These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cha'ka Khan
Dark Skies Dojo
Wrong Hole.
#261 - 2017-03-08 16:22:11 UTC
These changes are completely unnecessary in EVERY possible way. Normally I am very supportive of CCP but fighters are incredibly easy to take off grid as it is. In small gang PVP operations, especially in wormhole space, those of us that use carriers for defense or for fun are going to suffer hard for it. Fighters are too squishy as is and should not be given any more reason to just simply die. Not cool guys. Not cool at all. Fighters are too expensive to be brought in line with heavy drones like this. fact of the matter is that this is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist. if pilots in PVP are not engaging those fighters and killing them or jamming them out, it is not the fault of anyone but the bad choice of the players not doing so. That does NOT mean that fighters need nerfing though to compensate for said terrible choices. EvilEvilEvilEvilEvilEvil

The only thing we have to fear, is new pilots and AFK miners. 
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#262 - 2017-03-08 16:46:08 UTC
Axhind wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.

Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.


Remember that EVE is a game and most of us are not teenagers without a worry in the world. Having main income source in 0.0 require insane amount of effort and concentration will just lead to burn out and people dropping the game.

There should be a balance and not just going to extremes.


Having to select your targets and tell tell your weapon system to engage said target is "an insane amount of effort and concentration"?
Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#263 - 2017-03-08 17:17:41 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Axhind wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.

Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.


Remember that EVE is a game and most of us are not teenagers without a worry in the world. Having main income source in 0.0 require insane amount of effort and concentration will just lead to burn out and people dropping the game.

There should be a balance and not just going to extremes.


Having to select your targets and tell tell your weapon system to engage said target is "an insane amount of effort and concentration"?


Losing your fighter if you miss one command is a bit excessive as it means that you can't let your concentration drop. To keep the fighters alive you have to be constantly telling them to orbit new targets. Which is not so bad if you don't have any distractions but if there are (and most of us do have them in the form of family) then it does become a bit pointless. Losing 1-2 fighters (especially t2) will eat up any profit compared to ishtar or similar.

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#264 - 2017-03-08 18:14:51 UTC
If it's too much hassle then don't do it. Or refit to make your drones tougher (the video I linked shows Sutonia doing them in a carrier that doens't have Drone Durability Rigs). And/or Switch to ratting with a Thanatos that gets a Fight Hitpoint bonus.

I find it amazing how people are freaking out about this, despite seeing people do it successfully on sisi and without even trying to figure out the situation for themselves.

Personally , I never jumped on the Carrier Ratting bandwagon except to test it out (didn't like it, prefer subcap gameplay). I farm anomalies with a Machariel that can also do every 10/10 in the game except the blood raider one without refitting.
Erik Kisenger
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#265 - 2017-03-08 18:17:28 UTC
One of the things occurring on sisi now is that Command Shield Burst modules are now applying to fighters - is this intentional because it's partially balancing out the sig nerf, which is nice.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#266 - 2017-03-08 18:29:29 UTC
Erik Kisenger wrote:
One of the things occurring on sisi now is that Command Shield Burst modules are now applying to fighters - is this intentional because it's partially balancing out the sig nerf, which is nice.



I can see it now. Coming soon to this very thread:

"BUT BUT THAT MEANS I HAVE TO GIVE UP A HIGH SLOT...GRRRR CCCP"
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#267 - 2017-03-08 18:31:59 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Erik Kisenger wrote:
One of the things occurring on sisi now is that Command Shield Burst modules are now applying to fighters - is this intentional because it's partially balancing out the sig nerf, which is nice.



I can see it now. Coming soon to this very thread:

"BUT BUT THAT MEANS I HAVE TO GIVE UP A HIGH SLOT...GRRRR CCCP"


An equally "EVE" answer to this will be "Just boost your drones with a boosting alt".

Aaaah EVE player base...
Cade Windstalker
#268 - 2017-03-08 19:11:36 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.

Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.


You won't hear me disagreeing Big smile

Axhind wrote:
Remember that EVE is a game and most of us are not teenagers without a worry in the world. Having main income source in 0.0 require insane amount of effort and concentration will just lead to burn out and people dropping the game.

There should be a balance and not just going to extremes.


There are already income sources that require less attention and effort, but they generally pay less (Level 4 missions anyone?).

Also if the spike in bounty payouts since Citadel is any indication people actually like the more micro intensive Carrier setup. The main complaints seem to be failings in the control scheme, mainly hotkeys, not that Carriers are suddenly too hard to pilot.

Axhind wrote:
Losing your fighter if you miss one command is a bit excessive as it means that you can't let your concentration drop. To keep the fighters alive you have to be constantly telling them to orbit new targets. Which is not so bad if you don't have any distractions but if there are (and most of us do have them in the form of family) then it does become a bit pointless. Losing 1-2 fighters (especially t2) will eat up any profit compared to ishtar or similar.


You don't need split second timing, you just need to lock up a static structure and have them orbit that between waves or targets. If you're really lazy you could probably just fit optimal range scripts and have them orbit one thing statically all the time.

See this video for evidence and a demonstration.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#269 - 2017-03-08 19:39:31 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Questions & Answers

Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE?
A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.

Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter?
A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)

Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target!
A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.




Step 1 : Change the behaviour of fighter when they kill a npc.
Step 2: Change the fact sometimes you're fighter pilot don't want to move during 10 secondes with error message.

Step3 : Now you can make you're change.


But make step before 2 other, you will just make carrier useless in pve.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#270 - 2017-03-08 21:42:30 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
You don't need split second timing, you just need to lock up a static structure and have them orbit that between waves or targets. If you're really lazy you could probably just fit optimal range scripts and have them orbit one thing statically all the time.

please STFU, you're being an idiot with zero fighter mechanics knowledge again.

CCP Larrikin wrote:
Questions & Answers

Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE?
A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.

Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter?
A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)

Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target!
A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.


So you admit you just wanted to remove carrier ratting, as expected of CCPL, being the two faced spineless people who are too afraid to even state WE'RE REMOVING CARRIERS FROM SITES in our faces, pretending like this change does anything at all to pvp instead. What a cowards!

Well, everyone is selling their carriers atm, so I wonder if there'd be anything to monitor.

The rest 2 questions address the actual bugs in need of fixing instead of non-existent npc aggro, and the response is "we'll look at it after walking in stations".

CCPL being CCPL.

WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#271 - 2017-03-08 21:47:28 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:


WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account.


Hey CCP, can you ban this guy ASAP since he's obviously willing to engage in RMT to sell his account.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#272 - 2017-03-08 22:00:15 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Orca Platypus wrote:


WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account.


Hey CCP, can you ban this guy ASAP since he's obviously willing to engage in RMT to sell his account.


You guys still get paplinks for agenda tears on forums, even after all that happened?
Cade Windstalker
#273 - 2017-03-08 22:40:50 UTC
Orca Platypus wrote:
please STFU, you're being an idiot with zero fighter mechanics knowledge again.


Aaaaand you're lashing out with personal attacks again instead of presenting any kind of coherent discussion.

Also that is literally what that video I linked demonstrated the pilot doing. Or are you just insulting me because this sort of thing doesn't work too well with multi-boxing?

Orca Platypus wrote:
So you admit you just wanted to remove carrier ratting, as expected of CCPL, being the two faced spineless people who are too afraid to even state WE'RE REMOVING CARRIERS FROM SITES in our faces, pretending like this change does anything at all to pvp instead. What a cowards!

Well, everyone is selling their carriers atm, so I wonder if there'd be anything to monitor.

The rest 2 questions address the actual bugs in need of fixing instead of non-existent npc aggro, and the response is "we'll look at it after walking in stations".

CCPL being CCPL.

WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account.


That is literally not what he said... Lol

Carrier ratting is still perfectly viable, you can get on Sisi right now and test it out for yourself.

If you're gonna rage quit anyways though can I has your stuffs? Pirate
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks
#274 - 2017-03-08 23:19:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Juvir
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Orca Platypus wrote:
So you admit you just wanted to remove carrier ratting, as expected of CCPL, being the two faced spineless people who are too afraid to even state WE'RE REMOVING CARRIERS FROM SITES in our faces, pretending like this change does anything at all to pvp instead. What a cowards!

Well, everyone is selling their carriers atm, so I wonder if there'd be anything to monitor.

The rest 2 questions address the actual bugs in need of fixing instead of non-existent npc aggro, and the response is "we'll look at it after walking in stations".

CCPL being CCPL.

WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account.


That is literally not what he said... Lol

Carrier ratting is still perfectly viable, you can get on Sisi right now and test it out for yourself.

If you're gonna rage quit anyways though can I has your stuffs? Pirate


If you re-read, that was a response to what CCP said, not you.
Gadzooki
Doomheim
#275 - 2017-03-09 00:01:16 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Orca Platypus wrote:
please STFU, you're being an idiot with zero fighter mechanics knowledge again.


Aaaaand you're lashing out with personal attacks again instead of presenting any kind of coherent discussion.

Also that is literally what that video I linked demonstrated the pilot doing. Or are you just insulting me because this sort of thing doesn't work too well with multi-boxing?



Im a complete noob and even I can tell you have zero carrier experience. So my question is why do you feel the need to weigh in>?
Lessilera Andrard
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#276 - 2017-03-09 02:24:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lessilera Andrard
Blah blah blah...

Just introduce FLAK canons... dedicated to destroy fighters & drones.

- Add a possibility of gameplay.
- Add variety to gangs
- Can hit multiple fighters in a squad
- Doesn't need to lock (like autotargeting missile), so it avoid exploit of using it on other things than drones/fighters.

On the other hand, reduce fighters volume & cost by the same amount so carriers can carry more and feel like a real hive.

And for the ISK making problems in eve economics and money problem for CCP, just release skins.
Ormarr Kai
Pator Tech School
#277 - 2017-03-09 03:09:10 UTC
Rip carriers... It was fun while it lasted Cry
Aegon Cadelanne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2017-03-09 03:15:28 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Axhind wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.

Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.


Remember that EVE is a game and most of us are not teenagers without a worry in the world. Having main income source in 0.0 require insane amount of effort and concentration will just lead to burn out and people dropping the game.

There should be a balance and not just going to extremes.


Having to select your targets and tell tell your weapon system to engage said target is "an insane amount of effort and concentration"?




Doesn't the point of having to multibox offset the benefits of AFK in a way? I mean, carrier ratting still earn the same as if not more than 2 ishtars with maxed out drone skills. And that's with only 1 account. 1B plex or 15$. Then you have supers which blow away both with ease in the isk printing department. And who the **** does complete AFK in null? That's the best way to lose a ship. I don't need to be a 10 year vet to know that. I'm always staring at my monitor even during hours of ratting in a VNI.
Zazz Blammy Matazz
Doomheim
#279 - 2017-03-09 03:18:15 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:
I'm not saying do away with the penalty, just either shorten the penalty or lengthen the effect


Which is what they're doing now. Given the tweaks they've been making to caps fairly regularly since Citadel dropped I'd be very surprised if this is the last change they make to the class as a whole. If they don't see any changes to Burst Projector use after this then they'll probably tweak things again since this suggests that they want to differentiate Supers from "Carriers but bigger and better" in a meaningful way and are trying to use the BPs to do that to an extent.

xOmGx wrote:
CCP nerfs everything people like


Nah, it only seems that way because people like and gravitate towards OP things. Those things are then fun for the players using them and less fun for everyone who isn't. Then the thing gets nerfed, the people who didn't like it just silently nod and breath a sigh of relief, and people using the OP thing get pissed.

This holds for every game, not just Eve.

Trevize Demerzel wrote:
Few things


#1 - I don't understand the point of these Dev posts. All they do is anger the player base and CCP does the change anyway ignoring pages of feedback.

#2 - before this change goes live I believe they must first fix/change he ui so players can easily see the % health of each fighter.

#3 - for ewar each fighter must be treated as an individual. Why should it be easier to lock down a [super]carrier then a drone boat Dominix.



  1. Two things here. One, if CCP doesn't make these announcement posts people get even more pissed. Two, CCP listens but "OMG no nerfs! Nerfs bad!!!" isn't much of an argument. People get pissed whenever CCP changes anything, or refuses to change anything, or pretty much does or doesn't do anything. If people not yelling in a thread was a criteria for game balance CCP would never change anything. These posts exist primarily for people to point out issues or things CCP might have missed and for CCP to provide explanations and feedback to the playerbase, not for CCP to bow to a few dozen player's rage-post objections and reverse course on something they already believe will be a good change.

  2. While I think pretty much everyone with any interest in Carriers supports this idea I don't think it needs to happen before this change goes in. The current Fighter survivability is based on the current information level, so the information this change is based on is valid regardless of any changes to the UI. Also a change like that is likely non-trivial or it would be out already.

  3. By that logic why should it be easier to lock down a regular Battleship than a Carrier or Dominix? Ignoring that ECM as a whole isn't a great mechanic I don't think this is much of an argument. Different things have different counters, making ECM affect a squad of 9 Fighters individually would just swing it from a reasonably effective counter to completely ineffective and worthless.


I understand that is what they are doing, I'm just saying IMO the initial bump on this balance pass should have been a tad more. I'd be perfectly content if each of the added duration bumps was an addition 20 seconds to the proposed bump.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#280 - 2017-03-09 08:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Orca Platypus
Aegon Cadelanne wrote:
Doesn't the point of having to multibox offset the benefits of AFK in a way? I mean, carrier ratting still earn the same as if not more than 2 ishtars with maxed out drone skills. And that's with only 1 account. 1B plex or 15$. Then you have supers which blow away both with ease in the isk printing department. And who the **** does complete AFK in null? That's the best way to lose a ship. I don't need to be a 10 year vet to know that. I'm always staring at my monitor even during hours of ratting in a VNI.


Technically carrier is about 3 afktars in income per hour. But me personally, I can't run carrier for more than 1 hour per session before taking a long break, because I get tired, and I don't have time for more than one, rarely two, sessions each day.

Afktar you can run as much as your paranoia allows you to. So having it out for 3 hours makes it even with carrier. Thus the strategy in this post-carrier world would be running afktars with all my accounts while reading a book, with local showing at the side of my screen. So it won't really change the faucet (or even increase it, as running multiple afktars can be done way longer than running a carrier), just makes me bitter af at all the wasted SP and investment into carriers.

P.S. CCPL look at what you've done, I'm agreeing with Karmafleet!!! For me, Karmafleet, and NC. grunts to agree, the truth must be no less than universal.