Devblog: Spring Balance Update Incoming!

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
, ,
1189

I have yet to see someone attempt to counter that… counter argument. Probably because trying to impose that ISK should be proportionate to prowess is utter ■■■■■■■■ in Eve.

I don’t expect my blinged out 4 billion loki to do 8 times more damage, have 8 times more EHP and get 8 times as many kills as a guy who went with a 500 million fit.

It’s absolutely fine if people are upset (due to being quite frankly spoiled for 2 years of CCP having overpowered Rorquals), and that they no longer want to put that sort of ISK investment at risk (which is so bad by itself, considering that NS is suppose to be full with risk). But I keep seeing the same crap about how hulks in comparison to Rorqs, and the costs associated with both, would somehow negate the fact that Rorqs were in need of balance changes.

If you’re gonna whine over it, at least adress the proper things that could be considered poor or in need of actions with these balance changes:

  • Increased incentives for smaller entities to join the big blocks under the protection of a super umbrella.
  • The need for excavators to be less expensive.

We’ve had 2 years of insane Rorqual proliferation. 2 years where minerals prices have absolutely tanked due to fleets of Rorquals mining at a pace that puts several other macro aspects of game balance out of whack. 2 years where Rorquals would have 50k+ dps EHP active tank, with a panic button that rendered them invulnerable. We’ve had, what was intended as a capital industrial fleet command ship being used to PvP solo roam and take on 20+ subcaps by its own.

It’s blatantly obvious that balance changes were needed.

Shame on CCP for waiting 2 years to do them. And sorry, but not sorry, for all of those who feel cheated that they can’t make the best dank mining ISK in the game as easy any more.

5 Likes
1190

They haven’t broken the game, and me pointing out that you’ve not bothered providing any kind of feedback prior to this but are now willing to criticize and second guess things is not me “getting shirty.”

You’re the equivalent of somebody complaining about the government who never bothers to vote. I’m simply pointing that out.

1 Like
1191

Welcome to the lovely world of “Free to play” and microtransactions. They completely ruin every game they touch. EVE should be subscription only.

1 Like
1192

They have broken the game, it is horribly imbalanced in many places. That’s why we are watching them throw the nerf bat around, to kill off a bunch of assets that the player base aquired through time and effort and we are suppoed to die with a smile because we are doing our part for the greater good.

This is one character of many. I didn’t realise that I had to provide a full listing of all the characters I like to use, where and when and what I post with them . If you’d like to talk about my voting record then maybe you should take it to PM. I don’t think most people care to grill me like that just to read my concerns on the eve forums. Your post is better suited to reddit I think.

1193

Feel free to explain where, and I’ll be happy to pass your concerns on.

Uh, this is EVE.

Post on your main, then. Like I said, you’ve never posted before, and you claim to have been around 10 years. It’s fine if you didn’t want to engage, but it undermines your credibility when this is literally the first complain you’ve had about anything yet you’re saying “they destroyed the game.”

1194

You’ve pointed this out on multiple posts. Any player who subs his account/plays this game in Alpha/has any sort of investment with it has the right to post on this topic. Just because a player doesn’t have a posting history doesn’t invalidate his argument.

Who elected your Judge and Jury on who can have an opinion or whether that opinion is valid?

This Forum post was literally made for Feedback on these changes. People expressing that feedback whether or not you agree with it is positive and beneficial. Because maybe, just maybe you CSM and CCP can see more then one argument.

Also keep in mind maybe this is the first time a lot of people are posting because it’s the first time they’ve seen a change that affected them to the point they wanted to post.

Just a thought.

2 Likes
1195

That wasn’t the goal.

We’ll see. True goals are often different from stated goals – especially when third-party advisers are involved.

2 Likes
1196

Try reading what Brisc said.
He didn’t say new people/alpha’s can’t have an opinion.
He said that claiming to be a super veteran with loads of balance experience yet never having posted in a single thread doesn’t promote someone as a credible poster, because their claims don’t match the evidence available.
Where as someone like Brisc, or Teckos has been reliably posting in a large number of balance threads over the years, and therefore have seen most of the arguments and counter arguments raised around balance changes even if they personally don’t do a particular game play. Which lends credibility to statements they make.
Basically if you are new, just say so, it doesn’t make your opinion worthless, it just puts it in context.

3 Likes
1197

It’s like it’s on repeat.

I never said risk should be proportional to reward. I only said 30x the isk on field plus a bunch of SP doesn’t seem worth a 3x reward. What would be fair? The original model was that each Excavator produced the same as an Exhumer. So, 5 Excavators was 5x a single Exhumer; that seemed reasonable to me at the time, and still sounds reasonable today.

The alternative is to skill-up multiple alts to fly Exhumers. Turns out more alts is better for CCP’s bottom line, so that’s what they’ve decided to push.

2 Likes
1198

Try reading what I have said.

I haven’t ever claimed to be a ‘super veteran’ (what is that exactly?) nor have I said that I have loads of balance experience. I’m also not the person making personal jabs and comments about someones posting history, their voting history or their value to this conversation.

I’ll leave that to you guys. Thank you for reminding me why so many people just don’t post.

1199

Again where is the connection between post count and credibility come from?

What you and/or Brisc are trying to do is cast doubt on someone’s posts by trying to discredit their playtime claim.

How in the overall aspect of this thread does discrediting a post lend any validity to your point? How does it help the cause of CSM trying to sell this to the community as a good change? It doesn’t, that’s how. So if it doesn’t help then it can only hurt. Then if it is a negative, that means his/your intention was to cast doubt onto someone’s point by finding a flaw with anything they post.

Also if CSM are really concerned about seeing a large conversation take place about the current state of the game, forum posts/reddit posts/social media probably are not the most accurate places to get those conversations. One because you have no way of knowing how many unique individuals you are speaking to, two you can’t be sure that the larger population is participating in those conversations and not just a small vocal minority.

That is my point.

1200

We have been. You’ve said you’re a ten year veteran, with 10 rorquals. You’ve said CCP has destroyed the game, the game is horribly imbalanced in places, you’re going to dock up all your Rorqs because of this change, etc.

When I ask you specifically why you waited until now to post, you don’t answer. When I asked for feedback on other areas that are horribly unbalanced, you don’t answer. When I suggest you post on your main, you claim that I’m somehow making a “personal jab.”

Your only feedback has been that this nerf is going to make you dock up everything and go do something else. I don’t know if that’s a horrible thing, but you seem very unhappy about it. I don’t see why you think this nerf, alone, is suddenly going to be the end of the game, when the previous three didn’t destroy it, and as I noted above, Rorqs are still the best mining ship in the game, are still scalable, still defensible, etc.

These changes are worthwhile, but they aren’t earth shattering. So I don’t get the “they destroyed the game” argument, and I definitely don’t understand why you’re being so defensive merely because I questioned what you’ve shared.

1201

No, the connection is between participation in discussion on gameplay, and credibility in having knowledge around gameplay. I.E. If you spend time studying a thing and debating a thing, most people develop knowledge of a thing.
Sure, you don’t need to have discussed it, you can have knowledge other ways, or simply have an opinion, but not all opinions are equal, and an opinion where you attempt to justify it by making a claim that appears potentially false is weaker, because it looks like you are using false credentials to try and lend it weight.
If you are honest that you don’t have experience and just have a vision or wish, even that is stronger than backing with false or unverified/evasive credentials.

Now, do you have any numerical arguments or gameplay arguments to bring to the table?

1202

I have never used the wortd veteran. I have never said that I have 10 rorquals. It’s 8. I don;t recall using the word destroyed, I said broken and if I have to explain to you why I think that then I continue to wonder if we are playing the same game.

I haven’t actually mined in a while anyway, I have been less engaged with eve for a while so this nerf wasn’t the end of my playstyle in any case because my stuff was already docked. I actually said that I was not sure if I would use the rorquals again. I’ve already achieved many of the things I wanted to do in eve. Please stop changing what I said, in the context of the words I used in attempt to make me look bad. I haven’t mentioned the end of the game in any of my posts and I’m not being defensive. I’m here because I care about eve, not because I wanted to be talked down to by a CSM member.

Sorry if I didn’t respond to all of your questions, I was a little taken aback at the hostility and post shaming and unsure if it’s actually worth my time exchanging many more words with you because you are misrepresenting me and my intentions. Not useful.

1203

What I’m trying to do is point out that somebody who is being loudly critical of this change has never posted before today. That’s it.

I take what folks say at face value, but I also try to do my homework so I can get a better understanding of what that person does. That’s why I’m willing to argue with guys like Tipa and Rivr - despite the fact that we disagree, those guys both post on their mains and have significant experience in the game and I respect that. What they say, even when they’re mocking me, means more knowing they’ve been around the block.

1204

You’ve been playing ten years. That makes you a veteran, whether you use that term or not. As for 10, I got that from this comment:

I don’t think the game is broken, so yeah - I need you to explain to me why you think it is. And that requires more than “we must be playing a different game.”

So why are you coming at folks so hard about this specific change if you’ve already taken a step back?

See, this is the reason why I’m skeptical about some of these kinds of complaint posts. This specific change had no impact on your stepping back from mining, but you’re complaining about it as if it had. That’s disingenuous.

Let me get this straight. You’ve played 10 years. You’ve never posted on the forums before. You’ve already stopped mining for other reasons than this nerf. And now you’re upset that you’re “being talked down to” when all I have questioned is why you’ve waited until now to complain if you think everything is broken?

I care about EVE, too, and that’s why I’ve been busting my ass to try to help fix things that I think are broken. Where have you been?

Hostility? This is not me being hostile. It’s me being skeptical.

3 Likes
1205

The only person being disingenuous is you.

How is making a few posts with genuine concerns ‘coming at folks’ ? Perhaps you need to take a step back from this if you feel it is personal. I’m not coming at you. Sorry if blaming CCP for this mess upset you. It was not my intent.

I’m not upset that you are talking down to me, I didn’t say that. I did say that I was surprised at your hostility. I still am. but also quite amused at this point, with a sprinkle of distaste. Is it ok for me to post here about my concerns even though I haven’t mined in a while? If not, I’ll just stop because like I have already said, this isn’t productive. I should have followed my instincts and just stuck to reading other people’s discourse.

1 Like
1206

What are these concerns?
Brisc literally asked you to list details. You gave none, you just gave a tantrum response of ‘It ruined my game’.
If you want to have a discussion, then list some specific points that can actually be discussed.
Does a panic of 4 vs 5 minutes really impact your mining for example, if so, why does it?

2 Likes
1207

Nerfing Rorqs does nothing for CCPs stated goals. As someone else put it nerfing the Rorq in this fashion will result in more Rorq deaths with a lowering of a players ability to recover from the Rorq death. This will ultimately lead to players either quiting or having to buy PLEX to get back into a Rorq.

Read Olmeca’s post on Reddit. They stated how many Rorqs die a month currently in game. 200 or 300 Rorqs? Do you really think that this change is not going to directly relate to a large number of Rorq deaths a month. Most of that is going to be in smaller corps/alliances. Which is where you’re going to see a drop in their mineral output/super output/MER numbers and a pretty stable output from the larger Alliances as their Rorqs are going to continue to be safe.

Below is an example of what a Rorq pilot will have to weigh going forward:

Rorqs are stuck on field for 5 minutes. By reducing their ability to self rep you lower their ability to survive the remaining time on their siege cycle. By reducing their PANIC button duration you increase the chances of firing it too early allowing for a window where a fleet can kill the Rorq. If a Rorq does not have a Umbrella that is on the ball they can easily die as it is, now with these changes, it makes the Rorq a bigger target as you have 2 Excavators for sure in the Rorq.

As far as reducing Mineral input in the game, yes it will reduce it, mainly in the smaller groups. However as the current inventory of minerals in the large blocs, according the MER report, vs what is being produced the reduction in mining capability won’t actually have an effect for months.

As far as Super proliferation, since Supers won’t be ratting as often you’re going to see a drop in the death of Supers(ones that are tackled while ratting) as they’ll be docked or tethered.

Since Supers also have a rather large nerf on their tracking it’ll make them that much less effective if a Rorq does get dropped. Same thing for Titans as well.

Basically all of this leads to a point of view that CCP would rather people play in Sub-Caps, mine in subcaps, rat in subcaps, pvp in subcaps.

It also means that the large scale battles and the large subcap fleets become harder and harder for a Alliance to bounce back from as they don’t have the same number of industrial players out on the fields making the ships/modules they need. So they will be a lot more hesitant to undock and fight.

After so long of playing in the same ships and having little incentive to advance past subcap most players will get bored and move away from Eve and head into other MMOs that offer new content or End Game content.

Alot of players use the Capitals as a long term goal to play for.

If the stated goal was truly to lower the number of Capitals/Super Capitals in game and as well as evening out the MER there are a number of ways of doing that without targeting 1 group of players(but unintentionally targeting the smaller groups).

Here are some ideas, literally just spit balling:

Introduce capital only Anomalies with higher DPS/more intelligent AI that will produce enough isk to make it worth wild while also increasing the chance a Capital will die.

Lower the bounties on Subcap anomalies for Supers/Capitals.

Increase taxes for Super/Cap bounty payouts.

Introduce new Ore/Mineral components for Capital/Super Capital building that requires a subcap to fly(Mercoxit type ores).

Increase the spawn rates of Blood Titans/Dreads in anoms.

Create agreements with major power blocks that allow a diverse nullsec population to take hold increasing the amount of nullsec corps that can grow. Use incentives for Nullsec alliances to create NIPs with the new coalitions for a set period of time to allow them to get established.

Create a Capital/Super capital power fuel requirement to run all mods/systems that is mined in different areas, like fuel blocks or Ice so it has to be imported moving money around to different groups.

I mean there are a ton of different ways you could have attained a better result for what was stated as your end goal.

I LOVE that you are boosting Sub caps. I love in May you are coming out with a new ship and new modules. Hell making small changes here and there is fine.

As I said in another post if you had just nerfed the Excavators mining yield, yeah no big deal, it would suck, some people would still complain but they would still be out there mining without an issue. But adding that change plus the size of Excavators being increased plus the tank nerf is where the issue comes into play.

Coming in with a large meat cleaver and just going to town multiple aspects of what make Capital/Super Capitals fun/useful isn’t the right approach. It won’t have the outcome you want. It will alienate a portion of your player base and cause player churn unnecessarily.

Again if you say “BOTS” I’m going to point out you can’t punish your rule abiding players for the actions of a small botting community when you have other tools in your tool shed to dead with that. Stop using Bots as an excuse.

4 Likes
1208

As long as the Cyclone is left alone I’m good.

1 Like