These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lugh Crow-Slave
#301 - 2016-03-30 12:28:46 UTC
anyone else notice that turrets have had their tracking speed and sig res upped by a factor of 1k. was this do to the siege and HAW change?
Luscius Uta
#302 - 2016-03-30 12:30:32 UTC
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
I noticed that the Capital Ancillary Shield Booster doesn't even require Capital Shield Operation skill, which is not consistent with other capital modules. Also, the T2 25m plate requires only Hull Upgrades I, which in combination with the former issue leads me to believe that skill requirements of new capital modules aren't well thought of or balanced.



Placeholder requirements are not release requirements.


Are you implying they will change? Because I would like to know them in advance, so I can decide should I postpone my remap or not.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#303 - 2016-03-30 12:39:39 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Kieron VonDeux wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
I noticed that the Capital Ancillary Shield Booster doesn't even require Capital Shield Operation skill, which is not consistent with other capital modules. Also, the T2 25m plate requires only Hull Upgrades I, which in combination with the former issue leads me to believe that skill requirements of new capital modules aren't well thought of or balanced.



Placeholder requirements are not release requirements.


Are you implying they will change? Because I would like to know them in advance, so I can decide should I postpone my remap or not.


no ccp is just going to leave the T2 plate at hull upgrades IRoll
Lugh Crow-Slave
#304 - 2016-03-30 12:56:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
did the math to see where the highest damage fighters would be (Firbolg II) with max skills and with 4 FSU II and one DDA II if there was no stacking penalty on the FSU


the dps is 1996.70

this feels very very low considering these are the highest damage fighters and you need to factor in recall and reload time on top of this. however i am no good with stacking penalties so if some one could do the math to see what the dps with these would be with 4 DDA II it would be helpful

one with FSU II stacking and one without
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2016-03-30 17:38:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Marranar Amatin
Here is the combined effect of n-FSU II assuming stacking penalty (as damage factor):

1 1.06
2 1.1152759789
3 1.1534572962
4 1.1730397321
5 1.1804996356

here is without stacking penalty:

1 1.06
2 1.1236
3 1.191016
4 1.26247696
5 1.3382255776


so here is the increase in damage by removing the stacking penalty:

1 1
2 1.0074636424
3 1.0325618503
4 1.0762439885
5 1.1336094797


By removing the stacking penalty the damage would be increased by 7.6% for 4 FSU II, and by 13.4% for 5 FSU II

I just cant login to check the numbers, but I think Firbolg II was 115 damage and 5 seconds for primary and 244 and 10 seconds for secondary.

We have as bonus: light fighters skill (25%) carrier skills (12.5%), drone damage amplifiers, and FSU. I think the rest (drone interfacing for example) does not work on fighters. We have 3*9 fighters, so here is a damage table, so lets assume 5 FSU II:

stacking penalty:
DDA 0 1 2 3 4 5
primary 1031 1242 1464 1635 1730 1767
secondary 1094 1318 1553 1734 1835 1875
sum 2125 2560 3016 3369 3564 3642



DDA 0 1 2 3 4 5
primary 1239 1493 1759 1964 2078 2123
secondary 1383 1584 1866 2084 2205 2253
sum 2553 3076 3624 4048 4283 4376

(edit: just rounded the numbers, probably easier to read this way)


This seems to about right with the 3660 that Thalesia wrote for a max Thanny with 4 dda (I assume he tested it, or was this calculated too?), my calculation says 3564.5, so its not far off.

Now lets see as Tranq thanny (I am taking the values of EFT, thats easier:
DDA 0 1 2 3 4 5
Damage 1875 2259 2662 2973 3146 3214


Now just as a reminder:
-This is the highest damage drones, the old drones all had the same damage. All other drones have significantly lower damage.
-The sum is not equal to the dps, you cannot fire the secondary all the time. If you could do that the damage would be roughly the same as the old values, but if that is the reason for the damage values, then it needs infinite ammo and auto repeat. Otherwise the damage is clearly weaker as before.
LittleBlackSheep
ISK Unlimited
#306 - 2016-03-30 17:55:19 UTC
Marranar Amatin wrote:
-The sum is not equal to the dps, you cannot fire the secondary all the time. If you could do that the damage would be roughly the same as the old values, but if that is the reason for the damage values, then it needs infinite ammo and auto repeat. Otherwise the damage is clearly weaker as before.

Also the application against fast-moving smaller targets like good fitted cruisers for example ist significantly worse than currently on TQ, the fighters simply lose a lot more of their DPS because they juse some kind of "missile mechanic" for their attack.

On TQ a carrier with 2 Omnidirectional Tracking Links (Tracking Scripts) and 1 TargetPainter can apply Damage pretty pretty hard even against tough cruisers (try Sleeper or T2 Playercruisers for example), but you cannot support your fighters with Omnidirectional Tracking Links any more and 3 Targetpainters have not even close the same effekt, because they do nothing against the damage-reduction because of the targets speed. And in most cases Webs cannot be used because they won't reach the target. Supportfighters are also not an option, their use cut your DPS down by 1/3 because you lose a squad of damagefighters. The "tackle" ability on the anti-fighter fighter does not seem to work yet and they do even worse DPS.


Not even counted the fact that the Fighters are way too weak now. They are shot down like flies once tackled. They need proper Values for Shield, Armor and Hull inc. resists, like those on TQ currently.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#307 - 2016-03-30 18:43:27 UTC
it's also really annoying that you need to train 2x as long for 1/2 the bonus.

rather than 1 x 12 skill that gives 20% we get 2 x12 skills that give 5%


so our SP is worth 1/4 of what it was -.- im depressed now
Jane Hemah
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#308 - 2016-03-30 19:36:12 UTC
also did any one look at the capital reppers? For the same amount of time shield reppers rep close to 40% more hp thn the armor reppers.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
#309 - 2016-03-30 20:39:56 UTC
LittleBlackSheep wrote:
Marranar Amatin wrote:
-The sum is not equal to the dps, you cannot fire the secondary all the time. If you could do that the damage would be roughly the same as the old values, but if that is the reason for the damage values, then it needs infinite ammo and auto repeat. Otherwise the damage is clearly weaker as before.

Also the application against fast-moving smaller targets like good fitted cruisers for example ist significantly worse than currently on TQ, the fighters simply lose a lot more of their DPS because they juse some kind of "missile mechanic" for their attack.

On TQ a carrier with 2 Omnidirectional Tracking Links (Tracking Scripts) and 1 TargetPainter can apply Damage pretty pretty hard even against tough cruisers (try Sleeper or T2 Playercruisers for example), but you cannot support your fighters with Omnidirectional Tracking Links any more and 3 Targetpainters have not even close the same effekt, because they do nothing against the damage-reduction because of the targets speed. And in most cases Webs cannot be used because they won't reach the target. Supportfighters are also not an option, their use cut your DPS down by 1/3 because you lose a squad of damagefighters. The "tackle" ability on the anti-fighter fighter does not seem to work yet and they do even worse DPS.


Not even counted the fact that the Fighters are way too weak now. They are shot down like flies once tackled. They need proper Values for Shield, Armor and Hull inc. resists, like those on TQ currently.

In not sure of they changed something on the last couple days, but tracking links definitely did seem to help fighters. I'm not sure what effect the scripts have, but either script or no script improved their damage against small and fast targets.
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2016-03-30 21:10:15 UTC
That would be really strange, considerung that fighters do not even have a tracking attribute.
Or are you talking about heavy fighters? They might be affected.

Also I think that neither the application nor the hp are that much of a problem.
Less damage against smaller and faster subcaps is ok, carrier dont have to be great against all sub caps.

The shields only are not all bad, since they regenerate quite fast, and the fighters are fast with a small sig, so they can actually tank quite some dps. Especially with this squad design, a dps tank is a lot more useful than a buffer tank. Maybe increase the shield amount a little, but in general I think the concept is good. After all it should be a realistic option to shoot the fighter down.
LittleBlackSheep
ISK Unlimited
#311 - 2016-03-30 22:25:00 UTC
some small update: One of the reasons I felt Carriers to be way too weak was that I tested them with Einherji-Fighters, that do - for whatever reason - not even half the DPS of Firbolgs.

With Firbolgs the DPS on the field is much better, carrier still feels weaker than on TQ but not that much. Unfortunately testing in WHs to have hard NPCs to shoot at is nearly impossible because there are no anomalies in the C4 you can /moveme to and you cannot tank the C5/C6 capital escalations in a damage fit.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
#312 - 2016-03-30 23:09:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Marranar Amatin wrote:
That would be really strange, considerung that fighters do not even have a tracking attribute.
Or are you talking about heavy fighters? They might be affected.

Nope, that was with T1 Einherjar. I was testing fighters against speed/sig tanking targets like a Succubus, an armor/AB VNI, a shield/MWD VNI, and a Guardian. In all cases, activating a tracking link with any script or no script improved the damage application, even against an MWDing VNI where target painters had no effect. There didn't seem to be any difference between either script or no script.
Soleil Fournier
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#313 - 2016-03-31 01:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
Deployed fighters have an indicator that switches between speed and range. Would be much better to have those stats continuously displayed by stacking them one above the other rather than continuously switching in the same spot.


T2 fighters have a negligible increase in damage over T1. There should be about a 20% difference between the two to stay in line with other T1/T2 modules.
Dave Stark
#314 - 2016-03-31 06:19:32 UTC
The UI for seeing fighter health is shockingly bad.

1 solid red block at anything between 99.999% and 0% is useless. i don't care if a fighter is injured i want to know how injured it is. so often i moused over and saw that it was on decent health, then all of a sudden i lose a fighter with no warning (and the only way to get a warning is to have your mouse constantly hovered over the tooltip, which means you can also only check 1 fighter's health at a time).

also, when i recall a fighter group to add a new fighter to it, often it gets to the carrier and just sits there if my carrier is moving. it gets to about 2.5k away and just "waits" for like 10 seconds to enter the tube, leading me to lose even more fighters.

micro managing fighters is already a pain in the ass, and the lack of ability to see the health status of fighters clearly really doesn't help with this ball ache of a system. otherwise, it's pretty fun, except it being a complete ******* clusterfuck of a clickfest.
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#315 - 2016-03-31 09:57:54 UTC
So I tested the tracking thing myself, because I could hardly believe it:

Tracking comps do affect fighter damage against smaller or faster targets. It does not matter if you use tracking scripts, no scripts, or range scripts, the effect is always the same.

From my test each tracking computer increases the damge on the main gun by approximately 5%, I could not notice a stacking penalty. On the secondary gun it was more like 3%-4%, but that could be a measuring error, since the secondary damage fluctuates more, and I was too lazy to do many shots.
The smaller effect on the secondary gun might be because the target ship had a signature of 145 meter, so it was above the explosion radius.


Omnidirectional tracking enhancer seem to have a similar effect, but slightly stronger.



Different bug (probably already mentioned somewhere): Fighters following in warp tend to land about 1000km away from the carrier. Thats really annoying.


Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#316 - 2016-03-31 11:06:26 UTC
Dreads do not have enough powergrid to make a good fit. Also, XL guns should have their volume reduced so that a full rack can be stored in the cargo, to allow us to swap out for high angle or normal weapons.

It would be nice if ccp would move the fitted rigs to the cargo of the capitals, so that we don't have to trash what we currently have... but i won't hold my breath.
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#317 - 2016-03-31 15:05:24 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Lebowski
Greetings everyone!

Dropping in with details on the most recent update!


Fixes & Features
  • Fighters can now be abandoned and scooped back into fighter bays. They should deal appropriately with their controlling ship leaving grid, exploding or logging of (Still need to fix the fact that cloaking has no restrictions relating to fighters and vice versa.
  • Fixed all know instances of the fighter hud duplicating the ability buttons or breaking when fighters die or the UI is moved )(PLEASE BUG REPORT ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK IS RELATED TO THIS K THX Big smile )
  • Implemented a ton of stat changes & industry & skill requirements and fixed a few more minor text errors
  • All NPCs should now be able to interact with fighters! Please let us know of any situations where that is now not the case.
  • "Networked Sensor Array" no longer gives a weapons timer
  • Beacons created by the new AoE superweapons are no longer warpable
  • Many minor tweaks and improvements to the fighter UI

Coming very soon
  • Right click, radial and selected item menus/windows will direct selected fighter squadrons
  • Fixes for the Reaper and GTFO doomsdays
  • Forum threads for all Capitals and modules (The first of which are found here: Carriers, Supercarriers)


Thats all for now, enjoy!

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#318 - 2016-03-31 15:20:01 UTC
Playtest 31st March (Tonight)

We'll be running a Carrier/SuperCarrier vs Carrier/SuperCarrier playtest tonight, please come join!

NOTE: This is not an official mass test and no free skill points will be given, but we encourage you to join for the good of the Citadels release!


When: 17:00 EVE time

Where: Singularity (Join the masstesting chat channel)

What we need:

- Up to 100 foolhardy testers
- As many Carrier/SuperCarriers as they can bring
- The rest should bring smartbombing ships or stealth bombers.

We hope you can join us!

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Rong Guy
xHELLonEARTHx
Simple Farmers
#319 - 2016-03-31 16:14:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rong Guy
Just going to tell you guys anti subcap dread DPS is too low to use outside of joke roams.

We are talking hulls worth over 2bill fitted with at least 4 capital mods (**** of nag) more likely 5-6 that do battleship dps and im talking normal battleship dps not rattle or vindi dps. These ships will drop on a spot and sit there for 5min minimum with battle-cruiser range and do as much as a well fit standard battleship.

So.

DREAD: ANTI SUB-CAP
1) poor range for immobile DPS
2) poor DPS for expensive immobile dps that is designed to kill battleships
3) skill intensive with low return
4) good active tank...... it's something
5) can be targeted by heavy anti cap weapon systems
6) a capital neut if you have the fitting (going to get one on my carrier)

Battleships
1) cost effective (depending on hull)
2) versatile
3) mobile
4) better projection
5) solid active and buffer tanks depending on hul
6) receive little to no damage from anti capital weapon systems
7) very accessible to lower sp players
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#320 - 2016-03-31 16:53:22 UTC
Due to unforeseen hardware issues with Singularity, todays playtest will sadly have to be postponed (Hopefully only until tomorrow).

Sorry to everyone who was planning to attend!

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski