Simple Carrier Ratting Fix

and supers in 15 seconds 30 if they’re tanked unless the rats have Sansha incursion rat levels of neuting.

They’re frequently targeted, yes, but they aren’t 100% targeted. The very reason I’ve an active tank on a thanny. That said, perhaps the OP wasn’t entirely clear. The new sites added explicitly for carriers and supers would not have said grapplers. The idea of adding grapplers was intended to make carrier ratting in existing anoms entirely untenable, so as to force them into the new sites.

Yes it would… but it would also have meaningful impact on areas that are not indicated to be problematic. A targeted solution for a specific problem. By tweaking spawn counts, you’re now changing (likely reducing) the bounties available to subcap ratters… whether the impact is good or bad, either way it is not indicated as a problem by CCP.

Already addressed that:

1 Like

Sure, because we do all those missions for isk in the first place. Right?

To be fair he did say payout not isk, which in concept would apply to LP as well.

1 Like

Correct. I am not denying this. Lets just make farming isk in all formats 99% harder and impossible in null space. LP would be equally as hard to farm. Would drive the price of everything up and make people want to not lose their ships like way back in the original days.

If anything we need to go the other way. Risk aversion these days is crippling. On one hand I’d say people just need to HTFU and accept that loss is a part of the fun. On the other, I know that once something goes to ■■■■, it stays that way.

One time I was thinking about it… I thought “man it would be cool if ships were like… really important… and attrition in a war actually meant someting… if frigates took like 3 weeks to build, battleships took half a year, and caps took a year”. Then I realized that nobody would undock for a fight that they weren’t assured victory in.


People already do this all over high sec space and often enough in low/null. Only the stupid or fabulously rich people put 100 percent risk for zero reward. Risk is not balanced for anyone. This is also why when you start building stuff with engineering complexes and time investment in mining minerals you have a purpose to defend again. Risk your ships or risk losing your ship production factory? Choice is yours.

not really hics would just be shot first and it doesn’t stop the cyno so you still have the umbrella

I could recall wrong as my memory is utter ■■■■ (and I’m too lazy to actually spend the time looking) but I do recall you refuting the efficacy of capital umbrellas in several other threads I started seeking additional tools to counter cap umbrellas.

For example, one PF&I was for covert jumps (not the cyno but the act of jumping in) causing a localized cyno inhib effect on all ships within a distance of the jump (treated by the game re-using most of link mechanics).

That was of course in the past, and opinions do change over time. Or I’m simply mistaken and remembering someone else’s words.

Either way, I do agree that capital umbrellas are problematic, but at the same token, I’m a firm believer in “you are entitled only to what you have the strength to take”… if you have the strength to secure your space, you deserve it. That is the sandbox way… even if it does get a little extreme in certain edge cases.

And as I did say, “tanky enough to live for a time”. Murphey’s law, anything that can go wrong will go wrong. The HIC spawning as a neut enters pocket through a WH or logs back in from a logoff trap offers just enough RNJesus to kill some but not every capital even in the presence of perfect intel. I’d say that a carrier should be able to kill them over a period of about 30 seconds in a gank fit… basically means the first 30 seconds of each wave you’re tackled.

I spent a good deal of time fighting as one of the DRF; my balls have a Pavlovian Blue effect at the mere mention of “drone space”. I’m much happier now, sensation and (healthy) pigment are returning to said organs and I anticipate a full recovery.

Risk isn’t balanced at all. Which is why I say we need to reduce risk aversion by making the loss of ships shrug-worthy. The downside is when you take away the risk, you lose the buzz that you get from PVP… it’s not even remotely the same when the loss is trivial.

1 Like

what i think its very easy to “fix” that problem
you just need to implement a rating for each site
lets say i have a site with battleship rating … that means if you solo run this site in a BS you get 100% of the bounty … if you run it in a BC you get a bonus of lets say 10% so 110% will get paid but if you run it in a Carrier you get 25% of the isk
in that way it will be less isk paid out and carrier ratting will not be very common
if you dont make 400 mill in an hour and go down to 100 mill … think about that …
the exact numbers are a question but it would work

on the other site

thats a good question … i dont understand that because it doesnt matter if pirates are active in null … it just makes no difference for concord … so it could be ok to set sites (and anomalies) to 0,00 isk and make your money from the drops … that would really kill the ratting with carriers

just my view … could be a wrong way with the rating of the sites and cutting bounty down to a % …


well no i have no issue with capital umbrellas nor do i think there is a problem at all with carrier ratting (most ratting now is done with VNI unless you count bots) my post was mainly a jab at the need to be risk free that null bears have.

1 Like

Ah, in that case, disregard what I said :slight_smile:

No, all you’re doing there is funneling people into specific classes of ships. The goal should never be to discourage usage of a class of ship… I enjoy flying my carrier. Is it too much isk? Absolutely. But rather than penalize people using preferred hulls, encourage people to use the hulls they enjoy in content balanced for them. By creating content especially for capital ships you can balance the isk for capital ratting without forcing them to fly a hull they don’t want to fly. It’s more sandboxy.

No, it would just involve carriers using their obscenely large fleet hangers to store massive numbers of MTUs. It would force them to take 10 mins every so often in a hauler to collect everything, but beyond that, no noticeable change. For example, full gank fit the carrier and then go tether up to repair every 5 sites while your hauler collects things.

To fix the problem with capital ships we need to create more content for capital ships to improve the sandbox nature of eve…


Don’t be obtuse. By creating content specifically for capitals, they can adjust both the difficulty and payout of the content to match what they deem appropriate for capital anoms. Without making a single noteworthy change to areas that either they are fine with or haven’t openly said are a problem.

This improves the sandbox by increasing the number of hulls that a pilot can feasibly fly to gain income, within the bounds set by CCP.

@ShahFluffers , @Old_Pervert, @Arthur_Aihaken

I think you guys should check the March 2018 MER. The amount of ISK being added to the game is actually not that much on net. The net change in ISK (using the Total measure) since 1/1/2018 is a whopping 0.11%. Yes, that is zero point one one percent.

Amount of ISK in game on 1/1/2018: 1,140,869,942,116,370
Amount of ISK in game on 4/42018: 1,142,134,295,022,590

Here is the graph:

Not exactly a flood from that ISK faucet.

Further, a close look at the CPI since the start of 2018 suggests that there is mild deflation…which is to be expected given the slow growth in the money supply and the increase in production. When the growth rate of production exceeds the growth rate of the money supply the expectation is for deflation.

A further reduction in the growth rate of the money supply in this instance is completely and totally unwarranted.

-1 for this idea.

1 Like

I literally heard it straight from Fozzie’s mouth at FanFest that they’re planning to make changes. MER be damned. I rat with a carrier, and although I don’t rat often the time, risk, and isk don’t add up to a healthy balance. There’s no risk (for me), there’s really no time investment (I’d rather buy plex most of the time), yet it still produces a substantial sum of isk. Far more than it should, given the time and risk involved.

Nerfing the money supply at this point would be a mistake.

Risk is not something independent of player actions. This idea that risk can be increased without players is not very sensible. Every type of ratting process is one that can be min/maxed and risk can be mitigated in that process.

Not lately…in fact, not at all.

An economy can deal with some deflation…too much and ■■■■ will go right off the rails. With high enough deflation it is like earning a positive interest rate on the ISK in your wallet and consumption spending can collapse.

1 Like

Ignoring the fact that CCP can and does make mistakes, it would be a simple matter to redistribute the isk generation. 10/10s, incursions, wormholes, etc.

Of course you can mitigate risk. Simply fitting a Cyno in a utility high will mitigate risk. The fact that you can present risk which needs to (should) be mitigated means that you’re now forcing the player to make sacrifices.

Perfect example is my OP; sites designed to deal a meaningful amount of damage to capital ships. The incoming damage from a site designed to be run by a battleship is utterly laughable to a carrier. By increasing the damage, the player should fit more tank and less gank.

The inclusion of NPC HICs is also easily beatable… kill the HIC first. But if they’re tanky, and it takes ~30 seconds to kill, now your carrier is tackled for 30 seconds at a time. Huge increase in risk, given that at no point should a carrier ever be tackled at the moment.

Maybe, but then why even do it then? Just because they don’t like people ratting in carriers and supers…who cares what ship people want to rat in?

You are missing my point. Risk only really comes from players, not NPCs nor the environment really.

That is not risk though.

Recall that cyno you had fitted earlier…yeah, not really an increase in risk, IMO.

You cannot have something that is fairly predictable provide much in the way of risk. One of the primary elements of risk is that there is randomness.

1 Like