| 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) |
C02
Ninth Circle Federation
Solyaris Chtonium
3
   |
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:07:43 -
[91] - Quote
Abagah Khan wrote:Rovinia wrote:Nobody likes to see his toy nerfed, but as it seems this was really an issue. So thanks for tackling it, even if it's surely a unpopular move.
Wouldn't a combination of applicaton nerf and a change in the NPC spawns in these sites (some more smaller ships the carrier has longer to chew on) have been better then this damage reduction? It put's the carrier in a difficult position PvP wise.
but this wasnt an issue.. Risk vs reward and how long it takes to train. its just another nerf trying to limit goons that will hit everyone
skill injectors are a thing now. it takes 300$ and 3 minutes to be a super pilot..... |
Korus90
With Fire and Iron
I REALLY LIKE TRAINS
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:08:01 -
[92] - Quote
A good start, but the game will still be effectively dead in 3 or so years without significant changes to citadels and fozzie sov. They don't work together.
Why would anyone attack Delve? Aside from the sheer number of goons, good luck taking out 7 keepstars.
Why would anyone attack the north? 4 keepstars in AUTZ.
Not to mention all the Astrahus's and Fortizars there.
Oh and I went into Delve the other day, 71 Rorquals in one mining anom. 71. A single rorqual (maybe even two!) should be allowed to mine at full capacity and then after that there should be a penalty to rorqual mining when rorqs are on grid. Just like the diminishing return of multiple modules.
Sorry, rant over. |
iFars
monkey attack squad
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:08:12 -
[93] - Quote
After the general change of the capital ships, you have already changed the fighters. Do not touch anything else please. You spoil everything too often. |
Krypleria
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:08:59 -
[94] - Quote
The Judge wrote:Not everyone will be happy with this change, but reducing NPC bounty payouts through a direct rebalance of carriers and supers is in the best interest of eve as a whole. Changing bounty payouts would hurt people ratting in every class of ship when carriers and supers are the main problem child. This is the best option I can see.
Keep up the great work.
In my opinion, you dont know what your talking about. What are you doing in CSM ? |
Tobias Frank
45
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:09:12 -
[95] - Quote
The Judge wrote:
Keep up the great work.
Great work would have been doing it right from the start, what we see now with Rorqual/Carrier nerfs AFTER MONTHS is almost the worst i have seen in MMO game development. |
Skruff McGruff
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:10:16 -
[96] - Quote
seriously though? you think carriers are the main "problem child"? How is that possible?? I can get 25m ticks in a rattlesnake, I can get 20 in a VNI/Ishtar doing NOTHING. and they are nothing to train for. Youre talking years of training for people and now youre reducing their payouts? All this is going to do is increase the VNI/Ishtar route. In certain areas of space I have lived we have a couple carriers ratting and a BAZILLION VNIs, even the Ishtar isn't that viable anymore over the VNI after that nerf. Oh, and 1/2 the VNIs are multi-boxed toons. This seems designed to hurt the solo characters so we are forced to spend more money to have more alts to support the lifestyle we have worked so hard for to play. I would rather pay an extra few dollars on my subscription than have this nonsense. But you'll probably end up doing both and more. |
Inquisitor Lucious
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:11:29 -
[97] - Quote
Seriously guys whatever you do, DO NOT skill extract your carrier/fighter skills to train up for dreads and HAWs |
Atlan Dallocort
Know your Role
League of Unaligned Master Pilots
84
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:11:55 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:
We are making this change because Carriers & Supercarriers are too strong in PvE [...]
We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now.
Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.
You know you could balance PvE by changing the rats or bounties? I don't get "a bit too effective" and "30% reduction" in one sentence. Since when do you balance pvp ships with a focus on their pve options? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2898
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:12:26 -
[99] - Quote
A year ago, we got the long awaited Capital ship changes which finally revitalized the class as a whole. It was obvious that Capital ships were going to be very powerful, both in PVP and PVE. You gave us powerful end game ships to work towards - something worth commitment to Eve. Roughly six months later you did the same thing with the Rorqual. Now, a year after these changes, when most players have finally begun to benefit from them, you reduce the ships back to roughly where they were before.
Maybe that's a good thing in the long run, maybe it's not. Maybe it pisses off so many people who feel that you pulled another bait and switch with training. Maybe it makes Battleships great again. But this is a major change that affects way more than running anomalies.
Obviously, this will have profound impacts across Eve, but it won't fix the underlying PVE problem, which is that resources never deplete, no matter how relentlessly you farm. I could run a thousand anomalies and the Blood Raiders would never bat an eye. They never send different ships, they never escalate, they never stop flying right into my guns. If I run Incursions, the Sanshas would basically do the same thing, but at least they move on to a different part of Eve every few days. Maybe you need to fundamentally rethink resource generation in Eve? Get rid of the unlimited local ratting opportunities. Maybe people who log in to find that there are no rats to kill will simply log out again. Or maybe they will do something else and make Eve more interesting. If you pursue this, however, it has to be across the board. Everything has to be finite or people will just shift to continuous PVE in another part of space.
Across the board, ISK-generating PVE should be more like wormhole space or Incursions. PVE content eventually depletes. Out of things to do locally? Leave home and go kill some dudes or crab it up some place new.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Santinav
Banished Braindead Zombies
Circle-Of-Two
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:12:26 -
[100] - Quote
Total disagree with that CCP.
Ive played (trained) since years to sit in an Super, and now ther Damage output is like an Carrier before....
*ding* SHAME!!! *ding* *ding SHAME!!! |
|
|
Tiesto DJ
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:12:51 -
[101] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Tiesto DJ wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Can you please delete VNI and Isthars from the game first before you tinker with fighters? They are by far the bigger problem in this game when it comes to ratting.
Having tons of VNIshtars clog up Havens, Sanctums and Hubs is not sustainable and huge annoyance to any player except for these AFK people. Read as, **** off VNI/Ishtars. I want Sacs to myself and dont touch obvious op fighters. Got a problem with this, scared forum alt? If there are many carriers and supers ratting (even battleships and marauders) in a system and the VNIshtars take 3x to 10x as long to finish an anomaly, they just keep everyone from making money. They can, for all I care, put 2 VNIshtars in the same anomaly, for instance. This makes them finish these anoms faster and help everyone. But they cannot AFK rat any more with this, obviously. My entire problem is this AFK attitude as well as that they are so incredibly slow.
Doesnt exactly matter with what account this is posted its still making a point. Stop being afraid of a forum avatar.
Yeah, this still sounds like "AFK tars screwing with my optimal ratting". Dont like it? Move systems, still dont like it or not allowed in DARKNESS. tough cookies? It is what it is? Why should people leveraging a game mechanic suffer because Rivr wants faster anom times for his leveraged game mechanic? |
Temnoyar
Russian ICE Bears
Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:14:24 -
[102] - Quote
I hope this was a consequence of the use of drugs and alcohol... Pls stop it. |
Skruff McGruff
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:15:09 -
[103] - Quote
notice how flaky the wording of the explaination is - "we think" "a bit too effective". you are making drastic changes, at least stand behind your convictions with some form of sincerity and permanence. ie: "we have found carrier pve to be too powerful and it is hurting the economy, this is why..." |
Lucian James
THORN Syndicate
Circle-Of-Two
171
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:15:27 -
[104] - Quote
The Judge wrote:Not everyone will be happy with this change, but reducing NPC bounty payouts through a direct rebalance of carriers and supers is in the best interest of eve as a whole. Changing bounty payouts would hurt people ratting in every class of ship when carriers and supers are the main problem child. This is the best option I can see.
Keep up the great work.
This is NOT an example of 'great work'. You and CCP are not being creative enough. Carriers are already garbage capitals only useful in blobs of 50+... and you want to reduce damage.
You could affect how NPC payouts go per the ship that killed them without having to nerf how carriers are in PVP combat. Or reduce the amount of NPC bounties per ship class based on how much PVP happens in or around a region.
Granted, you still have to be careful how you do this because all your nerfs lately have been taking isk out of our hands to put RL money into yours.
Enough with being pigs.
#CCPigs |
Suitonia
The Deliberate Forces
HYDRA RELOADED
881
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:16:06 -
[105] - Quote
Lightbringer wrote:April was 2 months ago. bit late for a joke.
I do wonder if CCP even play their own game.
We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now., so now they do no damage before instantly dieing because of the previous nerf? :D RIP.
How do they go from overpowered to no damage if they lose 20% DPS. Seems reasonable to me.
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Echo Wolfman
DeadMan's Squad
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:16:09 -
[106] - Quote
Nerf miners, nerf ratters...Is it your goal to nerf all isk making to under 80m isk/hr? If you want people to only buy plex then just say that. The clickfest you made it WAS the income nerf. Maybe you should concentrate more on botters if you're worried about too much isk in the game.
PvEvCCP |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2901
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:16:34 -
[107] - Quote
Pier Rin wrote:Maybe if you would not have introduced skill injectors there would not have been a problem????
This is true. Everyone being able to train into Capital ships in a few months based on being able to crab it up and buy SP has contributed to this problem. It undermines the "Capital ships are a powerful end game goal" when a six month old character can skill into a good Carrier pilot. Of course, many players told CCP that skill injectors were a bad idea and they went for the money train anyway.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Skorpion Medion
Fink Operations
Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:17:07 -
[108] - Quote
i feel a disturbance in the force, as a thousand carebears cried out .
Keep up the good job CCP, Force PvP |
Malthuras
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:17:54 -
[109] - Quote
Yea lets make changes to supers and capitals that screw them in pvp situations because they generate TOO MUCH ISK rather than address other sources such as incursions, reduce bounties, increase rat HP, or anything like that.
Nah, lets just make all that crap worse in the game overall, including pvp because we **** ourselves at the last MER.
You really need to change whoever is doing this balancing crap and try again with new devs. |
Youshi Yohimoto
The Inebriated Bivalves
Jamyl Syndicate
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:18:16 -
[110] - Quote
CCP you are literally punch of retards for doing this. GG on killing your own game. Stop whining about losses on player numbers after you behave like full on fuckin retards.
You punish people for spending years to get into caps or even in carrier and then when they finally have the shiny toy you come and say NO, you can't have fun and we wanna tell you that you just spent tremendous amount of time for fuckin bullshit. Eat **** CCP.
Been playing since 2006 and you just keep getting more ******** with changes and nerfs every year. |
|
|
Drak'Eisgvarde Crepari
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:19:19 -
[111] - Quote
Ridiculous. 100T change over the past year or so which is the norm for the past several years.
How about fixing the isk sinks instead? Things like market taxes took a hit with citadels.
Up the items bought from NPCs with isk, particularly cosmetic ones. New skins, a mix of LP and isk (or just isk). New clothes with isk.
Maybe change up t2 citadel rigs and give them less T2 salvage but some NPC sold items.
Have it cost isk to unlock additional jump clones, not just take a skill. 1000 isk for the first. 10b isk for the 10th.
Have additional bonus remaps that can be bought for isk. Maybe allow different clones with different remaps, for a substantial isk price.
Increase the array of hardwirings, particularly for slots 6-10. so many ways to drain isk. |
btOw Ragnarson
Lisnave
Mordus Angels
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:20:21 -
[112] - Quote
Nice ccp you just keep people got mad and stop play nice job ccp, you just nerf all game, rorquals , t3 and now carriers and supers, maybe is time to sotp play this game of nerfs |
elise densi
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:21:13 -
[113] - Quote
Haw dread ratting here i come
next month dread nerf i gues? |
Fibro Optic
Engineering Evolutions Limited
Badfellas Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:21:13 -
[114] - Quote
WTF !!!
Carriers too strong in PVP ?
To start off with With this new fighter system, 1 stupid T1 ecm frigate with no bonus mods can de-Fang a carrier by jamming out the fighters.
If the fighter system was more like the old system, then id slightly agree, however I don't think they are overpowered in PVP at all |
Prometheus Hinken
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
29
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:23:31 -
[115] - Quote
Ralph Shepard wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: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. If you truly wanted to do something with isk generation, you would fix incursions. Which means this is just an excuse from you.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9a_sinksfaucets.png
Bounties pay out nearly 7x more than Incursions do. Not to mention there's often a waitlist and you're dependent on other people's skills to run the sites faster. With nullsec ratting, especially in your (and mine) alliance there's a sea of blues, various intel channels, and third party apps like NEAR2 to keep you incredibly safe while you undock in a carrier or supercarrier and rat on your own time for hours and hours on end, with the ability to start and stop whenever you'd like.
|
Thea Yulivee
The Institution of Death
Mercenary Coalition
15
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:23:40 -
[116] - Quote
The Judge wrote:Not everyone will be happy with this change, but reducing NPC bounty payouts through a direct rebalance of carriers and supers is in the best interest of eve as a whole. Changing bounty payouts would hurt people ratting in every class of ship when carriers and supers are the main problem child. This is the best option I can see.
Keep up the great work.
Serious question because it seems really unintuitive to me - you have on the one hand, carriers and supers - ratting activities, that can be multiboxed very well because they require a high amount of involvement, as such leading to limited time that people will do this kind of ratting at a time, as it is tiring if you try to really up your income. On the other hand, there are VNIs and Ishtars, which are really easy to scale, easy to afk farm, easy to multibox which have virtually not limit apart from the time a player is willing to spend warping to the next site in time.
Are you not just going for the higher per account numbers and completely disregarding the reality of income per player in this case? Because when it comes to the generation of ISK and ISK influx, going for the biggest per account values, really seems like an awfull choiceGǪespecially looking at what kind of ratting you see out in null most of the times. Feels like this change is way of the mark.
|
Meridon Arthas
Pain and pleasur
Circle-Of-Two
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:23:44 -
[117] - Quote
Krypleria wrote:Meridon Arthas wrote:Krypleria wrote:OK CCP, let me get this straight ...
VNI ratting = 12-15m/tick (ship cost 40m)
Ishtar ratting = 20-25m/tick (ship cost 300m)
Carrier tick = 40-60m/tick (ship cost 2.5b)
Super tick = 80-100m/tick (ship cost 25-30b)
Seems balanced to me.
Do you guys even play this game ? =/
You will lose so many players because of this... it will hurt the economy of CCP ... not the game =/
Can you think of OTHER solutions to the economy problem ?
40M VNI ? Damn, Can u contract me some plz ? Full VNI fitted is 100M. and I did 18-20M tick I stand corrected, but I guess you got my point right ?
Yeah completly :) The conclusion for all of us is the same, CCP solution is not right. |
IIDjangoII
The Alpha and the Omega
Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:25:34 -
[118] - Quote
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by isk faucet. Perhaps you mean that capsuleers getting isk for actively playing the game is not convoluted enough for us. It might be a better idea to first address the isk plugholes which seem totally out of your control.
The isk received by supers ratting ends up in the pockets of all capsuleers from top to bottom. By reducing isk input from the top end you are making everyone in eve poorer, while the cost of playing the game continues to rise. This is not good for any capsuleer, only good for ccp. So please do not sugar coat it for us as though this change is for our benefit, it clearly is not.
In the long run it probably will not benefit you either considering the general tone of my peers, I doubt they will be pulling out their wallets to fund their game time as a substitute to grinding isk for plex, nor will they be spending more time playing the game to grind that isk. |
Woodbine
We Are Down Syndrome
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:25:52 -
[119] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: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.
Heres a suggestion from someone that has played since 2003.... STOP mucking about with mechanics that aren't broken and fix stuff that is.... Why are you utterly making Rorquals pointless and now nerving Supers to the point you may as well just use a carrier... Do you actually play the game....
Muppets |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:26:28 -
[120] - Quote
If the issue is that rewards are too easy, then nerfing something used in both PvP and PvE does not make a lot of sense.
People will simply change to another ship that will give the damage output they desire for running sites.
Perhaps the problem is the availability of sites and the need to improve NPC responses to attack types. Maybe what you really need to do, instead of hurting a tool used for both PvP and PvE, is reduce the number of sites that spawn.
If you reduce the number of sites which spawn, even with max IHUB upgrades, you will help Sov Null Sec by creating more of a demand to expand territory which will create more PvP.
By reducing Fighter damage, you reduce the PvP capabilities of not just carriers and super carriers, but also of Citadels (and fighter support from citadels is laughably weak from my experience). By reducing the effectiveness of a tool used in more than just PvE, you miss fixing the target... which is to reduce an isk faucet.
So instead of reducing the effectiveness of fighters, why not reduce reduce the number of sites instead?
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |