EVE Search - CCP broke the no intervention on Market rule

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP broke the no intervention on Market rule

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DARK SYCOPATA Cuervos Imperiales Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.06.11 09:22:19 - [1] - Quote This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 173	Posted - 2017.06.11 09:29:56 - [2] - Quote DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks. When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy. The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Do Little Virgin Plc Evictus. 1277	Posted - 2017.06.11 09:36:10 - [3] - Quote CCP intervenes in the market continuously by your definition. Every time they rebalance a ship or module, adjust drop rates or spawn rates, put PLEX on sale - it all impacts the market. All they had to do was announce refineries and moon material spiked - doubling in some cases and the feature probably won't enter the game for 6 months. Change is a normal part of the game - adapt or die.
Ragnar Danskjold Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2017.06.11 10:13:06 - [4] - Quote Yeah when they announced changes to faction battleships they tripled in price in five minutes. They don't try to manage the economy as much as people try to IRL, but they certainly do manage it.
Skorpynekomimi 719	Posted - 2017.06.11 10:13:29 - [5] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks. When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy. The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. This. It's just the same whining as when they nerf hisec mining, or when they killed off lowsec anything. They're taking your PoSes, but you say nothing. They rebalanced your weapons, but you said nothing. Then they came for your free money, and you threw your toys out the pram and threatened to unsub your 17 accounts because they were taking away the free ISK you were selling for real money... Economic PVP
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 93	Posted - 2017.06.11 10:29:03 - [6] - Quote what rule is that ccp always intervened on the market every change they make is an intervention on the market
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 1672	Posted - 2017.06.11 10:31:46 - [7] - Quote Wow. That's a lot of wine going down the drain lately. If you know a thing is way too good to stay true, just don't jump on it. At least not if you're adverse to change. Remove standings and insurance.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 34995	Posted - 2017.06.11 10:37:13 - [8] - Quote This is not the first nerf and not the last. There were bounties reduced in past times. Ships were nerfed. But I never have seen nerfhammer striking so hard on the ship that is used also in PvP, because it makes too much ISK in PvE. As if it would be the only method to deal with bounties. I have seen nerfs to bounties in past time. ß¦çß¦áß¦ç-Ç-Å ß¦ÿß¦Ç-Çß¦¢ ß¦Å-ô ß¦Ç +óß¦Çß¦ìß¦ç -£ß¦ç-ƒß¦ÿs ß¦¢ß¦Å ß¦¢ß¦ç-ƒ-ƒ ß¦Ç sß¦¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å =ƒôò ß¦í-£ß¦ç-Çß¦ç +¬s ß¦Ç+¦+ó-Ç-Å ß¦äß¦Å+¦ß¦äß¦Å-Çß¦à +óß¦£-Å ß¦í-£ß¦ç+¦ -Åß¦Åß¦£ +¦ß¦çß¦çß¦à -£+¬ß¦ì ß¦Åsß¦ÿ-Çß¦ç-Å =ƒÜÇ GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1735	Posted - 2017.06.11 11:14:29 - [9] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. I don't think you quite understand what the whining has been about. It isn't about having income nerfed. It's about nerfing pvp in order to balance pve. Nerf the PVE all they like. Implement some fighter dampeners in anomolies making Carriers less viable for ratting. Most of the 'whiners' are in favour of CCP making changes. Just not in favour of CCP nerfing the life out of conflict in the process. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 177	Posted - 2017.06.11 11:25:35 - [10] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. I don't think you quite understand what the whining has been about. It isn't about having income nerfed. It's about nerfing pvp in order to balance pve. Nerf the PVE all they like. Implement some fighter dampeners in anomolies making Carriers less viable for ratting. Most of the 'whiners' are in favour of CCP making changes. Just not in favour of CCP nerfing the life out of conflict in the process. Yes some of the whining is about the reduction to PvP capability. However most of the pointless dummy spits are over the fact the spoiled child of CCP (null sec) has been given a kick in the pants. After years of ruination of the ability for any other area of the game to make a comparable income in favor of the spoiled child. The spoiled child just got a kick in the butt. Frankly from the other side of the fence it is as funny as hell to laugh at all those who have told others to adapt or die, or harden up to now be in the same boat. If they had blocked carriers from being able to do anomalies and try to bring the massive amount of isk pouring in to a trickle, the whining would be the same. The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

DARK SYCOPATA Cuervos Imperiales Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.06.11 11:56:14 - [11] - Quote What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 179	Posted - 2017.06.11 12:12:54 - [12] - Quote DARK SYCOPATA wrote: What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. There are only a limited number of ways to lower the price of PLEX one is to lower the supply of cash. The more cash that enters the economy the less buying power it has. They could also get more people to use RL cash to buy PLEX but CCP has done its hardest over the years to drive these people off. That is why PLEX went from $300 mill to $1.3 bill. The amount of PLEX that enters the market from this event will be little more than a blip on the market as it is in CCPs best interest for the price to remain high as it means people are more likely to use RL cash to buy them. The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 228	Posted - 2017.06.11 12:21:02 - [13] - Quote I'd go with more sinks... since its the carriers that farm, introduce isk cost (in addition of mini-plex) to carrier skins, isk cost (on top of manufacturing fee) in carrier and fighter bpo... Make it impossible for cancer fits (0 tank) to run sites, AI should drop multiple capitals if there is a capital in site- no DCU/ hardeners and even a super should be in trouble. Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
Gustav Mannfred Summer of Mumuit 164	Posted - 2017.06.11 12:28:18 - [14] - Quote Blade Darth wrote: I'd go with more sinks... since its the carriers that farm, introduce isk cost (in addition of mini-plex) to carrier skins, isk cost (on top of manufacturing fee) in carrier and fighter bpo... Make it impossible for cancer fits (0 tank) to run sites, AI should drop multiple capitals if there is a capital in site- no DCU/ hardeners and even a super should be in trouble. maybe capital escalations for anomalys like in C5 wormholes? But then still we have all these AFK ishtars that farm the hell out of these anomalys. In my opinion, this is the problem, not capital ratting in general. i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183
Coralas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 160	Posted - 2017.06.11 12:39:27 - [15] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. There are only a limited number of ways to lower the price of PLEX one is to lower the supply of cash. The more cash that enters the economy the less buying power it has. They could also get more people to use RL cash to buy PLEX but CCP has done its hardest over the years to drive these people off. That is why PLEX went from $300 mill to $1.3 bill. The amount of PLEX that enters the market from this event will be little more than a blip on the market as it is in CCPs best interest for the price to remain high as it means people are more likely to use RL cash to buy them. Plex has a negative feedback if it gets too high, in that ingame outcomes can be achieved with the equivalent of 1 old plex, rather than 2 or 3. ie many years ago, 4 plexes were required for a fitted vindicator, where as now 500 nuplex (at the same price as one old plex) gets you a couple of fitted vindicators.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 182	Posted - 2017.06.11 12:55:13 - [16] - Quote Coralas wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. There are only a limited number of ways to lower the price of PLEX one is to lower the supply of cash. The more cash that enters the economy the less buying power it has. They could also get more people to use RL cash to buy PLEX but CCP has done its hardest over the years to drive these people off. That is why PLEX went from $300 mill to $1.3 bill. The amount of PLEX that enters the market from this event will be little more than a blip on the market as it is in CCPs best interest for the price to remain high as it means people are more likely to use RL cash to buy them. Plex has a negative feedback if it gets too high, in that ingame outcomes can be achieved with the equivalent of 1 old plex, rather than 2 or 3. ie many years ago, 4 plexes were required for a fitted vindicator, where as now 500 nuplex (at the same price as one old plex) gets you a couple of fitted vindicators. It is not really negative feedback. It is just supply and demand. Plex reaches a point where people choose to part with RL cash and people in game are willing to work to use in game currency to buy it. The market equilibrium, where the higher the price the more likely people will fork out RL cash and the lower the price the more likely people are to buy it with in game currency is balanced. The unfortunate thing is that compared to years ago, the number of people with RL cash they are willing to spend is smaller compared to those with time to grind. What it can buy in the game is irrelevant, especially as someone who is inexperienced who buys something flashy will watch it explode and then need more RL cash. The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Coralas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 160	Posted - 2017.06.11 13:48:22 - [17] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Coralas wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: What kind of game Balance is the creation of PLEX from the drone event? Sems some people is blind. The whole pach is just a desesperate movement to stop plex price. There are only a limited number of ways to lower the price of PLEX one is to lower the supply of cash. The more cash that enters the economy the less buying power it has. They could also get more people to use RL cash to buy PLEX but CCP has done its hardest over the years to drive these people off. That is why PLEX went from $300 mill to $1.3 bill. The amount of PLEX that enters the market from this event will be little more than a blip on the market as it is in CCPs best interest for the price to remain high as it means people are more likely to use RL cash to buy them. Plex has a negative feedback if it gets too high, in that ingame outcomes can be achieved with the equivalent of 1 old plex, rather than 2 or 3. ie many years ago, 4 plexes were required for a fitted vindicator, where as now 500 nuplex (at the same price as one old plex) gets you a couple of fitted vindicators. It is not really negative feedback. It is just supply and demand. Plex reaches a point where people choose to part with RL cash and people in game are willing to work to use in game currency to buy it. The market equilibrium, where the higher the price the more likely people will fork out RL cash and the lower the price the more likely people are to buy it with in game currency is balanced. The unfortunate thing is that compared to years ago, the number of people with RL cash they are willing to spend is smaller compared to those with time to grind. What it can buy in the game is irrelevant, especially as someone who is inexperienced who buys something flashy will watch it explode and then need more RL cash. Nah, the price gain of plex is open ended, which ultimately requires CCP to treadmill new expensive plex projects onto the end of the game, otherwise plexes will march to the point where nobody needs to buy more than 1 ever for any project they might have. Which is why serpentis capitals have unavoidably stupendous build costs, and why other faction capitals are not infinitely farmable, and why we have meta, t2 and faction capital modules now etc.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 228	Posted - 2017.06.11 13:52:44 - [18] - Quote Gustav Mannfred wrote: Blade Darth wrote: I'd go with more sinks... since its the carriers that farm, introduce isk cost (in addition of mini-plex) to carrier skins, isk cost (on top of manufacturing fee) in carrier and fighter bpo... Make it impossible for cancer fits (0 tank) to run sites, AI should drop multiple capitals if there is a capital in site- no DCU/ hardeners and even a super should be in trouble. maybe capital escalations for anomalys like in C5 wormholes? But then still we have all these AFK ishtars that farm the hell out of these anomalys. In my opinion, this is the problem, not capital ratting in general. Not if those sites include dreads with 90km web/ neut and need for 2-3k dps. Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
Indahmawar Fazmarai 5934	Posted - 2017.06.11 14:07:07 - [19] - Quote I wonder, what are the chances in nullsec that a drone boat/carrier losses its drones/fighters to rats? I used a ISKstar fit for running anomalies and Level 4s in highsec and it quickly turned to be a sensitive matter since frigates would kill my drones if left unattended... even herding them, I would still lose drones each now and then. Yet apparently nullsec anomalies don't spawn smaller craft that pose a threat to drones... is this true? Because if it's true, then it would be easier to spawn drone-killer and fighter-killer rats to prevent AFK ratting and create a sink that would hit harder those ratting harder, without nerfing the PvP usability of carriers. The more you PvE with drones, the higher the chance that your ship is de-fanged. It's true for highsec, why wouldn't for null?
Elenahina Agony Unleashed The Bastard Cartel 1724	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:55:34 - [20] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: I wonder, what are the chances in nullsec that a drone boat/carrier losses its drones/fighters to rats? I used a ISKstar fit for running anomalies and Level 4s in highsec and it quickly turned to be a sensitive matter since frigates would kill my drones if left unattended... even herding them, I would still lose drones each now and then. Yet apparently nullsec anomalies don't spawn smaller craft that pose a threat to drones... is this true? Because if it's true, then it would be easier to spawn drone-killer and fighter-killer rats to prevent AFK ratting and create a sink that would hit harder those ratting harder, without nerfing the PvP usability of carriers. The more you PvE with drones, the higher the chance that your ship is de-fanged. It's true for highsec, why wouldn't for null? I can't give you a number, but I do know for a fact that carriers do lose fighters in null anoms. Alliance mate of mine lost one just night. Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16124	Posted - 2017.06.11 16:59:09 - [21] - Quote Mara Pahrdi wrote: Wow. That's a lot of wine going down the drain lately. If you know a thing is way too good to stay true, just don't jump on it. At least not if you're adverse to change. That's why I stuck to my sub capitals (my mach and my rattlesnake) for ratting. I told my corp mates that I wasn't getting into carrier ratting even though I can fly carriers and could use tech 2 fighters. I said "you know they are going to nerf that right?". History shows that if anything becomes so good that legions of people jump on board to do it, CCP WILL nerf it eventually for the good of the game. It's not CCPs fault that soooo many people who play this game don't understand that.
Vortexo VonBrenner Tadakastu-Obata Corporation 2921	Posted - 2017.06.11 17:07:44 - [22] - Quote Op, you are 100% correct! This is outrageous! This is too far! Can I have your stuff, please? EvE security zones in pictures EvE quick reference pdf EvE links
April rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 23	Posted - 2017.06.11 17:48:23 - [23] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: I wonder, what are the chances in nullsec that a drone boat/carrier losses its drones/fighters to rats? I used a ISKstar fit for running anomalies and Level 4s in highsec and it quickly turned to be a sensitive matter since frigates would kill my drones if left unattended... even herding them, I would still lose drones each now and then. Yet apparently nullsec anomalies don't spawn smaller craft that pose a threat to drones... is this true? Because if it's true, then it would be easier to spawn drone-killer and fighter-killer rats to prevent AFK ratting and create a sink that would hit harder those ratting harder, without nerfing the PvP usability of carriers. The more you PvE with drones, the higher the chance that your ship is de-fanged. It's true for highsec, why wouldn't for null? High-sec drone takes up to 25m3 and has price of 1 million top. Fighter has size of 1000m3 and price of 9mil for T2 version (using Dragonfly as example) 1 Haven brings like 30 million. Now just imagine logistical nightmare and overall reasonability of doing Havens if you have considerable chance to lose 1-2 fighters even with perfect management? (Imagine that you can lose half of reward of lvl4 mission while doing it). That's the problem with fighters: they are NOT expendable drones.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 34999	Posted - 2017.06.11 18:05:52 - [24] - Quote I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. ß¦çß¦áß¦ç-Ç-Å ß¦ÿß¦Ç-Çß¦¢ ß¦Å-ô ß¦Ç +óß¦Çß¦ìß¦ç -£ß¦ç-ƒß¦ÿs ß¦¢ß¦Å ß¦¢ß¦ç-ƒ-ƒ ß¦Ç sß¦¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å =ƒôò ß¦í-£ß¦ç-Çß¦ç +¬s ß¦Ç+¦+ó-Ç-Å ß¦äß¦Å+¦ß¦äß¦Å-Çß¦à +óß¦£-Å ß¦í-£ß¦ç+¦ -Åß¦Åß¦£ +¦ß¦çß¦çß¦à -£+¬ß¦ì ß¦Åsß¦ÿ-Çß¦ç-Å =ƒÜÇ GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
Gogela Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance 3450	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:21:22 - [25] - Quote Misleading title. Signatures should be used responsibly...
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16139	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:28:13 - [26] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35033	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:44:23 - [27] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. What they are doin now is punishing everyone. Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them... ß¦çß¦áß¦ç-Ç-Å ß¦ÿß¦Ç-Çß¦¢ ß¦Å-ô ß¦Ç +óß¦Çß¦ìß¦ç -£ß¦ç-ƒß¦ÿs ß¦¢ß¦Å ß¦¢ß¦ç-ƒ-ƒ ß¦Ç sß¦¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å =ƒôò ß¦í-£ß¦ç-Çß¦ç +¬s ß¦Ç+¦+ó-Ç-Å ß¦äß¦Å+¦ß¦äß¦Å-Çß¦à +óß¦£-Å ß¦í-£ß¦ç+¦ -Åß¦Åß¦£ +¦ß¦çß¦çß¦à -£+¬ß¦ì ß¦Åsß¦ÿ-Çß¦ç-Å =ƒÜÇ GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
Indahmawar Fazmarai 5935	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:47:23 - [28] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. N+1 is a b*tch. "Mkay, let's balance fighter squadrons for the assumption of N+1 bored PvErs running anomalies N+1 hours a day, with N being anything between the current number and 1000% of it..."
Indahmawar Fazmarai 5935	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:54:56 - [29] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. What they are doin now is punishing everyone. Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them... "Targetted" would be "you can run only x anomalies per IP and 24 hours period, with X being a variable threshold depending on how hot are bounties compared to the economy". That's how targetted would be, in any of a range of cases, from the more crude (literal IP caps) to the more subtle (blackboxed spawn rate which reacts to player activity and economy performance). Otherwise, as I said above, N+1 will kill you if it just grows large enough. Hitting everyone with a swipe nerf could mean many things, but one is certain: TROUBLE.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:55:24 - [30] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. N+1 is a b*tch. "Mkay, let's balance fighter squadrons for the assumption of N+1 bored PvErs running anomalies N+1 hours a day, with N being anything between the current number and 1000% of it..." The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become. It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null. A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option. We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer. The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.

Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16140	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:55:39 - [31] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. What they are doin now is punishing everyone. Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them... How is fixing a class of weapon on ships most EVE characters can't even fly "punishing everyone"? And what they are doing IS targeted. The introduction of Fighter Squadrons caused the problem (before the introduction of fighter squadrons, isk from null bounties was reasonable, after fighter squadrons the isk influx is unreasonable and dangerous). CCP is fixing Fighter Squadrons (which caused the problem) not anomalies (which did not cause the problem). You can't get more targeted than that.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16140	Posted - 2017.06.12 14:04:43 - [32] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become. No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE. Before fighter squadrons, many of the people now injected into carriers were doing other things for isk like High Sec incursions, FW missions and other top end PVe things. When people found out how much you can make via the new fighter squadrons, they flocked to it like people flocked to to Rorqual recently and Incursions in the beginning before the 1st nerf. Some of those people don't even live in null sec they just injected and then put the character into a renter corp or a noob alliance like Brave oor Horde. It has nothing to do with 'null sec' beyond the fact that that is where the anomalies are (in the same way that many incursion runners were null sec or wormhole alts). The issue is people looking for and finding easy isk making, people like that don't have any 'borders'.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2017.06.12 14:10:24 - [33] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become. No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE. No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut. Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence. The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35035	Posted - 2017.06.12 14:17:21 - [34] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. What they are doin now is punishing everyone. Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them... How is fixing a class of weapon on ships most EVE characters can't even fly "punishing everyone"? And what they are doing IS targeted. The introduction of Fighter Squadrons caused the problem (before the introduction of fighter squadrons, isk from null bounties was reasonable, after fighter squadrons the isk influx is unreasonable and dangerous). CCP is fixing Fighter Squadrons (which caused the problem) not anomalies (which did not cause the problem). You can't get more targeted than that. They are punishing everyone using carriers for every reason there is, if they use fighters. The changes targeting fighters may have been done by introducing fighter menace to anomalies, NPCs very effective against fighters. One simple change and not a nerhammer to the shin for carriers. ß¦çß¦áß¦ç-Ç-Å ß¦ÿß¦Ç-Çß¦¢ ß¦Å-ô ß¦Ç +óß¦Çß¦ìß¦ç -£ß¦ç-ƒß¦ÿs ß¦¢ß¦Å ß¦¢ß¦ç-ƒ-ƒ ß¦Ç sß¦¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å =ƒôò ß¦í-£ß¦ç-Çß¦ç +¬s ß¦Ç+¦+ó-Ç-Å ß¦äß¦Å+¦ß¦äß¦Å-Çß¦à +óß¦£-Å ß¦í-£ß¦ç+¦ -Åß¦Åß¦£ +¦ß¦çß¦çß¦à -£+¬ß¦ì ß¦Åsß¦ÿ-Çß¦ç-Å =ƒÜÇ GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16140	Posted - 2017.06.12 14:21:45 - [35] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become. No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE. No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut. Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence. My leadership? WTF are you talking about? I lost my 1st ever carrier ratting in 2012 ( A Chimera on Cassius Rex) and no on said anything to me. I was never in a group that banned carrier ratting. Some people were. Do you mean that you are so prejudiced against nullsec that you don't understand that null is a collection of individuals in different groups not one big 'hive mind' kind of thing?
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16140	Posted - 2017.06.12 14:24:18 - [36] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: I just think that carriers did not need another nerf overall, but only in those anomalies. That would be perfect way of dealing with this situation. Sure, punish everyone for something caused by a very specific minority using something (fighter squadrons) that weren't' well thought out. Sorry, no. What they are doin now is punishing everyone. Changing anomalies so they are not going to be completed fast in a carrier would be something more targeted. As Larrikin said, they want targeted changes. But they dont do them... How is fixing a class of weapon on ships most EVE characters can't even fly "punishing everyone"? And what they are doing IS targeted. The introduction of Fighter Squadrons caused the problem (before the introduction of fighter squadrons, isk from null bounties was reasonable, after fighter squadrons the isk influx is unreasonable and dangerous). CCP is fixing Fighter Squadrons (which caused the problem) not anomalies (which did not cause the problem). You can't get more targeted than that. They are punishing everyone using carriers for every reason there is, if they use fighters. The changes targeting fighters may have been done by introducing fighter menace to anomalies, NPCs very effective against fighters. One simple change and not a nerhammer to the shin for carriers. So they would have to code new NPCs, rather than just fix the thing they know caused the problem? See, that's nonsense. Fighter Squadrons caused the problem. Fix fighter squadrons. Why is it such a hard idea for people to get, you fix the thing that caused the problem not everything else. If a car gets a flat tire you don't replace the engine, you fix the tire. Fighter Squadrons are the tire...
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2017.06.12 14:25:38 - [37] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become. No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE. No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut. Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence. My leadership? WTF are you talking about? I lost my 1st ever carrier ratting in 2012 ( A Chimera on Cassius Rex) and no on said anything to me. I was never in a group that banned carrier ratting. Some people were. Do you mean that you are so prejudiced against nullsec that you don't understand that null is a collection of individuals in different groups not one big 'hive mind' kind of thing? Actually I said your leadership, primarily because I don't actually care what group of spoiled brats you belong too. Null has become a joke at the center of this game, the pure fact that 2 Null regions can gain bounties almost equal to the rest of the entire game show just how bad the problem has become. The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35035	Posted - 2017.06.12 14:32:49 - [38] - Quote PvP is fun, anomalies are boring anyway. Of the two things CCP choose to nerf the wrong thing, they nerfed weapon and not the means of aquiring bounties by them. ß¦çß¦áß¦ç-Ç-Å ß¦ÿß¦Ç-Çß¦¢ ß¦Å-ô ß¦Ç +óß¦Çß¦ìß¦ç -£ß¦ç-ƒß¦ÿs ß¦¢ß¦Å ß¦¢ß¦ç-ƒ-ƒ ß¦Ç sß¦¢ß¦Å-Ç-Å =ƒôò ß¦í-£ß¦ç-Çß¦ç +¬s ß¦Ç+¦+ó-Ç-Å ß¦äß¦Å+¦ß¦äß¦Å-Çß¦à +óß¦£-Å ß¦í-£ß¦ç+¦ -Åß¦Åß¦£ +¦ß¦çß¦çß¦à -£+¬ß¦ì ß¦Åsß¦ÿ-Çß¦ç-Å =ƒÜÇ GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
Coralas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 161	Posted - 2017.06.12 14:35:18 - [39] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become. No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE. No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut. Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence. My leadership? WTF are you talking about? I lost my 1st ever carrier ratting in 2012 ( A Chimera on Cassius Rex) and no on said anything to me. I was never in a group that banned carrier ratting. Some people were. Do you mean that you are so prejudiced against nullsec that you don't understand that null is a collection of individuals in different groups not one big 'hive mind' kind of thing? The buddy list changes did make capital ratting a lot easier particularly for supers. Keepstars removed the remaining impediments to thinking of the super as not a strategic asset. Now the ratter can get out of her super ratter, change out of her super pod and go on a frigate roam, ie its barely more thought than me getting out of my domi to go fight.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16141	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:22:02 - [40] - Quote Coralas wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: The pure fact we are even discussing people running anomalies in carriers, shows how far out of whack Null space has become. No, just shows that you don't know much about null. People have been running anoms with Carriers for years. The problem is simply the introduction of Fighter Squadrons, which CCP introduced without thinking about or understanding that what is effective for PVP can be overpowered for PVE. No actually as little as 5 years ago if someone had suggested offering a big fat defenseless carrier ratting all by its lonesome in sov null, someone in your leadership would have lost their nut. Now Null has gone to pathetically safe and you consider big fat targets by them self as just a normal occurrence. My leadership? WTF are you talking about? I lost my 1st ever carrier ratting in 2012 ( A Chimera on Cassius Rex) and no on said anything to me. I was never in a group that banned carrier ratting. Some people were. Do you mean that you are so prejudiced against nullsec that you don't understand that null is a collection of individuals in different groups not one big 'hive mind' kind of thing? The buddy list changes did make capital ratting a lot easier particularly for supers. Keepstars removed the remaining impediments to thinking of the super as not a strategic asset. Now the ratter can get out of her super ratter, change out of her super pod and go on a frigate roam, ie its barely more thought than me getting out of my domi to go fight. That's convenience mostly ( I'm sure the watch list thing didn't help matters though). I was talking about 'safety', particularly the dumb idea of null sec (the place with no magical space police) being 'safe'. The only thing that improved Capital safety was jump fatigue, but even now super and capitals and get killed. And I personally don't use my carrier for ratting, because my MJD Battleships survive better. The whole point of what I've been saying that is that you can take all those other side issue people talk about and add them up and they don't amount to anything if you don't have Fighter Squadrons. You take away fighter squadrons and give Carriers and Supers their old style Fighters and Fighter Bombers and the Money supply doesn't increase near as much as it did with fighter squadrons. Fighter squadrons (and the fighter interface that makes controlling them easier than controlling normal drones) are the "grouped guns" of drones, and just like PVE site times across New Eden decreased greatly when CCP introduced group guns around 2010/2011, so too has it happened with Fighter Drones. All the other things people are talking about (like aegis sov and anomalies not having gates, and no major wars going on) are red herrings. On a side note this is why I always tell people to be cautious about asking for changes. EVE is a complicated, interconnected thing and no one (including CCP) can real grasp how one thing will affect dozens of others. Now one expected Fighter Squadrons (and all the things that helped exacerbate their power, like Skill injectors and the isolating effects of jump fatigue/jump distance) to have such a negative effect on things, but they did.

Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 1289	Posted - 2017.06.12 16:24:31 - [41] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null. A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option. We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer. Why shouldn't Sov Null be the safest option when being said safest option requires co-ordination and co-operation of hundreds of pilots? Part of the problem is actually Jump Fatigue. With fatigue mechanics, it's very safe to use a super or carrier for ratting (or Rorq for mining) so long as you're confident that no-one is in range to come whomp you and that if someone does come, you have an alliance to back you up and try to save your ISK Printer. The bulk of the tears and rage aren't so much about PvE, they're about the nerf to the PvP capabilities of carriers. If CCP wants to nerf their PvE ISK Printing ability, then target changes at THAT one problem, not just a lazy, blanket nerf. It'll be interesting to see what the actual changes will be. Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 203	Posted - 2017.06.12 16:32:08 - [42] - Quote Mephiztopheleze wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null. A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option. We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer. Why shouldn't Sov Null be the safest option when being said safest option requires co-ordination and co-operation of hundreds of pilots? Part of the problem is actually Jump Fatigue. With fatigue mechanics, it's very safe to use a super or carrier for ratting (or Rorq for mining) so long as you're confident that no-one is in range to come whomp you and that if someone does come, you have an alliance to back you up and try to save your ISK Printer. The bulk of the tears and rage aren't so much about PvE, they're about the nerf to the PvP capabilities of carriers. If CCP wants to nerf their PvE ISK Printing ability, then target changes at THAT one problem, not just a lazy, blanket nerf. It'll be interesting to see what the actual changes will be. Yes but the problem is that CCP has made that Safest option, a very valuable option as well. The fact that you can have a large standing army and the income to comfortably support them is what has killed Null. There is no competition for scare resources that drive conflict. CCP has given to much and needs to massively reduce the income streams in Null. The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16147	Posted - 2017.06.12 16:38:10 - [43] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Mephiztopheleze wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: It is frankly a joke that Sov Null is now so safe that bounty prizes can be so distorted by a tiny percentage of the player base in Null. A sickness crept into this game between ex-Null sec developers, Null sec CSMs and Null sec bitching. Now the game is warped to the point where Sov Null has become the safest most profitable option. We need a surgeon to cut out this cancer. Why shouldn't Sov Null be the safest option when being said safest option requires co-ordination and co-operation of hundreds of pilots? Part of the problem is actually Jump Fatigue. With fatigue mechanics, it's very safe to use a super or carrier for ratting (or Rorq for mining) so long as you're confident that no-one is in range to come whomp you and that if someone does come, you have an alliance to back you up and try to save your ISK Printer. The bulk of the tears and rage aren't so much about PvE, they're about the nerf to the PvP capabilities of carriers. If CCP wants to nerf their PvE ISK Printing ability, then target changes at THAT one problem, not just a lazy, blanket nerf. It'll be interesting to see what the actual changes will be. Yes but the problem is that CCP has made that Safest option, a very valuable option as well. The fact that you can have a large standing army and the income to comfortably support them is what has killed Null. There is no competition for scare resources that drive conflict. CCP has given to much and needs to massively reduce the income streams in Null. CCP needs to massively reduce the income streams ACROSS EVE. You know that people are just going to go back to clogging up the Incursion lines in high sec if null gets nerfed too much right? Or FW or whatever. People don't compete for resources, they compete for 'content'.it's always been that way, CCP (and many players) have always failed to understand that, and you end up with the DEVs trying to give rewards for things when they should make players have to make interesting choices. This is why CCP making lvl 5 missions for low sec didn't start a stampede to low sec. This is why this change did not spur war, it spurred renting. You've had years to observe the game, yet you keep coming to conclusions that real events with the game prove just don't work. I don't understand that.
Coralas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 162	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:59:33 - [44] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: CCP needs to massively reduce the income streams ACROSS EVE. You know that people are just going to go back to clogging up the Incursion lines in high sec if null gets nerfed too much right? Or FW or whatever. People don't compete for resources, they compete for 'content'.it's always been that way, CCP (and many players) have always failed to understand that, and you end up with the DEVs trying to give rewards for things when they should make players have to make interesting choices. This is why CCP making lvl 5 missions for low sec didn't start a stampede to low sec. This is why this change did not spur war, it spurred renting. You've had years to observe the game, yet you keep coming to conclusions that real events with the game prove just don't work. I don't understand that. Nah the pre 2011 flat system was more desirable for renting, as is the current havens for everybody system, but the rental empire just can't be half the map anymore because of fozzie sov, and like everything in the game, effectiveness of exploitation is a thing that moves as knowledge of how to do it grew - rental empires in 2014 were simply better understood than in 2010, and when goons exploit a thing, they min/max it to its ultimate. Locally the behavior is so different. NC and then MC kicked init out of syndicate/cloud ring where I live and they just left the cloud ring systems to rot. That is not the way dominion worked. Whilst wand-sov sucks it has the major benefit of stopping people wanting to pick up sov unnecessarily, which opens smaller scale holdings. Also majors view piracy locations as more desirable than bad sov systems, which is why MC holds the prime syndicate choke with a 24x7 camp, in preference to bad truesec sov in cloud ring. Amish picked up the most campable of locations along the pipe that init was kicked out of, etc. Having smaller scale holdings behind that is no longer a security problem, its now a traffic source.
Salvos Rhoska 3039	Posted - 2017.06.13 07:17:30 - [45] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: CCP needs to massively reduce the income streams ACROSS EVE. "Everything is fine." "Malcanis' Law" "Carebears crying" "Some people do nothing but yell for change" "EVE is dying" Etc. PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 821	Posted - 2017.06.13 09:46:44 - [46] - Quote There are people believing that CCP don't interfere with market? Waaaat? CCP even admited it on some fanfest panel about economy in EvE. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Salvos Rhoska 3039	Posted - 2017.06.13 10:23:04 - [47] - Quote Aside from CCP re-introducing contraband PLEX from banned accounts to the market, I dont know of any CCP interference in markets. PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 821	Posted - 2017.06.13 11:51:00 - [48] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Aside from CCP re-introducing contraband PLEX from banned accounts to the market, I dont know of any CCP interference in markets. There was an presentation at 2014 fanfest about PLEX, they were interfere with PLEX market directly. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Darek Castigatus Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 756	Posted - 2017.06.13 16:56:43 - [49] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Aside from CCP re-introducing contraband PLEX from banned accounts to the market, I dont know of any CCP interference in markets. There was an presentation at 2014 fanfest about PLEX, they were interfere with PLEX market directly. Yes, using the method described in the quoted post. This does not make it a new thing or something people should be up in arms about. Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin you're welcome
Salvos Rhoska 3039	Posted - 2017.06.13 20:53:31 - [50] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: Aside from CCP re-introducing contraband PLEX from banned accounts to the market, I dont know of any CCP interference in markets. There was an presentation at 2014 fanfest about PLEX, they were interfere with PLEX market directly. Just selling confiscated PLEX from banned accounts back into the market. They have always done that. PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent

Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6664	Posted - 2017.06.14 05:01:19 - [51] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks. When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy. The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... "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
Salvos Rhoska 3039	Posted - 2017.06.14 06:19:13 - [52] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks. When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy. The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... The amount of isk from anoms wasnt changed. What ship people run them with is still a players own choice, If there is a drop in the disproportionate amount of isk that was being printed via carrier ratting, it will be a result of player choices. I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount. PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 215	Posted - 2017.06.14 08:04:31 - [53] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks. When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy. The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... Yes but you could be telling people that their Carriers and Super Carriers are a sunk cost The CSM gets in the way of CCP communicating properly with the players of this game. After all we are not just players, we are customers. Time for the CSM to be disbanded.
Ryder 'ook Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 160	Posted - 2017.06.14 13:17:22 - [54] - Quote In my first Corp after my long hiatus I was told to train (or better inject) myself into a carrier because "they are the new battleships now and elite-null-pvp doesn't need no sub cap support anymore" (quoting my -then CEO). That's why I went on to BRAVE. Because I actually enjoy flying smaller, faster ships. So, all the people complaining about the carrier nerf for pvp want this trend to continue? - To marginalize any and all sub cap ships in the face of ever growing cap fleets built around a carrier backbone with minimal (if any at all) sub cap support? Really? I dont, so I call this change a good one. Every atom in our bodies was forged in the furnace of ancient stars - it's time we return home.
ISD Stall ISD STAR 39	Posted - 2017.06.14 13:39:37 - [55] - Quote DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach is just to manipulate the economy, increasing prices, decreasing global isk incoming, and first time no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy, why sems no longer offert demand is the rule. To be fair, my interpretation of the "No market intervention" rule is that CCP do not change the code that dictates market transactions, limiting the prices that items can sell for or outright changing the cost of items on the market. You can sell or buy any item at any cost you want if you can find someone to sell to or buy from. To say that CCP never interfere with the market is just wrong. Every single time CCP does anything that affects the ships and their balance they in one way or another affect the market. By changing anything pilots will find a new optimal piloting experience, ships, modules, skill books and other items will go up or down in demand changing the price and so on. If a player was to insist that CCP stayed out of the market, they would have to sit back and not make a single change to the game. Players would get bored and well you know. ISD Stall Support Training and Resources (STAR) Community Communications Liaison (CCL) Interstellar Services Department.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.14 13:45:43 - [56] - Quote Ryder 'ook wrote: In my first Corp after my long hiatus I was told to train (or better inject) myself into a carrier because "they are the new battleships now and elite-null-pvp doesn't need no sub cap support anymore" (quoting my -then CEO). That's why I went on to BRAVE. Because I actually enjoy flying smaller, faster ships. So, all the people complaining about the carrier nerf for pvp want this trend to continue? - To marginalize any and all sub cap ships in the face of ever growing cap fleets built around a carrier backbone with minimal (if any at all) sub cap support? Really? I dont, so I call this change a good one. So... when your old corp had a roving interceptor band in their space they'd send out dreads and carriers to take care of them? Huh.
Vash Bloodstone Chiaotzu's Revenge 40	Posted - 2017.06.14 15:44:37 - [57] - Quote ISD Stall wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach is just to manipulate the economy, increasing prices, decreasing global isk incoming, and first time no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy, why sems no longer offert demand is the rule. To be fair, my interpretation of the "No market intervention" rule is that CCP do not change the code that dictates market transactions, limiting the prices that items can sell for or outright changing the cost of items on the market. You can sell or buy any item at any cost you want if you can find someone to sell to or buy from. To say that CCP never interfere with the market is just wrong. Every single time CCP does anything that affects the ships and their balance they in one way or another affect the market. By changing anything pilots will find a new optimal piloting experience, ships, modules, skill books and other items will go up or down in demand changing the price and so on. If a player was to insist that CCP stayed out of the market, they would have to sit back and not make a single change to the game. Players would get bored and well you know. Something about this seems off. First, I would ask, what really is a market? There seems to be two main components to a marketplace, the goods and services being sold, and the actual people buying or selling said good or services. CCP obviously always "interferes" with the goods and services part, in that it occasionally offers different stuff they can buy, also they created the market in the first place and it's currency. However, what they are doing now, is not merely changing the goods or services, they are trying to manipulate the people in that marketplace because they don't like the decisions those people have made. And I think this is part of the reason why some are mad at this. Basically, you are trying to manipulate the behavior of people through the economy, whereas before, your previous manipulations merely added more choices, and not eliminated them. In fact, I got nothing against changing player behavior, but it should be made through game design, not economic manipulation. Lets take a real world example. Let's say you have an alcoholic, do you try to help him by increasing the cost of alcohol, or would you rather try to help him by taking him to a AA meeting? The choice is yours.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3413	Posted - 2017.06.14 16:36:11 - [58] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: PvP is fun, anomalies are boring anyway. Of the two things CCP choose to nerf the wrong thing, they nerfed weapon and not the means of aquiring bounties by them. The mean of acquiring bounties in the reckless way is to use fighter squadrons. That's why they nerfed fighter squadrons.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3413	Posted - 2017.06.14 16:40:49 - [59] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount. There are a lot of unknown factors like how many go from one ratting account with a carrier/super to multiple with VNI/AFKtars.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.14 16:42:12 - [60] - Quote Vash Bloodstone wrote: ISD Stall wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach is just to manipulate the economy, increasing prices, decreasing global isk incoming, and first time no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy, why sems no longer offert demand is the rule. To be fair, my interpretation of the "No market intervention" rule is that CCP do not change the code that dictates market transactions, limiting the prices that items can sell for or outright changing the cost of items on the market. You can sell or buy any item at any cost you want if you can find someone to sell to or buy from. To say that CCP never interfere with the market is just wrong. Every single time CCP does anything that affects the ships and their balance they in one way or another affect the market. By changing anything pilots will find a new optimal piloting experience, ships, modules, skill books and other items will go up or down in demand changing the price and so on. If a player was to insist that CCP stayed out of the market, they would have to sit back and not make a single change to the game. Players would get bored and well you know. Something about this seems off. First, I would ask, what really is a market? There seems to be two main components to a marketplace, the goods and services being sold, and the actual people buying or selling said good or services. CCP obviously always "interferes" with the goods and services part, in that it occasionally offers different stuff they can buy, also they created the market in the first place and it's currency. However, what they are doing now, is not merely changing the goods or services, they are trying to manipulate the people in that marketplace because they don't like the decisions those people have made. And I think this is part of the reason why some are mad at this. Basically, you are trying to manipulate the behavior of people through the economy, whereas before, your previous manipulations merely added more choices, and not eliminated them. In fact, I got nothing against changing player behavior, but it should be made through game design, not economic manipulation. Lets take a real world example. Let's say you have an alcoholic, do you try to help him by increasing the cost of alcohol, or would you rather try to help him by taking him to a AA meeting? The choice is yours. I'll just point out that "sin taxes" are in fact a real thing and are intended to lower the number of people who consume the items being taxed in that manner (like alcohol). In fact... in many governments they are MUCH more likely to create a "sin tax" then they are to publicly fund a recovery group like AA. I don't think that particular analogy works.

Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.14 16:44:34 - [61] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount. There are a lot of unknown factors like how many go from one ratting account with a carrier/super to multiple with VNI/AFKtars. I'm confused by this. If they already could use multiple accounts to rat... why aren't they using multiple carriers (or one carrier and a bunch of VNI's if they don't have the skill)? I mean... 6 accounts at 20m a tick in VNI vs 6 accounts at 200m a tick in carriers... why would they only start mutliboxing ships when carriers are nerfed? I'd assume they already are.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3413	Posted - 2017.06.14 16:48:10 - [62] - Quote Scialt wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Salvos Rhoska wrote: I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount. There are a lot of unknown factors like how many go from one ratting account with a carrier/super to multiple with VNI/AFKtars. I'm confused by this. If they already could use multiple accounts to rat... why aren't they using multiple carriers (or one carrier and a bunch of VNI's if they don't have the skill)? I mean... 6 accounts at 20m a tick in VNI vs 6 accounts at 200m a tick in carriers... why would they only start mutliboxing ships when carriers are nerfed? I'd assume they already are. Well multiple carrier/supers is a no go unless you literally are a piano virtuoso + expert multi tasker. You really have to take care of the squadrons now so you can't really multi box. Carrier + VNIs probably have some people doing that but the hassle of extra account if you already make "enough" with just the carrier probably put off some people. The key issue about future PLEX prediction si that we don't know how many will go the try-hard way and create many new accounts which would increase the PLEX demand.
Teckos Pech Amok. Goonswarm Federation 6666	Posted - 2017.06.14 16:51:58 - [63] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks. When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy. The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... Yes but you could be telling people that their Carriers and Super Carriers are a sunk cost 1. They aren't sunk if you can sell them and recover your investment. 2. If they are sunk costs, those costs are irrelevant to any calculation from that point forward. "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 6667	Posted - 2017.06.14 19:43:01 - [64] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: DARK SYCOPATA wrote: This nex pach just break this historial rule. all the nerf in this pach just is to manipulate the economy, incresin prices, decreasing global isk incoming and a no real money based injection of PLEX, is the end of the social experiment? PD: i solt my plex and freeze my inversi+¦ns until CCP stop this intervention in the Economy why sems no longer offert demand in the rule. CCP have always controlled the amount of cash created via bounties ect and the like and the amount of cash destroyed by isk sinks. When one is out of balance with the other it causes problems in the economy. The biggest problem with the patch on Tuesday however is the constant whining from those who have been given boosts time and time again and now feel the sting of a nerf to their cash supply, like so much of the game has in the last decade. You missed the parts about how decreasing the growth rate of ISK in the game is going to actually raise prices..... The amount of isk from anoms wasnt changed. What ship people run them with is still a players own choice, If there is a drop in the disproportionate amount of isk that was being printed via carrier ratting, it will be a result of player choices. I expect prices will drop rather than increase as a result, as the demand monetized by carrier ratting drops by x amount. Actually it did increase. The rate of increase after October 2016 the rate of increase in bounties went from 1.5T ISK to 3.2T ISK. March 2016 ISK from bounties was 37.6T ISK, March 2017 it was 66.650T ISK, about a 77.2% increase. And that is where you can get a problem. If the money supply is growing faster than the real economy, then you can get inflation. "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
Djsaeu Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 69	Posted - 2017.06.14 20:32:26 - [65] - Quote How many have said it? Now it is my turn. I LOVE YOUR TEARS!!!
Salvos Rhoska 3039	Posted - 2017.06.15 05:40:54 - [66] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: Actually it did increase. I meant the isk value of anoms did not change. PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.