These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[June] Fighter Damage Reduction

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Johnathan Hubble
Froosh INC.
#1981 - 2017-06-12 23:28:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnathan Hubble
baltec1 wrote:
Johnathan Hubble wrote:
they didn't say that here they should have and honestly they want us to see their side they need to show all the facts not just part.


i mean rough figures is this going to get them their desired changes or will it help a little and then the trend continue for reasons not related to this particular nerf

i don't care what they do if i don't like it i don't have to play(not a rage quit just being honest)

but they do have to stick with the game as its their jobs and if they don't have the patients to fully research issues to their core then maybe they need more assistance?


How exactly would knowing what T1 haulers are making in bounties help?



i did say top ten ships didnt i? also all facts are better then cherry picked facts even my own so you know more is better?

P.S.

correction yea that post did encompass more my bad
Radious Servasse
Amped.
Goonswarm Federation
#1982 - 2017-06-12 23:33:22 UTC
I still don't think nerfing carriers by itself is the best idea. If carrier's damage is nerfed, then the cost to build carriers should be reduced alot as well. By doing this, not only will you solve the Isk oversupply problem, people would be more willing to drop and loose carriers thus creating more PvP and will increase indy activities as a whole. Just my thoughts.
Johnathan Hubble
Froosh INC.
#1983 - 2017-06-12 23:36:33 UTC
also what is to stop players from just moving to the next ship down efficiency? i mean lower amount of isk but not by much and hey maybe they add some afkable ships to the mix

yes ccp income goes up but plex gets inflated even more(arguably more of a problem for us)
and the isk generation number doesnt go to the lower curve they want so im really not understanding their goals and expectations

players will adapt count on it
Blitz Hacker
Bored Bastards
From Anoikis
#1984 - 2017-06-12 23:43:49 UTC
Realistically what will happen is this: I want/need to make 1.5 billion isk a day.. getting (sorry I'm lame) 120 mil ticks max, which is 360mil /hr atm pre nerf. I would have to rat approx 4.1 hours to get 1.5 billion.

Assuming it drops my ticks to 100 mil per tick. (300mil/hr) that means I have to rat approx 5 hours.

End result. I'm still getting my 1.5 bil I wanted. I just have to rat another hour. The isk problem you speak of isn't changed by nerfing income. Unlike a rorq/barge where you can mine long periods of time and multi box it.. carrier/super ratting doesn't scale.

I'm concerned that they will continue to nerf and I will struggle to make similar income, which I will .. one way or another. Effectivley making my play experience more grindy and miserable.
Marcel Garsk
#1985 - 2017-06-12 23:48:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Garsk
CCP Larrikin wrote:

This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players.


Why is it unsustainable? Well, our present real world economy looks exactly like this! Eight richest people on Earth own more money than half of humanity taken together and there is no end of the world in sight. Come on Larrkin! That's the reality you try to remove from EVE acting like Lenin before...
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1986 - 2017-06-12 23:49:38 UTC
Marcel Garsk wrote:
Cismet wrote:
Marcel Garsk wrote:
And ticks drop estimations?


It's hard to estimate that from either the damage nerf or the other changes proposed. If it were a straight linear relationship, then 10% nerf to DPS would result in a 10% tick drop, but there are many factors that would affect your ticks so it's very difficult to accurately predict that. Same for the supers change.

If you want a number, then circa 10% for Carriers or circa 20% for supers, which will probably average to somewhere around 10% drop in the total stream (46% of bounties going to carriers/supers with a weighting in favour of supers of somewhere close to larrikin's suggestions).

Those numbers are roughly worked out in my head at close to midnight, I cannot be bothered to do them properly on a calculator but they won't be all that far off either. But then again, this is all speculation and the actual numbers could be higher or lower than this depending on how much the DPS interacts with tank etc etc etc.


Good to know! I can compensate this using T2 fighters as a standard along with 4x faction DDAs. Fit will be more expensive but dps will remain almost the same. Well, just over 50 mil ticks are acceptable to me - to cover my PvP needs and keep going in null.


WOW! 100 pages long thread! WOW!Big smile

Don't forget to add in the increased chance of losing fighters. Lose one fighter you've done that anom for a profit of around 20 mil.

And then there's;
Quote:
We are working on changes to Anomalies that will reduce the effectiveness of Carriers and Supercarriers. These changes will be announced at a later date.
Like reducing damage and increasing the chance of losing fighters isn't enough.,.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#1987 - 2017-06-12 23:50:46 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Justified changes but they miss the key point.

All PVE rewards were balanced against player and ship power in the ~2010 era.

Player ships have been 'rebalanced' multiple times since then. Almost all of these changes have been significant power increases. Level 5 missions and 10/10 sites used to be nontrivial fleet sites, now they are readily soloed.

The key to addressing this balance issue is to increase the combat capabilities of NPCs in line with the increases player ship power has experienced.

This is a great point I hadn't considered. Even rigs was a big change. My Domi used to struggle in some lvl 4s but the same fit w rigs is a snoozefest.

Quoting for signal boost.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Marcel Garsk
#1988 - 2017-06-12 23:54:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Garsk
^^^ They removed +15% npc aggro from patch.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1989 - 2017-06-12 23:55:54 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

And the implication is that all the data is wrong too. All of it. Every MER. And that everyone at CCP are drooling morons who can't write queries and do basic arithmetic.


I just heard a podcast where it was stated that they have been trying to correct CCP's data for a long time. Apparently, it has been wrong or incorrectly interpreted.


Source?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Shampka
#1990 - 2017-06-13 00:01:00 UTC
You should rebalance NPC content and create Incentives for PVP... Damage balancing is OK to a point, but we don't want Lame ships. Deadly ships are good. Perhaps we should make ships more deadly.

The community's reaction to generally dislike this change I think is ultimately right.

Surely, there's no way your in game character represents anything about your real life self.
Keno Skir
#1991 - 2017-06-13 00:05:32 UTC
Fair play on the revision CCP, it was touch and go for a second there.

+1

Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-

250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Marcel Garsk
#1992 - 2017-06-13 00:07:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Garsk
Anyway CCP should understand I wanna fly second dread and skill injectors got more expensive lately.

PS. I hate VNI!
Aleverette
Bag ol' Dciks
#1993 - 2017-06-13 00:25:05 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:


The Data:
Let’s set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June. During that timeframe 10.6 Trillion ISK was rewarded in bounties. Of that:
  • 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers
  • 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers
  • 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers
Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties.



What about smartbombing? Could you show us the amount of isk generated by navy bs?
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1994 - 2017-06-13 00:36:49 UTC
So instead of nerfing the **** out of carriers even more (they are garbage in WH space now, good for rolling holes) and supers, why don't you add some escalations to k-space anoms that spawn a bunch of elite battleships and cruisers with a disgusting amount of EHP, a nominal bounty and prevent the site despawning until cleared?

That way your turbo ratting supers have to finish off before spawning the next sanctum or haven and are slowed down, lowering their ticks.

Also, can you un**** the upgraded avengers, they suck.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#1995 - 2017-06-13 00:37:10 UTC
Aleverette wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:


The Data:
Let’s set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June. During that timeframe 10.6 Trillion ISK was rewarded in bounties. Of that:
  • 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers
  • 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers
  • 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers
Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties.



What about smartbombing? Could you show us the amount of isk generated by navy bs?

Smartbomb ratting can be done in T1 battleships, navy battleships, and pirate battleships. Those can also rat in other ways, so the data would have to be filtered by what weapon(s) were used.
Captain Torlek
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#1996 - 2017-06-13 00:43:37 UTC
hi CCP larkin

as a supercarrier pilot i would like to propose a different method to fixing this.

the method that seems to have been favoured is to reduce the overall rewards.

has it been considered to increase the risk of using carriers and supercarriers for this purpose?

often these ships are alone and have little support. the problem is catching them due to the supercarriers being (if fit correctly) able to align and warp sub 10 seconds (mine does 7.5)

if supercarriers started to die every day from ratting this would encourage larger alliances to have to defend these carriers. while maintaining the reward for the person willing to take the risk.

what i'm saying let the players balance things like this for you, while encouraging combat. we can also all get some dank killmails while we are at it :)
Beast of Revelations
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1997 - 2017-06-13 01:04:18 UTC
Miner Hottie wrote:
So instead of nerfing the **** out of carriers even more (they are garbage in WH space now, good for rolling holes) and supers, why don't you add some escalations to k-space anoms that spawn a bunch of elite battleships and cruisers with a disgusting amount of EHP, a nominal bounty and prevent the site despawning until cleared?

That way your turbo ratting supers have to finish off before spawning the next sanctum or haven and are slowed down, lowering their ticks.


Because that would require too much common sense, that's why. I mean, why directly target and correct the actual problem when you can, I dunno, nerf PvP instead?

Sapphire Voice wrote:
WHAT ?????? Are уou serious???? CARRIERS TOO EFFECTIVE IN PvP ????? AHAHAH !!!!!

Who are you man?

Are you even play this game at all?

Who is that primary idiot who suppose to eat this kind "answer" ?

REDUCE THE DAMN BOUNTY FOR F SAKE!!!! HOW LONG WE SHOULD TELL YOU THIS !!! ????


Yeah I know HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!! That one was rich wasn't it? Good one! CCP tried to inoculate against the outrage by claiming that secondarily the things are too good in PvP :) baltec1 stated up there somewhere that the things aren't even used in PvP HA HA HA!
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1998 - 2017-06-13 01:28:16 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Max Trix
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

33. "Quitting" posts are only permitted on the Out of Pod Experience channel.

CCP recognize that during the course of gameplay a lot of friendships are made between players and that sometimes if a player is taking a break or departing from the EVE universe that they would like to say goodbye on the forums. Posts of this nature are only permitted on the Out of Pod Experience forum, and must be civil and well worded.


Lil Scrub , Some Post removed.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Squirtle 007
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1999 - 2017-06-13 01:49:56 UTC
CCP,

You should also be notified that bombing site for PVE in delve should also be nerf...

e.g. A mach fitted with 8 smart bombs and 3 mach can easily finish a haven in 4 mins.....
Mossyblog Barnes
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#2000 - 2017-06-13 02:01:59 UTC
Cismet wrote:
Mossyblog Barnes wrote:
*sigh*

Can you please hire a someone who understands statistical analysis.

Taking a "snapshot" from 5 days in "June" is like looking at your bank account during St Paddys day and declaring you have a years worth of drinking behaviour.

Qualitative Analysis. Please please get a book on this and come back to us with some concrete evidence that doesn't orbit Delve and Goons.


Actually, 5 days would be a fine sample to use given the number of people playing during the period. It would be over 150k people in the sample given an average 35k online in any given day, likely more over a timezone rolling period. The sample size is more than adequate to be representative within a single-digit margin of error with ease.

More data would be nice, but ultimately, it'll only likely be a few percent off in either direction.


This implies the data has stability and equates to a consistent median behaviour... .. which...we all can surely see is not the case?