These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels Release] Capital Ship changes reaching Singularity!

First post
Author
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2016-03-22 14:54:25 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:

Known Issues/Bugs (In extremely rough order of badness)

- Carriers and Supercarriers still have drone bays


Are FAXes supposed to have drone bays? I'm not sure if "carriers" here includes FAXes.
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#122 - 2016-03-22 16:20:34 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:

Are FAXes supposed to have drone bays? I'm not sure if "carriers" here includes FAXes.

Faxes are supposed to have drone bays and even are supposed to be able to use logi drones in triage.
Faren Shalni
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#123 - 2016-03-22 17:24:28 UTC
sooo the FAX slot layouts are not the same as the devblogs.....intentional, a mistake or have i missed something?

(such as 3 mids on the apostle)

So Much Space

NextDarkKnight
Event Horizon Expeditionaries
The Watchmen.
#124 - 2016-03-22 19:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: NextDarkKnight
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
NextDarkKnight wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
NextDarkKnight wrote:
Couple question,

Regular carriers will still be able to field drones just we are limited to 8 now?


There will be no more drones at all on carriers. "Carriers and Supercarriers still have drone bays" is listed as a known issue/bug by CCP Lebowski.


I though that was only for Super Carriers.

That's a shame for the carrier because it's nice to have some versatility that doesn't cost you a ton of isk to field.

I can understand the super carriers but not the regular carriers. Shame

the near infinite waves of sub cap aplication was not versatility it was op



Sound like a drone bay size problem or a problem with a FC engaging the wrong targets.

Does that logic apply to super carriers?
It's kind of OP for super caps because them bombers really kill the regular carriers almost instantly. So I guess we still have the same problem your describing.

Honestly removing the drone bay and with current fighter prices there would be a low reason to field a carrier for NPC wormhole activity. I honestly would rather keep the drone bay on the regular carriers if it means the chance of finding some one rating in a wormhole solo with one but hey thats just me.


*************
Looking at numbers.. I'm guessing for NPC actives you gonna loss 200m in fighters now compared to 20m in drones.. Plus a full flight of drones is what a half a billion isk your putting on the field and that's just t1. Numbers don't make sense for entry level capital ships.


************


Updated test a small encounter and it was 180m in loss with just the fighters.. easlier before you can land people on grid. Who on the dev side is representing Wormhole use of the carriers if we are losing the Drone bay?

Maybe the smaller carriers are getting a high warp strength so they can just warp off if a gank squad lands on them?
Thalesia
System lords Collective
#125 - 2016-03-22 21:53:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Thalesia
I would like to suggest the following changes:

Background:
Currently the damage potential of fighters if all criteria is met (webs,fitting,paints) of a supercarrier is 6600 (maxxed out nyx) and a thanatos can pull 3600.

Currently on sisi a thanatos can pull something like 4k ish roughly with it's three groups, and a supercarrier can pull roughly 4.3k ish.

Problem:
The problem is that supercarriers and carriers can launch the same amount of light fighters with small differences in ship damage bonus's, this brings the subcapital damage potential of a supercarrier way down relative to a normal carrier.

Solution to the problem:
Increase light fighter damage by a flat 33%

Decrease allowed light fighter groups to 2 on normal carriers. and keep the 3 on supercarriers.

this will put the balance of power back in it's place and will also promote the new racial carrier bonus's that apply to support fighters and give people an incentive to use them more.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2016-03-22 23:05:31 UTC
Torgeir Hekard wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:

Are FAXes supposed to have drone bays? I'm not sure if "carriers" here includes FAXes.

Faxes are supposed to have drone bays and even are supposed to be able to use logi drones in triage.


You know, I'm surprised CCP didn't create a fourth type of fighter, the Logistics Fighter, that only FAX can use. Instead of a FAX deploying 5 heavy logi drones with a 200% rep bonus, give them a single fighter bay and make Logi Fighter squads five strong, with small, medium and large Logi Fighters available.
Soleil Fournier
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#127 - 2016-03-22 23:58:00 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:

You know, I'm surprised CCP didn't create a fourth type of fighter, the Logistics Fighter, that only FAX can use. Instead of a FAX deploying 5 heavy logi drones with a 200% rep bonus, give them a single fighter bay and make Logi Fighter squads five strong, with small, medium and large Logi Fighters available.


I like it.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#128 - 2016-03-23 00:10:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Why would i fly any carrier not a Than it gets the most DPS and can has the largest fighter bay

and then why would i ever fly a chimera if i need tank the archon tanks better has more fighter space

and its the same with the FAX the archon has the best tank and cap by a mile unless the cap boosters are really powerful there will be no point using anything else



just saying right now we are going back gal being the end all for fighters and amarr being the end all for triage

Ugh


maybe if the amarr and caldari fighters also got a per level resist bonus to compensate for the smaller drone bays? still not sure this would be enough but maybe
Lugh Crow-Slave
#129 - 2016-03-23 00:29:16 UTC
Thalesia wrote:
I would like to suggest the following changes:

Background:
Currently the damage potential of fighters if all criteria is met (webs,fitting,paints) of a supercarrier is 6600 (maxxed out nyx) and a thanatos can pull 3600.

Currently on sisi a thanatos can pull something like 4k ish roughly with it's three groups, and a supercarrier can pull roughly 4.3k ish.

Problem:
The problem is that supercarriers and carriers can launch the same amount of light fighters with small differences in ship damage bonus's, this brings the subcapital damage potential of a supercarrier way down relative to a normal carrier.

Solution to the problem:
Increase light fighter damage by a flat 33%

Decrease allowed light fighter groups to 2 on normal carriers. and keep the 3 on supercarriers.

this will put the balance of power back in it's place and will also promote the new racial carrier bonus's that apply to support fighters and give people an incentive to use them more.


i see no issue with a supper carrier not being able to do massive amounts of damage to sub caps when compaired to a carrier they still blow carriers out of the water when it comes to attacking capitals
Thalesia
System lords Collective
#130 - 2016-03-23 00:39:51 UTC
Hm this is true, but then again a super carrier costs 20 times more, is 20 times more likely to be hunted.
I feel like a supercarrier should have the potential of doing more to incentevise people to use them more on risky business.

then again I see your points, a 33% dmg increase would lead to a super 1 shotting most battleships with the rocket salvo. kinda feels appropriate for supers to be able to doomsday battleships tho seeing as titans can doomsday capitals? I dunno.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#131 - 2016-03-23 00:43:48 UTC
Thalesia wrote:
Hm this is true, but then again a super carrier costs 20 times more, is 20 times more likely to be hunted.
I feel like a supercarrier should have the potential of doing more to incentevise people to use them more on risky business.

then again I see your points, a 33% dmg increase would lead to a super 1 shotting most battleships with the rocket salvo. kinda feels appropriate for supers to be able to doomsday battleships tho seeing as titans can doomsday capitals? I dunno.


remember you also have the burst e-war utility over standard carriers as well and cost should never be a balancing factor as 1 isk is worth more to x than it is to y
Lugh Crow-Slave
#132 - 2016-03-23 01:19:34 UTC
Also carriers look dumb coming out of the large hangers have them come out of the sub cap hangers they fit in them perfectly and it doesn't look so silly
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
#133 - 2016-03-23 04:19:59 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Also carriers look dumb coming out of the large hangers have them come out of the sub cap hangers they fit in them perfectly and it doesn't look so silly

I'm not sure if they've gotten around to resizing capitals yet, but carriers need to be much bigger. When a Machariel is nearly the size of a carrier yet the carrier can haul 2 of them, there's a problem.
Soleil Fournier
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#134 - 2016-03-23 04:25:58 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

I'm not sure if they've gotten around to resizing capitals yet, but carriers need to be much bigger. When a Machariel is nearly the size of a carrier yet the carrier can haul 2 of them, there's a problem.


FAXs are bigger than supers as well. Supers need a pretty hefty size increase. Hope they do it for this expansion.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#135 - 2016-03-23 04:55:36 UTC
Soleil Fournier wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

I'm not sure if they've gotten around to resizing capitals yet, but carriers need to be much bigger. When a Machariel is nearly the size of a carrier yet the carrier can haul 2 of them, there's a problem.


FAXs are bigger than supers as well. Supers need a pretty hefty size increase. Hope they do it for this expansion.


Ideally carriers will be put just under the size of dreads and supers put just under the size of titans
Thoor Achasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2016-03-23 05:56:48 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Why would i fly any carrier not a Than it gets the most DPS and can has the largest fighter bay

and then why would i ever fly a chimera if i need tank the archon tanks better has more fighter space

and its the same with the FAX the archon has the best tank and cap by a mile unless the cap boosters are really powerful there will be no point using anything else



just saying right now we are going back gal being the end all for fighters and amarr being the end all for triage

Ugh


maybe if the amarr and caldari fighters also got a per level resist bonus to compensate for the smaller drone bays? still not sure this would be enough but maybe




where did the thany got the most dps ? the bonus dmg from fighters got removed , all carries does the same DPS now , racial carrier skill gives +10% FIghter dmg. the bonus got updated yesterday
Lugh Crow-Slave
#137 - 2016-03-23 06:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Thoor Achasse wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Why would i fly any carrier not a Than it gets the most DPS and can has the largest fighter bay

and then why would i ever fly a chimera if i need tank the archon tanks better has more fighter space

and its the same with the FAX the archon has the best tank and cap by a mile unless the cap boosters are really powerful there will be no point using anything else



just saying right now we are going back gal being the end all for fighters and amarr being the end all for triage

Ugh


maybe if the amarr and caldari fighters also got a per level resist bonus to compensate for the smaller drone bays? still not sure this would be enough but maybe




where did the thany got the most dps ? the bonus dmg from fighters got removed , all carries does the same DPS now , racial carrier skill gives +10% FIghter dmg. the bonus got updated yesterday


No today it was 2.5 dmg and velocity for minm 2.5 damage and hit points for gal just 4% tank resists for amarr and caldari

The caldari now has an anemic capacity of sub 70k fighter storage while minm and galleries are over 80 these numbers are with fighter hanger skill maxed it a has changed since carrier bonuses were first altered

To be honest the dps isn't even the main issue is the limited fighter capacity that will make the biggest difference

Hell the two carriers with the largest fighter bays also are the two with fighter survivability bonuses

EDIT

They all also get 5%optimal to racial Ewar fighters
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#138 - 2016-03-23 08:25:12 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:

Known Issues/Bugs (In extremely rough order of badness)

- NPCs do not currently aggress fighters.
- Fighter ability buttons will stop animating if the fighter hud is moved.
- Left click does not give go-to-point movement commands when clicking on a bracket in space.
- Some rare issues where the fighter hud and launch deck will not not update or can duplicate buttons when fighters are killed with aoe weapons.
- Active fighter modules are deactivated when selected while using F1 to active other squadrons modules
- Unable to select or drag a fighter squadron from the fighter type section of the squadron gauge.
- Safety level restriction feedback is not given by fighter buttons.
- Saved fittings do not include fighters.
- Carriers and Supercarriers still have drone bays
- Cannot shift click to select multiple fighter squadrons (Ctrl click works)
- The fighter navigation UI still draws vertical lines when the tactical overlay is disabled.
- Double click squad move commands result in ship moving.
- Number of fighter tubes and fighter restrictions attributes not visible in show info windows of ships.
- Detach fighter hud button is misaligned.
- Squadron gauge for fighter squadron in space is green if ship is boarded with fighters launched + launch deck icons are overlapped.

Your feedback and suggestions are welcome in this thread, and please submit a bug report in game for any issues you find that are not listed above (F12 -> Report Bug).

Thanks and happy testing!



Could I please request that when you get 5 minutes, the OP(s) are updated as these are fixed so we know what we are working with?

Appreciated.
Soleil Fournier
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#139 - 2016-03-23 09:42:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
Round 2 feedback:

Projected Bursts using the radial targeting is not good, and I can't tell if they're actually doing anything when I finally get it to 'fire'. I think it would be best if we got a targeting sphere (like a warp disruption bubble) that we could move around to the spot we wanted. Then we click to activate and anything within that sphere suffers the effects until the ships within it move out of the sphere or the duration ends (which should be a long duration to make these weapons worthwhile). Also, 20% on the sensor damp doesn't seem worth it. Even with the nyx bonus, I'd probably use something else.

Heavies are using radial targeting for their MJDs. This is really hard to use, and often times doesn't even fire. When it does, the results are often seeing the heavies go way off from where I wanted them. I think they need a different special ability tbh.

Weapon targeting projection burst should affect missiles too. Or maybe give us one specifically for that?

Networked sensor array - I like the 50% to sensor strengths but the rest of the module doesn't make sense. Supers can insta-lock onto max 14 targets at the moment. So 900% to scan resolution and +2 additional targets doesn't do anything. And it cancels out our burst projectors. I like the idea of a Fighter vs Projector choice, but it needs to make a bit more sense.

Fighter Hanger capacity - Needs to be 135k for Amarr, Caldari, and Min, 150k for nyx. Reasoning: We have 2 types of heavies, 2 types of lights, a selection of support for each race, and then different damage types to consider on top of that. Given that you need X amount for a full fighter squad, plus a few extra to replace losses, 100k isn't nearly enough room. Since we're limited on number of squadrons, and the situations we run into dictating a change in fighter type will require waiting for deployed squads to slow-boat back to us, giving us a reasonable bay size increase shouldn't be unbalanced.

Would like to know the thinking for the 7.5% damage bonuses instead of 10%. That damage bonus is what made Nyx's appealing given it's much less tanky than the other races, who have more tank slots on top of the hull resistance bonuses. 12.5% damage bonus is weak when compared to the significantly higher HPs of the tanky ships. I think the difference should at least be a drone damage mod (20%).

5% to fighter durability is ok, I guess. But not too exciting. Don't think anyone would choose a nyx specifically for this.

Supers should be able to field more lights than regular carriers. I don't like these limits in the first place because they don't add to game play. Just let the players decide how many of their launch tubes to fill with what type of fighter, and balance the fighters around that idea.

The 400% bonus to Plates/Extenders puts these in a great spot, in line with plates of other ship sizes. Good change.

Not sure the gang links belong on supers. Don't think they will see a lot (or any) usage. I have full leadership skills but wouldn't put a link on in place of FSU, smartbomb, cloak, or burst projector.

I can't abandon fighters at the moment. So if I leave the field and can't go back, I'm screwed.

Speaking of which, fighters need to warp...Back when you wanted to take warp away from fighters on TQ during the drone assist changes, we fought to keep fighters warping and stated that it was a unique feature that should be preserved. You guys agreed. So lets get the warping again please, even if the only warp they do is to follow us offgrid.

I tried out a leviathan (titan level 4)- it's at 900DPS with lvl 5 capital guns. This doesn't seem right. I think titans should equal 1 or 1.5 seiged dreads worth of damage. (maybe let them seige?)


Wall of text done, hope this helps some.
Luscius Uta
#140 - 2016-03-23 09:54:24 UTC
Do FAXes really need 6 high slots? You cannot fit them all reliably with remote assistance modules without sacrificing local tank which was not the case with current triage carriers. I would prefer one of their high slots moved to either a mid or low.
They also need a decrease in scale as you currently cannot see the entirety of their hull in station hangar.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.