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) |
Nevase Prometeus
Every Man for Himself Fidelas Constans
16
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:03:06 -
[1861] - Quote
Supercarrier is like endgame contents . It should be a reward for player who spend most of time and effort to that level . Nerf nedgame reward like this usually make unhappy for players who spend a lot ot time and efforts to go this far . Player who fly supercarrier most are veteran players who stay with EVE for a long time . Nerf their ship it look like punishments .They should not be thread like this.
My though are not punish the players but strengten to rats to make more difficult (espicially for carrier and super carrier) by all rats will target fighters first , all of them. After no fighters left so it should be Carrier or Suuper carrier to be next target.
I Hope this sould be better. |
GothicNightmare
Amazing Super Slackers Circle-Of-Two
13
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:03:55 -
[1862] - Quote
[quote=grigair]I Their is nothing making them want to fight each other for space. A better idea would be rotate sections of nullsec that pays better than others. Force the big alliance to fight for space to earn more profits.
I agree completely, after fozzie sov took over there was no need to ever use the carriers and supers to push people's faces in, now all you need is a couple ceptors to attack sov They just keep making it so certain ships are more and more useless or less effective for things, need to bring back incentives and reasons to fly the ships they have. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
16147
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:05:03 -
[1863] - Quote
Sassura wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Sassura wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Original Post updated You just explained that almost half the bounties in null sec are generated by only 6% of all ratting characters then you cut down on the balance pass you were about to make? I think that's just prolonging the inevitable. You're going to have to fix this and it would have been better to do most of it up front IMO. It does need to be fixed. There are better ways though, ones which really address the problems. The problem is fighter squadrons. This problem did not exist the day before CCP patched in Fighter Squadrons. that shouldn't be changing anomalies when they know what the problem is. CCP did that before (with tracking titans and forsaken hubs, they added frigs to forsaken hubs, slowing down everyone, not just the titan ratters) and that shouldn't ever do that again. I wish that it were that simple, but I don't believe it is. Fighters need work, a 3 day old character shouldn't be able to render a carrier useless. I'm not arguing there. A simple damage reduction simply doesn't fix the issues at hand. Do you think so many people would be out there ratting in carrier and supers, making those bounty numbers so high if it wasn't for things like skill injectors, lack of force projection creating much safer space than intended and many other things? Lets not forget about how cheap and easy they are to get hold of now. The bigger picture makes me think that nerfing fighter damage wouldn't be the fix that the game needs.
I'm sure those ancillary issue matter, there were such issues with tracking titans too (no skill injectors of course, that would have been madness).
But EVE is an interconnected thing. CCP seems to understand that the best move is the direct one instead of trying to fix 40 things at once. Nom, fighters should not be so easy to jam, but that another issue for another day, the issue here is the money supply and a dps nerf will affect that no matter whatever else happens.
Trying to fix all those things might screw up other things (no offence to CCP, but that don't have a good track record there). Nerfing dps affects the tiny sliver of EVE online players that fly capitals, it's better to negatively affect a few than it is to do that to potentially many many more people.
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
240
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:06:17 -
[1864] - Quote
Less effective for carriers/supers simply translates to more frigates. Which I'm fine with, slows down the rate or which sites are cleared which was the whole goal of these changes to begin with. |
Marcel Garsk
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:11:42 -
[1865] - Quote
You blame CCP for introduction of skill injectors. Without them there wouldn't be so many capital pilots. But now CCP nerfs skill injectors indirectly because 'injected' carrier pilots will do less damage. Normally trained pilots too but they are simply victims of power creep and present game industry realities (read micro-transactions). Maybe CCP did not considered enough long term consequences of skill injectors for EVE economy but take into account CCP thinks about their economy first! |
Hogeron Amelan
Marquie-X. Triumvirate.
15
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:12:18 -
[1866] - Quote
you guys from CCP have to learn how to read graphs...
When you average the increase in ISK since the citadel upgrade, aka since carriers and supers can generate ISK the way they do now (May 2016 - June 2017), roughtly estimated 1085T-960T=125 T ISK in 13 months what equals 9,6T or lets say rougly 10T ISK/month since May 2016.
When you compare the months before, (Oct 2014- Apr. 2016) thats about 790-600T = 190T in 17 months, what equals about 11,2T per month so thats over 10% more than we have now. So in which mathematical universe you are living to say that 11,2 is less than 10 that the actual income situation is not tolerable when there was even more income generated per month before the carrier change? Of cause when you see the smooth lines before the citadel patch and the edgy lines after it, you can see that people are struggeling with a constant method for income, meaning that the game content is rapidly shifting between making Isk and loosing it.
Would you please add a 30-day-playtime cost development graph to that one please? Maybe then you will find out why people are up to increase their income in short periods of time and you may think about it how to introduce game mechanics for a more stable economy. Instead of fine-tuning with a precision tool you are ripping of vavles and soldering rips in the pipes of the material flow... |
Nick Bison
Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Circle-Of-Two
331
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:13:17 -
[1867] - Quote
a lot of screaming and hollering because the 6.4% that carrier/super rat wont keep getting 43% of all ISK rewards.
Okay, I got that out ... sorry for any offense.
Overall, I was kind of hoping that CCP could have instituted some mechanic that prevented carrier/supers from entering PvE anoms but, that would make dealing with dread/titan spawns very interesting.
Guess we'll all have to see how this plays out.
Nothing clever at this time.
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:14:17 -
[1868] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:All PVE rewards were balanced against player and ship power in the ~2010 era.
Player ships have been 'rebalanced' multiple times since then. Almost all of these changes have been significant power increases. Level 5 missions and 10/10 sites used to be nontrivial fleet sites, now they are readily soloed.
The key to addressing this balance issue is to increase the combat capabilities of NPCs in line with the increases player ship power has experienced.
I'm pretty sure that's where they're headed with the new NPC AI eventually. First, the mining response fleets, then the Sotiyo defense fleet, now, the new Drone event with the new AI.
Eventually, all belts, all anoms, all combat sigs, all sleepers, drifters, incursion rats, L1+2+3+4+5 rats... all of it. Could be using some variant of the new AI to increase challenge and to reduce the identical nature of a lot of PVE content, to keep it a bit more randomized. |
Sassura
Sassy's Corporation
34
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:15:57 -
[1869] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
I'm sure those ancillary issue matter, there were such issues with tracking titans too (no skill injectors of course, that would have been madness).
But EVE is an interconnected thing. CCP seems to understand that the best move is the direct one instead of trying to fix 40 things at once. Nom, fighters should not be so easy to jam, but that another issue for another day, the issue here is the money supply and a dps nerf will affect that no matter whatever else happens.
Trying to fix all those things might screw up other things (no offence to CCP, but that don't have a good track record there). Nerfing dps affects the tiny sliver of EVE online players that fly capitals, it's better to negatively affect a few than it is to do that to potentially many many more people.
You are right that fixing all the issues is far more than a one patch fix and nerfing fighters is an easier way to get a fix into the game in a timely manner without implementing more issues. However the nerf was extremely heavy handed and frustrated people. The method of throwing it into another nerf with 4 days notice was also a poor decision. I'd like fighters as a whole to be addressed, because it is needed.
It's a shame that new features are not tested more ( didn't CCP think the max skilled 450 mil p/h rorqual was not that balanced) and introduced more gently. No one ever got upset about gentle buffs to rework things.
|
Haidere
Evolution Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:19:14 -
[1870] - Quote
Thank you for taking the time to reconsider the changes.
One thing you may want to look at, a large chunk of bounties was earned by T1 cruisers, perhaps check to see what percentage of those were single players, and which were multi-boxers. |
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:19:30 -
[1871] - Quote
Kortes Ellecon wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: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 40% nerf for heavy fighters ??? ...really ?? ok last days for me and for my corps never will return again to this game if u want to kill your game do it ccp! bye ! good reason to sell accounts ty .
Where are you reading a 40% nerf for heavy fighters? I'm ready 0%, 20%, and 0% change to three types of heavy fighters (before the adjustment, it was 10%, 30%, and 0% change).
Are you adding the old and new percentages together or something? I still don't see a 40% in there... unless you added the 10% and 30% and ignored the new 20%, I guess. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:21:14 -
[1872] - Quote
Hetwiyha wrote:Oh...wait....
Carriers and Supers with drones are to easy for Krabbing, lets change to fighters and let them multitask, that will fix income...
No "big" wars, all are krabbing, more isk is generated, lets change damage for Carriers/Supers....
All are krabbing then more, because still no big wars and less income then before, CCP, whats next?
Perhaps its just because nothing big is going on and all have time for do this instead of having fights over SOV because of Foz.... :P
Krabbing is just storing up a warchest to prepare for the next big war.
Patience. |
C0ATL
Renegade Stars The Volition Cult
47
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:24:16 -
[1873] - Quote
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 incomeAssuming 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.
THAT ^ ^ ^
It begs the question...how true are those numbers? Why didnt we get a nice graph like the ones in the report? Why wasnt a bounty income per ship type graph included in the monthly report (didnt even need to include all 200 ships...just cruiser/battleships/capitals/supercapitals)? And most important of all...why weren't these numbers given in the original post?
I would not have considered this option, before this whole scandal, but what if after taking a dive in subscriptions, CCP decided to put out some non-rounded up numbers (for authenticity, ofc) that are completely made up to support their claims and still go on with this change? Is this so far-fetched when CCP_Quant messed up and later admited to cherry-picking info -- implying the logical conclusion that CCP is not above using underhanded methods to manipulate opinions?
Partially going back on the nerf does not make it less of a poorly designed and lazy attempt at fixing one of the many recent issues with your game. And now, because of shifting the nerf numbers in an attempt to please the unsubscribing players, we know what actually gets CCP's attention. It is not a moment for compromise and I urge other players who have accepted this lesser nerf to not reactivate their subscripions untill CCP starts putting >proper thought< into EvE again and comes up with non-blanket solutions.
|
Jeison Frenzy
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:25:41 -
[1874] - Quote
Still overly harsh for tank Carriers when it is DMG bonused carriers used for ratting that are the problem. |
Random Freak
Fearless Tiger. Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:26:10 -
[1875] - Quote
Fix the faucet or the drain. Those are the only options. Hitting the person playing with the broken faucet will less nowhere. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
16148
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:27:03 -
[1876] - Quote
C0ATL wrote: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 incomeAssuming 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. THAT ^ ^ ^ It begs the question...how true are those numbers? Why didnt we get a nice graph like the ones in the report? Why wasnt a bounty income per ship type graph included in the monthly report (didnt even need to include all 200 ships...just cruiser/battleships/capitals/supercapitals)? And most important of all...why weren't these numbers given in the original post?
Because it's CCP and they never anticipate the about of nerd rage that's about to come at them...
|
Sam Khanid
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:27:49 -
[1877] - Quote
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, letGÇÖs take a look at whatGÇÖs coming. The Data:LetGÇÖs 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 weGÇÖre 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.
A more realistic and moderate approach, bravo for adjusting course midstream.
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3181
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:27:53 -
[1878] - Quote
C0ATL wrote: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 incomeAssuming 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. THAT ^ ^ ^ It begs the question...how true are those numbers?
The idiot post you're THAT^^^ing compares 5 days of ratting income to a month of incursion income.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
hezie99
OZONED The-Culture
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:27:59 -
[1879] - Quote
your data is **** and awful...... actually play the game yoooo! |
May'n Nome
H A V O C Brothers of Tangra
35
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:30:44 -
[1880] - Quote
Jeison Frenzy wrote:Still overly harsh for tank Carriers when it is DMG bonused carriers used for ratting that are the problem.
I can agree but I also think something has to be done. Which it seems they have people looking at it based on this in the notes (Bolded for emphasis.) :
Quote:
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.
So they are looking at changing something about anomalies but also keep in mind much of the code is old and will probably take some work to get around. (This statement I am making is based on something I overheard in comms about why WH's are the way they are and why it takes so long to get around the code.)
"Threefold is the time's pace: the future comes not in haste, the present is gone arrow fast, eternally still remains the past."
|
|
Syrias Bizniz
The Scope Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:30:48 -
[1881] - Quote
Even the updated changes don't make much sense at all. In the short term, yes, this will help achieve what you're trying to, but it won't be the only change necessary to do so. You won't magically reduce the ISK Faucets in the game to end up with a, say, 10% inflation rate. Stop the bandaid fixes. They swallow dev-time, even though one could argue that it took merely 15 minutes and a lunch-break-talk to do this one - both work-wise and research/planning-wise.
Adress the real issues there are: Not enough ISK sinks / too big and needless ISK faucets. You can remove 2.7 trillion ISK of monthly ISK faucet by simply removing insurance - and maybe even leaving it in place for Highsec people that are not in a war. I mean, which insurance company pays you for the loss of your ship that you willingly flew into an all-out territorial war in CONCORD unsanctioned territory? What insurance company pays you for losing your ship somewhere in a wormhole far off any civilisation? What insurance company pays you for insuring a ship, undocking it, and selfdestructing it?
Why not immediately focus on reworking Anomalies, give a huge headsup for the players that they know you're working on it, asking for feedback (and actually listening to it, ffs) and create an anomaly system that doesn't have such a drastic efficiency-endgame?
Why not come up with reasonable changes to bring Supercarriers into PvP and make them actually meaningful?
This isn't easy, and it shouldn't be. You should be putting your manpower into this to make this game enjoyable instead of throwing halfhearted fixes around for stuff that is abused because you designed these things half hearted in the very beginning. |
Lives In Jita
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:31:21 -
[1882] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:The Data:LetGÇÖs 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.
GRR THE 1%
So your data is absolute garbage. I guess this is a continuation of last's week inaccurate numbers from CCP Quant on reddit? To start, per character is a really, really poor measuring stick in a game where even a single account has three characters. If a person has 8 accounts and one character in a ratting carrier, are the 23 other characters now the bottom 96%? That's a laughably poor metric if that's what you're doing.
Also, are you only comparing characters who rat? If so, do you consider me ratting when I'm on a fleet and someone shoots a rat on a gate and I get my 2,000 ISK bounty? I would assume so.
Next, you have provided literally zero comparison for us, which actually makes the information relatively useless. How much has the percentage of bounties generated by (super)carriers changed over time? I'd venture a guess the income inequality has always existed where a small percentage of players generate a large percentage of bounties.
I also fail to see how income inequality is neccessarily bad. EVE is never going to have any kind of income "equality" anyway. The player who spends 10 hours a month playing is--for good reason--at an economic disadvantage over the character who spends 80 hours a month playing cookie clicker in space.
The real data should be measured on a per human player, per hour income generation basis, with historical trends for comparison and removing outliers (e.g. people who shoot gate rats).
Of course, your historical trends are completely useless since skill injectors were implemented. Now you have two week old characters carrier ratting because they know they can calculate the ROI and have a pretty accurate measure of a break-even point. Since those players are going to most likely be spending a significant sum of "real world" money to buy PLEX for injectors, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're particularly upset when their "investment" is nerfed. Why would you bother ratting in a suboptimal setup when you can pay to min/max immediately? That seems to be the piece of the puzzle CCP is missing.
You're only going to end up nerfing everything that's the "flavor of the month" until you fix the issue of skill injectors. Those nerfs are only going to alienate the player base further and drive people to other games. |
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
220
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:35:15 -
[1883] - Quote
The stupid morons update the OP to reflect some kind of change in thinking. And it's still as completely ******** as it ever was.
I don't give a flying rats ass if the ISK made in anoms by carriers are 1000X what you say they are. DON'T ADJUST PVP BALANCE FOR AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM.
CCP, glue this to your foreheads in a sticky-note:
RULE TO FOLLOW IF YOU ARE A MORON
1) Don't adjust PvP balance if you have a concern over the economy.
Someone send me a PM offline if and when CCP hires a new balance team with an average IQ above 70. |
Marcel Garsk
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:42:25 -
[1884] - Quote
What big? -50% damage? Oh, ****... |
Laenatus
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
11
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:43:12 -
[1885] - Quote
You speak of confidence. I see ignorance. Thanks for reducing the nerf, I GUESS. |
WitcherW
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:44:27 -
[1886] - Quote
I dont have carrier and still i dont like this nerfs... |
GothicNightmare
Amazing Super Slackers Circle-Of-Two
13
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:44:45 -
[1887] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:[quote=baltec1]
What they could do is make this change as a temporary fix and then move to make anoms unfarmable for supers by adding dreadnoughts that don't have a bounty that spawn if a capital is on grid. They then unerf carriers and supers.
I actually really like this idea, and make them tanky so they don't die in 1 shot like current npc dreads can be, and have them slowly spawn in 1 after another until a carrier or super can't sustain the dps, if you can kill them off, ok salvage, if not, they warp off before you come back
|
Foxy Bushy
Real Life Outpost Solyaris Chtonium
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:45:48 -
[1888] - Quote
Thanks for proving the 1% of 1% that they are right.
Cya space cowboiz o7 |
Q Sertorius
The Graduates The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:52:23 -
[1889] - Quote
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, letGÇÖs take a look at whatGÇÖs coming. The Data:LetGÇÖs 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 weGÇÖre 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.
Fabulous post. Thank you, CCP. |
Jed Airtech
Australian Belt Strippers Apocalypse Now.
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 18:57:56 -
[1890] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy Where is the data on that? Prove it? Why? |
|
|
|
|
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 |