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

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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Callum Perkins Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 3	Posted - 2017.06.11 12:37:42 - [1] - Quote Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain?
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 182	Posted - 2017.06.11 12:48:49 - [2] - Quote Callum Perkins wrote: Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? CCP on Tuesday will be making the following alterations to fighters. Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage. Support Fighters: No Change Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage. Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage. Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently. This is due in a large part to Carriers running anomalies in Delve and Deklein with the totals of bounties in the game doubling in the last 12-18 months. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/1_regional.stats.png So a huge isk faucet for Null is being threatened and they are complaining. It also effects the carriers effects in PvP but then so does a T1 frigate with a jammer. 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.
Skorpynekomimi 723	Posted - 2017.06.11 12:49:06 - [3] - Quote They reduced fighter damage from carriers, to reduce the isk/hr of farming nullsec anomalies. On top of reducing the Rorqual's yield even further. It's pretty much entirely a few rich buggers whining about it on the 5000 accounts they had to turn their plentiful ISK into RMT. Economic PVP
Keno Skir 1645	Posted - 2017.06.11 14:06:19 - [4] - Quote Skorpynekomimi wrote: They reduced fighter damage from carriers, to reduce the isk/hr of farming nullsec anomalies. On top of reducing the Rorqual's yield even further. It's pretty much entirely a few rich buggers whining about it on the 5000 accounts they had to turn their plentiful ISK into RMT. No, it isn't. It used to be only rich buggers that flew carriers, but now since injectors it's pretty much everyone. The recent complaints are only part to do with carrier changes anyway. Mark Marconi wrote: So a huge isk faucet for Null is being threatened and they are complaining. It also effects the carriers effects in PvP but then so does a T1 frigate with a jammer. That's a silly analogy. Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.- 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Kogilla Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 3	Posted - 2017.06.11 14:31:14 - [5] - Quote I believe the fuss isn't so much about the nerf itself as it is about how inelegant a solution it was to a stated problem, and with the lack of communication (the nerf was announced on Friday and will hit Tuesday, kind of scummy). For many this isn't even the issue, but rather the straw that broke the camel's back. A lot of discontent with the direction CCP has been taking the game of late (increasing prevalence of monetization schemes via microtransactions, citadel bugs and timer mechanics, incredibly delayed and unsatisfactory response to the ghost training issue that was brought to their attention last December, etc.) is wrapped up in all this, and yet somehow people still think it's just about "muh ticks". Then CCP Quant popped up on the subreddit and called all the people complaining "the top 1% of the top 1%", giving many a perceived confirmation of their notion that the devs are incredibly out of touch with their own playerbase.
StonerPhReaK Herb Men 659	Posted - 2017.06.11 14:35:39 - [6] - Quote The silly thing is people making a fuss on alts as if CCP dont know who they are. Signatures wer cooler when we couldn't remove them completely.
Chopper Rollins Far Beyond Triggered 1893	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:06:09 - [7] - Quote Sure hope making carriers unable to break the reps on a cruiser gang is fixing something. Seems like a dumb fix. Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Keno Skir 1647	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:36:33 - [8] - Quote They nerfed carrier dps by 20-40% and ignored the Ghost Training SP farming exploit that's giving everyone free ISK and SP. Among other things. Black Lanterns Blog <- Read my ramblings -.- 250,000 Bonus SP when you start an Alpha Clone HERE <---
Chainsaw Plankton FaDoyToy 3190	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:44:15 - [9] - Quote on reddit there are a lot of posts talking about how sov and citadel mechanics have pretty much killed any reason for large scale pvp, and this has caused alliances to sit back and farm their space. Sov requires you to be active in your space, and with the jump changes it is hard to deploy and watch the home areas. and with citadels you deploy it and if it makes it, well it lives for at least three weeks, and when it gets destroyed everything gets teleported to safety. Any giant fight is basically meaningless as they can just drop another citadel. supers have farmed as much isk this year as everyone farmed last year. 1% of the 1% is a little strong but how many super ratters are there, and of those how many are hardcore farming? Normal carrier ratting seems reasonable given the levels of incomes available in other areas of space. so all the pvpers are bored and prone to madness, the ratters are mad as they are getting a nerf @ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Aivoras Kurosawa School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2017.06.11 20:32:12 - [10] - Quote Null space carebear tears :)
Cherry Sulphate ojingo 71	Posted - 2017.06.11 20:56:29 - [11] - Quote always so much drama.
WarFireV Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 440	Posted - 2017.06.11 22:14:44 - [12] - Quote They are nerfing fighter and fighter bombers damage. It is just a weird nerf that effects the ships way more in PvP than it does in PvE despite the stated reasons as a PvE nerf. Carriers are going to be pretty bad after, but Supers will still be fine and able to rack in the anom cash like nothing. So it is more of a head scratch type of nerf that does nothing to fix any problem.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35012	Posted - 2017.06.11 22:28:11 - [13] - Quote WarFireV wrote: They are nerfing fighter and fighter bombers damage. It is just a weird nerf that effects the ships way more in PvP than it does in PvE despite the stated reasons as a PvE nerf. Carriers are going to be pretty bad after, but Supers will still be fine and able to rack in the anom cash like nothing. So it is more of a head scratch type of nerf that does nothing to fix any problem. Its not a head scratch, its progression, fuelled by skil injectors. Then nerfhammer will strike again, but at the supers. =ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿ 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. 16127	Posted - 2017.06.11 22:47:33 - [14] - Quote It sucks but it's human nature. CCP puts things into the game without thinking it through, players take thing and find some way to use it that screws things up, then CCP comes back and fixes the thing that they shoulda known was too powerful in the 1st place, and as soon as they do that the people who came to rely on it lose their minds. CCP could prevent this by not making faulty assumptions (such as "there will never be a bunch of super caps because they are so expensive", I think that's my favorite one) and understanding that players WILL find and exploit design flaws.
WarFireV Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 440	Posted - 2017.06.11 23:32:18 - [15] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: WarFireV wrote: They are nerfing fighter and fighter bombers damage. It is just a weird nerf that effects the ships way more in PvP than it does in PvE despite the stated reasons as a PvE nerf. Carriers are going to be pretty bad after, but Supers will still be fine and able to rack in the anom cash like nothing. So it is more of a head scratch type of nerf that does nothing to fix any problem. Its not a head scratch, its progression, fuelled by skil injectors. Then nerfhammer will strike again, but at the supers. =ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿ I mean it doesn't really fix the problem. Carrier pilots will just switch to Rattlesnakes or AKF Ishtar/VNIs. Super pilots will just laugh and keep doing their thing. In the end CCP will have to do something else.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16129	Posted - 2017.06.12 00:32:45 - [16] - Quote WarFireV wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: WarFireV wrote: They are nerfing fighter and fighter bombers damage. It is just a weird nerf that effects the ships way more in PvP than it does in PvE despite the stated reasons as a PvE nerf. Carriers are going to be pretty bad after, but Supers will still be fine and able to rack in the anom cash like nothing. So it is more of a head scratch type of nerf that does nothing to fix any problem. Its not a head scratch, its progression, fuelled by skil injectors. Then nerfhammer will strike again, but at the supers. =ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿ I mean it doesn't really fix the problem. Carrier pilots will just switch to Rattlesnakes or AKF Ishtar/VNIs. Super pilots will just laugh and keep doing their thing. In the end CCP will have to do something else. People used Ishtar's and rattlesnakes and carriers for years before the Introduction of Fighter Squadrons and bounty injection into the economy stayed stead for years. It takes an Ishtar 5 hours to make what a ratting super makes in one. And even if that super pilot switches to 5 Ishtars it's better all around because that's 5 accounts being plexed (high end ratters tend to plex) instead of one, helping drive demand for plex and sinking more isk from transaction taxes for buying those plexes
DARK SYCOPATA Cuervos Imperiales Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2017.06.12 01:35:03 - [17] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: WarFireV wrote: Nana Skalski wrote: WarFireV wrote: They are nerfing fighter and fighter bombers damage. It is just a weird nerf that effects the ships way more in PvP than it does in PvE despite the stated reasons as a PvE nerf. Carriers are going to be pretty bad after, but Supers will still be fine and able to rack in the anom cash like nothing. So it is more of a head scratch type of nerf that does nothing to fix any problem. Its not a head scratch, its progression, fuelled by skil injectors. Then nerfhammer will strike again, but at the supers. =ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿=ƒö¿ I mean it doesn't really fix the problem. Carrier pilots will just switch to Rattlesnakes or AKF Ishtar/VNIs. Super pilots will just laugh and keep doing their thing. In the end CCP will have to do something else. People used Ishtar's and rattlesnakes and carriers for years before the Introduction of Fighter Squadrons and bounty injection into the economy stayed stead for years. It takes an Ishtar 5 hours to make what a ratting super makes in one. And even if that super pilot switches to 5 Ishtars it's better all around because that's 5 accounts being plexed (high end ratters tend to plex) instead of one, helping drive demand for plex and sinking more isk from transaction taxes for buying those plexes Amen I can see the CCP brainstorming session... "Sems all people user injectors to fly carri and rorqual, its time to nerf it and promote multy box again.... o yes no lomger is needed the gosting skill injectos fix it..."
Sara Starbuck Adamantine Creations 69	Posted - 2017.06.12 05:23:58 - [18] - Quote Keno Skir wrote: They nerfed carrier dps by 20-40% and ignored the Ghost Training SP farming exploit that's giving everyone free ISK and SP. Among other things. You might get free SP but no free ISK since it comes from other players, however bounties bring ISK into game from nothing
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 8582	Posted - 2017.06.12 06:10:33 - [19] - Quote Chainsaw Plankton wrote: on reddit there are a lot of posts talking about how sov and citadel mechanics have pretty much killed any reason for large scale pvp, and this has caused alliances to sit back and farm their space. Sov requires you to be active in your space, and with the jump changes it is hard to deploy and watch the home areas. and with citadels you deploy it and if it makes it, well it lives for at least three weeks, and when it gets destroyed everything gets teleported to safety. Any giant fight is basically meaningless as they can just drop another citadel. supers have farmed as much isk this year as everyone farmed last year. 1% of the 1% is a little strong but how many super ratters are there, and of those how many are hardcore farming? Normal carrier ratting seems reasonable given the levels of incomes available in other areas of space. so all the pvpers are bored and prone to madness, the ratters are mad as they are getting a nerf Interesting. Do you think CCP will finally just drop all SOV mechanics and let the players sort it out? Probably not. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Perkin Warbeck Higher Than Everest The-Culture 248	Posted - 2017.06.12 07:00:55 - [20] - Quote It's carebear tears plain and simple. They've nerfed the Rorq (which was ridiculously overpowered) and now they have nerfed carriers. I'm sure supers will be next. And that's fine because it is retardedly simple to make isk in null. The main issue is that everyone skill injected their alts to get one of these and is now seeing a diminished return. Yes some Citadel mechanics should be tweaked as the effort/benefit of removing them is out of whack. Aegis sov is far better than what was there was before. But lack of content drivers in null? Please pull the other one. That's what everyone was saying before WWB. Most of the major content in this game has been player driven and not about mechanics at all.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 4018	Posted - 2017.06.12 07:06:21 - [21] - Quote Keno Skir wrote: They nerfed carrier dps by 20-40% and ignored the Ghost Training SP farming exploit that's giving everyone free ISK and SP. Among other things. Except you know.... they haven't ignored it. They just aren't doing a big announcement about fixing an exploit bu they've already run a script to fix it once and will almost certainly be working on back end fixes also.
Chopper Rollins Far Beyond Triggered 1897	Posted - 2017.06.12 07:43:25 - [22] - Quote Perkin Warbeck wrote: ... But lack of content drivers in null? Please pull the other one. That's what everyone was saying before WWB. Most of the major content in this game has been player driven and not about mechanics at all. I thought WWB was a combination of the biggest sov mechanics change ever, basically a complete overhaul, and the delivery of a dumptruck load of gambling isk. Witjhout the changes to sov mechanics you could WWB until you were blue in the face and change very little of the map. Entosis sov favours dogpiling and can only be defended by the sov holder. Making carriers into really tanky battleships better be a major fix, because it's a major nerf. Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1735	Posted - 2017.06.12 07:50:42 - [23] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Keno Skir wrote: They nerfed carrier dps by 20-40% and ignored the Ghost Training SP farming exploit that's giving everyone free ISK and SP. Among other things. Except you know.... they haven't ignored it. They just aren't doing a big announcement about fixing an exploit bu they've already run a script to fix it once and will almost certainly be working on back end fixes also. Hahaha. They already admitted, the script just works one off. All someone needs to do is use some of their existing profits from ghost training to sub, restart and leave it again until CCP manually run the script again and stop everyone's training queue again, alpha or omega. So unless CCP cronjob it to run once a month and fix up the issue of stopping omega characters training too, they haven't really fixed anything. 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..."
Marek Kanenald Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 16	Posted - 2017.06.12 09:26:40 - [24] - Quote Funny thing is that the Ghost training fix is what caused everyone's skill training to be stopped accidentally.
Perkin Warbeck Higher Than Everest The-Culture 249	Posted - 2017.06.12 09:47:59 - [25] - Quote Chopper Rollins wrote: Perkin Warbeck wrote: ... But lack of content drivers in null? Please pull the other one. That's what everyone was saying before WWB. Most of the major content in this game has been player driven and not about mechanics at all. I thought WWB was a combination of the biggest sov mechanics change ever, basically a complete overhaul, and the delivery of a dumptruck load of gambling isk. Witjhout the changes to sov mechanics you could WWB until you were blue in the face and change very little of the map. Entosis sov favours dogpiling and can only be defended by the sov holder. Making carriers into really tanky battleships better be a major fix, because it's a major nerf. Yet we want to return to pre-Aegis sov when noone could take sov and whoever brought the biggest blob to grind out those structures won. WWB was a culmination of a ton of isk and a large group of players wanting to stick it to the predominant entity in the game. The sov changes in themselves didn't 'trigger' the war. It was the players. As for entosis sov favouring dogpiling? That's just rubbish. So we've moved the complaints about Aegis sov from ceptors and griffins online with everyone being able to 'troll our sov' to nobody can take it and it favours the defender? Yeah, right, can you maybe try that one again? And what's wrong with a carrier being really tanky battleship? Lets face it the only time carriers were used before the nerf was for PvE. I'm sure you can point to a few null sec doctrines and that one time you dropped them on a super at band camp but apart from that they are used in havens because, unlike subcaps, they can tank the rat dread when it spawns. That's what the nerf is about and that's why the summer of rage is a farce.
April rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 24	Posted - 2017.06.12 10:30:45 - [26] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Callum Perkins wrote: Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? ... This is due in a large part to Carriers running anomalies in Delve and Deklein with the totals of bounties in the game doubling in the last 12-18 months. ... So a huge isk faucet for Null is being threatened and they are complaining. It also effects the carriers effects in PvP ... Removing all the pathetic fuzz "i'm glad it is not nerf to my activity" this is what really matters. - CCP increases amount of anomalies available to players - CCP makes carriers and supers "too good" for killing NPC and getting big bounties - CCP introduces skill trading -> making getting into carriers/supers easier - ... (did i miss something?) - Suddenly "players collect too much ISK". Let's not spend a minute thinking and just nerf fighters overall. It will solve the problem and never EVER use carriers/supers for PvP. That's what all of this is about.
Coralas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 161	Posted - 2017.06.12 11:05:11 - [27] - Quote Perkin Warbeck wrote: Chopper Rollins wrote: Perkin Warbeck wrote: ... But lack of content drivers in null? Please pull the other one. That's what everyone was saying before WWB. Most of the major content in this game has been player driven and not about mechanics at all. I thought WWB was a combination of the biggest sov mechanics change ever, basically a complete overhaul, and the delivery of a dumptruck load of gambling isk. Witjhout the changes to sov mechanics you could WWB until you were blue in the face and change very little of the map. Entosis sov favours dogpiling and can only be defended by the sov holder. Making carriers into really tanky battleships better be a major fix, because it's a major nerf. Yet we want to return to pre-Aegis sov when noone could take sov and whoever brought the biggest blob to grind out those structures won. WWB was a culmination of a ton of isk and a large group of players wanting to stick it to the predominant entity in the game. The sov changes in themselves didn't 'trigger' the war. It was the players. Nope CCP didn't release the offensive buff (fozzie sov) with the defensive buff (citadels) at the same time. I'm not arguing that the changeup from dominion was a bad thing by the way, but I still don't think they've made a system where you design your defenses much. Quote: As for entosis sov favouring dogpiling? That's just rubbish. So we've moved the complaints about Aegis sov from ceptors and griffins online with everyone being able to 'troll our sov' to nobody can take it and it favours the defender? Yeah, right, can you maybe try that one again? entosis, triple timers all in the AU TZ and full asset security with a fee is not a loved combo by the playerbase. Quote: And what's wrong with a carrier being really tanky battleship? Lets face it the only time carriers were used before the nerf was for PvE. I'm sure you can point to a few null sec doctrines and that one time you dropped them on a super at band camp but apart from that they are used in havens because, unlike subcaps, they can tank the rat dread when it spawns. That's what the nerf is about and that's why the summer of rage is a farce. you only need the carriers to clear the dread if it spawns. I lost a domi to a dread (hadn't been playing in null for a long time), because I wasn't aligned at the exact moment in time that I've since discovered is entirely predictable. If I align with 2 salvos to go on the previous wave, I can still pull the sentries on a domi and warp or stop if it doesn't spawn. All other ships have to be less trouble than a sentryboat. Im actually pretty happy with that way that worked, because I told my fleet that the dread spawned, and carrier pilots came and cleared it, even if I lost a ship. In future unless being docked up between enemies in system causes me to forget which wave I'm on, I shouldn't lose one.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 196	Posted - 2017.06.12 11:30:07 - [28] - Quote April rabbit wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Callum Perkins wrote: Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? ... This is due in a large part to Carriers running anomalies in Delve and Deklein with the totals of bounties in the game doubling in the last 12-18 months. ... So a huge isk faucet for Null is being threatened and they are complaining. It also effects the carriers effects in PvP ... Removing all the pathetic fuzz "i'm glad it is not nerf to my activity" this is what really matters. - CCP increases amount of anomalies available to players - CCP makes carriers and supers "too good" for killing NPC and getting big bounties - CCP introduces skill trading -> making getting into carriers/supers easier - ... (did i miss something?) - Suddenly "players collect too much ISK". Let's not spend a minute thinking and just nerf fighters overall. It will solve the problem and never EVER use carriers/supers for PvP. That's what all of this is about. It is very obvious from the figures that the number of anomalies needs to be reduced by a factor of 10. One null sec is almost claiming the same amount in bounties as the entire rest of the game. Hopefully CCP will continue to reset all the damage that has been done to this game after their years of Null Sec favoratism. 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.
Algarion Getz Aideron Corp 419	Posted - 2017.06.12 11:47:27 - [29] - Quote Callum Perkins wrote: Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? In short: Nullbears are mad because their ISK printers get nerfed soon.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16137	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:15:45 - [30] - Quote April rabbit wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: Callum Perkins wrote: Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? ... This is due in a large part to Carriers running anomalies in Delve and Deklein with the totals of bounties in the game doubling in the last 12-18 months. ... So a huge isk faucet for Null is being threatened and they are complaining. It also effects the carriers effects in PvP ... Removing all the pathetic fuzz "i'm glad it is not nerf to my activity" this is what really matters. - CCP increases amount of anomalies available to players - CCP makes carriers and supers "too good" for killing NPC and getting big bounties - CCP introduces skill trading -> making getting into carriers/supers easier - ... (did i miss something?) - Suddenly "players collect too much ISK". Let's not spend a minute thinking and just nerf fighters overall. It will solve the problem and never EVER use carriers/supers for PvP. That's what all of this is about. CCP is nerfing the right thing this time. In the past CCP usually nerfed only symptoms of a problem while ignoring the actual cause. For example: "Skynet". CCP made a change to carriers to let fighters benefit from the mods present on the Carrier their launched from. Carriers already had the ability to be remotely assigned to other players far away from the carrier. The end result Carrier pilots assigning incredibly powerful fighters to fast locking and cheap frigate sized ships on gates and slaughtering anything that came through. This was onyl possible because CCP didn't take into account the power of bonused fighters + Fighter Assist. CCP's fix: Get rid of fighter assign for EVERYONE. I never gate camped once, I used fighter assign to rat and I got nerfed too. Another example: Tracking Titans in the original Forsaken Hubs. CCP tried to buff anomalies so that not just sanctums and havens were viable. They did this by looking at the "EHP per site" statistic of havens and sanctums and adding more ships to lesser anoms. One anomalie (Forsaken Hubs) had no frigate spawns, so when they added more NPC Battleships and Battlecruisers to it they turned it into a Capital Ratters wet dream. Titan pilits would bring an alt in a Scimitar and the Scimitar would Tracking link And remote Sensor Boost the Titan. The End result was 500 million isk per hour Titan Ratting. CCP's fix: Add frigs to Forsaken hubs, slowing them down for EVERYONE who rats. I did forsaken hubs with sub caps and didn't make 500 mil per hour and still got nerfed THIS TIME CCP got it right. This time they looked at the game, saw that it was FIGHTER SQUADRONS that amped up the ratting income in null anomalies and this time their fix was to nerf the thing that caused the problem, FIGHTER SQUADRONS. So the rest of us who rat with sub caps and make reasonable isk aren't affected, the only people who are affected are the people who were piling on all that extra liquid isk. I'm still in shock that CCP actually got something right when it comes to Anomalies, their past efforts have mostly been...less than stellar.
Steve Mittal Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:28:04 - [31] - Quote The problem with this nerf isn't so much about the nullsec income, it's more about the way CCP seems to be handling things. Instead of consulting with the CSM, or listening to the player base, they cherrypick some statistics ("260 million ISK ratting tick") and apply a fix-it-quick patch, completely ignoring the consequences they will cause. As it stands now, before the patch, a single Griffin can completely shut down a single carrier (with multispectal jammers, it's possible to permajam 3 T1 light fighter squadrons). A 5 million ISK frigate shutting down a 2 billion ISK capital ship. What does CCP do? Further nerf the carrier's dps. So... Welcome to the new game called HAW DREADS ONLINE.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:33:24 - [32] - Quote Steve Mittal wrote: The problem with this nerf isn't so much about the nullsec income, it's more about the way CCP seems to be handling things. Instead of consulting with the CSM, or listening to the player base, they cherrypick some statistics ("260 million ISK ratting tick") and apply a fix-it-quick patch, completely ignoring the consequences they will cause. As it stands now, before the patch, a single Griffin can completely shut down a single carrier (with multispectal jammers, it's possible to permajam 3 T1 light fighter squadrons). A 5 million ISK frigate shutting down a 2 billion ISK capital ship. What does CCP do? Further nerf the carrier's dps. So... Welcome to the new game called HAW DREADS ONLINE. Actually if you look at the feedback thread on this change, the CSM supports it. This merely comes down to a minor correction to a Null sec in need of massive change. After all Null sec is meant to to outlaw territory, not the land where it rains gold while you sit on your butt. 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.
April rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 24	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:41:12 - [33] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: ... CCP's fix: Get rid of fighter assign for EVERYONE. I never gate camped once, I used fighter assign to rat and I got nerfed too. ... CCP's fix: Add frigs to Forsaken hubs, slowing them down for EVERYONE who rats. I did forsaken hubs with sub caps and didn't make 500 mil per hour and still got nerfed THIS TIME CCP got it right. ... I'm still in shock that CCP actually got something right when it comes to Anomalies, their past efforts have mostly been...less than stellar. I remember your post where you said that you don't do carrier rat. I'm pretty sure you don't PvP in it too. This is the root of your 'this time they do it right'. Want proof? I marked it bold. Try better next time.
Chopper Rollins Far Beyond Triggered 1897	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:50:57 - [34] - Quote Perkin Warbeck wrote: The sov changes in themselves didn't 'trigger' the war. It was the players. As for entosis sov favouring dogpiling? That's just rubbish. So we've moved the complaints about Aegis sov from ceptors and griffins online with everyone being able to 'troll our sov' to nobody can take it and it favours the defender? Yeah, right, can you maybe try that one again? Without the changes to sov the players could have sat around saying grrgons until the end of time, even with the massive amount of isk just handed out. The complaints you mentioned about Aegis sov i'm not aware of. Entosis sov allows anyone to attack but only the sov holder to defend, is this not true? Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 158	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:52:31 - [35] - 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.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16137	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:53:06 - [36] - Quote April rabbit wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: ... CCP's fix: Get rid of fighter assign for EVERYONE. I never gate camped once, I used fighter assign to rat and I got nerfed too. ... CCP's fix: Add frigs to Forsaken hubs, slowing them down for EVERYONE who rats. I did forsaken hubs with sub caps and didn't make 500 mil per hour and still got nerfed THIS TIME CCP got it right. ... I'm still in shock that CCP actually got something right when it comes to Anomalies, their past efforts have mostly been...less than stellar. I remember your post where you said that you don't do carrier rat. I'm pretty sure you don't PvP in it too. This is the root of your 'this time they do it right'. Want proof? I marked it bold. Try better next time. Go to zkill look up the character Cassius Rex. You will see that I have used Capitals for years (and I have used them to kill NPCs). I don't use Carriers in anomalies because i prefer sub caps, but I still have and use my Lvl 5 mission Thanatos. I'm sorry CCP had to nerf the pvp ability of a single ship class to get the economy to not tear itself apart, but it's not like they haven't done so before. This time at least they didn't punish EVERYONE who kills rats for isk because a few people made too much. That's progress.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16138	Posted - 2017.06.12 12:56:32 - [37] - Quote 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?
Perkin Warbeck Higher Than Everest The-Culture 250	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:06:28 - [38] - Quote Chopper Rollins wrote: Perkin Warbeck wrote: The sov changes in themselves didn't 'trigger' the war. It was the players. As for entosis sov favouring dogpiling? That's just rubbish. So we've moved the complaints about Aegis sov from ceptors and griffins online with everyone being able to 'troll our sov' to nobody can take it and it favours the defender? Yeah, right, can you maybe try that one again? The complaints you mentioned about Aegis sov i'm not aware of. Entosis sov allows anyone to attack but only the sov holder to defend, is this not true? Nope. I can kill any nerd trying to entosis anybody's sov. Unlees they are blue. I'm told this is not the done thing. I can't entosis the node for the sov holder but then why would I want to? If they can't summon the energy to undock an atron with an entosis link then what are your paying them for?
Admiral Sarah Solette Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 37	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:44:32 - [39] - Quote Perkin Warbeck wrote: Lets face it the only time carriers were used before the nerf was for PvE. I'm sure you can point to a few null sec doctrines and that one time you dropped them on a super at band camp but apart from that they are used in havens because, unlike subcaps, they can tank the rat dread when it spawns. That's what the nerf is about and that's why the summer of rage is a farce. I don't think I've ever seen a player so ignorant of a ship class. Carriers were only used in PvE? Really? Because almost every major battle had carriers and dreads. Carriers are only used because they can tank dreadnaughts? So can rattles and T3Cs. Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before you go spouting off horse **** from your high horse.
Admiral Sarah Solette Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 37	Posted - 2017.06.12 13:47:07 - [40] - Quote Algarion Getz wrote: Callum Perkins wrote: Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? In short: Nullbears are mad because their ISK printers get nerfed soon. Yes, this change only affects care bears and not the PvP potential of an already gimped ship class.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 158	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:15:21 - [41] - 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.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35037	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:22:40 - [42] - Quote The carrier dream is sadly over. Bye fighters, bye Valkyrie sales, bye VR. 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. 16141	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:30:39 - [43] - Quote 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.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35037	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:36:41 - [44] - Quote Leave carriers alone! Go shoot an asteroid. 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
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 158	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:43:27 - [45] - 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.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16142	Posted - 2017.06.12 15:51:13 - [46] - Quote Scialt wrote: 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. 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.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35050	Posted - 2017.06.12 16:14:58 - [47] - Quote Heh, would be funny if this will not be enough for ISK farming and they will have to nerf the symptoms by nerfing all bounties in null. 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 162	Posted - 2017.06.12 16:18:27 - [48] - Quote 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.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16147	Posted - 2017.06.12 16:30:59 - [49] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: Heh, would be funny if this will not be enough for ISK farming and they will have to nerf the symptoms by nerfing all bounties in null. It will be enough. The 1st Incursion nerf wasn't even in the same league s this one and most incursion communities became ghost towns after it compared to how they were before. It's not just the damage, it's the combination of the damage reduction and NPCs elevated chance to agress. Some carrier and super pilots will compensate with Drone durability rigs (but a drone durability rig is not a ship tanking rig nor is it a hyperspatial, so while it might keep fighters alive it won't help the ship in other ways and that is going to hurt). Other capital pilots are going to stop using Tech2 drones. And just like how some people quit Rorq mining when they found they could no longer break 250 mil per hour, they will quit using those ships for that. Some will switch to ishtars or whatever but it takes a max skill ishtar 5 hours to make with a bad fit Super can make in 1. If they do nerf bounties across the board they will just shift people back to FW and Incursions like what happened with the 1st (and 2nd) anomaly nerfs in 2011 and 2012. Either way it will all be fine.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:11:37 - [50] - 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 - [51] - 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).
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16147	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:25:53 - [52] - Quote 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.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:44:24 - [53] - 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?
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16147	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:50:45 - [54] - Quote Callum Perkins wrote: Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? CCP Larrikin updated the original announcement post with some more info. CCP Larrikin wrote: UPDATE 2017-07-12: Reduced the damage reduction to fighters. Added supporting data. The Data: LetGÇÖs set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June. During that timeframe 10.6 Trillion ISK was rewarded in bounties. Of that: 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties. When 6 or so % of people engaged in bounty generating activity account for almost HALF of all bounties injecting isk into EVE's economy, it's time for the nerf hammer to fall. Before Fighter Squadrons, even supercarrier using their fighter bombers could not pull this off. Of course CCP caved and in the same post announced that they were pulling back on some of the nerfing. That's a mistake, it's just going to prolong the issue to the point where more drastic nerfing is going to be needed later. You rip a bandaid off, trying to peel it slowly and nicely just makes it worse.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16147	Posted - 2017.06.12 17:58:36 - [55] - Quote 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.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 18:17:08 - [56] - 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.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16148	Posted - 2017.06.12 18:34:24 - [57] - Quote 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.
Coralas Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 162	Posted - 2017.06.12 18:47:31 - [58] - Quote 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.
Zanar Skwigelf Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra 220	Posted - 2017.06.12 18:47:58 - [59] - Quote 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.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16148	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:00:43 - [60] - 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. -With a gated anom I'd set an alt in a Sabre 2600 meters off the gate with a cloak, ready to decloak and bubble. My defense fleet would be waiting somewhere nearby, a tank fit ratting ship with a scram and that sabre could hold a sucker down long enough for help to come kill him. -Even if I didn't do that and just used my ratting BS solo , I'd MJD my ratting ship off the gate so no matter what the guy coming after me has to fly 70-80 km to point me. He'd be flying into the teeth of my guns also. -And MJDing off the gate probably puts the rats between me and the bad guy, him MJDing and using EWAR makes ghim a rat target, rats helping me kill him. -And a gate means deadspace, no cyno, so i'd be safe from hot drops. The only point of danger would be if someone comes in while im warping to the next anom and guesses right and lands before me. But that's it. That's the thing about suggestions people make when they are trying to find away around something that is uncomfortable to them, they end up not thinking the thing all the way thourgh which would let them realize that the idea not only won't work, it's counter productive.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:02:18 - [61] - 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?
Chainsaw Plankton FaDoyToy 3196	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:03:13 - [62] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: People used Ishtar's and rattlesnakes and carriers for years before the Introduction of Fighter Squadrons and bounty injection into the economy stayed stead for years. It takes an Ishtar 5 hours to make what a ratting super makes in one. And even if that super pilot switches to 5 Ishtars it's better all around because that's 5 accounts being plexed (high end ratters tend to plex) instead of one, helping drive demand for plex and sinking more isk from transaction taxes for buying those plexes all the posts threatening to 10 box vnis and make even more isk are hard to take credibly as they could have always done that. Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Interesting. Do you think CCP will finally just drop all SOV mechanics and let the players sort it out? Probably not. Probably not indeed. would be foolish to completely get rid of it, need to have some sort of mechanic to say who owns the space. Might be worth rethinking what benefits come with sov, and how the system determines who has sov. but that's a hard problem. @ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:11:41 - [63] - 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.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16149	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:13:24 - [64] - Quote Scialt wrote: 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? Do this. go to an upgraded system, and have some kind of timer. spend an hour doing anoms the regualr way. see how much you make. The next hour, use your timer and wait 30 seconds longer after finishing a site before warping to the next. See what you make after than hour. I know how this work because I did it once to prove that warp times affect income when it comes to anomalies. It's more than noticeable. And that doesn't include the times you might get hung up on a gate... Don't trust my word, try it for yourself, I'm not making anything up. Quote: 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. Nothing is going to take them out of pvp, they have uses a 10% DPS nerf isn't going to end. but forcing them out of anoms kills some of the best hunter content the game has. And making it to where nothing can cyno into an anom? You just created sub cap safe spots that would be abused to no end. Quote: 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. Ratting is balanced by danger. Subcaps don't need a ratting nerf, nor do they need a ratting buff. It is carriers and supers than need fixing. look at the bounty figures I copy/pasted from CCP Larrikin's announcement. Quote: 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? 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.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:22:57 - [65] - 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 - [66] - 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.
Zanar Skwigelf Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra 220	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:41:12 - [67] - Quote 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.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 159	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:50:19 - [68] - 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.
Beast of Revelations Hedion University Amarr Empire 221	Posted - 2017.06.12 21:00:22 - [69] - Quote What's the fuss? The brain dead morons who haven't a clue how to balance a game or devise a solution to issues (and believe me it's not that hard) think that the solution to too much ISK floating around is to nerf PvP. I have no skin in the game, I have no carrier, I am not trained for capitals. I just utterly despise moronic game balancing. For me, I've already unsubbed and will continue to be unsubbed for an unspecified period of time, perhaps forever.
Perkin Warbeck Higher Than Everest The-Culture 250	Posted - 2017.06.12 21:12:53 - [70] - Quote Admiral Sarah Solette wrote: Perkin Warbeck wrote: Lets face it the only time carriers were used before the nerf was for PvE. I'm sure you can point to a few null sec doctrines and that one time you dropped them on a super at band camp but apart from that they are used in havens because, unlike subcaps, they can tank the rat dread when it spawns. That's what the nerf is about and that's why the summer of rage is a farce. I don't think I've ever seen a player so ignorant of a ship class. Carriers were only used in PvE? Really? Because almost every major battle had carriers and dreads. Carriers are only used because they can tank dreadnaughts? So can rattles and T3Cs. Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before you go spouting off horse **** from your high horse. Annnd Force Auxillaries were created in what 2015? Welcone back returning player. A lot has changed. Drakes are no longer good.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 235	Posted - 2017.06.12 21:36:27 - [71] - Quote Nerf incursions and blitzing while at it, 100-200m/h in almost absolute safety isn't fair. Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1596	Posted - 2017.06.12 21:55:39 - [72] - Quote Easy way to nerf bounties is simply overfarming mechanics. As NPCs get killed fewer spawn over time because well... youre killing them and so they go elsewhere to do their dirty work, while other areas of the system, such as asteroids, relic/datas or signatures increase to make up for the relative system value forcing you out of your niche over time into other activities or forcing you to move systems. Any dynamic system would help alleviate such issues in the future yet if you keep the relative isk/system/hour roughly the same it would work for specific overfarming for any one single weapon/activity type. You could potentially even drop sec status in certain systems while raising them within the constellations other systems over time. Given a dynamic constellation sec status overfarmed systems become worse and worse as time goes on for only one activity profile but just as profitable for a general or total isk/hr profile given all the various activities within Eve while the other underfarmed/underused systems see a sec increase and therefore an isk/hr increase. So simply ratting means that ratting would become functionally highly unprofitable while other areas would gain huge over time. This means flavor of the month ships, weapons and activities would be nerfed by simple overusage and be a players own fault if their bounties or "mah isk/hour!!" gets 'nerfed' by their own activities. Just my two cents, but Im busy getting drunk, enjoy your thread. Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 237	Posted - 2017.06.12 23:59:38 - [73] - Quote ^^ It would be very good because it would fine-tune itself on the fly, instead of CCP's mega nerfs/ buffs that come 3 months too late. Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima debitum naturae Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2017.06.13 03:59:13 - [74] - Quote Some pretty big wall of texts in here lol
CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima debitum naturae Goonswarm Federation 81	Posted - 2017.06.13 04:09:13 - [75] - Quote I've been reading in some of these comments that "Nearly everyone can use carriers" and "Nearly everyone has a carrier" I don't know about you but i have about 90-140 days until i can use ANY of the carriers, and haven't got a way of printing isk to buy 10 injectors (or however many injectors it would take to get a carrier in just a few days) except by spending quiet a bit of real life money to sell plex's for injectors :p Although i haven't been playing for ages, only about 4-5 months. No harm or triggering intended in this comments just my 0.02 isk.
Chopper Rollins Far Beyond Triggered 1898	Posted - 2017.06.13 05:18:47 - [76] - Quote Perkin Warbeck wrote: [I can kill any nerd trying to entosis anybody's sov. Unlees they are blue. I'm told this is not the done thing. I can't entosis the node for the sov holder but then why would I want to? If they can't summon the energy to undock an atron with an entosis link then what are your paying them for? -Any entosis link activated by a player not in the defending alliance is counted as attacking. This means that an alliance can not enlist other entities to defend their structures with entosis links.- from the wiki, still current afaik. That last line though, 'what are you paying the sov holder for?', oh my. The mechanic favours dogpiling. Disclaimer for thread: i trained into archon just in time for the first carrier changes, held off on purchase, got into a mino and chimera for pvp just days before these changes. I don't even want to lawnmower rats for spaec shekels, way to jerk me around ccp. Still not unsubbing tho, maybe they can get this right. Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35096	Posted - 2017.06.13 05:50:33 - [77] - Quote CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima wrote: I've been reading in some of these comments that "Nearly everyone can use carriers" and "Nearly everyone has a carrier" I don't know about you but i have about 90-140 days until i can use ANY of the carriers, and haven't got a way of printing isk to buy 10 injectors (or however many injectors it would take to get a carrier in just a few days) except by spending quiet a bit of real life money to sell plex's for injectors :p Although i haven't been playing for ages, only about 4-5 months. No harm or triggering intended in this comments just my 0.02 isk. Well, I can fly a carrier and a super and a dread and a FAX. What is so strange about that. I dont know what to do with all this SP after I settled on a gameplay that is needeing not as much as I have and gives enough ISK to live a comfortable life in EVE. And chimeras are for 1B now, cheaper than marauders. 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
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 4027	Posted - 2017.06.13 05:58:20 - [78] - Quote Blade Darth wrote: ^^ It would be very good because it would fine-tune itself on the fly, instead of CCP's mega nerfs/ buffs that come 3 months too late. And if you read the actual thread you would see that it would also be very bad. Because the issue is not everyones bounty income, the issue is a very specific set of ships bounty income, and the solution you are advocating for nerfs everyone. Also CCP did have issues about carriers volleying subcaps instantly when in groups in PvP as well. Not purely PvE issues, though obviously a far lesser issue.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 209	Posted - 2017.06.13 06:39:50 - [79] - Quote Well it doesn't matter now. CCP has folded faster than Superman on laundry day in the face of the tears from the soiled children of Null. To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves. And they wonder why Hi-Sec and Lo-sec look like ghost towns and they had to make EvE free to play. It boggles the mind. Especially when you look at the data they included. The Data: LetGÇÖs set the stage for the decision by taking sample of 5 days in June. During that timeframe 10.6 Trillion ISK was rewarded in bounties. Of that: 22.3% (2.3T) of the ISK was generated by 1.4% of characters earning bounties, using Supercarriers 24.2% (2.6T) of the ISK was generated by 4.8% of characters earning bounties, using Carriers 19.1% (2T) of the ISK was generated by 16.6% of characters earning bounties, using T1 Cruisers Just under half (46.5%) of the bounties earned during the time period was generated by Supercarriers and Carriers, meaning a small percent of the population received a huge portion of the total bounties. 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.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1596	Posted - 2017.06.13 06:51:10 - [80] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Blade Darth wrote: ^^ It would be very good because it would fine-tune itself on the fly, instead of CCP's mega nerfs/ buffs that come 3 months too late. And if you read the actual thread you would see that it would also be very bad. Because the issue is not everyones bounty income, the issue is a very specific set of ships bounty income, and the solution you are advocating for nerfs everyone. Also CCP did have issues about carriers volleying subcaps instantly when in groups in PvP as well. Not purely PvE issues, though obviously a far lesser issue. I think the "^^" in Blade's text was pointing at my post Nevyn and in that case I think you are incorrect simply because the isk/hr per system stays the same unless you only sit there and use the system for one thing or let other unused content build up unrun. What it does means is that you need to either get other people into your corp/alliance or system that will run that content or you can get into the appropriate ship and run it yourself and then get back to your normal activities. But overall what it would do is force people to stop running in only one system and moving around a bit to farm the better content in other systems in the constellation. So less renting one system and staying there. Less option to sit only in a few of the better sec systems way off in the back somewhere and forcing more usage of the entire constellation which means more chance of interaction with other players on gates, from more whs spawning and would mean less bubbles everywhere constantly as players would be forced to move around more often and less bubbles to ease travel times, especially for carriers and capitals, would mean more vulnerabilities to enemy fleets roaming around as well. It would also mean that you would have to have infrastructure built up within the entire constellation or at least a few different systems as safety, security and staging points. So having defensive ships only in one staging system and reshipping would be harder or require people to put more into other citadels and thereby putting more at risk and into play. Still a sad thing they wont go boom more often though. Now who this WOULD be bad for is the people who only want to do one thing in game. Im reminded of the CODE telling players that only sit and mine in high sec all the time and dont do anything else to HTFU and play the better, broader game here. You dont want to be like one of the high sec miner types do you? Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
erg cz ErgoDron 585	Posted - 2017.06.13 09:09:25 - [81] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves. And they wonder why Hi-Sec and Lo-sec look like ghost towns and they had to make EvE free to play. Exactly. The whole ISK problem was with no drones / fighter agression from NPC. CCP should not tough fighters but rather change NPC AI so , that they will agress 100 % fighters / drones if ships itself does not fire. No semi AFK ratting then, problem solved. Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP for free!
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35102	Posted - 2017.06.13 09:27:49 - [82] - Quote erg cz wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves. And they wonder why Hi-Sec and Lo-sec look like ghost towns and they had to make EvE free to play. Exactly. The whole ISK problem was with no drones / fighter agression from NPC. CCP should not tough fighters but rather change NPC AI so , that they will agress 100 % fighters / drones if ships itself does not fire. No semi AFK ratting then, problem solved. NPCs could just use ECM on fighters en masse. 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
April rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 24	Posted - 2017.06.13 10:45:26 - [83] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Well it doesn't matter now. CCP has folded faster than Superman on laundry day in the face of the tears from the spoiled children of Null. To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves. Well.... Need to say this is the worst possible "fix". With increased NPC aggro one could say that this "fix" is more about PVE. PVP is just collateral damage. Without it PVP was hurt the same way as PVE. Just from the top of my head: The best target for fighters is NPC battleships. Ok. Replace couple battleships in Havens with battlecruisers for example. 1 BS -> 5 or 6 BC to keep the same level of total bounty. My fighters need the more the less the same time to kill BS or BC. So replacing 1 BS with couple BCs will make it longer => that needed reduce of ISK/hour for carriers/supers. Or more targeted change: heavy drones have better tracking speed than fighters. Change NPC in anomalies to exploit this difference. Again: targeted fix for particular problem. Or maybe heavy drones have smaller signature? Or ... In any case something could be found to make anomalies worse for fighters keeping subcap ratters intact. And still keep carriers/super the same for PVP. But what we got here is just nerf to PVE/PVP based on PVE ratting. Which is very weak solution.
Ikshuki Aliastra Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2017.06.13 11:33:15 - [84] - Quote Mark Marconi wrote: Callum Perkins wrote: Title says it all really, I hear capitals have been in some way shape or form but could anybody explain? CCP on Tuesday will be making the following alterations to fighters. Light Fighters (Space Superiority): No Change Light Fighters (Attack): 20% reduction to Basic Attack and Heavy Rocket Salvo damage. Support Fighters: No Change Heavy Fighters (Heavy Attack): 10% reduction to Basic Attack and Torpedo Salvo damage. Heavy Fighters (Long Range Attack): 30% reduction to Basic Attack damage. Heavy Fighters (Shadow): No Change NPCs are 15% more likely to shoot at fighters than they are currently. This is due in a large part to Carriers running anomalies in Delve and Deklein with the totals of bounties in the game doubling in the last 12-18 months. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/May_2017/1_regional.stats.png So a huge isk faucet for Null is being threatened and they are complaining. It also effects the carriers effects in PvP but then so does a T1 frigate with a jammer. and CCP wonders why players quits or never increases their active player base, this change will literally turn carriers into super cap logis rendering fighters pointless, better off just removing fighter bonuses from the bonus tab
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35105	Posted - 2017.06.13 11:54:19 - [85] - Quote These are past numbers, they nerfed their nerf somewhat. Now they promised they will change anomalies to make it harder for carriers and supers 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
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:00:40 - [86] - 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.
Marek Kanenald Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:07:35 - [87] - Quote 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.
Jenn aSide Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory. 16154	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:22:08 - [88] - 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. ' Those instantly respawning anomalies have existed since 2010. They existed when EVE had higher PCU numbers (ie more people were online playing EVE). The money supply didn't go haywire until last year, right after CCP introduced Fighter Squadrons. Carriers and Supercarriers have been used in anomalies the entire time (the 1st Supercarrier kill I was on was a ratting super, back when they were still officially called "Motherships". Hell, people have and still sometimes do rat with titans (this was subject to a heavy nerf 5 years ago). I honestly don't know how people can blame something that has been around for more than 8 years for something that is obviously and provably the fault of Fighter Squadrons.
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:38:09 - [89] - 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.
Tikhor Kajyar Sarum Prime Gourmet Diner and Spa 3	Posted - 2017.06.13 16:50:17 - [90] - Quote 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
Scialt Universal Sanitation Corporation 160	Posted - 2017.06.13 17:27:20 - [91] - 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.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 35115	Posted - 2017.06.13 17:34:56 - [92] - Quote Maybe if all the bounties would be moving from killed anomaly pirates to a carrier that is doing the killing, people would actually hunt more for those carriers. How to move bounties to make them claimable by others? Maybe tags that have to be collected? 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
Perkin Warbeck Higher Than Everest The-Culture 250	Posted - 2017.06.13 21:07:49 - [93] - Quote A quick and easy fix if they want to nerf PvE income is just have each successive wave of rats warp into the anom (just like the are doing with the current rogue drone event). Slow the warp speed if rats down depending on the size of the anom, so sanctums/havens are slowest. It means that all ticks are reduced but the supposed combat abilities of carriers are maintained.
Vortexo VonBrenner Tadakastu-Obata Corporation 2933	Posted - 2017.06.13 21:37:41 - [94] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: Maybe if all the bounties would be moving from killed anomaly pirates to a carrier that is doing the killing, people would actually hunt more for those carriers. How to move bounties to make them claimable by others? Maybe chips that fill with data of pirates automatically as they are killed? And they would appear in cargo space of carrier. Then they would have to be transported to a location to be sold. Bounty chips for null. \o/ Or just those tags that have to be collected. At first part I thought that would be a bad idea. However, if such bounty data chips were the case for everybody, whether they killed NPC or other, the bounty chip thing could be an interesting angle. Back to same issue with carriers relative to everybody, but might be an interesting mechanic. EvE security zones in pictures EvE quick reference pdf EvE links
Koopman van Luxe Hedion University Amarr Empire 9	Posted - 2017.06.14 02:23:52 - [95] - Quote Instead of messing about with the PVP balance of an entire class of ships over a PVE issue... Why not put some of that fancy new NPC AI to work, and make the NPCs suddenly start to decide "well ** this ** i'm not going to stick around and fight that thing" and warp out when a supercap starts farming them?
Salvos Rhoska 3039	Posted - 2017.06.14 06:06:50 - [96] - Quote Perhaps CCP wanted to nerf carriers in PvP too. PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Marek Kanenald Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2017.06.14 09:14:25 - [97] - Quote Salvos Rhoska wrote: Perhaps CCP wanted to nerf carriers in PvP too. They did, they literally stated that.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1599	Posted - 2017.06.14 09:48:11 - [98] - Quote Nana Skalski wrote: Maybe if all the bounties would be moving from killed anomaly pirates to a carrier that is doing the killing, people would actually hunt more for those carriers. How to move bounties to make them claimable by others? Maybe chips that fill with data of pirates automatically as they are killed? And they would appear in cargo space of carrier. Then they would have to be transported to a location to be sold. Bounty chips for null. \o/ Or just those tags that have to be collected. One of the main requirements for these bounty chips would need to be that they would only be able to be redeemed in some other NPC space, whether that is null, low or high sec I wouldnt care too much. Moves between regions/NPC faction lines plus moving through at least 1 or both security levels of space would do the trick and not make it a cookie cutter press "buttan receive bacon". And though with MTUs the ease of cleaning up anoms is still quicker the ability to steal, loot and generally harass players would increase simply because if you had the ability to run someone out of an anom or belt you could collect the isk theyd made too up to that point. So destruction wouldnt be the only way to hurt said players, much like if someone runs a miner out of a belt thats jetcanning they can hurt them by blowing up the can of ore and therefore the value and time. If such a thing would be created I would generally enjoy a hacking module, perhaps a modified Ligature or Zeugma or even a Purloined, that would be able to hack the MTUs to spill the contents, particularly the chips or tags. The other option is a parasitic MTU with very limited range, speed and hold that would in essence be anchorable only for a short duration, have a long reanchor timer and limited to one per grid that would be able to be anchored in the anom to collect the wrecks still there. To the victor go the spoils, to those who can hold grid go the riches. This creates a method of harassment, theft and piracy beyond just the ship kill as well. Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3413	Posted - 2017.06.14 16:43:41 - [99] - Quote erg cz wrote: Mark Marconi wrote: To the point that they have even changed NPC Fighter Aggression: No Change (was +15%), so that the NPCs don't increase the attack on the fighters themselves. And they wonder why Hi-Sec and Lo-sec look like ghost towns and they had to make EvE free to play. Exactly. The whole ISK problem was with no drones / fighter agression from NPC. CCP should not tough fighters but rather change NPC AI so , that they will agress 100 % fighters / drones if ships itself does not fire. No semi AFK ratting then, problem solved. The rats already attack fighters and someone who does not pay attention will lose them all rather fast. If you want to stop afk ratting, it's not aggro mechanics you have to change but forcing all drones on sub-cap to passive. Then, nobody can just afk while their ships does all the job.
Beast of Revelations Hedion University Amarr Empire 229	Posted - 2017.06.15 10:04:06 - [100] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: CCP is nerfing the right thing this time. In the past CCP usually nerfed only symptoms of a problem while ignoring the actual cause. For example: ... CCP's fix: Get rid of fighter assign for EVERYONE. I never gate camped once, I used fighter assign to rat and I got nerfed too. Another example: ... CCP's fix: Add frigs to Forsaken hubs, slowing them down for EVERYONE who rats. I did forsaken hubs with sub caps and didn't make 500 mil per hour and still got nerfed THIS TIME CCP got it right. This time they looked at the game, saw that it was FIGHTER SQUADRONS... LOL. So because you weren't nerfed this time (maybe because you don't fly a carrier in PvP?), they got it right. But all the other times when they affected someone and something else but the actual problem, and you were affected too, they got it wrong. Right? Fighter squadrons don't **** ISK all over New Eden, exploding the money supply. Nerfing them makes as much sense as nerfing any other ship or weapon in the game. CCP is being STUPID AND LAZY with this so-called "fix." And in your short-sightedness, and in your lust to see abusers get what's coming to them, you are supporting the nonsense. I'm not being affected either. I don't live in null sec, and I don't fly a carrier. I also don't want a bunch of goons living in Delve raking-in however many trillions of ISK per day/week/month they've been raking-in. But I also recognize you don't stupidly nerf a ship because you don't know how to fix or manage the fracking economy. IT'S STUPID. REASONS TO NERF A COMBAT SHIP OR WEAPON IN PVP 1) The ship or weapon is too strong in PvP. 2) See #1. REASONS NOT TO NERF A COMBAT SHIP OR WEAPON IN PVP 1) Economy. 2) PvE. 3) Just because you feel like it. 4) It's raining outside. 5) Etc. CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER BEFORE NERFING SHIP/WEAPON IN PVP 1) PvP 2) See #1. CIRCUMSTANCES NOT TO CONSIDER BEFORE NERFING SHIP/WEAPON IN PVP 1) Anything else but #1 above.
Mark Marconi Ministry of War Amarr Empire 221	Posted - 2017.06.15 11:11:46 - [101] - Quote Beast of Revelations wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: CCP is nerfing the right thing this time. In the past CCP usually nerfed only symptoms of a problem while ignoring the actual cause. For example: ... CCP's fix: Get rid of fighter assign for EVERYONE. I never gate camped once, I used fighter assign to rat and I got nerfed too. Another example: ... CCP's fix: Add frigs to Forsaken hubs, slowing them down for EVERYONE who rats. I did forsaken hubs with sub caps and didn't make 500 mil per hour and still got nerfed THIS TIME CCP got it right. This time they looked at the game, saw that it was FIGHTER SQUADRONS... LOL. So because you weren't nerfed this time (maybe because you don't fly a carrier in PvP?), they got it right. But all the other times when they affected someone and something else but the actual problem, and you were affected too, they got it wrong. Right? Fighter squadrons don't **** ISK all over New Eden, exploding the money supply. Nerfing them makes as much sense as nerfing any other ship or weapon in the game. CCP is being STUPID AND LAZY with this so-called "fix." And in your short-sightedness, and in your lust to see abusers get what's coming to them, you are supporting the nonsense. I'm not being affected either. I don't live in null sec, and I don't fly a carrier. I also don't want a bunch of goons living in Delve raking-in however many trillions of ISK per day/week/month they've been raking-in. But I also recognize you don't stupidly nerf a ship because you don't know how to fix or manage the fracking economy. IT'S STUPID. REASONS TO NERF A COMBAT SHIP OR WEAPON IN PVP 1) The ship or weapon is too strong in PvP. 2) See #1. REASONS NOT TO NERF A COMBAT SHIP OR WEAPON IN PVP 1) Economy. 2) PvE. 3) Just because you feel like it. 4) It's raining outside. 5) Etc. CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER BEFORE NERFING SHIP/WEAPON IN PVP 1) PvP 2) See #1. CIRCUMSTANCES NOT TO CONSIDER BEFORE NERFING SHIP/WEAPON IN PVP 1) Anything else but #1 above. Yes but on the plus side CCP have harvested a bumper crop of tears from Null sec players. If only they could sell them. Shame they haven't figured out that that their destruction of every other part of the game in favor of Null is the reason they had to go free to play. 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.
Salvos Rhoska 3039	Posted - 2017.06.16 05:35:13 - [102] - Quote As Teckos pointed out, the isk printing from bounties has exhibited so enormous growth in some sectors that something had to be done. Sure, CCP could have nerfed that income in other ways, or more targettedly, but this is what they chose. Their chosen solution is inelegant, blunt and with collateral damage to carrier PvP, but it is what it is. At this point all you can do is HTFU, adapt and deal with it. The anoms have not changed. Now you simply must run them in another way or with another hull. Im no carrier expert, but I think peoples concerns about impact on carrier PvP is exaggerated. PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [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.