Yes! Carrier training was not a smart idea. Much wiser idea is to undock fifty money making mini-machines called VNI...

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.

And ticks drop estimations?

Could you show all data for the mots popular ratting ships including the rattle the machariel ishtar etc?

also clarify what they mean by T1cruiser are VNIs included? this data set doesn't tell us enough to make a real opinion nor does it tell them enough to commit to anything.

ccp if you could be so kind as to expand your public data set to include the top 10 bounty earning ships in order from most isk earned on average per month to least it might go a ways to helping clear some stuff up.

if your not willing to do that because you noticed the data does not match what you thought may i recommend spending a bit more time researching this before committing to anything?

so i know im late to the party but heres my two cents.


ive seen your concorde battleship gets a bounty & payout bonus based on sec status...


if as the data suggests supers are taking a disproportionate part of the bounty pool by ooooh lets say your first iteration of 30%..... why can you not just add a bounty payout reduction to that hull?????

this will leave the weapons alone to be used in pvp and not nerf citadels un warranted.

i mean...... it makes sense to me that if you want to nerf bounties due to certain ships you nerd the payout to those ships. not the weapons they use, especially when their used on other not connected structures

they didn't say that here they should have and honestly they want us to see their side they need to show all the facts not just part.


i mean rough figures is this going to get them their desired changes or will it help a little and then the trend continue for reasons not related to this particular nerf

i don't care what they do if i don't like it i don't have to play(not a rage quit just being honest)

but they do have to stick with the game as its their jobs and if they don't have the patients to fully research issues to their core then maybe they need more assistance?

It's hard to estimate that from either the damage nerf or the other changes proposed. If it were a straight linear relationship, then 10% nerf to DPS would result in a 10% tick drop, but there are many factors that would affect your ticks so it's very difficult to accurately predict that. Same for the supers change.

If you want a number, then circa 10% for Carriers or circa 20% for supers, which will probably average to somewhere around 10% drop in the total stream (46% of bounties going to carriers/supers with a weighting in favour of supers of somewhere close to larrikin's suggestions).

Those numbers are roughly worked out in my head at close to midnight, I cannot be bothered to do them properly on a calculator but they won't be all that far off either. But then again, this is all speculation and the actual numbers could be higher or lower than this depending on how much the DPS interacts with tank etc etc etc.

How exactly would knowing what T1 haulers are making in bounties help?

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.

Good to know! I can compensate this using T2 fighters as a standard along with 4x faction DDAs. Fit will be more expensive but dps will remain almost the same. Well, just over 50 mil ticks are acceptable to me - to cover my PvP needs and keep going in null.


WOW! 100 pages long thread! WOW!

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.

Justified changes but they miss the key point.

All PVE rewards were balanced against player and ship power in the ~2010 era.

Player ships have been 'rebalanced' multiple times since then. Almost all of these changes have been significant power increases. Level 5 missions and 10/10 sites used to be nontrivial fleet sites, now they are readily soloed.

The key to addressing this balance issue is to increase the combat capabilities of NPCs in line with the increases player ship power has experienced.

I just heard a podcast where it was stated that they have been trying to correct CCP's data for a long time. Apparently, it has been wrong or incorrectly interpreted.

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.