These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

What exactly did CCP nerf and what's all the fuss about?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#41 - 2017-06-12 15:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Scialt
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:
I kind of feel like CCP needs to do more with the space and less with ships when it comes to wanting to nerf ships due to PvE.

You don't want people to rat in capital ships? At each anom put a gate... the gate doesn't allow ships bigger than battleships. Cyno's don't work in the pocket.

But the actual changing of ship stats (other than mining ships) should probably be based mostly on PvP.


Why do people keep saying this. You know a gate would make anoms super safe (because anyone trying to kill you would have to go through a gate, giving the ratter more time to get out). It would mean fewer people would die in anoms which means MORE PEOPLE DOING ANOMS = "didn't fix the problem".

Fighter Squadrons caused the problem. Fighter Squadrons getting nerfed. Why affect everyone else when you know what the problem is and can just deal with that specific thing?


No offense, but you have to be asleep to die at an anom now. I mean if you sit at 0, never refresh your d-scan and have your local hidden than you'll die... but that guy will die behind a gate too.

I don't think this will increase the number of ratters. It will just decrease the size of the ships for those ratting in capitals. And that means less isk payouts. Anom ratting is pretty safe either way unless you're AFK.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#42 - 2017-06-12 15:22:40 UTC
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#43 - 2017-06-12 15:30:39 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:
I kind of feel like CCP needs to do more with the space and less with ships when it comes to wanting to nerf ships due to PvE.

You don't want people to rat in capital ships? At each anom put a gate... the gate doesn't allow ships bigger than battleships. Cyno's don't work in the pocket.

But the actual changing of ship stats (other than mining ships) should probably be based mostly on PvP.


Why do people keep saying this. You know a gate would make anoms super safe (because anyone trying to kill you would have to go through a gate, giving the ratter more time to get out). It would mean fewer people would die in anoms which means MORE PEOPLE DOING ANOMS = "didn't fix the problem".

Fighter Squadrons caused the problem. Fighter Squadrons getting nerfed. Why affect everyone else when you know what the problem is and can just deal with that specific thing?


No offense, but you have to be asleep to die at an anom now. I mean if you sit at 0, never refresh your d-scan and have your local hidden than you'll die... but that guy will die behind a gate too.

I don't think this will increase the number of ratters. It will just decrease the size of the ships for those ratting in capitals. And that means less isk payouts. Anom ratting is pretty safe either way unless you're AFK.


and yet zkill is littered with dead ratting ships. Because lots of people ARE almost asleep lol. or they get scrammed by a npc frig at exactly the wrong moment, or the get stuck on a rock/structure as they try to warp off etc.

Gated anoms take away even that amount of danger. But even still, the idea violates what should be dev principle #1, which is "if there is a problem,, fix the problem, don't treat the symptoms only".

The problem here was fighter squadrons, so CCP fixes fighter squadrons. I'd be just as happy if they got rid of them (but kept the fighter control interface) and let Carriers and Supers have regular drones/fighters/fighter bombers again. people complained about 'afk carriers with Geckos' making isk, but afk carriers didn't do this to the money supply of EVE online.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#44 - 2017-06-12 15:36:41 UTC
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#45 - 2017-06-12 15:43:27 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:
I kind of feel like CCP needs to do more with the space and less with ships when it comes to wanting to nerf ships due to PvE.

You don't want people to rat in capital ships? At each anom put a gate... the gate doesn't allow ships bigger than battleships. Cyno's don't work in the pocket.

But the actual changing of ship stats (other than mining ships) should probably be based mostly on PvP.


Why do people keep saying this. You know a gate would make anoms super safe (because anyone trying to kill you would have to go through a gate, giving the ratter more time to get out). It would mean fewer people would die in anoms which means MORE PEOPLE DOING ANOMS = "didn't fix the problem".

Fighter Squadrons caused the problem. Fighter Squadrons getting nerfed. Why affect everyone else when you know what the problem is and can just deal with that specific thing?


No offense, but you have to be asleep to die at an anom now. I mean if you sit at 0, never refresh your d-scan and have your local hidden than you'll die... but that guy will die behind a gate too.

I don't think this will increase the number of ratters. It will just decrease the size of the ships for those ratting in capitals. And that means less isk payouts. Anom ratting is pretty safe either way unless you're AFK.


and yet zkill is littered with dead ratting ships. Because lots of people ARE almost asleep lol. or they get scrammed by a npc frig at exactly the wrong moment, or the get stuck on a rock/structure as they try to warp off etc.

Gated anoms take away even that amount of danger. But even still, the idea violates what should be dev principle #1, which is "if there is a problem,, fix the problem, don't treat the symptoms only".

The problem here was fighter squadrons, so CCP fixes fighter squadrons. I'd be just as happy if they got rid of them (but kept the fighter control interface) and let Carriers and Supers have regular drones/fighters/fighter bombers again. people complained about 'afk carriers with Geckos' making isk, but afk carriers didn't do this to the money supply of EVE online.


You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention.

The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#46 - 2017-06-12 15:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Scialt wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:
I kind of feel like CCP needs to do more with the space and less with ships when it comes to wanting to nerf ships due to PvE.

You don't want people to rat in capital ships? At each anom put a gate... the gate doesn't allow ships bigger than battleships. Cyno's don't work in the pocket.

But the actual changing of ship stats (other than mining ships) should probably be based mostly on PvP.


Why do people keep saying this. You know a gate would make anoms super safe (because anyone trying to kill you would have to go through a gate, giving the ratter more time to get out). It would mean fewer people would die in anoms which means MORE PEOPLE DOING ANOMS = "didn't fix the problem".

Fighter Squadrons caused the problem. Fighter Squadrons getting nerfed. Why affect everyone else when you know what the problem is and can just deal with that specific thing?


No offense, but you have to be asleep to die at an anom now. I mean if you sit at 0, never refresh your d-scan and have your local hidden than you'll die... but that guy will die behind a gate too.

I don't think this will increase the number of ratters. It will just decrease the size of the ships for those ratting in capitals. And that means less isk payouts. Anom ratting is pretty safe either way unless you're AFK.


and yet zkill is littered with dead ratting ships. Because lots of people ARE almost asleep lol. or they get scrammed by a npc frig at exactly the wrong moment, or the get stuck on a rock/structure as they try to warp off etc.

Gated anoms take away even that amount of danger. But even still, the idea violates what should be dev principle #1, which is "if there is a problem,, fix the problem, don't treat the symptoms only".

The problem here was fighter squadrons, so CCP fixes fighter squadrons. I'd be just as happy if they got rid of them (but kept the fighter control interface) and let Carriers and Supers have regular drones/fighters/fighter bombers again. people complained about 'afk carriers with Geckos' making isk, but afk carriers didn't do this to the money supply of EVE online.


You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention.

The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works.




Which is wrong because the anom didn't cause the problem. Would you like me to link the Monthly Economic reports from right before the introduction of fighter squadrons?

Anomaly ratting is about time (warp time negatively affects income, which is why to most egregious ratting supers have Hyper Spatial rigs). Gates on anoms slow down sub caps too, meaning the price of not having supers and carriers wreck the eve economy is lower income for the sub cap ratters who didn't wreck the economy. The only way around that would be to then increase the bounties of the rats in the anoms to compensate for the additional warp times, which would be dumb.

Nope, the thing to do is to fix the ONE THING that caused the problem. And that is Fighter Squadrons. It's amazing to me that people know that when CCP nerfs stuff they tend to nerf the wrong thing, and the one time that actually nerf the disease (Fighter squadrons) instead of a random symptom, people start asking them to not do that.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
EDENCOM DEFENSIVE INITIATIVE
#47 - 2017-06-12 16:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Heh, would be funny if this will not be enough for ISK farming and they will have to nerf the symptoms by nerfing all bounties in null.

ᴇᴠᴇʀʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ɢᴀᴍᴇ ʜᴇʟᴘs ᴛᴏ ᴛᴇʟʟ ᴀ sᴛᴏʀʏ 📕

ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ɪs ᴀɴɢʀʏ ᴄᴏɴᴄᴏʀᴅ ɢᴜʏ ᴡʜᴇɴ ʏᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ʜɪᴍ

ᴏsᴘʀᴇʏ 🚀

≡⋁≡ ♥
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2017-06-12 16:18:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Coralas
Scialt wrote:


You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention.

The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works.




If they are going to change anomolies, they could do a hell of a lot more than gate them. In fact gating them removes one of the few charms (warp to preferred range), which active players build around.

I'm guessing however that this is a summer expansion scale problem for the modern CCP, which is why nerfing fighters is necessary.

All this change is doing is stopping that graph getting even more spread on it, its not actually putting EVE back into a pre everyone is ratting in supers box. Lets face it, nobody is actually going to stop ratting in their super, they'll still do whatever makes the most money, and that is still it.

i also think gating makes for a useful reduction in safety warps for me, because that _will_ delay a ceptor by actual seconds, which is big news if i'm ratting in a sentry boat or anything else that can't be perma aligned. I've been both scenarios, and imo I think it negatively harms strategies like spike gating and sending ships to every anomoly to try catch someone and I think that is not an improvement.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#49 - 2017-06-12 16:30:59 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Heh, would be funny if this will not be enough for ISK farming and they will have to nerf the symptoms by nerfing all bounties in null.


It will be enough. The 1st Incursion nerf wasn't even in the same league s this one and most incursion communities became ghost towns after it compared to how they were before. It's not just the damage, it's the combination of the damage reduction and NPCs elevated chance to agress. Some carrier and super pilots will compensate with Drone durability rigs (but a drone durability rig is not a ship tanking rig nor is it a hyperspatial, so while it might keep fighters alive it won't help the ship in other ways and that is going to hurt).

Other capital pilots are going to stop using Tech2 drones. And just like how some people quit Rorq mining when they found they could no longer break 250 mil per hour, they will quit using those ships for that. Some will switch to ishtars or whatever but it takes a max skill ishtar 5 hours to make with a bad fit Super can make in 1.

If they do nerf bounties across the board they will just shift people back to FW and Incursions like what happened with the 1st (and 2nd) anomaly nerfs in 2011 and 2012.

Either way it will all be fine.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#50 - 2017-06-12 17:11:37 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:



You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention.

The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works.




Which is wrong because the anom didn't cause the problem. Would you like me to link the Monthly Economic reports from right before the introduction of fighter squadrons?

Anomaly ratting is about time (warp time negatively affects income, which is why to most egregious ratting supers have Hyper Spatial rigs). Gates on anoms slow down sub caps too, meaning the price of not having supers and carriers wreck the eve economy is lower income for the sub cap ratters who didn't wreck the economy. The only way around that would be to then increase the bounties of the rats in the anoms to compensate for the additional warp times, which would be dumb.

Nope, the thing to do is to fix the ONE THING that caused the problem. And that is Fighter Squadrons. It's amazing to me that people know that when CCP nerfs stuff they tend to nerf the wrong thing, and the one time that actually nerf the disease (Fighter squadrons) instead of a random symptom, people start asking them to not do that.


Neither the fighter squadrons nor the anoms caused the problem.

Fighter squadrons work fine for PvP.
Anoms work fine for non-cap ratting.

The problem is caused by the combination of the two... fighter squadrons in anoms.

You're only looking at one side of the equation (the fighter squadron). But your answer (and CCP's) kills carriers ability in PvP by making a fix only needed... in anoms.

The other option (which you dismiss) is addressing the other side... anoms themselves. By banning carriers from anom ratting you solve the issue without killing carriers for PvP. The downside is that ratters will get about 30 more seconds to react to reds coming to their ratting spot. This would also impact how you arrive... as everyone (Ratters and Pirates alike) would come in at 0 instead of having the option to come in at range.

Gating anoms may not be a good answer.. but you have to correctly address the problem... which is the ability of carriers to make dank isk ratting... without nerfing their PvP usage like this solution does.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#51 - 2017-06-12 17:16:37 UTC
Coralas wrote:
Scialt wrote:


You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention.

The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works.




If they are going to change anomolies, they could do a hell of a lot more than gate them. In fact gating them removes one of the few charms (warp to preferred range), which active players build around.

I'm guessing however that this is a summer expansion scale problem for the modern CCP, which is why nerfing fighters is necessary.

All this change is doing is stopping that graph getting even more spread on it, its not actually putting EVE back into a pre everyone is ratting in supers box. Lets face it, nobody is actually going to stop ratting in their super, they'll still do whatever makes the most money, and that is still it.

i also think gating makes for a useful reduction in safety warps for me, because that _will_ delay a ceptor by actual seconds, which is big news if i'm ratting in a sentry boat or anything else that can't be perma aligned. I've been both scenarios, and imo I think it negatively harms strategies like spike gating and sending ships to every anomoly to try catch someone and I think that is not an improvement.


The gate is a simple answer that has already been implemented in many other areas (such as FW plexes).

A better (but likely harder to code) solution would be to make it so that no caps can warp to anom sites nor have cynos dropped at anom sites... while leaving everything else the same. The point is that the gate is a similar quick fix to reducing the damage of fighters... but in my opinion has less negative impact overall (making a class of ship useless in PvP).
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#52 - 2017-06-12 17:25:53 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Coralas wrote:
Scialt wrote:


You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention.

The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works.




If they are going to change anomolies, they could do a hell of a lot more than gate them. In fact gating them removes one of the few charms (warp to preferred range), which active players build around.

I'm guessing however that this is a summer expansion scale problem for the modern CCP, which is why nerfing fighters is necessary.

All this change is doing is stopping that graph getting even more spread on it, its not actually putting EVE back into a pre everyone is ratting in supers box. Lets face it, nobody is actually going to stop ratting in their super, they'll still do whatever makes the most money, and that is still it.

i also think gating makes for a useful reduction in safety warps for me, because that _will_ delay a ceptor by actual seconds, which is big news if i'm ratting in a sentry boat or anything else that can't be perma aligned. I've been both scenarios, and imo I think it negatively harms strategies like spike gating and sending ships to every anomoly to try catch someone and I think that is not an improvement.


The gate is a simple answer that has already been implemented in many other areas (such as FW plexes).

A better (but likely harder to code) solution would be to make it so that no caps can warp to anom sites nor have cynos dropped at anom sites... while leaving everything else the same. The point is that the gate is a similar quick fix to reducing the damage of fighters... but in my opinion has less negative impact overall (making a class of ship useless in PvP).


So you'd make ratters undroppable by capital ships in anoms?

I know where I'd stange my sub cap fleet EVERY Time I needed to right before a fight.

The problem here is that you are trying to preserve something (carrier's current pvp ability) by totally ignoring the fact that ONE THING cause a problem and needs fixing.

Carrier/super ratting didn't not screw the economy before fighter squadrons, after fighter squadrons they did. CCP got it right this time by fixing the source of the problem instead of screw up anoms for everyone like they did with Tracking titans.

When people learned how to use Tracking titans (titan plus tracking link scimitar) to attack the one class of anomalies that didn't have frigates (Forsaken Hubs), CCP responded 1st by adding frigs to forsaken hubs. That slowed down forsaken hubs for EVERYONE and only put a small dent into titan ratters. Eventually CCP fixed the core problem (titans) by removing the ability to receive remote assistance (so no tracking Scimitar).

Finally, CCP learned from it's Tracking Titan mistake, instead of screwing up the anomaly for everyone, they fixed the bloody thing that caused the problem (Fighter Squadrons). CCP should be congratulated for this IMO.

I'm willing to bet that lots of people complaining about this weren't even around to witness the tracking titan debacle so they don't understand why 'just fix the anoms' is the wrong answer.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#53 - 2017-06-12 17:44:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Scialt
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Coralas wrote:
Scialt wrote:


You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention.

The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works.




If they are going to change anomolies, they could do a hell of a lot more than gate them. In fact gating them removes one of the few charms (warp to preferred range), which active players build around.

I'm guessing however that this is a summer expansion scale problem for the modern CCP, which is why nerfing fighters is necessary.

All this change is doing is stopping that graph getting even more spread on it, its not actually putting EVE back into a pre everyone is ratting in supers box. Lets face it, nobody is actually going to stop ratting in their super, they'll still do whatever makes the most money, and that is still it.

i also think gating makes for a useful reduction in safety warps for me, because that _will_ delay a ceptor by actual seconds, which is big news if i'm ratting in a sentry boat or anything else that can't be perma aligned. I've been both scenarios, and imo I think it negatively harms strategies like spike gating and sending ships to every anomoly to try catch someone and I think that is not an improvement.


The gate is a simple answer that has already been implemented in many other areas (such as FW plexes).

A better (but likely harder to code) solution would be to make it so that no caps can warp to anom sites nor have cynos dropped at anom sites... while leaving everything else the same. The point is that the gate is a similar quick fix to reducing the damage of fighters... but in my opinion has less negative impact overall (making a class of ship useless in PvP).


So you'd make ratters undroppable by capital ships in anoms?

I know where I'd stange my sub cap fleet EVERY Time I needed to right before a fight.

The problem here is that you are trying to preserve something (carrier's current pvp ability) by totally ignoring the fact that ONE THING cause a problem and needs fixing.

Carrier/super ratting didn't not screw the economy before fighter squadrons, after fighter squadrons they did. CCP got it right this time by fixing the source of the problem instead of screw up anoms for everyone like they did with Tracking titans.

When people learned how to use Tracking titans (titan plus tracking link scimitar) to attack the one class of anomalies that didn't have frigates (Forsaken Hubs), CCP responded 1st by adding frigs to forsaken hubs. That slowed down forsaken hubs for EVERYONE and only put a small dent into titan ratters. Eventually CCP fixed the core problem (titans) by removing the ability to receive remote assistance (so no tracking Scimitar).

Finally, CCP learned from it's Tracking Titan mistake, instead of screwing up the anomaly for everyone, they fixed the bloody thing that caused the problem (Fighter Squadrons). CCP should be congratulated for this IMO.

I'm willing to bet that lots of people complaining about this weren't even around to witness the tracking titan debacle so they don't understand why 'just fix the anoms' is the wrong answer.


I'm going to have to give up on this because you refuse to accept the idea that figher squadrons aren't the problem, but rather the ability to make too much isk from fighter squadrons as being the problem.



How about this as a solution. No NPC bounties for kills with capital ships (probably just in anomalies).


Would any nerf to fighters be needed if that were implemented?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#54 - 2017-06-12 17:50:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Callum Perkins wrote:
Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? Question


CCP Larrikin updated the original announcement post with some more info.

CCP Larrikin wrote:


UPDATE 2017-07-12: Reduced the damage reduction to fighters. Added supporting data.


The Data:
Let’s set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June. During that timeframe 10.6 Trillion ISK was rewarded in bounties. Of that:
  • 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers
  • 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers
  • 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers
Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties.


When 6 or so % of people engaged in bounty generating activity account for almost HALF of all bounties injecting isk into EVE's economy, it's time for the nerf hammer to fall. Before Fighter Squadrons, even supercarrier using their fighter bombers could not pull this off.

Of course CCP caved and in the same post announced that they were pulling back on some of the nerfing. That's a mistake, it's just going to prolong the issue to the point where more drastic nerfing is going to be needed later. You rip a bandaid off, trying to peel it slowly and nicely just makes it worse.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#55 - 2017-06-12 17:58:36 UTC
Scialt wrote:


I'm going to have to give up on this because you refuse to accept the idea that figher squadrons aren't the problem, but rather the ability to make too much isk from fighter squadrons as being the problem.



How about this as a solution. No NPC bounties for kills with capital ships (probably just in anomalies).


Would any nerf to fighters be needed if that were implemented?


Taking carriers out of anomalies takes away good pvp targets. And CCP has a hard time coding a UI, you want them to code in a removal of bounties?

I don't accept an idea if that idea is a self serving lie. It's simple common sense, before fighter squadrons carriers could not generate the isk per hour that can now, even though they could do virtually the same paper DPS. AFTER fighter squadrons, you get the current results that are well documented.

Did you play EVE when tracking titans were a thing? Do you remember the pain and the complaining for and against those? I saw how CCP nerfed something for everyone (forsaken hubs) to keep from nerfing the handful of Titan pilots who were pounding out isk, and I personally never want to see that again.
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
Sleep Reapers
#56 - 2017-06-12 18:17:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Scialt
Jenn aSide wrote:
Scialt wrote:


I'm going to have to give up on this because you refuse to accept the idea that figher squadrons aren't the problem, but rather the ability to make too much isk from fighter squadrons as being the problem.



How about this as a solution. No NPC bounties for kills with capital ships (probably just in anomalies).


Would any nerf to fighters be needed if that were implemented?


Taking carriers out of anomalies takes away good pvp targets. And CCP has a hard time coding a UI, you want them to code in a removal of bounties?

I don't accept an idea if that idea is a self serving lie. It's simple common sense, before fighter squadrons carriers could not generate the isk per hour that can now, even though they could do virtually the same paper DPS. AFTER fighter squadrons, you get the current results that are well documented.

Did you play EVE when tracking titans were a thing? Do you remember the pain and the complaining for and against those? I saw how CCP nerfed something for everyone (forsaken hubs) to keep from nerfing the handful of Titan pilots who were pounding out isk, and I personally never want to see that again.


Um... this change (reducing fighter damage) DOES take carriers out of anomalies. They'll be replaced by Rattlesnakes that (even with the new prices for pirate BS) will be able to make the same isk at half the cost. That's the same result as not allowing the carriers into the anomaly or not allowing them to make isk in the anomaly. The only difference is those other two actions don't ALSO nerf the carrier for PvP.

As for the coding...

"If ship_type = X, set bounty = bounty * 0" is a pretty simple piece of code. They already multiply bounties times the inverse of a corp tax rate.

I started eve in 2006. I've taken tons of breaks (including the period where Titans proliferated... back then was the "there will only ever be 5-6 Titans in Eve" thought). Carriers aren't uncommon ships anymore.

Nothing about anything I've proposed in any way nerfs anomalies for anyone OTHER than cap pilots.

***edit***
And for the record, I don't actually fly a carrier. My PvE is marauder/rattlesnake focused and my PvP is focused more on FW (or logistics for big fleets). This doesn't really have a direct impact on me. It just feels like the wrong solution to the problem.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#57 - 2017-06-12 18:34:24 UTC
Scialt wrote:


Nothing about anything I've proposed in any way nerfs anomalies for anyone OTHER than cap pilots.


Yes it does, you were the one who mentioned gates. Gates would put a big crimp in sub cap income earning and make subcaps safer for even unaware players which is the wrong thing to do. Taking carriers out of anoms is bad too, and scrwing around with coding issues when you have a simple fix in front of you is terrible.

And why? All because it doesn't 'feel" right to do it the simplest way? Regardless of how it feels, it's a good thing because CCP isn't repeating an old mistake by trying to fix a ship by nerfing the anoms that aren't the problem. The biggest mistake CCP could have made would have been failing to learn from that long ago lesson.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2017-06-12 18:47:31 UTC
Scialt wrote:


Um... this change (reducing fighter damage) DOES take carriers out of anomalies. They'll be replaced by Rattlesnakes that (even with the new prices for pirate BS) will be able to make the same isk at half the cost. That's the same result as not allowing the carriers into the anomaly or not allowing them to make isk in the anomaly. The only difference is those other two actions don't ALSO nerf the carrier for PvP.



(a) god forbid a battleship be useful.
(b) supercarriers will still make more isk/hr than a rattlesnake.
(c) I will be able to fly a thanatos long before I bother to go back and train a useful amount of missiles to make a rattlesnake do full damage.
(d) I'd still expect a thanatos to rat at ~45m/tick, which is still a massive upgrade from my domi.
Zanar Skwigelf
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#59 - 2017-06-12 18:47:58 UTC
There is no way anyone advocating for gates to anoms has ratted behind a gate with neuts in system.

You know where the safest place in the system is when your blinged BS is getting probed down? Inside the gate. If you can kill everything in that room before the neut lands, hit your cloak and you are now 100% impossible to find since the neut can't warp to you and hope they decloak you when they land.

If you can't kill everything before the neut arrives, you can either:

1) set up an ambush and kill the neut since you know exactly where he will land.
2) set up a bubble, align to your safe, wait for him to land in your bubble and warp off.
3) warp off without a bubble in your wake.

There is no reason to warp to a safe when you are behind a gate when neuts enter system, because you don't know where they are, and they can't reach you behind the gate. I know that gated anoms would still be on the scan list, but placing a cloaked alt / small t1 bubble / handful of corpmates in pvp ships at the entrance gate will give significantly more protection compared to what we have currently, since the neut can land anywhere in the anom.

Its like LM said in the RNK pipe bombing video, if you control where your enemy is on the battlefield, you are at a significant advantage. Gating anoms gives complete control of the neut's location to the ratter and his friends/alts.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#60 - 2017-06-12 19:00:43 UTC
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
There is no way anyone advocating for gates to anoms has ratted behind a gate with neuts in system.

You know where the safest place in the system is when your blinged BS is getting probed down? Inside the gate. If you can kill everything in that room before the neut lands, hit your cloak and you are now 100% impossible to find since the neut can't warp to you and hope they decloak you when they land.

If you can't kill everything before the neut arrives, you can either:

1) set up an ambush and kill the neut since you know exactly where he will land.
2) set up a bubble, align to your safe, wait for him to land in your bubble and warp off.
3) warp off without a bubble in your wake.

There is no reason to warp to a safe when you are behind a gate when neuts enter system, because you don't know where they are, and they can't reach you behind the gate. I know that gated anoms would still be on the scan list, but placing a cloaked alt / small t1 bubble / handful of corpmates in pvp ships at the entrance gate will give significantly more protection compared to what we have currently, since the neut can land anywhere in the anom.

Its like LM said in the RNK pipe bombing video, if you control where your enemy is on the battlefield, you are at a significant advantage. Gating anoms gives complete control of the neut's location to the ratter and his friends/alts.


-With a gated anom I'd set an alt in a Sabre 2600 meters off the gate with a cloak, ready to decloak and bubble. My defense fleet would be waiting somewhere nearby, a tank fit ratting ship with a scram and that sabre could hold a sucker down long enough for help to come kill him.

-Even if I didn't do that and just used my ratting BS solo , I'd MJD my ratting ship off the gate so no matter what the guy coming after me has to fly 70-80 km to point me. He'd be flying into the teeth of my guns also.

-And MJDing off the gate probably puts the rats between me and the bad guy, him MJDing and using EWAR makes ghim a rat target, rats helping me kill him.

-And a gate means deadspace, no cyno, so i'd be safe from hot drops. The only point of danger would be if someone comes in while im warping to the next anom and guesses right and lands before me. But that's it.

That's the thing about suggestions people make when they are trying to find away around something that is uncomfortable to them, they end up not thinking the thing all the way thourgh which would let them realize that the idea not only won't work, it's counter productive.