These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerfs, and the coming of the second shard

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#361 - 2015-02-12 22:53:00 UTC
UberFly wrote:
Soo, you're saying that all these "nerfs", that have been so terrible for gankers, have actually made them start working together to accomplish their goals? That they have had to do as they suggest the miners do, and join together for more fun and profit? yeah, sounds f'ing terrible.


Having to bring more people to kill a single target is a result of nerfs. That we do what whiner miners refuse to (ie: work together) has no bearing.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#362 - 2015-02-12 22:57:03 UTC
UberFly wrote:

Soo, you're saying that all these "nerfs", that have been so terrible for gankers, have actually made them start working together to accomplish their goals? That they have had to do as they suggest the miners do, and join together for more fun and profit? yeah, sounds f'ing terrible.


I don't think anyone is complaining about teamwork. It's one of the few gratifying parts of the game.

It is not about any one particular change either, it is about the trend and philosophy empowering a progressive destruction of the sandbox. Trend lines are scary because of the direction they point, not where they have already crossed.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#363 - 2015-02-12 22:57:26 UTC
UberFly wrote:


Soo, you're saying that all these "nerfs", that have been so terrible for gankers, have actually made them start working together to accomplish their goals? That they have had to do as they suggest the miners do, and join together for more fun and profit? yeah, sounds f'ing terrible.


Which means gankers got nerfed, because you need to group up to do what you could have done solo before, where as miners don't have to do anything.

Nerfing people who actually create the sense of danger and adventure in EVE rather than nerfing the people who add nothing to the game while pretending to be space cows (miners) grazing on space grass (Asteroids) and space wales (freighters) swimming in the iskie sea, well, that's just the wrong way to go and CCP needs to reverse course.

Defending yourself successfully from 'bad people' is part of the fun of eve if you don't suck.
UberFly
Metallurgy Incorporated
#364 - 2015-02-12 23:06:59 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

Which means gankers got nerfed, because you need to group up to do what you could have done solo before, where as miners don't have to do anything.

Nerfing people who actually create the sense of danger and adventure in EVE rather than nerfing the people who add nothing to the game while pretending to be space cows (miners) grazing on space grass (Asteroids) and space wales (freighters) swimming in the iskie sea, well, that's just the wrong way to go and CCP needs to reverse course.

Defending yourself successfully from 'bad people' is part of the fun of eve if you don't suck.

LOL, you are truly delusional.

So, forcing people to work together is good - unless you force the gankers?
And only those "creating danger" are adding to the game? So, those 20 and 30 man mining fleets (I've been on ones with up to 60 individual players, though not since 2011) aren't adding anything to the game? The ships that they build, the meta-modules that the missioners harvest, all that is "wrong".

LOL, you truly make me laugh at your shortsighted view of this massive game. I got news for you sweetheart, it takes all of that to keep Eve successful, and it seems to me that CCP has a vested interest in ensuring that the game is successful. You just don't like the way that success is coming. v0v If only they actually gave a **** about you.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#365 - 2015-02-12 23:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
UberFly wrote:
Soo, you're saying that all these "nerfs", that have been so terrible for gankers, have actually made them start working together to accomplish their goals? That they have had to do as they suggest the miners do, and join together for more fun and profit? yeah, sounds f'ing terrible.

I don't think anyone is suggesting working together is a bad thing. Not in this thread or any other I remember.

If the mechanics were changed to encourage all professions to work together and not provide easy solo play, I think those that are being bitched about in this thread would be cheering those changes, just in the way they have adapted to change and grouped together.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#366 - 2015-02-12 23:10:13 UTC
This sound serious 2nd one is coming already....

The storm is upon us.....

Better to move my dramalama to higher grounds just to be safe....

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
UberFly
Metallurgy Incorporated
#367 - 2015-02-12 23:23:55 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
If the mechanics were changed to encourage all professions to work together and not provide easy solo play, I think those that are being bitched about in this thread would be cheering those changes, just in the way they have adapted to change and grouped together.

What is so wrong about "solo play"? Those people pay their sub the same as the rest of us. If they don't want to cooperate with others, and want to be an island to themselves, let them. They aren't hurting you by being there, and they give the non-consensual PVP folks more targets.
Faylee Freir
Abusing Game Mechanics
#368 - 2015-02-12 23:25:46 UTC
HANDS UP, DON'T NERF








Why is all this bickering going on? Unless you've suffered from a stroke, you can easily see that CCP is attempting to make the game more marketable on a larger scale. All this other nonsense is pointless.

HTFU
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#369 - 2015-02-12 23:26:03 UTC
UberFly wrote:

What is so wrong about "solo play"?


Nothing inherently, but when people who do it insist that the game become more single player oriented to cater to them, that is a problem.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#370 - 2015-02-12 23:38:29 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Cleaned up a bit. Keep it civil and on topic, play nice, etc.

Also, don't bait the ISD. Thanks!

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#371 - 2015-02-12 23:48:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

I can vouch for Jens numbers in this matter.

Except for the small issue that I blew those numbers out of the water a year ago.
There are level 3's to blitz in null.
Your numbers also compared officer pirate BS fits with implants suited in highsec to T2 Ishtars fitted for some PvP effectiveness with unsuitable or no implants in Null Sec. Which throws your comparative risk assessment out of the water.
It's quite simple, if you accept greater risk in null you can make more isk. The ratio might be a bit off, but since you have every high sec isk making tool available to you in null sec with greater rewards, there is no possible way high sec can ever offer higher rewards than null sec.

You are just not prepared to accept the risk, so mitigate the risk then claim average null sec numbers after you have mitigated the risk against literal best case ever possible that virtually no-one has a hope of actually achieving in a real world situation unless they are min maxing and using unannounced Alts to help them with that (Which dilutes the actual per account profits). Meaning your entire argument is based on a deliberately skewed data set, designed purely to manipulate statistics to support your argument.

Those of us who actually understand about scientific testing methods however, are not fooled.

The one exception may be those who have worked out how to abuse the burner missions in a way CCP specifically said they didn't want to be possible, since CCP specifically said they wanted them to be occasional things, not something you can run 24/7, but that again depends how many accounts those people running them are actually using to make it work. And even they should exist in Null sec also.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#372 - 2015-02-13 00:22:26 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
There are level 3's to blitz in null.


Sure, on paper this may work in some areas, but I'd wager when you sit down for the evening with a beverage of your choice just trying to relax and make some cash, and all the sudden you see combat probes on scan, you may think otherwise.

The near perfect security of Hi Sec allows so much more effective farming that the difference in payouts between security bands is negligible. There's virtually no downtime, and no logistical hassle with cashing out.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Those of us who actually understand about scientific testing methods however, are not fooled.


Okay. Go do an empirical experiment. Spend an equal amount of time doing l3s in NPC null as you do with the established Hi Sec method, while logging the time you spend cloaked or docked due to antagonists as well as subtracting time and money spent moving stuff. Provide a suitable replicate structure as well, say, three independent samplings of both (though its obvious the variance is going to be entirely in the null sec data set).

Then educate me about how risk/reward is balanced. Somehow, I don't think I'm going to learn much, but I do like surprises.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#373 - 2015-02-13 00:24:53 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
There are level 3's to blitz in null.


Sure, on paper this may work in some areas, but I'd wager when you sit down for the evening with a beverage of your choice just trying to relax and make some cash, and all the sudden you see combat probes on scan, you may think otherwise.

The near perfect security of Hi Sec allows so much more effective farming that the difference in payouts between security bands is negligible. There's virtually no downtime, and no logistical hassle with cashing out.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Those of us who actually understand about scientific testing methods however, are not fooled.


Okay. Go do an empirical experiment. Spend an equal amount of time doing l3s in NPC null as you do with the established Hi Sec method, while logging the time you spend cloaked or docked due to antagonists as well as subtracting time and money spent moving stuff. Provide a suitable replicate structure as well, say, three independent samplings of both (though its obvious the variance is going to be entirely in the null sec data set).

Then educate me about how risk/reward is balanced. Somehow, I don't think I'm going to learn much, but I do like surprises.


He won't do that, they never do, they aren't actually interested in the truth, which I'll say again is bewildering in the sense that this is a video game we are talking about. If they aren't willing to believe something in a video game that they could (but will not) test for themselves, I'd hate to see how they deal with real life.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#374 - 2015-02-13 00:29:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
UberFly wrote:
What is so wrong about "solo play"? Those people pay their sub the same as the rest of us. If they don't want to cooperate with others, and want to be an island to themselves, let them. They aren't hurting you by being there, and they give the non-consensual PVP folks more targets.

Nothing in particular that I'm aware of.

You didn't discuss solo play though. You discussed gankers having to fleet together, which no one has complained about.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#375 - 2015-02-13 00:32:06 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

I can vouch for Jens numbers in this matter.

Except for the small issue that I blew those numbers out of the water a year ago.
There are level 3's to blitz in null.
Your numbers also compared officer pirate BS fits with implants suited in highsec to T2 Ishtars fitted for some PvP effectiveness with unsuitable or no implants in Null Sec. Which throws your comparative risk assessment out of the water.
It's quite simple, if you accept greater risk in null you can make more isk. The ratio might be a bit off, but since you have every high sec isk making tool available to you in null sec with greater rewards, there is no possible way high sec can ever offer higher rewards than null sec.

You are just not prepared to accept the risk, so mitigate the risk then claim average null sec numbers after you have mitigated the risk against literal best case ever possible that virtually no-one has a hope of actually achieving in a real world situation unless they are min maxing and using unannounced Alts to help them with that (Which dilutes the actual per account profits). Meaning your entire argument is based on a deliberately skewed data set, designed purely to manipulate statistics to support your argument.

Those of us who actually understand about scientific testing methods however, are not fooled.

The one exception may be those who have worked out how to abuse the burner missions in a way CCP specifically said they didn't want to be possible, since CCP specifically said they wanted them to be occasional things, not something you can run 24/7, but that again depends how many accounts those people running them are actually using to make it work. And even they should exist in Null sec also.


I fly a 2 billion isk ship in fleet combat that stands out like a lighthouse, I have no issues with risk. You didnt blow anything out of the water. You cannot make more isk in null from anoms unless you are using multiple carriers. Level 4 missions in highsec are better. Hell, I managed to match the isk/hr of an ishtar in anoms with a t2 fitted raven in level 3s
Plug in Baby
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#376 - 2015-02-13 00:33:55 UTC
The problem here is not that CCP want to push this game design (well it is but bear with me) it is that the new community is generally receptive towards them.

Go back to 2007 and the Privateer nerf and the uproar at the time, now imagine we proposed all of the changes that have happened since then and how would the old community respond?

Now these changes actually seem to get support. Basically that community wasn't very receptive to new business models so we decided to get a different one, a casual one who will find micro-transactions and further themepark changes more palatable.

This is not a forum alt, this is a forum main.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#377 - 2015-02-13 01:44:00 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

He won't do that, they never do, they aren't actually interested in the truth, which I'll say again is bewildering in the sense that this is a video game we are talking about. If they aren't willing to believe something in a video game that they could (but will not) test for themselves, I'd hate to see how they deal with real life.

Except if you are docking whenever a neutral enters system in null, for proper testing, you also must dock whenever a neutral enters system in high. Otherwise the high sec player is actually playing at a higher level of risk, and therefore under risk = reward, deserves more reward than the null player who never even undocks when a potential hostile is in system.
Now.... Try docking whenever a neutral is in system in high and see how much isk you make.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#378 - 2015-02-13 01:47:21 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Except if you are docking whenever a neutral enters system in null, for proper testing, you also must dock whenever a neutral enters system in high.


Why? Said highsec neutral cant attack you without getting stomped upon by concord.


Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Otherwise the high sec player is actually playing at a higher level of risk, and therefore under risk = reward, deserves more reward than the null player who never even undocks when a potential hostile is in system.
Now.... Try docking whenever a neutral is in system in high and see how much isk you make.


Again why? Said highsec neutral poses zero threat unlike the neutral in null.
Paranoid Loyd
#379 - 2015-02-13 01:49:57 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

He won't do that, they never do, they aren't actually interested in the truth, which I'll say again is bewildering in the sense that this is a video game we are talking about. If they aren't willing to believe something in a video game that they could (but will not) test for themselves, I'd hate to see how they deal with real life.

Except if you are docking whenever a neutral enters system in null, for proper testing, you also must dock whenever a neutral enters system in high. Otherwise the high sec player is actually playing at a higher level of risk, and therefore under risk = reward, deserves more reward than the null player who never even undocks when a potential hostile is in system.
Now.... Try docking whenever a neutral is in system in high and see how much isk you make.

Roll

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#380 - 2015-02-13 01:50:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Except if you are docking whenever a neutral enters system in null, for proper testing, you also must dock whenever a neutral enters system in high. Otherwise the high sec player is actually playing at a higher level of risk, and therefore under risk = reward, deserves more reward than the null player who never even undocks when a potential hostile is in system.
Now.... Try docking whenever a neutral is in system in high and see how much isk you make.

How would they know? You don't even need to look at local in highsec most of the time.

Requiring nullsec risk management to be applied would bias the test and it's complete rubbish to suggest that every neutral that enters local in highsec is a threat.

Additionally your statement about players not undocking when hostiles are in system in null is bollocks.

Why apply nullsec risk management to the highsec test? If you are going to bias the test, why not the reverse? Apply highsec risk management to the nullsec test. That would nerf the income pretty quickly and would be equally as irrational to do. Hazards are managed according to the level of risk. To apply too much risk management is costly, just the same as applying too little.