These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marcel Garsk
#1941 - 2017-06-12 21:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Garsk
^^^
Actualy CCP removes POS from game.


And what do you think about replacing carriers with dreads as main ratting tool?
Fats Dominic
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1942 - 2017-06-12 21:22:56 UTC
Sorry if someone already mentioned this, so if the problem is PVE, and people are complaining about what it will do to PVP, what about having a damage nerf to fighters based on how many DPS fighters are in your tubes?

i.e. ratting with 3 tubes of light fighters would have a 10% damage decrease or whatever, but for PVP most people use 2 tubes of damage and 1 support, make the damage nerf not apply in that scenario so PVP carriers arn't gimped as much.
xOmGx
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1943 - 2017-06-12 21:23:19 UTC
POS need to stay... its the only mobile safe heaven for supercapitals

LOL we are not considering Keepstars as main save heaven to these ships righ?

WTB keepstar in every system!!!
Valdr Auduin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1944 - 2017-06-12 21:26:12 UTC
xOmGx wrote:
POS need to stay... its the only mobile safe heaven for supercapitals

LOL we are not considering Keepstars as main save heaven to these ships righ?

WTB keepstar in every system!!!

The big boys can easily manage it, I'm sure.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1945 - 2017-06-12 21:43:18 UTC
Martehh wrote:
Look according to your graph there is over a quadrillion amount of isk in New eden. Now you have to ask yourself how is this nerf even going to matter on a macro scale, the answer is it is not. Content drives this game not isk, we are seeing anomalous figures because the content is stale. The content in this game is stale because the sov system does not encourage large entities to fight each other. The quality of small gang pvp is interdependent on large entities in this game going kinetic at each other. CCP you are building a house without a strong foundation it will collapse. Your number one priority is sov at this point, unless you want to take the game in a drastically different pubbie direction.


If the money supply grows too fast you'll end up with inflation....potentially alot of inflation, especially if players feel they need to carrier/super rat to keep up--i.e. a positive feedback loop.

You need to look at flows, not stocks. If you don't know those two terms, GTFO.

"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

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#1946 - 2017-06-12 21:43:29 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Are you sure?
I ran incursions for a long time and made around the same isk PH (more if you include Concord LP) out of them as I do ratting in my super. For a lot less isk outlay, less competition for sites and way less risk..



What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Incursion payouts are tracked separately from bounty prizes, and the data was specifically about bounty prizes.

They may be tracked separately but are still paid as bounties.. And pay more PH than carrier ratting which makes Devs assertion that carriers need to be nerfed because they earn too much a straight out lie..
If incursions aren't included there is even more reason for Larrikin to show accurate and complete statistics for his 5 day period rather than an anomalous %.

Dishonesty as to motives has been a thing with CCP and this thread is a prime example of it.,.

Either way, this change is going to have detrimental affects right across the game - It not only affects ratters but every income stream associated with carriers and Supers in addition to market sales..
All my bling fits (most of my ships are either faction or deadspace fit) are being broken down to T2. Previews of potential new doctrines after the Pirate ship changes are T2 or at best a mix of faction and T2 (cheap and disposable). This will also impact markets as players can no longer afford those bling fits.



...are you just outright missing the (flat and considerably smaller) incursion data line on that chart, or are you just refusing to incorporate that information into your worldview?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1947 - 2017-06-12 21:48:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Are you sure?
I ran incursions for a long time and made around the same isk PH (more if you include Concord LP) out of them as I do ratting in my super. For a lot less isk outlay, less competition for sites and way less risk..



What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Incursion payouts are tracked separately from bounty prizes, and the data was specifically about bounty prizes.

They may be tracked separately but are still paid as bounties.. And pay more PH than carrier ratting which makes Devs assertion that carriers need to be nerfed because they earn too much a straight out lie..
If incursions aren't included there is even more reason for Larrikin to show accurate and complete statistics for his 5 day period rather than an anomalous %.

Dishonesty as to motives has been a thing with CCP and this thread is a prime example of it.,.

Either way, this change is going to have detrimental affects right across the game - It not only affects ratters but every income stream associated with carriers and Supers in addition to market sales..
All my bling fits (most of my ships are either faction or deadspace fit) are being broken down to T2. Previews of potential new doctrines after the Pirate ship changes are T2 or at best a mix of faction and T2 (cheap and disposable). This will also impact markets as players can no longer afford those bling fits.



...are you just outright missing the (flat and considerably smaller) incursion data line on that chart, or are you just refusing to incorporate that information into your worldview?



I'm going to guess both. His blinkered world view won't let him see the data line. Were incursions causing a problem in March 2016? No. April 2016? No. May 2016? No. Is there any indication that incursions were a potential source of high inflation? No.

Okay, lets nerf incursions!

It is amazing because it is actually the exact same thing everyone is accusing CCP of doing. Of course, CCP has numbers on their side. Which is why the numbers have to be declared fake.

It is refreshing to see that people really are this blinkered. When given data that literally goes against their beliefs and statements it is the data that is wrong, not their beliefs. Nope, can't be those.

"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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1948 - 2017-06-12 21:50:46 UTC
Jed Airtech wrote:
sabastyian wrote:
[quote]
Currently in June;
1749 Vnis have been lost for 191.66b
270 Carriers have been lost for 683.73b
34 supers have been lost for nearly 1.1T
If you are going to focus on numbers why don't we focus on how many of each ship were lost during the activities as well as looking at fighter losses. If youre so focused on how high tier ships that take ages to train into ( or at the very least a lot of isk for injectors ) because they add to much money, why dont you adress how 19.1-20% of null-sec isk is made by characters that can be trained within 2 months.


It's because they are not focused on real facts. They believe something, so they went to their numbers to find some that said what they believe.


If we are going to go on about cherry picking numbers how many of those ships died doing PVE? Also how many died in the 5 days that were used by the OP?

Frankly I would much rather see people ratting in cruisers than supers as that means I can actually attack them solo.
singthegrief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1949 - 2017-06-12 21:51:26 UTC
As i was one of the people who lost his **** over the changes, i do think this was a good call on your part to "nerf your nerf". That being said it doesn't change how i feel. I have spent years and tons or real money and isk to get my toon to be able to fly a nyx perfectly. and i am by no way a rich man in eve. I am in no way a 1%er! In my opinion after these changes that investment is not worth what i feel it was. i did not inject in to one i did it the hard way with sweat and time and real money though subscribing. now my huge ship that cost me 10s of billions of isk is not worth anything anymore to me. i don't want to stress that enough TO ME. I do understand that you need to keep the market and economy right side up. but if you would have never added the cheat code "injectors" this would have never been as big as a problem as it is today. You wanted to go in the direction of EA with **** ton of micro-transactions . even after people like me already have to omega to continue to have the same out of the game. you have turned it in to a pay to win game. and i for one will still be finding other things to play. after a good 11 years playing. one last note about the comments made by CCP Quant. It doesn't matter if we are being "whiners" or not its not a good business practice to talk **** about the so called "1 percent" even if it was tried to be swept under the rug. remember we paid for this game to keep running when your log in numbers where low and you did not know where this game would be going.
Videles Silenthunter
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1950 - 2017-06-12 21:56:47 UTC
Drak'Eisgvarde Crepari wrote:
Ridiculous. 100T change over the past year or so which is the norm for the past several years.

How about fixing the isk sinks instead? Things like market taxes took a hit with citadels.

Up the items bought from NPCs with isk, particularly cosmetic ones. New skins, a mix of LP and isk (or just isk). New clothes with isk.

Maybe change up t2 citadel rigs and give them less T2 salvage but some NPC sold items.

Have it cost isk to unlock additional jump clones, not just take a skill. 1000 isk for the first. 10b isk for the 10th.

Have additional bonus remaps that can be bought for isk. Maybe allow different clones with different remaps, for a substantial isk price.

Increase the array of hardwirings, particularly for slots 6-10. so many ways to drain isk.


@Dev you should hire someone like this
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1951 - 2017-06-12 21:59:23 UTC
singthegrief wrote:
As i was one of the people who lost his **** over the changes, i do think this was a good call on your part to "nerf your nerf". That being said it doesn't change how i feel. I have spent years and tons or real money and isk to get my toon to be able to fly a nyx perfectly.


So this entitles you to ruin the games economy?

And when you started that training and plan were Nyxes that good? Did you see this kind of ratting income? Or did you want it irrespective of the ISK stream.

Quote:
and i am by no way a rich man in eve. I am in no way a 1%er! In my opinion after these changes that investment is not worth what i feel it was. i did not inject in to one i did it the hard way with sweat and time and real money though subscribing. now my huge ship that cost me 10s of billions of isk is not worth anything anymore to me.


Because you new that is was going to be an ISK printing machine?

Quote:
I do understand that you need to keep the market and economy right side up. but if you would have never added the cheat code "injectors" this would have never been as big as a problem as it is today.


If people are using injectors to get into carriers and supers to rat, then the problem is not injectors, but carriers and supers and injectors are just bringing the problem forward as opposed to later.

Quote:
one last note about the comments made by CCP Quant. It doesn't matter if we are being "whiners" or not its not a good business practice to talk **** about the so called "1 percent" even if it was tried to be swept under the rug. remember we paid for this game to keep running when your log in numbers where low and you did not know where this game would be going.


So let me get this straight....CCP has a responsibility to keep the market and in game economy functioning smoothly. After all, much of everything in the game comes via the market, right? But CCP can't step on your toes doing it. You and your desires are sacrosanct and should not be put upon...even when there is an obvious problem. Presumably the problem is to be born by other players who are not the problem....and you aren't a whiner? Really?

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1952 - 2017-06-12 22:00:16 UTC
Videles Silenthunter wrote:
Drak'Eisgvarde Crepari wrote:
Ridiculous. 100T change over the past year or so which is the norm for the past several years.

How about fixing the isk sinks instead? Things like market taxes took a hit with citadels.

Up the items bought from NPCs with isk, particularly cosmetic ones. New skins, a mix of LP and isk (or just isk). New clothes with isk.

Maybe change up t2 citadel rigs and give them less T2 salvage but some NPC sold items.

Have it cost isk to unlock additional jump clones, not just take a skill. 1000 isk for the first. 10b isk for the 10th.

Have additional bonus remaps that can be bought for isk. Maybe allow different clones with different remaps, for a substantial isk price.

Increase the array of hardwirings, particularly for slots 6-10. so many ways to drain isk.


@Dev you should hire someone like this


So we should nerf the game for those not causing the problem?

Yeah that makes sense. Roll

Jesus...

"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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1953 - 2017-06-12 22:03:56 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
singthegrief wrote:
As i was one of the people who lost his **** over the changes, i do think this was a good call on your part to "nerf your nerf". That being said it doesn't change how i feel. I have spent years and tons or real money and isk to get my toon to be able to fly a nyx perfectly. and i am by no way a rich man in eve. I am in no way a 1%er! In my opinion after these changes that investment is not worth what i feel it was. i did not inject in to one i did it the hard way with sweat and time and real money though subscribing. now my huge ship that cost me 10s of billions of isk is not worth anything anymore to me. i don't want to stress that enough TO ME. I do understand that you need to keep the market and economy right side up. but if you would have never added the cheat code "injectors" this would have never been as big as a problem as it is today. You wanted to go in the direction of EA with **** ton of micro-transactions . even after people like me already have to omega to continue to have the same out of the game. you have turned it in to a pay to win game. and i for one will still be finding other things to play. after a good 11 years playing. one last note about the comments made by CCP Quant. It doesn't matter if we are being "whiners" or not its not a good business practice to talk **** about the so called "1 percent" even if it was tried to be swept under the rug. remember we paid for this game to keep running when your log in numbers where low and you did not know where this game would be going.


A 10% nerf to your super is enough to make you quit?

I honestly have to ask if you are even playing the game. Seriously, when was the last time you took your super out to go stomp on another alliance in a war? These things don't get used offensively as it is, this nerf is going to have very little impact in PvP because nobody uses them anyway. Hell, carriers are a bit of a rarity too, its mostly just FAX and dreads.

Lets be realistic, if you are going to quit over this then you will be quitting over something else anyway. This isn't about PvP because nobody is using them unless they can guarantee their safety and it isn't about skill injectors. This is simply rage at money making machines getting a nerf, we have seen this **** before. Did CCP **** up? Yes. I have seen this coming from day one of the carrier changes which is why I didn't bother to train any alts into it, the only surprise is that it took this long.
Marcel Garsk
#1954 - 2017-06-12 22:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Garsk
baltec1 wrote:
This is simply rage at money making machines getting a nerf, we have seen this **** before. Did CCP **** up? Yes. I have seen this coming from day one of the carrier changes which is why I didn't bother to train any alts into it, the only surprise is that it took this long.


Yes! Carrier training was not a smart idea. Much wiser idea is to undock fifty money making mini-machines called VNI... Roll
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1955 - 2017-06-12 22:15:34 UTC
Marcel Garsk wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
This is simply rage at money making machines getting a nerf, we have seen this **** before. Did CCP **** up? Yes. I have seen this coming from day one of the carrier changes which is why I didn't bother to train any alts into it, the only surprise is that it took this long.


Yes! Carrier training was not smart idea. Much wiser idea is to undock fifty VNIs... Roll


Or as is my case, just the one.

In hindsight I should have trained the carrier because it went on for so long I could have made bank but I expected CCP to stop the problem a lot earlier. This is way bigger than the tracking titans were when they got nerfed.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#1956 - 2017-06-12 22:21:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
...this nerf is going to have very little impact in PvP because nobody uses them anyway. Hell, carriers are a bit of a rarity too, its mostly just FAX and dreads.


I don't get the mentality and sentiment. You want big fat multi-billion ISK super-ships which are only good for, and only used for, PvE?

If yes, I think it's sad and silly, but whatever. We have big end game ships that are only good for PvE. What a buzzkill.

If no, then why aren't you supporting fixing the damn things? Isn't this going the opposite direction - nerfing them?

Beyond that, isn't it stupid beyond all measure to fix their stupid problem IN THIS MANNER? We're gonna nerf an 'effing ship because of ISK? Really? Like, isn't there literally a million other things you could do to fix the problem rather than nerf an 'effing ship?

- What about not letting the damn things in anoms in the first place? Wouldn't that be better?

- What about changing some numbers so that the rats blast the fighters out of the sky at a much higher rate?

- What about bringing back a triage module so that the damn thing has to be immobile for minutes at a time to deploy fighters to any effect?

Christ man, that's three things off the top of my head IN 30 SECONDS OF THOUGHT. What could I come up with if I actually spent a little time and energy and thought about it?

You mean this was the only damn solution to come up with, and you're happy with it?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1957 - 2017-06-12 22:27:31 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:


- What about not letting the damn things in anoms in the first place? Wouldn't that be better?

- What about changing some numbers so that the rats blast the fighters out of the sky at a much higher rate?

- What about bringing back a triage module so that the damn thing has to be immobile for minutes at a time to deploy fighters to any effect?


Fine. Fine. Uhhh...fine, I guess.

"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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1958 - 2017-06-12 22:33:20 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:


I don't get the mentality and sentiment. You want big fat multi-billion ISK super-ships which are only good for, and only used for, PvE?


That's exactly what is happening now.

Beast of Revelations wrote:

If yes, I think it's sad and silly, but whatever. We have big end game ships that are only good for PvE. What a buzzkill.

If no, then why aren't you supporting fixing the damn things? Isn't this going the opposite direction - nerfing them?

Beyond that, isn't it stupid beyond all measure to fix their stupid problem IN THIS MANNER? We're gonna nerf an 'effing ship because of ISK? Really? Like, isn't there literally a million other things you could do to fix the problem rather than nerf an 'effing ship?


Its happened a few times in the past. Tracking titans, carriers, AFKtar.

Beast of Revelations wrote:

- What about not letting the damn things in anoms in the first place? Wouldn't that be better?

- What about changing some numbers so that the rats blast the fighters out of the sky at a much higher rate?

- What about bringing back a triage module so that the damn thing has to be immobile for minutes at a time to deploy fighters to any effect?

Christ man, that's three things off the top of my head IN 30 SECONDS OF THOUGHT. What could I come up with if I actually spent a little time and energy and thought about it?

You mean this was the only damn solution to come up with, and you're happy with it?


All of which take time, this is by are the easiest and quickest way to fix the problem in the short term. The rate at which isk was being generated means we can't wait several months for the other fixes, damage was being done and the longer we wait the more harm it does.

I have been calling for PvE to be revamped for years now.
Cismet
Silent Industry
Silent Company
#1959 - 2017-06-12 22:35:58 UTC
All through this I have been disappointed in the way CCP have handled this. From the initial hammer-blow to the lack of communication or engagement with some creative potential solutions to this issue that don't have to ruin a ship class in PVP and PVE.

I cannot fly a carrier, it never particularly appealed to me, but I was very disappointed in such a massive change seemingly without producing the data that backs it up.

CCP Larrikin has produced the numbers that prompted the change. I would still like to see the raw data, but CCP have absolutely no reason to lie about those numbers. 46% of bounties to ~4% of players is a good reason to nerf the income stream of Carriers.

That said, not all that many people had an issue with nerfing the income stream, it was the chosen method for that nerf and the lack of communication and engagement with the community on other resolutions that seemed to be the bigger problem. CCP have taken that on board and lowered the nerf as a temporary measure whilst working on other methods of curbing the footprint of supers/carriers in ratting.

Good show. They need curbing, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that who understands economics even slightly now that we have been presented with the data, but hopefully the devs and the community can find a reasonable way to nerf the stream without destroying the ship in the process.

I would still favour diminishing returns that kick in beyond a certain amount earned in a 24-hour cycle, resetting after DT. It wouldn't touch the smaller ships that can't earn close to the capacity of a carrier or super, but beyond a certain point, ratting in a carrier or super would be increasingly less efficient. Also have the side benefit of pushing people towards other activities with more risk: Exploration/PVP/Roams etc.

I've said that repeatedly, and I still think it has the potential to be the best solution. It has been pointed out that it would require regular monitoring, but then so would any change, including this nerf and future nerfs/buffs so given the choice....
Marcel Garsk
#1960 - 2017-06-12 22:40:48 UTC
^^^
OK! Provide us with you estimation about ticks drop.