These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Voice fromthe Abyss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2001 - 2017-06-13 02:17:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Voice fromthe Abyss
CCP Larrikin wrote:
[img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/71813/1/GermanFlag33.png[/img]  [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/FLAG_-_RUSSIAN-33.png[/img]

UPDATE 2017-06-12: Reduced the damage reduction to fighters. Added supporting data.

Greetings Capsuleers,
Coming tomorrow in the June 2017 release, the damage output of Fighters will see a reduction by the game design team. After a long weekend sifting through some passionate feedback and taking into consideration previously ongoing design work, let’s take a look at what’s coming.

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.

Why:
Our primary goal for this change is reducing the combat power of Carriers & Supercarriersin PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is due to NPC Bounties.

[img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9b_isk.float.3.jpg[/img]

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.
Our secondary goal is that Carriers and Supercarriers are too effective in PvP, even for the investment it takes to create them. This change will shift the PvP balance, but we’re confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP battles.

What:
  • Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
  • Light Fighters (Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage (was 20%)
  • Support Fighters: No Change
  • Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): No Change (was 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage)
  • Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack damage (was 30%)
  • Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
  • NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%)
  • 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.


We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players. Some of you have asked 'Why not just reduce the bounties?'. The focus of this change is Supercarriers and Carriers. We don't want to effect the income of ships besides those with this change.


On review of the numbers above and in the graphs supplied it seems clear to me that this is an over reaction to a spike which if you review the charts has happened previously (see November - December 2016). If you take a long view the personal wealth in game has been steadily growing at a rate of around 20T every 2 years. Since March 2016 (just over a year ago) the growth has been 10-11T (even including this spike) or about half of the growth that occurred over the previous 2 two year periods mentioned above and this growth has not previously be viewed as bad or needing to be arrested.

So the big question is why the sudden need to arrest isk generation? Why are we not waiting to see if after a couple of months we have another decrease in wealth as occurred after December 2016?

These are the questions that the above announcement does not make clear.

The percentages of pilots generating the isk from my point of view lines up with what I would expect based on the investment cost of the ships being flown. I would expect that if 1.4% of the player base is generating 2T isk that it would take 3-4 times the number of carrier pilots to generate the same amount of isk and likewise it would take 3-4 times the number of cruiser pilots to generate the amount of isk a carrier pilot does. These proportions don't look wrong to me. As such I am left with the view that CCP don't want players that invest significantly more to be able to earn significantly more from ratting which really does not make much sense to me.

I know that the would be economists will likely howl me down saying that I just don't understand and that may be true but before you do that give me some answers to my above questions, explain why a blip that has not yet impacted on the 2-5 year average increase in wealth is a bad thing that needs a tune up right now before we see if it is a continuing trend? Typically economics is supposed to take a longer term view rather than reacting to short term dips or blips.

Given that the current long term personal wealth trend remains within average historical parameters I think this is a knee jerk reaction to a very short term trend that really should be allowed to play out for a little longer before CCP rush in to make a change.
icedragon2072
Broker4747
#2002 - 2017-06-13 02:20:51 UTC
So lets forget to add in the rattlesnakes, and Ishtars..and other ratting ships..along with forgetting about how much the incursions bring in..
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2003 - 2017-06-13 02:28:12 UTC
icedragon2072 wrote:
So lets forget to add in the rattlesnakes, and Ishtars..and other ratting ships..along with forgetting about how much the incursions bring in..

The answer is a LOT less. Every single other ship type in the game (excluding T1 cruisers) accounts for less bounty income than carriers & super carriers combined.
And incursion income (including the almost full time low sec incursion group) is as of May 14% of the total bounty income. So less than carriers on their own bring in (Not counting commodities sold to NPC's which is also more than 50% from Null & the Null share is larger than the entire income from incursions)

Stop trying to deflect when you obviously haven't even read the numbers and done very basic maths on them.
Diuma
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2004 - 2017-06-13 02:40:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Diuma
regarding your post about why caps are getting 50 percent of bunties. I live in drone region.

every one runs hordes in caps. new peoepl to eve can not run portabls or hordes. worse is there is only one sqad in system. where would a new person to alliance go anyways to run anoms in t1 hull and not get blown up by npc caps. ? where there are 15 hordes 16 portals and one sqaud in system can you not crest more anoms types/ some anoms that caps can run some that only sub caps can run in nullsec. .I mean creat content please do some work. then just nerf hammer.
Jang Taredi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2005 - 2017-06-13 02:43:22 UTC
Thank you for listening, even if just somewhat. By doing so you've encouraged me to invest more in your game.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#2006 - 2017-06-13 02:45:00 UTC
Quitting post removed.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.

Random Freak
Doomheim
#2007 - 2017-06-13 02:49:38 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
'Why not just reduce the bounties?'. The focus of this change is Supercarriers and Carriers. We don't want to effect the income of ships besides those with this change.


And i don't want my Carrier nerfed into the ground, but we can't all have what we want.

There has been a multitude of suggestions from bounty nerfs to the hulls, the anoms, diminishing returns / fatigue, isk pool to draw from, even something like an ESS effect, flat out reducing bounties in certain systems.

The higher your index, the lower your bounty, leaving systems to rat in rather undefended, making them more attractive targets. Also, the percentual reduction in bounties is already there, you coded it. I bet it could be adapted rather easily.

Or even just increase fighter weapon cycle times. Reduces DPS, but let's you keep the moment of just flat out volleying an NPC off grid. Do not underestimate that psychological satisfaction to be able to do that.

If this damage nerf gets reverted and some actually good change is implemented, a lot of people will be, let's just say, less "passionate" as it was put.

Understandably, CCP needs time to go through options offered by players. All of which would have been offered if you just simply asked for it. There can not be a single argument made that fighter damage had to be nerfed RIGHT THERE AND THEN to keep the economy alive.

This could have just as easily be pushed to the next patch while having a serious and calm discussion on the topic, so you didn't have to sift through 100 pages of which arguably a few were quite emotional rather than rational, which in turn just delays the solution to the underlying problem even more, diverts resources and makes players and community managers alike quite unhappy.

Keep an open discussion on this. Give us information on the topics. CCP has what, 600 employees? You have a playerbase over easily 50'000 people. You can crowdsource for ideas within the community. Why would you not tap into such a massive amount of ideas and manhours of worktime?

Got most off my chest now.

o/
Commander Spurty
#2008 - 2017-06-13 02:57:39 UTC
Why haven't you used your data to decide:

"We are placing a cap on CONCORD bounties per Region! If you wish to go over X ISK, you need to invade your neighbors"

Faster the super pilots deplete the ISK bucket for their region, the faster they have to uproot and move.

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP

Random Lurker
Critical Strike
Nuclear Confusion
#2009 - 2017-06-13 03:08:56 UTC
great changes! keep up the great work.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2010 - 2017-06-13 03:12:33 UTC
Commander Spurty wrote:
Why haven't you used your data to decide:

"We are placing a cap on CONCORD bounties per Region! If you wish to go over X ISK, you need to invade your neighbors"

Faster the super pilots deplete the ISK bucket for their region, the faster they have to uproot and move.

That path leadeth to thine themepark
Mechanically you have two options.
An arbitrary total ratting limit. Which means everyone who isn't a super gets nerfed too.
Or an arbitrary per pilot limit. Which forces multi-characters on the same account (to keep costs down) to bypass it, & makes no sense in a sandbox.
Neither are viable solutions.
lexa21
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2011 - 2017-06-13 03:18:00 UTC
Good changes
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#2012 - 2017-06-13 03:35:52 UTC
icedragon2072 wrote:
So lets forget to add in the rattlesnakes, and Ishtars..and other ratting ships..along with forgetting about how much the incursions bring in..


They know how much incursions bring in, and it's a fraction of ratting. It's also a stable amount that hasn't grown wildly out of control in recent months, unlike ratting.

And, what is it that you folks aren't understanding about this? They told us in the update today where 65.6% of the bounties are coming from: Carriers, Supers, and T1 cruisers. That leaves 34.4% of the bounties for everything else.

"B..b..but what about the (ANY OTHER SHIP OR RATTING TACTIC HERE)?!?!" Yeah, it's in that 34.4% along with every other ship.

That includes the bounties for every Ishtar, every smartbombing BS, every mission running machariel, every marauder, every rattlesnake, every T3, and so on. You can stop asking the question because you already know the answer is, "Less than those 3 groups."

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Mossyblog Barnes
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#2013 - 2017-06-13 03:40:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mossyblog Barnes
@CCP Larrikin,

I can see you're stating to take a long term view and like all economies you pull the leaver that shudders the most vs one big leaver that fixes all. However, taking the temperature of Delve and declaring all of Eve a risk is where the logic falls short. Cumualtive sure the data trends upwards but the rate of logins trend downwards and i'd wager the kill/death ratio(s) also have a different story (haven't downloaded the entirity of the data set as yet).

Capping the main sources of ISK will slow total wealth and achieve the goal you're attempting to do in terms of reduce the wealth overall, however you lose accounts as a result and / or the attractors to new customer acquisition also takes a hit.

The trade off is where all of this simply falls short. CCP takes away but what does it provide in return? how does this wealth get redirected?

Why is Delve so high?

The duking of stats serves no purpose but to fuel further negativity. Until you treat the root cause all you're doing is essentially reminding players that the games "rules" are always subject to change which in turn also generates further anxiety about adoption.

Imagine if i kept changing the SDK/Frameworks languages you use to build the game?
Eric Lemmonte
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2014 - 2017-06-13 03:43:42 UTC
I like how we all are punished because of goons' unchallenged ratting.

Top 10 regions for bounties.

Delve 8.76918E+12 12.14%
Deklein 4.46455E+12 6.18%
Branch 3.11909E+12 4.32%
Cobalt Edge 2.96567E+12 4.11%
Outer Passage 2.66506E+12 3.69%
Querious 2.6635E+12 3.69%
Feythabolis 2.60413E+12 3.61%
Period Basis 2.46879E+12 3.42%
Providence 2.45647E+12 3.40%
Esoteria 2.37196E+12 3.28%
Valaba
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2015 - 2017-06-13 03:45:13 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
lolzz Quekz wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
lolzz Quekz wrote:
Now imagine all those carriers training say 15 alts he can basically take over 1/2 or all the anoms in a system and afk rat.. hot dropper tackles one of his afktars.. 14 other afktars warp to him whats the trade out of that fight? Basically if he cant fight back that drop he can just warp out his non tackled afktars loss is still lower than a tackled carrier.
But still makes a ton of profit from that afk session balanced? Yea! Cos ccp wins the wallet war! And whos the one who loses? The players

And you know, almost none of them will do it, because it's a lot of work, and if they were going to do it they would have been doing it three years ago already. So yeah, not worried about a sudden spike in Ishtars or anything like that actually happening.


Not only that, but with his one carrier he was likely able to PLEX his account. With 16 accounts he'll have to actually open his wallet to fund those 16 accounts.

Yes, I will base my argument against this change on players having infinite wealth! Roll


which is the base of my point this whole nerf-ing is only benefitting CCP does it really benefit the economy? i doubt so its the same as how some miners run like 10 accounts is it hard work? it might be cause its a little more complicated than afktars who warp in orbit and drop drones but ccp think its alright since they plex that 10 accounts right?
but if you make that same amount in a single account.. no bro.. its not good for us we need more people plex-ing or subbing accounts


Nobody is going to go from a PLEXed carrier to 16 accounts subbed with RL money.

If anything the rage here would indicate that CCP is going to come out on the losing end assuming the threats to quit are indeed real.

And to be clear, these people threatening to quit...if they are doing so because of their loss of ratting income, well they are short sighted fools who do not realize that if this kind of growth in ISK is sustained it will ruin the game for everyone.

Edit:

To be clear, a miner running 10 accounts and mining on all of them is not anywhere near as bad for the economy as this massive increase in the growth of ISK. The miner is actually adding "real" goods to the economy (real in the sense of an actual good in the economy--i.e. minerals). The addition of ISK on the other had is a nominal change. And when that nominal change is too large (or too small--i.e. negative) it can be bad for the economy. In the case of a large increase you can get inflation. In the case of a decrease you can get deflation. Both can be bad. Inflation reduces every player's purchasing power. If players try to "keep up" they'll just add to the problem--i.e. a positive feed back loop leading to inflation spiraling out of control.

When deflation occurs if it is large enough it will depress real economic activity. Why should I mine if the purchasing power of my ISK goes up 20% each month. I'll just spend as little ISK is possible and in 4 months I'll have "doubled" my purchasing power. And there are RL historical examples of this.

And yes, the in game economy works very much like a RL economy and it almost always conforms to what economic theory would suggest. When something becomes relatively more scarce; the price goes up. When unlimited industry slots in stations were implemented prices went down for many goods as would be expected. The in game economy is not special exemption from the laws of economics.

Maybe the solution CCP is going to implement is bad in that it does reduce the PvP capability of carriers and supers, and that will adversely effect players who do not use their carriers/supers for ratting. But somehow the use of carriers and supers to inject this much ISK into the game absolutely had to change. Anyone saying otherwise is a totally daft idiot who probably has somebody following them around reminding them to breath.



You talk too much. Get a life dude. Rediculous number of posts whining about players with carriers.

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2016 - 2017-06-13 03:56:02 UTC
With the new changes I must ask

why the NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%)

That was probably the most sensible change there in and the one that no one was complaining about.

The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game.

After all we are not just players, we are customers.

Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Mossyblog Barnes
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#2017 - 2017-06-13 03:57:08 UTC
Eric Lemmonte wrote:
I like how we all are punished because of goons' unchallenged ratting.

Top 10 regions for bounties.

Delve 8.76918E+12 12.14%
Deklein 4.46455E+12 6.18%
Branch 3.11909E+12 4.32%
Cobalt Edge 2.96567E+12 4.11%
Outer Passage 2.66506E+12 3.69%
Querious 2.6635E+12 3.69%
Feythabolis 2.60413E+12 3.61%
Period Basis 2.46879E+12 3.42%
Providence 2.45647E+12 3.40%
Esoteria 2.37196E+12 3.28%



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

Let me know if you see anything that sticks out? :)
Jo Kiyoko
Perkone
Caldari State
#2018 - 2017-06-13 03:59:58 UTC
This demonstrates a new face from developers who can't commit to an announcement, and then lie and cave in to intimidation from its players, with a company with dwindling integrity can we trust CCP anymore these days?
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#2019 - 2017-06-13 04:12:01 UTC
Jo Kiyoko wrote:
This demonstrates a new face from developers who can't commit to an announcement, and then lie and cave in to intimidation from its players, with a company with dwindling integrity can we trust CCP anymore these days?

So you would rather CCP not listen to players at all than only listen when there's enough outrage that hundreds of players are quitting?
Mossyblog Barnes
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#2020 - 2017-06-13 04:15:49 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Jo Kiyoko wrote:
This demonstrates a new face from developers who can't commit to an announcement, and then lie and cave in to intimidation from its players, with a company with dwindling integrity can we trust CCP anymore these days?

So you would rather CCP not listen to players at all than only listen when there's enough outrage that hundreds of players are quitting?


Yes? this isn't open source and we're not all contributing to the code base.. This is a send and recieve dialogue. I'd rather they hold back, regroup, find their footing and bring it back to some old skool release management protocols.

Here is 10 bad news items and here are 5 good news ones... Version xxx deployed. At the same time spend all their energy evangelising the changes and where its next heading and why (in-game events, economy slowdowns, breaking back of corporate monopolies etc etc).