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) |

Crash 888
TRINTEX
11
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 01:49:24 -
[1441] - Quote
The fact that "PVE super" is now a common thing is evidence of insane level of safety brought to vast areas of the galaxy thanks to jump fatigue. If not removing jump fatigue then at very least invert the truesec, as areas close to lowsec are now the riskiest and demand the most reward. |

Bruce Destro
Global Dominance Initiative
17
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 01:53:05 -
[1442] - Quote
as i posted earlier, increase the isk value of anomaly rats so that a max skilled battleship pilot can get close to the isk income of a carrier, and place an acceleration gate at the anomally. carriers should never have been PVE ships. it just wasnt the plan. some smartass in a nyx with 25 fighters realised it was a good idea and now its the norm. i want to use battleships, HAC"s and what not for pve again. just place an acceleration gate and up the isk values for anomalies. easy fix. |

cybercoder2 Shimaya
I N E X T R E M I S Tactical Narcotics Team
11
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:02:20 -
[1443] - Quote
owww my god really carnet believe how stupid ccp are . they will kill the game if this happens ..last game I played did the same things over and over again just like this ..and the game is on it last legs after being around for over 10 years ...they really need to rethink this before it goes live
|

Sam Khanid
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:06:00 -
[1444] - Quote
Jang Taredi wrote:Is there any chance of this being rethought? Seems like CSM wasn't involved in the decision whatsoever, and any checks and balances were evaded at CCP Headquarters.
Also, 260m ticks? That would be like multiboxing 3 Revenants.
They really should reconsider, but I wouldn't hold my breath for them to care about the community like that--they seem intent on screwing endgame ships :(
The only metrics that will convince them are unsubscribed accounts I fear, not forum posts. |

Odessima
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
4
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:09:04 -
[1445] - Quote
It is all a plot to steal more intelligent and workable idea's from the player base. |

Jang Taredi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:12:26 -
[1446] - Quote
Crash 888 wrote:The fact that "PVE super" is now a common thing is evidence of insane level of safety brought to vast areas of the galaxy thanks to jump fatigue.
Carriers seem to get blapped pretty often, actually. |

C0ATL
Renegade Stars The Volition Cult
43
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:15:20 -
[1447] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:Wolf theQuarrelsome wrote:Gimme Sake wrote: I agree that it is a panic nerf but perhaps the end game means are too easy to handle? Just how much skill (not skills) is required from a pilot to operate these end game means. Never been interested in caps but I can imagine anyone can pilot those, given the trained skills and isk to sit in them, otherwise there wouldn't be such a sudden isk inflation.
Stupid forum ate my reply... Carriers are for normal people 1 per person to farm. Those who don't are either super skilled people or cheating with stealth input broadcasting. Rorqs however stack a little too easily while multiboxing. However the graphs show carriers responsible for the isk influx. Even if there are other factors that stack.
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 :))) ...
. . .
Actually.... what if CCP is unsatisfied with people ratting in carriers -- since they are making enough ISK to live by with just 1 account, because carrier multiboxing cant be done? What if their true intention with this whole nerf is to get people who used carriers to move into Ishtars and PLEX 1-2 more accounts in order to get to the same level of income as they had on their carrier? Afterall, more PLEX is more cash from the cash cow, right?
Bring me a tinfoil hat. I might just be on to something... ;)
So if I PLEX 2 more accounts, will you leave carriers alone, CCP? Maybe all carrier pilots need to PLEX more accounts and that will satisfy their greed.
Just kidding, ofc. Still unsubbing -- though not before I help every player I know open their eyes to CCP's garbage politics and logic. This is starting to smell a bit like the Incarna scandal, does it not? Have you forgotten already, CCP? |

Chevy Caputtos
Shadow Legion X Fidelas Constans
10
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:30:02 -
[1448] - Quote
C0ATL wrote:[quote=Gimme Sake][quote=Wolf theQuarrelsome][quote=Gimme Sake] Actually.... what if CCP is unsatisfied with people ratting in carriers -- since they are making enough ISK to live by with just 1 account, because carrier multiboxing cant be done? What if their true intention with this whole nerf is to get people who used carriers to move into Ishtars and PLEX 1-2 more accounts in order to get to the same level of income as they had on their carrier? Afterall, more PLEX is more cash from the cash cow, right?
I think the fact CCP employees cited RMT as a reason for the change is evidence enough. They don't want the "1% of the 1%" of players to be making ~$3 in ISK an hour, instead of buying PLEX. Even though said players are risking a lot, and have to train and afford those ships in the first place. |

Elvis Ernaga
Dol0
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:34:43 -
[1449] - Quote
Nerfing PVP ships because you are not able to properly design PVE content is plain stupid |

Raj Nakrar
Republic Guard Orbital Velocity
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:40:57 -
[1450] - Quote
Faruzen en Divalone wrote:Siobhan MacLeary wrote:"We want to reduce the income players receive from pirate bounties."
Why not just, y'know, reduce the payout of bounties directly instead of defanging (super)carriers in PVP? That would also reduce payouts for ratters not using carriers. And that is not intended (and needed) IMO. Carriers are the core of the problem, but nerfing them overall is bad still.
ccp hasn't show a graph breaking income by ship type so it's just an excuse, nerf all bounties and by so doing keep the field leveled |
|

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4011
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:41:36 -
[1451] - 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. |

Chevy Caputtos
Shadow Legion X Fidelas Constans
10
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:50:42 -
[1452] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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.
Might have more to do with skill injectors. |

Eric Lemmonte
F-I-N-K Industry The Volition Cult
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:00:47 -
[1453] - Quote
I don't see where the carrier nerfs are going to help. You have all these afk ratters and influx of players yet you kill income from the people who've spent all this time to get into a capital. Couldn't you just create another isk sink somewhere? Maybe even increase the cost of plex since you love to have your "sale" all the time it would be easy to mask that change.
Hell... here's a wild idea. You guys hate multiple accounts right? Limit there to two active accounts on a given machine. I bet that will stop a lot of afk ratting.
Another idea... Remove mining drones entirely from Rorqs. Make them actually have to boost a fleet like they were always intended to.
Change the bounty value on Haven and Sanctum rats.
Changes like this make me really reconsider why I play this game. I've always been "on the fence" of playing at all. Please don't give me a reason to leave. I only rat enough to play the game in my carrier and I only ever rat for 1-2 hours. At best that means I earn roughly 300 mISK before taxes and loot. Ratting and mining is way too boring for me to go longer than that.
I'd really like to see the money graph with total accounts overlayed. |

Rauski Koraka
Mindstar Technology Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:06:18 -
[1454] - Quote
RIP the last few months of my training queue.... What a waste of time. First Rorquals.. now this. |

idontknowy
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:11:56 -
[1455] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: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.
CCP Quant is an amateur statistician using outlier numbers. |

Jang Taredi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:15:07 -
[1456] - Quote
idontknowy wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote: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. CCP Quant is an amateur statistician using outlier numbers.
Let's be honest. The only way you're getting 260m ticks, is if you get a dread spawn and an escalation. That, or you're multiboxing supercarriers (and probably using macros). Most people get between 60-100mil, and that's with a supercarrier. |

Pr0Vaporizer
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:20:17 -
[1457] - Quote
If the issue is super ratting why are you nerfing light lighters more? |

Hamasaki Cross
Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion
37
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:20:31 -
[1458] - Quote
I quit eve after one of the dozen nerfs in the last few months after playing since Beta. Someone linked this nerf to discord, which caused me to chuckle and chime in.
For you people complaining about nerfs, it's really quite simple.
"Isk faucets" need to go away so you buy more plex since this game hasn't had a new player base in many years. (free to play influx is laughable, as any game on such a transition is well known to be on it's last legs) As such, it's not going to be unusual in the coming months to continue to see many more nerfs for players who have invested billions of isk and years of time into SP and ships, in order to reduce the total number of available isk/SP. Since injectors implementation, these nerfs cause a direct loss of SP as people rip now obsolete skills (now Carriers, before, rorquals, before mining barges/hulks when rorquals were rebalanced, leadership skills, etc) at a great loss. As new injectors give far less SP than the SP ripped, this is net profit for CCP who needs an increased revenue stream.
I rip 500k SP and get 150k back in return or whatever the calculation works out to be. 350k SP removed from the game so I need to buy 3 additional injectors to make back my lost SP.
I'm going to run on the assumption that this moronic CCP trend will continue and continue to train useless skills as they suddenly become the only viable option for gameplay (such as salvaging) in the future. And since I FOOLISHLY (really, shame on me) subbed for the remainder of the year, near the end of said sub, I'll login and take a peak around at the new 'enhanced' CCP velator with mining lasers only gameplay style. "for the economy" of course since suddenly CCP really cares about the "player driven economy" which is actually now "ccp nerf driven".
All this said, I find CCP's strategy highly curious for a game that attracts zero new customers. (new accounts are redundant as people increase scale on existing accounts in the world's most multibox able game). Screw remaining cash cow customers who have given years of solid support in preference for.... I dunno what... bankruptcy?
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)
And finally, somewhat comically, I find it hilarious that fozzy didn't send out this nerf advice. I guess he/she/other finally got tired of being crapped on by the general population for announcing many dozens of other bad business moves. |

idontknowy
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:25:32 -
[1459] - Quote
Pr0Vaporizer wrote:If the issue is super ratting why are you nerfing light lighters more?
Now there's a good question.... |

Crash 888
TRINTEX
13
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:37:46 -
[1460] - Quote
Hamasaki Cross wrote:All this said, I find CCP's strategy highly curious for a game that attracts zero new customers. (new accounts are redundant as people increase scale on existing accounts in the world's most multibox able game). Screw remaining cash cow customers who have given years of solid support in preference for.... I dunno what... bankruptcy? .
CCP isn't going bankrupt, quite the opposite, they had record year in 2016. 30million USD capital they raised for VR was all paid back and then some, and that only from selling only 1 (rather unremarkable) VR pew pew game. Guess where their future is.  |
|

C0ATL
Renegade Stars The Volition Cult
44
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:46:51 -
[1461] - Quote
Chevy Caputtos wrote:C0ATL wrote:[quote=Gimme Sake][quote=Wolf theQuarrelsome][quote=Gimme Sake] Actually.... what if CCP is unsatisfied with people ratting in carriers -- since they are making enough ISK to live by with just 1 account, because carrier multiboxing cant be done? What if their true intention with this whole nerf is to get people who used carriers to move into Ishtars and PLEX 1-2 more accounts in order to get to the same level of income as they had on their carrier? Afterall, more PLEX is more cash from the cash cow, right?
I think the fact CCP employees cited RMT as a reason for the change is evidence enough. They don't want the "1% of the 1%" of players to be making ~$3 in ISK an hour, instead of buying PLEX. Even though said players are risking a lot, and have to train and afford those ships in the first place.
By all means...eliminate RMT, but do so in a way that does not affect game balance to such a degree. Furthermore, do it in a way that actually punishes people who abuse RMT...not mid-level carrier pilots who rat for pvp ships or PLEXing their accounts.
Do you honestly think that the top 1% of EvE are ratting to begin with? They are making ISK in trade hubs, flooding the market with faction battleships or skimming the top of alliance wallets, given their position as powerblock leaders.
If RMT is CCPs hidden main reason then, even from that perspective, this nerf is very badly thought out -- 95% or more of the players this nerf punishes have nothing to do with RMT. I've been carrier ratting for over 2 years and I personally didnt even have knowledge of RMT mechanics until informing myself about it due to this very scandal.
I am not unreasonable to expect a game developer to not have their own interest in perspective, alongside their playerbase... but if they had only just asked the community for ideas, I'm sure a lot more better options would have come up to fix RMTing, rather than this...
There was a time when CCP resolved issues in such a way. I respected them greatly for this and and remember how I would use this as a hook when trying to get my gaming friends interested in EvE. Sadly, we are a far way from those times and it only seems to be getting worse. |

Bobaa Fett
Deep Axion
13
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:47:40 -
[1462] - Quote
So. This wont correct this isk faucet. You have also potentially created a worse loop. Example. As carriers were the appex pve ship in null...it also created a hunting pool for people like me... Spending billions to effectively hunt these. The extractors....the skills... The plex purchased in the likes of carriers...was.. Immense. Now, less carriers fielded means less carriers will die. Less carriers die, less plex purchased for their replacement. Less carriers in the hunting pool, less people like me spending billions on hunting them. And no one is going to extractor buff their account for carriers that deal similar dps to rattlesnakes dualboxed. ....And you just sent everyone back to incursions. Lets be honest CCP. The player base you have now is all you're going to get. Stop beta testing half assed rebalncing with them. |

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
4012
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:48:45 -
[1463] - 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. |

Jang Taredi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:52:03 -
[1464] - Quote
It's also worth mentioning that this is going to adversely affect anyone that owns a (super)carrier, as their vessels will drop in value. To already see once 20 billion ISK ships being sold for 15 billion is just plain pathetic. It's almost downright theft. |

Funny as hell
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:54:45 -
[1465] - Quote
Unsubbing 4 accounts, screw these changes and the continuous nerfs to null sec. Peace. |

Rain6637
NulzSec
35050
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 04:29:44 -
[1466] - Quote
I'm surprised by the reason for the changes. It sounds like they were based on income generated. Was this the case? It's very unusual.
Nerfs happen, just like buffs, and what surprises me about this change is the apparent reason for the change. A change isn't something you can call objectively good or bad, and what matters more is the motivation or intent. Boiled down to its simplest terms, it is perceived as simply wanting players to farm less gold.
It shouldn't be difficult to understand why that would maybe upset people. There are several better reasons for this type of thing.
Ships and mechanics often see nerfs after their introduction. I suspect it is to generate interest in accumulating the SP initially and then pulling things back. It's a well-known pattern in EVE. This could explain the fighter changes somewhat, where you want players to skill into the new capital drone skills and want to put another carrot in front of them.
Balance changes are also commonly based on the ship types used, compared to one another. It's not the best method even though it's common in game balance and game design in general. That type of reasoning would mean buffing less used ships to make them more viable for PVE. Perhaps. Even in this scenario, it could explain fighter damage reduction with the goal of avoiding power creep while seeking a balance in usage statistics.
I've always wanted to see changes based on far less tangible reasons, like fleet comp synergy that wouldn't show up in stats. With this goal it would be understandable to say Supers as solo PVE boats does not align with your vision of cooperative gameplay. You could go on to say Supers should be used for PVP and make changes to distance them from PVE only. Just between us, don't tell anyone, but I would agree with this assessment the most, that a solo Super in an anomaly is distorted gameplay that was last common perhaps five years ago.
Everyone knows the saying about stats, right? That there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Use stats and base decisions on them, but "you're farming too much gold" is very self-centered and is a company-facing decision. The only failure on the player base's behalf is maybe allowing the farming to happen, but even then you'd be wishing we attack each other more. In this case that's something you (the game developer) wants.
I also suggest being more careful about the reasons given for changes, at least publicly. Do what you want but make sure someone massages the publicity with explanations based on player need. Do what you need to do but tell the players what they need to hear.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|

Bonaventured
Gladius Veritatis Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 04:38:43 -
[1467] - Quote
It looks like a nerf on income generated by carriers and supers very poorly studied and implemented. Sometimes is good to look at the solution proposed by players and why not, use that object situated above your shoulders. It help most of the times, if used properly. |

Dengdeng Xiao
Dragon Can Surf Silent Infinity
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 04:46:58 -
[1468] - Quote
Why you doing that? Can't believe it. stupid change. You can nerf the supers,why nerf the carrier,why the light fighter? 20%reduction? Still can't believe, well, It's time to leave EVE. STUPID. |

Rain6637
NulzSec
35051
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 04:51:20 -
[1469] - Quote
It even makes sense if you dislike players making so much ISK period. I can understand why. ISK inflation by players who have excess ISK after funding their Omega accounts. Makes PLEX more expensive and less appealing for players who have to work harder at it. In that case you could still say "We think the damage application of fighters is fine, but after reviewing their performance since the capital drone changes and especially the last year of their use, we think their damage output is too high."
Totally plausible explanation, and then find statistics to support that claim. You get the same exact changes you want for your own reasons, and nobody is left feeling like PVP is suffering from a faucet leak.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|

VeronicaKell
FUITA The Bastard Cartel
23
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 04:58:46 -
[1470] - Quote
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. |
|
|
|
|
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 |