These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2021 - 2017-06-13 04:16:04 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?


Self-centered entitled players who are screaming about their isk stream being nerfed should never ever be listened too.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2022 - 2017-06-13 04:19:53 UTC
Valaba wrote:


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



And you are a self centered man child who should have grown up long ago.

"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

Onjine Anekuro
Ichura Survey Service
#2023 - 2017-06-13 04:20:27 UTC
I wonder how much even the original changes would impact the problem here. If you reduce carrier damage by 20%, and assuming that translates to a net loss of 10% in bounty income factoring in travel time, etc., it would go from 2.3T to 2.07 for Supercarriers and 2.6T to 2.34T for Carriers.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2024 - 2017-06-13 04:20:44 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%


Yes, because 44 trillion ISK entering the economy would not have been a problem at all. Roll

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2025 - 2017-06-13 04:23:32 UTC
Mossyblog Barnes wrote:
@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?


Inflation destroys wealth on the whole, it does not create it.

And even if ratting in Delve was completely and totally stopped by CCP there would still be too much ISK entering the economy. This is a little bit too much, this a huge ginormous amount of too much ISK entering the economy.

"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

Jang Taredi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2026 - 2017-06-13 04:33:24 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.


This idea is actually the best, since it's possible certain alliances are using their regions much more than others. I'd rather see this happen, than buffs to the actual rats.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2027 - 2017-06-13 04:37:32 UTC
Jang Taredi wrote:


This idea is actually the best, since it's possible certain alliances are using their regions much more than others. I'd rather see this happen, than buffs to the actual rats.

See last page for my reply on why it's actually a terrible idea, and both doesn't work and harms the wrong people.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2028 - 2017-06-13 04:43:21 UTC
Mossyblog Barnes wrote:
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?


We can see this because....?

And actually PCU is an instantaneous measure, the actual number of players who have logged in during a given day would be larger than the peak PCU number. For example, to see this, imagine we have just 2 hours and in hour 1 30,000 players log in. In hour 2 15,000 players log in. What is the number of unique players who logged in? A number between 30,000 and 45,000 (including the end points).

"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

Mark Marconi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2029 - 2017-06-13 04:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Marconi
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mossyblog Barnes wrote:
@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?


Inflation destroys wealth on the whole, it does not create it.

And even if ratting in Delve was completely and totally stopped by CCP there would still be too much ISK entering the economy. This is a little bit too much, this a huge ginormous amount of too much ISK entering the economy.

In this case where 2 regions are creating the inflation, it means that while they suffer a minor amount from the inflation, the rest of the game suffers a lot more.

You know business as usual in EvE.

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.

Commander Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2030 - 2017-06-13 04:46:14 UTC
102 pages with 20 posts per page. Let's round that to 2000 of your paying customers say this is a terrible idea. Why do you even post stuff like this. You don't listen to what your players want. CCP is always looking for a easy way out. Why do we have a CSM? If these changes are being approved by these people CSM elections need to be changed too. But that's a different day

It almost seems like you want to weed out older generations of your customers. Who are the most loyal. New players coming in on alpha accounts don't know how we are screwing over our players who over months, years and on yeah A DECADE. They are still dreaming a about capitals and making isk. It won't be until they spend hundreads of dollars and subscriptions and plex will they learn that everything they waited and paid for will be neutered.

Don't do this. Fix high sec. stop picking on the players who have devoted the most time and money to your business.
Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#2031 - 2017-06-13 04:54:18 UTC
This reminds me of articles in the past that suggested making things more lucrative for carebears would create more opportunities for hunters.

So instead of trying to solve the problem with fixes that try to get people to quit playing the game, how about fixes that make it easier to gank the super PVE'rs?

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2032 - 2017-06-13 04:58:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mark Marconi wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mossyblog Barnes wrote:
@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?


Inflation destroys wealth on the whole, it does not create it.

And even if ratting in Delve was completely and totally stopped by CCP there would still be too much ISK entering the economy. This is a little bit too much, this a huge ginormous amount of too much ISK entering the economy.

In this case where 2 regions are creating the inflation, it means that while they suffer a minor amount from the inflation, the rest of the game suffers a lot more.

You know business as usual in EvE.


It isn't two regions either.

Look, on average the money supply grew at around 7 billion ISK/month. In May it grew 53 trillion. Even if you took out Deklein and Delve you'd still have something over 500% above average.

This is not 2 regions. It is a systemic problem.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2033 - 2017-06-13 05:05:01 UTC
Shiloh Templeton wrote:
This reminds me of articles in the past that suggested making things more lucrative for carebears would create more opportunities for hunters.

So instead of trying to solve the problem with fixes that try to get people to quit playing the game, how about fixes that make it easier to gank the super PVE'rs?



You mean like when they first introduced Dominion Sov with anomalies and saw the money supply start to increase dramatically and had to nerf anomalies? Like that?

Yeah, that didn't work to well did it?

"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

Mossyblog Barnes
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#2034 - 2017-06-13 05:15:11 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
[quote=Mossyblog Barnes][quote=Cismet][quote=Mossyblog Barnes]*sigh*

And actually PCU is an instantaneous measure, the actual number of players who have logged in during a given day would be larger than the peak PCU number. For example, to see this, imagine we have just 2 hours and in hour 1 30,000 players log in. In hour 2 15,000 players log in. What is the number of unique players who logged in? A number between 30,000 and 45,000 (including the end points).


I don't disagree, however when you are game it comes down to server ticks as a unit of measurement. Moreover when you play you have a range in hours of your interaction with the game universe. Let's say you play avg 3 hours a day and they were between 4am to 10am most weekdays. Now obviously your gaming experience is going to differ from those in USTZ during peak periods of use, therefore your overall chances of death are lower. This in turn is prime wealth making timezone but on the otherhand its likely the hardest to get a round of epic ship loss/battles.

So Logins Per Hour matter, as you have to work on the differences of peak player time zones vs offpeak whilst also taking into account regional interaction(s).

If n% of the population on that time are in Delve fighting you guys, and y% of the people fighting are from Branch, then who's backfilling their interactions in surrounding areas? ..who imposes friction to their rating/mining farming lines?

More players would increase the chances of death not lesson but would also decrease wealth given harassments in game for pvp are up, death is up and wealth is lowered.
EisernesTaipei
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#2035 - 2017-06-13 05:15:16 UTC
The primary goal should be like long-term economic stability. Not just reducing combat power of capitals. If those big toys becoming useless strategy junk I believe nobody will build it afterward.

I suggest CCP to build a isk recycle mechanism.

For example to implant investment system which could be used on Planet Interaction system.


First off, investments can be only made in any planets that is marked "Allied", or in planet that are territory of the investor's nation.


Second, Investments reveal upgrades like local system start to support new clothes and some specific items.


Lastly, investing could gives you lots of interaction tax reduction. Each time you invest a certain amount of money the planet can also get different terrain appearance
WHAT7
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2036 - 2017-06-13 05:21:58 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%


then come challenge us, oh wait, you're in VOLT, you guys run at the first sight of danger.
xOmGx
Heroic Farming inc.
#2037 - 2017-06-13 05:34:58 UTC
there cant be too much ISK

if you have too much ISK pls send them to me ingame iand i promise i will make them disappear safe and fast


CCP just fails making NPC ISK sinks and ISK accumulated and will be accumulated ingame
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#2038 - 2017-06-13 05:35:02 UTC
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.


why don't you just limit the maximum bounty payout per tick? with that you could easy have control and just hurt the ones doing the really highest ticks, just limit the payout to example 50m per tick (150m per hour) no matter how many rats are killed..
Mary Timeshift Jane
Doomheim
#2039 - 2017-06-13 05:49:38 UTC
So people get their toys they always dreamed of and CCP goes nerf nerf nerf,.. so jaded.
Mary Timeshift Jane
Doomheim
#2040 - 2017-06-13 05:53:41 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
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.


why don't you just limit the maximum bounty payout per tick? with that you could easy have control and just hurt the ones doing the really highest ticks, just limit the payout to example 50m per tick (150m per hour) no matter how many rats are killed..


Another example Jesus Christ crucifixion. Little people wanting to limit great people. Slackers offended by hardcores. One would think PH would do a better job at teaching people and bring out their potential, instead of small mindedness.