These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Thomasina
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#321 - 2017-06-09 13:24:58 UTC
Kendarr wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Space Friends.


Your not my friend!

MY DANK RATTING TICKS :'(



*You're


How are you going to get iskies for your toonies now?
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#322 - 2017-06-09 13:25:00 UTC
Mierin Arthie wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Space Friends,
Coming with our release on Tuesday, we’re significantly reducing the damage output of Fighters.

Why:
We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.
This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players.
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.

What:
  • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
  • Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage.
  • Support Fighters: No Change
  • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage.
  • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.
  • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
  • NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently.


We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players.


Why not just reduce bounty payouts? Isnt that the problem?

Please CCP, you should have at least 2 functioning braincells available at the office. Rub them togeather and you should be able to come up with something better than this. It would also go a long way in preventing errors like last nights skill pause script.


Telling people to rub braincells together while sayhing something dumb lol. This must be the internet.

Why should they punish everyone when carrier/super ratters are the problem?
Total Newbie
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#323 - 2017-06-09 13:25:30 UTC
CCP: This "Logic" would almost be correct if Eve was a PVE game.

The most effective way to subdue the Isk faucets is to make changes in the game that allow CONFLICT to occur. It's pretty hard to rat all day if you have enemies able to deploy into your space. But, since it takes hours on end to even get 2 or 3 regions away to go shoot your enemies, you can sit at home in your dead space pocket that no one can come to, let alone conquer and stare at he thousands of citadels that will remain in space for years to come, because no one wants to spend 6 days grinding them.

Do you guys EVER stop and think, we keep making changes to the game, but people keep leaving anyway? Perhaps your "Changes" aren't really changes afterall?

We are going to get rid of SBUs!!!!!!!!!! No one want's to grind Sov!

We are going to create fatigue and have timers so no one can deploy to grind sov!

We are going to make cool structures that take a week to kill, because........... no one wants to grind sov?

We are going to force people into null sec to...................... rat and mine?

We are going to nerf ratting and mining, because no one is leaving their region to go grind sov.............

Yup, makes perfect sense to me.
Tom Marksson
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#324 - 2017-06-09 13:25:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tom Marksson
Faruzen en Divalone wrote:
Tom Marksson wrote:
This update is horrible. If I fly a ship that costs 3 or even 25 billion ISK, I must be able to make much more profit than I could do on a 500 mil Rattlsnake. Because there's one universal rule:
Quote:
Risk = ISK


I risk to lose my carrier/supercarrier to a first interceptor/cyno-Sabre while farming in null-sec, that's why I must receive an adequate amount of ISK to reimburse the loss, for example. If I don't - what's the point to undock a super? What's the point to have a super? What's the point to learn a super? What's the point to have a separate account for a capital-holder?.. What's the point to have capitals and supercapitals in game? Let's remove all of them and fly in small-scale frigate gangs.

Why don't you in addition make capitals and supercapitals 50% cheaper to restore (what do you call it?) the "balance"?


No you cant simply make more money with bigger ships indefinitely. It would ruin the game economy if more people did it and prices of everything would skyrocket, making people who dont use your method of ISK generating effectively poor and not being able to afford anything, for example PLEX.

Actually, I can. And I explained, why, above.
The majority of players (at least, in our coalition) still cannot afford to fly a capital ship, though I admit the amount of carrier pilots has increased since the summer 2016. You would be surprised, but when I wasn't a capital pilot, I could afford PLEX and some faction ships and CTA ships and mountains of skill injectors and everything. The difference between my current financial state and the previous one is that I am able to earn ISK without spending too much time as I did before. And the income is relatively stable. If I'll have to spend more time to get the money, there would be no time left for PVP or the real life, cause I may be busy sometimes.
I noticed only one thing that ruined the PLEX prices - the last update which removed the Aurum and split the old PLEX, increasing its price for 200 mil ISK.

Per aspera ad astra.

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#325 - 2017-06-09 13:25:57 UTC
Fl4chz4ng3 wrote:
As always wh people will be happy and the others not

Tks for this change you just lost 2 subscriptions

Enjoy your subcaps 20m ticks people !



My Rattlesnake does 40 and can MJD out of trouble.
Wayne Silk
Balkan Kings
Goonswarm Federation
#326 - 2017-06-09 13:26:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Wayne Silk
CCP u know we :
1) Lose our RL time
2) Spend our RL money
3) We are paying your salary
4) We are real boss here

If u continue this we will find a new job and close CCP.

We have power to do that.
Carrion Crow
Doomheim
#327 - 2017-06-09 13:27:08 UTC
This is just lazy game design and you should feel bad.

This will discourage smaller groups dropping solo or small groups of carriers.

Fix the real problem - PVE.


CC
Panther X
Dreadnoughtz Conclave
Requiem Eternal
#328 - 2017-06-09 13:27:22 UTC
Abagah Khan wrote:



Quote:
If you go one step further and assess what the actual big picture problem is...there is no counter to the faucet. You need a sink to drain it. There is nothing wrong with having wealth, when there is something to spend it on. Right now there is no sink, no overflow tank, no sump pump nor levy to stop the flood. Reducing slightly ( and we are talking slightly) the amount of isk incoming, will still not resolve the issue of too much personal wealth.

Personal, Corproate and Alliance Income tax, asset repossession, removal of insurance payouts, would all be a big step in resolving the personal wealth. Bans of tax evaders, wallet negative adjusting, and forensic accounting could all be used to slow down and control the massive unflux of risk free and risk adverse income streams.


this is something ive noticed myself lately. Outside of skins, there is nothing to sink isk into. So i put it in another ship.. or in this case the market, making even more isk that i have nothing to spend it on..


That's right. I have amassed a huge collection of ships in different parts of the galaxy, and still maintained my wealth portfolio. It is just too much of a PITA to move stuff around and reship to Jita and resell. Even still, with the small isk sink of alliance doctrines on deployment, I'm able to grow my wallet. Why? Because CCP allows it. The minuscule amount of tax I pay on transactions, the minuscule price I pay for shipping and travelling costs is almost a profit. Ridiculous or not, not up to me to decide. But when I get paid out by CCP for losing a ship, and get my alliance funded SRP, I make money when I lose ships in the long run. If one can account for EBITDA in a game where there is no real income tax.

I'm not really sure that CCP knows what they are doing when it comes to money. But any retail regional manager or branch manager could tell you this. You don't need an economist to figure this out for you. If alliances corporations and individuals had to do their income tax at the end of the year, it wouldn't be fun, but it sure would make the playing field more level

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

Mary Timeshift Jane
Doomheim
#329 - 2017-06-09 13:27:38 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Space Friends,

Why:
We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.
This trend is unsustainable.



And what will you do after I will have equipped all my ratter friends with Supers and all my miner friends with Rorqs, because THAT is exactly what I'm doing. Nerf them to useless? You cannot stop progress, you dullard!

Maybe you need your salary nerfed, cause you're trying too hard!
Orcatorix Denizus
Distortion.
#330 - 2017-06-09 13:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Orcatorix Denizus
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Space Friends,
Coming with our release on Tuesday, we’re significantly reducing the damage output of Fighters.

Why:
We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.
This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players.
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.

What:
  • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
  • Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage.
  • Support Fighters: No Change
  • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage.
  • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.
  • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
  • NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently.


We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players.


I protest this change, CCP is interfering with the nullsec meta too much recently.

Honestly, are you guys getting bankrupt or something?

#CCpigs!
Radious Servasse
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#331 - 2017-06-09 13:28:24 UTC
I think I might hate this change, but I do understand economics. The only real reason I rat these days is for plex and ships to blow up. When 90% of my time ratting is done just to get plex and 10% for ships, the game turns into a job. By reducing the amount carriers can make, there will be alot more effort required to grind a plex and such more players will leave the game. Over time, this new lack of demand will reduce plex prices to a more affordable level and those remainding will enjoy once again affordable plex prices. When the plex price finally falls, carrier ratting will once again be feasible.

Real nice plan CCP. I hope it works.

More isk means more expensive items and ships.
Heleana Commodus Luyseyal
Old Town
#332 - 2017-06-09 13:28:38 UTC
Carriers actually make you do something for your ISK, while Rorquals and VNI dont. CCP if you can make ISK by doing nothing that is your problem, prevent that option and problem is gone.
Karina Ivanovich
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#333 - 2017-06-09 13:28:41 UTC
Absolutely unacceptable, this removes so many avenues of play outside of ratting. I have no idea what your balance team is thinking. Seriously concerned about the future of eve if this is the direction/method you are taking.

Some call me insane. If the universe is sane, then I embrace that label.

Trevize Demerzel
#334 - 2017-06-09 13:29:22 UTC
"NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently"




This is the real kicker.....

-

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#335 - 2017-06-09 13:29:36 UTC
Darine Artwik wrote:
Guess what?
Multiboxing SB Battleships? No Nerf!
Multiboxing VNIs/Ishtars? No Nerf!
Multiboxing Rorquals? Just +1
Soloing Carriers/Supers? Nerfed to death.
Soloing Rorquals? Nerfed to death.

CCP certainly NOT following a special agenda there. Multiboxing and therefore more sub money for CCP not favored at all.


Another valid point that both this change and the Rorqual nerf do not address. Carrier ratting, while lucrative, requires the player to be at his computer actively playing the game. It does not scale well as you add more accounts (unlike Rorqual mining). CCP should be promoting active game play that encourages people to get out in space and do things.

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

Asian Driver
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#336 - 2017-06-09 13:30:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Asian Driver
Lightbringer wrote:
Does the stupid faction BS Nerf take into account this just as stupid nerf aswell?


Man...second comment is just a few minutes. Kinda salty today huh?

It's clear that null alliances have more than enough money, so now making the same amount is going to be a little harder. Boo hoo...
Karina Ivanovich
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#337 - 2017-06-09 13:31:36 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Darine Artwik wrote:
Guess what?
Multiboxing SB Battleships? No Nerf!
Multiboxing VNIs/Ishtars? No Nerf!
Multiboxing Rorquals? Just +1
Soloing Carriers/Supers? Nerfed to death.
Soloing Rorquals? Nerfed to death.

CCP certainly NOT following a special agenda there. Multiboxing and therefore more sub money for CCP not favored at all.


Another valid point that both this change and the Rorqual nerf do not address. Carrier ratting, while lucrative, requires the player to be at his computer actively playing the game. It does not scale well as you add more accounts (unlike Rorqual mining). CCP should be promoting active game play that encourages people to get out in space and do things.


^^^^^^^^

Some call me insane. If the universe is sane, then I embrace that label.

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#338 - 2017-06-09 13:31:36 UTC
Xuan Menzoberanza wrote:
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

Well done ccp.



AFK ?? PASSIVE INCOME on Carrier and Super??

Are you mad or something ?


Passive = Moon Income

Mining/Rating in Carriers is AFK if you can multibox 5 rorquals/carriers
Karina Ivanovich
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#339 - 2017-06-09 13:32:25 UTC
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
Xuan Menzoberanza wrote:
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

Well done ccp.



AFK ?? PASSIVE INCOME on Carrier and Super??

Are you mad or something ?


Passive = Moon Income

Mining/Rating in Carriers is AFK if you can multibox 5 rorquals/carriers


You can't effectively multibox more than 2 carriers, even then it is a stretch.

Some call me insane. If the universe is sane, then I embrace that label.

ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
Already Replaced.
#340 - 2017-06-09 13:32:59 UTC
Anna Wong wrote:
What about citadels? The damage output especially from the medium citadels is low enough without a further reduction


i am also concerned with further reductions to Citadel defences they are already rather underpowerd to defend themselves against any real attempt to take them out.