These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Fighter Damage Reduction

First post First post First post
Author
Pier Rin
Lex Frisionum
#181 - 2017-06-09 12:01:07 UTC
Jarnobi wrote:
ALL THOSE GOON TEARS !!!!

GREAT CHANGE !!!!!!


you really think this will hurt goons???? and no 1 else..... you are naive
Hikkata
DARK TEMPL
The Afterlife.
#182 - 2017-06-09 12:01:07 UTC
Ok, if u want to nerf carriers and supers, then nerf hi-sec and low-sec incursions with ratting in wh pls.
WheelsUK
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#183 - 2017-06-09 12:01:14 UTC
I feel that CCP have forgotten this is just a game and are trying to turn it into a 2nd job for us.

It's also clear that CCP never thought passed 10 years for this game and a huge percentage of the player base will be carrier/super pilots and ratting in them reduces the grind time for most of us so why would we choose to rat in anything smaller we have also surley earned the right to be able to do this after so many years.

Then they introduce Skill Injectors meaning more and more people got into the end game ships faster, so why are they punishing us for them wanting to make a quick dollar and not thinking of the long term problems it causes.

Also i think all the Jita/Goon scammers are bowing to CCP right now, how many people how spent hard earned isk or real life money on skill injectors for the prize at the end to be taken away.

Scam of all Scams.

I have been playing EvE for over 11 years and never felt more like wanting to quit than i do now. i only hope that we do a massive burn EvE protest in Goons.

Millpucky
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#184 - 2017-06-09 12:01:54 UTC
Wilfred Motte wrote:
Exactly 2 weeks, to the day, after I dropped $200 to inject myself into a carrier, so that I could rat in NS, to make isk, to buy frigates to go shoot other people in frigates.

Well played, CCP. Well. Played.


2 weeks? WOW! see skill injectors need to go away. Took me YEARS to get into a Capital class ship.
ShadowBill
Astral Academy
Astral Alliance
#185 - 2017-06-09 12:02:28 UTC
Several posts back - I think whoever said it, nailed it. CCP used the phrase 'sustainable'. This seems to me that ratting was ISK profitable enough to cover PLEX, and that means fewer subs. This certainly seems like a money grab.
phantom blackstar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#186 - 2017-06-09 12:02:43 UTC
I haven't played world of warcraft in a while....... only need 1 account and wont have to buy plex.
Millpucky
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#187 - 2017-06-09 12:02:55 UTC
WheelsUK wrote:
I feel that CCP have forgotten this is just a game and are trying to turn it into a 2nd job for us.

It's also clear that CCP never thought passed 10 years for this game and a huge percentage of the player base will be carrier/super pilots and ratting in them reduces the grind time for most of us so why would we choose to rat in anything smaller we have also surley earned the right to be able to do this after so many years.

Then they introduce Skill Injectors meaning more and more people got into the end game ships faster, so why are they punishing us for them wanting to make a quick dollar and not thinking of the long term problems it causes.

Also i think all the Jita/Goon scammers are bowing to CCP right now, how many people how spent hard earned isk or real life money on skill injectors for the prize at the end to be taken away.

Scam of all Scams.

I have been playing EvE for over 11 years and never felt more like wanting to quit than i do now. i only hope that we do a massive burn EvE protest in Goons.




Here here brother
elise densi
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#188 - 2017-06-09 12:04:44 UTC
Rip eve 2003 - 2017
alex tow
Real One Corp
Equinox Space Technologies
#189 - 2017-06-09 12:05:36 UTC
Total Newbie wrote:
alex tow wrote:
It seems that a lot of player forgot how eve was 10 years ago...it's now really way too easy to buyt a capital ship/super cap....you can make 100/200/400m isk/h now where you had 90m with a carrier ratting in null years ago....but well, now it seems that people want to have easy farming....contrary to the rorqual....I think it's a good nerf. Make Capital ships CAPITAL again.


LOL and it has nothing to do with pulling out Mr. Visa and buying/selling plex, right?



Of course it does....why do you think I would forget this ? I hate the plex price which encourage to buy some to get isk, I hate skill extractors and injectors and I HATE the capital ship becoming standard ships.
O2 jayjay
Trent Industries
Hell Dawn
#190 - 2017-06-09 12:05:59 UTC
Every one step forward CCP takes 3 steps back. Like a autistic dance move.
Peyton Achibolt
Peyton Achibolt Corporation
#191 - 2017-06-09 12:06:39 UTC
What exactly will a nerf that high to fighterdamage solve?
No one can tell me, that a capital ship, thats too work-intense to use while ratting - and therefore deserves the bounty earned, due to its price and high amount of activity need - needs roughly 20% less damage.

Let´s face it.
What CCP really is trying here, is ending the game with as much moneygrab as possible.

Playerbase has been shrinking further and further for quite a while now.
So to - at least - milk the cow as much as possible, CCP brought up injectors.
What they do now, is handing us candy, to inject into. Then taking that candy away, rubbing their balls with it, and handing it back, so we extract out of it.

What i´ve seen over the last months of repeated nerfs to about everything nullsecbased cant lead to another conclusion. At least for me.

There is no "risk = reward" anymore. Just as there isnt "CCP doesnt interfere with economy" or anything like that.

There just is "shove as much $ into our hands before we shut the server".

Really, if you WANT to stop the game after all that years, just SAY it, and stop that whole bullshit you´re developing right now.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#192 - 2017-06-09 12:07:19 UTC
Lightbringer wrote:
Does the stupid faction BS Nerf take into account this just as stupid nerf aswell?


Yesterday people complained the Battleship nerf would make Carriers the default king of the meta. Now CCP is dealing with Carriers and people want to cry?

My assumption is they are pushing towards T1 battleships

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Inquisitor Lucious
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2017-06-09 12:07:39 UTC
O2 jayjay wrote:
Every one step forward CCP takes 3 steps back. Like a autistic dance move.


those usually incorporate some kinda twirl too
Total Newbie
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#194 - 2017-06-09 12:08:09 UTC
alex tow wrote:
Total Newbie wrote:
alex tow wrote:
It seems that a lot of player forgot how eve was 10 years ago...it's now really way too easy to buyt a capital ship/super cap....you can make 100/200/400m isk/h now where you had 90m with a carrier ratting in null years ago....but well, now it seems that people want to have easy farming....contrary to the rorqual....I think it's a good nerf. Make Capital ships CAPITAL again.


LOL and it has nothing to do with pulling out Mr. Visa and buying/selling plex, right?



Of course it does....why do you think I would forget this ? I hate the plex price which encourage to buy some to get isk, I hate skill extractors and injectors and I HATE the capital ship becoming standard ships.


You obviously dont fly one. If/when you do, don't expect to use it for it's main purpose (Battle), because the Aids/Time required to get to a fight isn't worth it. You can hop into your trusty Interceptor and play Frigates online with the rest of the folks
Sassura
Sassy's Corporation
#195 - 2017-06-09 12:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sassura
Thank goodness that reddit users let people know that the all the skill queues on their paid accounts were broken because CCP didn't have time to communicate with their paying customers while they were preparing this post!

Sadly, whilst many of you are raising valid points, suggestions and observations, I hope that you don't expect CCP to listen to you. If they had wanted to do that (and judging by things lately, they do not) then they wouldn't have popped this change into the rorqual nerfs patch with just 4 days notice.

Just as well that most people are busy in game restarting their skill queues which is potentially a better use of their time than making decent suggestions in this thread, because it's just as likely that they'd listen to my suggestion and delete Delve rather than actually fixing the real issues with the game and it's long term health.
Grella Khurelem
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#196 - 2017-06-09 12:08:52 UTC
Takashi X2 wrote:
I tried to read most of the responses but one thing never came up. This change renders regular carriers unable to run dreads. I do feel like the carriers have a lot of dps and maybe needed to be scaled back a bit but not 20 percent. I think that is a little drastic. As of right now I barely have enough dps with t2 fighters to run a dread and i have to pull them back once sometimes twice to reload on missiles to do it. With 20% gone im not sure I can actually beat the reps anymore.

My suggestion is lower the amount of armor while upping the amount of hull. This will still make you need a significant amount of dps which the carrier can do in bursts without rendering them completely unable to. Supers will still be complete overkill like before so it doesnt make any difference there one way or another.


Interesting point. Are Havens now unrunnable except with supers? Dreads can oneshot Ishtars. With the increased aggro to fighters and less damage, a carrier with T1s will lose more in fighters than they can make in bounties to be able to run any anoms and carriers with T2s won't be able to do enough damage to complete one.
Total Newbie
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#197 - 2017-06-09 12:09:10 UTC
Inquisitor Lucious wrote:
O2 jayjay wrote:
Every one step forward CCP takes 3 steps back. Like a autistic dance move.


those usually incorporate some kinda twirl too


And please don't forget, that shortly after this death nail, a new series of skins will appear.
Heleana Commodus Luyseyal
Suddenly Carebears
Singularity Syndicate
#198 - 2017-06-09 12:10:14 UTC
"Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players."

Yeah those players that were skilling up towards it, for years, other thing is you cant multi box carriers in PvE, and you are limited to 200 mills/h with all skills on 5 etc, so exponential growth is not possible, and icome is locked to that number. Rorquals on the other hand can do same amount of isk/h but no need to micro anything, so you can run 20+ rorqual accounts with not much issues. So what are we talking about over here?

"We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now. This change will significantly change the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP."

Can somebody tell CPP that in fleet engagements combat carriers role is basically Neuts and anti-fighter fighters, and DPS have nothing to do with it.You have dreads, for the price of 1 carrier you have more DPS than a Supercarrier. The one may ask himself why to even undock 30 bill ship, which took 2 years to skill up.

Can CCP actually hire some professional for these things, all this looks like its being done by over payed amateurs who don't know much about the game they are working on, nor they can code good.
Dan Jintao
What Could Go Wrong
#199 - 2017-06-09 12:10:35 UTC
So this is a bad change, and here's why:

1) You have made a change to a ship based on it's (admittedly overpowered) isk making ability that massively affects its pvp capability. Your statement that it is overpowered for pvp is not borne out, due to your recent nerf, as I will explain later.

2) You have greatly reduced the overall utility of a ship that many players have invested huge amounts of their time or IRL money to get into without even changing the base cost of the ship itself. This is naturally going to upset large parts of the player base, such as many of my salty alliance mates who have posted here because you have now wasted their hard earned isk.

3) You have nerfed the PVP capability of a ship right after a previous nerf, without there being sufficient data to determine whether the original nerf had had the intended effect. My reasoning here is that super fights don't come up that much. And by fights I don't mean Goon/PL/NC super blob lands on normal size cap fleet and obliterates everything in site. Frankly, when you have that much dominance by ship class, you SHOULD be dominating everything in site. My point is that fights where team A and team B have a similar number of capital class ships and a few supers in the mix, this doesn't actually come up that much. Making changes to the meta should be borne out by a reasonable portion of data. The nerf to the price of pirate battleships for example is entirely warranted because we have had an immense amount of data to show that pirate battleships are overly dominant in the meta and it has stabilised on a single hull, which makes the game boring AF. That's a good nerf.

However, there has not yet been suffiicent data to show the effect of the fighter nerf and whether or not it has been effective. My own limited impressions have been that that nerf has actually made supers extremely easy to defang, making them extremely expensive lumps of scrap metal. This was borne out in the PL dunk of CO2 supers, where gram squadrons were used with great effect to render CO2 supers helpless. Many alliances have not yet realised this and dropping supers often ends fights because they retain boogey man status in the meta. The eve community needs to time to learn and adapt tactics to create a new meta, following a nerf or a buff. With supers, that period is longer, because there are less of them and they are used less and by a much small number of alliances. However, instead of observing this rule, CCP have followed what was a very strong nerf, with another immense nerf. This is a poor call.

These three points lead me to the conclusion that this is a bad change. So, what would be a better change? The last of your changes is the correct way to go. If you want to nerf the isk sink, plug the hole, not the water. Massively increasing aggro against fighters (100% plus would be warranted) will make this mode of ratting far less desirable and make it cost more in practice for those who do it. This one change can single handedly solve the problem. You don't have to patch a problem that doesn't exist, or at least can't be proven through any meaningful data.
Zoey Quickpoke
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#200 - 2017-06-09 12:11:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Zoey Quickpoke
This is great stuff! Make the Ravens great again! Big smile
Maybe CCP can have a concorde ratting tax for nullsec groups larger than 1000 members?