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) |

Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
212
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:52:59 -
[961] - Quote
Kalain Kamerov wrote:Guys, Before y'all go rantzerker, please look at the economic report. CCP is nerfing it because ratting incomes have more than doubled over the last year. Peace is good for business it seems. Incomes Loss/Gains by Type There is better ways to balance it than nerfing an entire class of ships to death. Just reduce the isk per rat. It is NOT complicated. |

Cpt WhiteEye
Death Guard's Cull Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:54:10 -
[962] - Quote
Why not add an option to turn Supers and Super capable characters into liquid isk? Like a recycler.
For the effort of training into one and getting one they should give something back as of they will take it away from me in days. And all will remain is junk i cannot use. So make an option where i can turn my fitted super into 30b and my toon for it into another 25-30b as tahts their value.
I will be happy to have them nerfed only if you add this. |

Kaze Mester
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:55:19 -
[963] - Quote
blaedin jordan wrote:Yeah it really is just appalling how negative the response to something CCP is doing to "fix the game." They need to cancel the update until they can better assess the situation they are creating and sell their case a little better to playerbase. I think we deserve it for the years many of us have invested into this game, often with 2 or more accounts as well.
Oh...dreams. I'm 100% sure they think like: "Players come and go...new alpha players have to buy tonz of plexes until they figure this thing out. We have time to figure out something until than we earn moneeeeeey!"
|

Thead Enco
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
292
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:55:57 -
[964] - 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.
Greyscale ? |

Grabit Maycon
Manson Family Advent of Fate
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:56:25 -
[965] - Quote
Thanks for doing this, makes sense to keep the market steady.
Now you "only" have to finally invent something so there is a reason, so that nullsec has to fight each other again, means getting something developed, that they need to fight and not just because of random grudge, boredom, or "i have decided, that i don't like xy".
Refinieres are hopefully one step towards this direction, removing this ******** passive income and basically removing the income from lowsec (yeye in theory they will miner there, but be realistic).
maybe connect more nullsec with each other, like dronelands to fountain or similar i dunno, it's hard i know :(
Good luck everyone, keep up the good work. |

Sexy Damsel
El Cartel. Solyaris Chtonium
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:57:28 -
[966] - Quote
I'm pretty sure devs don't read any of the comments. They behave like parents. They made their mind and that's it. Live with it. Very short sight approach. Ppl make less isk ppl buy less plex. Causing less ppl buying plex with reality money. At the end of day capitals being nerfed for making too much isk but incursion not touched. Doesn't nake sense. Well got msg about one of my account expiring soon. Thanks for helping making my mind. Won't plex it. No point |

Krypleria
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
27
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:57:29 -
[967] - Quote
reducing bounties doesnt solve the faucet issue ...
hey. yo .. guyz... i have an ideea
Lets make Nullsec... NULLSEC again ... like... NOT SAFE !!!
Because of fatigue timers and citadels ... did you notice the increasing stagnation of content and offcourse ships destroyed ?!
Like really... would you invade a region that has 50 citadel 1 week timers ?! or 100 citadels ? .... its a joke .. really... |

Ebony Texas
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
35
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:57:41 -
[968] - Quote
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:Kalain Kamerov wrote:Guys, Before y'all go rantzerker, please look at the economic report. CCP is nerfing it because ratting incomes have more than doubled over the last year. Peace is good for business it seems. Incomes Loss/Gains by Type There is better ways to balance it than nerfing an entire class of ships to death. Just reduce the isk per rat. It is NOT complicated.
you reduce those NPC's.. then I want and I want my comrades who have spent billions upgrading the systems and its ihubs back + 20% for ccp's screw up.
CCP needs to get over it and leave this class alone.. ill wait till they touch dreads since it seems this summer is Nerf Bat epeening season. |

singthegrief
Celestial Horizon Corp. Badfellas Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:57:47 -
[969] - Quote
Tim Nering wrote:singthegrief wrote:Cordylus1029 wrote:Nex Gaius wrote:Yet another quality game change. Lets nerf all the high time / isk investment options. But not the ez ones like Wormholes or Incursions. Uh...you do realize WH's lost capital escalations? It's completely useless to do them now, we just don't ***** and moan so you probably forgot but it's k. WH's are easier than sitting in null with local and running every time a neut comes in, just commanding fighters around. Yep. Seriously, you ratting carriers can all rot. There's literally no risk to you in nullsec, if you get caught and die it's 110% your fault. says the guy who prob rage rolls to get a not descaning ship on grid to point then a whole fleet comes out to kill. and u guys got it easy i use to live in a c4 and if u have hole control u have no need for local and ur prob scanner is ur local if a new anom pops u scan it and roll it off so u have no room to talk friend. LMAO literally fking clueless how so explain? |

blaedin jordan
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 22:58:18 -
[970] - Quote
Grabit Maycon wrote:Thanks for doing this, makes sense to keep the market steady.
Now you "only" have to finally invent something so there is a reason, so that nullsec has to fight each other again, means getting something developed, that they need to fight and not just because of random grudge, boredom, or "i have decided, that i don't like xy".
Refinieres are hopefully one step towards this direction, removing this ******** passive income and basically removing the income from lowsec (yeye in theory they will miner there, but be realistic).
maybe connect more nullsec with each other, like dronelands to fountain or similar i dunno, it's hard i know :(
Good luck everyone, keep up the good work.
It does very little of what they say it will accomplish. You think carriers and supercarriers are the only way to rake in isk? Have you tried a t3 cruiser or marauder? Seriously though...the nerf is far too large and doesn't address the unlying issue they say they are correcting. This warrants more time and communication, I hope they show some sense and reconsider for the time being. |

Nache Sotken
Damage Plan The Serenity Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:02:40 -
[971] - Quote
Just put times on anomalies , you did it for the belts . End of problem . As for nerf batting the Carrier's more ..... there is no need . I make ISK from building fighters and after the last changes I saw an uptick in sales . But what you are talking about doing would take all my sales away ! Cap sales will go the same way ! So everyone and not just the 1% are going to be hurting over these new changes . It I remember right CCP has always stayed out of messing with the markets / ISK . Just add a timer like you did for the belts and stop trying to kill this game . |

Naren Vintas
Some Assembly Required. Rate My Ticks
14
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:04:21 -
[972] - Quote
I honestly dislike participating in in online discussions, but I fear that unless people who would otherwise stay silent add to the discussion, CCP will continue to push the negative response onto the "1% of the playerbase".
Nothing I say here would not have been said already in this topic, but let me reinforce some of these opinions with mine.
1. You are nerfing a pvp aspect of a ship based purely on a pve decisions. This not only does not make sense, it is outright silly. While carriers, one end, generate ISK from all the NPC bounties, they contribute to ISK lost from pvp engagements. Though it seems it is not so much of a case anymore, with the continuous nerfs the carriers are receiving.
2. This change is relatively big. 20% and 30% aren't small numbers. To receive such a short heads up of merely a few days is at best disrespectful to the playerbase, especially to the people who spent long time training into their dream ships, as well as investing big isk into them and the related skills. Now, instead of learning the skills to further improve the dream ship's performance, I will merely close the gap in the lost performance. This is plainly time wasted. There will be no compensation for two months worth of training to field better fighters.
3. The game seems to be rewarding "afk activities" more than it does active engagements. I could fly AFKtar and get the ISK for doing literally nothing, save for occasionally pointing the ship in the right direction. That's not why I chose to fly a carrier. It is a bigger, more powerful ship. It costs more, is juicier target for other people, and actually requires active gameplay rather than simply going AFK and waiting for the checks to roll in. The rewards of actively playing the game already seem to be relatively bad, but now I feel like I'm being punished for wanting to play the game actively.
4. The change seems to be primarily based on the idea that carriers are this amazing source of money. Please acknowledge that while carriers are, in my opinion, fairly decent option for making isk, there are other activities in the game that yield comparably better ISK income to a player that have not been touched in forever. The most related to this, of course, would be incursions, which seem to be CCP's precious gem for some strange reason. Factional Warfare can net player ridiculous amounts of money, too, along with exploration. While the latter two do not necessarily "conjure isk from thin air", they contribute to player's wealth.
But let me put these aside and focus on generating ISK. If that seems to be the problem, then that is indication of broken ISK generation as a whole. Carriers are not the problem - the system is. Carriers have long been the aspiration of many people. They were meant to be the big, shiny ships that are a big improvement, given the long training queues. However, the moment people started achieving these goals, CCP has realized that perhaps the carrier pilots are getting too good rewards.
Guess what. We worked hard to get to these ships and spent a lot of money. "Better rewards" is figuratively written on the hull of these ships. You don't just get to nerf these on a whim, especially with such a short notice. If you feel like there's too much ISK generated, look at the system that generates it - and balance the system as a whole.
Alas. I could go on, but there is not really much point, is there. My voice is here. The game has not been fun to play lately for me, partly to the recent nerfs to things. It all does, in all honesty, feel like CCP wants us to multibox, so they can get more money out of subscribtion, and nerf any activity that you could otherwise do solo. |

Aldent Arkanon
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
21
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:04:45 -
[973] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Aldent Arkanon wrote:CCP Quant wrote: What we have here is literally the top 1% of the top 1% screaming their lungs out over these nerfs, while trying to convince the rest of the player-base to think that CCP is ruining the game for everyone. What we are really doing is keeping it from becoming yet another hyper inflated virtual economy at the cost of pissing off a particular group of players. Prior to this patch, a relatively small group of players were making the same amount of isk in npc bounties as the entire player-base did a year ago. Anyone closely following the MERs will know that NPC bounties are out of control and have been spiralling that way since Citadels. What sort of balanced gameplay is it when you can safely sit in a super making up to 260M ticks? Of course we know that supers are not solely to blame, VNI's, Ishtars, and basically every decent drone platform is responsible for a massive chunk of the bounty pool but not at nearly the same efficiency. This isn't only screwing with the money supply but it's dramatically increasing RMT. When you can reliably sit and make 500-780M pure isk/hr** pr. account** (hence the number of "unsubbing 17 accounts" threads), some people choose to look at it this way: you can be making over minimum salaries in some countries in RMT. Then people complain about us nerfing mining when the mineral price index has been in a freefall for a long time and the only reason it's not worse is that the massive increase in mining volume is directly feeding into the e.g. the massive increase in super demand to get in on the bounty grind. Sure pass some of that rage over to me, I'd be happy to take some heat off CCP Larrikin's and Fozzie's shoulders. Apparently carrier users are the top 1% of the top 1%. Really makes you think... I also don't know where you got the idea that supers make 260 mil ticks but that has literally no basis in reality whatsoever. Sure, there was a problem, and yes it needed a solution, that doesn't mean that you should deploy the first solution without thinking it through. Not to mention that you waited until 3 days prior to the change to announce it, not that you care about feedback anyways. Nothing he said is really inaccurate, and definitely justifies a nerf to carrier/super ratting. It's really just the, "Oh, and uh... they'retoostronginPvPtoosowhatever" tacked onto the end, coupled with the magnitude of the nerf, that I find troubling.
The part about people making 260 mil ticks is grossly inaccurate. Nevertheless I agree that the income part needs to be nerfed, just through a method (numerous alternatives have been suggested by players) that doesn't do drastic harm to their already diminished ability in PvP.
I personally couldn't really care less about the ratting part (aside from wanting people to still use them to rat so that I can kill them), but its the effect on PvP that is the main frustration for me personally. |

Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
235
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:05:02 -
[974] - Quote
Buying Hell 50% off.
I swear it's as if you guys don't read the same economic reports as I do. Be glad they are going this route and not just hitting bounties by like 40% which really would effect every player. They aren't even touching application they're still going to track just fine, just might take 2 hits to kill that BB rather than 1. It'll slow you down which is the intention of this! Now go look at the economic report and say with a straight face that something doesn't need to change.
In actual combat you're still going to blot out the sun with fighters and destroy dreads well out of their range. Or did the majority of EVE suddenly find their own personal system to super rat in uncontested without me noticing? It's almost like people forgot these are combat vessels and for years just sat motionless in a POS. Don't get me started on the boson+HAW titan ratting problem that's on the rise.
BTW - When did I become the one not seeing a problem with a change? Hell my corpmates even gave me the title of doomsday. What are we all coming to? |

Scipio Numantinus
30plus Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:05:42 -
[975] - Quote
NUTS |

Thead Enco
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
292
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:05:55 -
[976] - Quote
"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."
No one plays this god awful game anymore, what the hell are you talking about? So having less subs paying subscription is "sustainable" for a subscription based model in the year 2017? Ok that's some Bernie math there....2011 wants your business model back.... |

Ralen Zateki
Dissidence Dawn The-Culture
194
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:07:12 -
[977] - Quote
Kalain Kamerov wrote:Guys, Before y'all go rantzerker, please look at the economic report. CCP is nerfing it because ratting incomes have more than doubled over the last year. Peace is good for business it seems. Incomes Loss/Gains by Type
I'm not really arguing that the bounty payout issue is an unsustainable problem. It's the ******** solution combined with the announce Friday implement Tuesday approach that blows my mind. Especially when you are talking about capital ships that take a player so much time and investment (assuming they aren't just Plex-ing into it... a capability which has a not so coincidental correlation to the beginning of Bounty inflation.)
And in the meantime the approach to "engaging PVE" is to drop the latest iteration into goon space and have them troll you by blowing it up with a fleet of.... punishers. :golfclap:
Yea, we're the problem CCP. |

btOw Ragnarson
Lisnave Mordus Angels
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:11:21 -
[978] - Quote
Just stop wow to come to eve and now i gona back to wow nice job and whem d3 come half of eve going to it 2 nice job ccp for just try make people stop play eve =( |

ValentinaDLM
Khushakor Clan Of Questionable Repute
980
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:11:38 -
[979] - Quote
These changes seem bad because they don't really address the issues at hand. Carriers don't do too much damage, they apply their damage far too well. How should a capital weapon hit frigates perfectly? My fighters track elite frigates better than my heavy drones do, so there is a serious problem there IMO, but that isn't the big one.
Without adding a respawn penalty to null anoms, and some meaningful way to make isk in lowsec and NPC nullsec, nothing is going to change. Rich powerful null empires will continue to crank out insane amounts of isk. The solutions of course are respawn penalities, a proportional ihub bill that has a fairly high floor to discourage holding systems that are unused. Also fix FW and make systems upgradeable instead of the terrible tier system, and add something to make l5s and other lowsec revenue streams worthwhile to pursue.
As for carriers in PVP aside from being able to track anything for no good reason, they don't really seem overpowered at all to me, but it feels like this is going to make it dreads/supers or GTFO, but I admit it is hard to know how the meta will play out. In PVE I hate how safe carriers are but, they are much better than the almost AFK abilities of the VNI/Ishtar/rattlesnake, at least carriers can't just get 5 accounts and assign fighters to a trigger ship. |

Cismet
Hard-line Syndicate Serrice Council.
80
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:13:04 -
[980] - Quote
Reddit subthread that Quant (rather foolishly) tried to wade into this discussion on has a great idea from a Goonswarm member who quite rightly points out that this hurts the single-account players more than most others. The ones that worked to get to carrier without multi-boxing the AFK Ishtar or VNI etc. and have a not-unreasonable expectation that a Capital ship should be better than a sub-capital ship in most circumstances.
The idea they had was an excellent one and was simply to apply diminishing returns on ratting bounties. The exact level of returns would probably need some tweaking, but Carriers damage projection would be unhurt for the first few hours, then would taper off. Would impact every other bounty isk source in a consistent manner and result in a moderated and equalised lowering of the isk inflation and bounty problem across the board once diminishing returns dig in.
I think we're missing context here, we have no idea where CCP pulled these figures from, though Quant's 780 M per hour per account seems utterly ludicrous given the concentration required for one Super/Carrier, perhaps the data could be provided for this? I'd be amazed if even a single Super/Carrier could get more than about 500 M per hour, but then I've seen stranger things I suppose.
Either way Jibrish's suggestion is an excellent one and provides a fairer application that would apply to the other problem areas of bounty generation, rather than smashing the carrier/super into obsolescence.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/6gaemf/burn_eden_rorcarrieratting_edition/dioy4lk/
|

Dxella
Licentia Ex Vereor Phoebe Freeport Republic
9
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:20:54 -
[981] - Quote
Maybe change the fighter support module. Give it a siege timer, remove or nerf the scan res bonus?
Add a scan res drawback to the hulls. Effects both remote and local sebos The quicker lock than a cruiser silly
Maybe an idea? |

Brigadine Ferathine
The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult
213
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:25:40 -
[982] - Quote
Cismet wrote:Reddit subthread that Quant (rather foolishly) tried to wade into this discussion on has a great idea from a Goonswarm member who quite rightly points out that this hurts the single-account players more than most others. The ones that worked to get to carrier without multi-boxing the AFK Ishtar or VNI etc. and have a not-unreasonable expectation that a Capital ship should be better than a sub-capital ship in most circumstances. The idea they had was an excellent one and was simply to apply diminishing returns on ratting bounties. The exact level of returns would probably need some tweaking, but Carriers damage projection would be unhurt for the first few hours, then would taper off. Would impact every other bounty isk source in a consistent manner and result in a moderated and equalised lowering of the isk inflation and bounty problem across the board once diminishing returns dig in. I think we're missing context here, we have no idea where CCP pulled these figures from (for money generation or the figures for the nerf as we haven't been provided the thought processes behind them, they've just been delivered like a hammer), though Quant's 780 M per hour per account seems utterly ludicrous given the concentration required for one Super/Carrier, perhaps the data could be provided for this? I'd be amazed if even a single Super/Carrier could get more than about 500 M per hour, but then I've seen stranger things I suppose. Either way Jibrish's suggestion is an excellent one and provides a fairer application that would apply to the other problem areas of bounty generation, rather than smashing the carrier/super into obsolescence. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/6gaemf/burn_eden_rorcarrieratting_edition/dioy4lk/ My situation is very close to his and while his suggestion isn't good either(there is NO good option for casual players) it is a FAR better compromise than the nonsense proposed by CCP. |

Kodosin
Easy Company Rock Grinders
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:31:50 -
[983] - Quote
From what I've read and understand, people are unhappy about nerfing carriers in general. Here is a suggestion to fix some possible issues with nerfing supercaps, so that ways they aren't nerfed in pvp.
Suggestions
- On supercaps, add a "role bonus" to reduce the bounty rewards of anomaly isk values by x%. This would help reduce the "isk faucet" that is suggested.
- If fighters are involved with any anomaly, add a timer to reduce the amount of isk gained by that person(s) by x%, by bounties.
Just a couple of suggestions on this issue.
On the other side of the coin though, I can relate to those that don't want this change at all. I cannot fly a carrier at all. So once I finally am able to, I would love to be able to get some easy isk, that I have spent my time, skill points, and other efforts, into getting. If those that would have been affected by the changes i suggested above, would include the disappointment in myself as well. And i don't see where that would be a problem. Those that have worked on getting their skill points up that high should be rewarded, in this case, by being able to make a ton of isk, somewhat easily. I mean hell, if you want to drop the normal bounty amounts, and make some harder anomalies with higher rewards imo. |

ROAR Exodus
Six White Horses ChaosTheory.
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:33:53 -
[984] - Quote
Reserved. |

Haile Korhal
Professional Amateurs
52
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:34:10 -
[985] - Quote
46 pages, not reading through that, but going to put my bit in anyway.
15% increased chance NPC's shoot fighters? Well rip carriers, it seems it's 100% chance already. We have to pull our fighters in immediately after first dropping them because they instantly target them. We still lose anywhere from 10-20 fighters per evening while using them. 1-2 more fighters lost per evening won't change much, but we know what that really means. More like 10-20 squad wipes rather than individual fighters!
If we lose that much dps from fighters there's even less incentive to bring them out in pvp. The small group has to lean so heavily on expensive ships because that's the only way they can face the blob. I have a feeling this just makes carriers an overly expensive battleship.
Also the arbitrary, yay making changes that target nullsec but actually hit everyone everywhere.
Egregious Spreadsheet Services - For Spreadsheets as a Service to businesses, corporations, and higher, look no further!
|

Sassura
Sassy's Corporation
18
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:34:16 -
[986] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Aldent Arkanon wrote:CCP Quant wrote: What we have here is literally the top 1% of the top 1% screaming their lungs out over these nerfs, while trying to convince the rest of the player-base to think that CCP is ruining the game for everyone. What we are really doing is keeping it from becoming yet another hyper inflated virtual economy at the cost of pissing off a particular group of players. Prior to this patch, a relatively small group of players were making the same amount of isk in npc bounties as the entire player-base did a year ago. Anyone closely following the MERs will know that NPC bounties are out of control and have been spiralling that way since Citadels. What sort of balanced gameplay is it when you can safely sit in a super making up to 260M ticks? Of course we know that supers are not solely to blame, VNI's, Ishtars, and basically every decent drone platform is responsible for a massive chunk of the bounty pool but not at nearly the same efficiency. This isn't only screwing with the money supply but it's dramatically increasing RMT. When you can reliably sit and make 500-780M pure isk/hr** pr. account** (hence the number of "unsubbing 17 accounts" threads), some people choose to look at it this way: you can be making over minimum salaries in some countries in RMT. Then people complain about us nerfing mining when the mineral price index has been in a freefall for a long time and the only reason it's not worse is that the massive increase in mining volume is directly feeding into the e.g. the massive increase in super demand to get in on the bounty grind. Sure pass some of that rage over to me, I'd be happy to take some heat off CCP Larrikin's and Fozzie's shoulders. Apparently carrier users are the top 1% of the top 1%. Really makes you think... I also don't know where you got the idea that supers make 260 mil ticks but that has literally no basis in reality whatsoever. Sure, there was a problem, and yes it needed a solution, that doesn't mean that you should deploy the first solution without thinking it through. Not to mention that you waited until 3 days prior to the change to announce it, not that you care about feedback anyways. Nothing he said is really inaccurate, and definitely justifies a nerf to carrier/super ratting. It's really just the, "Oh, and uh... they'retoostronginPvPtoosowhatever" tacked onto the end, coupled with the magnitude of the nerf, that I find troubling.
Plenty of what he said was inaccurate, including the suggestion that people are making up to 780 mil per account with 17 accounts which will now rage unsub.. Carrier/super ratting with one account melts your brain in an hour, I'd love to know who is doing it with 17 accounts. I suspect no one is.
|

Keno Skir
1643
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:36:54 -
[987] - Quote
I'll be interested to see how much attention is paid to this incredibly bad response.
Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.-
250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
|

Analius Glover
The Fatal Visionaries Honorable Third Party
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:43:14 -
[988] - Quote
Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage. - really? Are you out of your mind? Just canceled the subscription on my all accounts. Have fun CCP |

Ryzelll
Vector Galactic Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:44:37 -
[989] - Quote
I'm just going come out and say it. CCP is skating a fine line here between Supers and Suntans / Girlfriend's oh Lordy! Amen brother
|

Kaze Mester
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 23:44:37 -
[990] - Quote
Keno Skir wrote:I'll be interested to see how much attention is paid to this incredibly bad response.
None. |
|
|
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 |