lol
nice try
ekks dee
Thatâs only 150 (or less depending on fit) FAX since itâs individual modules. Remember X47? UALX? I donât have specific numbers, but I would wager each side got close to if not over that number individually.
The main goal of the patch is not to remove the surplus of resources â rather, itâs to make it more difficult for players to plex their accounts using in-game resources; they are nerfing a bunch of the most lucrative isk faucets. At the same time, they want more ships to die. They consider having fewer capitals in the game to be a Good Thing.
Sadly, they clearly donât understand the Law of Unintended Consequences.
3 Likes
As someone in this forum said, there was a time when the max income of a player was around 60-80 mil/h and supers/titans costed double to triple what they cost now.
Inflation is kicking in and they want to do something about it.
Not saying that they are doing anything good by hammering down late game content by nerfing everything instead of finding new ways to improve and set new goals though diversification.
I still think that eventually more and more people will get to this late game that is causing this inflation and hammering it down further is no answer.
What makes you say that? Why would making it harder for players to PLEX their accounts with ISK be something they want?
I also have the option to stop plexing or paying. CCPâs nerf bat hit the wallet right out of my hands.
For me, itâs time to go play more Factorio or Satisfactory or even Star Citizen. I have no interest in supporting a company like CCP with a subscription-based game that has so little respect for and understanding of its long-term customers.
5 Likes
So they can sell plex!? So you are out grinding, more chance of dying. So you buy plex!?
1 Like
If you like that RL analogy, then you should also mention that carriers by themselves are VERY vulnerable to attacks by small targets but very potent with their support fleet. CCP did very same thing with carriers in EvE - you need support ship(s) to tackle, web and/or paint target to be effective.
I agree that Corax needs some damage. Currently a max (relevant) skilled Alpha will have a lot of trouble to kill even Dagan from SOE epic arc with max dps fit and faction rockets: 32876:22291;2:6001;1:8517;1:2281;1:9580;1:16527;7:31752;1:31586;1:31604;1:27333;315::
Guys, the goal of this upcoming patch is very simple: Generate more revenue for CCP (Pearl Abyss). As a player whoâs been here since damn near the beginning (you know, when it took actual time commitments to train pilots, not dollars into CCPâs wallet) this is way too obvious. They say they donât want to fill the game with mircotransactions, but then replace that with horribly nerfing isk generation so youâre forced to spend more real money to sub your account(s). These changes were never even discussed until the acquisition by Pearl Abyss. The cap insurance and nerfs for caps, including rorqs, is all designed to make your ships pop faster and cost you more isk, which means if you want to continue playing at the level you currently are youâll be buying more plex for those also. They can hide these changes under the guise of stopping botters and balancing âoverpoweredâ caps, but lets be seriousâŚif youâre going to fly the largest ships that cost the most isk and require the most skill points, shouldnât they be superior to the ships that alpha clones can field???
This is nothing more than increasing the ROI Pearl Abyss receives from their investment. Iâve been here for all the major changes and simplifications of the game to invite fresh blood into EVE (my oldest character is just shy of his 13th birthday) and I can honestly say that this is the first time Iâm truly disappointed in CCPâs choice of direction for something that has been a part of the lives of thousands of people for over a decade. Long live the days when your skill points carried a sense of pride because high SP translated into a serious time commitment to a game unlike any other in existence instead of opening up daddyâs wallet to rush into a rorqual and a titan 10 days into the game.
You can probably expect my accounts to be going to alpha when this patch releases.
6 Likes
since they got SP-extractor its possible to hold omega-status almost for free through without getting new skills
Have you seen MERs for the last few months? Can you say with a straight face that what they show is normal?
they are superior to anything alpha clones can field. But ship size and cost is not an indicator that it should be âbetterâ than all other (omega)ships in any given task.
Hmm.
VNI nerf: really wish you wouldnât axe the drone speed bonus-- I know itâs probably something to do with PvE income but this bonus was the one thing that made the VNI a really exceptional, flexible PvP platform.
Rorqual nerfs: will disproportionately affect smaller operators who donât have the luxury of living under a supercapital umbrella (since theyâll die easier and losses will be more expensive). For the larger operators who can deploy them safely, ore quantity reductions will simply be offset by larger numbers of Rorquals. There are too many minerals on the market, but if I were you guys Iâd look at decreasing supply by making ore supplies less common rather than nerfing mining yield on mining ships. Nobody likes mining: if we can get rid of some of the supply by spending less time mining less ore rather than spending more time mining the same amount of ore that would be Goodâ˘.
Capital / Supercap changes: hard to say. Iâve personally always wanted an autocannon Nag, which was somewhat impractical before, was (until now) very do-able with HAWs, and will now be kind of a gimmick again. Canât really say Iâve seen a whole lot of HAW Titans out there âbeing oppressiveâ-- most of what I see is Titans trading DD volleys in massive TiDi clusters, and individual Titans bosoning literally everything from rats to frigates on stargates. I really donât see the HAWs as being the most pressing issue with Titans but whatever. Surprised youâre not nerfing HAWs on Dreads, since HAW Dreads have become super-common and are pretty disposable. I guess youâre improving the disposability aspect with the insurance nerfs. Weâll see.
Mostly Iâm horrified that you actually held up the Triglavian ships as an example of good ship balance. IDK how bling-mobiles for credit-card warriors that blatantly outperform everything in their respective classes are âbalanced.â
IMHO you guys need to stop introducing new ships and focus on nerfing smaller ships and buffing things like battleships and battlecruisers to put the spectum of ship sizes and ship capabilities back in a place that makes sense. Currently almost all PvP is conducted either in tiny ships (mostly destroyers and frigates, with a helping of cruiser-sized hulls) or capital ships, with almost nothing in-between. Battleships are laughably useless: they canât lock anything quickly enough, they canât maneuver to engage or disengage from fights, they canât hit anything because all the targets are frigates and destroyers, they move around at a depressingly glacial pace, and even their on-paper damage outputs are frequently approached by cruiser and destroyer-sized ships. Theyâre easy prey for capital ships and T3Ds alike, and have been relegated to the realm of memeing and gimmickry.
One last note: when it comes to balancing ships to adjust the economy, you guys should be balancing the PvE content itself rather than making PvE-centered alterations to ships. Ships should be balanced for player-versus-player interactions first, and PvE content should then be balanced around the available ship pool to ensure that ISK is being printed at appropriate rates. I hate seeing you guys rebalance fighters and rebalance drone bonuses etc etc all to try (spectacularly unsuccessfully, as it were) to limit the amount of ISK people can make. Change the anoms, not the ships. If you think capital ships are printing too much ISK, find a way to keep capitals out of PvE sites. IDK.
4 Likes
Iâve been playing Eve for about 4 years. It took me a while, but I finally understand the core of CCPâs business model. Itâs a simple bait-and-switch. Deliver some new and wonderful feature or capability or even the promise of one, then get people to pay lots to get that thing, then nerf it into oblivion to be ready to entice with the next one. Rinse and repeat.
In most industries, this would be considered criminal fraud. Somehow, in gaming, itâs tolerated. It shouldnât be.
5 Likes
Iâm curious about one thing. Given that the balance patch has significantly reduced the capabilities of capitals, and increased the risk of using them, would it not make sense to make a corresponding adjustment to mineral and parts requirements for construction of said capitals?
This adjustment will significantly reduce the value of these ships. I think that it would behoove you to consider reducing the investment required to build them.
This would not hinder the attempt to balance capitals down. It would merely help to keep them as relevant.
Since you insisted on bringing up real life aircraft carriersâŚ
This is the support fleet of a real life aircraft carrier:
3 Likes
One issue is that capitals are already getting dirt cheap. My loki costs more than both my carrier and dread.
Then you can add the insurance payout on top of that as well.
1 Like
The only people who like this kind of change are the large block groups. all the little guys have is capitals. cause we cant locust mine an entire region. or defend ourselves. take the caps away and the game goes to the large blocks. but hey. CCP doesnt care. they all play in goons anyway.
1 Like
Sad thing is i remember when us player use the only battleships available like the Apoc as mining ships and giant secure cans to transfer ore to Transporters in 0.4 system, before T2 and Nulsec were even released.
So i saw the very early days of eve and seem many changes over the years, in tge earlier days these changes made sense, but lately it seems many of these changes/balances are questioned, mainly due to how they are being been made.
I wonder if CCP should give the community a couple of options for these changes and see which method the community prefers.
From what youâve post it almost seens as if CCP donât really listen to the CSM members, sound almost like CIG and the Star Citizen community interaction/communition. Very disfunctional.
@Brisc_Rubal we can only hope what you post is true, as with the NDA you canât proof anything without breaking it.
But you can understand why many question the existance of the CSM.
2 Likes
The goal of these Rorqual nerfs is not to reduce the total amount of ore coming into the game.
The goal is clearly to make it more difficult for Rorqual pilots who arenât in large alliances with constant cap umbrellas to mine for isk / plex. The total ore produced has nothing to do with it. If they truly wanted to reduce ore, thereâs a much easier (and much more fair) solution: simply reduce the amount of ore in belts and moons and/or spawn rates. They could even nerf refinery percentage yields. They didnât do it that way because thatâs not their goal.
4 Likes
An another answer is have a deployment distance from other Rorqs, like CCP has for mobile tractor units and other deployable items.
Even a small 5km min distance from any deployed structure or Rorq, would reduce the number in a field hugely, and it would effect small corps with only a few Rorqs much, other than making sure they deploy in a great spot before anyone else.
Theres heaps of possible solutions much better than what CCP plan to do.