These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#141 - 2015-02-11 20:08:07 UTC
Thorn en Distel wrote:
Help, help, the sky is falling....

Oh its the dismal tide alright Thorn...

It is not the one thing.

F

Would you like to know more?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2015-02-11 20:09:10 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
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.


"Proper" pvp is any competition between players. PVP = player vs player. It is entirely non-specific about how that competition takes place.

And profit is certainly not the only reason to do stuff in EVE. Some people don't treat videogames like a second job, and choose to do things in them for fun because, you know, it's a game. You have done nothing here to define what griefing is in the context of EVE Online, and you made nothing straight at all. In fact, your crooked ideas of what PVP should and shouldn't be in EVE Online are what causes the game the most long-term damage.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#143 - 2015-02-11 20:10:21 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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

His mistake was saying they're mutually exclusive... gank for profit and also extract tears at the same time because your bored and need something to pass the time seems to be the majority of highsec pvp...

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2015-02-11 20:12:57 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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

His mistake was saying they're mutually exclusive... gank for profit and also extract tears at the same time because your bored and need something to pass the time seems to be the majority of highsec pvp...


"Seems to be"?

Let's say that's true though, for argument's sake - all the more reason not to nerf other avenues of PVP in highsec into the ground.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#145 - 2015-02-11 20:14:50 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:




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


I don't get SRP for my ships.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#146 - 2015-02-11 20:17:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Miriana 'Trauma' Dallocort wrote:
Seriously, just wtf. Links are all the same. How can one kind of link not go through a pos shield but another link can? Its either they all can or they all cant.

Mining links will receive similar treatment when CCP can figure-out what to do with the Rorqual. The Orca benefits as a side-effect until then.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Rorqual on the other hand... We are very aware of how dire need of help it is. We're at the moment in the Summer release gonna be taking... well its gonna keep its compression feature, but that's now gonna be shared with a starbase structure, so that's no more unique to it.

Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.

Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields.

So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger.

So more details of what we're thinking of for that will be coming in the future. We're still kind of at an earlier stage with that. That's not gonna be coming out in the Summer release, but it's one of the things we are thinking very heavily about, and plan on getting to basically next.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#147 - 2015-02-11 20:19:19 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

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.


They had to revisit barges to balance them again because they made a mess with the mack. We most certainly have substance here and thats before we get to the fact that we put in a lot of work to find out what the profit cutoff point was for ganking them. We not only invented the gank cat but we also figured out exactly how to beat it too.
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#148 - 2015-02-11 20:27:13 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
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.


"Proper" pvp is any competition between players. PVP = player vs player. It is entirely non-specific about how that competition takes place.

And profit is certainly not the only reason to do stuff in EVE. Some people don't treat videogames like a second job, and choose to do things in them for fun because, you know, it's a game. You have done nothing here to define what griefing is in the context of EVE Online, and you made nothing straight at all. In fact, your crooked ideas of what PVP should and shouldn't be in EVE Online are what causes the game the most long-term damage.


Griefing, by my definition at least, is shooting people in the face for lolz and laughter only. Not an issue once in a while, but there are groups (and have been groups) who's entire purpose is to intentionally annoy people and **** them off simply because they can, by finding loopholes in the rules. Fun for the person doing it? Absolutely. Hilarious. I've been on that side of the fence a few times and I know how fun it can be, trust me. But it can be too easy to have that kind of fun, at which point it becomes obnoxious to other players. Which is when CCP steps in and introduces some changes to make it harder, but still possible. To balance things out.

And by proper PVP I meant combat with other players who are also actively looking for combat. Excuse me if I don't see the 'competition' between a fleet of catalysts and one single mining barge.

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

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2015-02-11 20:34:35 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
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.


"Proper" pvp is any competition between players. PVP = player vs player. It is entirely non-specific about how that competition takes place.

And profit is certainly not the only reason to do stuff in EVE. Some people don't treat videogames like a second job, and choose to do things in them for fun because, you know, it's a game. You have done nothing here to define what griefing is in the context of EVE Online, and you made nothing straight at all. In fact, your crooked ideas of what PVP should and shouldn't be in EVE Online are what causes the game the most long-term damage.


Griefing, by my definition at least, is shooting people in the face for lolz and laughter only. Not an issue once in a while, but there are groups (and have been groups) who's entire purpose is to intentionally annoy people and **** them off simply because they can, by finding loopholes in the rules. Fun for the person doing it? Absolutely. Hilarious. I've been on that side of the fence a few times and I know how fun it can be, trust me. But it can be too easy to have that kind of fun, at which point it becomes obnoxious to other players. Which is when CCP steps in and introduces some changes to make it harder, but still possible. To balance things out.

And by proper PVP I meant combat with other players who are also actively looking for combat. Excuse me if I don't see the 'competition' between a fleet of catalysts and one single mining barge.


Let me reiterate, in simpler terms.

Your definitions and distinctions of PVP vs griefing don't matter. What matters is what they actually are in EVE, because it's not the same as other games. As Feyd noted, you do have a lot to learn in regards to what EVE actually is if this is what you really think.

I have more fun when I get a fight, when someone shoots back. Why should that preclude me from shooting any target I can get? As for 'combat with players who are also actively looking for combat' - what are we supposed to do, not shoot at them until we've checked? "Uh, hi, are you looking for a fight, because I am and I was wondering if you'd like to fight?"

If you're about to say, 'go to lowsec/nulsec/wormhole', no. There are just as many people running away from fights out there as there are in high sec. What sec of space you're in makes no difference to the degrees of risk aversion you'll encounter there. Absolutely none. So no, picking fights only with people who want to fight is simply not viable. And in addition to that, as stated repeatedly time and time again, by virtue of logging in to EVE, and undocking, you've agreed to the possibility that you'll be shot at and as a result, you've agreed to fight already.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#150 - 2015-02-11 20:40:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

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.


They had to revisit barges to balance them again because they made a mess with the mack. We most certainly have substance here and thats before we get to the fact that we put in a lot of work to find out what the profit cutoff point was for ganking them. We not only invented the gank cat but we also figured out exactly how to beat it too.


That's assuming the balance is with them gankable for profit. There are a load of ship for which this is probably close to impossible but it seems like if it's the case with mining barges, it's much more of a big deal. I really don't know why.
Kraft Ogburn
After School Hentai Club
#151 - 2015-02-11 20:48:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Kraft Ogburn
Elenahina wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

The meat of it is that many feel existing NPC corp taxes are too low and a pre-existing condition, and if you don't boot players after 30 days from NPC corps, you should at least increase NPC corp taxes to 50%+ to adequately reflect a premium for being 100% safe from wardecs.


Until CCP decides to tax ALL income for players in NPC corporations (and I mean all of it - market orders, player trades, contracts - the whole nine yards), this is a laughable premise. Sure, your mission runners and incursioners might move to player corps, but they're no more likely to engage in PvP than they are now. The miners and market hub guys would be completely unaffected even if you made it 100% because none of their money is taxable by the corp anyway.

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.

Player corporations don't need more stuff to do - they already have access to everything in the game - unless you mean arbitrarily limiting access to things for members of NPC corps - but I doubt that's what you were trying to get at.

What's missing is a reason for a Player Corporation to exist at all. If the members of the corporation don't feel any sense of common identity, they have no real reason to defend the corporation - no skin in the game, as my father would say. They can drop that corp and move on to a new one with the same people and literally no one would care.

Take my corp, for example - Agony has a name - a reputation within the larger Eve community. The members have a common sense of identity, because of that reputation, and we have a common set of goals. That makes our corporation worth defending - we're not protecting space pixels, but we are defending our reputation as a corp.

That is what is missing from most player corporations - something worth fighting over. Until they have that, they're just untaxed NPC corporations, and they're considered disposable by their members.


Agreed.

And I had meant entirely new game devices, that only Player Corps could access. Something above and beyond say planet interaction, but be limited to just player corps. If you want to do that stuff, you have to get in one, cooperate with people. That can be said of some high end content, you need a team of people to complete them, but by that point, youve already done joined a player corps, or quit.

There should be some entry level stuff that new players can do, but only if they join a player corps. Then youll see people join player corps, if that thing is worth the effort.

Always more carrot. Never more stick. Its a game after all.

And that said, I enjoy the consequences in Eve, but you can also minimize your risk already, down to just about nothing. Some people enjoy that aspect. Some people like seeing how long they can go without being killed, just as much as some people enjoy killing as many people as possible. Gotta have the fox to have the hunt.

What they need, is more risks and more rewards. Not just messing with the risks and rewards they have now.

Though as I understand it, im new, thats what last year was about. Was about adding all this stuff. When I played last, there was no PI or Exploration. That stuff is cool. They need more stuff like that, limited to player owned corps.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#152 - 2015-02-11 21:01:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn

  1. Tags for sec
  2. Destroyer damage buff
  3. Hyperdunk (i.e.: reshipping in space while GCC) ruled legal
  4. Inviting allies to join wardec defence costs ISK (i.e.: war defence costs greatly increased)
  5. Mining links only work inside POS shields while mining (and Rorqual in particular) are rebalanced
  6. Drone mechanics adjusted so a maximum of 50 drones can be assisted to a pilot
  7. Marauders have less EHP
  8. MTUs pull all the wrecks close so you don't have to fly all over the mission space to ninja someone's loot
  9. Probing down ships in space is easier than ever
  10. Polarised weapons scrub resistances


I am disappointed with the cost- and consequence-free friendly fire flag. All the other "minuses" Feyd has listed have arrived due to abuse of mechanics by people who wouldn't touch lowsec PvP if their lives depended on it.

A player-run corporation with immunity to PvP in hisec should be paying at least as much tax as an NPC corp. In addition, corp taxes should affect market orders and insurance payouts, not just bounties collected from blowing up NPCs.

As for "social corporations that cannot be wardecced":
Quote:
CCP Fozzie also went over the social groups feature that they still have on the table, though not in active development at this time. Sugar Kyle brought up the difference between the idea of a social club vs a social corporation. CCP Fozzie agreed there's a difference, and that the Social club is a good way to put it to differentiate them. This would allow people to do things like a have chat room, mailing list, personal standings, allow things such as fleet finder adverts to clubs and so on. It would also allow you to belong to multiple clubs, and would have no impact on your corporation membership.


Got nothing better to rabble-rouse and troll about, Feyd?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#153 - 2015-02-11 21:12:41 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

  1. Polarised weapons ignore resistances


What?

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/new-exploration-sites-new-modules/?_ga=1.115076999.106196680.1422569957

Not the only problem with that list if it's meant to be a list of buffs.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#154 - 2015-02-11 21:21:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

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.


They had to revisit barges to balance them again because they made a mess with the mack. We most certainly have substance here and thats before we get to the fact that we put in a lot of work to find out what the profit cutoff point was for ganking them. We not only invented the gank cat but we also figured out exactly how to beat it too.


That's assuming the balance is with them gankable for profit. There are a load of ship for which this is probably close to impossible but it seems like if it's the case with mining barges, it's much more of a big deal. I really don't know why.


If you fit t2 mods but no tank (or an anti-tank) then almost every ship is profitable to gank. Back then the hulk had the exact same base tank as a zealot.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#155 - 2015-02-11 21:22:56 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
  • Polarised weapons ignore resistances
    • Please clarify what you mean by this, your statement appears to point at polarised weapons ignoring the resistances on whatever is being shot at; whereas what I read in the relevant dev blog (linked by Scipio) was that if you fit polarised weapons any resistance modules you have also fitted become ineffective.

    ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

    NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
    Shailagh
    6Six6Six6Six
    #156 - 2015-02-11 21:28:45 UTC
    Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
    Mara Rinn wrote:
  • Polarised weapons ignore resistances
    • Please clarify what you mean by this, your statement appears to point at polarised weapons ignoring the resistances on whatever is being shot at; whereas what I read in the relevant dev blog (linked by Scipio) was that if you fit polarised weapons any resistance modules you have also fitted become ineffective.



    Just another Lemming idiot ignorant carebear.
    Liafcipe9000
    Critically Preposterous
    #157 - 2015-02-11 21:43:27 UTC
    Tasspool Harp wrote:
    Liafcipe9000 wrote:
    F

    some may claim it's tears and/or bittervetism, but it's true. EVE is becoming less about risk and more about hand-holding in hisec.
    what happened to "EVE is a dark and evil world where only the strong survive"?


    Pfftt. That was just marketing propaganda put out by Drink Starsi to come across as edgy to differentiate themselves from Quafe.

    ... or a statement made by several CCP members during several fanfests in the past. your argument of a rivalry between Quafe and something that doesn't exist brings nothing to this discussion and therefore passes as stupid.
    Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
    Doomheim
    #158 - 2015-02-11 21:56:59 UTC
    Mara Rinn wrote:

    1. Tags for sec

      2. Player has to PAY for said tags, they are self balancing as a function of price vs. sec status increase yielded. Change is actually neutral when price is set high enough, which it is. Point moot.


    2. Destroyer damage buff

      3. Huh? Relevant how? A carebear running missions in a destroyer could then equally better defend himself, against a pvp'er in a frigate perhaps.... subjective. Moot.

    3. Hyperdunk (i.e.: reshipping in space while GCC) ruled legal

      4. No change to actual mechanics, CCP just confirmed carebears were tearing about something players were doing as part of existing mechanics. Not implementing a nerf does not equal 'buff'. Point moot.


    4. Inviting allies to join wardec defence costs ISK (i.e.: war defence costs greatly increased)

      5. Are you saying a potential ally cannot offer ZERO isk assistance to a defender in a war?


    5. Mining links only work inside POS shields while mining (and Rorqual in particular) are rebalanced

      6. Cheese contains dairy products. Both points equally moot.


    6. Drone mechanics adjusted so a maximum of 50 drones can be assisted to a pilot

      7. Wasn't this adjusted DOWNWARD from a higher value, so if anything a nerf to combat?


    7. Marauders have less EHP

      8. Again, cheese contains dairy products.


    8. MTUs pull all the wrecks close so you don't have to fly all over the mission space to ninja someone's loot

      9. Are you serious? I should also point out that peanut butter may contain peanut products.


    9. Probing down ships in space is easier than ever

      10. Ability to more easily probe ANYTHING was increased, benefitting both PVE and PVP players. Point moot.


    10. Polarised weapons ignore resistances

      11. With tradeoffs as an inherent balance at the module level. No net buff. Point moot.



    As for "social corporations that cannot be wardecced":
    Quote:
    CCP Fozzie also went over the social groups feature that they still have on the table, though not in active development at this time. Sugar Kyle brought up the difference between the idea of a social club vs a social corporation. CCP Fozzie agreed there's a difference, and that the Social club is a good way to put it to differentiate them. This would allow people to do things like a have chat room, mailing list, personal standings, allow things such as fleet finder adverts to clubs and so on. It would also allow you to belong to multiple clubs, and would have no impact on your corporation membership.



    One quote does not a complete design make. I've heard that the real ulterior motive for implementing social corporations is to create a non-wardeccable hybrid corp between full and NPC corps. One sure way to make sure that doesn't happen though is to push back on it NOW, before it becomes a 'jump range' done-deal dev blog that catches people unawares.


    F

    Would you like to know more?
    Mara Rinn
    Cosmic Goo Convertor
    #159 - 2015-02-11 21:58:48 UTC
    Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
    Mara Rinn wrote:
  • Polarised weapons ignore resistances
    • Please clarify what you mean by this, your statement appears to point at polarised weapons ignoring the resistances on whatever is being shot at; whereas what I read in the relevant dev blog (linked by Scipio) was that if you fit polarised weapons any resistance modules you have also fitted become ineffective.


    If you are a ganker, you're not going to use them. You will be happy about loot piñatas using them though.

    Yes, wrong word. I'll edit to clarify.

    Day 0 Advice for New Players
    Demerius Xenocratus
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #160 - 2015-02-11 22:00:48 UTC
    Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
    I report, you decide.

    F



    Sounds good to me. To all the highsec wardec spammers / hub huggers...can I have your stuff when you leave?

    The new player experience needs to hammer on engagement mechanics and the more esoteric aspects of combat such as tracking, signature, transversal, and explosion velocity. Cut down on those hilariously sad Ishkur vs. Battleship solo slayings.