|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4002
   |
Posted - 2017.06.09 13:01:37 -
[1] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:
so in short all this does is make isk scarcer and more valuable
Go to the last economic blog, read the isk faucet figure. Then also realise that as of I think it was Feb 92% of all bounties come from Null Sec.
Now finally look at the slope of the isk graph in the last month.
Now apply some basic common sense, realise that the isk faucet figure jumped hugely when the carrier change went through and has been hidden for a few months by other circumstance such as the change in what defines 'active' isk, and accounts leaving again after the sudden spike when they returned.
This will only slow down the recent inflation, not stop it by any means, plenty of isk will still be farmed in null and plenty of that from carriers. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4005
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 02:30:17 -
[2] - Quote
Alexksey Buldakov wrote:
I'm afraid we will never see protests as a "Day of wrath"...the Gaming community is not the same,and the developers absolutely exactly the opinion of the players.
That & that a sizeable portion of the normal people on the forums actually know the nerf is needed because we understand the EVE economy and have followed the economic reports which clearly show the problem. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4005
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 02:45:18 -
[3] - Quote
MONTYJOHN wrote:
to be fair nevyn the issue lies with the fact of the lack of content to deplete the current stockpiles of isk...even with the said nerfs coming it would take years to even alleviate the proposed issue being brought forward right now.
No disagreement on that front, but the isk faucet has clearly spiked also since the carrier changes and the velocity of the isk supply increasing has gone up. So even with conflict to deplete the isk it would still be an issue and need fixing.
To the above poster RvR is not linear. Nor is it ever a good reason to keep something unbalanced in existence. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4006
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 09:40:26 -
[4] - Quote
Kryas wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but incursion rats have bounties on them as well? That graph just shows the payout from incursions. Incursion bounties would be included in the bounty total because.... well, they're bounties?
No they don't, and before you start talking about mission bounties as of a few months ago 92% of all bounties came from Null. Oh and don't forget that over 50% of the commodities isk faucet was also coming from Null from Overseer effects.
So that 30 trillion or so spike in the last 6 months or so is almost certainly entirely carrier ratting. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4011
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:41:36 -
[5] - Quote
C0ATL wrote:
Where exactly do the graphs show >carriers< responsible for the ISK influx? While bounty is the highest index on the income graph, it needs to be stated that it has always been so. The extra influx is coming from Alpha clones being drafted into nullsec alliances and thought to AFK rat in drone cruisers. CCP claims to make a stand against passive isk income while doing little to nothing in terms of punishing bot users and solving AFK cruiser ratting. Funny how on the same release as carrier nerfs, the Vexor and Ishtar models are getting a re-work :))) ...
The fact that the dramatic spike in Bounties from about 40 Trillion isk to today's 70 Trillion isk can be traced back to the patch that buffed carriers. Given that Vexors & Ishtars have been around in their current form for significantly longer, and if it were profitable to the tune of 30 trillion isk to put more alts doing it, people would have done it with subbed alts, it's a reasonable assumption to guess that Alpha's in Vexors are not responsible for the sudden jump and that it is instead carriers.
Furthermore Quant is almost certainly capable of pulling more detailed metrics from the system like 'what ship was someone in when they got paid/killed a rat' and probably does know what he's talking about when he says that the spike is carriers.
Especially when the player accessible data supports that statement.
I.E. Stop trying to blame someone else and accept that it is carriers causing the massive spike. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4012
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:48:45 -
[6] - Quote
Hamasaki Cross wrote:
To CCP devs/marketing team, at this point, have you guys just given up on this game? -- This is an honest question (not trolling, bruh) and I wonder what the honest answer is (or if such a thing were realistic to expect).
You know what happens when Devs give up on a game, they give up on balance changes.
A balance change that risks offending some of their old players is actually a sign of a game with a future, because it means the Devs care about the games ecosystem.
Now yes they can still get it wrong, but this change means they see the game being around for 5+ years, otherwise it doesn't matter if the economy death spirals because of this. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4012
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 05:19:13 -
[7] - Quote
VeronicaKell wrote:Buff NPCs then. I have been training fighters for the last 4 months. Why the hell are you ruining a PVP ship to make your bottom line better? Do your jobs as creative game innovators and not EA Game flunkies... oh wait.
Because that will nerf EVERYONE. And the problem is only a small subset of that. So CCP are actually doing their jobs exactly as they should and not punishing the non carrier pilots for carriers being out of balance.
It's like all that isk in your wallets has removed your ability to read. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4018
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 06:18:02 -
[8] - Quote
lolzz Quekz wrote:Now imagine all those carriers training say 15 alts he can basically take over 1/2 or all the anoms in a system and afk rat.. hot dropper tackles one of his afktars.. 14 other afktars warp to him whats the trade out of that fight? Basically if he cant fight back that drop he can just warp out his non tackled afktars loss is still lower than a tackled carrier.
But still makes a ton of profit from that afk session balanced? Yea! Cos ccp wins the wallet war! And whos the one who loses? The players
And you know, almost none of them will do it, because it's a lot of work, and if they were going to do it they would have been doing it three years ago already. So yeah, not worried about a sudden spike in Ishtars or anything like that actually happening. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4022
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 19:48:59 -
[9] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
He stated 5 days in June - So last week, includes Alpha's (T1 cruisers, which is far higher income for risk, isk outlay than the other 2 combined) and a total number known only to him.
Again this is CCP using a statistic THEY created with announced income reductions, to justify those income reductions. Using statistics created AFTER announcing nerfs is really poor, underhanded workmanship.
Lets set players up to grind isk at an unusual rate, then use those same statistics to justify nerfing that income.
Larrikin, You're a fukin genius (shame you're using it for evil)
There haven't even been five days since the first post, so there is no way the statistics he used for this maths can be entirely after the announcement. And that is assuming they pulled the last five days fresh off the server rather than running the maths on the first five days of June. So.... Yeah.
As for total number of players, you really expect CCP to provide that data? Best analysis I've seen of their financial reports says somewhere between 300-400k though, based on the 1.5 ratio of accounts to players they released a while back. Alpha's will add to that but not in a significant manner from appearances.
To break that income CCP Larakin posted down a little better.
1% of the population using Supers earned 15.9% of all bounties.
1% of the population using carriers earned 5.0% of all bounties.
1% of the population using T1 cruisers earned 1.15% of all bounties.
This means Supers earn 13.8 times more isk on average than a T1 cruiser does. Yeah....... Not seeing T1 cruisers earning an unfair amount of income here.
Basically, learn to maths and don't look like an idiot complaining about stats that obviously show the problem. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4023
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 02:28:12 -
[10] - Quote
icedragon2072 wrote:So lets forget to add in the rattlesnakes, and Ishtars..and other ratting ships..along with forgetting about how much the incursions bring in..
The answer is a LOT less. Every single other ship type in the game (excluding T1 cruisers) accounts for less bounty income than carriers & super carriers combined.
And incursion income (including the almost full time low sec incursion group) is as of May 14% of the total bounty income. So less than carriers on their own bring in (Not counting commodities sold to NPC's which is also more than 50% from Null & the Null share is larger than the entire income from incursions)
Stop trying to deflect when you obviously haven't even read the numbers and done very basic maths on them. |
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4023
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 03:12:33 -
[11] - Quote
Commander Spurty wrote:Why haven't you used your data to decide:
"We are placing a cap on CONCORD bounties per Region! If you wish to go over X ISK, you need to invade your neighbors"
Faster the super pilots deplete the ISK bucket for their region, the faster they have to uproot and move.
That path leadeth to thine themepark
Mechanically you have two options.
An arbitrary total ratting limit. Which means everyone who isn't a super gets nerfed too.
Or an arbitrary per pilot limit. Which forces multi-characters on the same account (to keep costs down) to bypass it, & makes no sense in a sandbox.
Neither are viable solutions. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4025
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 04:37:32 -
[12] - Quote
Jang Taredi wrote:
This idea is actually the best, since it's possible certain alliances are using their regions much more than others. I'd rather see this happen, than buffs to the actual rats.
See last page for my reply on why it's actually a terrible idea, and both doesn't work and harms the wrong people. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4027
|
Posted - 2017.06.14 00:25:25 -
[13] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
Interesting.
So maybe if they had max ratting/ded sites per space region or constellation in a given day, the equivalent of belts being mined out? This would limit the isk flow rather than nerf ships. Is that what you meant?
m
The problem is this impacts everyone, and in fact hits the non supers/carriers harder than the supers, since the faster you do sites as a result the more of the proportion you get. It might slow down the total isk supply, but at the cost of hammering everyone else into the ground, and forcing a single alliance to sprawl all over Nullsec again.
Maybe if we had sites that could be done co-operatively using the new large grid where shooting/hacking this tower over here impacts that structure 1000km away over there and everyone on grid (who isn't cloaked) shares the payouts along the way, but even then supers could split their squadrons to some extent, though the range would place them at greater risk of losing fighters to PvP. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4028
|
Posted - 2017.06.14 01:14:33 -
[14] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:
Or in fleet to share rewards. That way you can not have to worry about a cloaked dingaling on grid hoping to get some free benefits.
But yes, using carriers and supers in cooperative anomalies might be interesting.
I had the idea of simply on grid to allow two small fleets to meet in a site, but decide not to shoot each other, instead each take separate objectives to stay out of weapons range from the other. Co-operation & competition together that way, while if it's fleet only the only sensible response to an intruder is shoot instantly, if it's anyone on grid you get a bit more of an interesting dilemma.
It's a lot more development work to create that sort of thing though, which means that as a right now solution, they needed to do something, and outright banning carriers/supers from anoms means those people effectively earn 0 with their ships or rather -100% income, rather than the -20% or so profit (assuming fighters are lost sometimes, so profit isn't perfectly aligned with DPS). So in terms of carrier ratting, the current nerf is about as nice as it can be while still doing something.
If they gave something back in terms of fighter survivability alongside the volley reduction it might be nicer for PvP purposes, or something like that, but I don't know enough about new carriers & PvP to really comment on that balance overall. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4036
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 21:31:37 -
[15] - Quote
Your ship will die to PvP at some time or a dumb mistake at some time.
However if you keep running the same site the ship will not die to unbeatable NPC's (assuming you could do it the first time). And frankly, given the data from drifters that were beatable but had a death cannon that was 99% sure to kill at least one ship, Frostys is right. People don't like PvE where they HAVE to die at some stage. It's not a fun experience knowing that sooner or later an unavoidable death will happen.
It doesn't mean you couldn't create a better modelled PvE system, but it means it can't continue to magically escalate vs a particular person, and additionally a better modelled PvE system would kill highsec since all the PvE would be consumed before the rats ever 'spread' that far. But regardless, it's a totally different topic to the fighter nerf. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4044
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 07:39:17 -
[16] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
You mean the Drifter incursions that were slaughtering hundreds of Thrashers each day while printing 3-5 billion ISK per site? I ran those for 3 days and made 22 bil.
You mean the heavily bugged sites that weren't working properly and as soon as they did that doctrine evaporated in favour of the lossless doctrines instead. Also yes they killed thrashers but since thrashers are cheaper than a single fighter and fighters are effectively 'ammo' that doesn't really count as a comparison.
As for Akktu. Being subscribed for years does not give you rights to have an unbalanced mechanic. Yes capital anoms will be great to have.... though of course they can't be any more lucrative than at present anyway. Since it doesn't matter how 'dangerous' the opponents are.
As for blind cyno's, LOL, yeah..... can't possibly see that going wrong one way or another. Either it will be gameable and the big entities will be able to make sure the cyno's are inside their territory for the first few to farm them, or it will be too random and no-one with a brain will use the content making the development time worthless. |
|
|
| |
|