Again, stop misrepsenting me. I haven’t said that anything ruined my game. I listed my concerns already, I don’t believe that repeating them over and over again makes them any more valid than any one elses opinions. Feel free to look at my posts if you genuinely feel that interested in what I had to say, rather than what ever it is that you are both trying to achieve now.
I actually have belatedly realised that I have wasted my time talking here. Sharing my thoughts changes nothing and some people will just keep picking apart my words. It’s not productive so I’ll bow out and wish you all a good night.
I think, ultimately, the developers are looking to make fleets more arranged such that you support fleets for supers instead of these blobs of nothing but supers just sitting there playing number games.
Oh, inside 50 dictor bubbles…
As for less supers and less players flying them, maybe that would be all the new players who will sign up.
Just kidding. As long as they don’t smack the solar panels off the Cyclone I’m happy.
CCP’s stated goal is to A: Nerf rorqs yield. How have they failed to do that.
And B: To make them die a bit more. How will this fail to do that.
How does this go together. Small groups don’t drop super fleets, so those nerfs have to be impacting large groups defending titans which would mean more large group rorquals should die since super fleets can’t defend them as well. Small groups would be dropping normal fleets to defend them which shouldn’t be impacted any way I can see, except maybe regular carriers.
No, you did say it, and you haven’t listed any specific concerns, you’ve just tossed out generic statements without details.
1 - I am referring to the line that states “Leading to an unsustainable amout of mineral supply for the Eve economy” As far as actually Nerfing the Rorqs, again it’ll lower the Rorq yield but mainly in small alliances which don’t contribute that much to the MER regardless.
Yes they will lower the mineral output but again the effect of that won’t be felt in the bigger blocs for months. It will mainly effect the small blocs/renters upfront.
Rorquals are extremely powerful mining foreman ships, and their combination of power, utility, and defense has been crowding out other mining ships and leading to an unsustainable amount of mineral supply for the EVE economy. We’ve been seeing numerous requests from the community for us to reduce the power of Rorquals and this April we’re planning a few changes to tone these behemoths down a bit.
2- Except for the fact that the large Alliances can offset any nerf to the Titan/Super for their umbrellas with numbers. So that again states that the only groups really truly affected by the nerfing of Super/Titans for their umbrellas are the small groups. So they will solely switch to subcaps/already have subcap response fleets and will only continue to have subcap fleets. Meaning that the small groups will not grow or expand, they will not increase mineral consumption, they will not increase isk generation outside the big groups, and overall keep the balance in Null Sec where it is.
I get your point most other groups don’t have Supers/Titans for their response fleet. Some groups do but not all. But it also will change their long term growth as well.
So by making these changes they are consolidating the power in the big bloc of Null sec alliances. They are discouraging small bloc alliances from growing their industry base/ratting base. They are also discouraging newer players from skilling into Capital/Super Caps there by keeping the power base in the aging player base instead of promoting growth with new players and inviting new players to get into high end content.
If you can figure out a way to nerf something without it affecting the smaller groups more AND that cannot be abused in any way, I’m sure that CCP would be interested to hear. It’s an unfortunate fact that any change you do will affect the smaller entities first as they have less buffer to work with.
here’s a way. a localized field on the held sov, on say Goonswarm or any other large block group making whatever they mine only come in at half rate. since they are a big block group. that way you leave the small guys alone. instead of ■■■■■■■ them the hardest as per usual.
But my point wasn’t that. My point was their stated goals, their intent to balance economic output in the game, the turn off ISK faucets all of which are issues caused by the large bloc alliances, those goals are not met by doing this in any meaningful way.
So are they intending to force players to spend more and more real money to buy PLEX to sell for ISK. If that is their true goal then that is where the anger/resentment comes from the players. A lot of players have brought that point up if you read through the long list of comments on this.
If increasing in game revenue isn’t their goal then they have done a horrible job communicating their goals, they’ve done a horrible job implementing change to achieve those goals.
So it’s either lying or incompetence. You decide for yourself.
Uh,… How exactly do their changes not meet those stated goals?
You aren’t sounding like you actually read the Dev blog here, where they list goals, and specifically give details surrounding the issues behind each change.
Our main focus for spring is capital balance.
Since the major rework in Citadel, which was meant to put power back in the hands of capital pilots, it’s become clear that we over-shot our goals in several areas. Capital have become an all-in-one answer to most of EVE’s obstacles. At very large scales fights feel frustrating due to the power of Force Auxiliaries. Capital damage application and projection is suppressing sub-capital viability across the game.
Rorquals are extremely powerful mining foreman ships, and their combination of power, utility, and defense has been crowding out other mining ships and leading to an unsustainable amount of mineral supply for the EVE economy.
Uh,… How exactly do their changes not meet those stated goals?
You aren’t sounding like you actually read the Dev blog here, where they list goals, and specifically give details surrounding the issues behind each change.
I’ve answered this so if you can’t read my post I can’t help you.
Capital damage application changes is offset by big bloc alliances by sheer numbers. Therefore it doesn’t achieve this goal.
FAX changes - are offset by sheer numbers of big bloc alliances. Therefore it doesn’t achieve this goal.
Rorqual - nerfing yield/tank will mainly affect small bloc alliances which does not contribute to the MER issues stated in any meaningful way. Big bloc players while nerfed will continue to mine, will continue to have their super umbrella. At the Macro level it doens’t have an effect on them. It will mainly have an effect on the small/renter alliances. So it won’t do anything for the “unsustainable amount of miner supply for the Eve Economy”
So are they intending to force players to spend more and more real money to buy PLEX to sell for ISK. If that is their true goal then that is where the anger/resentment comes from the players. A lot of players have brought that point up if you read through the long list of comments on this.
If increasing in game revenue isn’t their goal then they have done a horrible job communicating their goals, they’ve done a horrible job implementing change to achieve those goals.
So it’s either lying or incompetence. You decide for yourself.
These changes will have an effect on every player in a practical sense on the individual level. However on the large scale Eve as a whole macro level, it will not have the intended desire. Capitals will still be used by the big alliances, the older players who are established will still use them. The new players or players in small alliances will have more at risk and more problems going forward to the point it might not be viable for them to compete at that level.
That is my point. I hope I’ve made it clear if I haven’t let me know.
I was referring to these claims. You are putting words in CCP’s mouth, then saying CCP are incompetent or lying about the words that CCP never said in this Dev blog.
When none of these changes are anything to do with isk faucets, and claiming it’s all about forcing people to buy plex is the best kind of tinfoil.
As for your other claims.
It does, because sheer numbers have a limit. Sure n+1 still works, n+1 is always going to work without a base mechanics change regardless of what the exact numbers are.
See above. N+1 is always going to work.
You haven’t demonstrated why this is true. You have simply asserted it. Restating a claim repeatedly isn’t going to make it any more true or demonstrated.
N.b. I’m not saying you are wrong on this one, I’m just saying, actually demonstrate it, and demonstrate why the current situation is better than this changed situation. Given as above, N+1 is always going to be better in EVE’s base mechanics.
or more importantly: to jump ravens…
that a keepstar can’t hit a Stuka Fleet is a horrific overisght. simply change from missiles to guns and give the structure a 500km range.
Thanks for your reasoned responses. I’m not into tinfoil myself, and I’d like to take a swing at explaining why the Rorqual changes are likely to disproportionally effect smaller/less developed groups.
Here goes:
A Large group {CONDI] for example, has enough Faxes and Supers logged in at any time that a cyno can call overwhelming help and support before any damage can be done to the Rorqual, even without the ability to PANIC to give a few more minutes of complete safety. ( 0.1% chance of losing the Rorqual )
The mining rate reduction of 24% means that for every 4 Rorquals on grid today, another 1 will be injected and in space tomorrow. The net change? One sub/plex to CCP, no ore supply change. ( 1% increase in yield per hour )
A Midsized group, {BRAVE] for example. Doesn’t usually have Faxes and Supers logged in, But would be able to log them in within a few minutes if needed. A Rorqual can buy time with local reps, and more time with PANIC, to allow a rescue to be formed. Hopefully that rescue can form in time, with hard cap on time being the 10 minute cycno cycle that would start immediately to preclude the effectiveness of a mobile cyno jammer. ( 10% chance of losing the Rorqual )
The mining rate reduction means that people will likely train a Covetor on an alt account to make up for the loss in yield from their Rorqual. CCP gets maybe another sub, or maybe a utility account gets another use. ( 0-10% reduction in yield/hr )
A Small group [FLEEP] Has no Supers, maybe one Titan for Bridging and the Rorqual characters are mostly cross trained into Carriers, Faxes, or Dreads. They would need to form subcaps to save a Rorqual, a cyno might go up, but that would only bring a couple of Faxes in at most, and those would be at risk of being lost as well, since there might not be enough subcaps formed to hold grid against the attacking fleet. Shorter PANIC means less time to get as many of their 300 members online as possible, and less local tank on the Rorqual means that the shorter PANIC period starts earlier. ( 50% chance of losing the Rorqual )
The mining rate reduction means that since two two accounts are the Rorqual account and the Main account, and they Aren’t going to be plexing another account at the current PLEX price, they just take the hit and keep mining with one toon. ( 24% reduction in yield )
All told, Large groups mine more, and more safely than smaller groups. Widening the current industrial gap, not reducing it.
Did you just call literally the 2nd largest alliance in the game ‘a midsized group’?
They’re not.
There are, including CONDI, 3 alliances over 15k people. 4 over 10k (including the first 3), and 5 over 9k—only 5 alliances with half the numbers Pandemic Horde has, including Goons and Horde.
That is not a ‘mid-sized alliance’.
If, with 18,000 pilots, Horde cannot manage to have 1 fax alt and 1 supercapital alt logged in and ready for every 50 rorquals in space, then the issue there is not size, it is organization. It is Horde’s ability to get their people to give a crap about one another.
Here is the problem with the argument. Why can’t any group with at least 4 rorquals do this.
To pay for 1 new rorqual for every 4, 4 rorquals must be earning enough to do so.
There is also a player limit on how many rorquals can be out, they can be multiboxed fairly easily yes, but computer resources aren’t infinite and there is still a need to manage it.
And the boosting makes it more worthwhile using smaller barges alongside a rorqual, which if you aren’t fielding a huge rorqual fleet means your barge miners of that small group now make more isk which should help balance the yield loss out.
As for the other parts, I don’t see where that changes. If anything that large group is hit harder by the FAX/Super change than the small group, since they don’t care about the super nerf.
The current ratio is already going to be at least as far in the large groups favour as you are presenting. If not more so right now than after these changes.
As a separate post, I’d like to mention some alternatives changes I’ve heard/seen discussed, that could have been made to reduce the ore supply.
Reducing Ore Anomaly spawn rates:
Pros:
Ice already works this way. One or two ice belts per constellation, really slow respawn ( 4 hours )
Would require spreading out to more space for the same supply, likely pushing the edges of the needed space beyond the edges of a Super Capital umbrella.
Cons:
Can screw over entire time zones.
Would make locust style fleets more common.
One even larger ore anomaly per system, scheduled by the IHub:
Pros:
This would make non-asteroid belt ore mining function like moon pops, Albeit on a smaller scale.
Would allow for ore availability to be scheduled for a specific time zone.
Cons:
Locust Fleets? (not sure that any solutions avoid this, since it already happens around moons)
Reduce the amount of ore per anomaly, and/or rock size
Pros:
Unless the group with 4 Rorquals are space communists, It’s likely that only players who already have 4 of their own Rorquals will be injecting the 5th, (or 15th).
My first Rorqual took me 180 days to get, and it’ll take a bit more crabbing before I can inject a second.
The time between 1 and 2 Rorquals is several times longer than between 4-5, that’s the nature of exponential growth.