EVE Search - Sticky:[June] Fighter Damage Reduction

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.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

keep it healthy for all our players.

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.

Lillith Obyzouth wrote:

nice going bud .. nerf the dam ship I just paid for / trained into Evil

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Intigo wrote:

Haha, this should be great. Good changes!

Rivr Luzade wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage.

Sassura wrote:

CCP, why don't you just cut to the chase and delete Delve from the map.

All those Goons packed in there, making tons of isk, mining all that ore and building a ton of stuff. Playing your game in a way that you don't want.

Then no one else would have to deal with the nerfs to mining and ratting to fix eve. There wouldn't be any need to nerf the carriers and supers that defend the too prosperous region and we can mine without timers in the rest of new eden.

Sassura wrote:

Lucy Callagan wrote:

This is a very good change.

Both for the game balance health and the tears it entails.

Kestrel Clairvoyant wrote:

Sassura wrote:

Buhuu, so its our fault we play EVE and actually make ISK in it? Like Delve is biggest problem in game..jesus...get some common sense... all you haters can go f yourself back to whatever HS dump you crawled from...

Tiesto DJ wrote:

Rivr Luzade wrote:

Read as, **** off VNI/Ishtars. I want Sacs to myself and dont touch obvious op fighters.

Zduhac Aldent wrote:

Lucy Callagan wrote:

This is a very good change.

Both for the game balance health and the tears it entails.

It is funny for you now, but what if you invested so much time and effort into something that will become meaningless now, how would you feel?

Lucy Callagan wrote:

To all the people complaining that : "I can't plex my account anymore, ccp is so greedy they want me to pay it with RL money"

Don't you understant that all the plexes that are in the game have been bought on CCP's website and therefore paying the sub in plex or RL money makes no difference to ccp ?

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 ?

Krypleria 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.

Meridon Arthas wrote:

Krypleria wrote:

40M VNI ? Damn, Can u contract me some plz ?

Full VNI fitted is 100M. and I did 18-20M tick

CCP Larrikin wrote:

...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.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Abagah Khan wrote:

Rovinia wrote:

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

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.

The Judge wrote:

Keep up the great work.

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.

Rivr Luzade wrote:

Tiesto DJ wrote:

Rivr Luzade wrote:

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.

The Judge wrote:

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.

Pier Rin wrote:

Maybe if you would not have introduced skill injectors there would not have been a problem????

Ralph Shepard wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

The Judge wrote:

Krypleria wrote:

Meridon Arthas wrote:

Krypleria wrote:

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 ?

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Lucian James wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

From skill injectors, to pictures of gold bar stacks as Plex, to nerfing Rorquals time and time again...
CCP is coming off more and more like a money grubbing sh:t-heel of a company only interested in base profit for themselves and squeezing us out of our time and money.

Stop making it more difficult for people with less RL money and time to play this game. The people ratting in carriers and mining in rorquals spent a lot of time, money/isk and emotional investment getting into these ships. They do so because many are in areas of high-end PVP and this keeps them fighting.

If you have a problem with PVE areas with no PVP recourse... vast renter fields churning out isk that goes into a few wallets of pilots that never PVP nor spend it, find a creative way to deal with THAT problem, instead of nerfing everyone in what appears as a blatant attempt to get people to buy more Plex so you can horde our money.

I am getting really sick of your stupidity and carelessness lately.

#CCPigs

FT Diomedes wrote:

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.

Nine months ago, it was clear that this game was headed to "Carriers online." Carriers were going to be the mainline DPS boats for PVE and PVP fleets. These training and resource intensive ships were going to be totally dominant. And that is what we have seen these past few months in many major battles. Massive numbers of Carriers supported by FAX replacing massive numbers of Battleships supported by Logistics. There has been an arms race these past few months to get massive numbers of people into Carrier and Supercapital fleets. That's why everyone has been ratting and mining until their eyes bleed these past few months, because you handed the keys to the game to resource and training intensive ships. The group with the most wins. Just as it is about to come to fruition for the late comers, you announce a massive and fundamental change to Capital ships. It would be nice if you could be more agile with your development, but it is hard to steer a Battleship (or Carrier Blink

). A small course correction here and there goes a long way.

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. Yes, that means the Damsel can only be rescued from Dodixie so many times a day...

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.

Suitonia wrote:

Lightbringer wrote:

How do they go from overpowered to no damage if they lose 20% DPS. Seems reasonable to me.

Quote:

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.

Lucian James wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Pier Rin wrote:

Maybe if you would not have introduced skill injectors there would not have been a problem????

Less carrier/super pilot, less rorqs, no need for nerfs????

And with every nerf/fix, 2 more problems pop up, please dont fix whats not broken.

aussieftw wrote:

CCP you just making people angry, but this will not help. Your real problems are jump fatigue, fozziesov and skill injectors. Just think for few seconds about that, why you have too much isks in game and too many people with capital ships.

Total Newbie wrote:

Well Played CCP ! ! ! ! !

You have taken a war game and made it nearly impossible for any entity to deploy and have a good scrap. Hello Jump fatigue.

You forced entities into a sandbox in individual regions to play magical wands meet Harry Potter. Hello entosis!

You made the sandbox indestructible by allowing thousands of citadels that take a week to destroy. Hello Upwell.

You forced people to do nothing in the game but stay in their region ratting and mining to get some form of content.

And now you want to try to blame everything on Capital and Super Capital ratting?????????

The problem CCP is your utter lack of vision and your myopic view that left the part out, that this is a WAR GAME!

Well played indeed, politicians have nothing on you. You have garnered more control over a sinking ship, with the people who fund your venture literally finding another war game to play.

The Judge wrote:

Wilfred Motte wrote:

Exactly 2 weeks, to the day, after I dropped $200 to inject myself into a carrier, so that I could rat in NS, to make isk, to buy frigates to go shoot other people in frigates.

Well played, CCP. Well. Played.

Chance Ambramotte wrote:

This is not a balancing adjustment. This is part of several changes that all lead to one thing:
A cash grab by CCP.

The PLEX has been split into the 500 units for 1 month new dynamic.
The PLEX has also replaced AURUM.
Training times are extensive and the only way to get some of these skills in a timely fashion is skill injectors or ghost train.
Now we nerf the primary in game cash generators into irrelevance.

All this means is if you want to have an effective pilot, buy PLEX, if you want to have time to work, shower, live and still have progress in the game buy PLEX. And so on, slowly every problem is starting to have the same solution: buy PLEX.

Soon this game will be pay to win (Buy PLEX)

This is all part of the EA Games micro transaction cancer where fun, gameplay or entertainment are all trampled in the attempt to drain the wallets of the players as fast as possible.

For the record I have only on account, and no capitol ships and do not mine.

We will see if greed will continue to reign at CCP or if they want to continue to have a game business in the near future.

Suitonia wrote:

Great changes

Total Newbie wrote:

Wilfred Motte wrote:

Cyclo Hexanol wrote:

Why not just make fighters ineffective against NPC and player subcaps? Seems like that would solve both the problem of carriers being used to over farm anoms and them being dropped on roaming gangs and solo pilots just because they cant be countered by those gangs effectively.

Killah Bee wrote:

Suitonia wrote:

Great changes

Yo Mr. Kestrel the cookies are to shut up when the cakes are talking okay ? Thanks

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

addelee wrote:

So, rorq's get nerfed as they're an isk facet and now fighters. This will reduce the amount of isk ingame and also push prices of things up making plex suddenly an attractive option. I get why CCP are doing it, they want more money, but it'll push people away thus leading to them having less money.

The changes seem rather drastic so I guess we'll see another rebalance when they're run out of things to nerf.

I suspect, given a choice, CCP would leave us with 1 ship so it's a level playing field and they'd probably still have to rebalance that!

alex tow wrote:

It seems that a lot of player forgot how eve was 10 years ago...it's now really way too easy to buyt a capital ship/super cap....you can make 100/200/400m isk/h now where you had 90m with a carrier ratting in null years ago....but well, now it seems that people want to have easy farming....contrary to the rorqual....I think it's a good nerf. Make Capital ships CAPITAL again.

Jarnobi wrote:

ALL THOSE GOON TEARS !!!!

GREAT CHANGE !!!!!!

Wilfred Motte wrote:

WheelsUK wrote:

I feel that CCP have forgotten this is just a game and are trying to turn it into a 2nd job for us.

It's also clear that CCP never thought passed 10 years for this game and a huge percentage of the player base will be carrier/super pilots and ratting in them reduces the grind time for most of us so why would we choose to rat in anything smaller we have also surley earned the right to be able to do this after so many years.

Then they introduce Skill Injectors meaning more and more people got into the end game ships faster, so why are they punishing us for them wanting to make a quick dollar and not thinking of the long term problems it causes.

Also i think all the Jita/Goon scammers are bowing to CCP right now, how many people how spent hard earned isk or real life money on skill injectors for the prize at the end to be taken away.

Scam of all Scams.

I have been playing EvE for over 11 years and never felt more like wanting to quit than i do now. i only hope that we do a massive burn EvE protest in Goons.

Total Newbie wrote:

alex tow wrote:

LOL and it has nothing to do with pulling out Mr. Visa and buying/selling plex, right?

Lightbringer wrote:

Does the stupid faction BS Nerf take into account this just as stupid nerf aswell?

O2 jayjay wrote:

Every one step forward CCP takes 3 steps back. Like a autistic dance move.

alex tow wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

alex tow wrote:

LOL and it has nothing to do with pulling out Mr. Visa and buying/selling plex, right?

Of course it does....why do you think I would forget this ? I hate the plex price which encourage to buy some to get isk, I hate skill extractors and injectors and I HATE the capital ship becoming standard ships.

Takashi X2 wrote:

I tried to read most of the responses but one thing never came up. This change renders regular carriers unable to run dreads. I do feel like the carriers have a lot of dps and maybe needed to be scaled back a bit but not 20 percent. I think that is a little drastic. As of right now I barely have enough dps with t2 fighters to run a dread and i have to pull them back once sometimes twice to reload on missiles to do it. With 20% gone im not sure I can actually beat the reps anymore.

My suggestion is lower the amount of armor while upping the amount of hull. This will still make you need a significant amount of dps which the carrier can do in bursts without rendering them completely unable to. Supers will still be complete overkill like before so it doesnt make any difference there one way or another.

Inquisitor Lucious wrote:

O2 jayjay wrote:

Every one step forward CCP takes 3 steps back. Like a autistic dance move.

those usually incorporate some kinda twirl too

Total Newbie wrote:

Inquisitor Lucious wrote:

O2 jayjay wrote:

Every one step forward CCP takes 3 steps back. Like a autistic dance move.

those usually incorporate some kinda twirl too

And please don't forget, that shortly after this death nail, a new series of skins will appear.

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

CCP has statistics for almost everything.

It means, that they probably do have it covered with data telling them carrier and super ratting is just OP money faucet, even compared to incursions so reason is surely there. Also, Incursions are group activity and actually need a lot of organization compared to solo ratting in null so thats one point why Incursions are not targeted probably.

However, nerfing Fighter damage overall is IMHO "easy solution", which is bad. I am afraid to take my carrier into PVP as it is bacause I can be killed easily by couple of subcaps because of being almost immobile and easily hunted down, my high damage and jump drive is the only thing that makes my Thanatos Carrier different from Dominix.

If problem is Capitals in PVE, then the addressed problem should be CARRIERS AND PVE, not carriers overall. I do understand that you propably dont want to reduce anomaly payouts, because that would also nerf all other ratters, not only carrier users. So, the best solution IMO would be to code rats some special "fighter resistance" or "fighter damage taken reduction". You can play with that number then to optimize ISK ticks to some reasonable levels.

Nerfing carriers in PVP is bad. They are weak already IMO.

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?

Elena Cassidy wrote:

hey lets nerf everything that makes money end game thanks ccp think i might be leaving game permintly this time now theres gonna be no way to afford anything cant do rorq mining it got nerf bat from hell cant do Carrier or Super Ratting its getting nerfed to hell now why is end game Stuff getting nerfed. You are making it impossible to to pay for this game within the game because you are trying to be money hungry with this stupid *** plex meta bull****. wake up CCP your killing your own game

the Guide wrote:

With the introduction of Burner missions to Lv4 mission agents it has become somewhat trivial to consistently make well in excess of 200 million isk per hour with just a little bit of training and preparation. This can be done on a single, well trained character in the relative safety of Hi-Sec, indefinitely.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Anthar Thebess wrote:

If you wan to slow down PVE income - reduce bounty, or increase the rat EHP.

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.

Quote:

VNI ratting = 12-15m/tick (ship cost 40m)
Ishtar ratting = 20-25m/tick (ship cost 300m)
Carrier ratting = 40-60m/tick (ship cost 2.5b)
Super ratting = 80-100m/tick (ship cost 25-30b)

Seems balanced to me.

Do you guys even play this game? =/

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Omega Erkkinen wrote:

This is a poor decision

Months of training, 25bill aprox cost to buy and fit

Rendered effectively useless by CCP spitting in our face with an over the top nerf

Poor poor decision that leaves me questioning the game direction? If I work hard towards an objective and achieve it CCP could ruin it with a stroke of the keyboard.

Why should we bother?

CCPS tagline about building your dream and ruining other people's seems to ring more true for their dev,'s who destroy more player dreams than anyone

Madbuster73 wrote:

Anthar Thebess wrote:

If you wan to slow down PVE income - reduce bounty, or increase the rat EHP.

THIS ^^

Siobhan MacLeary wrote:

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.

An alternative thought: decrease pirate SIG to make it harder to hit them with fighters.

I feel increasingly like these changes are designed specifically to **** over goons.

Rorqual nerfs, then pirate BS price increase, then carrier nerfs. In order: Screws with income for our members, screws with our future ability to supply high-end doctrines, then fucks with both line member income and utility in PvP.

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.

Total Newbie wrote:

Inquisitor Lucious wrote:

O2 jayjay wrote:

Every one step forward CCP takes 3 steps back. Like a autistic dance move.

those usually incorporate some kinda twirl too

And please don't forget, that shortly after this death nail, a new series of skins will appear.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Hi Space Friends,

We also think that Carriers and Supercarriers are a bit too effective in PvP now.
.

Yavin Four wrote:

How to break your game and anger your players by slashing their income:

Step 1: Increase sig radius to all fighters
Step 2: Decrease damage output to all fighters.
Step 3: Again, Decrease damage output to all fighters by 20%.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: No profit

Lucian James wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/1Zp87xk.png i just made this :D

#CCPigs

HuntedMaster wrote:

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.

Wrong, what your doing is making 6 ishtars the way to go, and still plexing all your accounts, and risking nothing, hell use Vni's. You be talkin a load o dat rubbish der.

Jenn aSide wrote:

"JUST BUFF NULLSEC"

The above were the words of many high sec partisan posters on these forums when, in the past, some of us pointed out that there was an imbalance caused by the combination of too much safety and way too lucrative activities in high sec like Incursions and burner mission blitzing that lets you STILL make as much is as a Super Carrier in null sec anoms.

the Guide wrote:

The reply from the partisans was the same every time. Don't nerf my high sec activities! "JUST BUFF NULL" if you aren't making enough!

This and the Rorqual prove that you can NOT just buff other places to mask the imbalances of high sec. While this will be unpopular to say here, I'll say it anyways, I support this nerf and thing that it doesn't go far enough. CCP needs to also do something about how AFK-able null sec anoms are. You should have to be at your keyboard to make PVE isk in EVE.

And when CCP is done nerfing null sec income to something more reasonable, they HAVE to have a look at high end high sec PVE too, Incursions, burner blitzing, SOE high sec missions and the lot. Hell, it's still possible to make more blitzing lvl 3 missions in high sec than you'd get using the same ship in null. (I spent part of last week seeing if this still works btw, it does if you stick to SOE or Thukker agents).

Total Newbie wrote:

Simple solutions for your simple minds CCP.

Rather than kill entire classes of ships in your effort to throw out the baby with the bath water, why don't you:

1. Have rats apply even more massive damage to fighters/bombers.

2. put a gate on anoms/sites that capital class ships can't enter

3. spend more time finding your terrible code and fixing it.

HuntedMaster wrote:

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.

Wrong, what your doing is making 6 ishtars the way to go, and still plexing all your accounts, and risking nothing, hell use Vni's. You be talkin a load o dat rubbish der.

Linda Bradford Raschke wrote:

Lucian James wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/1Zp87xk.png i just made this :D

#CCPigs

You forgot to label the AFK VNIs and Ishtars in the background.

Henry Plantgenet wrote:

so....4 days before next patch you're ninja-ing these changes?
Where was the CSM in all of this....

Panther X wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

I mentioned 2 earlier and IMO it's probably the easiest and most "balanced" way to fix this "problem". If you implement #2 then #1 is moot anyway. If you want to implement #2 you will probably have to do #3 anyway, so we ALL win.

Please CCP, listen to us here. Some people CANNOT afford to play this game in a paid subscription/RL money way. If you keep removing viable options for us to play by working for it, then you are going to see a reduction in the Omega clone subscriptions. I'm not saying "I quit" but I will be looking at the number of Omega subs I have. I'm not a high volume player like some people are, and I am not the richest guy in the game, but in my tenure here, I have been able to make good business decisions, and save enough to not HAVE to pay for my subs. But I would rather save that isk for a rainy day, or invest in side projects, than blow it all on however many subs I would need.

At the end of the day (gawd I hate that line) your heavy handed band aid solutions are not garnering you any good will here. Please step back for a moment and re-evaluate your course of action here. Eve isn't here because of you, CCP. It is here because we love this game, and we love the community we have built around it (despite Gons best efforts to the contrary--JK) and it is here because we continue to open our wallets every month, 6 months, 12 months etc and continue to pay your salaries, buy new equipment and bring tourism to Iceland every year. CCP doesn't pay for Fanfest. WE DO.

CCP you would do well to remember that.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

the Guide wrote:

The reply from the partisans was the same every time. Don't nerf my high sec activities! "JUST BUFF NULL" if you aren't making enough!

This and the Rorqual prove that you can NOT just buff other places to mask the imbalances of high sec. While this will be unpopular to say here, I'll say it anyways, I support this nerf and thing that it doesn't go far enough. CCP needs to also do something about how AFK-able null sec anoms are. You should have to be at your keyboard to make PVE isk in EVE.

And when CCP is done nerfing null sec income to something more reasonable, they HAVE to have a look at high end high sec PVE too, Incursions, burner blitzing, SOE high sec missions and the lot. Hell, it's still possible to make more blitzing lvl 3 missions in high sec than you'd get using the same ship in null. (I spent part of last week seeing if this still works btw, it does if you stick to SOE or Thukker agents).

You do realize this nerf to carriers makes AFKTars more attractive. It isn't carriers that needed nerfing, it was just the "easiest" way due to laziness at CCP and not having the know how to "balance" income.

Running highsec Incursions is a far higher income stream than a single carrier in nul - CCP won't touch those for fear of losing highsec bears.

Trevor2014 Gunson wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Yes, cause carrier and super carrier drones are the real problem here.

Yes, cause HS Incursions aren't an isk sink whatsoever (coming from someone who ran them 8 hours a day) and Ratting in anoms for ONE MONTH because there's really no content anymore breaks the system. Big smile

Yes, cause AKFtar's are "Working as Intended". Roll

Yes, cause AFK VNI's for low-skilled afkers are a thing.

yes, cause CCP made it possible to become a super pilot in 5 minutes. Ugh

Yes, cause SOV is apparently great as you have to sit in one place for 5 minutes with your D*** out cause that's why you play a game? Evil

Yes, cause RISK Vs. REWARD isn't a thing anymore and I should fly a Hel that gets a 30M tick when i can fly a VNI or Isthar getting the same ticks and go to the store for some cookies and milk and make half the cost of my ship back on a Gamble chance no one enters my system? Shocked

Yes, cause end-game isn't broken af now due to getting nerf hammers constantly.

I think you need to re-evaluate what are "isk sinks" within the game. here's what you should fix:

Fozzie SOV was the worst idea you ever came up with, it destroyed content generated. Get rid of it or get rid of your highly prized citadels. having both at the same time is not letting anyone take SOV just for the lol's.

Small citadels get shorter rf time periods. big citadels get longer time periods. (kinda a duhh realization there) Blink

Make HS incursion rats harder to kill. (incorporate your new all-mighty NPC Player Mirror abilities or whatever you call it into HS Isk sinks, GET RID OF THE NO RISK FOR UNLIMITED REWARD BULLS*** THAT IS HS INCURSIONS).

Get rid of the Entosis BS.... wait, did I already mention that?

Lower the Bounty payouts of rats everywhere in every region (that would surely drop the Isk Sink that apparently is in NS cause we can't do anything with no major wars going on)

Make NPC rats tougher everywhere (and double their HP for HS incursions cause they are carebears and need to work for their isk just like everyone else)

one last thing before i finish my rant and 2nd forum post ever cause i don't like doing this stuff

Listen to your community and ACTUALLY read these forum posts, it's literally the same things over and over and over.... DO something about it. Isn't that why we have CSM's or whatever they are called, don't really know their names cause I hardly ever hear them doing anything for the community. Stop bringing in new items, and go back over the stuff already here and fix it, NOT NERF IT, upgrade it. delete this, delete that, then... then you can start working on new things.

Panther X wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

Tyorel Swayn wrote:

Many people bought injectors (indirectly giving you real money, CCP) just to get in carriers and start ratting. You're just spitting them in the face with this nerf. Anyway the problem won't affect big fishes. All you are doing now is ruining the game for mediocore and new players.

Reconsider these changes!

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

The economy here is obeying supply and demand. If you reduce the ISK generation -> less ISK on market -> less people buying PLEX -> PLEX price goes down -> people start buying PLEX again -> balance.

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

Well done ccp.

August - Breeze wrote:

I put my money where my mouth is and I just CANCELED my second account that I had for my carrier pilot. I will transfer my capital pilot over to my main account. (note: I have never PVE'ed in my carrier)

I encourage everyone to do the same thing!

CCP sticks it to us, we need to stick them right back by decreasing THEIR income!

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

August - Breeze wrote:

So now, you can only make like 150 mil per hour instead of 200? Worth to cancel account yea. 1 hour longer time to make PLEX ...

Erie TehGM wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

August - Breeze wrote:

So now, you can only make like 150 mil per hour instead of 200? Worth to cancel account yea. 1 hour longer time to make PLEX ...

But only one account to keep subbed.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

Well done ccp.

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

August - Breeze wrote:

So now, you can only make like 150 mil per hour instead of 200? Worth to cancel account yea. 1 hour longer time to make PLEX ...

Jenn aSide wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

The economy here is obeying supply and demand. If you reduce the ISK generation -> less ISK on market -> less people buying PLEX -> PLEX price goes down -> people start buying PLEX again -> balance.

+1

This is the thing that people miss. Just like how nerfing rorqs makes the price rebound which means that while you are making less isk, the isk you make is worth more.

These nerfs actually mean better income for ratters. The escalation nerf means deadspace loot will be worth more, and this carrier nerf means even less escalations and less isk stuff into the economy which eventually might mean lower plex prices = easier to plex with less time ratting.

People can be so self centered they don't know when they are being helped.

Lucian James wrote:

Krypleria wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

August - Breeze wrote:

So now, you can only make like 150 mil per hour instead of 200? Worth to cancel account yea. 1 hour longer time to make PLEX ...

It is actually from 150m to 90m with alot more risk to fighter losses wich bring that down even more.

Not too mention... the biggest problem in eve is actually there are NO more isk burners... like wars ... because .... CITADELS !

Jenn aSide wrote:

I said this on reddit but I'll say it here too. I know it won't stop the freak out because people can be pretty dumb when it comes to money, but here it is anyways.

People are too short sighted to understand that these nerfs (this one to carriers/supers and the one about escalations) end up helping people by making deadspace loot and pirate BS BPCs way more valuable across the board.
It shifts the income making from anom grinding to doing 10/10s (sure you have to grind for them, but the fewer times you get them will eventually be made up by price after the current stockpiles are depleted).
This is a good thing.

JC Mieyli wrote:

so in short all this does is make isk scarcer and more valuable
it makes plex more scarcer and more valuable
it makes isk harder to obtain
and encourages plex sales from players who struggle to farm isk

Rivr Luzade wrote:

Sassura wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

People who don't agree with you may not be dumb. They may simply feel that a substantial nerf to fighters is not the best way to go about making the changes that this game needs.

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Erie TehGM wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

August - Breeze wrote:

So now, you can only make like 150 mil per hour instead of 200? Worth to cancel account yea. 1 hour longer time to make PLEX ...

But only one account to keep subbed.

Not when hes cancelling the ratting one ;)

JC Mieyli wrote:

so in short all this does is make isk scarcer and more valuable

Total Newbie wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Suitonia wrote:

Great changes

Sassura wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

People who don't agree with you may not be dumb. They may simply feel that a substantial nerf to fighters is not the best way to go about making the changes that this game needs.

Sassura wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

People who don't agree with you may not be dumb. They may simply feel that a substantial nerf to fighters is not the best way to go about making the changes that this game needs.

Quote:

Risk = ISK

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Krypleria wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

August - Breeze wrote:

So now, you can only make like 150 mil per hour instead of 200? Worth to cancel account yea. 1 hour longer time to make PLEX ...

Is ISK really burned when you lose ships / citadels? Think about it.

You are paying for the things to someone else. He has the money now. You lose the ship/citadel, he still has the ISK you gave him. You generate more ISK via ratting, he mines more ore and makes more ships. You give him the generated ISK, he gives you ship. So what is burned here actually is ORE, not ISK. ISK is burned via insurances that expire, LP stores, NPC repairs and market taxes. The good ISK sink would be simply more transactions. So yea, wars do it too, but its not so direct and doesnt neccesarily have the effect.

Lucian James wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

#CCPigs

Jenn aSide wrote:

JC Mieyli wrote:

All of these are good things.

When I started ratting and getting 20 mil isk ticks in 2011 I was like WOW, 20 mil. 20 mill per tick back then meant I was RICH lol.

CCP buffed somethings and over time it took more and more and more ratting just to get the same amount of "purchasing power" I had in 2011. Now i got a Rattlesnake that can do 40 mil ticks and the feeling is like "meh"

It won't happen overnight, CCP screwed up when they opened up these big isk and mineral faucets and let them run for so long, be eventually things will settle and PVe activities in null will fell like they are worth it again as you don't have to grind near as much.

As I said, people are just too short sighted to see that this ends up being a good thing, especially for us who rat.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Sassura wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

People who don't agree with you may not be dumb. They may simply feel that a substantial nerf to fighters is not the best way to go about making the changes that this game needs.

I know that CCP has been heavy handed in the past. BUT it's easy to look at the MERs, see when carriers got buffed, see the explosion of null sec bounty generation, and understand that fighters were the cause of that.

This one time, CCP is nerfing the actual cause of the problem.

Tom Marksson wrote:

This update is horrible. If I fly a ship that costs 3 or even 25 billion ISK, I must be able to make much more profit than I could do on a 500 mil Rattlsnake. Because there's one universal rule:

Quote:

Risk = ISK

I risk to lose my carrier/supercarrier to a first interceptor/cyno-Sabre while farming in null-sec, that's why I must receive an adequate amount of ISK to reimburse the loss, for example. If I don't - what's the point to undock a super? What's the point to have a super? What's the point to learn a super? What's the point to have a separate account for a capital-holder?.. What's the point to have capitals and supercapitals in game? Let's remove all of them and fly in small-scale frigate gangs.

Why don't you in addition make capitals and supercapitals 50% cheaper to restore (what do you call it?) the "balance"?

Gwinet wrote:

Lucian James wrote:

I absolutely agree!

Nevyn Auscent wrote:

JC Mieyli wrote:

so in short all this does is make isk scarcer and more valuable

Go to the last economic blog, read the isk faucet figure. Then also realise that as of I think it was Feb 92% of all bounties come from Null Sec.
Now finally look at the slope of the isk graph in the last month.

Now apply some basic common sense, realise that the isk faucet figure jumped hugely when the carrier change went through and has been hidden for a few months by other circumstance such as the change in what defines 'active' isk, and accounts leaving again after the sudden spike when they returned.

This will only slow down the recent inflation, not stop it by any means, plenty of isk will still be farmed in null and plenty of that from carriers.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Sassura wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

People who don't agree with you may not be dumb. They may simply feel that a substantial nerf to fighters is not the best way to go about making the changes that this game needs.

JC Mieyli wrote:

Nevyn Auscent wrote:

JC Mieyli wrote:

so in short all this does is make isk scarcer and more valuable

sure thats what im saying
but to somehow translate that into a decrease in plex prices is erroneous imo

Burberry Muffin wrote:

Gwinet wrote:

Lucian James wrote:

I absolutely agree!

AGREE

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

In open economy like in EVE, if everyone buying PLEX has less money, PLEX price will go down. Sellers will still want to sell it, supply is probably quite constant, but since buyers only have limited ISK, the sellers will have to reduce the price to sell their PLEX. Its really just simple economics and it does work statistically.

Jenn aSide wrote:

JC Mieyli wrote:

Quote:

If you go one step further and assess what the actual big picture problem is...there is no counter to the faucet. You need a sink to drain it. There is nothing wrong with having wealth, when there is something to spend it on. Right now there is no sink, no overflow tank, no sump pump nor levy to stop the flood. Reducing slightly ( and we are talking slightly) the amount of isk incoming, will still not resolve the issue of too much personal wealth.

Personal, Corproate and Alliance Income tax, asset repossession, removal of insurance payouts, would all be a big step in resolving the personal wealth. Bans of tax evaders, wallet negative adjusting, and forensic accounting could all be used to slow down and control the massive unflux of risk free and risk adverse income streams.

JC Mieyli wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

well its not as simple as you make it sound when you have people investing in assets
then the value of those assets increases as a result of ccp meddling with mineral values
nerfing mining
and then nerfing ratting income

those people with large stockpiles of assetts only see their wealth increase for no reason other than ccp messing with things
and those people will continue to stockpile plex intil demand for plex decreases
and im sure you can figure out what a decrease in demand for plex means

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Hi Space Friends.

Sassura wrote:

[That doesn't mean that there won't be frustration and backlash when they introduce heavy nerfs to fix problems that, essentially, they have caused.

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Demand for PLEX will only go down if people stop playing. And price of stockpiles going up is bad in any way? The stockpiles will run out eventually, if its profitable for the owners to turn them into ISK. Then the ISK can go into circulation and into ISK sinks. Overall good.

Lucian James wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Kendarr wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Hi Space Friends.

Your not my friend!

MY DANK RATTING TICKS :'(

Mierin Arthie wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Why not just reduce bounty payouts? Isnt that the problem?

Please CCP, you should have at least 2 functioning braincells available at the office. Rub them togeather and you should be able to come up with something better than this. It would also go a long way in preventing errors like last nights skill pause script.

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Tom Marksson wrote:

Quote:

Risk = ISK

No you cant simply make more money with bigger ships indefinitely. It would ruin the game economy if more people did it and prices of everything would skyrocket, making people who dont use your method of ISK generating effectively poor and not being able to afford anything, for example PLEX.

Fl4chz4ng3 wrote:

As always wh people will be happy and the others not

Tks for this change you just lost 2 subscriptions

Enjoy your subcaps 20m ticks people !

Abagah Khan wrote:

Quote:

this is something ive noticed myself lately. Outside of skins, there is nothing to sink isk into. So i put it in another ship.. or in this case the market, making even more isk that i have nothing to spend it on..

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Hi Space Friends,

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.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Darine Artwik wrote:

Guess what?
Multiboxing SB Battleships? No Nerf!
Multiboxing VNIs/Ishtars? No Nerf!
Multiboxing Rorquals? Just +1
Soloing Carriers/Supers? Nerfed to death.
Soloing Rorquals? Nerfed to death.

CCP certainly NOT following a special agenda there. Multiboxing and therefore more sub money for CCP not favored at all.

Lightbringer wrote:

Does the stupid faction BS Nerf take into account this just as stupid nerf aswell?

FT Diomedes wrote:

Darine Artwik wrote:

Another valid point that both this change and the Rorqual nerf do not address. Carrier ratting, while lucrative, requires the player to be at his computer actively playing the game. It does not scale well as you add more accounts (unlike Rorqual mining). CCP should be promoting active game play that encourages people to get out in space and do things.

Xuan Menzoberanza wrote:

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

Well done ccp.

AFK ?? PASSIVE INCOME on Carrier and Super??

Are you mad or something ?

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

Xuan Menzoberanza wrote:

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

Well done ccp.

AFK ?? PASSIVE INCOME on Carrier and Super??

Are you mad or something ?

Passive = Moon Income

Mining/Rating in Carriers is AFK if you can multibox 5 rorquals/carriers

Anna Wong wrote:

What about citadels? The damage output especially from the medium citadels is low enough without a further reduction

JC Mieyli wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

yep decrease in demand means decrease in playerbase
the stockpiles wont run out because they are being hoarded
people buy them off the market and sit on them like bars of gold
they like seeing their wealth increase
people with wealth dont stockpile isk
they stockpile plex
when the demand for plex decreases then the value of plex will decrease
thats when hoarders will start to panic and start offloading their plex
until that happens they will hoard it and not sell it

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

Xuan Menzoberanza wrote:

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

Well done ccp.

AFK ?? PASSIVE INCOME on Carrier and Super??

Are you mad or something ?

Passive = Moon Income

Mining/Rating in Carriers is AFK if you can multibox 5 rorquals/carriers

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Hi Space Friends,

Radious Servasse wrote:

I think I might hate this change, but I do understand economics. The only real reason I rat these days is for plex and ships to blow up. When 90% of my time ratting is done just to get plex and 10% for ships, the game turns into a job. By reducing the amount carriers can make, there will be alot more effort required to grind a plex and such more players will leave the game. Over time, this new lack of demand will reduce plex prices to a more affordable level and those remainding will enjoy once again affordable plex prices. When the plex price finally falls, carrier ratting will once again be feasible.

Real nice plan CCP. I hope it works.

More isk means more expensive items and ships.

Thomasina wrote:

Kendarr wrote:

CCP Larrikin wrote:

Hi Space Friends.

Your not my friend!

MY DANK RATTING TICKS :'(

*You're

How are you going to get iskies for your toonies now?

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

JC Mieyli wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Lets summarize it.

The only way to get PLEX into the game is to buy it for RL money. The rate for that is probably quite constant. Demand for PLEX is also constant at a constant playerbase. The only variable is how much ISK the PLEX costs and amount of ISK in the economy is affecting that. More ISK players hold -> they can easily buy PLEX -> PLEX price goes up until it stabilizes when people are not willing to pay that much for PLEX anymore. Less ISK -> they buy PLEX less for a while until sellers put PLEX on the market cheaper to sell it at a constant rate -> the trade stabilizes itself again.

So, removing or adding ISK faucets into the game only moves actual purchasing power of ISK up or down, supply or demand of PLEX is quite constant.

The problem here is the devaluation of ISK, when group of players generate way too much of it. Players who do not generate that much then suffer and are poor. And its getting worse, when ISK sinks do not remove the excess ISK from game. Scissors are opening wider. Its quite complicated, thats why they have economist in the team.

Lhord GankBang wrote:

What if I told you, you can nerf the insane ticks by simply not allowing carriers to warp to the anoms? Idea

Not making them entirely useless and just large drone boats that have slightly better DPS than an Ishtar.

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Less ISK -> they buy PLEX less for a while until sellers put PLEX on the market cheaper to sell it at a constant rate -> the trade stabilizes itself again.

Krypleria wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

JC Mieyli wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

True... but guess what... these changes dont affect ISK sinks in any way .... so maybe they should put those econimists to actually PLAY the game to understand it ?

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

The problem here is the devaluation of ISK, when group of players generate way too much of it. Players who do not generate that much then suffer and are poor. And its getting worse, when ISK sinks do not remove the excess ISK from game. Scissors are opening wider. Its quite complicated, thats why they have economist in the team.

JC Mieyli wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Less ISK -> they buy PLEX less for a while until sellers put PLEX on the market cheaper to sell it at a constant rate -> the trade stabilizes itself again.

youre forgetting one important factor
remember why we said demand decreases in the first place
in your example you assume there will be players to buy it once the price stabilises again
however we know the only reason the demand decreases is because there will be less players around to buy it

iFars wrote:

The government is concerned that people have begun to live better? Get out of office.

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

JC Mieyli wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Less ISK -> they buy PLEX less for a while until sellers put PLEX on the market cheaper to sell it at a constant rate -> the trade stabilizes itself again.

The demand is constant, I dont see legions of players leaving the game anytime soon.

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

Personally I think all the changes of late are all good. Its way too easy for people en mass to farm the game.

There shouldnt be any sources of AFK, Passive Income.

Well done ccp.

Lhord GankBang wrote:

What if I told you, you can nerf the insane ticks by simply not allowing carriers to warp to the anoms? Idea

Not making them entirely useless and just large drone boats that have slightly better DPS than an Ishtar.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Fl4chz4ng3 wrote:

As always wh people will be happy and the others not

Tks for this change you just lost 2 subscriptions

Enjoy your subcaps 20m ticks people !

My Rattlesnake does 40 and can MJD out of trouble.

Count Basie Thellere wrote:

Not impressed. Every time I spend ages training to get into a ship with good specs CCP nerfs them. Makes me wonder why I waste my time with this game.

James Kestrel wrote:

Do you really think this change will raise sales of Plex? This changes will not fix economy, it will only raise gap between rich and poor players, like always. Did you consider full server wipe? Maybe it will help.

You should nerf all that smartbombers and afk VNI/Ishtar ratters... they are big issue, not carriers or supers.

Fl4chz4ng3 wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Fl4chz4ng3 wrote:

As always wh people will be happy and the others not

Tks for this change you just lost 2 subscriptions

Enjoy your subcaps 20m ticks people !

My Rattlesnake does 40 and can MJD out of trouble.

This is still ridiculous compare to the sp, isk, risk you invest compare to a carrier/super ratting !

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Perfectly well said. What carriers and supers have done is devalue isk, meaning that you have to rat even longer even with a carrier or super to make enough for a plex.

In addition to that, soooo many escalations meant that the deadspace loot was near worthless.

A lot of players are too young in the game to remember when doing a DED site and getting a good drop meant you had enough isk for 2 months of game time (when plex was 500 mil and a Mach blueprint would get you 1 bil, getting that BPc was HITTING THE LOTTERY).

Now you have to do like 10 DED 10/10s to get enough loot to turn into ONE month of game time.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Count Basie Thellere wrote:

Not impressed. Every time I spend ages training to get into a ship with good specs CCP nerfs them. Makes me wonder why I waste my time with this game.

Smart people learn that following the Flavor of the month is bad.

While everyone around me was ratting with Carriers or afking with ishtar's, I stuck to my MJD Rattlesnake. I told my bros "they are going to nerf those you know".

Find something you like that works but isn't the FotM. Those things always get the axe. Happens in PVP too, which is why I never got to fond of the Orthrus, because they are going to nerf those things lol.

Total Newbie wrote:

alex tow wrote:

Total Newbie wrote:

alex tow wrote:

LOL and it has nothing to do with pulling out Mr. Visa and buying/selling plex, right?

You obviously dont fly one. If/when you do, don't expect to use it for it's main purpose (Battle), because the Aids/Time required to get to a fight isn't worth it. You can hop into your trusty Interceptor and play Frigates online with the rest of the folks

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

iFars wrote:

The government is concerned that people have begun to live better? Get out of office.

Actually they dont live better. They live worse in fact. Having more ISK is nice, but the VALUE of ISK is going down. Your purchasing power is going down. And people not ratting in carriers or supers would gradually get poorer and poorer, because their ISK will have lesser value if everyone has a lot of it.

James Kestrel wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Sassura wrote:

[That doesn't mean that there won't be frustration and backlash when they introduce heavy nerfs to fix problems that, essentially, they have caused.

I've been saying this to CCP on these forums for years. They create their own problems by not understanding that they have to be careful about giving people stuff that is too powerful, because people get used to it and feel like you took something away when you balance it.

My 1st brush with this was high sec lvl 5 missions. CCP introduced lvl 5 missions to give people incentive to go to low sec, but a bug let you spawn the actual mission in high sec if you were in a low sec system that bordered high sec. A whole high sec lvl 5 community spawned around this. And CCP took YEARS to fix it. So when they did the cry was "why did you remove lvl 5s from high sec?!?!?!?".

They tried to explain that they should have never been there in the 1st place but it was too late, the anger was already there.

CCP did this again and again, lately with ratting carriers and rorqs. You can see by this thread and others how it's being perceived.

CCP, stop putting OP stuff in in the 1st place and this won't happen.

Panther X wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Count Basie Thellere wrote:

Not impressed. Every time I spend ages training to get into a ship with good specs CCP nerfs them. Makes me wonder why I waste my time with this game.

Carriers were never FOTM. I've been ratting in carriers for years. Subcaps just take too long to move on. Maybe I have too short an attention span, I don't know, but carrier ratting has been around a lot longer than the last expansion you know.

Flavour of the Month, indeed.

Geanos wrote:

The simplest solution would be to put a tax on bounties for carriers, supers or any other ship class you fancy. Bounties are calculated at 15 minutes, right? So if you add a formula for carrier/super ratting like this - total bounties per tick (tbt) = tbt - (tbt * 20) / 100 - the server extra load would be negligible. Having the ability to put a bounty tax on certain classes of ships would also help you in the future.

I think this is way better than straight up nerfing. And with a tax on bounties you won't have touch the PVP capabilities of ships "because of ISK".

FT Diomedes wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Sassura wrote:

[That doesn't mean that there won't be frustration and backlash when they introduce heavy nerfs to fix problems that, essentially, they have caused.

I cannot wait to see the outcry when the T3 changes finally come through.

realmkiller wrote:

Its CCP's way to screw over its player base and try and make some more money before everyone quits and starts playing star citizen when its released

Dengdeng Xiao wrote:

so, i see ....this game is, if you don't have three or four account ,then you fxxk off ?

why you just nerf carriers? the mutiple players using smart bomb ratting has been ignored? let em go?

ok, ccp, u win .

i'm out.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Panther X wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Count Basie Thellere wrote:

Not impressed. Every time I spend ages training to get into a ship with good specs CCP nerfs them. Makes me wonder why I waste my time with this game.

Don't be ignorant. You know (or should know) that not as many people were carrier/super ratting before the fighter changes. People across EVE were more likely to use AFKtars with multiple characters.

Have you looked at CCPs economic report? Would you like for me to post the one before the fighter changes and the one right after the fighter changes that show a spike in null sec bounties? Would you like to see the zkill stats for the same period that shows more carriers dying with npcs on the KM after the fighter changes (meaning more carriers in anoms)?

Yes carriers and supers became the FOTM for ratting, the proof is available in the places I mentioned if you don't believe this.

Panther X wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Panther X wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Count Basie Thellere wrote:

Not impressed. Every time I spend ages training to get into a ship with good specs CCP nerfs them. Makes me wonder why I waste my time with this game.

Don't be insulting because you are behind the meta. I have known about carrier ratting and super ratting for years. and have made billions on it. More people have been doing it lately, yes, but that doesn't make it Flavour of the Month. Rorquals, now that is a different story.

There's no need to be rude because you are stuck in your own little world and are afraid to try something else. I was carrier and super ratting long before carriers and fighters were changed and will continue to do so. Who knows? I may start ratting in my titan again and getting even more dank ticks.

Don't think you can look down your nose at anyone because you think your way is best though.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Faruzen en Divalone wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Count Basie Thellere wrote:

Not impressed. Every time I spend ages training to get into a ship with good specs CCP nerfs them. Makes me wonder why I waste my time with this game.

Sam Khanid wrote:

It's not just the nerf, its the size and scope of it as well -- damage coupled with increased targeting from rats -- I didn't believe people when they were telling me about it. I thought, no way they're that rash to nerf two different contributors at the same time but such huge margins...

Guess I was wrong, and as a principle of program design--this is something we are warned in class not to ever do. Don't change multiple variables simultaneously by large margins. Bad things happen.

CCP Larrikin wrote:

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.

Jenn aSide wrote:

Sam Khanid wrote:

You didn't know that CCP does multiple nerfs at a time? Like they have since 2003?

You must be really new lol.

Mossyblog Barnes wrote:

Imho you're basing a lot of bad product management decisions of quantitative metrics. If you bothered to look at this more holistically you'd likely rationalise the events of income increases to be more focused on a number of contributing events - specifically microtransaction(s).

The Paradox of Thrift comes to mind here where you apparently aren't really factoring in player behaviours (qualitative). Some alliances and coalitions are right now actually coming out from under a "hoarding" behaviour, whereby they have been for the better part of month instructing members to "Krabbing" in order to get ready for larger PVP content next month.

Further to this, you have issues around CCP's introduction to microtransaction behaviour such as PLEX. This, in turn, has created a serious impact on the Eve economy on all product line(s). Moreover to the point the skill injector changes, in turn, has pushed pricing out further.

So now when you look at the said graph you've got a number of contributing variables that result in players likely more focused on PVE has given that's a likely easier route to liquidity in ISK which in turn feeds the aforementioned points (cause and effect).

Subtle effects introduced by CCP also IMHO hint strongly that you folks are opting towards removing the "Plex to Play" instead of heading towards "Pay to play". Things like selling Plex in a bundle of 240 via player purchases but then selling content such as skins for 250. You're effectively goading your player base to over buy in order to purchase, so either a player pays for the 500 ISK bundle or they pay 240 and 100 resulting in a 90 remainder. Its a form of economic affordance that's obviously similar to retail channels who put in place "minimum spend" targets on consumers.

The point I'm making is it's obvious you're attempting to draw further income from your player base in order to offset whatever investments you may be having as a company in either Eve Online or other product lines you're making.

Here's the reality though, you're not growing your market share at the moment and with these ongoing changes in passive income you're imposing a negative effect on the existing market share you have (therefore likely replenishing the market is less inclined).

Rorq mining is volatile at the moment due to anxiety about its changes (see 'Excavator' Mining Drone pricing indicative of its anxiety). Given your max reality for a Rorqual, a miner is approx 150m ISK per hour you in turn as a player may seek an alternative stream - in this case Super Ratting. De-invest in the Mining and re-invest back into PVE, but your buy-in is around 24billion+ for said super. This, in turn, means you'd need to grind for a month or maybe two in order to pay that investment back before you actually generate positive ISK.

Factor in now the risk(s) associated with super rating which is quite high, you've now got to then focus in around how larger corporation/alliances/coalitions protect their members within systems. In doing this they, in turn, localise their deployment strategies to ensure players centre around Keepstar(s) for responsive fleet strategies.

So what you graph don't show is Keepstar to System ratio(s) and where Super Ratting vs Deaths, as when you centre around these qualitative points you begin to have a better understanding of actual player behaviour(s) and why "super nerf" is required.

You haven't argued this point, instead, you've taken a bad sample of data and said something like "My dog barks loudly, therefore Cars need to be nerfed"... how do these two points relate? and suppressing the virtual economy right now is simply an incentive to de-invest play-time in the game.

Three months from now lets look at player login(s) per hour and compare results, I'll predict you'll see a reduction based on this ongoing behaviour to sweep the ISK creation.

Effectively you're suffering from the same spiral Ultima Online suffered when it introduced the Black Dye Tub - You've created a butterfly effect and you're imho not self-ware yet.

But you'll do what you want anyway, and thankfully we have CSM's there to protect us from behaviours that aren't player favoured -.....right?

Advocates...where are they again?

ALUCARD 1208 wrote:

And before the people who jump in say well hurr durr people have already paid ccp with the plex your paying isk for, yes this is true but if noone can achieve the isk/farm thats needed to do this its extra money in ccps pocket when they buy a a sub.

Fl4chz4ng3 wrote:

If i told you that making more money in null-sec is allowing me to have more accounts?

More accounts means more plex used
More plex used means more money for you

You nerf the hell out of ratting with capital you lost at least 2 accounts

BTW you should change the forum section name "feature" is not really accurate...

Fl4

The Judge wrote:

rhiload Feron-drake wrote:

im afraid your overestimating carriers/supers. they will not be strong as you think as they are now, its better to just increase the HP of the rats in havens and or decrease bounties. as you've seen in recent large scale fights, carriers dont win fights, dreads do, and this will be even more the case as dread dominance will prevail over any cap.

Suitonia wrote:

Lightbringer wrote:

How do they go from overpowered to no damage if they lose 20% DPS. Seems reasonable to me.

rhiload Feron-drake wrote:

Mute Karimar wrote:

When I compare my almost maxed Rattle-skills and the ticks I generate with that with my mediocre carrier-skills and their ticks that 20% nerf actually will make it more worthwhile for me to go in a Rattle than to bring the Carrier.

So I gotta second the question asked often here yet: Why not remove the damn carriers at all? Or just sell me a damn SKIN for lets say 60EUR that makes my Rattle look like a carrier?

Frostys Virpio wrote:

ALUCARD 1208 wrote:

PLEX price will always adjust to what people can or want to pay for them in ISK.

Mute Karimar wrote:

ALUCARD 1208 wrote:

Frostys Virpio wrote:

ALUCARD 1208 wrote:

PLEX price will always adjust to what people can or want to pay for them in ISK.

My points still stand so this is how its going at minute.

Yes plex prices may come down but cost of things are going up so your either stuck with having to grind more of your limited playtime or buy more plex and further lining ccps pockets just to get the isk for that new faction battleship that ccp has so kindly increased the build cost on.

Jenn aSide wrote:

I stuck to my Rattlesnake the entire time because as soon as I saw the 1st Monthly Economic Report after the fighter changes and saw that HUGE spike in null sec bounties my 1st thought was "they are going to nerf that".

Now they are nerfing that. I'm glad I kept my last 10 Rattlesnake blueprints Big smile

Jenn aSide wrote:

Mute Karimar wrote:

Elliott Spitzer wrote:

The Judge wrote:

So instead of pissing off 1/4 of nullsec players, let's **** off all of them?

Mute Karimar wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

I gave my rattle to my GFs acc, that is rarely online. Will prolly take it back, cause why put an "above a bill"-ship in space if I can make better ticks in a ship that costs about half of that?

And if its only about ISK-generation, why the heck doesnt CCP turn the bounty-screws, make anoms harder, but instead screws the whole shiptree-balance over?

Mute Karimar wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:

Elliott Spitzer wrote:

The Judge wrote:

So instead of pissing off 1/4 of nullsec players, let's **** off all of them?

Disregard, I misread what you posted, nothing to see here.