EVE Search - Sticky:[June] Fighter Damage Reduction

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:[June] Fighter Damage Reduction

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 3185	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:48:00 - [1921] - Quote Khara Hirl wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Shinto Master wrote: So Supers earn 3.1% more than cruisers, and supers are the problem? A: Supers, as a class, earned 16.75% more than T1 cruisers, as a class. B: They did it with 1/12 the number of people. For every ratting super, there are 12 people ratting in T1 cruisers who are earning less, collectively, than that one super. So, yes, ratting supers are a problem. Supers made 16% more money but cost 40 times more then a t1 ratting ship.. yeah but THEY are the probem. Shut the **** up moron. Oh, well if someone paid a lot for their ship I guess we should just sacrifice the entire economy so they feel like their investment was worthwhile. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3407	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:48:19 - [1922] - Quote Khara Hirl wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Shinto Master wrote: So Supers earn 3.1% more than cruisers, and supers are the problem? A: Supers, as a class, earned 16.75% more than T1 cruisers, as a class. B: They did it with 1/12 the number of people. For every ratting super, there are 12 people ratting in T1 cruisers who are earning less, collectively, than that one super. So, yes, ratting supers are a problem. Supers made 16% more money but cost 40 times more then a t1 ratting ship.. yeah but THEY are the probem. Shut the **** up moron. As power increase linearly, cost is supposed to increase exponentially in EVE. You should understand that by the time you train into a carrier/super.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 4022	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:48:59 - [1923] - 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.
Dan Sever XAOS RELOADED Legion of xXDEATHXx 1	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:52:08 - [1924] - Quote Khara Hirl wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Shinto Master wrote: So Supers earn 3.1% more than cruisers, and supers are the problem? A: Supers, as a class, earned 16.75% more than T1 cruisers, as a class. B: They did it with 1/12 the number of people. For every ratting super, there are 12 people ratting in T1 cruisers who are earning less, collectively, than that one super. So, yes, ratting supers are a problem. Supers made 16% more money but cost 40 times more then a t1 ratting ship.. yeah but THEY are the probem. Shut the **** up moron. I love to see people like you going down. The ultimate pleasure.
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6631	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:53:45 - [1925] - Quote Sassura wrote: Teckos Pech So let me get this straight....the guy who is having issues paying his sub is going to spend more time ratting (you can't totally AFK rat in a VNI no matter how much you guys lie about it) AND he is going to have more accounts. Maybe he should...oh I don't know....go get a better job or something instead of spending more time in his mom's basement. [:roll: wrote: When you have to resort to comments about peoples real life jobs and 'moms basement' comments it seems that you are out of reasonable and factual comments. Your posts read more like reddit posts. There are people whose opinions I do not necessarily agree with that I enjoy interacting with, ingame and on the forums. Their posts give me fresh insight into other perspectives and widen my thinking. It's a pleasure to banter with them. They in turn, for the most part. can express themselves without falling back to insults. It's a shame that you Sir, are not one of those people. It would give your posts more credibility. It is called better allocating your time...like an adult. If you are having that kind of difficulty, then playing MORE of a video game is not really a very responsible choice. Further, "balancing" the game around such players is also not very reasonable as it has the potential to wreck the in game economy. Maybe if all the butthurt players threatening to quite actually became more reasonable we could have that civil discussion. But most people here have their heads firmly ensconced between their buttocks and are working over time to pretend this problem is not a problem. A 757% increase in the growth rate of the money supply over the average is nowhere near Goddamn reasonable. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
C0ATL Renegade Stars The Volition Cult 49	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:54:10 - [1926] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: C0ATL wrote: PenguinBacon wrote: I too can massage data to justify a false conclusion! Per Quant's 2015 presentation 1.5% of the games population logged in and ran incursions This group accounted for at the time 8.36T worth of income Assuming linear growth of the player base based on the increase in incursion income May 2017th Income is 9.92T. This was a growth of 18.68% of income. The estimated population of incursion runners is 1.66%. So Rounding up to 1.7% to be consistent with the chart made by Quant. We have 1.7% of the games population accounting for 9.92T income. To compare this with the numbers posted by Larrikin in the first post 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers Incursion runners are about 21% more of a player base than SuperCarriers but result in 331% more income per character. THAT ^ ^ ^ It begs the question...how true are those numbers? Why didnt we get a nice graph like the ones in the report? Why wasnt a bounty income per ship type graph included in the monthly report (didnt even need to include all 200 ships...just cruiser/battleships/capitals/supercapitals)? And most important of all...why weren't these numbers given in the original post? Because it's CCP and they never anticipate the about of nerd rage that's about to come at them... Nonsense... Why did they do it several years back? Hell, they would explain things to the most minute details and even give responses to potential question in anticipation of what ppl would reply.... Not 4 day notices to heavy handed nerfs without any back-up to their explanation other than "We do it cause we think its good for the game.". Its their right to change the game as they wish, cause its theirs, afterall.... but to every action there is always a reaction. This time they got a train-wreck on the forums and reddit so they slowly backed down on. If they were so sure and rooted in belief that this would be healthy for the game, while not having any underlying agenda, why did they go back to 10% instead of 20% ? Surely if their game is breaking without these nerfs, should they not implement them, even at the cost of a percentage of subscribers? The whole "Cut the leg to save the rest of the body" situation... No... this was all an attempt to get people into buying more injectors to respec out of carriers into the next best hit with ratting or PLEXing multiple acounts to farm with, and when they were called on it, CCP backed up quickly and reconsidered the numbers while still applying a nerf to save face. They are making carriers and supercarriers seem like the next worst thing after a plague... but in truth, no game developer would let an element kill their game, even if 6% of their players left. The nerf was never needed.
sabastyian Absolute Massive Destruction Initiative Mercenaries 30	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:00:47 - [1927] - Quote Quote: The Data: LetGÇÖs set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June. During that timeframe 10.6 Trillion ISK was rewarded in bounties. Of that: 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties. For may; 4537 VNI's were lost for around 502.5b 648 Carriers were lost for around 1.6T 51 supers were lost for 1.41T Supers as a whole netted just under 900b last month Carriers as aw hole netted 1t last month VNI's/T1 cruisers netted about 1.5T last month. If you are going to focus on numbers why don't we focus on how many of each ship were lost during the activities as well as looking at fighter losses.
Ramuthra Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:03:14 - [1928] - Quote Gotta love all these salty tears from no-lifing super ratters that are getting their isk faucet nerfed. The new carrier/supercarriers were overpowered af, for a very few select elite, which is why multiple nerfs were needed. Kudos to CCP for doing the right thing for the EVE Economy as a whole.
Tessa Sage Legion of the Wicked Way ChaosTheory. 13	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:05:29 - [1929] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Helga Chelien wrote: You will be able to lower T1 cruiser? They extract as much isk, how much supercarrier. Not on a per-capita basis, they don't. sabastyian wrote: Supers as a whole netted just under 900b last month Carriers as aw hole netted 1t last month VNI's/T1 cruisers netted about 1.5T last month. Levelized data suggests that capitals are not the culprit. Net after ship replacement from routine PvE is in favor of cruisers taking home the most bounties for the May economic report.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3409	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:06:29 - [1930] - Quote sabastyian wrote: Quote: The Data: LetGÇÖs set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June. During that timeframe 10.6 Trillion ISK was rewarded in bounties. Of that: 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties. For may; 4537 VNI's were lost for around 502.5b 648 Carriers were lost for around 1.6T 51 supers were lost for 1.41T Supers as a whole netted just under 900b last month Carriers as aw hole netted 1t last month VNI's/T1 cruisers netted about 1.5T last month. If you are going to focus on numbers why don't we focus on how many of each ship were lost during the activities as well as looking at fighter losses. The rattign data he provided is not a month but 5 days. Your number don't align.

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3409	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:07:56 - [1931] - Quote Tessa Sage wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Helga Chelien wrote: You will be able to lower T1 cruiser? They extract as much isk, how much supercarrier. Not on a per-capita basis, they don't. sabastyian wrote: Supers as a whole netted just under 900b last month Carriers as aw hole netted 1t last month VNI's/T1 cruisers netted about 1.5T last month. Levelized data suggests that capitals are not the culprit. Net after ship replacement from routine PvE is in favor of cruisers taking home the most bounties for the May economic report. Your data is wrong. This "net" data is removing the loss of a month compared to the income of 5 days.
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 3191	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:11:59 - [1932] - Quote Tessa Sage wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Helga Chelien wrote: You will be able to lower T1 cruiser? They extract as much isk, how much supercarrier. Not on a per-capita basis, they don't. sabastyian wrote: Supers as a whole netted just under 900b last month Carriers as aw hole netted 1t last month VNI's/T1 cruisers netted about 1.5T last month. Levelized data suggests that capitals are not the culprit. Net after ship replacement from routine PvE is in favor of cruisers taking home the most bounties for the May economic report. 1. Sabastyian screwed up and used 5 day's worth of bounty data Vs. an entire month's worth of lost ship data. 2. The problem isn't how much ISK the players earn, the problem is how much new isk is introduced to the economy. Pretty sure dead supers actually net positive on the amount of isk in the economy "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Sgt Ocker What Corp is it 1392	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:12:43 - [1933] - Quote SurrenderMonkey wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: SurrenderMonkey wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Reserved As you never use your "reserved" spots, I'll do it. The %'s you used are so misleading - Try using numbers that actually correlate with your claims. 1.4% of what, 4.6% of how many players? And why do your % stop at 22.8% of players, who made the other 34.4% of bounties. Uh, the data given accounts for 65.6% of the bounties. There is no "other 77.2% of bounties". There's another 34.4% of bounties, earned by 77.2% of the players. Fixed Ok, but you see the problem with the underlying question, right? The answer is, "The other 34.4% of the bounties were made by the remaining 77.2% of the players." While they probably could give more resolution on those values, you already know that you're talking about a majority of players earning a minority share of bounties, so it's unlikely to be very interesting. Meanwhile, a very slim minority of players using carriers and supercarriers account for almost half of the bounties, all by themselves. I'd imagine the rest are mostly divvied up between mission runners and the like, probably mostly BS and T3s with a smattering of other ships. Ishtar probably makes a reasonable showing in there somewhere, as well. Are you sure? I ran incursions for a long time and made around the same isk PH (more if you include Concord LP) out of them as I do ratting in my super. For a lot less isk outlay, less competition for sites and way less risk.. I see the problem as; A dev using a statistic that does not correlate with "actual earnings" as the reasoning for a nerf. Yes those 2 do account for a larger than normal amount of income - Because those who use them are out to make as much as possible in a short period of time in the knowledge it will be their last opportunity to do so. Post patch Tuesday carrier and super ratting will all but cease - VNI's and Ishtars will be the primary earners followed by Snakes and T2 BS's. Do keep in mind, this change to ratting will affect many more players than the ratters themselves. It also affects builders of capitals and fittings plus a quite large impact on miners. Personally I think the surplus minerals that will start appearing in the market place as capital production is cut back is going to drive prices even lower. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6631	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:13:34 - [1934] - Quote Hogeron Amelan wrote: you guys from CCP have to learn how to read graphs... When you average the increase in ISK since the citadel upgrade, aka since carriers and supers can generate ISK the way they do now (May 2016 - June 2017), roughtly estimated 1085T-960T=125 T ISK in 13 months what equals 9,6T or lets say rougly 10T ISK/month since May 2016. When you compare the months before, (Oct 2014- Apr. 2016) thats about 790-600T = 190T in 17 months, what equals about 11,2T per month so thats over 10% more than we have now. So in which mathematical universe you are living to say that 11,2 is less than 10 that the actual income situation is not tolerable when there was even more income generated per month before the carrier change? Of cause when you see the smooth lines before the citadel patch and the edgy lines after it, you can see that people are struggeling with a constant method for income, meaning that the game content is rapidly shifting between making Isk and loosing it. Would you please add a 30-day-playtime cost development graph to that one please? Maybe then you will find out why people are up to increase their income in short periods of time and you may think about it how to introduce game mechanics for a more stable economy. Instead of fine-tuning with a precision tool you are ripping of vavles and soldering rips in the pipes of the material flow... The average growth rate in the money supply up to Nov. 2016 is about 7 trillion. After that there is considerably more volatility. However, for May 2017 the money supply for just characters grew 53 trillion. That is a huge increase. Using the updated OP and the ratios there as a crude measure of that 53 trillion about 24-25 trillion came from carriers, about 10 trillion from T1 cruisers. And the rest from all other ships. And if there were 2,000 characters ratting in carriers and supers, that is over 12.3 billion on average per character for one month. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6631	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:16:18 - [1935] - Quote Well at least people are not looking at the data... BTW you can download the daily numbers from the Devblog. The money supply numbers are in a csv file and everyone should be able to look at in Excel or Google Sheets. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 3192	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:16:20 - [1936] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Are you sure? I ran incursions for a long time and made around the same isk PH (more if you include Concord LP) out of them as I do ratting in my super. For a lot less isk outlay, less competition for sites and way less risk.. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Incursion payouts are tracked separately from bounty prizes, and the data was specifically about bounty prizes. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
act 757 Militaris Industries Northern Coalition. 0	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:18:30 - [1937] - Quote Nerf super and carrier ratting ... +100 for this nerf their DPs on subcaps for PVP plz too many supers in game now... but not enough death of supers... need to change the sov mechanics and fatigue systems..
Sgt Ocker What Corp is it 1392	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:19:48 - [1938] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Hogeron Amelan wrote: you guys from CCP have to learn how to read graphs... When you average the increase in ISK since the citadel upgrade, aka since carriers and supers can generate ISK the way they do now (May 2016 - June 2017), roughtly estimated 1085T-960T=125 T ISK in 13 months what equals 9,6T or lets say rougly 10T ISK/month since May 2016. When you compare the months before, (Oct 2014- Apr. 2016) thats about 790-600T = 190T in 17 months, what equals about 11,2T per month so thats over 10% more than we have now. So in which mathematical universe you are living to say that 11,2 is less than 10 that the actual income situation is not tolerable when there was even more income generated per month before the carrier change? Of cause when you see the smooth lines before the citadel patch and the edgy lines after it, you can see that people are struggeling with a constant method for income, meaning that the game content is rapidly shifting between making Isk and loosing it. Would you please add a 30-day-playtime cost development graph to that one please? Maybe then you will find out why people are up to increase their income in short periods of time and you may think about it how to introduce game mechanics for a more stable economy. Instead of fine-tuning with a precision tool you are ripping of vavles and soldering rips in the pipes of the material flow... The average growth rate in the money supply up to Nov. 2016 is about 7 trillion. After that there is considerably more volatility. However, for May 2017 the money supply for just characters grew 53 trillion. That is a huge increase. Using the updated OP and the ratios there as a crude measure of that 53 trillion about 24-25 trillion came from carriers, about 10 trillion from T1 cruisers. And the rest from all other ships. And if there were 2,000 characters ratting in carriers and supers, that is over 12.3 billion on average per character for one month. You my friend need to stop posting now - Using the updated OP is not even close to accurate. So any numbers you magically pulled out of it are also inaccurate.. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3409	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:22:01 - [1939] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Hogeron Amelan wrote: you guys from CCP have to learn how to read graphs... When you average the increase in ISK since the citadel upgrade, aka since carriers and supers can generate ISK the way they do now (May 2016 - June 2017), roughtly estimated 1085T-960T=125 T ISK in 13 months what equals 9,6T or lets say rougly 10T ISK/month since May 2016. When you compare the months before, (Oct 2014- Apr. 2016) thats about 790-600T = 190T in 17 months, what equals about 11,2T per month so thats over 10% more than we have now. So in which mathematical universe you are living to say that 11,2 is less than 10 that the actual income situation is not tolerable when there was even more income generated per month before the carrier change? Of cause when you see the smooth lines before the citadel patch and the edgy lines after it, you can see that people are struggeling with a constant method for income, meaning that the game content is rapidly shifting between making Isk and loosing it. Would you please add a 30-day-playtime cost development graph to that one please? Maybe then you will find out why people are up to increase their income in short periods of time and you may think about it how to introduce game mechanics for a more stable economy. Instead of fine-tuning with a precision tool you are ripping of vavles and soldering rips in the pipes of the material flow... The average growth rate in the money supply up to Nov. 2016 is about 7 trillion. After that there is considerably more volatility. However, for May 2017 the money supply for just characters grew 53 trillion. That is a huge increase. Using the updated OP and the ratios there as a crude measure of that 53 trillion about 24-25 trillion came from carriers, about 10 trillion from T1 cruisers. And the rest from all other ships. And if there were 2,000 characters ratting in carriers and supers, that is over 12.3 billion on average per character for one month. You my friend need to stop posting now - Using the updated OP is not even close to accurate. So any numbers you magically pulled out of it are also inaccurate.. How do you know it's not accurate? You are always mad when carriers get nerfed but that does not mean you can pretend the data is not accurate just because.
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6632	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:26:27 - [1940] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Hogeron Amelan wrote: you guys from CCP have to learn how to read graphs... When you average the increase in ISK since the citadel upgrade, aka since carriers and supers can generate ISK the way they do now (May 2016 - June 2017), roughtly estimated 1085T-960T=125 T ISK in 13 months what equals 9,6T or lets say rougly 10T ISK/month since May 2016. When you compare the months before, (Oct 2014- Apr. 2016) thats about 790-600T = 190T in 17 months, what equals about 11,2T per month so thats over 10% more than we have now. So in which mathematical universe you are living to say that 11,2 is less than 10 that the actual income situation is not tolerable when there was even more income generated per month before the carrier change? Of cause when you see the smooth lines before the citadel patch and the edgy lines after it, you can see that people are struggeling with a constant method for income, meaning that the game content is rapidly shifting between making Isk and loosing it. Would you please add a 30-day-playtime cost development graph to that one please? Maybe then you will find out why people are up to increase their income in short periods of time and you may think about it how to introduce game mechanics for a more stable economy. Instead of fine-tuning with a precision tool you are ripping of vavles and soldering rips in the pipes of the material flow... The average growth rate in the money supply up to Nov. 2016 is about 7 trillion. After that there is considerably more volatility. However, for May 2017 the money supply for just characters grew 53 trillion. That is a huge increase. Using the updated OP and the ratios there as a crude measure of that 53 trillion about 24-25 trillion came from carriers, about 10 trillion from T1 cruisers. And the rest from all other ships. And if there were 2,000 characters ratting in carriers and supers, that is over 12.3 billion on average per character for one month. You my friend need to stop posting now - Using the updated OP is not even close to accurate. So any numbers you magically pulled out of it are also inaccurate.. Yes, because they do not agree with your preconceived beliefs they must be wrong. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6632	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:27:30 - [1941] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Hogeron Amelan wrote: you guys from CCP have to learn how to read graphs... When you average the increase in ISK since the citadel upgrade, aka since carriers and supers can generate ISK the way they do now (May 2016 - June 2017), roughtly estimated 1085T-960T=125 T ISK in 13 months what equals 9,6T or lets say rougly 10T ISK/month since May 2016. When you compare the months before, (Oct 2014- Apr. 2016) thats about 790-600T = 190T in 17 months, what equals about 11,2T per month so thats over 10% more than we have now. So in which mathematical universe you are living to say that 11,2 is less than 10 that the actual income situation is not tolerable when there was even more income generated per month before the carrier change? Of cause when you see the smooth lines before the citadel patch and the edgy lines after it, you can see that people are struggeling with a constant method for income, meaning that the game content is rapidly shifting between making Isk and loosing it. Would you please add a 30-day-playtime cost development graph to that one please? Maybe then you will find out why people are up to increase their income in short periods of time and you may think about it how to introduce game mechanics for a more stable economy. Instead of fine-tuning with a precision tool you are ripping of vavles and soldering rips in the pipes of the material flow... The average growth rate in the money supply up to Nov. 2016 is about 7 trillion. After that there is considerably more volatility. However, for May 2017 the money supply for just characters grew 53 trillion. That is a huge increase. Using the updated OP and the ratios there as a crude measure of that 53 trillion about 24-25 trillion came from carriers, about 10 trillion from T1 cruisers. And the rest from all other ships. And if there were 2,000 characters ratting in carriers and supers, that is over 12.3 billion on average per character for one month. You my friend need to stop posting now - Using the updated OP is not even close to accurate. So any numbers you magically pulled out of it are also inaccurate.. How do you know it's not accurate? You are always mad when carriers get nerfed but that does not mean you can pretend the data is not accurate just because. And the implication is that all the data is wrong too. All of it. Every MER. And that everyone at CCP are drooling morons who can't write queries and do basic arithmetic. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek 8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Eric Lemmonte F-I-N-K Industry The Volition Cult 3	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:29:00 - [1942] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Eric Lemmonte wrote: Looking at some of those graphs they have on https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/monthly-economic-report-may-2017/ makes me wonder if they could fix this issue with tweaking manufacture numbers somehow. Both bounty and produced good prices have gone up in a very similar profile this last year. It looks to me that people are ratting the best way they can to pay for these ever increasing costs to buy produced goods. You still have time to fix this. Don't be hasty and make such a drastic change without first thinking it over. I see that online player counts have dwindled over the years and I can't help but think that CCP is getting anxious that they're starting to lose their cash cow. Right now we're down to the same number of online players as back in 2008. Please don't turn into another EA or Activision. Just make a quality game and you will keep a loyal player base. These wild changes you keep doing is making this a bumpy road for everyone So...manufacturers should be screwed over because you are putting too much ISK into the economy with your carrier or super. That is reasonable to you? Really? Lets screw over players who are not causing the problem and let those who are continue on making a mess. And you do realize that the CPI has been essentially flat for like that last 6 months to a year, right? Oh, and that is likely an overstatement of inflation as CCP use, IIRC, a Laspreyes index which can have issues with being upwardly biased. You're jumping to conclusions a little fast aren't you? They could easily change mineral requirements for ships, modules, and the like... That would mean more isk in the MINER pocket, probably the same or more for the manufacturer, and it would eat away isk from the bounty payouts.
Aphrodita Engelbreht DELTA FORCE RANGERS 0	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:30:32 - [1943] - Quote Way to cry I just unsub after thos all shity changes wath made ccp starting from rorquals and now carriers and supers. Simply I and my frends are running out there accounts and not subbing them again, mostly wie run out off game time in 2 weeks - 20 subed accounts for ccp. Nice job CCP. P.S. Don't ask for our stuf wie my return when ccp will fix this how it was.
Eric Lemmonte F-I-N-K Industry The Volition Cult 3	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:33:35 - [1944] - Quote Petros K wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: [quote=Eric Lemmonte] So...manufacturers should be screwed over because you are putting too much ISK into the economy with your carrier or super. How much ISK do you estimate that a single decend carrier driver can generate every day ? A T2 high and faction DDAs can get about 60 mISK ticks for a Nidhoggur or Thanatos. So upwards of 180 mISK per hour.
Marcel Garsk 1	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:46:43 - [1945] - Quote Dear CCP! Please buff anomalies dread, commander and escalation spawns to compensate us. Thanks!
Aphrodita Engelbreht DELTA FORCE RANGERS 0	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:49:10 - [1946] - Quote Marcel Garsk wrote: Dear CCP! Please buff dread, commander and escalation spawns in anoms to compensate us. Thanks! They will not do that they just nerfed them :)
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3413	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:49:32 - [1947] - Quote Marcel Garsk wrote: Dear CCP! Please buff dread, commander and escalation spawns in anoms to compensate us. Thanks! When the intend is to nerf, there is no need for compensation.
Jed Airtech Australian Belt Strippers Apocalypse Now. 3	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:49:40 - [1948] - Quote sabastyian wrote: [quote] Currently in June; 1749 Vnis have been lost for 191.66b 270 Carriers have been lost for 683.73b 34 supers have been lost for nearly 1.1T If you are going to focus on numbers why don't we focus on how many of each ship were lost during the activities as well as looking at fighter losses. If youre so focused on how high tier ships that take ages to train into ( or at the very least a lot of isk for injectors ) because they add to much money, why dont you adress how 19.1-20% of null-sec isk is made by characters that can be trained within 2 months. It's because they are not focused on real facts. They believe something, so they went to their numbers to find some that said what they believe.
Natalia Alianovna Romanova Grey Enterprises Holdings Inc 0	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:53:48 - [1949] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: [img]http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/newssystem/media/71813/1/GermanFlag33.png[/img] [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/FLAG_-_RUSSIAN-33.png[/img] UPDATE 2017-06-12: Reduced the damage reduction to fighters. Added supporting data. Greetings Capsuleers, Coming tomorrow in the June 2017 release, the damage output of Fighters will see a reduction by the game design team. After a long weekend sifting through some passionate feedback and taking into consideration previously ongoing design work, letGÇÖs take a look at whatGÇÖs coming. The Data: LetGÇÖs set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June. During that timeframe 10.6 Trillion ISK was rewarded in bounties. Of that: 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties. Why: Our primary goal for this change is reducing the combat power of Carriers & Supercarriersin PvE, specifically anomaly ratting in Nullsec. As you may have seen in the May Monthly Economy Report, there is a significant upward trend in the Money Supply. This is due to NPC Bounties. [img]http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9b_isk.float.3.jpg[/img] This trend is unsustainable. Having such a large ISK faucet is bad for the economy, and this ISK faucet is concentrated to a relatively small number of players. Our secondary goal is that Carriers and Supercarriers are too effective in PvP, even for the investment it takes to create them. This change will shift the PvP balance, but weGÇÖre confident that Carriers and Supercarriers will remain powerful options for PvP battles. What: Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change Light Fighters (Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage (was 20%) Support Fighters: No Change Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): No Change (was 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage) Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack damage (was 30%) Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%) We are working on changes to Anomalies that will reduce the effectiveness of Carriers and Supercarriers. These changes will be announced at a later date. We will continue to observe the economy after these changes and will make adjustments as necessary to keep it healthy for all our players. Some of you have asked 'Why not just reduce the bounties?'. The focus of this change is Supercarriers and Carriers. We don't want to effect the income of ships besides those with this change. After 5 years playing EvE online and this is the recognition i get from CCP. Honestly i'm deeply disappointed.
xOmGx Order of Order SOLAR FLEET 20	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:53:53 - [1950] - Quote Create anomalies for Capital ships with dreadnought spawns and titans Lets say 5-6 Dreds and 1 titan on the field + 20-30 BS WITH chance to drop capital class modules and Domination / Deadspace loot off Titan



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.