These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Xuan Menzoberanza
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#201 - 2017-06-09 12:11:11 UTC
Total Newbie wrote:
Inquisitor Lucious wrote:
O2 jayjay wrote:
Every one step forward CCP takes 3 steps back. Like a autistic dance move.


those usually incorporate some kinda twirl too


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



Skins for Carriers and supers Roll
Sapphire Voice
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#202 - 2017-06-09 12:12:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Sapphire Voice
Oh! I know what CCP does when it's own team is lazy to find a solution. They post a completely insane announcement, and then waiting till smart players will post a bit less stupid solution on that stupid nerf in their comments. Straight

And at the end they will say that this decision was based on our comments!!! Shocked

Just watch it! I swear they will implement that stupid nerf. And If that will gonna happen I will unsub all my Supers alts.

No jokes CCP!!!
Faruzen en Divalone
Newbie Friendly Industries
CeskoSlovenska Aliance
#203 - 2017-06-09 12:14:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Faruzen en Divalone
CCP has statistics for almost everything.

It means, that they probably do have it covered with data telling them carrier and super ratting is just OP money faucet, even compared to incursions so reason is surely there. Also, Incursions are group activity and actually need a lot of organization compared to solo ratting in null so thats one point why Incursions are not targeted probably.

However, nerfing Fighter damage overall is IMHO "easy solution", which is bad. I am afraid to take my carrier into PVP as it is bacause I can be killed easily by couple of subcaps because of being almost immobile and easily hunted down, my high damage and jump drive is the only thing that makes my Thanatos Carrier different from Dominix.

If problem is Carriers in PVE, then the addressed problem should be CARRIERS AND PVE, not carriers overall. I do understand that you propably dont want to reduce anomaly payouts, because that would also nerf all other ratters, not only carrier users. So, the best solution IMO would be to code rats some special "fighter resistance" like "fighter damage taken reduction". You can play with that number then to optimize ISK ticks to some reasonable levels because of longer time it takes to complete the site. Making rats shoot fighters is going to work somehow yes, but its making the activity quite painful and not fun, easily turning it into "I will not do it" completely. Its not the most fun content, but still why not have it a viable option, better than subcap ratting, but not superstrong.

Nerfing carriers in PVP is bad. They are weak already IMO.
Kromarx
Eau Rouge
#204 - 2017-06-09 12:14:41 UTC
Instead of nerfing an entire ship class and lengthy drone skill train, consider nerfing the value of the anomolies??
Heleana Commodus Luyseyal
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#205 - 2017-06-09 12:16:03 UTC
CCP should start drug testing their employees.
Omega Erkkinen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#206 - 2017-06-09 12:18:02 UTC
This is a poor decision

Months of training, 25bill aprox cost to buy and fit

Rendered effectively useless by CCP spitting in our face with an over the top nerf

Poor poor decision that leaves me questioning the game direction? If I work hard towards an objective and achieve it CCP could ruin it with a stroke of the keyboard.

Why should we bother?


CCPS tagline about building your dream and ruining other people's seems to ring more true for their dev,'s who destroy more player dreams than anyone
Sapphire Voice
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#207 - 2017-06-09 12:18:20 UTC
Faruzen en Divalone wrote:
CCP has statistics for almost everything.

It means, that they probably do have it covered with data telling them carrier and super ratting is just OP money faucet, even compared to incursions so reason is surely there. Also, Incursions are group activity and actually need a lot of organization compared to solo ratting in null so thats one point why Incursions are not targeted probably.

However, nerfing Fighter damage overall is IMHO "easy solution", which is bad. I am afraid to take my carrier into PVP as it is bacause I can be killed easily by couple of subcaps because of being almost immobile and easily hunted down, my high damage and jump drive is the only thing that makes my Thanatos Carrier different from Dominix.

If problem is Capitals in PVE, then the addressed problem should be CARRIERS AND PVE, not carriers overall. I do understand that you propably dont want to reduce anomaly payouts, because that would also nerf all other ratters, not only carrier users. So, the best solution IMO would be to code rats some special "fighter resistance" or "fighter damage taken reduction". You can play with that number then to optimize ISK ticks to some reasonable levels.

Nerfing carriers in PVP is bad. They are weak already IMO.



You know what CCP will say on this: Nah , that's too complicated to code we don't have so much time to do that. And yeah we want PVPers to suffer as well. Because we can!
Siobhan MacLeary
Doomheim
#208 - 2017-06-09 12:18:36 UTC
"We want to reduce the income players receive from pirate bounties."

Why not just, y'know, reduce the payout of bounties directly instead of defanging (super)carriers in PVP?

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave
Drengi Achasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2017-06-09 12:20:15 UTC
How about reducing bounties? Or changing absolutely everything other than the ship itself? These changes to the ships are targeted at PvE, but they are making the PvP aspect of them very useless as well...
Faruzen en Divalone
Newbie Friendly Industries
CeskoSlovenska Aliance
#210 - 2017-06-09 12:20:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Faruzen en Divalone
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
"We want to reduce the income players receive from pirate bounties."

Why not just, y'know, reduce the payout of bounties directly instead of defanging (super)carriers in PVP?


That would also reduce payouts for ratters not using carriers. And that is not intended (and needed) IMO. Carriers are the core of the problem, but nerfing them overall is bad still.
Ares Splinter
Faceless.
Dracarys.
#211 - 2017-06-09 12:22:20 UTC
Elena Cassidy wrote:
hey lets nerf everything that makes money end game thanks ccp think i might be leaving game permintly this time now theres gonna be no way to afford anything cant do rorq mining it got nerf bat from hell cant do Carrier or Super Ratting its getting nerfed to hell now why is end game Stuff getting nerfed. You are making it impossible to to pay for this game within the game because you are trying to be money hungry with this stupid *** plex meta bull****. wake up CCP your killing your own game



you are far from alone leaving servel members in our coprs are going too
ours Rorq miners have say stop ...also now
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#212 - 2017-06-09 12:22:53 UTC
"JUST BUFF NULLSEC"

The above were the words of many high sec partisan posters on these forums when, in the past, some of us pointed out that there was an imbalance caused by the combination of too much safety and way too lucrative activities in high sec like Incursions and burner mission blitzing that lets you STILL make as much is as a Super Carrier in null sec anoms.

the Guide wrote:
With the introduction of Burner missions to Lv4 mission agents it has become somewhat trivial to consistently make well in excess of 200 million isk per hour with just a little bit of training and preparation. This can be done on a single, well trained character in the relative safety of Hi-Sec, indefinitely.


The reply from the partisans was the same every time. Don't nerf my high sec activities! "JUST BUFF NULL" if you aren't making enough!

This and the Rorqual prove that you can NOT just buff other places to mask the imbalances of high sec. While this will be unpopular to say here, I'll say it anyways, I support this nerf and thing that it doesn't go far enough. CCP needs to also do something about how AFK-able null sec anoms are. You should have to be at your keyboard to make PVE isk in EVE.

And when CCP is done nerfing null sec income to something more reasonable, they HAVE to have a look at high end high sec PVE too, Incursions, burner blitzing, SOE high sec missions and the lot. Hell, it's still possible to make more blitzing lvl 3 missions in high sec than you'd get using the same ship in null. (I spent part of last week seeing if this still works btw, it does if you stick to SOE or Thukker agents).
Total Newbie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#213 - 2017-06-09 12:23:59 UTC
Simple solutions for your simple minds CCP.

Rather than kill entire classes of ships in your effort to throw out the baby with the bath water, why don't you:

1. Have rats apply even more massive damage to fighters/bombers.

2. put a gate on anoms/sites that capital class ships can't enter

3. spend more time finding your terrible code and fixing it.

4. Spend less time pushing entities deeper into their own sandbox and free them up to kill each other.

5. Make a grand announcement that you have decided to sell the game to a developer who enjoys war and not creating stupid color schemes for ships.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#214 - 2017-06-09 12:25:48 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.


In addition to my last post I did want to say that while this is necessary, it may just drive folks to do other things. Incursions are still a thing yes, but there is also the issue of blitzing lvl 5 missions with carriers and supers which will make more income than supers and carriers can now. People don't do it as much because anoms existed, but that might change.

I know you guys are working on PVE after our talks in the BR Sotiyo thread, so thanks.
Madbuster73
State War Academy
Caldari State
#215 - 2017-06-09 12:26:21 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:



If you wan to slow down PVE income - reduce bounty, or increase the rat EHP.




THIS ^^
Arquaz Fz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2017-06-09 12:26:29 UTC
Welcome to Nerf Online, a new kind of survival game.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#217 - 2017-06-09 12:27:01 UTC
CCP Larrikin 2nd only to Fozzie in not understanding what "game Balance" is.

You guys show over and over just how little you know about the game you "develop" (LOL that word just doesn't fit at all with what happens in Iceland anymore)
If income from Anoms is too high you reduce the income not nerf ships.

You do a balance change specifically due to ratting ticks but instead of just finding a fix for that issue you reduce the PVP usefulness of the ships.
How fukin brilliant you guys are..


Increase cost of everything produced in the game with mining nerfs, push up prices of pirate BS then nerf income at the same time. Do you not want to keep active players active?


Game balance my great aunt Ginnies patooti - You don't have a clue...




CCP Larrikin - The circus is looking for an animal attendant - You get to shovel all the shite you want there.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Siobhan MacLeary
Doomheim
#218 - 2017-06-09 12:27:07 UTC
Faruzen en Divalone wrote:
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
"We want to reduce the income players receive from pirate bounties."

Why not just, y'know, reduce the payout of bounties directly instead of defanging (super)carriers in PVP?


That would also reduce payouts for ratters not using carriers. And that is not intended (and needed) IMO. Carriers are the core of the problem, but nerfing them overall is bad still.


An alternative thought: decrease pirate SIG to make it harder to hit them with fighters.

I feel increasingly like these changes are designed specifically to **** over goons.

Rorqual nerfs, then pirate BS price increase, then carrier nerfs. In order: Screws with income for our members, screws with our future ability to supply high-end doctrines, then fucks with both line member income and utility in PvP.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave
Erie TehGM
CapF best F
#219 - 2017-06-09 12:28:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Erie TehGM
CCP never listen to majority of players, do they?

Most people didn't want previous fighter changes. "We want your feedback". Nothing changed, feedback mostly negative (at least as I saw it). Granted, that change wasn't back, but on to next point.

Now next fighter nerf. And this one is actually significant. Make it half this, and it won't be bad. But this is ridiculous.

Fozzie sov significantly reduced isk drains. No one likes fozzie sov, either. Just listen to community and you'll know. (hint hint)
Make more isk losses and reduce isk income less. That's the way to do it, and people will then enjoy PvP (and game overally) more. Not the other way around.


I'll also quote my fellow corpie
Quote:

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

Seems balanced to me.

Do you guys even play this game? =/
Biblised Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2017-06-09 12:28:23 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.


#CCPigs