These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Father Jeremy
Three Sexy Sardines
#701 - 2017-06-09 18:11:18 UTC
RIP CCP accounts, adios amigos was fun playing with you... Ugh

Seriously? People have spent RL money to buy PLEX in order to buy skill injectors to get into carriers, rorquals etc... any comments?
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
#702 - 2017-06-09 18:12:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
C09 wrote:
Making some new anomalies for capital ships is too difficult for CCP?


Either the anomaly will let carriers/supers generate more ISK/hours because of the rats included or the carrier/supers will just continue running the current ones.


If existing sites were gated to sub caps and capital only sites for caps then no it wouldn't be that way. It's not a terrible idea.
waltari
State War Academy
Caldari State
#703 - 2017-06-09 18:13:14 UTC
I smell "capital usage permission certificate" in NEX Store ..... 20$/month
Ye greedy fucks
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#704 - 2017-06-09 18:13:49 UTC
Vetus Metallicus wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
C09 wrote:
Making some new anomalies for capital ships is too difficult for CCP?


Either the anomaly will let carriers/supers generate more ISK/hours because of the rats included or the carrier/supers will just continue running the current ones.


If existing sites were gated to sub caps and capital only sites for caps then no it wouldn't be that way. It's not a terrible idea.


This make hunting sub-cap ratters even harder than it currently is because the hunter has to use the gate.
Tara Read
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#705 - 2017-06-09 18:15:15 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
So next time you want to clarify that this was mainly a DPS nerf to put Supers more in line with HAW Titans why don't you go with that angle instead of from the PVE angle and have everyone freak out? It implies you nerfed fighter dps solely for a PVE majority. Clarification would have been nice.


They literally said in the OP they though carriers/supers were over performing in PvP and the change would alleviate some of this. Too bad people didn't read all the way to the end of the post.


Their main reasoning was a PVE based nerf. Read carefully next time Cool
Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#706 - 2017-06-09 18:16:32 UTC
Brimestone Darkwing wrote:
So I'm guessing these Devs never post or respond to these ever? Seriously CCP you should really read the msgs here loads of good ideas maybe it's time to actually listen to the customer base hmm? o7 CCP o7 R.I.P Eve by the sounds of things

True true
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#707 - 2017-06-09 18:20:09 UTC
Tara Read wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
So next time you want to clarify that this was mainly a DPS nerf to put Supers more in line with HAW Titans why don't you go with that angle instead of from the PVE angle and have everyone freak out? It implies you nerfed fighter dps solely for a PVE majority. Clarification would have been nice.


They literally said in the OP they though carriers/supers were over performing in PvP and the change would alleviate some of this. Too bad people didn't read all the way to the end of the post.


Their main reasoning was a PVE based nerf. Read carefully next time Cool


Of course the main reason is PVE but that does not change the point. They are not too concerned about the PVP ramification because they think the ships are doing a bit too well anyway. That is why they are not trying a PVE only change. They might be totally wrong but that does not change their point of view.
Reeeeeeeew
Doomheim
#708 - 2017-06-09 18:22:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Reeeeeeeew
CCP, this is what I want you to do. You can take those 500€ I recently spent into injecting and buying a super and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS. Becouse I aint playing this game anymore. Unsubbing 4 accounts.

Bye
Caitlyn Mabata
Cait-Land
#709 - 2017-06-09 18:23:14 UTC
It seems kinda crazy that you can spend 6 months trying to achieve a goal only to have the game change when you get there. I get balance and all, but carriers are supposed to be better than a random droneboats.

Why spend all that time training for carriers if battleships are just as good? If a ship takes 6 months to train into, it should be better.

What should my next goal be? Why set long term goals at all.
Jefrotee
Cat Milking Fockers
#710 - 2017-06-09 18:23:48 UTC
Ganja Wheels wrote:
I agree carriers and supers earn far to much isk when ratting

How much money do you spend IRL subbing to learn the skills to fly and fit a carrier and super? How much does it cost you to build or buy one? How much money do you think you should able to make per tick with a ship that cost that much time and ISK? You are delusional.

If I helped you, please "Like" my posts.  xD
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
#711 - 2017-06-09 18:24:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
So next time you want to clarify that this was mainly a DPS nerf to put Supers more in line with HAW Titans why don't you go with that angle instead of from the PVE angle and have everyone freak out? It implies you nerfed fighter dps solely for a PVE majority. Clarification would have been nice.


They literally said in the OP they though carriers/supers were over performing in PvP and the change would alleviate some of this. Too bad people didn't read all the way to the end of the post.


Their main reasoning was a PVE based nerf. Read carefully next time Cool


Of course the main reason is PVE but that does not change the point. They are not too concerned about the PVP ramification because they think the ships are doing a bit too well anyway. That is why they are not trying a PVE only change. They might be totally wrong but that does not change their point of view.


If you think PvP performance has anything to do with this you have never actually flown a carrier in PvP fleet before. Your fighters can be jammed by a million isk griffin for christ sake.
Rich Nolen
Imperial Guardians
Tactical Narcotics Team
#712 - 2017-06-09 18:24:35 UTC
I think its amusing that people seem to think that their opinion matters in this thread.

Like all the other times CCP has reacted to the market, they will not be changing their minds. This thread was started as a proclamation and nothing more, the fact its in a "Feedback Center" area of the forum is just a "make me feel good about it" thing.

The way to fix the NPC problem with fighters is to increase the overall HP of the Rats by 20%, not nerf the fighters by 20% and then try to say it wont effect PVP.
Brigadine Ferathine
Presumed Dead Enterprises
Against ALL Authorities.
#713 - 2017-06-09 18:25:28 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
So next time you want to clarify that this was mainly a DPS nerf to put Supers more in line with HAW Titans why don't you go with that angle instead of from the PVE angle and have everyone freak out? It implies you nerfed fighter dps solely for a PVE majority. Clarification would have been nice.


They literally said in the OP they though carriers/supers were over performing in PvP and the change would alleviate some of this. Too bad people didn't read all the way to the end of the post.


Their main reasoning was a PVE based nerf. Read carefully next time Cool


Of course the main reason is PVE but that does not change the point. They are not too concerned about the PVP ramification because they think the ships are doing a bit too well anyway. That is why they are not trying a PVE only change. They might be totally wrong but that does not change their point of view.

They are totally wrong about pvp in non supers. Basic carriers are SO vulnerable to gangs of small ships. They cant do anything to them.
Frockly Geiger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#714 - 2017-06-09 18:25:38 UTC
Why not add 4 hours respawn timers for sanctums too while your at it.
Harry Forever
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#715 - 2017-06-09 18:25:42 UTC
you are doing it wrong, there is more isk but also more minerals to produce stuff because of the rorqual mining.. you now get scared and nerf down the isk generation as well as the mineral generation.. it would all be fine, you need more money in an economy that creates more products.. this would have lead to more fights because people would all have more ships etc. in short prosperitiy

Harry Forever vs. Goonswarm
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#716 - 2017-06-09 18:27:57 UTC
Father Jeremy wrote:
RIP CCP accounts, adios amigos was fun playing with you... Ugh

Seriously? People have spent RL money to buy PLEX in order to buy skill injectors to get into carriers, rorquals etc... any comments?

people have spent RL money to buy GTCs to buy characters for longer than I've been playing. Nothing is nerf proof chase the flavor of the month at your own risk.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
evan mclean
Doomheim
#717 - 2017-06-09 18:28:47 UTC
no point in wasting anymore money on this game. going form pay $$$ to pvp in carrier to just carebearing in a Ishtar so I can plex my account what a fun game. you suck ccp
Racken Ormand
Victory or Whatever
Nourv Gate Security Commission
#718 - 2017-06-09 18:28:53 UTC
Tara Read wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
So next time you want to clarify that this was mainly a DPS nerf to put Supers more in line with HAW Titans why don't you go with that angle instead of from the PVE angle and have everyone freak out? It implies you nerfed fighter dps solely for a PVE majority. Clarification would have been nice.


They literally said in the OP they though carriers/supers were over performing in PvP and the change would alleviate some of this. Too bad people didn't read all the way to the end of the post.


Their main reasoning was a PVE based nerf. Read carefully next time Cool


Can confirm, it was because of an ISK issue in the economy.
Vaktul
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#719 - 2017-06-09 18:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaktul
This makes no sense. So you're sweeping the biggest ISK making game-breaking exploit and guilty parties under the rug while at the same time punishing people that are actually out there grinding for their ISK instead? You people are the equivalent of corrupt politicians with how you represent us and you're equally as out-of-touch.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#720 - 2017-06-09 18:29:06 UTC
Vetus Metallicus wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Tara Read wrote:
So next time you want to clarify that this was mainly a DPS nerf to put Supers more in line with HAW Titans why don't you go with that angle instead of from the PVE angle and have everyone freak out? It implies you nerfed fighter dps solely for a PVE majority. Clarification would have been nice.


They literally said in the OP they though carriers/supers were over performing in PvP and the change would alleviate some of this. Too bad people didn't read all the way to the end of the post.


Their main reasoning was a PVE based nerf. Read carefully next time Cool


Of course the main reason is PVE but that does not change the point. They are not too concerned about the PVP ramification because they think the ships are doing a bit too well anyway. That is why they are not trying a PVE only change. They might be totally wrong but that does not change their point of view.


If you think PvP performance has anything to do with this you have never actually flown a carrier in PvP fleet before. Your fighters can be jammed by a million isk griffin for christ sake.


My alliance has a doctrine to do just that. I know very well it can be done. I am not the one who need to eb convinced. I am only tell that CCP does not have a problem with the PVP ramification because they see the ship as over performing. Even if that information is actually wrong, it does not change anything as long as they still believe it to be true.