Devblog: Spring Balance Update Incoming!

[Ace_Aideron]

This thread reads like an ad for Goons.

If I was going to stay in the game as a miner or cap pilot I would be strongly tempted to join Goons and move to Delve.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Ace_Aideron

there’s 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.

So you mean leave Rorquals still proportionally making as much ore compared to barges.
The issue is that Rorquals were too good compared to other mining ships.
Hence why Rorquals got their mining amount nerfed.
The changes you list would have actually hurt all the other mining vessels MORE than Rorquals.

[Johnno_Ormand]

Rorqual excavator size nerf was totally unnecessary, I accept yield nerfs whatever but removing our ability to save our expensive excavators is totally retarded. Are you going to reduce the cost of excavator drones?? No of course your not… If these changes go ahead my Rorqual will be permanently docked collecting dust. Good job ccp, not!!

Ccp if these changes go ahead I will unsub my two accounts paid for with real money… Long time subscriber since 2014, you are gradually sucking away my fun with this game.

[Ranar_Linyne]

You have to keep in mind that a lot of us only grudgingly pve to fund our pvp habits. Taking that into consideration would’ve been nice. I need isk to buy ships to blow them up. That is where we get our enjoyment, and forcing us to waste even more time generating the income required to keep up a pvp habit sucks enjoyment from the game. Ah, but the conclusion they want us to come to is “just buy more plex and sell it for isk”. Nah, I’ll keep doing what i’m doing until I can’t. Then I’ll take a break until they unfuck this.

“This is not going to go the way you think” - Jake Skywalker Seems oddly applicable don’t you think.

[RenegadeMonk_Minayin]

If CCP wants to balance the cap proliferation, perhaps it should buff the DPS of stations. So that stations can do a lot more damage to slow moving caps.

[Ace_Aideron]

What makes you say that?

Because CCP only makes money by selling Plex for cash. If I can no longer Plex my account through in-game means, my only alternatives are to either stop playing or to pay CCP real cash money.

High isk prices for Plex also work in CCP’s favor, for similar reasons. The higher the price for Plex, the more difficult it becomes to earn enough in-game to cover a month’s subscription, and the more isk players can get by buying Plex for cash and selling it in-game.

Low mineral prices also work in CCP’s favor. Low mineral prices allow players to build or buy bigger ships for less isk, which in turn makes buying Plex for cash more appealing.

Skill injectors also work in CCP’s favor.

Put it all together, and the proposed nerfs strongly work in CCP’s favor (at least superficially, ignoring the Law of Unintended Consequences). I don’t mind supporting CCP; I want them to be successful! I just wish the devs had been able to figure out a way to achieve their business goals without screwing over long-time customers like me.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@dewk

From what you’ve post it almost seens as if CCP don’t 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 can’t proof anything without breaking it.
But you can understand why many question the existance of the CSM.

Some question the existence, sure. But most folks either don’t care or understand the reason behind it.

CCP does value our input and they do listen. The reality is that we’ve been telling them for a while that all of this stuff needed to be done, and they’re finally doing it.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Ace_Aideron

The goal is clearly to make it more difficult for Rorqual pilots who aren’t in large alliances with constant cap umbrellas to mine for isk / plex.

That wasn’t the goal.

[Theodora_Castro]

So the CSM (and the 1% of eve players who post on reddit) asked for this. Who asked the other 99% of players what they wanted?

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Theodora_Castro

So the CSM (and the 1% of eve players who post on reddit) asked for this. Who asked the other 99% of players what they wanted?

CSM represents the players. I’ve been asking folks want they want pretty constantly for the last year.

[dewk]

But that raises another question…

…is CCP making these changes in the best possible way for gameplay and community?

You have to agree some of the changes/balances CCP have applied leave a lot to the imagination. Some even feel like an knee jurk reaction than a thought out balance. In some cases CCP fail to see thr big picture of an inbalance, and go for the “nuff hammer” answer as some put it.

When the should be looking at all the possible reason for these issues.

The Rorq is just another example of these mentality, it so simple to see theres an issue of too many rorqs in a field.

How do you reduce the number of Rorqs in a field?

Reduction of how much they can mine won’t do it, if anything it’ll possible increase the number to get the same amount of ore in the sametime, or the large corps will just mine longer.

Ideas of reducing asteriod field sizes would only make things worse.

Using the deployment feature as a means to limit number of Rorqs in a field is the only real answer. Tie all the Mining role benefits to the indy deployment module, as this would force the Rorqs to deploy to gain these benefits. Then have a minium distance from deployed objects of say 15km or more(most belts are only 30-60km in diameter) and this limits how many Rorqs and deloy in a belt, sure other could deploy farther out, but this increases the cycle time of mining drone harvesting.
Maybe even reduce the base effective drone control range of Rorqs, and maybe command burst ranges.

These are simple ways to get the same result CCP is trying to do with their current balance hammer method, but this way actual causes less Rorqs to be deploy in a field as to many would mean the ine farther out would be worth fielding. If you cant get close enough for your drones to be effective then why waste the time trying.
This could even add an new feature of corps purposely attacking deployed Rorqs to gain a spot for their own Rorq deployment.

Where as noted above, CCPs method doesnt stop how many can be deployed within the field, only how much each can pull, which means a large corp could easily add another 10-20Rorq to counter CCPs solution, and still get what they were before. Remwmber a Rorq for these big corps costs them nothing in the big picture.

Im hoping you see where im heading with this.

[Ace_Aideron]

So you mean leave Rorquals still proportionally making as much ore compared to barges.

Yes.

The issue is that Rorquals were too good compared to other mining ships.

“Too good”? Currently, it’s around 30x the isk at risk on the field (plus a zillion skill points) for 3x the reward compared to a boosted Hulk. That actually seems too low to me.

The changes you list would have actually hurt all the other mining vessels MORE than Rorquals.

It’s mainly with the strength of multiple Rorqs that entire mining anoms and moons get quickly cleared. With barges and the like, it takes longer, so a longer respawn time or less ore to begin with wouldn’t be noticed unless there were swarms of smaller miners – in which case, yes, it would hurt them too. However, it seems fair to equally penalize 1 player operating 3 barges vs. 1 player operating a Rorq that mines 3 times as much.

Either way, it’s a moot point, since CCP and the useless CSM have apparently already made up their minds to go in a different direction.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@dewk

…is CCP making these changes in the best possible way for gameplay and community?

That’s an impossible question to answer, because if you ask ten people “what’s the best possible way” you’re going to get 15 different answers.

@dewk

You have to agree some of the changes/balances CCP have applied leave a lot to the imagination. Some even feel like an knee jurk reaction than a thought out balance. In some cases CCP fail to see thr big picture of an inbalance, and go for the “nuff hammer” answer as some put it.

None of these are knee-jerk reactions. Almost all of the stuff included in here has been floated by the community or the Devs in the past as potential changes to address issues. Also, the term is “nerf bat.”

@dewk

How do you reduce the number of Rorqs in a field?

I don’t think that was ever part of the design question.

@dewk

Im hoping you see where im heading with this.

Yes, you’re making another N+1 argument, but that’s essentially the solution to every issue in EVE. “Bring more” solves 95% of the problems in EVE.

The issue here was not the numbers of Rorqs, it was how difficult they were to kill, and how good they are at doing what they do. Frankly, I would have been fine if they hadn’t bothered reducing the amount they can mine because I am hopeful that the other changes will make it riskier to deploy Rorqs and that will see more of them getting blown up.

That’s what I hope to see with supers, as well, with the NSA changes.

I’m a firm believer that the vast majority of the potential economic problems we see in EVE, whether it’s from the amount of isk in the economy to the amount of mineral wealth, to supercap and titan proliferation, can all be solved by making more things blow up.

[Theodora_Castro]

If you really believe that the number of rorquals isn’t a big part of the problem and hasn’t been a part of the design question then I seriously question if we are playing the same game.

Fascinating customer service too. CCP : We messed up the game, we knew we messed up rorquals but we left you to deal with that mess for years and you adapted. However now the game is really broken we just need you all to die.

Fantastic.

[Eimar_Akytamku]

@Ace_Aideron

The issue is that Rorquals were too good compared to other mining ships.

“Too good”? Currently, it’s around 30x the isk at risk on the field (plus a zillion skill points) for 3x the reward compared to a boosted Hulk. That actually seems too low to me.

@Eimar_Akytamku

Did you get 285 times as much ISK from ratting in a super, as opposed to a VNI? Because that’s how much more expensive the super is.

Or did you get 10-15 times as much ISK from ratting in a super, compared to a carrier?

The answer is no in both instances. ISK making doesn’t scale linearly with the cost of the ships you’re flying, or the SP you invest.

Prior to these balance changes, people were still ratting in supers, and carriers, even if the proportionate investments vs reward was way worse than ratting in a VNI.

And the exact same model is applied to mining as well.

So no. You’re by no means entitled to have a proportionate reward to the cost of a Rorqual, when comparing it to a hulk or a covetor.

It’s like it’s on repeat.

[Theodora_Castro]

And you keep repeating the same counter argument. It doesn;t change the fact that many people have stated that they feel after this round of nerfs that the rorqual is too disproportionate in risk v reward. That’s what CCP wants though. Some rorquals will be put away to gather dust and some will die. If enough don’t die, the bat will come out again. Maybe a cyno nerf and a further panic nerf?

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Theodora_Castro

If you really believe that the number of rorquals isn’t a big part of the problem and hasn’t been a part of the design question then I seriously question if we are playing the same game.

The point of these changes wasn’t to reduce the number of Rorquals. Rorquals are some of the best content in the game for a lot of people.

@Theodora_Castro

Fascinating customer service too. CCP : We messed up the game, we knew we messed up rorquals but we left you to deal with that mess for years and you adapted. However now the game is really broken we just need you all to die.

Fantastic.

The game is constantly evolving. This is just the next step. Folks will adapt to this, too.

[Theodora_Castro]

So making more rorquals die also isn’t about reducing the number of rorquals? I am feeling a little confused now. I’ll go re read the post. EDIT : Of course people will adapt. It doesn’t mean that things have been handled well, they haven’t.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Theodora_Castro

So making more rorquals die also isn’t about reducing the number of rorquals? I am feeling a little confused now. I’ll go re read the post. EDIT : Of course people will adapt. It doesn’t mean that things have been handled well, they haven’t.

Making more Rorqs die will not reduce the number of them. Because people make more and go back out and fly again. They’re not that expensive, especially if they manage to save the drones.

You say that things haven’t been handled well - this is the first thread you’ve ever posted in despite claiming you’ve been playing for 10 years. If things haven’t been handled well before, why weren’t you providing feedback along the way?

[Theodora_Castro]

So now that you don’t like how the discussion is going you feel the need to make it personal? Perhaps people like you making comments like that, posting every where all the time is quite off putting for the more quiet players?

Not everyone who loses a rorqual will replace it, especally with the wetu nerf. If rorquals are dying in the numbers that you and CCP seem to hope for, flying one will be a far more considered action. Many will chose barges or some other form of isk making and that’s what you want right?

CCP broke the game, there’s no point in getting shirty with me for voicing disapproval.