These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors

First post First post First post
Author
Archival1
ExDominion
Evictus.
#301 - 2017-03-11 08:00:02 UTC
Why not wait untill you change how fighters behave before putting in a patch that (in PvE) completely screws them up primarily because of the way the fighters currently behave.
You have identified an issue, that they stop moving when they finish killing something, so why would you make a change that exploits that issue?
Fighters stopping in a PvE site as they kill something is the primary reason me and everyone I know lose fighters, because they stop moving then get 1 volley'd by the whole site, increasing the sig radius just means they will get 1 shot even more often when this happens.Ugh
GothicNightmare
HC - Hog Hitmen
Hog Hitmen
#302 - 2017-03-11 09:26:18 UTC
I've read a lot of posts on this topic and I'm in agreement with most of them... this nerf is really really bad...
Having an active cloaky camper in my system for a few days gave me ample time to watch some good youtube videos people have posted for pvp, and there seems to be a very common reaccurance on their videos... t he death speed of the fighters. Mainly the Sirens go first, and they pop like grapes. I've watched a few where they launch the fighters after repair/reload and the instant they come out frigs/cepters are already railing them before they've even pushed F1 to engage something and by the time they get on target a few fighters have already become space dust. In pvp all it takes is designating 1 person to watch for fighter launches and having them call it when they see it and that's pretty much it. Yes, fighters do heaps of damage, yes, fighters are pretty quick, but when that mwd comes on their sig blooms to hell and back and just makes them splat faster. As mentioned before any sort of ewar on them splatters them rapidly too... If you want to make them squishier... bring back the damage output pre-nerf right after the fighter squadron changes were implemented in game.

Now for PvE...
I'm a carrier ratter myself and am one that has enjoyed rolling around in the isky goodness that is dead npc's. I'm also one that isn't able to financially sub outside of game so I am forced to rat to buy plexes, and at their ever increasing cost (yes i know they recently lowered a bit) it's a task all in itself to play the game to be able to play the game. At the current cost of fighters, if you bloom the sig to sizes somewhere between frigate and cruiser, the rat aggro on the fighters will add up fast.
Example: 1 rock haven can yield 30mil if the spawns are all maxed sized (no faction no dread). If you lose 2 or 3 fighters at 13mil a pop, that haven only served to buy you another few fighters. Someone like myself (and I know quite a few others) will be quickly found to not playing anymore as that precious plex isk went entirely to fighter replacement.

I saw the comment about learning to work with/around the changes and adapt. Yes, this can be done, we can all rat in subcaps and get significantly smaller bounty ticks, we can all pvp in caracals and rifters so very little isk is ever spent... but this is taking the invested skillpoints (as has been mentioned by several) and putting a lot of people who like battleship class or larger ships (myself as one) and just putting it obsolete. After the T1 cruiser 'balances' were introduced making them a fair bit stronger than before people stopped using T2 ships. When T3Ds came out people went even cheaper pvp with those, and all these ships basically severely outclassed upper level ships causing them to fade out. Only time you see battleships anymore is in massive groups, only time you see battlecruisers anymore is 20+ with 3-6 logi (I'm probably exaggerating here but you see my point) Yes we adapt, but we adapt down into levels where we don't find it fun for us or our playstyles, we are forced into someone elses play style and just makes it dull for those who don't fancy the interceptor kite fleets or 0 f*cks given carcal blobs. If you spent all that time training up into a vessel that large, it just feels like the fun is sapped out when you're spent time in it is now solely gone into it's maintenance rather than it's fun or functionality.

I'm on board with the fighters don't need to sit idle after a target has been destroyed. If your rocket volleys are on cooldown and so are the gun cycles, they just sit there and take it in the face until the guns are free to activate on a new target... making them move would be nice.
Decrease the size of support fighters if you insist on making them even easier to kill, knowing the 1 useful support fighter you have is going to constantly be wasted would be nice to carry a few extras.
Seriously rethink the sig change, even if you increase the sig radius of all the fighters, don't increase it so much, you're rendering them dead before they've even locked a target.
If you insist they have to be easier to hit, at least give them a fighting chance with some more EHP since as it stands the only ehp bonuses are from rigs or thanatos/nyx, and I don't think everyone wants to be forced to train those just to make their drones live 1 second longer.
maybe even give the ship's bonuses to the fighters, since amarr and caldari don't get damage buffs like minmatar and gallente do, why not pass down the ship bonuses like the amarr pass down armor resists, caldari pass down shield resists, all supers pass down the ewar resistance so their fighters/bombers stand a bit of a chance.

CCP you always talk about risk vs. reward and/or balancing... take a good hard look at this proposed change, there is no reward. You're always looking for the give and take, well with this it's all take with no give. If you must nerf the hell out of the fighters, give something back to balance the reasoning.
Jan Aubaris
BAND of MAGNUS
#303 - 2017-03-11 11:45:30 UTC
I have a dream,
to build my own thanatos, from resources that I will mine in our home WH, and with mine beautiful thany, build with my own hands a I could sometimes run some anoms in our static. We lived in nice C6->C5, I start mining, few months later we were evicted. OK. New WH, C6->C5, I start mining again, the ore is stacking up, I was happy. Then nerf comes, it was unpleasant, but OK, I could live with that. My mining goes well, I have enough Arkonor, Bistot, Crokite, so I ask my corpmates to reproces them into minerals and slowly start looking for BPCs. After some time, the ccp had great idea to push peaple living in WHs out of their home WH and anomalies stop showing up in holes where somebody lives. This slowly turns C6s and C5s into nearly wasteland, so we were bored from unsufficient PvP, our home C6 run out of anomalies and our C5static simply doesnt have enough ISKs for all of us. The decision was made and we moved to C6->C6. C6 anomaly is harder than C5, but I still had a chance with more expensive fit. My mining operations goes well and after several months I have enough Dark Ochre and Gneiss, so next reprocessing round for those two and compresing mined Scordite and Veldspar, half m3 of required ore was behind me, so I`m buying BPCs for thany and fighters. Then new mechanics was introduced, which freeze my smile and I start to doubt if this is worth of my work. But I slowly continue in mining, because hey, it wil be my thany, made by myself and I already have more than half required materials and it still should be doable. Then because of some consecutive events and decisions and because we were hungry for PvP, we decide to move to C4 with C6, C4 static and I stopped mining, I dont want my beautiful thany stuck in one place. But I still had hope, that we could move someday into C6/C5 and I still have that hope. But with this change, I dont believe I have chance to make some anomalies profitable. I know you have in your citadel trailer mention about wrecking their dreams, but I thought it was aimed to players, not developers...
Sandra Isu
Space Cavalry Regiment
#304 - 2017-03-11 11:46:10 UTC
You can make fighters move while waiting for weapons to exit cooldown by clicking orbit on anything, even next target but it is even more clicking that is already too much on a carrier. The problem is that moving now don't help much anyway.

I have simple solution how to fix current fighter mechanic. All actions done to fighters should be divided by fighter amount.
If you web squadron, it shoudl be effective 1/x where x is the current amount of fighters. The same should be with all ewar and even damage done to compensate that only one fighter in the squadron is taking damage. Then you can raise sig as it is needed to be.
ApolloF117 HUN
Puritans
We want your ISK
#305 - 2017-03-11 11:54:16 UTC
so why does a fighter that is 38m long have 100m sig radios while a 280m long destroyer has 60m?
Dictateur Imperator
Froosh INC.
#306 - 2017-03-11 13:00:53 UTC
In fact "solution" is to order to you're fighter to orbit an item when they end to kill.

Problem : BAd connexion with a suddently ping => bye to you're fighter.
You can't play with you're 2 hand? You will have not time to make they orbit and fire before loose one.

It"s not a problem of the nerf, it become a problem of game accessibility.


So true question is : Why CCP decide to take sanction against player with the badest connexion ?
Why CCP decide to destroy content ?(less carrier in space, less people who farm, less newbro who salvage, less target for roammer ... less content).
Why CCP decide to make decision to take sanction against people who can't use 2 hand to play?

CCP don't reed here, maybe after update contact press of you're country and explain to they a game company take sanction against people in fonction of they're connexion/health... And see how many time before CCP decide to answer by allow to fighter to orbit wreck when they kill and not to stop.
AgentMaster
Heralds of Darkness
White Sky.
#307 - 2017-03-11 15:35:19 UTC
Why CCP lure us that this is a discussion? They just declare what they mind and what will do. Never change that no matter how many pages we will write. Not shure that they even read it,,, X

Blessed is the man who has nothing to say and remain silent yet!!

Cade Windstalker
#308 - 2017-03-11 16:52:25 UTC
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
so why does a fighter that is 38m long have 100m sig radios while a 280m long destroyer has 60m?


In game and lore terms signature radius is a measure primarily of how easy something is to lock onto and hit cleanly. Hence why Target Painters increase sig while Command Bursts can decrease it. Neither is changing the physical size of the ship, they're just changing how the ship appears to guns and sensors.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#309 - 2017-03-11 19:25:39 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:
so why does a fighter that is 38m long have 100m sig radios while a 280m long destroyer has 60m?


In game and lore terms signature radius is a measure primarily of how easy something is to lock onto and hit cleanly. Hence why Target Painters increase sig while Command Bursts can decrease it. Neither is changing the physical size of the ship, they're just changing how the ship appears to guns and sensors.


Forget game and lore - the F-22 Raptor has something like the RCS (Radar Cross Section) of a sparrow.

Queue quotes of falling sparrows and think Stealth!

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Krieg Austern
#310 - 2017-03-11 20:55:50 UTC
Why even bother asking for feedback if you are going to just implement game changing features? This is a serious question.

You posted your proposal, asking for feedback. The feedback was, in the majority, negative. You did not make any responses to a lot of valid comments, just let people talk among themselves, and then make the changes regardless.

I generally don't have issues with most of the updates to the game, and I like the fact that the game does change & evolve over time -
but asking for feedback, and then not getting involved in the discussion and making the changes is a waste of discussion.
Cade Windstalker
#311 - 2017-03-11 21:57:27 UTC
Krieg Austern wrote:
Why even bother asking for feedback if you are going to just implement game changing features? This is a serious question.

You posted your proposal, asking for feedback. The feedback was, in the majority, negative. You did not make any responses to a lot of valid comments, just let people talk among themselves, and then make the changes regardless.

I generally don't have issues with most of the updates to the game, and I like the fact that the game does change & evolve over time -
but asking for feedback, and then not getting involved in the discussion and making the changes is a waste of discussion.


In my experience CCP don't generally change course when they go "we're going to make this change" and people just respond with "But it's going to nerf/affect X, Y, and Z!" unless CCP didn't already realize one or more of those things being brought up. About the best you're going to get in response to something like that is the first reply in the Q&A in this thread, if that.

These feedback threads are for bringing up things CCP might not have noticed or thought of, and to give a heads up on upcoming changes well in advance of their release. Unless there's a torrent of negative feedback just people posting about how they don't like the change isn't going to do much, and I'm not sure why you would expect it to.

Of course feedback is negative, it's negative every time CCP nerfs something. Every time they buff something it's a bit more positive but, depending on what's being changed, it's often still majority negative. Negative feedback isn't gonna do much unless it's *good* feedback.

The one thing I've seen here that I suspect CCP may not have factored into these changes is the impact on Level 5 mission running in Carriers since it's a more niche activity compared to site running in Null and those sites contain more EWar and a lot more smaller ships compared to Null Sites. No one's posted much in the way of test results for these though, so there's not a lot of evidence of the impact one way or the other at present.
Krieg Austern
#312 - 2017-03-11 22:47:44 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

In my experience CCP don't generally change course when they go "we're going to make this change" and people just respond with "But it's going to nerf/affect X, Y, and Z!" unless CCP didn't already realize one or more of those things being brought up. About the best you're going to get in response to something like that is the first reply in the Q&A in this thread, if that.

These feedback threads are for bringing up things CCP might not have noticed or thought of, and to give a heads up on upcoming changes well in advance of their release. Unless there's a torrent of negative feedback just people posting about how they don't like the change isn't going to do much, and I'm not sure why you would expect it to.


There has been a lot of constructive feedback in this thread, it's not all people flinging their poo at the walls. I'm a beginner carrier pilot and this change is making me regret wasting all that time and ISK.

My question stands - why ask for feedback if you are not actually going to pay attention to it. And feedback was explicitly asked for by the first sentence in the original post.

Of course there was feedback saying carriers should be nerfed - by people who don't fly carriers. Actual carrier pilots who use them constantly have not had anything positive to say about these changes.

Not to mention that while they are happy to wave the nerf bat with abandon, small things like making fighters actually DO SOMETHING while idle and not stand still to get shot into oblivion is "We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.". How about when doing a big game changing update that effects an entire tier of ships, don't just nerf wholesale, but also make some logical changes that offset the nerfs.

Honestly it just defies logic, that after asking for feedback, not responding to any of it, we also get answers like the above, that fundamental issues that don't make any sense (why would a sentient fighter just stand still) are something they would "like to iterate on". Then do it.

I understand the need for balancing the game constantly, but it all seems to be going from massive buff to massive nerf, rather than incremental steps. All the while, much more important issues remain in the game.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game, and I see changes as a good thing on the whole, but I think CCP needs to either be more involved with the community, or just stop asking for feedback if they are not actually going to address any, since all it does is cause people to get angry and wastes their time formulating replies and coming up with potentially good solutions.
Cade Windstalker
#313 - 2017-03-12 03:11:22 UTC
Krieg Austern wrote:
There has been a lot of constructive feedback in this thread, it's not all people flinging their poo at the walls. I'm a beginner carrier pilot and this change is making me regret wasting all that time and ISK.

My question stands - why ask for feedback if you are not actually going to pay attention to it. And feedback was explicitly asked for by the first sentence in the original post.

Of course there was feedback saying carriers should be nerfed - by people who don't fly carriers. Actual carrier pilots who use them constantly have not had anything positive to say about these changes.

Not to mention that while they are happy to wave the nerf bat with abandon, small things like making fighters actually DO SOMETHING while idle and not stand still to get shot into oblivion is "We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.". How about when doing a big game changing update that effects an entire tier of ships, don't just nerf wholesale, but also make some logical changes that offset the nerfs.

Honestly it just defies logic, that after asking for feedback, not responding to any of it, we also get answers like the above, that fundamental issues that don't make any sense (why would a sentient fighter just stand still) are something they would "like to iterate on". Then do it.

I understand the need for balancing the game constantly, but it all seems to be going from massive buff to massive nerf, rather than incremental steps. All the while, much more important issues remain in the game.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game, and I see changes as a good thing on the whole, but I think CCP needs to either be more involved with the community, or just stop asking for feedback if they are not actually going to address any, since all it does is cause people to get angry and wastes their time formulating replies and coming up with potentially good solutions.


The feedback of people who fly Carriers isn't the only thing that matters when changing them though, and that goes for any ship. If everyone in Eve, or any other game, had their way then their class/ship/favorite thing would be at least a little OP, because powerful things are inherently fun for the people using them. OP things aren't a ton of fun to fight against though. So while CCP would almost certainly reverse course if someone brought up a significant issue with these changes, like proof that this would physically stop Carriers from being able to rat effectively at all for example, having Carrier players just speaking up and saying they don't like the changes... isn't gonna do much unless it's a big enough outcry.

Yes, there's been some constructive feedback here, but most of that either falls into a bucket they've answered (yes this is going to affect Carrier ratting) or one that's blatantly obvious (yes, it's going to make Fighters easier to kill).

As for the idea that iteration on Fighter behavior has to come along with these changes, that's not how CCP or any other game dev I'm aware of does things. If there's an outstanding balance issue of some kind that gets priority, regardless of if there's a related QoL change coming down the pipe as well. QoL things just don't have that kind of priority unless there's a hard dependency, generally in code. With these changes Fighters are still usable, people have posted videos doing various PvE sites, the trick is just to orbit the fighters on something else before the current target dies.

As for the specific issue with Fighters standing still, I suspect that this is a little more involved of a change than you're expecting it to be. Fighters are probably running on the same old code the drones are, and drones have always stopped when they no longer have a command. Changing that will, at least potentially, be a significant back-end code change. If it's not hopefully we'll get it pretty soon, and with any luck it'll apply to drones as well.

As for feedback and responses and what-not, my general assumption is that CCP will respond to things that they find worth responding to. Either questions that get asked repeatedly or are non-obvious, or things people bring up that they didn't catch and change their announced plans. Other than that, devs are busy and can't spend all day on the forums. If it were up to me I'd have a dedicated Community guy for monitoring these threads and responding with at least some basic answers. It's not up to me though, and I'm not actually aware of any company that does this. Blizzard comes close with how their CMs basically play buffer for their devs, but their Community department is also bigger than many studios so... yeah. Blizzard is the exception once again.

I certainly wouldn't spend much if any time fleshing out some suggestion for CCP to do instead of what they've already put time and effort into. The devs certainly have no obligation to use a player suggestion, or to spend time explaining why they're not.

I wouldn't say this change is enough that you should be regretting training into Carriers. They're still some of the best solo ISK you can make in the game, and they're still quite powerful against sub-caps so long as they're supported correctly.
Sandra Isu
Space Cavalry Regiment
#314 - 2017-03-12 08:13:49 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

As for the specific issue with Fighters standing still, I suspect that this is a little more involved of a change than you're expecting it to be (...)


This is what you probably didn't understand from the discussion. First you fix bugs and then you can nerf ... erm balance stuff if needed. And carriers were not OP by any means to justify that nerf before fixes.
People are rightfully angry because carriers are not like rest of the ships, where you can just sell it and fly other one. One invested millions of sp to master it, bought very expensive bpo's to be able to produce them and there is little to no point to fly other capitals. What to do with this skills now? I don't want to sell this character or shuffle sp to do something else. I want to fly carrier like I did before.
firkinballbag
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#315 - 2017-03-12 09:14:35 UTC
like i said before "if its not broke" FIX IT
CCP do not actually give a rats _ _ s about any discussion as they have already made their mind up Nerf this Nerf that.

heh heres an idea lets get all the coders together and see how we can KILL eve.nope dont need to do that we already on the right track.cos how i see it its getting close to being a better game if you only have alpha clones.

whoop whoop no need to plex accounts.
no more purchases.
no more revenue for ccp.
no more game.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Zenra Va'Kur
Militaris Industries
Northern Coalition.
#316 - 2017-03-12 09:20:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Zenra Va'Kur
CCP removes off grid boosts, and changes the mining barge and exhumers. Ruins my isk per hour ratio.

Finally train into a carrier and move past now pointless slow mining. CCP changes the way fighters work and how rats aggress them. Ruin my isk per hour ratio.

Isk slowly drains away. Forcing me to stop fleeting up, and in the end stop playing all together.

Good work.
firkinballbag
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#317 - 2017-03-12 09:29:54 UTC
more to the point i was led to believe this was and is a player run game.

does that mean its player run but only if you run with what CCP wants?
does this mean we have no say in what is implemented?
does this mean if we dont like something we have to lump it?
does this mean CCP has lied to everyone past present and future about this game?

i think we all know the answer to these questions!!!!
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#318 - 2017-03-12 09:37:40 UTC
Archival1 wrote:
Why not wait untill you change how fighters behave before putting in a patch that (in PvE) completely screws them up primarily because of the way the fighters currently behave.
You have identified an issue, that they stop moving when they finish killing something, so why would you make a change that exploits that issue?
Fighters stopping in a PvE site as they kill something is the primary reason me and everyone I know lose fighters, because they stop moving then get 1 volley'd by the whole site, increasing the sig radius just means they will get 1 shot even more often when this happens.Ugh


Yeay carrier ratting tears, best tears!


Kudos CCP, carry on!

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Krieg Austern
#319 - 2017-03-12 13:25:18 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I certainly wouldn't spend much if any time fleshing out some suggestion for CCP to do instead of what they've already put time and effort into. The devs certainly have no obligation to use a player suggestion, or to spend time explaining why they're not.


You continue to ignore the relevant point here - why bother asking for player feedback if you are not going to listen anyway, and not even say "thanks for your feedback, we have looked at it, but still think our way is better". At least then people know that there is no point in further discussion.

I agree they have no obligation to use it, but then they should not pretend that they actually care/want about feedback. Asking for feedback implies that you are interested, and if people put their time in to give it, at least respond in some way.

You cannot please everyone all the time, no one is naive to believe that, especially in a sandbox like this. But community service is not difficult, especially in a game that lives or dies by its community.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#320 - 2017-03-12 17:35:57 UTC
Krieg Austern wrote:
You continue to ignore the relevant point here - why bother asking for player feedback if you are not going to listen anyway, and not even say "thanks for your feedback, we have looked at it, but still think our way is better". At least then people know that there is no point in further discussion.

I agree they have no obligation to use it, but then they should not pretend that they actually care/want about feedback. Asking for feedback implies that you are interested, and if people put their time in to give it, at least respond in some way.

You cannot please everyone all the time, no one is naive to believe that, especially in a sandbox like this. But community service is not difficult, especially in a game that lives or dies by its community.


The guy is a goon poster on paplinks in disguise. Stop arguing with him, he obviously never flew or targeted a carrier and still going with stupidity after my numerous attempts to educate him on fighter mechanics in this thread.