These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Siobhan MacLeary
Doomheim
#221 - 2017-06-02 02:15:42 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Dirk MacGirk wrote:

... However, that change was in and of itself sufficient. The addition of a third nerf to excavators is overkill, and makes it harder to determine the outcome from the anomaly change. Why not see where that goes before dumping on excavators and Rorqual once again?


CCP plz learn from this. Stop going back to the old-school CCP way of super nerf followed by super buff followed by super nerf followed by super buff seesaw that makes people hate you. Be measured and be Scientific in your approach by limiting the changing variable as much as possible to see how your changes are panning out, otherwise you don't know what is affecting your game.


Implying the CCP design team has any conception of measured, scientific approaches to game balance.

And to those beating the drum of "It's not just Fozzie making these changes he's not the only designer stop hating on the devs":

Fozzie is the face of EVERY. SINGLE. ********. THING. That has been released since he was hired. Most notably, Fozziesov! So unless some other CCP decides to step up and be the messenger for stupid changes, Fozzie is the ONLY person we can talk to about them.

If you don't want the messenger to get shot, stop sending the same messenger to deliver bad news.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave
Allbur Chellak
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2017-06-02 02:20:13 UTC
ok...let me get my head around this.

CCP wants to decrease the yield of the excavator drones (is this the 3rd time?), slow the drones down (make them easier to kill and at the same time decrease yield/hr) AND decrease the spawn rate of the belts you mine from almost instant to 5 hours making it harder to just log on and mine with friends for a few hours after work.

So...this is what they call incremental adjustments?

All I can really add to this thread, as a guy that actually pays RL cash for my accounts, and enjoys hanging out with people in mining fleets while waiting to PVP, is that I am honestly disappointed with this very ham handed death blow to what is actually a bit of fun for me and any number of people that I know.

I get how fine tuning is important in any game, but gutting what is actually a relaxing and social way to make ISK, support your alliance, and fund your PVP, really bothers me.

From my point of view, the 100-150mil ISK/hr in ore (that I had to fricking find a buyer or use myself) was actually not a bad return on flying around in a 10 billion ISK, fixed in space, high skill level, loot piñata. The risk/reward never felt too awful at that point for me. Not so sure anymore sadly.

Oh well....not sure what this post will get me really.
People that use these things will agree.
People that don't, will say git gud and stop complaining.
CCP will not give one rip unless it cuts at their bottom line in some quantifiable way.

All I have to say is that this was one of the last, pretty good, scalable income sources that let people playing at the capital ship level on multiple accounts generate real income (selling ore or using it to to build stuff) of a scale that let them buy/build the things that they want (supers, Titans). Well...at least income that is made by actually undocking a ship to 'do something'.

Oh well...Just felt the need to say what I was thinking.
Kuda Timberline
Alea Iacta Est Universal
Blades of Grass
#223 - 2017-06-02 02:21:06 UTC
Meh.. on the Anom changes. Some people will logout and wait out the respawn timer. You're effectively giving people an excuse to play other game.

Oh boy... and those Rorq. changes. You set the bar really high for yourselves when you promised to make the Rorqual useful again. You built it... people came. Now you've got people puking 12B ISK into ships all over the place, injecting skills to get there (because you raised the skill requirements), and people are even happily hunting them too!!

Now you're going to nerf it... AGAIN... #CCPlease

You made the Rorq the carrot on the stick and a very time consuming and expensive one at that. I'm all about risk/reward and if someone wants to risk 12B ISK and someone wants to hunt 12B ISK I would think it would be healthy for the game to let that happen.

I appreciate CCP's efforts to balance the game, but this is almost an insult to your subscribers and very much a step in the wrong direction IMHO.

Thanks for your consideration



Kuda Timberline

Co-host Capstable Podcast
Norsk Maelstrom
Ethereal Morality
The Initiative.
#224 - 2017-06-02 02:23:42 UTC
I just came back to this game last month after 3 years away, because of your stupid changes, now you do it again. you sir are a complete failure and need to be fired you asshat.
Orgasmadrone
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#225 - 2017-06-02 02:32:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Orgasmadrone
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Shurdo wrote:



Maybe CCP should apply the same principle to ratting anoms as they are proposing for the mining anoms. That should provide a more balanced playing field.


We've made that case as well. If you beat the hell out of a pirate faction 24/7, why do they not learn to move or not come back as quickly. Ratting shouldn't be immune to over farming, but we do have to be careful that we don't go too far and chip away at the changes that encouraged higher player density because those did have a purpose within the grand scheme of sov nullsec. I'm not sure that timers are the trick in that case, but I do think CCP hasn't pulled the levers they have on ISK faucets the way they have on resource faucets.



Oooh, I like where you are going with this. But I think let's take it to the next level, I say dramatically increase scarcity, remove bounties and ramp up difficulty. This seems to be working very well for those Blood Raiders Sotiyos. I think playing a game with a limited reward system is very sexy... treat them terrible and they will keep coming back - that is how my dad met my mother.

I think another good approach was already mentioned as well, remove the economy all together. Seed everything on the market sisi style (excluding faction mods and officer stuff). But I think Dirk you also touching on a most valuable lesson we can all take to heart and that is wealth redistribution works and more power to the working class pilots. I think what you are possibly trying to say is that space communism works and I simply couldn't agree more. Let me emphasize through repeating that, space communism works! You sir would fit in well with us.... Amok. is indeed recruiting.
Doctor Evill
Perkone
Caldari State
#226 - 2017-06-02 02:33:01 UTC
CCP keeps trying to nerf supply, when is it going to consider 'demand'. Or are the fabled CCP economists lefty communists that only believe in destroying production in pursuit of idiotology.
Rob Fedelis
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#227 - 2017-06-02 02:33:26 UTC
this is bull man come on. Do you even play your own game. how about you quit trying to kill the game and make it better. better yet fire fozzie.
Holly Lancaster
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2017-06-02 02:38:06 UTC
Seriously? How hard is it to just limit the number of rorqs in belts? All you had to do from the start was add a repsawb cooldown and make it so no more than say 2-3 in any belt at once. Would create more content as they would be spread around more and still make them worth the cost. Please for the lovw of god do something about the out of control excavator prices!

What happened to you wanting them to be worth the equivilant barge's price based on yeild? 1.5 huls is not worth 1.2 bil please fix your priorities fozzy. Because you seem to not have a real solid grasp on what the issues people are angry about are.

You are kicking the people who cant scale 20-30 mining accounts over and over. The probem is always going to remain until you fix the fact that all people have to do is buy enough rorqs to kill belts in 10 min.
alizter01
RockStar mining company
#229 - 2017-06-02 02:40:08 UTC
what if when you mined the ore would float off into space and you have to catch it before it blew up
like that time when they fixed explorer loot
Radious Servasse
Amped.
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2017-06-02 02:43:47 UTC
Maybe they think that by lowering the amount of ore mined it will raise ore prices so overall the actual isk mined stays the same. So if this is their master plan, they are not targeting miners, they are targeting everyone in eve. More costs involved in buying ships.

But from I've noticed, what goes well in theory dosen't always go that well in practice. Just some Rad thought.
Antal Marius
Allied Operations
Mechanicus Macabre Immortale
#231 - 2017-06-02 02:49:53 UTC
Radious Servasse wrote:
Maybe they think that by lowering the amount of ore mined it will raise ore prices so overall the actual isk mined stays the same. So if this is their master plan, they are not targeting miners, they are targeting everyone in eve. More costs involved in buying ships.

But from I've noticed, what goes well in theory doesn't always go that well in practice. Just some Rad thought.


Because the miners/indy guys aren't adjusting their pricing, they just accept the pricing that's on market as is, and it doesn't fluctuate like it should to reflect the new changes to resource collection.

If everyone who builds ships were to adjust their pricing up, say about 15% to cover the 12% less yield, and speed reduction, the miners would pass that nerf on to the people buying their goods, the PvPers.
Orgasmadrone
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2017-06-02 02:51:52 UTC
alizter01 wrote:
what if when you mined the ore would float off into space and you have to catch it before it blew up
like that time when they fixed explorer loot



YES!!!! Belt Spew!
Earnest Emu
Zealot's
Shadow Ultimatum
#233 - 2017-06-02 02:51:58 UTC
I play for 3-4 hrs a day, have spend ages training up a rorq alt, seems a good waste of time as I will never see a colossal. Thanks CCP for saving me the $$$ to get plex to buy rorq..
Aleverette
Bag ol' Dciks
#234 - 2017-06-02 02:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Aleverette
Time to sell your rorqual boyz.



I've been suggested a long time ago, if you really want to resolve the rorqual problem, separate it into two different ships:

A) Use fighter system to mine, can use panic, cannot compress ore but still able to provide some fleet boost.

B) Use regular mining drones but with a quite powerful bonus(over current orca but lower than current rorqual), can use panic, but can compress ore and use strong foreman boost.

Then convert all current excavator drones into mining fighters.
Changing numbers maybe "helpful" statistical-wise, but you will only let we players down by keep nerfing.

Yeah we are loyal to this game, but that does not mean you can just keep raping us.
Wait... it did happen... a lot of times.... um....
Snow Ozran
Rabble Inc.
Northern Coalition.
#235 - 2017-06-02 02:56:16 UTC
The problem with the rorq is that between the size of the ore hold and the ability to compress the ore you only have to dock it at down time. This allows people with no life to AFK mine in it with as many clients as their computer(s) can support. The proposed changes do nothing to address this issue and will just make things annoying. As long as the sov space is big enough a player just needs to work out the amount of rorqs needed to mine one anom in an hour and then gate between 5 systems. It will spread things out, but nothing will really change.

If you want to actually address the problem may I suggest only allowing ore compression in the fleet hanger. I regularly support barge miners in a fleet by allowing them to compress in my fleet hanger so that should not be changed. Also the need to hold a large quantity of ore is needed to support large mining operations for alliances. However I barely pay attention to my own ore hold because it takes a long time to fill up to the point that I need to compress it. If I can only compress in my fleet hanger, which is substantially smaller, then I will have to be more involved in mining. The effect will be similar the the carrier changes that make it a more active experience without removing the justification for the cost of the ship.
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2017-06-02 02:59:15 UTC
I love how all the salty people here are in Goons or other alliances that don't do anything but turbokrab in Rorquals.

Really makes you thonk.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Amber Hurtini
Allied Operations
Mechanicus Macabre Immortale
#237 - 2017-06-02 02:59:19 UTC
Antal Marius wrote:
Radious Servasse wrote:
Maybe they think that by lowering the amount of ore mined it will raise ore prices so overall the actual isk mined stays the same. So if this is their master plan, they are not targeting miners, they are targeting everyone in eve. More costs involved in buying ships.

But from I've noticed, what goes well in theory doesn't always go that well in practice. Just some Rad thought.


Because the miners/indy guys aren't adjusting their pricing, they just accept the pricing that's on market as is, and it doesn't fluctuate like it should to reflect the new changes to resource collection.

If everyone who builds ships were to adjust their pricing up, say about 15% to cover the 12% less yield, and speed reduction, the miners would pass that nerf on to the people buying their goods, the PvPers.



That makes too much sense. but the issue is still under that the PVP overlords will not give the miners a choice on price and remove them from alliance or territory they are mining. I have seen this happen one too many times when the indy guys say hey we need a change and they get squished till they fall back in line. rare few alliance will adjust for it.

even consider the idea of only being able to log in on 1 computer 5 accounts. the polay with the 20 Rorquals would need to buy a few more computers to adjust for this.
Antal Marius
Allied Operations
Mechanicus Macabre Immortale
#238 - 2017-06-02 03:01:24 UTC
Amber Hurtini wrote:
Antal Marius wrote:
Radious Servasse wrote:
Maybe they think that by lowering the amount of ore mined it will raise ore prices so overall the actual isk mined stays the same. So if this is their master plan, they are not targeting miners, they are targeting everyone in eve. More costs involved in buying ships.

But from I've noticed, what goes well in theory doesn't always go that well in practice. Just some Rad thought.


Because the miners/indy guys aren't adjusting their pricing, they just accept the pricing that's on market as is, and it doesn't fluctuate like it should to reflect the new changes to resource collection.

If everyone who builds ships were to adjust their pricing up, say about 15% to cover the 12% less yield, and speed reduction, the miners would pass that nerf on to the people buying their goods, the PvPers.



That makes too much sense. but the issue is still under that the PVP overlords will not give the miners a choice on price and remove them from alliance or territory they are mining. I have seen this happen one too many times when the indy guys say hey we need a change and they get squished till they fall back in line. rare few alliance will adjust for it.

even consider the idea of only being able to log in on 1 computer 5 accounts. the polay with the 20 Rorquals would need to buy a few more computers to adjust for this.


I had that idea as well, it would certainly limit them, or they could just set up virtual machines in a beefy build and do it that way.
Snow Ozran
Rabble Inc.
Northern Coalition.
#239 - 2017-06-02 03:02:39 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
I love how all the salty people here are in Goons or other alliances that don't do anything but turbokrab in Rorquals.

Really makes you thonk.


I know right? Its like the people that are the most affected by the change have the most to say about it. I wonder why?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#240 - 2017-06-02 03:05:48 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
I don't think excess ISK dramatically impacts inflation.


Learn what inflation is, then comment.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.