These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mariza vonAmdonen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1341 - 2017-06-10 20:28:51 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...)


because it affects their ability to print ISK (or their pets that pay premium ISK to rat in carriers and supers), and not so much because it will affect their pvp abiity.
Aldent Arkanon
Vulture Enterprises
#1342 - 2017-06-10 20:32:28 UTC
Devon Stone wrote:
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.


Have you ever even flown a capital in PvP?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1343 - 2017-06-10 20:32:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:

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.


Up until recently the amount of ISK being added to the economy was not that large. In fact, in looking at the price indices there is very little overall inflation in the game...for now.

And if the sinks are over done then there is a risk of deflation which is also bad, especially if it is too large. We don't want to see-saw back and forth between too much ISK entering the system then too little and so forth.

Maybe we need more sinks, but in the last few months I would have said no. And I'm not inclined to include more ISK sinks because more ISK is entering the system. The people paying into those sinks won't necessarily be the one's bringing in the ISK. So we'd have some players getting a buff and others a nerf and while the system as a whole might be balanced, from an individual perspective it probably won't look that way. And at the end of the day, it is the individual perspective that matters...as it is individuals who decide to stay or leave the game.

"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
#1344 - 2017-06-10 20:34:32 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:

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.


Up until recently the amount of ISK being added to the economy was not that large. In fact, in looking at the price indices there is very little overall inflation in the game...for now.

And if the sinks are over done then there is a risk of deflation which is also bad, especially if it is too large. We don't want to see-saw back and forth between too much ISK entering the system then too little and so forth.

Maybe we need more sinks, but in the last few months I would have said no. And I'm not inclined to include more ISK because more ISK is entering the system. The people paying into those sinks won't necessarily be the one's bringing in the ISK. So we'd have some players getting a buff and others a nerf and while the system as a whole might be balanced, from an individual perspective it probably won't look that way. And at the end of the day, it is the individual perspective that matters...as it is individuals who decide to stay or leave the game.


CCP hire this man.
Ter Jern Wolf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1345 - 2017-06-10 20:34:42 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
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.



That problem is more along the lines of we need special sites that are designed for caps and regular anoms should prolly get gates. This way risk / reward can be balanced on the farming more easily.
Ezio Sotken
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1346 - 2017-06-10 20:37:48 UTC
Ju'Kan wrote:
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?


If I remember right, it was not just one economist, but a whole team of them.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1347 - 2017-06-10 20:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
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.



That problem is more along the lines of we need special sites that are designed for caps and regular anoms should prolly get gates. This way risk / reward can be balanced on the farming more easily.


There we go, yet another possible solution that could be looked into.

I really wish CCP would not implement this change and make a new announcement along the lines of:

1. Too much ISK is entering the economy.
2. It is carriers and supers, so regrettably we are going to prevent them from ratting in the next patch.
3. BUT THIS IS TEMPORARY, so we can get a better handle on how to fix the situation.
4. Sorry, we kinda messed up. Please offer helpful suggestions in this thread.

"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
Albert Roidesbelges
Back for a short time
#1348 - 2017-06-10 20:38:49 UTC
well i guess after 7 years you force my hand and i'll close my 4 accounts on Tuesday

right before albion online is comming out thx ;)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1349 - 2017-06-10 20:39:21 UTC
Ezio Sotken wrote:
Ju'Kan wrote:
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?


If I remember right, it was not just one economist, but a whole team of them.


There was one economist that we know of. And yeah, he left when he was offered to head up a university there in Iceland. I would not be surprised if a number of CCP Devs have some backgrounds in economics.

"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
#1350 - 2017-06-10 20:42:11 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:

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.


Up until recently the amount of ISK being added to the economy was not that large. In fact, in looking at the price indices there is very little overall inflation in the game...for now.

And if the sinks are over done then there is a risk of deflation which is also bad, especially if it is too large. We don't want to see-saw back and forth between too much ISK entering the system then too little and so forth.

Maybe we need more sinks, but in the last few months I would have said no. And I'm not inclined to include more ISK sinks because more ISK is entering the system. The people paying into those sinks won't necessarily be the one's bringing in the ISK. So we'd have some players getting a buff and others a nerf and while the system as a whole might be balanced, from an individual perspective it probably won't look that way. And at the end of the day, it is the individual perspective that matters...as it is individuals who decide to stay or leave the game.


I don't disagree that deflation is bad too. Adding sinks is good - it should be slow tho instead of like the current nerf wiffleball. I do agree that isk will have transport from the earners to the sinks - it already has to tho - like any economy. What we are really seeing is more isk and ore coming in without a matching increase in ships burnt because we can't go get good fights reasonably and their is little reason to try and evict people from their space.... So the markets have turned to hoarding and accumulation.

We also see simple migrations of people using injectors to move isk bots into whatever happens to be the best paying job right now - and doing so in hours because they can use injectors without limits, which forces a panic nerf in response. Still what is proposed in this patch isn't a fix for any of the actual issues - it only bandaides the symptom, which is wealth is accumulating in the hands of a few elites with enough RL $ to buy into anything they want in this game.
Devon Stone
Doomheim
#1351 - 2017-06-10 20:44:09 UTC
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:



That problem is more along the lines of we need special sites that are designed for caps and regular anoms should prolly get gates. This way risk / reward can be balanced on the farming more easily.



Fighter nerfs

gated anoms restricted to subcaps

reduced bounties

reduced faction drops

reduce number of anoms

reduce the respawn rate of anoms

good job everyone, ccp has what they need now
Anton Vereshchagin
Polaris Project
#1352 - 2017-06-10 20:46:30 UTC
I think the best way to handle this is to not nerf the fighters, but to increase the defenses against fighters by the NPC fleets. That is, if the reason for doing this is because Carriers are earning enormous bounties on NPC sites. On the other hand, if this is also about reducing the defensive capabilities of citadels so certain alliances and coalitions can conquer new territories, then never mind.
Ter Jern Wolf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1353 - 2017-06-10 20:47:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
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.



That problem is more along the lines of we need special sites that are designed for caps and regular anoms should prolly get gates. This way risk / reward can be balanced on the farming more easily.


There we go, yet another possible solution that could be looked into.

I really wish CCP would not implement this change and make a new announcement along the lines of:

1. Too much ISK is entering the economy.
2. It is carriers and supers, so regrettably we are going to prevent them from ratting in the next patch.
3. BUT THIS IS TEMPORARY, so we can get a better handle on how to fix the situation.
4. Sorry, we kinda messed up. Please offer helpful suggestions in this thread.


This exactly - All the players really want is to be meaningfully consulted on what is the greatest experiment in cooperative game development the world has ever seen. We don't like being treated like WoW players - if we did we'd play WoW. We aren't however WoW players - and many of us have spent a decade or more in the sandbox helping it grow and evolve - and don't appreciate CCP forgetting how to have meaningful development discussions with the players.
Moor Deybe
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1354 - 2017-06-10 20:49:23 UTC
If the problem is too much ISK coming from null sec ratting, isn't the solution to provide a compelling equivalent ISK sink for all that ISK?

Too effective in PVP? Isn't there supposed to be a rock for every pair of scissors in this game?
Why not increase the effectiveness of the carriers' counter in PVP?

This seems like a very lazy change that reduces the amount of fun that flying carriers can be.
I suppose we could always go back to the days when carriers dropped flights of drones, did a couple of Sanctums, then docked up again.

The problem with changes like this is, that when the game becomes less fun, people log in less frequently and then all of sudden they haven't logged in for weeks, then months then........
Moor Deybe
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1355 - 2017-06-10 20:55:52 UTC
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:

This exactly - All the players really want is to be meaningfully consulted on what is the greatest experiment in cooperative game development the world has ever seen. We don't like being treated like WoW players - if we did we'd play WoW. We aren't however WoW players - and many of us have spent a decade or more in the sandbox helping it grow and evolve - and don't appreciate CCP forgetting how to have meaningful development discussions with the players.

Good point.
Have the CSM been asked for their input on this "carrier problem"?
Alexksey Buldakov
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1356 - 2017-06-10 20:57:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexksey Buldakov
Nerf we and price changes on BSH aroused strong dissatisfaction of some players, which is why from Friday at the memorial near the station Jita 4-4 is going from 50 to 100 players at a time, trying to protest against the updates of the last weeks, the server drops and bugs.
Ter Jern Wolf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1357 - 2017-06-10 20:59:53 UTC
Moor Deybe wrote:
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:

This exactly - All the players really want is to be meaningfully consulted on what is the greatest experiment in cooperative game development the world has ever seen. We don't like being treated like WoW players - if we did we'd play WoW. We aren't however WoW players - and many of us have spent a decade or more in the sandbox helping it grow and evolve - and don't appreciate CCP forgetting how to have meaningful development discussions with the players.

Good point.
Have the CSM been asked for their input on this "carrier problem"?


They were not consulted on any of the last several patch changes from what I've been led to understand. The CSM has pretty much turned into a shallow showpiece with little input and primarily the concerns of alliances and not players.
Ian Hestia
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1358 - 2017-06-10 21:02:45 UTC
Albert Roidesbelges wrote:
well i guess after 7 years you force my hand and i'll close my 4 accounts on Tuesday

right before albion online is comming out thx ;)


Same here! Waiting for Albion Online now. Since this "epic" change on the Carriers.
Pesadel0
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1359 - 2017-06-10 21:04:26 UTC
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:
Moor Deybe wrote:
Ter Jern Wolf wrote:

This exactly - All the players really want is to be meaningfully consulted on what is the greatest experiment in cooperative game development the world has ever seen. We don't like being treated like WoW players - if we did we'd play WoW. We aren't however WoW players - and many of us have spent a decade or more in the sandbox helping it grow and evolve - and don't appreciate CCP forgetting how to have meaningful development discussions with the players.

Good point.
Have the CSM been asked for their input on this "carrier problem"?


They were not consulted on any of the last several patch changes from what I've been led to understand. The CSM has pretty much turned into a shallow showpiece with little input and primarily the concerns of alliances and not players.



Maybe you should check the front page then . lol
Ter Jern Wolf
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1360 - 2017-06-10 21:07:16 UTC
Do you remember when back in the day... CCP used to have a major game breaking problem or change they wanted to make... they would post a 5 page dev blog on the issue a month or three before covering every angle of the problem and as many possible solutions as they could.. then would suggest what they think is best - then ASK THE PLAYERS - what do you think? Then they would spend a few weeks to a month hashing out the needed changes with the players - THEN they would implement them as a refined version of both what they wanted and the players wanted.

I do remember this. I miss this. We need this if we are to thrive for another decade in new eden.