These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Haidere
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1861 - 2017-06-12 18:19:14 UTC
Thank you for taking the time to reconsider the changes.

One thing you may want to look at, a large chunk of bounties was earned by T1 cruisers, perhaps check to see what percentage of those were single players, and which were multi-boxers.
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#1862 - 2017-06-12 18:21:14 UTC
Hetwiyha wrote:
Oh...wait....

Carriers and Supers with drones are to easy for Krabbing, lets change to fighters and let them multitask, that will fix income...

No "big" wars, all are krabbing, more isk is generated, lets change damage for Carriers/Supers....

All are krabbing then more, because still no big wars and less income then before, CCP, whats next?

Perhaps its just because nothing big is going on and all have time for do this instead of having fights over SOV because of Foz.... :P


Krabbing is just storing up a warchest to prepare for the next big war.

Patience.
C0ATL
Renegade Stars
Stellae Renascitur
#1863 - 2017-06-12 18:24:16 UTC
PenguinBacon wrote:
I too can massage data to justify a false conclusion!

Per Quant's 2015 presentation
1.5% of the games population logged in and ran incursions

This group accounted for at the time 8.36T worth of income

Assuming linear growth of the player base based on the increase in incursion income
May 2017th Income is 9.92T.

This was a growth of 18.68% of income. The estimated population of incursion runners is 1.66%.

So Rounding up to 1.7% to be consistent with the chart made by Quant.
We have 1.7% of the games population accounting for 9.92T income.

To compare this with the numbers posted by Larrikin in the first post
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

Incursion runners are about 21% more of a player base than SuperCarriers but result in 331% more income per character.


THAT ^ ^ ^

It begs the question...how true are those numbers? Why didnt we get a nice graph like the ones in the report? Why wasnt a bounty income per ship type graph included in the monthly report (didnt even need to include all 200 ships...just cruiser/battleships/capitals/supercapitals)? And most important of all...why weren't these numbers given in the original post?

I would not have considered this option, before this whole scandal, but what if after taking a dive in subscriptions, CCP decided to put out some non-rounded up numbers (for authenticity, ofc) that are completely made up to support their claims and still go on with this change? Is this so far-fetched when CCP_Quant messed up and later admited to cherry-picking info -- implying the logical conclusion that CCP is not above using underhanded methods to manipulate opinions?

Partially going back on the nerf does not make it less of a poorly designed and lazy attempt at fixing one of the many recent issues with your game. And now, because of shifting the nerf numbers in an attempt to please the unsubscribing players, we know what actually gets CCP's attention. It is not a moment for compromise and I urge other players who have accepted this lesser nerf to not reactivate their subscripions untill CCP starts putting >proper thought< into EvE again and comes up with non-blanket solutions.
Jeison Frenzy
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1864 - 2017-06-12 18:25:41 UTC
Still overly harsh for tank Carriers when it is DMG bonused carriers used for ratting that are the problem.
Random Freak
Doomheim
#1865 - 2017-06-12 18:26:10 UTC
Fix the faucet or the drain. Those are the only options. Hitting the person playing with the broken faucet will less nowhere.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1866 - 2017-06-12 18:27:03 UTC
C0ATL wrote:
PenguinBacon wrote:
I too can massage data to justify a false conclusion!

Per Quant's 2015 presentation
1.5% of the games population logged in and ran incursions

This group accounted for at the time 8.36T worth of income

Assuming linear growth of the player base based on the increase in incursion income
May 2017th Income is 9.92T.

This was a growth of 18.68% of income. The estimated population of incursion runners is 1.66%.

So Rounding up to 1.7% to be consistent with the chart made by Quant.
We have 1.7% of the games population accounting for 9.92T income.

To compare this with the numbers posted by Larrikin in the first post
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

Incursion runners are about 21% more of a player base than SuperCarriers but result in 331% more income per character.


THAT ^ ^ ^

It begs the question...how true are those numbers? Why didnt we get a nice graph like the ones in the report? Why wasnt a bounty income per ship type graph included in the monthly report (didnt even need to include all 200 ships...just cruiser/battleships/capitals/supercapitals)? And most important of all...why weren't these numbers given in the original post?


Because it's CCP and they never anticipate the about of nerd rage that's about to come at them...
Sam Khanid
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1867 - 2017-06-12 18:27:49 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
[img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/71813/1/GermanFlag33.png[/img]  [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/FLAG_-_RUSSIAN-33.png[/img]

UPDATE 2017-06-12: Reduced the damage reduction to fighters. Added supporting data.

Greetings Capsuleers,
Coming tomorrow in the June 2017 release, the damage output of Fighters will see a reduction by the game design team. After a long weekend sifting through some passionate feedback and taking into consideration previously ongoing design work, let’s take a look at what’s coming.

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.

Why:
Our primary goal for this change is reducing the combat power of Carriers & Supercarriersin 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 due to NPC Bounties.

[img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9b_isk.float.3.jpg[/img]

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.
Our secondary goal is that Carriers and Supercarriers are too effective in PvP, even for the investment it takes to create them. This change will shift the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP battles.

What:
  • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
  • Light Fighters (Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage (was 20%)
  • Support Fighters: No Change
  • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): No Change (was 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage)
  • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack damage (was 30%)
  • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
  • NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%)
  • We are working on changes to Anomalies that will reduce the effectiveness of Carriers and Supercarriers. These changes will be announced at a later date.


We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players. Some of you have asked 'Why not just reduce the bounties?'. The focus of this change is Supercarriers and Carriers. We don't want to effect the income of ships besides those with this change.


A more realistic and moderate approach, bravo for adjusting course midstream.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1868 - 2017-06-12 18:27:53 UTC
C0ATL wrote:
PenguinBacon wrote:
I too can massage data to justify a false conclusion!

Per Quant's 2015 presentation
1.5% of the games population logged in and ran incursions

This group accounted for at the time 8.36T worth of income

Assuming linear growth of the player base based on the increase in incursion income
May 2017th Income is 9.92T.

This was a growth of 18.68% of income. The estimated population of incursion runners is 1.66%.

So Rounding up to 1.7% to be consistent with the chart made by Quant.
We have 1.7% of the games population accounting for 9.92T income.

To compare this with the numbers posted by Larrikin in the first post
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

Incursion runners are about 21% more of a player base than SuperCarriers but result in 331% more income per character.


THAT ^ ^ ^

It begs the question...how true are those numbers?



The idiot post you're THAT^^^ing compares 5 days of ratting income to a month of incursion income.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
hezie99
United Mining and Hauling Inc
The Initiative.
#1869 - 2017-06-12 18:27:59 UTC
your data is **** and awful...... actually play the game yoooo!
May'n Nome
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1870 - 2017-06-12 18:30:44 UTC
Jeison Frenzy wrote:
Still overly harsh for tank Carriers when it is DMG bonused carriers used for ratting that are the problem.


I can agree but I also think something has to be done. Which it seems they have people looking at it based on this in the notes (Bolded for emphasis.) :

Quote:


What:
Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
Light Fighters (Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage (was 20%)
Support Fighters: No Change
Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): No Change (was 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage)
Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack damage (was 30%)
Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%)
We are working on changes to Anomalies that will reduce the effectiveness of Carriers and Supercarriers. These changes will be announced at a later date.




So they are looking at changing something about anomalies but also keep in mind much of the code is old and will probably take some work to get around. (This statement I am making is based on something I overheard in comms about why WH's are the way they are and why it takes so long to get around the code.)

"Threefold is the time's pace: the future comes not in haste, the present is gone arrow fast, eternally still remains the past."
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#1871 - 2017-06-12 18:30:48 UTC
Even the updated changes don't make much sense at all. In the short term, yes, this will help achieve what you're trying to, but it won't be the only change necessary to do so. You won't magically reduce the ISK Faucets in the game to end up with a, say, 10% inflation rate. Stop the bandaid fixes. They swallow dev-time, even though one could argue that it took merely 15 minutes and a lunch-break-talk to do this one - both work-wise and research/planning-wise.

Adress the real issues there are: Not enough ISK sinks / too big and needless ISK faucets.
You can remove 2.7 trillion ISK of monthly ISK faucet by simply removing insurance - and maybe even leaving it in place for Highsec people that are not in a war. I mean, which insurance company pays you for the loss of your ship that you willingly flew into an all-out territorial war in CONCORD unsanctioned territory? What insurance company pays you for losing your ship somewhere in a wormhole far off any civilisation? What insurance company pays you for insuring a ship, undocking it, and selfdestructing it?

Why not immediately focus on reworking Anomalies, give a huge headsup for the players that they know you're working on it, asking for feedback (and actually listening to it, ffs) and create an anomaly system that doesn't have such a drastic efficiency-endgame?

Why not come up with reasonable changes to bring Supercarriers into PvP and make them actually meaningful?

This isn't easy, and it shouldn't be. You should be putting your manpower into this to make this game enjoyable instead of throwing halfhearted fixes around for stuff that is abused because you designed these things half hearted in the very beginning.
Lives In Jita
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1872 - 2017-06-12 18:31:21 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.


GRR THE 1%

So your data is absolute garbage. I guess this is a continuation of last's week inaccurate numbers from CCP Quant on reddit?

To start, per character is a really, really poor measuring stick in a game where even a single account has three characters. If a person has 8 accounts and one character in a ratting carrier, are the 23 other characters now the bottom 96%? That's a laughably poor metric if that's what you're doing.

Also, are you only comparing characters who rat? If so, do you consider me ratting when I'm on a fleet and someone shoots a rat on a gate and I get my 2,000 ISK bounty? I would assume so.

Next, you have provided literally zero comparison for us, which actually makes the information relatively useless. How much has the percentage of bounties generated by (super)carriers changed over time? I'd venture a guess the income inequality has always existed where a small percentage of players generate a large percentage of bounties.

I also fail to see how income inequality is neccessarily bad. EVE is never going to have any kind of income "equality" anyway. The player who spends 10 hours a month playing is--for good reason--at an economic disadvantage over the character who spends 80 hours a month playing cookie clicker in space.

The real data should be measured on a per human player, per hour income generation basis, with historical trends for comparison and removing outliers (e.g. people who shoot gate rats).

Of course, your historical trends are completely useless since skill injectors were implemented. Now you have two week old characters carrier ratting because they know they can calculate the ROI and have a pretty accurate measure of a break-even point. Since those players are going to most likely be spending a significant sum of "real world" money to buy PLEX for injectors, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're particularly upset when their "investment" is nerfed. Why would you bother ratting in a suboptimal setup when you can pay to min/max immediately? That seems to be the piece of the puzzle CCP is missing.

You're only going to end up nerfing everything that's the "flavor of the month" until you fix the issue of skill injectors. Those nerfs are only going to alienate the player base further and drive people to other games.
Kaze Mester
Perkone
Caldari State
#1873 - 2017-06-12 18:39:35 UTC
Now devs just make it look like "okok we have read the forums, heard the community...come back subscribers!!"
Some of them will go back playing for sure...than comes the "we have tested this nerf for this period of time and it doesn't work...here comes the BIG NERF!"
Mark my words!
Prediction is not in CCP's vocab nowdays.
Marcel Garsk
#1874 - 2017-06-12 18:42:25 UTC
What big? -50% damage? Oh, ****...
Laenatus
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#1875 - 2017-06-12 18:43:12 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
[img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/71813/1/GermanFlag33.png[/img]  [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/FLAG_-_RUSSIAN-33.png[/img]

UPDATE 2017-06-12: Reduced the damage reduction to fighters. Added supporting data.

Greetings Capsuleers, ...

This change will shift the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP battles.
.


You speak of confidence. I see ignorance. Thanks for reducing the nerf, I GUESS.
WitcherW
Kingsparrow Wormhole Division
#1876 - 2017-06-12 18:44:27 UTC
I dont have carrier and still i dont like this nerfs...
GothicNightmare
Bondage Goat Zombie
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#1877 - 2017-06-12 18:44:45 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
[quote=baltec1]

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.


I actually really like this idea, and make them tanky so they don't die in 1 shot like current npc dreads can be, and have them slowly spawn in 1 after another until a carrier or super can't sustain the dps, if you can kill them off, ok salvage, if not, they warp off before you come back
Foxy Bushy
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1878 - 2017-06-12 18:45:48 UTC
Thanks for proving the 1% of 1% that they are right.


Cya space cowboiz o7
Q Sertorius
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1879 - 2017-06-12 18:52:23 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
[img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/71813/1/GermanFlag33.png[/img]  [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/FLAG_-_RUSSIAN-33.png[/img]

UPDATE 2017-06-12: Reduced the damage reduction to fighters. Added supporting data.

Greetings Capsuleers,
Coming tomorrow in the June 2017 release, the damage output of Fighters will see a reduction by the game design team. After a long weekend sifting through some passionate feedback and taking into consideration previously ongoing design work, let’s take a look at what’s coming.

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.

Why:
Our primary goal for this change is reducing the combat power of Carriers & Supercarriersin 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 due to NPC Bounties.

[img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9b_isk.float.3.jpg[/img]

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.
Our secondary goal is that Carriers and Supercarriers are too effective in PvP, even for the investment it takes to create them. This change will shift the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP battles.

What:
  • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
  • Light Fighters (Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage (was 20%)
  • Support Fighters: No Change
  • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): No Change (was 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage)
  • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack damage (was 30%)
  • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
  • NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%)
  • We are working on changes to Anomalies that will reduce the effectiveness of Carriers and Supercarriers. These changes will be announced at a later date.


We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players. Some of you have asked 'Why not just reduce the bounties?'. The focus of this change is Supercarriers and Carriers. We don't want to effect the income of ships besides those with this change.


Fabulous post. Thank you, CCP.
Jed Airtech
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#1880 - 2017-06-12 18:57:56 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy

Where is the data on that? Prove it? Why?