These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Skruff McGruff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2017-06-09 11:15:09 UTC
notice how flaky the wording of the explaination is - "we think" "a bit too effective". you are making drastic changes, at least stand behind your convictions with some form of sincerity and permanence. ie: "we have found carrier pve to be too powerful and it is hurting the economy, this is why..."
Lucian James
THORN Syndicate
Northern Coalition.
#102 - 2017-06-09 11:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucian James
The Judge wrote:
Not everyone will be happy with this change, but reducing NPC bounty payouts through a direct rebalance of carriers and supers is in the best interest of eve as a whole. Changing bounty payouts would hurt people ratting in every class of ship when carriers and supers are the main problem child. This is the best option I can see.

Keep up the great work.


This is NOT an example of 'great work'. You and CCP are not being creative enough. Carriers are already garbage capitals only useful in blobs of 50+... and you want to reduce damage.

You could affect how NPC payouts go per the ship that killed them without having to nerf how carriers are in PVP combat. Or reduce the amount of NPC bounties per ship class based on how much PVP happens in or around a region.

Granted, you still have to be careful how you do this because all your nerfs lately have been taking isk out of our hands to put RL money into yours.

Enough with being pigs.

#CCPigs
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#103 - 2017-06-09 11:16:06 UTC
Lightbringer wrote:
April was 2 months ago. bit late for a joke.

I do wonder if CCP even play their own game.
We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now., so now they do no damage before instantly dieing because of the previous nerf? :D RIP.


How do they go from overpowered to no damage if they lose 20% DPS. Seems reasonable to me.

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Echo Wolfman
The Study of Wumbology
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#104 - 2017-06-09 11:16:09 UTC
Nerf miners, nerf ratters...Is it your goal to nerf all isk making to under 80m isk/hr? If you want people to only buy plex then just say that. The clickfest you made it WAS the income nerf. Maybe you should concentrate more on botters if you're worried about too much isk in the game.

PvEvCCP
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#105 - 2017-06-09 11:16:34 UTC
Pier Rin wrote:
Maybe if you would not have introduced skill injectors there would not have been a problem????



This is true. Everyone being able to train into Capital ships in a few months based on being able to crab it up and buy SP has contributed to this problem. It undermines the "Capital ships are a powerful end game goal" when a six month old character can skill into a good Carrier pilot. Of course, many players told CCP that skill injectors were a bad idea and they went for the money train anyway.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Skorpion Medion
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Memento Moriendo
#106 - 2017-06-09 11:17:07 UTC
i feel a disturbance in the force, as a thousand carebears cried out .

Keep up the good job CCP, Force PvPTwisted
Malthuras
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2017-06-09 11:17:54 UTC
Yea lets make changes to supers and capitals that screw them in pvp situations because they generate TOO MUCH ISK rather than address other sources such as incursions, reduce bounties, increase rat HP, or anything like that.

Nah, lets just make all that crap worse in the game overall, including pvp because we **** ourselves at the last MER.

You really need to change whoever is doing this balancing crap and try again with new devs.
Drak'Eisgvarde Crepari
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2017-06-09 11:19:19 UTC
Ridiculous. 100T change over the past year or so which is the norm for the past several years.

How about fixing the isk sinks instead? Things like market taxes took a hit with citadels.

Up the items bought from NPCs with isk, particularly cosmetic ones. New skins, a mix of LP and isk (or just isk). New clothes with isk.

Maybe change up t2 citadel rigs and give them less T2 salvage but some NPC sold items.

Have it cost isk to unlock additional jump clones, not just take a skill. 1000 isk for the first. 10b isk for the 10th.

Have additional bonus remaps that can be bought for isk. Maybe allow different clones with different remaps, for a substantial isk price.

Increase the array of hardwirings, particularly for slots 6-10. so many ways to drain isk.
btOw Ragnarson
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2017-06-09 11:20:21 UTC
Nice ccp you just keep people got mad and stop play nice job ccp, you just nerf all game, rorquals , t3 and now carriers and supers, maybe is time to sotp play this game of nerfs
elise densi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2017-06-09 11:21:13 UTC
Haw dread ratting here i come


next month dread nerf i gues?
Fibro Optic
BlackWatch Security Group
Northern Coalition.
#111 - 2017-06-09 11:21:13 UTC
WTF !!!
Carriers too strong in PVP ?
To start off with With this new fighter system, 1 stupid T1 ecm frigate with no bonus mods can de-Fang a carrier by jamming out the fighters.
If the fighter system was more like the old system, then id slightly agree, however I don't think they are overpowered in PVP at all
Prometheus Hinken
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#112 - 2017-06-09 11:23:31 UTC
Ralph Shepard wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Space Friends,
Coming with our release on Tuesday, we’re significantly reducing the damage output of Fighters.

Why:
We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.
This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players.
We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now. This change will significantly change the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP.

What:
  • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
  • Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage.
  • Support Fighters: No Change
  • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage.
  • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.
  • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
  • NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently.


We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players.


If you truly wanted to do something with isk generation, you would fix incursions.
Which means this is just an excuse from you.



http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9a_sinksfaucets.png

Bounties pay out nearly 7x more than Incursions do. Not to mention there's often a waitlist and you're dependent on other people's skills to run the sites faster. With nullsec ratting, especially in your (and mine) alliance there's a sea of blues, various intel channels, and third party apps like NEAR2 to keep you incredibly safe while you undock in a carrier or supercarrier and rat on your own time for hours and hours on end, with the ability to start and stop whenever you'd like.
Thea Yulivee
Hobbs End Industries
#113 - 2017-06-09 11:23:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Thea Yulivee
The Judge wrote:
Not everyone will be happy with this change, but reducing NPC bounty payouts through a direct rebalance of carriers and supers is in the best interest of eve as a whole. Changing bounty payouts would hurt people ratting in every class of ship when carriers and supers are the main problem child. This is the best option I can see.

Keep up the great work.



Serious question because it seems really unintuitive to me - you have on the one hand, carriers and supers - ratting activities, that cant be multiboxed very well because they require a high amount of involvement, as such leading to limited time that people will do this kind of ratting at a time, as it is tiring if you try to really up your income. On the other hand, there are VNIs and Ishtars, which are really easy to scale, easy to afk farm, easy to multibox which have virtually not limit apart from the time a player is willing to spend warping to the next site in time.
Are you not just going for the higher per account numbers and completely disregarding the reality of income per player in this case? Because when it comes to the generation of ISK and ISK influx, going for the biggest per account values, really seems like an awfull choice…especially looking at what kind of ratting you see out in null most of the times. Feels like this change is way of the mark.
Meridon Arthas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2017-06-09 11:23:44 UTC
Krypleria wrote:
Meridon Arthas wrote:
Krypleria wrote:
OK CCP, let me get this straight ...

VNI ratting = 12-15m/tick (ship cost 40m)
Ishtar ratting = 20-25m/tick (ship cost 300m)
Carrier tick = 40-60m/tick (ship cost 2.5b)
Super tick = 80-100m/tick (ship cost 25-30b)

Seems balanced to me.

Do you guys even play this game ? =/

You will lose so many players because of this... it will hurt the economy of CCP ... not the game =/

Can you think of OTHER solutions to the economy problem ?



40M VNI ? Damn, Can u contract me some plz ?

Full VNI fitted is 100M. and I did 18-20M tick



I stand corrected, but I guess you got my point right ?



Yeah completly :) The conclusion for all of us is the same, CCP solution is not right.
IIDjangoII
The Alpha and the Omega
#115 - 2017-06-09 11:25:34 UTC
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by isk faucet. Perhaps you mean that capsuleers getting isk for actively playing the game is not convoluted enough for us. It might be a better idea to first address the isk plugholes which seem totally out of your control.

The isk received by supers ratting ends up in the pockets of all capsuleers from top to bottom. By reducing isk input from the top end you are making everyone in eve poorer, while the cost of playing the game continues to rise. This is not good for any capsuleer, only good for ccp. So please do not sugar coat it for us as though this change is for our benefit, it clearly is not.

In the long run it probably will not benefit you either considering the general tone of my peers, I doubt they will be pulling out their wallets to fund their game time as a substitute to grinding isk for plex, nor will they be spending more time playing the game to grind that isk.
Woodbine
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2017-06-09 11:25:52 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi Space Friends,
Coming with our release on Tuesday, we’re significantly reducing the damage output of Fighters.

Why:
We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.
This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players.
We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now. This change will significantly change the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP.

What:
  • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
  • Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage.
  • Support Fighters: No Change
  • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage.
  • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.
  • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
  • NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently.


We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players.



Heres a suggestion from someone that has played since 2003.... STOP mucking about with mechanics that aren't broken and fix stuff that is.... Why are you utterly making Rorquals pointless and now nerving Supers to the point you may as well just use a carrier... Do you actually play the game....

Muppets
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#117 - 2017-06-09 11:26:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrified
If the issue is that rewards are too easy, then nerfing something used in both PvP and PvE does not make a lot of sense.
People will simply change to another ship that will give the damage output they desire for running sites.

Perhaps the problem is the availability of sites and the need to improve NPC responses to attack types. Maybe what you really need to do, instead of hurting a tool used for both PvP and PvE, is reduce the number of sites that spawn.

If you reduce the number of sites which spawn, even with max IHUB upgrades, you will help Sov Null Sec by creating more of a demand to expand territory which will create more PvP.

By reducing Fighter damage, you reduce the PvP capabilities of not just carriers and super carriers, but also of Citadels (and fighter support from citadels is laughably weak from my experience). By reducing the effectiveness of a tool used in more than just PvE, you miss fixing the target... which is to reduce an isk faucet.

So instead of reducing the effectiveness of fighters, why not reduce reduce the number of sites instead?

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Rarilmar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2017-06-09 11:27:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Rarilmar
OMG you idiots!!! stop mentioning the Ishtar! they will nerf it too... (again actually lol)
elise densi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2017-06-09 11:27:41 UTC
CCP wants only to make mony from ppl paying subs it seems

ive played many games b4 where the devs turned into a wallet making buisness instead of a game

EVE is going the same way now ....
nikander100 Blackburn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2017-06-09 11:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: nikander100 Blackburn
Lucian James wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

...there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is primarily due to NPC Bounties.
This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players.


From skill injectors, to pictures of gold bar stacks as Plex, to nerfing Rorquals time and time again...
CCP is coming off more and more like a money grubbing sh:t-heel of a company only interested in base profit for themselves and squeezing us out of our time and money.

Stop making it more difficult for people with less RL money and time to play this game. The people ratting in carriers and mining in rorquals spent a lot of time, money/isk and emotional investment getting into these ships. They do so because many are in areas of high-end PVP and this keeps them fighting.

If you have a problem with PVE areas with no PVP recourse... vast renter fields churning out isk that goes into a few wallets of pilots that never PVP nor spend it, find a creative way to deal with THAT problem, instead of nerfing everyone in what appears as a blatant attempt to get people to buy more Plex so you can horde our money.

I am getting really sick of your stupidity and carelessness lately.

#CCPigs



I myself just trained to get into a carrier so I don't have to rat 40+ hours a month just to play and that is most of my free time, yes I rat to play, why you may ask? I don't have the money nor the ability(for now) to make it in real life, I was getting into a carrier to lower the time and actually play the game do pvp and have fun with my friends. I think ccp should either make the rats smarter or change bounty payout per ship (If ship = carrier/super do= bounty payout -10%).

#CCPigs
#CCPlease