These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#341 - 2016-02-14 17:04:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.

Buff the ships that you think need it.
Jump freighters DO NOT NEED AN EHP BUFF.
Ark already has 1080k EHP with a proper tank.
Anshar already has 750k EHP with bulkheads.

Anshar absolutely does not need a 50% ehp buff

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#342 - 2016-02-14 17:25:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.


Despite the obvious 'drat' that comes with this, it's still good to get up-to-date thoughts from CCP on the matter.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#343 - 2016-02-14 17:25:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.

The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances.

We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks!


Could you please just tell everyone you will be reducing hull hp for all ships that cannot fit a dcu so all these people can leave and let the rest of us actually discuss the damage control as a module concept in peace?

I think there is merit to the idea that the damage control should be stripped of armor and shield resists and be made just a hull resist module.

Changed a word. -ISD Dorrim Barsotrlode
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#344 - 2016-02-14 17:34:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.


Its not ganking you are removing from highsec its piracy. If you cant turn a profit then you cant pirate ships and all of these buffs to tank are resulting in it becoming impossible to turn a profit. You are turning freighter ganking into an act of random destruction rather than targeted and that is not good for EVE. This is what has happened to mining barges which as a result of this are even more out of reach of pirates.
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#345 - 2016-02-14 17:39:44 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate


This sounds a lot like "I don't care about your concerns, we're doing it anyway because screw you".



No, it sounds like he is trying to look at it from 2 points of view

How it affects ganking
How it affects everything else in the game
Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#346 - 2016-02-14 17:39:48 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.


Additionally the hypocrisy here is that you aren't requiring freighter pilots to be resourceful at all. No, they get handed everything they want on a silver platter.
COMMANDERTRIP
Mighty Bucks
#347 - 2016-02-14 17:54:12 UTC
Look dudes, there is an abundance of tears over this change and I really think you should listen to what Fozzie is saying. This change makes it a little more difficult, you will have to plan your targets more and be generally better at the game.

Currently as it stands you can gank every single freighter/ jump freighter humanly possible and do so at very little individual cost. Therefore this removes the selectivity of the hunt. Eve is renowned for its selectivity and hunting therefore this change will bring it back more in-line with where ganking should be.

Hopefully this will put an end to all of those HORRIBLE solo ganking videos on youtube, usually found under "LEET PVP" and such.

*puts on tin foil hat* Also ganking communities remind me of cults which are engineered for the line members to pay the costs and the hierarchy to profit.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1878447&#post1878447
Ylmar
Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure
#348 - 2016-02-14 17:56:57 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Additionally the hypocrisy here is that you aren't requiring freighter pilots to be resourceful at all. No, they get handed everything they want on a silver platter.

We don't see any heads on silver platters yet, as would be traditional, but do you hear us whining about it? Of course you don't. Big smile
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#349 - 2016-02-14 18:09:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.

The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances.

We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks!



Changing it to be harder to fit for non T2 is a godawful way of making them 'less important'. The very fact T2 sits effectively unchanged is bonkers next to this.

If you want to make them less important strip the shield and armor resists.
Ford Fugger
xXFuggerXx
#350 - 2016-02-14 18:10:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

... adding a base 33% hull resistance to ships by default. ...


So rats will have those resists too, right?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#351 - 2016-02-14 18:15:26 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:


If you want to make them less important strip the shield and armor resists.


Despite the fact this will nerf all of my fits to some degree I agree with this idea.

I would also expand it. Current DCU acts as the omni resist mod and add in a new line of mods for each resist. If DCU are to be nerfed then lets make the most of this and give hull tanking the buff it needs. This way we can avoid the whole 33% flat buff that is going to cause so many problems.
Ann Angel
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#352 - 2016-02-14 18:16:18 UTC
i don't see what the big issue is with freighters getting buffed.. if it costs more in ships to gank them you will only be forced to choose which ones that are to be ganked more carefully and supply the ships needed to do so accordingly. Last i knew it was a set amount of catalysts. about 20 and they would gank any and every freighter that came through empty or not
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#353 - 2016-02-14 18:18:09 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Hey everyone.

The actual DCU feedback has been a bit challenging to sift out of the ganking debate, but I want to make it clear that the IFFA fitting requirements in the OP are not a typo. It's intentional that the new compact DCU have a slightly higher CPU cost than the previous best named versions. This will indeed require some fits to change, but the intention here is to create a balance enviroment between the different meta levels of damage control as well as making damage controls as a whole less important for many fits. There are plenty of options for saving the CPU from old IFFA and Pseudo fits, including the new compact damage upgrades and forgoing a DCU entirely for another lowslot module and taking full advantage of the new base hull resistances.

We will of course be keeping an eye on how these changes go as we being SISI testing and if we see evidence that the fittings need to change we have the ability to do so. Thanks!

Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).

In a lot of ways, keeping balance in this system is much like park rangers maintaining balance between wolf and elk populations. We keep an eye on how the whole ecosystem is developing and make tweaks as nessesary. Sometimes we might protect the corpses of dead elk from vultures so the wolves can feed in peace. Sometimes we might put some light body armor on the elk so that the wolves need to pick their targets more carefully. And I think I've officially taken this analogy too far.

You gankers are a clever bunch and we have no doubt that you'll adapt and do just fine. Our previous changes didn't kill ganking, these changes won't kill ganking and our future changes won't kill ganking either.

We're going to keep making changes that we believe benefit the game as a whole, which needs to remain healthy for both sides of this debate to thrive.


Thank you for your reply, and double thank you for spending your free time on a sunday to do so.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#354 - 2016-02-14 18:26:25 UTC
Ann Angel wrote:
i don't see what the big issue is with freighters getting buffed.. if it costs more in ships to gank them you will only be forced to choose which ones that are to be ganked more carefully and supply the ships needed to do so accordingly. Last i knew it was a set amount of catalysts. about 20 and they would gank any and every freighter that came through empty or not


Thats not how pirates operate.

And this isn't a small change, the anshar will be around a million EHP which is why I have just changed my skill training to get one. It wont even need a web, I can just brute force my way around highsec.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#355 - 2016-02-14 18:30:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
And this isn't a small change, the anshar will be around a million EHP which is why I have just changed my skill training to get one. It wont even need a web, I can just brute force my way around highsec.
Perhaps you will. You won't be entirely safe, and you can still be bumped for hours even if you don't get killed in ether one or multiple gank runs, but then I guess that's the benefit of spending 7 billion isk on a ship.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#356 - 2016-02-14 18:40:06 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
And this isn't a small change, the anshar will be around a million EHP which is why I have just changed my skill training to get one. It wont even need a web, I can just brute force my way around highsec.
Perhaps you will. You won't be entirely safe, and you can still be bumped for hours even if you don't get killed in ether one or multiple gank runs, but then I guess that's the benefit of spending 7 billion isk on a ship.


Unlike you I am perfectly willing to use the tools and mechanics to beat them.
Violet Crumble
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#357 - 2016-02-14 18:58:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Crumble
COMMANDERTRIP wrote:
Look dudes, there is an abundance of tears over this change and I really think you should listen to what Fozzie is saying. This change makes it a little more difficult, you will have to plan your targets more and be generally better at the game.

Meanwhile my competition can be worse at the game.

As for listening to Fozzie, I respect all of the developers and understand that they have to balance multiple views. That doesn't however mean that we all should blindly accept proposals and stop giving feedback, positive or negative. There are a lot of examples recently of changes made for the good of the game as a whole, that weren't.

Trollceptors? Almost universal concern within the community beforehand ignored. Change was worse for the game.
Initial Fozziesov? Almost universal concern by the playtesting Alliances beforehand ignored. Change was initially worse.
Pre-nerf Svipul? Almost instantly broke lowsec meta.

There are other examples. They are three that no matter which side of the gank/anti-gank debate you are on, there was broad consensus about the negative impact those changes had on the game.

So there is nothing to fear from providing feedback. Not caring to provide feedback would be worse.

There's just hope that while we should listen to Fozzie, he will do the same and changes like those above don't occur too often because since 2011 February has been the peak in player numbers every year. That means, unless there is a reason for this year to be different the rest of the year will be a slide from where we currently are. I hope that doesn't happen, so any feedback I can give that helps CCP, all the better whether it's implemented or not. As long as it helps them with more information, that's a positive.

Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#358 - 2016-02-14 19:00:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
Unlike you I am perfectly willing to use the tools and mechanics to beat them.
It seems that if them adding more EHP to JFs is what it takes for you to train into one, then you weren't willing in the first place.

Me though, I'm totally willing, just I think those tools should be balanced. I use the tools and mechanics of "paying someone else to do it", because the time it takes to drag a freighter across highsec isn't even worth the lost opportunity cost, let alone the additional risk of losing a ship or losing further time to being bumped for a laugh. I actually make more isk if a ship carrying my goods gets blown up, so in effect I support for a nerf to that in favour of improving the game for hauler and anti-ganker playstyles. How altruistic of me.

Violet Crumble wrote:
There are a lot of examples recently of changes made for the good of the game as a whole, that weren't.
Perhaps however the reason they didn't listen to that feedback is down to the recent habit of players acting like every single change is the end of the world and destroys the core of EVE, not matter how big or small the change is. They need quality feedback, not just a large quantity of "this destroys the game because it's a minor inconvenience to me".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#359 - 2016-02-14 19:16:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Arya Regnar
In light of recent events I request CCP permanently reinforce Uedama and Niarja server nodes to prepare for serious lag.

Get ready for 400 concord ships being spawned in 1-2 seconds on top of 100 people simultainiously shooting with their ships and I guess 150-300 drones out.

Oh and add smartbombs to that.

Smartbombs on 3-5 ships colliding with everything I mentioned.

I hope you do realize what this means for server lag.

--edit--
I forgot about faction police. Add another 400 NPC ships with ewar to that picture.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#360 - 2016-02-14 20:15:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Now a quick note on suicide ganking and the impact that these changes will have.

We view ganking as one of many normal game systems that needs tweaking and balancing from time to time. Changes to the balance around ganking doesn't mean we have any intentions on removing it (if we wanted to do that, we easily could through direct methods).
It's clear you are taking a no-work, easy way to tweak the ganking balance while making another change which is fine. But I implore you, that you cannot just keep cranking up safety forever as aggressors get more adept at working your game mechanics. More mechanical safety just raises the bar to require larger, and larger groups sizes to brute force the mechanics.

You figured this out for your Aegis Sov changes. The huge HP wall of Dominion sov kept small groups out of the game, preventing even the possibility of conflict occurring. Many groups didn't have the DPS/group sizes to compete so they were locked out. So you came up with the entosis module which allowed groups from the smallest alliance, to the largest coalition to play the game. Great, now do the same for highsec.

Making ganking harder across the board does nothing but set players up for catastrophic losses when they finally do unknowingly make themselves a profitable target and locks out solo/small group players from playing the game as criminals. Raising wardec fees during the last wardec revamp did the same thing - it pushed aggressor players into large wardec corporations to share costs and by making initiating conflict cost to much, it just won't happen as much. Wardecs costs too much for small corps to routinely use and when they do end up trying a war and end up facing professional mercenary corps, they are completely outclassed because of this consolidation.

So when you do get around to looking at CrimeWatch/Corporation/Wardec mechanics next for a proper revamp, don't try to balance things by just making it harder to attack. Go with the entosis strategy where attacking is easy, but defending is even easier. Otherwise, players will eventually stop attacking because it is too costly, or even be unable to meet the arbitrary DPS/group size requirements to even attempt to attack, and things will just stop happening in this player-driven, sandbox game.

Make mechanics that support the play of groups of all sizes and defeating this N+1 problem a major goal of your next major re-design of highsec.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?