These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1701 - 2017-06-12 13:26:19 UTC
Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I know most people here are averse to looking at the data...but you can find it here.

The money supply grew rapidly last month. We saw some pretty wild swings recently with Alpha clones lining up with a surge in the money supply. A big drop when citadels were released (everyone and their Uncle Bob buying up blueprints). There is no similar explanation with the recent rise in the money supply.


A cold war caused by a TERRIBLE sov mechanics has a tendency to also cause an increase in the amount of money generation. Maybe you should try to find the problem and not do what CCP is doing by putting bandaids on a symptom...

You're also naive if you don't think people will just move back to "printing ISK" in semi-AFK drone boats instead of carriers. Carriers were never the most efficient ISK per effort in the game, but it allowed people to play on one account and make the same amount of ISK per hour as running 3-4 accounts using VNIs. Carriers were a click fest, but they were perfect for the person who maybe can't play 20 hours a day or run multiple accounts. The only thing CCP will do with this patch is nerf carrier's PVP ability and forced the customer base to adapt to multi-boxing 3-4 accounts using semi-afk drone boats instead...


It's ok if people replace ONE character carrier or super ratting with 4-5 ishtars. Those things die more often and will be a materiel sink, and the transaction fees from buy 4-5 characters worth of plex per month are increased isk sinks.

That's kinda the whole point lol.

And the "cold war" has nothing to do with it. EVE has gone through periods of MUCH less activity than what we have right now and the economy never did what this one is doing. The simple truth is that CCP put Fighter squadrons into the game without understanding how good they would be for killing NPCs. Now they are fixing that mistake at least partially and people are acting like CCP just banged their moms while streaming it on Twitch.
Guillejejeje XDD
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1702 - 2017-06-12 13:30:59 UTC
Remove asset safety that would create a lot of content and fights. becose atm there is no point in shooting a citadel. when some years ago you enter a system and all people was on station fighting now you enter a system and there is 100 citadels with 1 guy docked on each citadel 0 content.
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#1703 - 2017-06-12 13:48:45 UTC
Atrinos wrote:
Linus Gorp wrote:
Atrinos wrote:
The dev Team really have nuts. The Last time they decided to bring such **** online was the walking in Stations Feature. They completely ignored any other problems and the Player base just raged out. Who was part of the Monument shooting in jita?

This time it could be much worse. And also the CSM team proofed the be completely incompetent....

Lets see how this will end this time.

Renter trash not understanding how the CSM works.


I don't give a single **** about what you were thinking about Reuters. We are Part of the Player base and we are also allowed to vote

Go to reddit there are much more ppl thinking Like i am that this changes are stupid. Or just read this thread

All I'm reading in this thread is the crying of people like you that have no clue how stuff works (e.g. the CSM - CCP doesn't have to tell them anything and even if they do, they don't have to give a rats' ass about the CSMs opinion) and the crying of people that are butthurt their utterly broken money source gets fixed.

Carriers aren't supposed to be solo pwnage ships in PvP and they also aren't supposed to be able to farm insane amounts of ISK, massively inflating the economy in the process.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#1704 - 2017-06-12 13:53:33 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
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.


Then why won't you simply decrease reward from NPC Bounties. Shocked

Nerfing one ship type won't solve the problem. Straight

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
blaedin jordan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1705 - 2017-06-12 13:57:11 UTC
Linus Gorp wrote:
Atrinos wrote:
Linus Gorp wrote:
Atrinos wrote:
The dev Team really have nuts. The Last time they decided to bring such **** online was the walking in Stations Feature. They completely ignored any other problems and the Player base just raged out. Who was part of the Monument shooting in jita?

This time it could be much worse. And also the CSM team proofed the be completely incompetent....

Lets see how this will end this time.

Renter trash not understanding how the CSM works.


I don't give a single **** about what you were thinking about Reuters. We are Part of the Player base and we are also allowed to vote

Go to reddit there are much more ppl thinking Like i am that this changes are stupid. Or just read this thread

All I'm reading in this thread is the crying of people like you that have no clue how stuff works (e.g. the CSM - CCP doesn't have to tell them anything and even if they do, they don't have to give a rats' ass about the CSMs opinion) and the crying of people that are butthurt their utterly broken money source gets fixed.

Carriers aren't supposed to be solo pwnage ships in PvP and they also aren't supposed to be able to farm insane amounts of ISK, massively inflating the economy in the process.



No? What are these endgame ships supposed to be? Giant paperweights? I ask because that's what they're becoming. A 20% nerf to fighter damage is not only going to hit carriers either, it's going to hit citadels -- which are already pretty weak to begin with...and there's no way the nerf to fighters is going to stem the flow of isk when carrier pilots (those that still play) will do what the incursion ratters do and run marauders in null sec JUST AS EASILY. Your point is mute.

Without isk sinks this is just a nasty nerf to beloved ships that will not address the problem they think it will, thus the anger.
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#1706 - 2017-06-12 14:07:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Linus Gorp
blaedin jordan wrote:
Linus Gorp wrote:
Atrinos wrote:
Linus Gorp wrote:
Atrinos wrote:
The dev Team really have nuts. The Last time they decided to bring such **** online was the walking in Stations Feature. They completely ignored any other problems and the Player base just raged out. Who was part of the Monument shooting in jita?

This time it could be much worse. And also the CSM team proofed the be completely incompetent....

Lets see how this will end this time.

Renter trash not understanding how the CSM works.


I don't give a single **** about what you were thinking about Reuters. We are Part of the Player base and we are also allowed to vote

Go to reddit there are much more ppl thinking Like i am that this changes are stupid. Or just read this thread

All I'm reading in this thread is the crying of people like you that have no clue how stuff works (e.g. the CSM - CCP doesn't have to tell them anything and even if they do, they don't have to give a rats' ass about the CSMs opinion) and the crying of people that are butthurt their utterly broken money source gets fixed.

Carriers aren't supposed to be solo pwnage ships in PvP and they also aren't supposed to be able to farm insane amounts of ISK, massively inflating the economy in the process.



No? What are these endgame ships supposed to be? Giant paperweights? I ask because that's what they're becoming. A 20% nerf to fighter damage is not only going to hit carriers either, it's going to hit citadels -- which are already pretty weak to begin with...and there's no way the nerf to fighters is going to stem the flow of isk when carrier pilots (those that still play) will do what the incursion ratters do and run marauders in null sec JUST AS EASILY. Your point is mute.

Without isk sinks this is just a nasty nerf to beloved ships that will not address the problem they think it will, thus the anger.


  1. There is no "end game" in EVE.
  2. Citadels aren't supposed to be able to defend themselves. They have their weapons to assist a defending fleet, not replace it.
  3. Marauders dish out less damage and the bastion module makes them immobile and thus easier to tackle for hostiles than carriers are.
  4. It's moot, not mute. And that's what your comment is. Just more crying without any argument or logic behind it.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
handsomebeast
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1707 - 2017-06-12 14:15:52 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
handsomebeast wrote:
rip eve been playin a year seen plex go up by a 3rd in isk value, end game stuff nerfed to hell, but lots of skins to buy
and only 2 public events. trained a carrier for 8 months to fly well
2 days after nerf to fighter signature which is expensive when loosing t2s, so i spend nearly 2 months gettin fighters 5 and another 65 on carrier 5 now a 30 percent cut to damage as i finish carrier 5 to get some damage its useless. also training rorqual no point now.

if you want people to leave just ask nicely dont kick em in the back on the way out ccp


what endgame stuff has been nerfed to hell?


carriers are one under a titan at the top of the ship tree so to me its end game or close to it with a carrier
blaedin jordan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1708 - 2017-06-12 14:19:58 UTC
1. Carriers are top tier ships, for that purpose they very much are endgame ships.

2. Citadels shouldn't defend themselves, what kind of logic is that? Why give them defenses if they aren't supposed to be able to defend themselves effectively in the first place?
Truth is CCP, no matter how much loyalist like you want to defend them, very likely didn't even "think" about the effect it would have on them when they tried to sneak this into tomorrow's update at the last minute. Shame on them for their lack of communication with us as well.

3. Marauders can breeze through sanctums and havens -- in addition to running 10/10s...so I'm not sure what your even talking about...do you need help with a fit?

4. Thanks for the grammar fix.
Altair Taurus
#1709 - 2017-06-12 14:32:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Altair Taurus
Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote:


You're also naive if you don't think people will just move back to "printing ISK" in semi-AFK drone boats instead of carriers. Carriers were never the most efficient ISK per effort in the game, but it allowed people to play on one account and make the same amount of ISK per hour as running 3-4 accounts using VNIs. Carriers were a click fest, but they were perfect for the person who maybe can't play 20 hours a day or run multiple accounts. The only thing CCP will do with this patch is nerf carrier's PVP ability and forced the customer base to adapt to multi-boxing 3-4 accounts using semi-afk drone boats instead...


That is very true! As a single-account player (I have also second now inactive cyno alt) I decided to go to null-sec and to make carrier ratting my main source of income there. I have almost none mining, PI, indy skills so during last year I invested heavily in training capital ships and fighters both for PvE and PvP. Yet now I noticed CCP basically robbed me (at least several months long training time if post-nerf T2 fighters now will be worse than pre-nerf T1 fighters) so I look like naive sucker! I do not have many accounts to be able to run level 4 missions and incursions on neutral alts or multibox AFK ratting in VNIs. Therefore tomorrow I will have to decide: return to high-sec permanently or leave this game for good.

However I'd like to know what is your real strategic goal, CCP? Is your goal to slap in the face active single account players and reward multiboxing AFK botters? Is you real goal to develop an unique at the world stage game rewarding not playing it instead of actively playing it? If so, you really deserve to be in the Guinness World Records.

Of course you completely omit issues causing real ISK faucet: market machinations, RMT businesses, a hundred bots strong multiboxing fleets etc. I can understand that - it is easier to kick in the a$$ single account fair players than fight those well organized activities.
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1710 - 2017-06-12 14:36:58 UTC
Devs are utter fracking morons.

Yeah, let's mess with fighters, because people are making too much money in PvE. That makes a lot of sense. Fracking morons.

Listen, idiots. If you want to adjust the economy, I dunno, let me think about this for a second... ADJUST THE FRACKING ECONOMY. DON'T CHANGE SHIPS. Is that too complicated to comprehend?

Great, you don't understand that carriers are used for more than PvE. So you keep nerfing them because of PvE. Stupid 'effing morons. It's like, I'd expect a random low-IQ idiot off the street with no experience in math, rational thought, or balancing games to come up with better solutions than you idiots.

Someone contact me when they hire a new balance team which has average IQ above 75 or so. Thanks.
Bron Ander Haltern
Special Mining Ops Inc.
#1711 - 2017-06-12 14:44:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Bron Ander Haltern
Let's sum up what we got so far. Since facts are flooded with gibberish over and over on the forum.

CCP Larkin has written:

"1. We are making this change because Carriers & Super carriers are too strong in PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec.... (there are no hard data in the report about what ship class generates what amount of bounty, so basically it is not sure what makes CCP thinks like that unless it is an assumption or an opinion or a guess (might be educated but still a guess) on the subject.)

2. We also think that Carriers and Super carriers are a bit too effective in PvP.... (on what basis again? It is arguable. The kestrel and rattle pilot will always say supers/carriers are OP while caps pilot just opposite"

On the basis of these two assumptions CCP decided to massively cut damage of fighters and nerf their sustainability on anomalies.

The proposed changes were announced all of sudden 5 days before the introductory patch without testing it on sisi. (Why this rush for CCP, honestly?)

The fighters changes will have tremendous impact on:
1 PVE side of the game;
2 PVP side of the game;
3 Citadel defense abilities.

It will also ruin most players dreams, goals and game play (not everybody is RMTers or multi account farmer) those who wants to develop, want to grow in order to be faster, better, stronger, not eternal kestrels or rattlesnakes pilots.

At the end CCP Dev writes we will introduce the changes, observe and adjust.

And I wouldn't say a damn word if EVE was not advertised as a game that is developed with players where Devs listen what players have to say.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1712 - 2017-06-12 14:44:24 UTC
RKJakTup wrote:


not really, i see what your trying to say but they can do it where you cant use caps to do some type of end game just by adding gates. and they can drop supcap mods to bring up the value of subcaps in pve and isk gathering. witch in turn ups the isk value of the ship witch is risk = reward


Add gates and you make the problem of not being able to catch anyone bigger.

What they could do is make this change as a temporary fix and then move to make anoms unfarmable for supers by adding dreadnoughts that don't have a bounty that spawn if a capital is on grid. They then unerf carriers and supers.
Crash 888
TRINTEX
#1713 - 2017-06-12 14:46:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Crash 888
They "messed with fighters" a year ago by releasing these stupid new ones. Now they are unmessing them. Lol

If a bank sent out cards that cause ATMs to pay out 3x as much money, is the answer, to just cancel those cards? Or to decrease the wages of everyone in the country? Idea
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#1714 - 2017-06-12 14:46:32 UTC
blaedin jordan wrote:
2. Citadels shouldn't defend themselves, what kind of logic is that? Why give them defenses if they aren't supposed to be able to defend themselves effectively in the first place?

It's called game balance. Something you obviously do not understand, rendering any possibly worthwhile discussion with you moot right from the start.

blaedin jordan wrote:
Truth is CCP, no matter how much loyalist like you want to defend them, very likely didn't even "think" about the effect it would have on them when they tried to sneak this into tomorrow's update at the last minute. Shame on them for their lack of communication with us as well.

I'm not a CCP loyalist. Anyone that knows me even a little bit would tell you that I'm the complete opposite of it and constantly **** talk CCP for all the ******** additions they make to the game (new scanning system, new map, new inventory, new camera, ...).

But the thing is, this change is badly needed. Everyone with half a brain understands it and the only ones crying about it are spoiled brats like yourself.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1715 - 2017-06-12 14:47:35 UTC
handsomebeast wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
handsomebeast wrote:
rip eve been playin a year seen plex go up by a 3rd in isk value, end game stuff nerfed to hell, but lots of skins to buy
and only 2 public events. trained a carrier for 8 months to fly well
2 days after nerf to fighter signature which is expensive when loosing t2s, so i spend nearly 2 months gettin fighters 5 and another 65 on carrier 5 now a 30 percent cut to damage as i finish carrier 5 to get some damage its useless. also training rorqual no point now.

if you want people to leave just ask nicely dont kick em in the back on the way out ccp


what endgame stuff has been nerfed to hell?


carriers are one under a titan at the top of the ship tree so to me its end game or close to it with a carrier


then whats been nerfed to hell? carriers use to be an even bigger train as you had to have triage also trained which made them only really used as a logi ship and a pretty tight niche ship, now everyone flies carriers, when faxes got introduced carriers were buffed to the high hills giving them a totally different role and made carriers overpowered as hell.

If you feel its that bad and {insert pirate battleship} works soo much better, then use a battleship and extract your skills, ccp has made it so you any skill choices you make can easily be reverted.

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1716 - 2017-06-12 14:48:06 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
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.


Then why won't you simply decrease reward from NPC Bounties. Shocked

Nerfing one ship type won't solve the problem. Straight


Because that also hurts the many more people who were not causing a problem.
Altair Taurus
#1717 - 2017-06-12 14:49:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Altair Taurus
I think by introducing this nerf CCP robs single account players investments and will force them to use multiple accounts or simply purchase ISK for real money if they want to enjoy end-game content in the future. Of course well organized RMT/botting EVE shadow communities are completely safe!
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1718 - 2017-06-12 14:50:26 UTC
Well, it took several days of intermittent reading to do it, but I finally read through all this. I've done my best to understand everyone's perspective even if I disagreed with their point.

At the end of it all, I'm more inclined to agree with Teckos Pech and Jenn A Side. But I'm also inclined to agree with several other posters in that this seems to be a bizarre circumstance where the changes both go too far and not nearly far enough.

I'll preface this by saying I'm going to accept CCP's assertion at face value - that the bounties are too dang high and carriers/supers are to blame. Given that premise, the changes don't feel like they will have enough of an impact (on the PvE side) to achieve with CCP seems to desire. For sure, this will slow down carrier ratting. But the staggering numbers we've been provided are not going to be curtailed by this nerf alone.

On the PvP side, I've read a lot of posts about the possible knock-on effects there. Some people have said carriers have higher sustained DPS than other capitals. Maybe that's true. But it feels like that's the benefit you get for having DPS that can be jammed or killed off. Does CCP genuinely feel that carriers are too powerful in PvP? Maybe that is the case, but I have not heard a lot of complaining about OP carriers ever since the last round of fighter nerfs. I was assuming everything was finally balanced well.

Overall if the economy concerns are genuine and dire (which they seem to be), this wouldn't be the way I would fix it. I would implement temporary measures in place to stall the carrier PvE side while more permanent solutions could be worked on. There's been a bunch of ideas thrown around in this thread as alternate methods to deal with carrier PvE that would be workable as a temporary placeholder to be removed once the permanent solutions were in place.

My solution would be tweaking some NPCs and their aggro, along with the contents of sites. Simply put, I would want a small handful of specific "elite" NPC frigates in each room/wave. These frigates would have very long orbit and attack ranges (80-100km), and 100% preferred aggro against drones and fighters alike. But they'd only do a few damage per second, maybe as little as three to ten DPS each. I'd also have their weapon resolution and tracking somewhere around large weapon groups, meaning these specific NPCs would not be a threat to moving drones. Altogether they aren't much of a threat against the player but they would steadily eat through unattended sentry drones, while not being a potent enough DPS presence to shoot through the reps of a small remote repairer. Then make sure a few (2-3 perhaps) spawn a few times per site, and that slows down afk sentry ratting while leaving active piloting largely unaffected.

Sure it's not a perfect solution and some tweaks would have to be made from there, but we just need to adjust enough to re-stabilize things and that seems like it would be a good starting point.

As for the capital side of the equation, upping the fighter aggro seems like it would be enough. Every time you have to pull fighters you're losing time and money, even if none of your fighters die. If carrier fighters are causing this big of an issue with bounties, skyrocketing the aggro chance seems like it would be the optimal and strategically targeted solution. Then you can focus on the PvP side of carriers and make decisions that are based solely on the merits there.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Altair Taurus
#1719 - 2017-06-12 14:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Altair Taurus
^^^
How much accounts do you have? 50, 100, 200??? Is this your real economy??? What?Roll
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#1720 - 2017-06-12 14:54:30 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Devs are utter fracking morons.

Yeah, let's mess with fighters, because people are making too much money in PvE. That makes a lot of sense. Fracking morons.

Listen, idiots. If you want to adjust the economy, I dunno, let me think about this for a second... ADJUST THE FRACKING ECONOMY. DON'T CHANGE SHIPS. Is that too complicated to comprehend?

Great, you don't understand that carriers are used for more than PvE. So you keep nerfing them because of PvE. Stupid 'effing morons. It's like, I'd expect a random low-IQ idiot off the street with no experience in math, rational thought, or balancing games to come up with better solutions than you idiots.

Someone contact me when they hire a new balance team which has average IQ above 75 or so. Thanks.

The only idiotic moron I see here is yourself. Your post has more intellectual holes than a Swiss cheese.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.