These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#2321 - 2017-07-09 21:47:09 UTC
Freeman Kurt wrote:


This nerf **** has turned from doing their right nerfs to their wrong nerfs.


What are the right nerfs?

Wait. Let me guess.

The ones that don't affect you. Amirite?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#2322 - 2017-07-09 21:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
IIDjangoII wrote:
do u realise there are players multiboxing (if you can call afk ratting multiboxing) 10-20 vni/ishtars.


Do you realize that despite this, the entire class of T1 cruisers - not just VNIs - generated less in bounties than either carriers or supercarriers did independently?

Carriers and supercarriers generated nearly half of the bounties in their sample.

The rest were generated by every other ship in the game, collectively.

So, what's your point?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Freeman Kurt
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2323 - 2017-07-09 22:19:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Freeman Kurt
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Freeman Kurt wrote:


This nerf **** has turned from doing their right nerfs to their wrong nerfs.


What are the right nerfs?

Wait. Let me guess.

The ones that don't affect you. Amirite?






No, the ones that affect the customers for the company, the people who play this game, and the people on these forums

In addition, I just so happen to be here because I didn't like their Rorqual nerfs, the ded site nerfs, and they made faction BPC's more rediculously expensive to buy by bringing up the mineral requirements for it and they want no one to fly them particularly in doctrines because they nerfed ded sites.
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#2324 - 2017-07-09 22:39:36 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Freeman Kurt wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Freeman Kurt wrote:


This nerf **** has turned from doing their right nerfs to their wrong nerfs.


What are the right nerfs?

Wait. Let me guess.

The ones that don't affect you. Amirite?






No, the ones that affect the customers for the company, the people who play this game, and the people on these forums

In addition, I just so happen to be here because I didn't like their Rorqual nerfs, the ded site nerfs, and they made faction BPC's more rediculously expensive to buy by bringing up the mineral requirements for it and they want no one to fly them particularly in doctrines because they nerfed ded sites.


So you think the game is better when minerals are rendered effectively valueless through sheer abundance, and the only battleships worth flying are pirate battleships, which are not only objectively better, but are also more cost effective than other battleships.
Roll

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Ace Aideron
Red Falcon Group
#2325 - 2017-07-10 07:38:13 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Secondly, captain obvious, devaluing those items is the entire damn point. They're overpowered, and need to be brought back into line. If that hurts someone's feefees, that's just too damn bad. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to chase after the destined-to-be-nerfed flavor of the month.


The whole idea of "destined-to-be-nerfed" is completely wrong-headed.

IMO, nerfing is an intellectually lazy solution to balance issues. You may not care how it makes people feel, but assuming CCP cares about their customers and doesn't intentionally want to drive them away (always a possibility!), they should.

If nerfing was a no-go from the beginning, CCP would be motivated to be much more careful and thorough about introducing potentially balance-altering changes. Once introduced, if they were "too powerful," (by some nebulous standard) then other aspects of the environment could be adjusted. There are many, many ways to achieve balance that don't result in players feeling like they've had something stolen from them.

Although Eve is certainly "just a game," it's different from most games in a couple of important ways. First, it can takes months or even years to skill up to things like capital ships. Second, it can take hundreds of hours and/or dollars to reach your goals. Those supporting nerfs (including CCP) clearly don't understand the psychology of the Eve player base. If you intentionally want to drive those players away, then sure, nerf to your heart's content. OTOH, if you want to keep those players, then nerfing is a bad, bad idea, that should be undertaken only as a last resort.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
#2326 - 2017-07-10 10:25:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Ace Aideron wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Secondly, captain obvious, devaluing those items is the entire damn point. They're overpowered, and need to be brought back into line. If that hurts someone's feefees, that's just too damn bad. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to chase after the destined-to-be-nerfed flavor of the month.


The whole idea of "destined-to-be-nerfed" is completely wrong-headed.

IMO, nerfing is an intellectually lazy solution to balance issues. You may not care how it makes people feel, but assuming CCP cares about their customers and doesn't intentionally want to drive them away (always a possibility!), they should.

If nerfing was a no-go from the beginning, CCP would be motivated to be much more careful and thorough about introducing potentially balance-altering changes. Once introduced, if they were "too powerful," (by some nebulous standard) then other aspects of the environment could be adjusted. There are many, many ways to achieve balance that don't result in players feeling like they've had something stolen from them.

Although Eve is certainly "just a game," it's different from most games in a couple of important ways. First, it can takes months or even years to skill up to things like capital ships. Second, it can take hundreds of hours and/or dollars to reach your goals. Those supporting nerfs (including CCP) clearly don't understand the psychology of the Eve player base. If you intentionally want to drive those players away, then sure, nerf to your heart's content. OTOH, if you want to keep those players, then nerfing is a bad, bad idea, that should be undertaken only as a last resort.

This right here! Having stuff nerfed never feels good to those who have invested in it. Eve seems to be in a perpetual cycle of making new or rebalanced stuff overpowered then nerfing it into uselessness a few months later. Balance is an evasive ideal, and in many ways is actually really boring, but having this constant obvious imbalance that's only ever "fixed" by nerfs is far worse. It feels like we keep having to choose between investing time and money in something mediocre or investing time and money in something good and hoping we have time to get something out of it before it suddenly becomes mediocre. Neither option is enjoyable and I'm tired of playing a game where the only options are to make the wrong choice or to have reality shift and make the right choice wrong with little to no warning.
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#2327 - 2017-07-10 14:04:13 UTC
Ace Aideron wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Secondly, captain obvious, devaluing those items is the entire damn point. They're overpowered, and need to be brought back into line. If that hurts someone's feefees, that's just too damn bad. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to chase after the destined-to-be-nerfed flavor of the month.


The whole idea of "destined-to-be-nerfed" is completely wrong-headed.

IMO, nerfing is an intellectually lazy solution to balance issues. You may not care how it makes people feel, but assuming CCP cares about their customers and doesn't intentionally want to drive them away (always a possibility!), they should.

If nerfing was a no-go from the beginning, CCP would be motivated to be much more careful and thorough about introducing potentially balance-altering changes. Once introduced, if they were "too powerful," (by some nebulous standard) then other aspects of the environment could be adjusted. There are many, many ways to achieve balance that don't result in players feeling like they've had something stolen from them.

Although Eve is certainly "just a game," it's different from most games in a couple of important ways. First, it can takes months or even years to skill up to things like capital ships. Second, it can take hundreds of hours and/or dollars to reach your goals. Those supporting nerfs (including CCP) clearly don't understand the psychology of the Eve player base. If you intentionally want to drive those players away, then sure, nerf to your heart's content. OTOH, if you want to keep those players, then nerfing is a bad, bad idea, that should be undertaken only as a last resort.



Explain how CCP would have balanced the entire game around remote AOE cyno-fired doomsdays without nerfing them.

When you can't, realize how ridiculously infantile the entire concept of never nerfing things because the player-base contains a handful of emotionally unstable children who can't come to grips with the fact that a persistently developed game requires balance tweaks really is.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#2328 - 2017-07-10 19:59:57 UTC
Ace Aideron wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Secondly, captain obvious, devaluing those items is the entire damn point. They're overpowered, and need to be brought back into line. If that hurts someone's feefees, that's just too damn bad. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to chase after the destined-to-be-nerfed flavor of the month.


The whole idea of "destined-to-be-nerfed" is completely wrong-headed.

IMO, nerfing is an intellectually lazy solution to balance issues. You may not care how it makes people feel, but assuming CCP cares about their customers and doesn't intentionally want to drive them away (always a possibility!), they should.

If nerfing was a no-go from the beginning, CCP would be motivated to be much more careful and thorough about introducing potentially balance-altering changes. Once introduced, if they were "too powerful," (by some nebulous standard) then other aspects of the environment could be adjusted. There are many, many ways to achieve balance that don't result in players feeling like they've had something stolen from them.

Although Eve is certainly "just a game," it's different from most games in a couple of important ways. First, it can takes months or even years to skill up to things like capital ships. Second, it can take hundreds of hours and/or dollars to reach your goals. Those supporting nerfs (including CCP) clearly don't understand the psychology of the Eve player base. If you intentionally want to drive those players away, then sure, nerf to your heart's content. OTOH, if you want to keep those players, then nerfing is a bad, bad idea, that should be undertaken only as a last resort.


People crying because their game pixels got nerfed are just as bad as people crying about losing pixels in the game. You are playing a game where balance matter. If you are not ready to get your stuff nerfed one in a while, quit now because that's literally how all damn MMO work.
Valdr Auduin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2329 - 2017-07-10 21:08:25 UTC
This page gave me a fun new idea. When something is released, namely a module or ship, the mineral requirements and research times should be exorbitant (i.e. 100x what would be considered for normal releases) as well as having several science skills tier the effectiveness of the item along with a rotating list of drawbacks (Jury Rigging comes into play here) that trigger ever more frequently or simply accumulate, rendering the modules more or less useless and obsolete after a certain period of time- call it Generation Zero Tech (regardless of the tier, T1 T2 and T3 are all Gen0 on first release).

Once CCP is able to observe the item in play and watch how it's used and abused, the next generation of the technology is released, the same module with whatever nerfs or tweaks they deem necessary, the mineral costs come down, science skills still buff the effectiveness but to a lesser extent, and researching the efficiencies takes less time, while still in a testing phase Generation One Tech still accumulates drawbacks and renders active modules steadily obsolete, though somewhat slower than Generation Zero Tech and in a much more useful timescale. Generation Two Tech is the official rollout of what we consider a normal ship or item, science skills are no longer required to squeeze out the module's maximum effectiveness, costs and research times are normalized, and the item is assumed to be more or less balanced and drawback accumulation occurs on a one-in-a-million timescale creating a slow stream of replacement demand for whatever survives the fighting as the months pass after release.

If CCP decides they've well and truly ****** something up, Generation Three Tech releases allow for a final nerf or upgrade, again, costs come down from Gen 2 but research times skyrocket (this is the final evolution of the technology, doing it faster and cheaper doesn't happen without a large expense), drawbacks remain as rare as Gen 2 tech examples.

Once Gen 2 is released, Gen Zero BPOs will accumulate drawbacks with each copy or run cycle that are passed on to all items or BPCs made from them, Pure Gen 0 BPCs can also be invented from these degraded BPCs keeping a rare few top-line models in circulation; If Gen 3 is released, Gen 1 and Gen 2 BPOs suffer the same fate, becoming obsolescent.
Ace Aideron
Red Falcon Group
#2330 - 2017-07-10 22:03:09 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Explain how CCP would have balanced the entire game around remote AOE cyno-fired doomsdays without nerfing them.

Ideally, if CCP had a policy of no nerfs, they would have thought more deeply about the feature before they introduced it. Post introduction, here are a few ideas that wouldn't involve a nerf to the Titan:

1. Activating the doomsday could immediately make it possible for ships near the cyno to target and shoot the Titan.
2. Activating the doomsday could cause time dilation to start in the system with the cyno, giving pilots there time to react.
3. Activating the doomsday could make it possible to target and shoot a cyno from a much longer distance.
4. Firing the doomsday to a cyno that was destroyed could cause back-blast that massively damages the Titan.

(I'm sure others could come up with better ideas than me; the key point is that there are approaches other than straight-out nerfs). If changes like those weren't enough or possible or feasible, then of course a nerf could be done as a last resort.

The idea isn't to be absolutist about it -- rather, it's to get away from nerfing as the primary go-to solution for balance issues.

SurrenderMonkey wrote:
When you can't, realize how ridiculously infantile the entire concept of never nerfing things because the player-base contains a handful of emotionally unstable children who can't come to grips with the fact that a persistently developed game requires balance tweaks really is.

I never said don't make balance tweaks. I said no nerfs should be a front-line policy, and that balance tweaks can be made in many ways other than nerfing.

From my perspective, compulsively swinging the nerf bat seems a lot more infantile than thinking things through and making a concerted effort to not make customers feel like they've had something stolen.


Ace Aideron
Red Falcon Group
#2331 - 2017-07-10 22:11:25 UTC
Valdr Auduin wrote:
This page gave me a fun new idea.

I like this idea, although I think the desired effect could be achieved in a simpler way.

What if all new mods and ships were released first as "rentals"? No BPs. The items would be good for a month (or whatever), and then they just disappear. Everyone would know ahead of time that the items were limited, so it wouldn't be a surprise when they go away.
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#2332 - 2017-07-10 22:17:19 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Ace Aideron wrote:

Ideally, if CCP had a policy of no nerfs, they would have thought more deeply about the feature before they introduced it. Post introduction, here are a few ideas that wouldn't involve a nerf to the Titan:

1. Activating the doomsday could immediately make it possible for ships near the cyno to target and shoot the Titan.
2. Activating the doomsday could cause time dilation to start in the system with the cyno, giving pilots there time to react.
3. Activating the doomsday could make it possible to target and shoot a cyno from a much longer distance.
4. Firing the doomsday to a cyno that was destroyed could cause back-blast that massively damages the Titan.


So for the sake of subscribing to a ridiculously futile policy, your alternatives include:
Rendering the use of a DD essentially nonsensical, and co-opting a serverload balancing technique that makes the game immensely less enjoyable to play?

And you think this would be better than just fixing the one thing that's actually a problem?

Quote:

From my perspective, compulsively swinging the nerf bat seems a lot more infantile than thinking things through and making a concerted effort to not make customers feel like they've had something stolen.




"Compulsively swinging the nerf bat"? What's "compulsive" about presenting the data showing why something is a problem, along with the economic realities necessitating change?

The problem here seems to be that you've opted to remain wholly ignorant of the actual process.

If you have one nail sticking out, do you bring the entire structure to the nail? Or do you just hammer the nail back into place?

Should all ships have been made nano-fast to compensate for that meta?
Should all frigates be buffed to the power the Worm currently enjoys?
Once that's done, what do we do with the rest of the ships now that the baseline for frigates has been adjusted to overpowered?

Good job, now we have a powercreep deathspiral and you've effectively guaranteed the cessation of any real progress by increasing the workload of balance requirements by multiple orders of magnitude. Roll

If balance changes make you feel like you've had something stolen, you need to get over yourself. That's no different than commercial fishermen complaining about catch limits preventing them from fishing the big-money species into extinction. It's short-sighted, juvenile, self-destructive, eye-rollingly stupid selfishness.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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

Freeman Kurt
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2333 - 2017-07-12 06:01:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Freeman Kurt
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Ace Aideron wrote:

Ideally, if CCP had a policy of no nerfs, they would have thought more deeply about the feature before they introduced it. Post introduction, here are a few ideas that wouldn't involve a nerf to the Titan:

1. Activating the doomsday could immediately make it possible for ships near the cyno to target and shoot the Titan.
2. Activating the doomsday could cause time dilation to start in the system with the cyno, giving pilots there time to react.
3. Activating the doomsday could make it possible to target and shoot a cyno from a much longer distance.
4. Firing the doomsday to a cyno that was destroyed could cause back-blast that massively damages the Titan.


So for the sake of subscribing to a ridiculously futile policy, your alternatives include:
Rendering the use of a DD essentially nonsensical, and co-opting a serverload balancing technique that makes the game immensely less enjoyable to play?

And you think this would be better than just fixing the one thing that's actually a problem?

Quote:

From my perspective, compulsively swinging the nerf bat seems a lot more infantile than thinking things through and making a concerted effort to not make customers feel like they've had something stolen.




"Compulsively swinging the nerf bat"? What's "compulsive" about presenting the data showing why something is a problem, along with the economic realities necessitating change?

The problem here seems to be that you've opted to remain wholly ignorant of the actual process.

If you have one nail sticking out, do you bring the entire structure to the nail? Or do you just hammer the nail back into place?

Should all ships have been made nano-fast to compensate for that meta?
Should all frigates be buffed to the power the Worm currently enjoys?
Once that's done, what do we do with the rest of the ships now that the baseline for frigates has been adjusted to overpowered?

Good job, now we have a powercreep deathspiral and you've effectively guaranteed the cessation of any real progress by increasing the workload of balance requirements by multiple orders of magnitude. Roll

If balance changes make you feel like you've had something stolen, you need to get over yourself. That's no different than commercial fishermen complaining about catch limits preventing them from fishing the big-money species into extinction. It's short-sighted, juvenile, self-destructive, eye-rollingly stupid selfishness.





These are all just theories to what can happen and none of what you said is just simple to understand. There isn't going to be one thing that will be the sotutioon for everything and theories like your ideas cannot be solved and Not even what I say is the solution to our problems. What we really need is to hear ccp talking to us like we are doing it here, so we can respond the right way and we don't hurt each others feelings. Do you see where I am going with this? United and we will prevail
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#2334 - 2017-07-20 16:38:28 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.



So you want to modify the pve bounties that these ships get. But you don't make any changes that are specific to pve and only make changes that will hurt the ship in pvp as well. This makes no sense. Just make the npcs effective at killing the fighters and leave the pvp alone.

Or give some support that these ships need to be nerfed in pvp even though you already nerfed earlier.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815