebalancing the ships by this action,

Is that also being passed to those who have spent a great deal of time getting the ships just as they want them? A great deal of time and effort and no doubt heartache, was spent by Fozzie, Rise, etc in getting them just so.
Or are you accidentily rebalancing them through ommission

The effects here are significant. Please consider them thoroughly, and hopefully All at CCP will work towards the same goals.
Hopefully that is so, but from the outside, it seems there is a disconnect going on here.
JanSVK
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#193 - 2015-01-09 12:50:29 UTC
Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?
Maennas Vaer
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#194 - 2015-01-09 14:23:07 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:

Inertial Stabilizers
Inertial Stabilizers are now consistently named Inertial Stabilizers instead of some being Inertia Stabilizers and some inertial Stabilizers.


If it's not already too late please do the same here;

Civilian Miner
Miner I
EP-S Gaussian Scoped Mining Laser
Miner II
Gallente Mining Laser

Either call the group 'Mining Laser' or just 'Miner'. This can be quite confusing for new bros starting out and when searching the market.
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#195 - 2015-01-09 14:31:29 UTC
Maennas Vaer wrote:
CCP Terminus wrote:

Inertial Stabilizers
Inertial Stabilizers are now consistently named Inertial Stabilizers instead of some being Inertia Stabilizers and some inertial Stabilizers.


If it's not already too late please do the same here;

Civilian Miner
Miner I
EP-S Gaussian Scoped Mining Laser
Miner II
Gallente Mining Laser

Either call the group 'Mining Laser' or just 'Miner'. This can be quite confusing for new bros starting out and when searching the market.


We'd like to unify the Mining Laser names as well. This won't be out in time for Proteus but it's on my list. Inertial Stabilizers were fairly easy to change because they weren't referenced anywhere else, for example in missions or tutorial text. Mining Lasers are most likely a decent amount more work.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#196 - 2015-01-09 14:46:41 UTC
JanSVK wrote:
Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?

This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants.

We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Thales
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#197 - 2015-01-09 15:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Thales
CCP Terminus wrote:
JanSVK wrote:
Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?

This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants.

We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.


Whilst the concept is understandable, that is an almighty change. There is a fine point between interesting choices and overwhelmingly unpleasant effects. T2 is now an obvious choice to avoid now. And the non faction choices are equally undesireable.

How for example is one expected to fit a blockade runner? In order to carry anything of note it now has the strength of rice-paper and the speed of a small planet. And if one hull tanks it, now it will be a miracle if it moves at all with the strengh of a soap bubble. Not exacly engaging choices are they?

I trust that all the ships are going to be rebalanced to take account of all these sweeping changes?
Or are you of the belief that these are minor tweaks? Because they certainly are not, and are looking more and more like totally gamechanging rebalancing, and without complete reexamination and rebalancing the specifications of the ships they apply to are going to be seriously regretted.

Edit how is velocity the least relevant when on an industrial one fits multiple cargo expanders? You know, 18%+18% +18% +18% +18% sort of adds up? And are we somehow aiming at negative structure just for fun?
Callisto Helix
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#198 - 2015-01-09 15:33:07 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
JanSVK wrote:
Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?

This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants.

We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.


What about the tradeoff of T2 modules requiring significantly more skillpoints than their meta or faction counterparts? Obviously this isn't a big deal for expanded cargoholds, but things like weapons have a hefty training requirement to take advantage of T2.

Furthermore, the moves you guys are making with some of the current meta 4 modules has me really scared for when you get to EWar modules. Currently Meta 4 ECM, Damps, Tracking Disruptors, ECCM, Target Painters, Webs, Scrams, and Neuts/NOSs are better than their T2 counterparts. They have the same strength, but are easier to fit, often use less cap, and don't overheat as efficiently. While I fully agree that T2 should be better at the cost of fitting and maybe even cap use, I'm terrified that you're going to nerf the meta modules rather than buff the strength on the T2 variants.

There is no reason to use T2 EWar modules currently, but if meta 4 gets nerfed instead of T2 getting buffed, a lot of fits are going to get worse and/or harder to fit overnight.
Alinder Ray
Doomheim
#199 - 2015-01-09 15:41:12 UTC
@ CCP F**k Tard

Quote:
The scan resolution of Fighter Bombers and Fighters has been reduced to ensure that pilots can not gain an advantage by rapidly scooping and relaunching them.



just remove caps from the game ,this will save all the nerfs and bollocks you have implemented in the last few patches,that way you will not have to worry about your infrastructure dying every time a large fight is about to happen.

@CSM twats!!

you dont speak for me!
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#200 - 2015-01-09 15:50:20 UTC
Alinder Ray wrote:
@ CCP F**k Tard

Quote:
The scan resolution of Fighter Bombers and Fighters has been reduced to ensure that pilots can not gain an advantage by rapidly scooping and relaunching them.



just remove caps from the game ,this will save all the nerfs and bollocks you have implemented in the last few patches,that way you will not have to worry about your infrastructure dying every time a large fight is about to happen.

@CSM twats!!

you dont speak for me!

you probably didn't vote either so that was already the case