These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerfs, and the coming of the second shard

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#121 - 2015-02-11 18:48:57 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Kraft Ogburn wrote:
Exactly.

What would be nice, is if there was more stuff DO in a player corp, than there is in an NPC corp, or completely alone. It makes everything easier, but ultimately its pretty much the same. By the time you "graduate" (have the SP) to head out to where the rewards and content are more satisfying, none of this matters. None of those corps let in AWOXers anyways, and for them, nothing has changed at all.

More carrot. Less stick.

You know, this tweaked me on a recent comparative experience...

I recently spent some time grinding spacebucks in Elite:Dangerous to finally be able to afford my pimp-fit 'Python' ship. When I lost it I initially cringed, hard, expecting a hit to my wallet as happens in EvE.... But then I received a 96% insurance payout, by default, ship and modules.

Know what I did? I immediately reshipped and got back to shooting things, and dying again. And again.

The impact of this cannot be overstated.

While I understand 'the market' sets ship and module prices in EvE, the cold hard fact is (IMHO) that the main reasons players in EvE are so risk averse, is that the loss of ships/modules has a much higher impact vs. other games. The answer to constant cries for nerfs may not be to do changes that reduce conflict, but to simply make conflict more bearable.

Sure, you still want people to grind for initial ship/module purchases (and those can still be very high or higher), but just imagine the beautiful carnage that would result with a 96% insurance payout on losses.

My hope is we get more out-of-the-box thinking like this and what is displayed in competing games, that address risk aversion in conflict-generating ways, rather than throwing baby out with bathwater with mechanics nerfs.

F



Hence the success of SRPs.

FW players who excel in rank should be rewarded "free" ships from the faction they fight for, like in the manner that fighter pilots don't really own the aircraft they fly. FW would be PVP heaven free for all and the clone vat is the respawn point.

As for losing ships the "hard way", it's not really the ISK. It's the "shopping".

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#122 - 2015-02-11 18:59:05 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Kraft Ogburn wrote:
Exactly.

What would be nice, is if there was more stuff DO in a player corp, than there is in an NPC corp, or completely alone. It makes everything easier, but ultimately its pretty much the same. By the time you "graduate" (have the SP) to head out to where the rewards and content are more satisfying, none of this matters. None of those corps let in AWOXers anyways, and for them, nothing has changed at all.

More carrot. Less stick.

You know, this tweaked me on a recent comparative experience...

I recently spent some time grinding spacebucks in Elite:Dangerous to finally be able to afford my pimp-fit 'Python' ship. When I lost it I initially cringed, hard, expecting a hit to my wallet as happens in EvE.... But then I received a 96% insurance payout, by default, ship and modules.

Know what I did? I immediately reshipped and got back to shooting things, and dying again. And again.

The impact of this cannot be overstated.

While I understand 'the market' sets ship and module prices in EvE, the cold hard fact is (IMHO) that the main reasons players in EvE are so risk averse, is that the loss of ships/modules has a much higher impact vs. other games. The answer to constant cries for nerfs may not be to do changes that reduce conflict, but to simply make conflict more bearable.

Sure, you still want people to grind for initial ship/module purchases (and those can still be very high or higher), but just imagine the beautiful carnage that would result with a 96% insurance payout on losses.

My hope is we get more out-of-the-box thinking like this and what is displayed in competing games, that address risk aversion in conflict-generating ways, rather than throwing baby out with bathwater with mechanics nerfs.

F


Are losses supposed to be meaningfull or not?
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2015-02-11 19:01:15 UTC
Now I understand what people mean when they are talking about PvP carebears...

I'm my own NPC alt.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#124 - 2015-02-11 19:03:50 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Kraft Ogburn wrote:
Exactly.

What would be nice, is if there was more stuff DO in a player corp, than there is in an NPC corp, or completely alone. It makes everything easier, but ultimately its pretty much the same. By the time you "graduate" (have the SP) to head out to where the rewards and content are more satisfying, none of this matters. None of those corps let in AWOXers anyways, and for them, nothing has changed at all.

More carrot. Less stick.

You know, this tweaked me on a recent comparative experience...

I recently spent some time grinding spacebucks in Elite:Dangerous to finally be able to afford my pimp-fit 'Python' ship. When I lost it I initially cringed, hard, expecting a hit to my wallet as happens in EvE.... But then I received a 96% insurance payout, by default, ship and modules.

Know what I did? I immediately reshipped and got back to shooting things, and dying again. And again.

The impact of this cannot be overstated.

While I understand 'the market' sets ship and module prices in EvE, the cold hard fact is (IMHO) that the main reasons players in EvE are so risk averse, is that the loss of ships/modules has a much higher impact vs. other games. The answer to constant cries for nerfs may not be to do changes that reduce conflict, but to simply make conflict more bearable.

Sure, you still want people to grind for initial ship/module purchases (and those can still be very high or higher), but just imagine the beautiful carnage that would result with a 96% insurance payout on losses.

My hope is we get more out-of-the-box thinking like this and what is displayed in competing games, that address risk aversion in conflict-generating ways, rather than throwing baby out with bathwater with mechanics nerfs.

F



Hence the success of SRPs.

FW players who excel in rank should be rewarded "free" ships from the faction they fight for, like in the manner that fighter pilots don't really own the aircraft they fly. FW would be PVP heaven free for all and the clone vat is the respawn point.

As for losing ships the "hard way", it's not really the ISK. It's the "shopping".


No to both of you.

EVE is the only game out there which has consequences to your actions. If people cannot handle loss then they have literally thousands of other games to chose from.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#125 - 2015-02-11 19:10:41 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I report, you decide.

F

Two or three of the items on your list strike me as being balance tipped. but the rest were long overdue. I also noticed you completely ignore any improvements to combat, mods, or ganking useable ships or strategies that have been made over the same period. For example, when the EHP was improved on barges (also overdue) things were out of balance for a bit until the rebalance of other ships.. the "perceived" EHP advantage has been significantly reduced. Your whining here seems to me to be completely one sided tear letting.


The barges being targeted didn't need any extra EHP as they could already get it simply by fitting a tank. We also did not get any kind of rebalance to ganking ships after the barge buff.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#126 - 2015-02-11 19:18:15 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I report, you decide.

F

Two or three of the items on your list strike me as being balance tipped. but the rest were long overdue. I also noticed you completely ignore any improvements to combat, mods, or ganking useable ships or strategies that have been made over the same period. For example, when the EHP was improved on barges (also overdue) things were out of balance for a bit until the rebalance of other ships.. the "perceived" EHP advantage has been significantly reduced. Your whining here seems to me to be completely one sided tear letting.


The barges being targeted didn't need any extra EHP as they could already get it simply by fitting a tank. We also did not get any kind of rebalance to ganking ships after the barge buff.


I don't say this is the case but maybe CCP though the other ship were already at the level they needed to be even after the barge/exhumer were changed.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#127 - 2015-02-11 19:18:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
baltec1 wrote:


No to both of you.

EVE is the only game out there which has consequences to your actions. If people cannot handle loss then they have literally thousands of other games to chose from.

Couldn't agree more.

Loss is everything here.
take that away and I fail to see a reason to engage.

If my actions don't have an impact on the time or money someone (or myself) needs to put forward to recoup the loss, why bother inflicting it in the first place.

Even in friendly games of poker with my mates we pay for cash,
stakes and investment give the actions within the game gravitas and meaning,
remove those and you're left with an exceptionally hard game to play for very little payoff,

Intact, you get sisi.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#128 - 2015-02-11 19:19:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
baltec1 wrote:

...
No to both of you.

EVE is the only game out there which has consequences to your actions. If people cannot handle loss then they have literally thousands of other games to chose from.

And the continuation of the mechanics nerfs that selfsame remove consequences of actions, outlined in gory detail in the OP?

The point is I would rather have nerfs at the back-end of conflict that still inspire detonations and remove risk aversion (like with higher insurance payouts), than mechanics nerfs up-front that reduce detonations and conflict in the first place.

It's a philosophy thing. CCP has lost their way in addressing risk aversion and carebear ouchies due to ship losses, by nerfing actual conflict drivers up-front, rather than just making said losses more bearable and inspiring continued conflict.

tldr;
Continually tune insurance payout rates, stop nerfing conflict driving mechanics themselves, if a choice between the two must be made.

F

Would you like to know more?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#129 - 2015-02-11 19:30:36 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


I don't say this is the case but maybe CCP though the other ship were already at the level they needed to be even after the barge/exhumer were changed.


Frankly CCP made a mistake in listening to the people whining about their untanked barges getting blown up and did what they wanted. Barges did need a rebalance but not in the ehp department, what they needed was to simple make the ships that were not the hulk worth using. Its the same mistake they made with freighters only in that case the bears managed to nerf themselves and everyone else along with them.
Orlacc
#130 - 2015-02-11 19:32:32 UTC
"Can't we all get along?"

-Rodney King (RIP)

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
Haedonism Bot
People for the Ethical Treatment of Rogue Drones
#131 - 2015-02-11 19:34:21 UTC
You missed a few nerfs, Feyd. Instead of -13 it's more like -25 by my count. I'm a relatively new player so there are surely others I'm not aware of. Anyone can see the direction the game is headed at this point, but there is still a lot of villainy we can do. I, for one, plan to use what limited playtime I have to extract as many carebear tears as I am able over the next year or two.

I expect by that time EVE will no longer be worth playing for me, and I'll be forced to spend my free time remodeling my house or climbing K2 or clubbing baby seals or something.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#132 - 2015-02-11 19:34:48 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I report, you decide.

F


You posted this on reddit and everyone shot you down saying you're dumb then you post it here expecting a different result?
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#133 - 2015-02-11 19:41:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
baltec1 wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Kraft Ogburn wrote:
Exactly.

What would be nice, is if there was more stuff DO in a player corp, than there is in an NPC corp, or completely alone. It makes everything easier, but ultimately its pretty much the same. By the time you "graduate" (have the SP) to head out to where the rewards and content are more satisfying, none of this matters. None of those corps let in AWOXers anyways, and for them, nothing has changed at all.

More carrot. Less stick.

You know, this tweaked me on a recent comparative experience...

I recently spent some time grinding spacebucks in Elite:Dangerous to finally be able to afford my pimp-fit 'Python' ship. When I lost it I initially cringed, hard, expecting a hit to my wallet as happens in EvE.... But then I received a 96% insurance payout, by default, ship and modules.

Know what I did? I immediately reshipped and got back to shooting things, and dying again. And again.

The impact of this cannot be overstated.

While I understand 'the market' sets ship and module prices in EvE, the cold hard fact is (IMHO) that the main reasons players in EvE are so risk averse, is that the loss of ships/modules has a much higher impact vs. other games. The answer to constant cries for nerfs may not be to do changes that reduce conflict, but to simply make conflict more bearable.

Sure, you still want people to grind for initial ship/module purchases (and those can still be very high or higher), but just imagine the beautiful carnage that would result with a 96% insurance payout on losses.

My hope is we get more out-of-the-box thinking like this and what is displayed in competing games, that address risk aversion in conflict-generating ways, rather than throwing baby out with bathwater with mechanics nerfs.

F



Hence the success of SRPs.

FW players who excel in rank should be rewarded "free" ships from the faction they fight for, like in the manner that fighter pilots don't really own the aircraft they fly. FW would be PVP heaven free for all and the clone vat is the respawn point.

As for losing ships the "hard way", it's not really the ISK. It's the "shopping".


No to both of you.

EVE is the only game out there which has consequences to your actions. If people cannot handle loss then they have literally thousands of other games to chose from.




Says the guy from the organization best known for its SRP and noob friendliness.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#134 - 2015-02-11 19:42:40 UTC
Funny chart. Looking at it from a non-I-only-want-easy-kills-and-am-too-lazy-to-find-real-combat perspective, all those changes seem pretty good.

Let's get two things straight. There's proper PVP, there's ganking for profit and there's griefing. All three are mutually exclusive and interestingly enough, the changes listed in that chart are mostly meant to combat the third one, which is perfectly fine by me because no-one likes a game where griefers get handed all the tools they need to grief.

But since OP likes the idea of HTFU, I suggest he follows that rule himself as the game slowly adapts to a wider audience so we may all enjoy the game for another decade.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#135 - 2015-02-11 19:44:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Frankly CCP made a mistake in listening to the people whining about their untanked barges getting blown up and did what they wanted. Barges did need a rebalance but not in the ehp department, what they needed was to simple make the ships that were not the hulk worth using. Its the same mistake they made with freighters only in that case the bears managed to nerf themselves and everyone else along with them.


That's because the players who squealed the loudest about the barges and freighters couldn't look past their own short-sighted and self-serving goals and failed to look a the big picture...

If we continue to listen to those types of players, all of highsec will be filled with covert ops cloaked, jump capable, fighter bonused siege barges with 1,000,000.00m3 ore holds, +2000% yield and +4000% range bonus to t1 strip miners, built in +50 warp strength, 200% resist bonuses to shield/armor AND hull, and programmable automation, not to mention the 40,000,000ehp freighters with +500% agility bonus per level, bubble and warp scram immunity, 40AU/sec warp speed, 20bil m3 unscannable cargoholds and 40 hardpoints for XXXL turrets bonused to hit frigates and highsec capable CONCORD approved AOE doomsdays.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Capt Handbanana
Blood Alcohol Content
T O P S H E L F
#136 - 2015-02-11 19:44:56 UTC
Haedonism Bot wrote:
You missed a few nerfs, Feyd. Instead of -13 it's more like -25 by my count. I'm a relatively new player so there are surely others I'm not aware of. Anyone can see the direction the game is headed at this point, but there is still a lot of villainy we can do. I, for one, plan to use what limited playtime I have to extract as many carebear tears as I am able over the next year or two.

I expect by that time EVE will no longer be worth playing for me, and I'll be forced to spend my free time remodeling my house or climbing K2 or clubbing baby seals or something.



Yet you don't post any other examples?

I like beer.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#137 - 2015-02-11 19:47:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


I don't say this is the case but maybe CCP though the other ship were already at the level they needed to be even after the barge/exhumer were changed.


Frankly CCP made a mistake in listening to the people whining about their untanked barges getting blown up and did what they wanted. Barges did need a rebalance but not in the ehp department, what they needed was to simple make the ships that were not the hulk worth using. Its the same mistake they made with freighters only in that case the bears managed to nerf themselves and everyone else along with them.


This kind of argument with no substance beside your own gut feeling of where things should stand is kinda useless. Anyone could say CCP made a misstake when they buffed dessies because players could kill the same target by using more ships. If your argument for ship X being able to be ganked by ship Y in condition Z is basically " well because".

The freighter change was just stupid. Nobody can even say one side left that change with the upper hand.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#138 - 2015-02-11 19:58:24 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Kraft Ogburn wrote:
Exactly.

What would be nice, is if there was more stuff DO in a player corp, than there is in an NPC corp, or completely alone. It makes everything easier, but ultimately its pretty much the same. By the time you "graduate" (have the SP) to head out to where the rewards and content are more satisfying, none of this matters. None of those corps let in AWOXers anyways, and for them, nothing has changed at all.

More carrot. Less stick.

You know, this tweaked me on a recent comparative experience...

I recently spent some time grinding spacebucks in Elite:Dangerous to finally be able to afford my pimp-fit 'Python' ship. When I lost it I initially cringed, hard, expecting a hit to my wallet as happens in EvE.... But then I received a 96% insurance payout, by default, ship and modules.

Know what I did? I immediately reshipped and got back to shooting things, and dying again. And again.

The impact of this cannot be overstated.

While I understand 'the market' sets ship and module prices in EvE, the cold hard fact is (IMHO) that the main reasons players in EvE are so risk averse, is that the loss of ships/modules has a much higher impact vs. other games. The answer to constant cries for nerfs may not be to do changes that reduce conflict, but to simply make conflict more bearable.

Sure, you still want people to grind for initial ship/module purchases (and those can still be very high or higher), but just imagine the beautiful carnage that would result with a 96% insurance payout on losses.

My hope is we get more out-of-the-box thinking like this and what is displayed in competing games, that address risk aversion in conflict-generating ways, rather than throwing baby out with bathwater with mechanics nerfs.

F



Hence the success of SRPs.

FW players who excel in rank should be rewarded "free" ships from the faction they fight for, like in the manner that fighter pilots don't really own the aircraft they fly. FW would be PVP heaven free for all and the clone vat is the respawn point.

As for losing ships the "hard way", it's not really the ISK. It's the "shopping".


No to both of you.

EVE is the only game out there which has consequences to your actions. If people cannot handle loss then they have literally thousands of other games to chose from.




Says the guy from the organization best known for its SRP and noob friendliness.


Might have been a witty retort if not aimed at someone who doesn't get SRP (if theres one thing Baltec is famous for, its not flying doctrine, and he pays for that out his own pocket)
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#139 - 2015-02-11 20:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
TigerXtrm wrote:
... there's griefing. All three are mutually exclusive and interestingly enough, the changes listed in that chart are mostly meant to combat the third one, which is perfectly fine by me because no-one likes a game where griefers get handed all the tools they need to grief....

The simple fact that you applied the tearful term 'griefing' to any form of in-game conflict in EvE, should exclude your future comments from any consideration. Moreover, it indicates you (and your ilk calling for these nerfs) simply don't get EvE, and perhaps will never do.

p.s.
WoW is that way ---->

p.p.s.
When did we as a community stop saying that? Perhaps the same time we all became paper-pants wearing vegans, stopped inoculating our kids from measles, started driving crappy hybrids, began believing in global warming, and simply stopped being men.

F

Would you like to know more?
Thorn en Distel
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2015-02-11 20:05:56 UTC
Help, help, the sky is falling....