These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Xantia Naari
Serious About Space Things..
I too am gay
#421 - 2017-03-17 11:14:57 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Xantia Naari wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:

I would wager that most would agree that CCP should keep the economy in balance. This should not be done by handicapping and nerfing capital ships. There are a bazillion ways you can adjust the economy. Doing it by nerfing capital ships should not be one of them.


Why shouldn't the biggest cause to the imbalance between isk faucet andisk sink be adjusted?


Because it is stupid, dumb, and ill-conceived to view the problem of the economy as a problem of sig radius on fighters, that's why.

If carrier ratting anoms is too easy, and causes too much ISK to be made too easily, then adjust the fracking anom, adjust the fracking payouts, adjust the ability of a fracking carrier to even fit inside anoms. Adjust potentially a billion different things that would all be REASONABLE to adjust. But just make sure that you adjust the fracking ECONOMY, morons, not the hardware on a ship.

Now, if the hardware on a ship is the thing that is imbalanced, then by all means adjust it. For instance if carriers were OP against dreads, titans, and whatever else, and after investigation the problem was found to be the sig radius of the fighters, not carrier hit points, not the carrier being too cheap, not number of high slots or mid slots or low slots on the carrier, etc. So fine, adjust away. But to adjust sig radius on carrier fighters because of an economic imbalance? Height of moronic.



So you are saying, for example, it would be alot better if CCP removed the amount of anom spawns so that they become alot rarer then they are now?

There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#422 - 2017-03-17 12:39:34 UTC
Xantia Naari wrote:

So you are saying, for example, it would be alot better if CCP removed the amount of anom spawns so that they become alot rarer then they are now?


I'm not offering any particular or specific recommendation because I don't know enough about the issue, but yes, that's the KIND of thing that could be considered, if the issue is too much ISK being printed too easily by carriers.

Here's an idea. What about making it impossible for carriers to run the current spawns, but create an entirely new spawn that is more difficult than the current ones, potentially even containing capship rats, and let carriers run those instead? Wouldn't that be better than "duhhh... economy no good... NERF CARRIERS." If I could think of that off the top of my head in 5 seconds, why couldn't one of these genius developers?

If the issue is the economy, then there are a million things that could, and should be done, over "nerf carrier fighters and call it a day." I'm not sure if the issue is laziness to consider and do something about the real issue, or simple stupidity.

Again, this is all assuming what others have stated - that the issue they were trying to address was the economy, not something else.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#423 - 2017-03-17 12:40:34 UTC
Waited until today....

8 Sanctums/Havens run - no changes to Carrier fit - switched to T1 fighters both to save on losses and have them weaker...

But none lost - and only had to recall a Squadron 3 times in total.


Other than that - it was, specifically carrier ratting that needed the nerf - I can't think of any other change they might have done that could target just that - especially when it targets multi-boxing specifically (for you have to pay more attention).

And CCP have also addressed many issues brought up by sub-cap pilots vs carriers in the same way.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#424 - 2017-03-17 17:54:10 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
[quote=Dictateur Imperator]Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium.
If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.



Um... this is flatly false, even I know enough law to know that.

If you're disabled you have no reasonable expectation to be able to play a game at the same level as someone with two functioning hands and the same goes for any other disability. If we were to follow your issue here to its logical conclusion then FPS games would also need to accommodate one-handed players, blind players, and all sorts of other things that it's simply ridiculous to expect them to accommodate without dumbing down the game to the point of removing all challenge from it.

I'm all for more discussion on these changes, preferably with examples, but this line of argument is just ridiculous.[/quote

If you sell a blind people comptaible game and change after ... you are against consumer act.
Here it's same in fact. You muste never you're accessibility. And if you want you must paid the price .
Rando Mname
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#425 - 2017-03-17 18:16:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rando Mname
ahmm.
Tired of losing a fighter at every each last spawn in heaven, no matter what I do, mwd on, mwd off. If you're unlucky and get the big spawn, the cruisers destroy a fighter. Not nice. Fed up with this. -1 Eve player.
P.S. at this hour there's just 30k+ players online. Compare it to the figures of last week's Friday night count. It may go down even more.
Oh yeah and the warm weather is also coming, that means even more players not playing and paying for PLEXes.
Not cool. Very not cool.
Pisyha
Random inactiva corporation
#426 - 2017-03-17 19:02:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Pisyha
Rando Mname wrote:
ahmm.
Tired of losing a fighter at every each last spawn in heaven, no matter what I do


Have you tried holding down W and clicking on something near the next spawn, such as a gate, wreck, asteroid. It commands your fighters to orbit whatever you click on without locking it. Thus they have transversal up before they get aggro.

afaik with the tactical overlay turned on the navigation hotkeys Q W and E apply to fighters rather than your hull.
Rando Mname
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#427 - 2017-03-17 19:15:12 UTC
`yeap. it's just that once the fighters destroy a target they just stop. they don't auto orbit like drones. that's bad. if they would always auto orbit then maybe that would change things a little bit.
xOmGx
Heroic Farming inc.
#428 - 2017-03-17 19:48:45 UTC  |  Edited by: xOmGx
Martin Vanzyl wrote:
Somebody mentioned the latest economic report as a reason for the carrier fighter nerf, and I rarely pay attention to those economic reports, but my interest was peaked. Two clicks later and I'm staring at the Isk Sink and Faucet's graph and
WTF?!Shockedhttps://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png

Something, starting in mid April 2016 has caused Bounty Payouts to absolutely shoot into the stratosphere! https://updates.eveonline.com/date/2016-04-27/

The Citadel/Caps expansion.

Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all.

Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD.

CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.






LeL

There is no one major sink - destroyed Citadels / burned fuel / destroyed ships

ONE single Keepstar take out 300B out of the game


Look at killboard prior patch - every day ratting Super was killed, now calculate how many hours you need to spend to replace that loss

Calculate how many hours you need to replace carrier loss

And now CCP take from us ability to generate ISK that help us to replace our combat losses = less pvp = less fun = new MMO


oh CCP
New Render Su.CK give us an option so we can choose
Darkligh 81
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#429 - 2017-03-17 20:06:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Darkligh 81
Hi All

Telling your fighters to orbit does work. Exactly the same as I always ran them, I have run Havens/Sanctums today others were loosing fighters in.

Tell the fighters to orbit your next target just before your fighters cycle the killing blow. When a new group spawns immediatley tell them to orbit your first target (or a target, doesn't matter) then lock the targets while they are on their way to the new spawn.

Don't wait for them to kill the target then tell them to orbit, or lock a target and then orbit, by then it's too late. Orbit first.

If you still struggle throw in a Capital drone durability rig or 2 for a bit of extra hp (also helps in case of a DC) Yes you warp slower then if you were running a max tick fit but you don't loose fighters.

I play with a very bad connection ( around 1000ms-2000ms latency) and if I can keep my fighters alive you should be able to as well.

Hope that helps.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#430 - 2017-03-17 20:39:36 UTC
Darkligh 81 wrote:
Hi All

Telling your fighters to orbit does work. Exactly the same as I always ran them, I have run Havens/Sanctums today others were loosing fighters in.

Tell the fighters to orbit your next target just before your fighters cycle the killing blow. When a new group spawns immediatley tell them to orbit your first target (or a target, doesn't matter) then lock the targets while they are on their way to the new spawn.

Don't wait for them to kill the target then tell them to orbit, or lock a target and then orbit, by then it's too late. Orbit first.

If you still struggle throw in a Capital drone durability rig or 2 for a bit of extra hp (also helps in case of a DC) Yes you warp slower then if you were running a max tick fit but you don't loose fighters.

I play with a very bad connection ( around 1000ms-2000ms latency) and if I can keep my fighters alive you should be able to as well.

Hope that helps.


Same latency they have alpha my fighter (and i have drone durability rigs + thanatos perfect).

And when you play only with mouse: they kill fighter to.

CCP must correct beug before patch something.
Limur Deninard
Russian Thunder Squad
Against ALL Authorities
#431 - 2017-03-18 11:33:36 UTC
First fight carriers vs Cruisers after nerfed carriers. Carriers looks powerful carriers now.
MegaLuter
Real Enemy
UNREAL Alliance
#432 - 2017-03-18 12:36:37 UTC
My fighter its dead. NYX. Th CCP you best.... fuk eve dev
Albert Madullier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#433 - 2017-03-19 09:13:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Albert Madullier
Limur Deninard wrote:
First fight carriers vs Cruisers after nerfed carriers. Carriers looks powerful carriers now.



that's more of a case that t3c's are op as **** for a cruiser hull
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#434 - 2017-03-19 15:18:13 UTC
xOmGx wrote:
[....There is no one major sink - destroyed Citadels / burned fuel / destroyed ships

ONE single Keepstar take out 300B out of the game...


Not an isk sink. Paying a NPC station to repair your damaged ship is an isk sink. A better LP store is an isk sink. Broker fees are a sink.

Ships, modules, citadels only sink minerals and salvage, not isk.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Cade Windstalker
#435 - 2017-03-19 17:15:09 UTC
Albert Madullier wrote:
Limur Deninard wrote:
First fight carriers vs Cruisers after nerfed carriers. Carriers looks powerful carriers now.



that's more of a case that t3c's are op as **** for a cruiser hull


Both sides had plenty of T3s, from the look of things what decided that fight was the roughly 3:1 Logi advantage NC. had on top of having more T3s and generally better ships on average.

You know that thing people keep asking for where a smaller force beats a bigger one due to better strategy and ships? That's pretty much what seems to have happened there. The Carriers being there or not did not and should not have swung that fight on its own given the rest of the ships on each side.
Yakos Otak
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#436 - 2017-03-19 17:39:56 UTC
Now regarding the fighters.

Dear CCP. If I wanted to play starcraft with 500 apm or whatever starcraft player's apm is, I'd go and play starcraft.

Please make it less of a clickfest. Ideally carrier pve should be as much afk as possible, which in turn create more pvp opportunities and we all be much happier.
Cade Windstalker
#437 - 2017-03-19 19:20:47 UTC
Yakos Otak wrote:
Now regarding the fighters.

Dear CCP. If I wanted to play starcraft with 500 apm or whatever starcraft player's apm is, I'd go and play starcraft.

Please make it less of a clickfest. Ideally carrier pve should be as much afk as possible, which in turn create more pvp opportunities and we all be much happier.


I just really have to disagree with this.

Running a Carrier is not "a 500 APM clickfest" and it should not be "as AFK as possible". If you want to make money semi-AFK only clicking once ever 5 minutes then may I recommend an Ishtar, or better yet a market alt?
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#438 - 2017-03-19 19:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Decoy
Quote:
29. Please use the correct language when posting on the forums.

The default language for posting on the EVE Online forums is English. Please use English when posting as a courtesy to other forum users, unless the forum channel is specifically created for discussion in another language as part of our localized language specific sub-forums.

I have removed a post and one quoting it.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Yakos Otak
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#439 - 2017-03-19 21:09:27 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

may I recommend an Ishtar, or better yet a market alt?


You Sir may recommend whatever you want. I am in turn feel that I may and can give my feedback to CCP on things I find important.

However. That's a good point on making alts.
So here's another pros to making carriers afk again - as we know ratting in droneboats and rorq\hulk mining can scale pretty well with multiple characters.
That is not the thing with carriers and supers. They don't scale at all. Making them afk or semi-afk can potentially result in people getting multiple carrier chars and thus paying more subs.
Now we're talking about more subs and easy-to-catch afk ratters in expensive ships! DOUBLE WIN am I right?


Current clickfest on the other hand, and I now speaking for myself as a regular Joe in carrier, will result in me abandoning nullsec ratting which will in turn result in less pvp opportunities and eventually less subs because living in highsec is boring as hell (but at least not as annoying as clicking fighters every 5 seconds).
Cade Windstalker
#440 - 2017-03-20 02:44:57 UTC
Yakos Otak wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

may I recommend an Ishtar, or better yet a market alt?


You Sir may recommend whatever you want. I am in turn feel that I may and can give my feedback to CCP on things I find important.

However. That's a good point on making alts.
So here's another pros to making carriers afk again - as we know ratting in droneboats and rorq\hulk mining can scale pretty well with multiple characters.
That is not the thing with carriers and supers. They don't scale at all. Making them afk or semi-afk can potentially result in people getting multiple carrier chars and thus paying more subs.
Now we're talking about more subs and easy-to-catch afk ratters in expensive ships! DOUBLE WIN am I right?


Current clickfest on the other hand, and I now speaking for myself as a regular Joe in carrier, will result in me abandoning nullsec ratting which will in turn result in less pvp opportunities and eventually less subs because living in highsec is boring as hell (but at least not as annoying as clicking fighters every 5 seconds).


Multiboxing AFK-tars is only worthwhile if you're doing more with however many accounts, less ~1b per addition account for the cost of PLEX. So for an average player with only one or a few accounts they're better off just running the one Carrier for way larger ticks for whatever limited play time they have than running 3-4 AFK-tars unless they're running them enough every month to get that 1b plus whatever you could get from a Carrier running in that same time.

You're talking potentially maybe more subs at the expense of bad and engaging gameplay that's less satisfying to do. AFKing isn't gameplay, it's the antithesis of it. Plus it's aggravating if someone else is doing just as well or better AFK as you're doing active and at the keyboard, which pushes *everyone* towards AFKing, which believe it or not not a ton of people actually enjoy.

I get that maybe you don't enjoy current Carrier gameplay, but it sounds like the reason you don't enjoy it is because you're expected to be sat there actually doing something, not because it's significantly more micro than any other piece of PvE in the game currently that *isn't* AFK.