These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mossyblog Barnes
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#1961 - 2017-06-12 22:41:27 UTC
*sigh*

Can you please hire a someone who understands statistical analysis.

Taking a "snapshot" from 5 days in "June" is like looking at your bank account during St Paddys day and declaring you have a years worth of drinking behaviour.

Qualitative Analysis. Please please get a book on this and come back to us with some concrete evidence that doesn't orbit Delve and Goons.
James Zimmer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1962 - 2017-06-12 22:41:41 UTC
After 99 pages, I probably won't add too much of value, but even though I'm not a carrier pilot, I don't like this. Rather than considering what it is about carriers that makes them so awesome for ratting, and adjusting that aspect, this change simply bludgeons every aspect of carriers and makes them significantly less viable for any activity.

The issue with carriers is not that they're way better than battleships at ratting; it's that they're way better without any increased risk. A ratting carrier can run an anom aligned, and for all practical purposes, leave a site the instant an enemy comes in system, which is FASTER than a BS. Sentry BSs, like Rattlesnakes, have to stay stationary to stay with their drones and Marauders have to Bastion up. Force carriers to stop (maybe through a mode that has a decently long cycle time) in order to launch/retrieve fighters, and you've gone a long way in solving the problem.

The other issue is that the only viable way to hunt in enemy space is through jump/cyno mechanics, predominately BLOPS unless you don't want a ride home. The counter to hotdrops is hotdrops, and when one side can escalate with mostly stealth bombers and the other side can escalate with carriers, more often than not, the carriers win. There's some combination of intel and cyno changes that need to happen in order to reinvigorate carrier-hunting, and really non-strategic, non-BLOPS fleets in general. Living in Provi, I can tell you that half or more of people coming into our space to fight are set up as cynos for BLOPS, and I can't blame them. It's simply the most effective way to do business.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1963 - 2017-06-12 22:45:55 UTC
Mossyblog Barnes wrote:
*sigh*

Can you please hire a someone who understands statistical analysis.

Taking a "snapshot" from 5 days in "June" is like looking at your bank account during St Paddys day and declaring you have a years worth of drinking behaviour.

Qualitative Analysis. Please please get a book on this and come back to us with some concrete evidence that doesn't orbit Delve and Goons.


The daily data is there to download and it is not good. Average amount of ISK entering the economy on a monthly basis up to November 2016 7 trillion. In May 2017, 53 trillion or about a 757% increase. Further, the first 5 days of June are showing another month with a high growth rate for ISK.

Further, in looking at the daily data, after about mid April the number of days with negative ISK growth virtually disappeared, whereas before they were more frequent and of larger magnitude.

"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
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1964 - 2017-06-12 22:46:41 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 a smart idea. Much wiser idea is to undock fifty money making mini-machines called VNI... Roll


Or my one Machariel assited by an FoF/Gecko Rattlesnake.

Why are people pretending that it's either "Super cap r VNI"? Just about any ship can rat.
Cismet
Silent Knights.
LinkNet
#1965 - 2017-06-12 22:47:45 UTC
Mossyblog Barnes wrote:
*sigh*

Can you please hire a someone who understands statistical analysis.

Taking a "snapshot" from 5 days in "June" is like looking at your bank account during St Paddys day and declaring you have a years worth of drinking behaviour.

Qualitative Analysis. Please please get a book on this and come back to us with some concrete evidence that doesn't orbit Delve and Goons.


Actually, 5 days would be a fine sample to use given the number of people playing during the period. It would be over 150k people in the sample given an average 35k online in any given day, likely more over a timezone rolling period. The sample size is more than adequate to be representative within a single-digit margin of error with ease.

More data would be nice, but ultimately, it'll only likely be a few percent off in either direction.
Marcel Garsk
#1966 - 2017-06-12 22:51:27 UTC
And ticks drop estimations?
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1967 - 2017-06-12 22:55:21 UTC
I like the latest updates on what these changes will be. Can always nerf more if this doesn't fix the numbers but doesn't make it feel like they are just getting murdered.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1968 - 2017-06-12 22:56:26 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mossyblog Barnes wrote:
*sigh*

Can you please hire a someone who understands statistical analysis.

Taking a "snapshot" from 5 days in "June" is like looking at your bank account during St Paddys day and declaring you have a years worth of drinking behaviour.

Qualitative Analysis. Please please get a book on this and come back to us with some concrete evidence that doesn't orbit Delve and Goons.


The daily data is there to download and it is not good. Average amount of ISK entering the economy on a monthly basis up to November 2016 7 trillion. In May 2017, 53 trillion or about a 757% increase. Further, the first 5 days of June are showing another month with a high growth rate for ISK.

Further, in looking at the daily data, after about mid April the number of days with negative ISK growth virtually disappeared, whereas before they were more frequent and of larger magnitude.



Poor Teckos with his "Facts" and "reason" lol.

My buddy Malcanis once told me something (a saying by a dead politician) that applies here: "It is hard to get someone to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it".
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#1969 - 2017-06-12 22:57:30 UTC
PenguinBacon wrote:
I too can massage data to justify a false conclusion!

Per Quant's 2015 presentation
1.5% of the games population logged in and ran incursions

This group accounted for at the time 8.36T worth of income

Assuming linear growth of the player base based on the increase in incursion income
May 2017th Income is 9.92T.

This was a growth of 18.68% of income. The estimated population of incursion runners is 1.66%.

So Rounding up to 1.7% to be consistent with the chart made by Quant.
We have 1.7% of the games population accounting for 9.92T income.

To compare this with the numbers posted by Larrikin in the first post
22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers
24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers
19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers

Incursion runners are about 21% more of a player base than SuperCarriers but result in 331% more income per character.

note the incursion stats are for a whole month, the stats larrikin posted cover 5 days. so assuming a 30 day month we have roughly:
1.7% making 9.9T/month running incursions
1.4% making 13.8T/month running anoms with supers

furthermore the 1.7% is 1.7% of the player base, where 1.4% is the 1.4% of those who earned bounties which will be less than 1.4% of the player base.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Ezio Sotken
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#1970 - 2017-06-12 22:57:50 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 a smart idea. Much wiser idea is to undock fifty money making mini-machines called VNI... Roll


Just retrain into a fax, you will be loved by your cap buddies.
Johnathan Hubble
Froosh INC.
#1971 - 2017-06-12 22:57:59 UTC
Could you show all data for the mots popular ratting ships including the rattle the machariel ishtar etc?

also clarify what they mean by T1cruiser are VNIs included? this data set doesn't tell us enough to make a real opinion nor does it tell them enough to commit to anything.


ccp if you could be so kind as to expand your public data set to include the top 10 bounty earning ships in order from most isk earned on average per month to least it might go a ways to helping clear some stuff up.

if your not willing to do that because you noticed the data does not match what you thought may i recommend spending a bit more time researching this before committing to anything?
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#1972 - 2017-06-12 23:01:29 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

And the implication is that all the data is wrong too. All of it. Every MER. And that everyone at CCP are drooling morons who can't write queries and do basic arithmetic.


I just heard a podcast where it was stated that they have been trying to correct CCP's data for a long time. Apparently, it has been wrong or incorrectly interpreted.
Cismet
Silent Knights.
LinkNet
#1973 - 2017-06-12 23:01:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Cismet
Marcel Garsk wrote:
And ticks drop estimations?


It's hard to estimate that from either the damage nerf or the other changes proposed. If it were a straight linear relationship, then 10% nerf to DPS would result in a 10% tick drop, but there are many factors that would affect your ticks so it's very difficult to accurately predict that. Same for the supers change.

If you want a number, then circa 10% for Carriers or circa 20% for supers, which will probably average to somewhere around 10% drop in the total stream (46% of bounties going to carriers/supers with a weighting in favour of supers of somewhere close to larrikin's suggestions).

Those numbers are roughly worked out in my head at close to midnight, I cannot be bothered to do them properly on a calculator but they won't be all that far off either. But then again, this is all speculation and the actual numbers could be higher or lower than this depending on how much the DPS interacts with tank etc etc etc.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1974 - 2017-06-12 23:03:39 UTC
Johnathan Hubble wrote:
Could you show all data for the mots popular ratting ships including the rattle the machariel ishtar etc?

also clarify what they mean by T1cruiser are VNIs included? this data set doesn't tell us enough to make a real opinion nor does it tell them enough to commit to anything.


Yes VNI are counted as T1 cruisers in stats, always have been. This is more than enough data to see the problem.

Johnathan Hubble wrote:

ccp if you could be so kind as to expand your public data set to include the top 10 bounty earning ships in order from most isk earned on average per month to least it might go a ways to helping clear some stuff up.


What exactly would this add? They listed the relevant data from supers, carriers and the next most popular ship class for ratting T1 cruisers.

Johnathan Hubble wrote:

if your not willing to do that because you noticed the data does not match what you thought may i recommend spending a bit more time researching this before committing to anything?


Stop grasping for straws.
Stevo patriot
Shady Oaks
#1975 - 2017-06-12 23:09:51 UTC
so i know im late to the party but heres my two cents.


ive seen your concorde battleship gets a bounty & payout bonus based on sec status...


if as the data suggests supers are taking a disproportionate part of the bounty pool by ooooh lets say your first iteration of 30%..... why can you not just add a bounty payout reduction to that hull?????

this will leave the weapons alone to be used in pvp and not nerf citadels un warranted.

i mean...... it makes sense to me that if you want to nerf bounties due to certain ships you nerd the payout to those ships. not the weapons they use, especially when their used on other not connected structures
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1976 - 2017-06-12 23:14:28 UTC
Stevo patriot wrote:
so i know im late to the party but heres my two cents.


ive seen your concorde battleship gets a bounty & payout bonus based on sec status...


if as the data suggests supers are taking a disproportionate part of the bounty pool by ooooh lets say your first iteration of 30%..... why can you not just add a bounty payout reduction to that hull?????

this will leave the weapons alone to be used in pvp and not nerf citadels un warranted.

i mean...... it makes sense to me that if you want to nerf bounties due to certain ships you nerd the payout to those ships. not the weapons they use, especially when their used on other not connected structures


It is likely a thing tied to sec status so cant work on supers and carriers in the way you want.
Johnathan Hubble
Froosh INC.
#1977 - 2017-06-12 23:14:47 UTC
they didn't say that here they should have and honestly they want us to see their side they need to show all the facts not just part.


i mean rough figures is this going to get them their desired changes or will it help a little and then the trend continue for reasons not related to this particular nerf

i don't care what they do if i don't like it i don't have to play(not a rage quit just being honest)

but they do have to stick with the game as its their jobs and if they don't have the patients to fully research issues to their core then maybe they need more assistance?
MONTYJOHN
THE KRAKEN INC
#1978 - 2017-06-12 23:15:50 UTC
i know a lot are still unhappy with the changes coming but im glad at least, cpp took the time to read through the comments and decided to heed some of the backlash shown and make a reasonable compromise with the nerf
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1979 - 2017-06-12 23:19:35 UTC
Johnathan Hubble wrote:
they didn't say that here they should have and honestly they want us to see their side they need to show all the facts not just part.


i mean rough figures is this going to get them their desired changes or will it help a little and then the trend continue for reasons not related to this particular nerf

i don't care what they do if i don't like it i don't have to play(not a rage quit just being honest)

but they do have to stick with the game as its their jobs and if they don't have the patients to fully research issues to their core then maybe they need more assistance?


How exactly would knowing what T1 haulers are making in bounties help?
Marcel Garsk
#1980 - 2017-06-12 23:23:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Garsk
Cismet wrote:
Marcel Garsk wrote:
And ticks drop estimations?


It's hard to estimate that from either the damage nerf or the other changes proposed. If it were a straight linear relationship, then 10% nerf to DPS would result in a 10% tick drop, but there are many factors that would affect your ticks so it's very difficult to accurately predict that. Same for the supers change.

If you want a number, then circa 10% for Carriers or circa 20% for supers, which will probably average to somewhere around 10% drop in the total stream (46% of bounties going to carriers/supers with a weighting in favour of supers of somewhere close to larrikin's suggestions).

Those numbers are roughly worked out in my head at close to midnight, I cannot be bothered to do them properly on a calculator but they won't be all that far off either. But then again, this is all speculation and the actual numbers could be higher or lower than this depending on how much the DPS interacts with tank etc etc etc.


Good to know! I can compensate this using T2 fighters as a standard along with 4x faction DDAs. Fit will be more expensive but dps will remain almost the same. Well, just over 50 mil ticks are acceptable to me - to cover my PvP needs and keep going in null.


WOW! 100 pages long thread! WOW!Big smile