These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
erg cz
Eye to Eye
Synergy of Steel
#81 - 2017-06-13 09:09:25 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:


To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves.

And they wonder why Hi-Sec and Lo-sec look like ghost towns and they had to make EvE free to play.



Exactly. The whole ISK problem was with no drones / fighter agression from NPC. CCP should not tough fighters but rather change NPC AI so , that they will agress 100 % fighters / drones if ships itself does not fire. No semi AFK ratting then, problem solved.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#82 - 2017-06-13 09:27:49 UTC
erg cz wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:


To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves.

And they wonder why Hi-Sec and Lo-sec look like ghost towns and they had to make EvE free to play.



Exactly. The whole ISK problem was with no drones / fighter agression from NPC. CCP should not tough fighters but rather change NPC AI so , that they will agress 100 % fighters / drones if ships itself does not fire. No semi AFK ratting then, problem solved.

NPCs could just use ECM on fighters en masse.
April rabbit
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2017-06-13 10:45:26 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
Well it doesn't matter now.

CCP has folded faster than Superman on laundry day in the face of the tears from the spoiled children of Null.

To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves.

Well.... Need to say this is the worst possible "fix".
With increased NPC aggro one could say that this "fix" is more about PVE. PVP is just collateral damage.
Without it PVP was hurt the same way as PVE.

Just from the top of my head:
The best target for fighters is NPC battleships. Ok. Replace couple battleships in Havens with battlecruisers for example. 1 BS -> 5 or 6 BC to keep the same level of total bounty. My fighters need the more the less the same time to kill BS or BC. So replacing 1 BS with couple BCs will make it longer => that needed reduce of ISK/hour for carriers/supers.

Or more targeted change: heavy drones have better tracking speed than fighters. Change NPC in anomalies to exploit this difference. Again: targeted fix for particular problem.

Or maybe heavy drones have smaller signature? Or ...
In any case something could be found to make anomalies worse for fighters keeping subcap ratters intact. And still keep carriers/super the same for PVP.

But what we got here is just nerf to PVE/PVP based on PVE ratting. Which is very weak solution.
Ikshuki
Sleepercore
#84 - 2017-06-13 11:33:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ikshuki
Mark Marconi wrote:
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 on Tuesday will be making the following alterations to fighters.


  • 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.


This is due in a large part to Carriers running anomalies in Delve and Deklein with the totals of bounties in the game doubling in the last 12-18 months.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/1_regional.stats.png

So a huge isk faucet for Null is being threatened and they are complaining. It also effects the carriers effects in PvP but then so does a T1 frigate with a jammer.
and CCP wonders why players quits or never increases their active player base, this change will literally turn carriers into super cap logis rendering fighters pointless, better off just removing fighter bonuses from the bonus tab, besides why is it a sin to run complexes in carriers? it's our ships, we grind grind and grind to build those ships, we deserve to take the risk of using them any way we want, i'm pretty sure you'll find some dummy trying to run complexes in a titan if you look hard enough, just to try and solo incursions, if ppl starts doing incursions solo in a tian, will that mean you'll nerf titans as well? where will it stop? you want to nerf something, nerf the rewards that's encouraging players of using carriers, or better yet, place ship restrictions on the rat rooms
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#85 - 2017-06-13 11:54:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#86 - 2017-06-13 15:00:40 UTC
The fighter agreession piece was the one part that should NOT have been rolled back at all.

CCP seems to think carriers are too useful for PvP. I haven't seen many that believe that... but if that's their goal then the new reduced nerf to damage might at least result in them having some viability. But the part that should have remained nerfed in full is the fighter aggression. That's a method of making ratting harder for carriers that has NO impact on PvP.

Ah well.
Marek Kanenald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2017-06-13 15:07:35 UTC
Scialt wrote:
The fighter agreession piece was the one part that should NOT have been rolled back at all.

CCP seems to think carriers are too useful for PvP. I haven't seen many that believe that... but if that's their goal then the new reduced nerf to damage might at least result in them having some viability. But the part that should have remained nerfed in full is the fighter aggression. That's a method of making ratting harder for carriers that has NO impact on PvP.

Ah well.


I think that this isn't intended to deal with the ratting issue.

The fighter nerfs are purely a pvp nerf.

A new way of nerfing carrier ratting will be thought off.


Though personally I think carriers aren't the problem, its the instantly re-spawning anomalies that just keep churning out cash.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#88 - 2017-06-13 15:22:08 UTC
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Scialt wrote:
The fighter agreession piece was the one part that should NOT have been rolled back at all.

CCP seems to think carriers are too useful for PvP. I haven't seen many that believe that... but if that's their goal then the new reduced nerf to damage might at least result in them having some viability. But the part that should have remained nerfed in full is the fighter aggression. That's a method of making ratting harder for carriers that has NO impact on PvP.

Ah well.


I think that this isn't intended to deal with the ratting issue.

The fighter nerfs are purely a pvp nerf.

A new way of nerfing carrier ratting will be thought off.


Though personally I think carriers aren't the problem, its the instantly re-spawning anomalies that just keep churning out cash.

'
Those instantly respawning anomalies have existed since 2010. They existed when EVE had higher PCU numbers (ie more people were online playing EVE). The money supply didn't go haywire until last year, right after CCP introduced Fighter Squadrons. Carriers and Supercarriers have been used in anomalies the entire time (the 1st Supercarrier kill I was on was a ratting super, back when they were still officially called "Motherships". Hell, people have and still sometimes do rat with titans (this was subject to a heavy nerf 5 years ago).

I honestly don't know how people can blame something that has been around for more than 8 years for something that is obviously and provably the fault of Fighter Squadrons.
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#89 - 2017-06-13 15:38:09 UTC
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Scialt wrote:
The fighter agreession piece was the one part that should NOT have been rolled back at all.

CCP seems to think carriers are too useful for PvP. I haven't seen many that believe that... but if that's their goal then the new reduced nerf to damage might at least result in them having some viability. But the part that should have remained nerfed in full is the fighter aggression. That's a method of making ratting harder for carriers that has NO impact on PvP.

Ah well.


I think that this isn't intended to deal with the ratting issue.

The fighter nerfs are purely a pvp nerf.

A new way of nerfing carrier ratting will be thought off.


Though personally I think carriers aren't the problem, its the instantly re-spawning anomalies that just keep churning out cash.


The justification for the nerf was entirely based on bounties for rats, so I disagree.

They should have left the aggression change in place and just rolled back some of the damage side.
Tikhor Kajyar
Dragon Swarm
#90 - 2017-06-13 16:50:17 UTC
Mark Marconi wrote:
After all Null sec is meant to to outlaw territory, not the land where it rains gold while you sit on your butt.


Now, that sentence made me smile Lol
Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#91 - 2017-06-13 17:27:20 UTC
Tikhor Kajyar wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:
After all Null sec is meant to to outlaw territory, not the land where it rains gold while you sit on your butt.


Now, that sentence made me smile Lol


I think it's a flawed view of null-sec though.

Null sec is space that the 4 factions and concord don't police. But it's as safe as the dominant power in the region wants to (or is able to) make it for their locals. A strong player corp can definitely make null-sec systems more safe than an uncontrolled area of low-sec. Once concord is out of the picture... it really just comes down to how effective the system "player police" are to determine how safe the area is.

Some null-sec coalitions are very effective.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#92 - 2017-06-13 17:34:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
Maybe if all the bounties would be moving from killed anomaly pirates to a carrier that is doing the killing, people would actually hunt more for those carriers. How to move bounties to make them claimable by others? Maybe chips that fill with data of pirates automatically as they are killed? And they would appear in cargo space of carrier. Then they would have to be transported to a location to be sold.

Bounty chips for null. \o/

Or just those tags that have to be collected.
Perkin Warbeck
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#93 - 2017-06-13 21:07:49 UTC
A quick and easy fix if they want to nerf PvE income is just have each successive wave of rats warp into the anom (just like the are doing with the current rogue drone event). Slow the warp speed if rats down depending on the size of the anom, so sanctums/havens are slowest. It means that all ticks are reduced but the supposed combat abilities of carriers are maintained.
Vortexo VonBrenner
Doomheim
#94 - 2017-06-13 21:37:41 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Maybe if all the bounties would be moving from killed anomaly pirates to a carrier that is doing the killing, people would actually hunt more for those carriers. How to move bounties to make them claimable by others? Maybe chips that fill with data of pirates automatically as they are killed? And they would appear in cargo space of carrier. Then they would have to be transported to a location to be sold.

Bounty chips for null. \o/

Or just those tags that have to be collected.


At first part I thought that would be a bad idea. However, if such bounty data chips were the case for everybody, whether they killed NPC or other, the bounty chip thing could be an interesting angle.
Back to same issue with carriers relative to everybody, but might be an interesting mechanic.


Koopman van Luxe
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2017-06-14 02:23:52 UTC
Instead of messing about with the PVP balance of an entire class of ships over a PVE issue...

Why not put some of that fancy new NPC AI to work, and make the NPCs suddenly start to decide "well **** this **** i'm not going to stick around and fight that thing" and warp out when a supercap starts farming them?
Salvos Rhoska
#96 - 2017-06-14 06:06:50 UTC
Perhaps CCP wanted to nerf carriers in PvP too.
Marek Kanenald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2017-06-14 09:14:25 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Perhaps CCP wanted to nerf carriers in PvP too.


They did, they literally stated that.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Duckzer Mining Corporation
RAZOR Alliance
#98 - 2017-06-14 09:48:11 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
Maybe if all the bounties would be moving from killed anomaly pirates to a carrier that is doing the killing, people would actually hunt more for those carriers. How to move bounties to make them claimable by others? Maybe chips that fill with data of pirates automatically as they are killed? And they would appear in cargo space of carrier. Then they would have to be transported to a location to be sold.

Bounty chips for null. \o/

Or just those tags that have to be collected.

One of the main requirements for these bounty chips would need to be that they would only be able to be redeemed in some other NPC space, whether that is null, low or high sec I wouldnt care too much. Moves between regions/NPC faction lines plus moving through at least 1 or both security levels of space would do the trick and not make it a cookie cutter press "buttan receive bacon".

And though with MTUs the ease of cleaning up anoms is still quicker the ability to steal, loot and generally harass players would increase simply because if you had the ability to run someone out of an anom or belt you could collect the isk theyd made too up to that point. So destruction wouldnt be the only way to hurt said players, much like if someone runs a miner out of a belt thats jetcanning they can hurt them by blowing up the can of ore and therefore the value and time.

If such a thing would be created I would generally enjoy a hacking module, perhaps a modified Ligature or Zeugma or even a Purloined, that would be able to hack the MTUs to spill the contents, particularly the chips or tags. The other option is a parasitic MTU with very limited range, speed and hold that would in essence be anchorable only for a short duration, have a long reanchor timer and limited to one per grid that would be able to be anchored in the anom to collect the wrecks still there. To the victor go the spoils, to those who can hold grid go the riches.

This creates a method of harassment, theft and piracy beyond just the ship kill as well.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#99 - 2017-06-14 16:43:41 UTC
erg cz wrote:
Mark Marconi wrote:


To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves.

And they wonder why Hi-Sec and Lo-sec look like ghost towns and they had to make EvE free to play.



Exactly. The whole ISK problem was with no drones / fighter agression from NPC. CCP should not tough fighters but rather change NPC AI so , that they will agress 100 % fighters / drones if ships itself does not fire. No semi AFK ratting then, problem solved.


The rats already attack fighters and someone who does not pay attention will lose them all rather fast. If you want to stop afk ratting, it's not aggro mechanics you have to change but forcing all drones on sub-cap to passive. Then, nobody can just afk while their ships does all the job.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#100 - 2017-06-15 10:04:06 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


CCP is nerfing the right thing this time. In the past CCP usually nerfed only symptoms of a problem while ignoring the actual cause.

For example: ...

CCP's fix: Get rid of fighter assign for EVERYONE. I never gate camped once, I used fighter assign to rat and I got nerfed too.

Another example: ...

CCP's fix: Add frigs to Forsaken hubs, slowing them down for EVERYONE who rats. I did forsaken hubs with sub caps and didn't make 500 mil per hour and still got nerfed

THIS TIME CCP got it right. This time they looked at the game, saw that it was FIGHTER SQUADRONS...


LOL. So because you weren't nerfed this time (maybe because you don't fly a carrier in PvP?), they got it right. But all the other times when they affected someone and something else but the actual problem, and you were affected too, they got it wrong. Right?

Fighter squadrons don't **** ISK all over New Eden, exploding the money supply. Nerfing them makes as much sense as nerfing any other ship or weapon in the game. CCP is being STUPID AND LAZY with this so-called "fix." And in your short-sightedness, and in your lust to see abusers get what's coming to them, you are supporting the nonsense.

I'm not being affected either. I don't live in null sec, and I don't fly a carrier. I also don't want a bunch of goons living in Delve raking-in however many trillions of ISK per day/week/month they've been raking-in. But I also recognize you don't stupidly nerf a ship because you don't know how to fix or manage the fracking economy. IT'S STUPID.

REASONS TO NERF A COMBAT SHIP OR WEAPON IN PVP

1) The ship or weapon is too strong in PvP.

2) See #1.

REASONS NOT TO NERF A COMBAT SHIP OR WEAPON IN PVP

1) Economy.

2) PvE.

3) Just because you feel like it.

4) It's raining outside.

5) Etc.

CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER BEFORE NERFING SHIP/WEAPON IN PVP

1) PvP

2) See #1.

CIRCUMSTANCES NOT TO CONSIDER BEFORE NERFING SHIP/WEAPON IN PVP

1) Anything else but #1 above.