These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP broke the no intervention on Market rule

First post
Author
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#21 - 2017-06-11 16:59:09 UTC
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Wow. That's a lot of wine going down the drain lately.

If you know a thing is way too good to stay true, just don't jump on it. At least not if you're adverse to change.


That's why I stuck to my sub capitals (my mach and my rattlesnake) for ratting. I told my corp mates that I wasn't getting into carrier ratting even though I can fly carriers and could use tech 2 fighters. I said "you know they are going to nerf that right?".

History shows that if anything becomes so good that legions of people jump on board to do it, CCP WILL nerf it eventually for the good of the game.

It's not CCPs fault that soooo many people who play this game don't understand that.
Vortexo VonBrenner
Doomheim
#22 - 2017-06-11 17:07:44 UTC
Op, you are 100% correct!

This is outrageous!

This is too far!

Can I have your stuff, please?



April rabbit
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2017-06-11 17:48:23 UTC  |  Edited by: April rabbit
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
I wonder, what are the chances in nullsec that a drone boat/carrier losses its drones/fighters to rats?

I used a ISKstar fit for running anomalies and Level 4s in highsec and it quickly turned to be a sensitive matter since frigates would kill my drones if left unattended... even herding them, I would still lose drones each now and then. Yet apparently nullsec anomalies don't spawn smaller craft that pose a threat to drones... is this true?

Because if it's true, then it would be easier to spawn drone-killer and fighter-killer rats to prevent AFK ratting and create a sink that would hit harder those ratting harder, without nerfing the PvP usability of carriers.

The more you PvE with drones, the higher the chance that your ship is de-fanged. It's true for highsec, why wouldn't for null?




High-sec drone takes up to 25m3 and has price of 1 million top.
Fighter has size of 1000m3 and price of 9mil for T2 version (using Dragonfly as example)

1 Haven brings like 30 million.

Now just imagine logistical nightmare and overall reasonability of doing Havens if you have considerable chance to lose 1-2 fighters even with perfect management? (Imagine that you can lose half of reward of lvl4 mission while doing it).

That's the problem with fighters: they are NOT expendable drones.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#24 - 2017-06-11 18:05:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.
Gogela
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#25 - 2017-06-12 13:21:22 UTC
Misleading title. Roll

Signatures should be used responsibly...

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#26 - 2017-06-12 13:28:13 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.



Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.

Sorry, no.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#27 - 2017-06-12 13:44:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.



Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.

Sorry, no.

What they are doin now is punishing everyone.

Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them...
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#28 - 2017-06-12 13:47:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.



Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.

Sorry, no.


N+1 is a b*tch.

"Mkay, let's balance fighter squadrons for the assumption of N+1 bored PvErs running anomalies N+1 hours a day, with N being anything between the current number and 1000% of it..."
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#29 - 2017-06-12 13:54:56 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.



Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.

Sorry, no.

What they are doin now is punishing everyone.

Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them...


"Targetted" would be "you can run only x anomalies per IP and 24 hours period, with X being a variable threshold depending on how hot are bounties compared to the economy". That's how targetted would be, in any of a range of cases, from the more crude (literal IP caps) to the more subtle (blackboxed spawn rate which reacts to player activity and economy performance). Otherwise, as I said above, N+1 will kill you if it just grows large enough.

Hitting everyone with a swipe nerf could mean many things, but one is certain: TROUBLE.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2017-06-12 13:55:24 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.



Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.

Sorry, no.


N+1 is a b*tch.

"Mkay, let's balance fighter squadrons for the assumption of N+1 bored PvErs running anomalies N+1 hours a day, with N being anything between the current number and 1000% of it..."

The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become.

It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null.

A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option.

We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#31 - 2017-06-12 13:55:39 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.



Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.

Sorry, no.

What they are doin now is punishing everyone.

Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them...


How is fixing a class of weapon on ships most EVE characters can't even fly "punishing everyone"?

And what they are doing IS targeted. The introduction of Fighter Squadrons caused the problem (before the introduction of fighter squadrons, isk from null bounties was reasonable, after fighter squadrons the isk influx is unreasonable and dangerous). CCP is fixing Fighter Squadrons (which caused the problem) not anomalies (which did not cause the problem).

You can't get more targeted than that.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#32 - 2017-06-12 14:04:43 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:

The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become.


No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE.

Before fighter squadrons, many of the people now injected into carriers were doing other things for isk like High Sec incursions, FW missions and other top end PVe things. When people found out how much you can make via the new fighter squadrons, they flocked to it like people flocked to to Rorqual recently and Incursions in the beginning before the 1st nerf.

Some of those people don't even live in null sec they just injected and then put the character into a renter corp or a noob alliance like Brave oor Horde. It has nothing to do with 'null sec' beyond the fact that that is where the anomalies are (in the same way that many incursion runners were null sec or wormhole alts).

The issue is people looking for and finding easy isk making, people like that don't have any 'borders'.
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2017-06-12 14:10:24 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:

The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become.


No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE.

No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut.

Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#34 - 2017-06-12 14:17:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.



Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.

Sorry, no.

What they are doin now is punishing everyone.

Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them...


How is fixing a class of weapon on ships most EVE characters can't even fly "punishing everyone"?

And what they are doing IS targeted. The introduction of Fighter Squadrons caused the problem (before the introduction of fighter squadrons, isk from null bounties was reasonable, after fighter squadrons the isk influx is unreasonable and dangerous). CCP is fixing Fighter Squadrons (which caused the problem) not anomalies (which did not cause the problem).

You can't get more targeted than that.

They are punishing everyone using carriers for every reason there is, if they use fighters.

The changes targeting fighters may have been done by introducing fighter menace to anomalies, NPCs very effective against fighters. One simple change and not a nerhammer to the shin for carriers.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#35 - 2017-06-12 14:21:45 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:

The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become.


No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE.

No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut.

Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence.


My leadership? WTF are you talking about? I lost my 1st ever carrier ratting in 2012 ( A Chimera on Cassius Rex) and no on said anything to me. I was never in a group that banned carrier ratting. Some people were.

Do you mean that you are so prejudiced against nullsec that you don't understand that null is a collection of individuals in different groups not one big 'hive mind' kind of thing?


Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#36 - 2017-06-12 14:24:18 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nana Skalski wrote:
I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation.



Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out.

Sorry, no.

What they are doin now is punishing everyone.

Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them...


How is fixing a class of weapon on ships most EVE characters can't even fly "punishing everyone"?

And what they are doing IS targeted. The introduction of Fighter Squadrons caused the problem (before the introduction of fighter squadrons, isk from null bounties was reasonable, after fighter squadrons the isk influx is unreasonable and dangerous). CCP is fixing Fighter Squadrons (which caused the problem) not anomalies (which did not cause the problem).

You can't get more targeted than that.

They are punishing everyone using carriers for every reason there is, if they use fighters.

The changes targeting fighters may have been done by introducing fighter menace to anomalies, NPCs very effective against fighters. One simple change and not a nerhammer to the shin for carriers.


So they would have to code new NPCs, rather than just fix the thing they know caused the problem?

See, that's nonsense. Fighter Squadrons caused the problem. Fix fighter squadrons. Why is it such a hard idea for people to get, you fix the thing that caused the problem not everything else.

If a car gets a flat tire you don't replace the engine, you fix the tire. Fighter Squadrons are the tire...
Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2017-06-12 14:25:38 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:

The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become.


No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE.

No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut.

Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence.


My leadership? WTF are you talking about? I lost my 1st ever carrier ratting in 2012 ( A Chimera on Cassius Rex) and no on said anything to me. I was never in a group that banned carrier ratting. Some people were.

Do you mean that you are so prejudiced against nullsec that you don't understand that null is a collection of individuals in different groups not one big 'hive mind' kind of thing?



Actually I said your leadership, primarily because I don't actually care what group of spoiled brats you belong too.

Null has become a joke at the center of this game, the pure fact that 2 Null regions can gain bounties almost equal to the rest of the entire game show just how bad the problem has become.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#38 - 2017-06-12 14:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
PvP is fun, anomalies are boring anyway.

Of the two things CCP choose to nerf the wrong thing, they nerfed weapon and not the means of aquiring bounties by them.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2017-06-12 14:35:18 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:

The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become.


No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE.

No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut.

Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence.


My leadership? WTF are you talking about? I lost my 1st ever carrier ratting in 2012 ( A Chimera on Cassius Rex) and no on said anything to me. I was never in a group that banned carrier ratting. Some people were.

Do you mean that you are so prejudiced against nullsec that you don't understand that null is a collection of individuals in different groups not one big 'hive mind' kind of thing?




The buddy list changes did make capital ratting a lot easier particularly for supers. Keepstars removed the remaining impediments to thinking of the super as not a strategic asset. Now the ratter can get out of her super ratter, change out of her super pod and go on a frigate roam, ie its barely more thought than me getting out of my domi to go fight.


Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#40 - 2017-06-12 15:22:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Coralas wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:

The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become.


No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE.

No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut.

Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence.


My leadership? WTF are you talking about? I lost my 1st ever carrier ratting in 2012 ( A Chimera on Cassius Rex) and no on said anything to me. I was never in a group that banned carrier ratting. Some people were.

Do you mean that you are so prejudiced against nullsec that you don't understand that null is a collection of individuals in different groups not one big 'hive mind' kind of thing?




The buddy list changes did make capital ratting a lot easier particularly for supers. Keepstars removed the remaining impediments to thinking of the super as not a strategic asset. Now the ratter can get out of her super ratter, change out of her super pod and go on a frigate roam, ie its barely more thought than me getting out of my domi to go fight.




That's convenience mostly ( I'm sure the watch list thing didn't help matters though). I was talking about 'safety', particularly the dumb idea of null sec (the place with no magical space police) being 'safe'. The only thing that improved Capital safety was jump fatigue, but even now super and capitals and get killed. And I personally don't use my carrier for ratting, because my MJD Battleships survive better.

The whole point of what I've been saying that is that you can take all those other side issue people talk about and add them up and they don't amount to anything if you don't have Fighter Squadrons. You take away fighter squadrons and give Carriers and Supers their old style Fighters and Fighter Bombers and the Money supply doesn't increase near as much as it did with fighter squadrons.

Fighter squadrons (and the fighter interface that makes controlling them easier than controlling normal drones) are the "grouped guns" of drones, and just like PVE site times across New Eden decreased greatly when CCP introduced group guns around 2010/2011, so too has it happened with Fighter Drones. All the other things people are talking about (like aegis sov and anomalies not having gates, and no major wars going on) are red herrings.




On a side note this is why I always tell people to be cautious about asking for changes. EVE is a complicated, interconnected thing and no one (including CCP) can real grasp how one thing will affect dozens of others. Now one expected Fighter Squadrons (and all the things that helped exacerbate their power, like Skill injectors and the isolating effects of jump fatigue/jump distance) to have such a negative effect on things, but they did.