Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

you really think this will hurt goons???? and no 1 else..... you are naive

I feel that CCP have forgotten this is just a game and are trying to turn it into a 2nd job for us.

It's also clear that CCP never thought passed 10 years for this game and a huge percentage of the player base will be carrier/super pilots and ratting in them reduces the grind time for most of us so why would we choose to rat in anything smaller we have also surley earned the right to be able to do this after so many years.

Then they introduce Skill Injectors meaning more and more people got into the end game ships faster, so why are they punishing us for them wanting to make a quick dollar and not thinking of the long term problems it causes.

Also i think all the Jita/Goon scammers are bowing to CCP right now, how many people how spent hard earned isk or real life money on skill injectors for the prize at the end to be taken away.

Scam of all Scams.

I have been playing EvE for over 11 years and never felt more like wanting to quit than i do now. i only hope that we do a massive burn EvE protest in Goons.

Several posts back - I think whoever said it, nailed it. CCP used the phrase 'sustainable'. This seems to me that ratting was ISK profitable enough to cover PLEX, and that means fewer subs. This certainly seems like a money grab.

Here here brother

Of course it does....why do you think I would forget this ? I hate the plex price which encourage to buy some to get isk, I hate skill extractors and injectors and I HATE the capital ship becoming standard ships.

What exactly will a nerf that high to fighterdamage solve?
No one can tell me, that a capital ship, thats too work-intense to use while ratting - and therefore deserves the bounty earned, due to its price and high amount of activity need - needs roughly 20% less damage.

Let´s face it.
What CCP really is trying here, is ending the game with as much moneygrab as possible.

Playerbase has been shrinking further and further for quite a while now.
So to - at least - milk the cow as much as possible, CCP brought up injectors.
What they do now, is handing us candy, to inject into. Then taking that candy away, rubbing their balls with it, and handing it back, so we extract out of it.

What i´ve seen over the last months of repeated nerfs to about everything nullsecbased cant lead to another conclusion. At least for me.

There is no "risk = reward" anymore. Just as there isnt "CCP doesnt interfere with economy" or anything like that.

There just is "shove as much $ into our hands before we shut the server".

Really, if you WANT to stop the game after all that years, just SAY it, and stop that whole bullshit you´re developing right now.

those usually incorporate some kinda twirl too

Thank goodness that reddit users let people know that the all the skill queues on their paid accounts were broken because CCP didn't have time to communicate with their paying customers while they were preparing this post!

Sadly, whilst many of you are raising valid points, suggestions and observations, I hope that you don't expect CCP to listen to you. If they had wanted to do that (and judging by things lately, they do not) then they wouldn't have popped this change into the rorqual nerfs patch with just 4 days notice.

Just as well that most people are busy in game restarting their skill queues which is potentially a better use of their time than making decent suggestions in this thread, because it's just as likely that they'd listen to my suggestion and delete Delve rather than actually fixing the real issues with the game and it's long term health.

And please don't forget, that shortly after this death nail, a new series of skins will appear.

So this is a bad change, and here's why:

1) You have made a change to a ship based on it's (admittedly overpowered) isk making ability that massively affects its pvp capability. Your statement that it is overpowered for pvp is not borne out, due to your recent nerf, as I will explain later.

2) You have greatly reduced the overall utility of a ship that many players have invested huge amounts of their time or IRL money to get into without even changing the base cost of the ship itself. This is naturally going to upset large parts of the player base, such as many of my salty alliance mates who have posted here because you have now wasted their hard earned isk.

3) You have nerfed the PVP capability of a ship right after a previous nerf, without there being sufficient data to determine whether the original nerf had had the intended effect. My reasoning here is that super fights don't come up that much. And by fights I don't mean Goon/PL/NC super blob lands on normal size cap fleet and obliterates everything in site. Frankly, when you have that much dominance by ship class, you SHOULD be dominating everything in site. My point is that fights where team A and team B have a similar number of capital class ships and a few supers in the mix, this doesn't actually come up that much. Making changes to the meta should be borne out by a reasonable portion of data. The nerf to the price of pirate battleships for example is entirely warranted because we have had an immense amount of data to show that pirate battleships are overly dominant in the meta and it has stabilised on a single hull, which makes the game boring AF. That's a good nerf.

However, there has not yet been suffiicent data to show the effect of the fighter nerf and whether or not it has been effective. My own limited impressions have been that that nerf has actually made supers extremely easy to defang, making them extremely expensive lumps of scrap metal. This was borne out in the PL dunk of CO2 supers, where gram squadrons were used with great effect to render CO2 supers helpless. Many alliances have not yet realised this and dropping supers often ends fights because they retain boogey man status in the meta. The eve community needs to time to learn and adapt tactics to create a new meta, following a nerf or a buff. With supers, that period is longer, because there are less of them and they are used less and by a much small number of alliances. However, instead of observing this rule, CCP have followed what was a very strong nerf, with another immense nerf. This is a poor call.

These three points lead me to the conclusion that this is a bad change. So, what would be a better change? The last of your changes is the correct way to go. If you want to nerf the isk sink, plug the hole, not the water. Massively increasing aggro against fighters (100% plus would be warranted) will make this mode of ratting far less desirable and make it cost more in practice for those who do it. This one change can single handedly solve the problem. You don't have to patch a problem that doesn't exist, or at least can't be proven through any meaningful data.