Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I think the real answer is this: "We do not want to hurt AFK-ing multiboxers...because multibox = multi account."

This, I was told a nice story about how corp exes table-talk with rivals and set up "play wars" to keep their line members involved between the rare instances of actual conflict. Most of their actual fighting is via manipulating the markets.

RE: Carriers should not make 46.5% of the bounties

Yes they should if these players are spending more time than other players. Your data does not account for the fact that those who like to rat like to rat and thus they upgrade to carriers and rat more frequently than those who do not.

You're manufacturing a strawman and very poorly to boot. You're either very stupid, very pretentious, or both.

So Supers earn 3.1% more than cruisers, and supers are the problem?

"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."

Is this total subscriber-omega character population or "active" ( a certain level of activity) rolling a month/several-months?

Time spent is very relevant. And CCP's data does not reflect it properly.

For example: if players with carriers average 10hrs of ratting a day, while players with cruisers average 1hr of ratting per day, then I hope that carriers are making >90% of bounties.

As you never use your "reserved" spots, I'll do it.

The %'s you used are so misleading - Try using numbers that actually correlate with your claims. 1.4% of what, 4.6% of how many players?
And why do your % stop at 22.8% of players, who made the other 34.4% of bounties.

It is so easy to have figures show exactly what you want them to, when they are incomplete. For example, how much of the sample period bounties was derived from incursions? And by what % of players?


Seriously though, when you tell a bunch of players their income is about to be reduced significantly in a week wouldn't you expect them to take full advantage of what time they have left to fill wallets.
Where are the figures from 5 days in January and then April - So there is something to compare to your findings..
I know the answer, they don't show anything close to the figures you've used to justify the nerfs so not available to the player base - Who by the way know you're telling falsehoods through that smug smile. (I don't mean the one on your character either)


Your findings are meaningless without comparison - It is like saying, 2.1% of CCP Employees were seen drinking too heavily over 3 days at Xmas so all employees need to go to rehab and then submit to weekly urine tests (on a Monday morning) or be replaced...
See how stupidly numbers can be used without correlation.

A: Supers, as a class, earned 16.75% more than T1 cruisers, as a class.

B: They did it with 1/12 the number of people.

For every ratting super, there are 12 people ratting in T1 cruisers who are earning less, collectively, than that one super.

So, yes, ratting supers are a problem.

Thats a much more reasonable balance pass.
I would like to see content that encourages pvp instead of all this pve drabble to increase the isk sink.
Maybe these t3c changes will give us more pvp content in nullsec.