These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1321 - 2017-06-10 19:40:30 UTC
Add a re-spawn cool-down to anomalies, which doesn't have a fixed duration:

As NPC losses begin to scale up in a system/constellation over a period of time (measured over 24 hours?), so does the duration of the cool-down. This could keep scaling up to the point where nothing spawns over a significant time period...
(i.e. the NPC's have decided to bugger off and live to fight another day)

Once NPC losses start to drop over a measured time period in said system/constellation, so does the cool-down duration. If left alone long enough, it would drop back to the original starting value (which could be zero).











War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Laenatus
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#1322 - 2017-06-10 19:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Laenatus
Ezio Sotken wrote:
1330+ comments by now, vast majority in full disagreement with this nerf, many even sharing potential fixes that are actually good. Dunno what else to say really. Put in my own 2 cents many times now on this thread.


The whole entirety of the player base could post here saying this is terrible, with a myriad of reasons why, and offer plausible alternatives, and this wouldn't change a thing. CCP refuses to acknowledge its client's issues with how they conduct the game, nor do they have to. This half planned "Fix" is going through and there is nothing we can do about it - outside of unsubscribe and take our friends elsewhere. Even if this happened enough to dip their incomes, i believe they will still continue to make poor decisions to a terminal end. (aeb recurrent, terrible decisions)

It is true insanity by the very definition of the word.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1323 - 2017-06-10 19:51:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
WhiteOrm wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

You do not get rich this way. Please learn some basic economics. Increasing the money supply has long been associated with rising prices so that the increase income and the increase in prices cancel each other out.


CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.


Nope. You DO get rich this way. Because when small number of players have many ISK it directly makes them rich. It is other players that become relatively poorer from ISK inflation etc. To put it simply you had a chance to become rich by becoming a carrier/super pilot (that is a long shot), but you have that chance no more.


Not as a whole you don't. Look at any RL economy where they have resorted to printing money. Wiemar Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela today. The latter is particularly instructive as it is turning in to a veritable **** hole.

And those few players who do "get rich" they do so by destroying the purchasing power of the rest of the player base and when that ISK starts circulating you end up with inflation, potentially lots of inflation. This can, in turn lead to a feedback loop where more and more people feel like they have to rat in carriers and supers to stay ahead of the inflation which simply makes the situation worse.

Having a game like this is not balanced and can be very bad for the long term prospects. Reducing this degree of growth in the money supply MUST happen.

How that reduction in the growth of the money supply happens should be open to debate. The current approach does appear very much to be, at best, ham handed. At worst is will be bad for the game and I would urge CCP to look for an alternative solution even if it is as uninspiring and banal as putting a temporary ban on carriers and supers ratting in NS anomalies. This would preserve the PvP aspects of these ships and address the money supply issue and buy time for finding a better and more thoughtful solution.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Ezio Sotken
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1324 - 2017-06-10 19:53:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Ezio Sotken
Laenatus wrote:
Ezio Sotken wrote:
1330+ comments by now, vast majority in full disagreement with this nerf, many even sharing potential fixes that are actually good. Dunno what else to say really. Put in my own 2 cents many times now on this thread.


The whole entirety of the player base could post here saying this is terrible, with a myriad of reasons why, and offer plausible alternatives, and this wouldn't change a thing. CCP refuses to acknowledge its client's issues with how they conduct the game, nor do they have to. This half planned "Fix" is going through and there is nothing we can do about it - outside of unsubscribe and take our friends elsewhere. Even if this happened enough to dip their incomes, i believe they will still continue to make poor decisions to a terminal end. (aeb recurrent, terrible decisions)

It is true insanity by the very definition of the word.


What amazes me the most is that here, in this setting, Co2, Goons, PL, FCON, TEST, everyone else are all in agreement. Honestly thought the day would never come where I would agree with a PL guy or a Goon guy ( no offense ).

For me, the saddest part of this is the destruction of a cap ship class because of "PVE".
Nevase Prometeus
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1325 - 2017-06-10 20:01:16 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
WhiteOrm wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

You do not get rich this way. Please learn some basic economics. Increasing the money supply has long been associated with rising prices so that the increase income and the increase in prices cancel each other out.


CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.


Nope. You DO get rich this way. Because when small number of players have many ISK it directly makes them rich. It is other players that become relatively poorer from ISK inflation etc. To put it simply you had a chance to become rich by becoming a carrier/super pilot (that is a long shot), but you have that chance no more.


Not as a whole you don't. Look at any RL economy where they have resorted to printing money. Wiemar Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela today. The latter is particularly instructive as it is turning in to a veritable **** hole.

And those few players who do "get rich" they do so by destroying the purchasing power of the rest of the player base and when that ISK starts circulating you end up with inflation, potentially lots of inflation. This can, in turn lead to a feedback loop where more and more people feel like they have to rat in carriers and supers to stay ahead of the inflation which simply makes the situation worse.

Having a game like this is not balanced and can be very bad for the long term prospects. Reducing this degree of growth in the money supply MUST happen.

How that reduction in the growth of the money supply happens should be open to debate. The current approach does appear very much to be, at best, ham handed. At worst is will be bad for the game and I would urge CCP to look for an alternative solution even if it is as uninspiring and banal as putting a temporary ban on carriers and supers ratting in NS anomalies. This would preserve the PvP aspects of these ships and address the money supply issue and buy time for finding a better and more thoughtful solution.


+1 to this solution . Yes I use carrier for rats but my main purpose of my carrier and super is PVP not rats . You said this nerf is for PVE + ISK problems ok I understood go on do that. But If it had side effect to PVP is another story.
Ter Jern Wolf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1326 - 2017-06-10 20:01:37 UTC
Dan Sever wrote:
Sassura wrote:
Dan Sever wrote:
Zero Davahum wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/6g99i4/unsub_if_you_want_ccp_to_listen

CCP does not care about player feedback, this is true with every business even outside of the video game industry.

The only time they will care about something they have done is if you, the player stop paying for subscriptions, stop buying PLEX and other currencies and stop playing EVE. CCP are much more likely to listen if the controversial change to gameplay causes a loss of profit.

Unless every single one of you who has compalined about these nerfs stop giving CCP money. CCP will not listen to anything you have to say, you are being ignored.

As much as it sucks, we have to relise that as true with every company, CCP cares about profit from their products and nothing more, if you don't like a change they make, stop giving them money, when CCP notices a massive drop in profits, then they will start to care about player feedback and start doing the things you wan't them to do so they can get profit back on track.

I find it funny how few super pilots are desperately trying to make non-super pilots follow them in their protest against CCP taking their isk mountains. Big smile


However, this change does affect far more than the 1% of the top 1% as CCp Quant seems to suggest.

Ofc, casual ratters like myself will only benefit from this nerf. Less isk = lower prices = higher yield for us. Correct me if I'm wrong.


less isk = higher prices = higher demand.
Kaze Mester
Perkone
Caldari State
#1327 - 2017-06-10 20:07:55 UTC
CCP is still quiet.
Ezio Sotken
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1328 - 2017-06-10 20:09:08 UTC
Kaze Mester wrote:
CCP is still quiet.


nah, I forget exactly, sure someone has the reddit saved, but a dev said the change really is to hurt the 1% of the 1%. Also speculation in my alliance that CCP really wants to kill carriers from PVP fleets.
Ter Jern Wolf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1329 - 2017-06-10 20:09:22 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
WhiteOrm wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

You do not get rich this way. Please learn some basic economics. Increasing the money supply has long been associated with rising prices so that the increase income and the increase in prices cancel each other out.


CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.


Nope. You DO get rich this way. Because when small number of players have many ISK it directly makes them rich. It is other players that become relatively poorer from ISK inflation etc. To put it simply you had a chance to become rich by becoming a carrier/super pilot (that is a long shot), but you have that chance no more.


Not as a whole you don't. Look at any RL economy where they have resorted to printing money. Wiemar Germany, Zimbabwe, Venezuela today. The latter is particularly instructive as it is turning in to a veritable **** hole.

And those few players who do "get rich" they do so by destroying the purchasing power of the rest of the player base and when that ISK starts circulating you end up with inflation, potentially lots of inflation. This can, in turn lead to a feedback loop where more and more people feel like they have to rat in carriers and supers to stay ahead of the inflation which simply makes the situation worse.

Having a game like this is not balanced and can be very bad for the long term prospects. Reducing this degree of growth in the money supply MUST happen.

How that reduction in the growth of the money supply happens should be open to debate. The current approach does appear very much to be, at best, ham handed. At worst is will be bad for the game and I would urge CCP to look for an alternative solution even if it is as uninspiring and banal as putting a temporary ban on carriers and supers ratting in NS anomalies. This would preserve the PvP aspects of these ships and address the money supply issue and buy time for finding a better and more thoughtful solution.



This - CCP is blindly nerfing without thought or actually working with their player base. Their new investors suck horribly (they should get some love mails maybe?) Right now they are stuck in a panic cycle because of skill injectors. Which if we keep them they should be limited to use only 1 a day to allow CCP time to respond properly to breaking issues instead of blindly nerf bat and **** everyone off.
Mariza vonAmdonen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1330 - 2017-06-10 20:11:11 UTC
Gumby Taron wrote:
[quote=Crash 888]how is pvp screwed by this?


This really hurts small scale pvp groups and their ability to fight numeric odds using higher SP and isk investment into ships such as carriers and super carriers, and it strengthens large capital heavy alliances such as PL, NC. and GSF who have the numbers to not be affected by the damage cuts.



yet its "PL, NC. and GSF " that are most vocal against it
Crash 888
TRINTEX
#1331 - 2017-06-10 20:15:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Crash 888
There's no way a % reduction in some damage could cause this much rage and unsubs.

Is this a proxy to release some pent up rage? You've been a loyal fanboi for years, and now only the con dawns on you, that you are nothing but potential consumer for micro transactions? Entirely understandable btw, no one would blame you !
Ter Jern Wolf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1332 - 2017-06-10 20:17:55 UTC
Mariza vonAmdonen wrote:
Gumby Taron wrote:
[quote=Crash 888]how is pvp screwed by this?


This really hurts small scale pvp groups and their ability to fight numeric odds using higher SP and isk investment into ships such as carriers and super carriers, and it strengthens large capital heavy alliances such as PL, NC. and GSF who have the numbers to not be affected by the damage cuts.



yet its "PL, NC. and GSF " that are most vocal against it


Because they are the largest null sec groups and see the short term effects of poorly planned changes? Isk faucet a problem? Add sinks, remove taps. Don't nerf perfectly good if not underpowered capital ships. (they don't have the teeth should in a pvp fight yet...)
Devon Stone
Doomheim
#1333 - 2017-06-10 20:21:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

First off if this applies to everyone it is taking a bad idea and compounding it and applying it to those who are not the problem. Second, the cap/diminishing return is not a one and done number. It will have to continuously monitored and changed regularly as players change in game behaviors. Look at my signature, the idea of getting it "just right" even with constant monitoring is going to be problematic. You'll know how much ISK has entered the system, but you won't necessarily know how much is going too, so your policy will always be looking backwards, not forwards. In other words, it assumes a degree of information that nobody possesses not even the Devs.




I agree with the mindless goon surrogate

We do need fighter nerfs and they need to be severe

we do need bounty nerfs, simply cut them in half.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1334 - 2017-06-10 20:21:55 UTC
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:
Mariza vonAmdonen wrote:
Gumby Taron wrote:
[quote=Crash 888]how is pvp screwed by this?


This really hurts small scale pvp groups and their ability to fight numeric odds using higher SP and isk investment into ships such as carriers and super carriers, and it strengthens large capital heavy alliances such as PL, NC. and GSF who have the numbers to not be affected by the damage cuts.



yet its "PL, NC. and GSF " that are most vocal against it


Because they are the largest null sec groups and see the short term effects of poorly planned changes? Isk faucet a problem? Add sinks, remove taps. Don't nerf perfectly good if not underpowered capital ships. (they don't have the teeth should in a pvp fight yet...)


I disagree on the sinks, those will be hard to balance and will bring additional problems (people seeing a jump in say skill book prices for a problem they did not cause will not sit well).

Here is what I wrote earlier as a temporary response....

The current approach does appear very much to be, at best, ham handed. At worst is will be bad for the game and I would urge CCP to look for an alternative solution even if it is as uninspiring and banal as putting a temporary ban on carriers and supers ratting in NS anomalies. This would preserve the PvP aspects of these ships and address the money supply issue and buy time for finding a better and more thoughtful solution.

And again: credit where credit is due...the notion that this is heavy handed and not good originates with SurrenderMonkey.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jhousetlin Zamayid
#1335 - 2017-06-10 20:23:46 UTC
HiSec Incursions aren't really a problem. If you look at the amount of ISK printed in different regions, NullSec outshines hisec by many orders of magnitude. Just look at the graphs.

Also when an Incursion runner cashes out the LP, he/she deletes ISK from the game. So Incursions also provide a sink. Unlike null ratting.
Devon Stone
Doomheim
#1336 - 2017-06-10 20:24:20 UTC
Cut number of anoms spawned

Cut the respawn rate

Run an anom, search 3 - 4 jumps to maybe find another

repeat
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1337 - 2017-06-10 20:26:17 UTC
Jhousetlin Zamayid wrote:
HiSec Incursions aren't really a problem. If you look at the amount of ISK printed in different regions, NullSec outshines hisec by many orders of magnitude. Just look at the graphs.

Also when an Incursion runner cashes out the LP, he/she deletes ISK from the game. So Incursions also provide a sink. Unlike null ratting.


Correct. Last month incursion payouts were 5.8 trillion ISK. LP ISK sinks were a whopping 3.2 trillion or about 55% of the incursion payouts.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Ter Jern Wolf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1338 - 2017-06-10 20:26:40 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:
Mariza vonAmdonen wrote:
Gumby Taron wrote:
[quote=Crash 888]how is pvp screwed by this?


This really hurts small scale pvp groups and their ability to fight numeric odds using higher SP and isk investment into ships such as carriers and super carriers, and it strengthens large capital heavy alliances such as PL, NC. and GSF who have the numbers to not be affected by the damage cuts.



yet its "PL, NC. and GSF " that are most vocal against it


Because they are the largest null sec groups and see the short term effects of poorly planned changes? Isk faucet a problem? Add sinks, remove taps. Don't nerf perfectly good if not underpowered capital ships. (they don't have the teeth should in a pvp fight yet...)


I disagree on the sinks, those will be hard to balance and will bring additional problems (people seeing a jump in say skill book prices for a problem they did not cause will not sit well).

Here is what I wrote earlier as a temporary response....

The current approach does appear very much to be, at best, ham handed. At worst is will be bad for the game and I would urge CCP to look for an alternative solution even if it is as uninspiring and banal as putting a temporary ban on carriers and supers ratting in NS anomalies. This would preserve the PvP aspects of these ships and address the money supply issue and buy time for finding a better and more thoughtful solution.

And again: credit where credit is due...the notion that this is heavy handed and not good originates with SurrenderMonkey.


We desperately need more sinks in the game - the easiest way to balance additional sinks is make more items vanity and bpc available from LP + ISK and make bounties payout isk + lp normally (in smaller isk quantities.)

The next sink is to restore / increase admin costs for alliances in the way of Concord Fees, or of NPC only resources that are needed to feed citadels. Both of these target the sink problem and target the accumulation of wealth while maintaining easy balance handles to adjust as player behavior changes.

The third sink could be finally moving implants over to player construction - and again have the bpc / parts for them be NPC isk + lp rewards.

We have GOOD options. Lets take them.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1339 - 2017-06-10 20:28:03 UTC
Devon Stone wrote:
Cut number of anoms spawned

Cut the respawn rate

Run an anom, search 3 - 4 jumps to maybe find another

repeat


And why should people not ratting in carriers and supers have their game nerfed?

Oh, and deflation is Bad™ too.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Ju'Kan
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1340 - 2017-06-10 20:28:24 UTC
I just realized.. Not that it was perfect back in the day, but CCP used to have an actual Economist in their employ.. He left back in '14. The economy has gone to heck in a hand basket since then.

Coincidence?