These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
LifeshifterX
#1801 - 2017-06-12 17:14:31 UTC
Anyone also noted he quoted 7-12 instead of 6-12?
Sassura
Sassy's Corporation
#1802 - 2017-06-12 17:15:50 UTC
Not sure why there is still a hefty nerf to the ship when they plan to also look at making the anoms less profitable for carriers and supers.


Also, can anyone tell me how much isk p/h I could make with a handful of smartbombing machs?
Wyld
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#1803 - 2017-06-12 17:16:14 UTC
You remember when you didn't carrier or super rat cause you'd get hot dropped?

Man, those were the days before fattygay and never leaving your SOV area cause a pack of Sov Wands show up...


Dirk Stetille
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1804 - 2017-06-12 17:16:38 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 2017-07-12: 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.



This is a far better post, well constructed and giving us a path to see your reasoning. This is what we'd like to see more of - open communication with the the player base. You guys have ****** that up a bit recently, but this is really great, so thank you Larrikin for being receptive to our opinions.
Nexio Siete
Nexal Shipping
#1805 - 2017-06-12 17:17:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Nexio Siete
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Justify Justify Justify


I ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE ACTUALLY COUNTED THE ALPHA CLONES THAT YOU PUT IN OUT IN THESE FIGURES?
BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE CLEARLY USING SATURATED FIGURES THAT YOU CREATED TO YOUR ENDS WHICH I KNOW CCP WOULD NEVER DO ...............RIGHT?
Kaze Mester
Perkone
Caldari State
#1806 - 2017-06-12 17:17:31 UTC
Im still not convinced to resub my accounts.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1807 - 2017-06-12 17:19:20 UTC
PenguinBacon wrote:


Assuming linear growth of the player base based on the increase in incursion income
May 2017th Income is 9.92T.


CCP Larrikin wrote:
Let’s set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June.


Let me know when you see the problem.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Rendiir
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1808 - 2017-06-12 17:20:10 UTC
Has anyone at CCP considered the fact that there are Exspensive things on the markets these days and need to save up the isk in order to purchase?

Examples:
*Sotiyo
*Keep Star
*Super Capitals
*With the Future release of moon mining Complexes, People/ Corperations want to save up under the impression that the cost of these things will be extortionate.

Or has CCP considered that players have all that they want within the game and from time to time, players will just go out ratting to kill a little bit of time during quiet periods...?

i don't think CCP has realy thought about this from all angles.. People who have played for 10 years will have everything and simply sit on ISK... and as time goes on more and more people will be in the same situation... this in turn makes CCP panic because available isk is rising...
Tyger Maul
Universalis Imperium
Goonswarm Federation
#1809 - 2017-06-12 17:20:25 UTC
PenguinBacon wrote:
I too can massage data to justify a false conclusion!

Per Quant's 2015 presentation
1.5% of the games population logged in and ran incursions

This group accounted for at the time 8.36T worth of income

Assuming linear growth of the player base based on the increase in incursion income
May 2017th Income is 9.92T.

This was a growth of 18.68% of income. The estimated population of incursion runners is 1.66%.

So Rounding up to 1.7% to be consistent with the chart made by Quant.
We have 1.7% of the games population accounting for 9.92T income.

To compare this with the numbers posted by Larrikin in the first post
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

Incursion runners are about 21% more of a player base than SuperCarriers but result in 331% more income per character.


I logged in just to like your comment. Best comment so far.
Reza Najafi
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#1810 - 2017-06-12 17:22:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Reza Najafi
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Why:
Our primary goal for this change is reducing the combat power of Carriers & Supercarriersin PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec.

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:
  • 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.


First of all please do show us a battle report or state a fight that happened in which Supercarriers or Carries (after the fighter changes) significantly affected the fight. Secondly ask FCs or CC pilots how effective their fighters are, how they cycle guns, torps, mwds and what not and how much client/server lag they get by doing all those clicks. Do this research first before saying anything about PVP effectiveness of Carriers and Supercarriers.

Now to the PVE part: I've been talking for months now that the gap between low -> null sec in terms of PVE is insanely big. So what you do you nerf a ship class and it's damage (fighters) instead of changing the really not enjoyable and nonchallenging PVE mechanics that's totally ****** up and the main reason for this changes. I find this really dumb and just a quick fix to something you don't want to spend like a week of thinking.

So in your whole post the change that is really needed is stated as last: "We are working on changes to Anomalies ...". This should be the thing you actually SHOULD do, without touching supers or combat carriers.

Anyway, I am done with this. Seems like hitting a wall and talking to someone who isn't listening. Thanks Devs for reading my post if you are gonna do it. Also get a ******* communication officer that is actually good at his job to tell you how to work with your customers.
Adare Darmazaf
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1811 - 2017-06-12 17:23:54 UTC
Fine be like this CCP.
We just dock up our carriers and supers and continue ratting in rattlesnakes :)
Or How about Rorqual mining...

Hmm no. I just go to high sec and run incursions with TVP with an hourly rate of 180/210 million isk exc. the 42.000/49.000 concord LP.

Lol :D
Max Striker
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1812 - 2017-06-12 17:26:25 UTC
Resnar Deathnar wrote:
That's very nice thanks CCP to listen us, even if I still have a bit of concern, why nerfing Super ratting ? Those ship cost a lot, need a big intel to keep it safe, everyone look to kill them, need a very long time to train (T2 fighter/nice shield/armor skill etc to be effective). Those ship are the end game of eve, all my eve life I want to have one, and even If i have one now, i feel like pushing 100mil tick (and it ask a lot of APM) is not enough.
If a war explode, you can't use your ratting super if you are hit by the war, as a goon, I can tell you, we rat in super because there is nothing else to do, if you realy want to nerf super ratting/rorq mining, you should look at adding isk sink like a war, the best exemple for that was goons deployement in catch, during this period of time no one had time to rat/mine, super was deploy for the war and rorq was not safe to use (hi 5 min siege). Anyway, I hope you will look further, sorry for my bad english, not native english speaker.


I totally agree, CCP is not taking in consideration all we have to invest to fly one of those and the risk there is using them as well as all the infra structure we need to keep those beauties as safe as possible. And I am not even talking about war time just regular day by day ratting.
Sassura
Sassy's Corporation
#1813 - 2017-06-12 17:26:26 UTC
Please could we see figures for null sec ratting when you plan to still nerf the some of the ships used for nullsec ratting. Not all around figures. What about all the people multiboxing sub caps who rake in a lot more isk p/h?

Please explain why the ship needs a pve/pvp nerf and a further pve nerf to address pve concerns.

Please update the actual eve forums with the same information that you share with reddit readers.

Please use the CSM to bounce ideas off before dropping bombshells like this.

Please listen to people and address the current game mechanics which have removed content and made the game stagnant.

Please don't just do a minor backpedal and carry on with whatever your next pans are. Please address the game issues that players are facing.
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#1814 - 2017-06-12 17:26:38 UTC
What percentage of characters earning bounties were living in HS exclusively. For the purposes of this discussion, the only relevant numbers are characters earning bounties in nullsec.

Also, why those specific 5 days, why not use the last year?

Fluffy Bunny Pic!

SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1815 - 2017-06-12 17:28:07 UTC
Rendiir wrote:
Has anyone at CCP considered the fact that there are Exspensive things on the markets these days and need to save up the isk in order to purchase?

Examples:
*Sotiyo
*Keep Star
*Super Capitals
*With the Future release of moon mining Complexes, People/ Corperations want to save up under the impression that the cost of these things will be extortionate.




Yeah, hardly anyone can afford these new structures, which is why they haven't been popping up left and right...
...
...oh, wait, that's the exact opposite of what's been happening.

And why would the drilling platforms be extortionately priced? They only come in M and L and they're slated to cost something more than an EC but something less than a citadel.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Thead Enco
Domheimed
#1816 - 2017-06-12 17:28:40 UTC
Rhivre wrote:
What percentage of characters earning bounties were living in HS exclusively. For the purposes of this discussion, the only relevant numbers are characters earning bounties in nullsec.

Also, why those specific 5 days, why not use the last year?


Because they want to cherry pick outliers to fit their narrative.
GinBar
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1817 - 2017-06-12 17:29:12 UTC
Can CCP deduce some facts about injectors and supercaps and rorqs.

I d like to know which of them are injected and which are trained with natural progression aka skilling. As ppl said many times in this thread, this particular nerf is not THE problem, its just a problem among gazillion ones which will surface. THE problem are skill injectors, the way maxing stuff in eve is just seconds away. EVE players are smart ones, they will use every frigging chance to beat other guy, even other guy is CCP guy.

Remove skill injectors or rework 'em
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1818 - 2017-06-12 17:29:54 UTC
Rhivre wrote:
What percentage of characters earning bounties were living in HS exclusively. For the purposes of this discussion, the only relevant numbers are characters earning bounties in nullsec.

Also, why those specific 5 days, why not use the last year?


Because the issue became more visible once everyone and their dog got a carrier/super to rat with?

It's an exaggeration but you should get the idea.
Jen Makanen
Roving Guns Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#1819 - 2017-06-12 17:30:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jen Makanen
Re: The Update Monday 12th June.

So, I'm going to be a cynic. Chances are this "new" iteration of their nerf was the inital intention, but it was a bold PR move to make people respect the devs more. I think it back fired personally.

I will say I'm thankful that some data has actually been put forward regarding this, granted I stick to my previous concerns and ask "how are carriers overpowered in PvP?". Quite honestly, if you can find me a graph showing carriers being overpowered (when they can't hit the broadside of a barn without buckets of tracking) I'll let you have it.

This entire round of changes are just weird. You could've left them alone and JUST implemented the NPC aggro increase on the fighters, causing people to use them less or sink more ISK into replacing fighters they lose due to new mechanics, which ultimately is what is needed. Especially when you consider that T2 fighters are 10-15m a pop, losing a squadron every site of 2 would essentially nullify one "tick" in three, thus making people less inclined to rat in a carrier OR alternatively forcing them to be more active with controlling them, leading to lower bounty ticks as more management is done pulling them away and repositioning them.

I'm not going to pretend this cut back on the initial nerf pleases me at all, but I would personally advise you learn to listen to your playerbase a bit more, yes there is bias, but you must consider their opinions and logically come back with your own arguments, rather than the method used by CCP Quant and CCP Falcon by disregarding the concerns of players as "1% of the 1%" and "edgy memelord". Bad for PR, bad for respect and quite frankly, real **** social awareness.
Ender Ambrye
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1820 - 2017-06-12 17:30:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Ender Ambrye
Thanks Devs, thats more like it, not necessarily because of changes made to your numbers...but because you have provided us with a bit of evidence, you showed me (us) the logic behind it and that goes a LONG way to helping me understand why this massive long skill queue I have invested RL time and money in is being manipulated, thank you. Now if we could have these a little earlier, that would be ace...no repeats for the T3s, I plead, that would be a catastrophic event.

I still believe that this is an inelegant solution to a subtle problem, and buggers unrelated mechanics (like PVP), which is unfortunate, as we all know the new parameters will be min - maxed by next patch anyway, while unique form (in any game, not just Eve) of gameplay dies.

Please remember it has to be fun, in particular for your more invested customers - I understand the need to balance toward retention and thus subscription of alphas, but it would be foolish to do it at the expense of the investment pool that got you to that point in the first place.