Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 79 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Dazzak
The Dysfunctionals Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:01:27 -
[691] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:[img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/71813/1/GermanFlag33.png[/img] -á [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/FLAG_-_RUSSIAN-33.png[/img]Hi Space Friends, Coming with our release on Tuesday, weGÇÖre significantly reducing the damage output of Fighters. Why:We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in 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 primarily due to NPC Bounties. 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. We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now. This change will significantly change the PvP balance, but weGÇÖre confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP. What:- Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change
- Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage.
- Support Fighters: No Change
- Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage.
- Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.
- Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change
- NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently.
We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players.
So yet again CCP is changing pushing people back to AFK ratting in VNI or ISHTAR, The carrier changes we to get players more involved with playing the game and carrier ratting is what I consider the most player intense thing to do you have to be active all the time
This changes will not help the player base but continue to push old players onto other games
Risk V Reward you should have benefit from using carriers and supers
|
Jen Makanen
Roving Guns Inc. Mercenary Coalition
4
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:02:26 -
[692] - Quote
First off, I'm going to say this: I've never been one for carrier ratting. I just don't enjoy the idea of ratting and fielding that much isk for an activity I can do easier for far less work.
From a PvP stand point though, Carriers have been in a dire state for a while now and this will further knock them down. I can't comment on the supercarrier side of this change, but I will say it's probably quite over the top.
As many people have said here, EVE is in the middle of probably the largest cold war since its release (at least for me it feels this way), entities are scrounging for as many resources as they possibly can, so that when the next great war kicks off we can all jump in our ships and give the boot to whoever needs it the most without worrying so much about our wallets.
I do a lot of theorycrafting, as I'm sure many other posters here do. I also do a lot of testing, both on TQ and on SISI/TD when the time allows it. I can catergorically tell you that carriers are already weak. As a carrier pilot, you spend ridiculous amounts of time training into this fabled ship, only to see if go through so many balance passes from being an effective cap killer and logistics platform that required skill and finese into an effective subcap killer where we saw them being used solo for some interesting content to whatever the hell they are now.
I agree a carrier shouldn't be able to solo a competent gang. I agree there must be counterplay so I could somewhat forgive the initial nerf carriers faced after the changes and the introduction of the NSA to both the baby carrier and the supercarrier. BUT, going from being able to effectively fight off small gangs of ships with a lone carrier to being locked down by a single griffin? You can't be serious. Not only can my fighters not track said griffin, but now they can't even lock him so who cares.
I can't see any scenario where it isn't better to drop 5 HAW dreads on a gang than to drop 5 carriers on the same gang. FAX are supposed to be DPS support ships. Why would anyone commit a carrier in a capital fight when they can't hit the broadside of a barn without bucket loads of tracking? Plus, a dread will always be better than a carrier in a capital fight. Oh, and not forgetting the fact a dread also has a fleet hanger and SMA, so the ONE thing carriers had sacred isn't even there to persuade people who just want a suitcase, when you can get a dread far quicker for that purpose.
Oh and while I'm on about support; if I wanted to be a giant capital bhaalgorn, I'd fly an ACTUAL bhaalgorn. Even with these changes coming to pirate faction ships, a few bhaalgorns will still probably be cheaper than a carrier and equally if not more effective?
Now; from a PvE perspective, heres my two cents:
- Nerf the ratting bounties? - Make anoms respawn slower, forcing people to move systems, hence making ratting more risky and active. - Incursions? Think about those, just saying. - Oh, and improve NPC AI and increase rat EHP?
And quite frankly, if someone has spent the best part of half a year training to sit in this ship and wants to use it for ratting, they should make more than Mr Alpha in a free account VNI. You're forgetting the sheer amount of effort than goes into training and piloting carrier -- even just for ratting, god forbid those people be rewarded for their invest to the game, cmon guys.
TLDR: Are you sure CCP? Might wanna review the PvP side of EVE.
|
Ping PangWang
Ironstar Industries and Research Axiom Vocation Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:02:54 -
[693] - Quote
here i thought the credo of eve was HTFU............. |
yogizh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:02:54 -
[694] - Quote
C0ATL wrote: ... or the fact that a character in highsec can generate more isk/hour doing incursions with no risk to his ship.
:same: |
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
201
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:05:09 -
[695] - Quote
Jen Makanen wrote:First off, I'm going to say this: I've never been one for carrier ratting. I just don't enjoy the idea of ratting and fielding that much isk for an activity I can do easier for far less work.
From a PvP stand point though, Carriers have been in a dire state for a while now and this will further knock them down. I can't comment on the supercarrier side of this change, but I will say it's probably quite over the top.
As many people have said here, EVE is in the middle of probably the largest cold war since its release (at least for me it feels this way), entities are scrounging for as many resources as they possibly can, so that when the next great war kicks off we can all jump in our ships and give the boot to whoever needs it the most without worrying so much about our wallets.
I do a lot of theorycrafting, as I'm sure many other posters here do. I also do a lot of testing, both on TQ and on SISI/TD when the time allows it. I can catergorically tell you that carriers are already weak. As a carrier pilot, you spend ridiculous amounts of time training into this fabled ship, only to see if go through so many balance passes from being an effective cap killer and logistics platform that required skill and finese into an effective subcap killer where we saw them being used solo for some interesting content to whatever the hell they are now.
I agree a carrier shouldn't be able to solo a competent gang. I agree there must be counterplay so I could somewhat forgive the initial nerf carriers faced after the changes and the introduction of the NSA to both the baby carrier and the supercarrier. BUT, going from being able to effectively fight off small gangs of ships with a lone carrier to being locked down by a single griffin? You can't be serious. Not only can my fighters not track said griffin, but now they can't even lock him so who cares.
I can't see any scenario where it isn't better to drop 5 HAW dreads on a gang than to drop 5 carriers on the same gang. FAX are supposed to be DPS support ships. Why would anyone commit a carrier in a capital fight when they can't hit the broadside of a barn without bucket loads of tracking? Plus, a dread will always be better than a carrier in a capital fight. Oh, and not forgetting the fact a dread also has a fleet hanger and SMA, so the ONE thing carriers had sacred isn't even there to persuade people who just want a suitcase, when you can get a dread far quicker for that purpose.
Oh and while I'm on about support; if I wanted to be a giant capital bhaalgorn, I'd fly an ACTUAL bhaalgorn. Even with these changes coming to pirate faction ships, a few bhaalgorns will still probably be cheaper than a carrier and equally if not more effective?
Now; from a PvE perspective, heres my two cents:
- Nerf the ratting bounties? - Make anoms respawn slower, forcing people to move systems, hence making ratting more risky and active. - Incursions? Think about those, just saying. - Oh, and improve NPC AI and increase rat EHP?
And quite frankly, if someone has spent the best part of half a year training to sit in this ship and wants to use it for ratting, they should make more than Mr Alpha in a free account VNI. You're forgetting the sheer amount of effort than goes into training and piloting carrier -- even just for ratting, god forbid those people be rewarded for their invest to the game, cmon guys.
TLDR: Are you sure CCP? Might wanna review the PvP side of EVE.
A freaking men |
Fethyst
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:05:23 -
[696] - Quote
As a few others have said, changing the sites/anoms would make more sense in terms of fixing the issue.
I am not in favor of adding gates to prevent carriers/supers from Haven's or Sanctums but either
A) adding higher level sites in 0.0 for capitals to run B) something that I didn't see mentioned, scale the difficulty up in the upper tier sites (Havens/Sanctums). option B would maybe solve the issue of tons of AFK VNI/Ishtars running Havens. they would be forced to do lower level sites which would have less income and would make the capitals take longer to finish the sites. Both of which would slow down the inflow of ISK without effecting the overall abilities of the carries for PvP, etc.
these seem like better solutions that more accurately address the problem presented (too much isk generation) and also add more challenging game play
|
C09
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:05:42 -
[697] - Quote
Making some new anomalies for capital ships is too difficult for CCP? |
Proud White Prince
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
7
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:09:55 -
[698] - Quote
Oh boy they had to do it. Not as bad as the whole Incarna update with all those **** ups and bad decisions. But hey! you're getting there! Even CCP needs tears sometimes and this is how they do it.
But why nerf the fighters? You affect both PVP and PVE capability of the ship. You could have just done some better research or come up with a better solution if you're main problem is ISK making. And I can't possibly imagine that the CSM I voted for agreed with these drastic changes.
I just don't get it, could be me being a dumb ass or you are not explaining enough details why you made these changes the first place. So many questions and frustration. |
Cassius Blade
PWT0 Fleet Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:10:52 -
[699] - Quote
I'm unsubbing. That's my response to this bullshit. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3391
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:11:01 -
[700] - Quote
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. |
|
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:11:13 -
[701] - Quote
C09 wrote:Making some new anomalies for capital ships is too difficult for CCP?
I mean they couldn't even implement the blood raider engineering complexes properly. It was taken down by frigates... |
Brimestone Darkwing
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:11:17 -
[702] - Quote
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 |
Father Jeremy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:11:18 -
[703] - Quote
RIP CCP accounts, adios amigos was fun playing with you...
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.
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:12:18 -
[704] - Quote
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
High Flyers Northern Coalition.
22
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:13:14 -
[705] - Quote
I smell "capital usage permission certificate" in NEX Store ..... 20$/month Ye greedy fucks |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3391
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:13:49 -
[706] - Quote
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
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
979
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:15:15 -
[707] - Quote
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 |
Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
204
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:16:32 -
[708] - Quote
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
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3391
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:20:09 -
[709] - Quote
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
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
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:22:53 -
[710] - Quote
CCP, this is what I want you to do. You can take those 500Gé¼ 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
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:23:14 -
[711] - Quote
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
Hostile Phoenix Rising Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:23:48 -
[712] - Quote
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. -áxD
|
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:24:18 -
[713] - Quote
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 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
Lom Corporation Just let it happen
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:24:35 -
[714] - Quote
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
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
204
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:25:28 -
[715] - Quote
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 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
Rumors Mining Corp Jamyl Syndicate
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:25:38 -
[716] - Quote
Why not add 4 hours respawn timers for sanctums too while your at it. |
Harry Forever
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
1331
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:25:42 -
[717] - Quote
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
3184
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:27:57 -
[718] - Quote
Father Jeremy wrote:RIP CCP accounts, adios amigos was fun playing with you... 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
Power Shift
4
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:28:47 -
[719] - Quote
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
Something Something Darkside. Circle-Of-Two
11
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:28:53 -
[720] - Quote
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
Can confirm, it was because of an ISK issue in the economy. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 79 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |