EVE Search - What exactly did CCP nerf and what's all the fuss about?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What exactly did CCP nerf and what's all the fuss about?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 158	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:52:31 - [1] - Quote I kind of feel like CCP needs to do more with the space and less with ships when it comes to wanting to nerf ships due to PvE. You don't want people to rat in capital ships? At each anom put a gate... the gate doesn't allow ships bigger than battleships. Cyno's don't work in the pocket. But the actual changing of ship stats (other than mining ships) should probably be based mostly on PvP.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 158	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:15:21 - [2] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Scialt wrote: I kind of feel like CCP needs to do more with the space and less with ships when it comes to wanting to nerf ships due to PvE. You don't want people to rat in capital ships? At each anom put a gate... the gate doesn't allow ships bigger than battleships. Cyno's don't work in the pocket. But the actual changing of ship stats (other than mining ships) should probably be based mostly on PvP. Why do people keep saying this. You know a gate would make anoms super safe (because anyone trying to kill you would have to go through a gate, giving the ratter more time to get out). It would mean fewer people would die in anoms which means MORE PEOPLE DOING ANOMS = "didn't fix the problem". Fighter Squadrons caused the problem. Fighter Squadrons getting nerfed. Why affect everyone else when you know what the problem is and can just deal with that specific thing? No offense, but you have to be asleep to die at an anom now. I mean if you sit at 0, never refresh your d-scan and have your local hidden than you'll die... but that guy will die behind a gate too. I don't think this will increase the number of ratters. It will just decrease the size of the ships for those ratting in capitals. And that means less isk payouts. Anom ratting is pretty safe either way unless you're AFK.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 158	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:43:27 - [3] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Scialt wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Scialt wrote: I kind of feel like CCP needs to do more with the space and less with ships when it comes to wanting to nerf ships due to PvE. You don't want people to rat in capital ships? At each anom put a gate... the gate doesn't allow ships bigger than battleships. Cyno's don't work in the pocket. But the actual changing of ship stats (other than mining ships) should probably be based mostly on PvP. Why do people keep saying this. You know a gate would make anoms super safe (because anyone trying to kill you would have to go through a gate, giving the ratter more time to get out). It would mean fewer people would die in anoms which means MORE PEOPLE DOING ANOMS = "didn't fix the problem". Fighter Squadrons caused the problem. Fighter Squadrons getting nerfed. Why affect everyone else when you know what the problem is and can just deal with that specific thing? No offense, but you have to be asleep to die at an anom now. I mean if you sit at 0, never refresh your d-scan and have your local hidden than you'll die... but that guy will die behind a gate too. I don't think this will increase the number of ratters. It will just decrease the size of the ships for those ratting in capitals. And that means less isk payouts. Anom ratting is pretty safe either way unless you're AFK. and yet zkill is littered with dead ratting ships. Because lots of people ARE almost asleep lol. or they get scrammed by a npc frig at exactly the wrong moment, or the get stuck on a rock/structure as they try to warp off etc. Gated anoms take away even that amount of danger. But even still, the idea violates what should be dev principle #1, which is "if there is a problem,, fix the problem, don't treat the symptoms only". The problem here was fighter squadrons, so CCP fixes fighter squadrons. I'd be just as happy if they got rid of them (but kept the fighter control interface) and let Carriers and Supers have regular drones/fighters/fighter bombers again. people complained about 'afk carriers with Geckos' making isk, but afk carriers didn't do this to the money supply of EVE online. You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention. The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:11:37 - [4] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Scialt wrote: You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention. The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works. Which is wrong because the anom didn't cause the problem. Would you like me to link the Monthly Economic reports from right before the introduction of fighter squadrons? Anomaly ratting is about time (warp time negatively affects income, which is why to most egregious ratting supers have Hyper Spatial rigs). Gates on anoms slow down sub caps too, meaning the price of not having supers and carriers wreck the eve economy is lower income for the sub cap ratters who didn't wreck the economy. The only way around that would be to then increase the bounties of the rats in the anoms to compensate for the additional warp times, which would be dumb. Nope, the thing to do is to fix the ONE THING that caused the problem. And that is Fighter Squadrons. It's amazing to me that people know that when CCP nerfs stuff they tend to nerf the wrong thing, and the one time that actually nerf the disease (Fighter squadrons) instead of a random symptom, people start asking them to not do that. Neither the fighter squadrons nor the anoms caused the problem. Fighter squadrons work fine for PvP. Anoms work fine for non-cap ratting. The problem is caused by the combination of the two... fighter squadrons in anoms. You're only looking at one side of the equation (the fighter squadron). But your answer (and CCP's) kills carriers ability in PvP by making a fix only needed... in anoms. The other option (which you dismiss) is addressing the other side... anoms themselves. By banning carriers from anom ratting you solve the issue without killing carriers for PvP. The downside is that ratters will get about 30 more seconds to react to reds coming to their ratting spot. This would also impact how you arrive... as everyone (Ratters and Pirates alike) would come in at 0 instead of having the option to come in at range. Gating anoms may not be a good answer.. but you have to correctly address the problem... which is the ability of carriers to make dank isk ratting... without nerfing their PvP usage like this solution does.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:16:37 - [5] - Quote Coralas wrote: Scialt wrote: You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention. The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works. If they are going to change anomolies, they could do a hell of a lot more than gate them. In fact gating them removes one of the few charms (warp to preferred range), which active players build around. I'm guessing however that this is a summer expansion scale problem for the modern CCP, which is why nerfing fighters is necessary. All this change is doing is stopping that graph getting even more spread on it, its not actually putting EVE back into a pre everyone is ratting in supers box. Lets face it, nobody is actually going to stop ratting in their super, they'll still do whatever makes the most money, and that is still it. i also think gating makes for a useful reduction in safety warps for me, because that _will_ delay a ceptor by actual seconds, which is big news if i'm ratting in a sentry boat or anything else that can't be perma aligned. I've been both scenarios, and imo I think it negatively harms strategies like spike gating and sending ships to every anomoly to try catch someone and I think that is not an improvement. The gate is a simple answer that has already been implemented in many other areas (such as FW plexes). A better (but likely harder to code) solution would be to make it so that no caps can warp to anom sites nor have cynos dropped at anom sites... while leaving everything else the same. The point is that the gate is a similar quick fix to reducing the damage of fighters... but in my opinion has less negative impact overall (making a class of ship useless in PvP).
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:44:24 - [6] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Scialt wrote: Coralas wrote: Scialt wrote: You're talking about what? 30 seconds of added time to activate the gate at the warp in? This isn't like a DED site where you have to slow boat between gates to get to the pocket where the site runner is at. It's like FW plexes where you go through one gate. The people who are asleep will still be asleep and will still get popped. The awake people will still get away just like they do now. Few people get caught at anoms unless they are not paying attention. The problem isn't with fighter squadrons. It's with fighter squadrons AT ANOMS. You're focusing on the fighter squadron. I'm proposing to leave that alone (since the squadrons are not overpowered for PvP) and instead change how the anomaly works. If they are going to change anomolies, they could do a hell of a lot more than gate them. In fact gating them removes one of the few charms (warp to preferred range), which active players build around. I'm guessing however that this is a summer expansion scale problem for the modern CCP, which is why nerfing fighters is necessary. All this change is doing is stopping that graph getting even more spread on it, its not actually putting EVE back into a pre everyone is ratting in supers box. Lets face it, nobody is actually going to stop ratting in their super, they'll still do whatever makes the most money, and that is still it. i also think gating makes for a useful reduction in safety warps for me, because that _will_ delay a ceptor by actual seconds, which is big news if i'm ratting in a sentry boat or anything else that can't be perma aligned. I've been both scenarios, and imo I think it negatively harms strategies like spike gating and sending ships to every anomoly to try catch someone and I think that is not an improvement. The gate is a simple answer that has already been implemented in many other areas (such as FW plexes). A better (but likely harder to code) solution would be to make it so that no caps can warp to anom sites nor have cynos dropped at anom sites... while leaving everything else the same. The point is that the gate is a similar quick fix to reducing the damage of fighters... but in my opinion has less negative impact overall (making a class of ship useless in PvP). So you'd make ratters undroppable by capital ships in anoms? I know where I'd stange my sub cap fleet EVERY Time I needed to right before a fight. The problem here is that you are trying to preserve something (carrier's current pvp ability) by totally ignoring the fact that ONE THING cause a problem and needs fixing. Carrier/super ratting didn't not screw the economy before fighter squadrons, after fighter squadrons they did. CCP got it right this time by fixing the source of the problem instead of screw up anoms for everyone like they did with Tracking titans. When people learned how to use Tracking titans (titan plus tracking link scimitar) to attack the one class of anomalies that didn't have frigates (Forsaken Hubs), CCP responded 1st by adding frigs to forsaken hubs. That slowed down forsaken hubs for EVERYONE and only put a small dent into titan ratters. Eventually CCP fixed the core problem (titans) by removing the ability to receive remote assistance (so no tracking Scimitar). Finally, CCP learned from it's Tracking Titan mistake, instead of screwing up the anomaly for everyone, they fixed the bloody thing that caused the problem (Fighter Squadrons). CCP should be congratulated for this IMO. I'm willing to bet that lots of people complaining about this weren't even around to witness the tracking titan debacle so they don't understand why 'just fix the anoms' is the wrong answer. I'm going to have to give up on this because you refuse to accept the idea that figher squadrons aren't the problem, but rather the ability to make too much isk from fighter squadrons as being the problem. How about this as a solution. No NPC bounties for kills with capital ships (probably just in anomalies). Would any nerf to fighters be needed if that were implemented?
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 18:17:08 - [7] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Scialt wrote: I'm going to have to give up on this because you refuse to accept the idea that figher squadrons aren't the problem, but rather the ability to make too much isk from fighter squadrons as being the problem. How about this as a solution. No NPC bounties for kills with capital ships (probably just in anomalies). Would any nerf to fighters be needed if that were implemented? Taking carriers out of anomalies takes away good pvp targets. And CCP has a hard time coding a UI, you want them to code in a removal of bounties? I don't accept an idea if that idea is a self serving lie. It's simple common sense, before fighter squadrons carriers could not generate the isk per hour that can now, even though they could do virtually the same paper DPS. AFTER fighter squadrons, you get the current results that are well documented. Did you play EVE when tracking titans were a thing? Do you remember the pain and the complaining for and against those? I saw how CCP nerfed something for everyone (forsaken hubs) to keep from nerfing the handful of Titan pilots who were pounding out isk, and I personally never want to see that again. Um... this change (reducing fighter damage) DOES take carriers out of anomalies. They'll be replaced by Rattlesnakes that (even with the new prices for pirate BS) will be able to make the same isk at half the cost. That's the same result as not allowing the carriers into the anomaly or not allowing them to make isk in the anomaly. The only difference is those other two actions don't ALSO nerf the carrier for PvP. As for the coding... "If ship_type = X, set bounty = bounty * 0" is a pretty simple piece of code. They already multiply bounties times the inverse of a corp tax rate. I started eve in 2006. I've taken tons of breaks (including the period where Titans proliferated... back then was the "there will only ever be 5-6 Titans in Eve" thought). Carriers aren't uncommon ships anymore. Nothing about anything I've proposed in any way nerfs anomalies for anyone OTHER than cap pilots. *edit* And for the record, I don't actually fly a carrier. My PvE is marauder/rattlesnake focused and my PvP is focused more on FW (or logistics for big fleets). This doesn't really have a direct impact on me. It just feels like the wrong solution to the problem.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:02:18 - [8] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Scialt wrote: Nothing about anything I've proposed in any way nerfs anomalies for anyone OTHER than cap pilots. Yes it does, you were the one who mentioned gates. Gates would put a big crimp in sub cap income earning and make subcaps safer for even unaware players which is the wrong thing to do. Taking carriers out of anoms is bad too, and scrwing around with coding issues when you have a simple fix in front of you is terrible. And why? All because it doesn't 'feel" right to do it the simplest way? Regardless of how it feels, it's a good thing because CCP isn't repeating an old mistake by trying to fix a ship by nerfing the anoms that aren't the problem. The biggest mistake CCP could have made would have been failing to learn from that long ago lesson. How exactly would gates put a big crimp in sub cap income earning? Are you talking about the time it takes to get to range once you enter as opposed to arriving at range? I honestly use both ranged and warp to zero anom ships (all subcap) and I simply don't understand this at all. Hitting a MJD isn't exactly time consuming. What are you seeing that I'm missing? Why is taking carriers out of anoms bad? I think it will happen either way. Taking them out of PvP AND anoms seems worse than just taking them out of anoms. As far as the safety... that's not a nerf for sub-cap ratters. If you are correct and it makes them a lot safer... that's a buff. The ONLY problem is income from carriers in anoms. Right? If that's the case why nerf both their PvP and anom running potential when you can just do one? Your reasons don't seem to match what you're proposing. If carrier's are only a problem in anomalies... why nerf them in PvP?
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:11:41 - [9] - Quote Zanar Skwigelf wrote: There is no way anyone advocating for gates to anoms has ratted behind a gate with neuts in system. You know where the safest place in the system is when your blinged BS is getting probed down? Inside the gate. If you can kill everything in that room before the neut lands, hit your cloak and you are now 100% impossible to find since the neut can't warp to you and hope they decloak you when they land. If you can't kill everything before the neut arrives, you can either: 1) set up an ambush and kill the neut since you know exactly where he will land. 2) set up a bubble, align to your safe, wait for him to land in your bubble and warp off. 3) warp off without a bubble in your wake. There is no reason to warp to a safe when you are behind a gate when neuts enter system, because you don't know where they are, and they can't reach you behind the gate. I know that gated anoms would still be on the scan list, but placing a cloaked alt / small t1 bubble / handful of corpmates in pvp ships at the entrance gate will give significantly more protection compared to what we have currently, since the neut can land anywhere in the anom. Its like LM said in the RNK pipe bombing video, if you control where your enemy is on the battlefield, you are at a significant advantage. Gating anoms gives complete control of the neut's location to the ratter and his friends/alts. Here's the thing... I do fly a blinged BS... both in anoms and on gates. If I see reds in system I warp out immediately... because I'm a coward and don't want to lose by blinged BS. I understand that behind a gate I have more time. I do realize I can probably finish off the ship I'm killing before calling my gecko back and warping to a safe and cloaking. Unless the guy is REALLY fast and lucky and finding my anom, guessing the range I'm at and landing a scram... I'm safe either way. The extra 30 seconds or so doesn't matter. If I fall asleep at my keyboard... I'm toast either way. The extra 30 seconds or so doesn't matter. We're really talking about the situation where the reds warp in on you as a NPC gets a scram as the only scenario where it realistically makes a difference in terms of being able to be safe. Now your discussions about counters are correct... but so what? That's still conflict. There are still bait games and traps an anomalies now. While it makes the dynamics of the fight closer to restricted FW plexes than the current way of conflict at anomalies or belts, I fail to see why that matters. It doesn't make them significantly more able to avoid a fight... it just makes it more possible for them to take the fight and win. And more fights being taken = more content... which is good, right? We aren't talking about the attackers winning more... we're talking about being able to force a fight.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:22:57 - [10] - Quote Coralas wrote: Scialt wrote: Um... this change (reducing fighter damage) DOES take carriers out of anomalies. They'll be replaced by Rattlesnakes that (even with the new prices for pirate BS) will be able to make the same isk at half the cost. That's the same result as not allowing the carriers into the anomaly or not allowing them to make isk in the anomaly. The only difference is those other two actions don't ALSO nerf the carrier for PvP. (a) god forbid a battleship be useful. (b) supercarriers will still make more isk/hr than a rattlesnake. (c) I will be able to fly a thanatos long before I bother to go back and train a useful amount of missiles to make a rattlesnake do full damage. (d) I'd still expect a thanatos to rat at ~45m/tick, which is still a massive upgrade from my domi. I don't use Domi's... but my VNI makes about 20m a tick and my RS makes about 30-35m a tick (though it's probably focused too much on the tank side to maximize income from anoms... plus I'm using T1 missiles). Just a FYI on the RS... with no missiles fitted it still out DPS's a Dominix. I was slow to buy one. I wish I had made the jump sooner.

Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:37:36 - [11] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Because "just doing one" would screw up other things, while doing what CCP is doing has the least impact on both pvp and the economy. The pvp nerf is incidental and regrettable, but capital pvp in sov only affects a few people relatively speaking (lots of people play EVE without partaking in sov warfare), the economy affects every single EVE player and is more important. Nobody is arguing the economic need to remove the insane ticks from carriers in anoms. The only discussion is the solution. CCP's solution is to nerf the carrier as a class of ship in all areas of the game. I'm saying the nerf should only happen where the problem is... in anomalies. I can concede that what ideas I float may be flawed. My thinking about this issue has involved all of a few hours of thought. But I can't understand why anyone would favor a blanket nerf when nobody thinks carriers are overpowerd in PvP... only in ratting. Look... divide bounties for anyone in a carrier/supercarrier by 2 (or 3, or for or whatever is appropriate). This has the same impact in their ability to make isk... but leaves their viability in PvP. We are already doing a bounty calculation ont he server every time you kill a rat. It already does mathematical operations (divide by the number of ships in your fleet on grid). So... add one that divides the bounty at that time based on shiptype. The problem is in the way the economy is impacted. We all agree on that. Make the solution isk based rather than damage based. You solve the problem without screwing with the ship's use in PvP.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:50:19 - [12] - Quote Zanar Skwigelf wrote: Scialt wrote: I understand that behind a gate I have more time. I do realize I can probably finish off the ship I'm killing before calling my gecko back and warping to a safe and cloaking. The difference is that you don't have to leave the gate to cloak up, and you know exactly where the neut is going to land and which direction he is coming from. Right now, you can get landed on from any of the system gates, a wormhole that just spawned, or a login from a safespot. With the anom gate, the neut can only land at the beacon, from the direction of the anom gate. None of those things matter when you are alone in a system running a 10/10, but when you are home with 30 corpmates in local, the predictability gives you a significant advantage to sending the neut home on the pod express. If the red gets blown up really isn't material to my safety if I'm ratting. I guess the point is that if I'm running at the first sign of trouble... I'm safe regardless of the gate. The closest I've ever been is when my drones were 50km away and I waited to recall them... and even then I was entering warp just as the red was landing on grid. My losses in anoms were when I thought I could go AFK for a couple of minutes and came back to find myself tackled (or dead). That result wouldn't have changed with a gate. I don't really think the ability to trap and kill the red factors into the discussion of safety. That's content... and it's not about who wins the content that's as important as if the content occurs. If gates created more ganks of hunters... that would be a positive factor in the discussion... because the fight happened. Doesn't really matter who wins. But again, I'm not hung up on gates as the answer. I just think that if the OP-ness of carriers is SOLELY due to their anom ratting potential... the nerf should be limited to that as well. Divide carrier bounties by 3. Don't let them in. Whatever the answer is it doesn't make sense to implement a blanket nerf that kills their usefullness in an area where they are not OP to answer an issue in an area where they are.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:00:40 - [13] - Quote The fighter agreession piece was the one part that should NOT have been rolled back at all. CCP seems to think carriers are too useful for PvP. I haven't seen many that believe that... but if that's their goal then the new reduced nerf to damage might at least result in them having some viability. But the part that should have remained nerfed in full is the fighter aggression. That's a method of making ratting harder for carriers that has NO impact on PvP. Ah well.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:38:09 - [14] - Quote Marek Kanenald wrote: Scialt wrote: The fighter agreession piece was the one part that should NOT have been rolled back at all. CCP seems to think carriers are too useful for PvP. I haven't seen many that believe that... but if that's their goal then the new reduced nerf to damage might at least result in them having some viability. But the part that should have remained nerfed in full is the fighter aggression. That's a method of making ratting harder for carriers that has NO impact on PvP. Ah well. I think that this isn't intended to deal with the ratting issue. The fighter nerfs are purely a pvp nerf. A new way of nerfing carrier ratting will be thought off. Though personally I think carriers aren't the problem, its the instantly re-spawning anomalies that just keep churning out cash. The justification for the nerf was entirely based on bounties for rats, so I disagree. They should have left the aggression change in place and just rolled back some of the damage side.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.13 17:27:20 - [15] - Quote Tikhor Kajyar wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: After all Null sec is meant to to outlaw territory, not the land where it rains gold while you sit on your butt. Now, that sentence made me smile I think it's a flawed view of null-sec though. Null sec is space that the 4 factions and concord don't police. But it's as safe as the dominant power in the region wants to (or is able to) make it for their locals. A strong player corp can definitely make null-sec systems more safe than an uncontrolled area of low-sec. Once concord is out of the picture... it really just comes down to how effective the system "player police" are to determine how safe the area is. Some null-sec coalitions are very effective.