These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] Carriers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Josef Kennet
Deep Space Conquerors
Goonswarm Federation
#301 - 2016-04-09 15:36:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Kennet
Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters?
Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc
Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter
Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter

Same with their movement ability

Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool.

Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities.
I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them.
So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key.
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2016-04-09 17:53:14 UTC
So its time for something positive:

I did another round of tests with the newest iteration, both against pvp targets and pve targets, and I am starting to feel a lot more happy about these changes, even though some concerns remain.

The good stuff:
-most of the bugs concerning modules, skils etc. seem to be fixed. There is a new bug (already reported) that stops any bounties from appearing in my wallet, but I guess that is not really related to the carriers.
-flying a carrier is more fun with the fighters having more options.
-the kill speed in pve is decent now. Its more difficult than before (which is not a bad thing), since you have to pay more attention to managing the different skills, and using them at the right time is important for the killspeed, but since its rewarded with decent killspeed, thats fine.
-I think there is a use in pvp now. The damage against large targets is still mediocre, considering how it was on tranq, and what kind of damage the other capitals can do. What is good now, is application and burst (this is also the reason why the carrier is not useless in pve anymore, even though the dps is not great. The small stuff goes down a lot faster, this makes up for the big stuff taking longer). Using several tracking links the third ability can hurt a lot, even on ceptors, and using the fighter-mwd (and a few nav comps) the carrier can hit basically everything within ~100km within a short time.
I can imagine some uses in mid to large scale fleets.


Now the remaining concers:
-balance among fighters still bad. but I must admit that problem is not huge. at least in pvp there is nothing that forces us to use the bad fighters, since every carrier can use all types and there are no special skill requirements. it probably will be a few weeks of firbolgs all around, then this will show up in the statistics and ccp can fix them. Fixing them would be easy... lower the difference in damage, increase the bonus speed, give the weaker ones bonus in application in etc. just look at how the races are handled for drones.
-supercarriers still overshadow carrier in every way except price. My suggestion to fix this: give carriers a 400% bonus in explosion velocity and reduce the explosion velocity of all light fighters by an equivalent amount. This changes nothing to carriers, but is a big nerf to application of super carriers.
I think super carriers need this nerf anyway. They have incredible damage against large targets, and also incredible damage against small targets, down until ceptor size. Thats just silly. A large enough group of supers would not need any support ships of any kind, since it can counter literally everything that is thrown at them. From the largest ships to the smallest ships.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#303 - 2016-04-09 18:07:39 UTC
Josef Kennet wrote:
Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters?
Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc
Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter
Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter

Same with their movement ability

Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool.

Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities.
I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them.
So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key.



Echoing this. I currently use fighters a lot in PvE, splitting fighters between various targets. The incoming system is interesting, but I'd really like to be able to say assign attack commands for specific fighter squadrons to different keys without needed to manually switch focus between different fighter squads.

An entire carrier worth of DPS is overkill in a carrier for one target in PvE, being able to F1, F2, F3 (or other assigned keys) to tell squads 1, 2, and 3 to each attack the selected enemy target would be excellent.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#304 - 2016-04-09 23:06:19 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Josef Kennet wrote:
Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters?
Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc
Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter
Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter

Same with their movement ability

Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool.

Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities.
I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them.
So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key.



Echoing this. I currently use fighters a lot in PvE, splitting fighters between various targets. The incoming system is interesting, but I'd really like to be able to say assign attack commands for specific fighter squadrons to different keys without needed to manually switch focus between different fighter squads.

An entire carrier worth of DPS is overkill in a carrier for one target in PvE, being able to F1, F2, F3 (or other assigned keys) to tell squads 1, 2, and 3 to each attack the selected enemy target would be excellent.

How do you send different groups of fighter at targets now?
Would it be, select target, select fighters, send fighters?

The whole idea behind new fighter mechanics is to get players involved - Not provide more hotkeys to mash.
The Eve player base has to be one of the laziest of any online game.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Charlemeign
Gladiators of Rage
Fraternity.
#305 - 2016-04-09 23:14:31 UTC
@CCP Larrikin

I keep hearing conflicting news about what level of 'x fighters' (x being heavy/light/support) T2 Fighters will require. Can you please address whether lvl 4 or 5 or will be needed for T2 Fighters?
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#306 - 2016-04-09 23:16:15 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Josef Kennet wrote:
Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters?
Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc
Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter
Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter

Same with their movement ability

Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool.

Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities.
I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them.
So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key.



Echoing this. I currently use fighters a lot in PvE, splitting fighters between various targets. The incoming system is interesting, but I'd really like to be able to say assign attack commands for specific fighter squadrons to different keys without needed to manually switch focus between different fighter squads.

An entire carrier worth of DPS is overkill in a carrier for one target in PvE, being able to F1, F2, F3 (or other assigned keys) to tell squads 1, 2, and 3 to each attack the selected enemy target would be excellent.

How do you send different groups of fighter at targets now?
Would it be, select target, select fighters, send fighters?

The whole idea behind new fighter mechanics is to get players involved - Not provide more hotkeys to mash.
The Eve player base has to be one of the laziest of any online game.


I split all my fighters into two drone groups, then use F to tell all to attack one target, then manually tell the second group to attack a different target. It's a bit clunky but it works.

As for your objection to the proposal, you don't seem to have an actual reason for the objection.

You can already split and group guns into whatever arrangement of groupings and hotkeys keys you want. Extending that system of grouping and hotkeys to the drone UI has been something people have been asking about for years, but has been set aside for a long time due to issues with legacy code.

Do you have an actual reason for objecting to it, or does customization of controls and a responsive UI somehow offend you?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#307 - 2016-04-09 23:30:44 UTC
Marranar Amatin wrote:
So its time for something positive:

I did another round of tests with the newest iteration, both against pvp targets and pve targets, and I am starting to feel a lot more happy about these changes, even though some concerns remain.

The good stuff:
-most of the bugs concerning modules, skils etc. seem to be fixed. There is a new bug (already reported) that stops any bounties from appearing in my wallet, but I guess that is not really related to the carriers.
-flying a carrier is more fun with the fighters having more options.
-the kill speed in pve is decent now. Its more difficult than before (which is not a bad thing), since you have to pay more attention to managing the different skills, and using them at the right time is important for the killspeed, but since its rewarded with decent killspeed, thats fine.
-I think there is a use in pvp now. The damage against large targets is still mediocre, considering how it was on tranq, and what kind of damage the other capitals can do. What is good now, is application and burst (this is also the reason why the carrier is not useless in pve anymore, even though the dps is not great. The small stuff goes down a lot faster, this makes up for the big stuff taking longer). Using several tracking links the third ability can hurt a lot, even on ceptors, and using the fighter-mwd (and a few nav comps) the carrier can hit basically everything within ~100km within a short time.
I can imagine some uses in mid to large scale fleets.


Now the remaining concers:
-balance among fighters still bad. but I must admit that problem is not huge. at least in pvp there is nothing that forces us to use the bad fighters, since every carrier can use all types and there are no special skill requirements. it probably will be a few weeks of firbolgs all around, then this will show up in the statistics and ccp can fix them. Fixing them would be easy... lower the difference in damage, increase the bonus speed, give the weaker ones bonus in application in etc. just look at how the races are handled for drones.
-supercarriers still overshadow carrier in every way except price. My suggestion to fix this: give carriers a 400% bonus in explosion velocity and reduce the explosion velocity of all light fighters by an equivalent amount. This changes nothing to carriers, but is a big nerf to application of super carriers.
I think super carriers need this nerf anyway. They have incredible damage against large targets, and also incredible damage against small targets, down until ceptor size. Thats just silly. A large enough group of supers would not need any support ships of any kind, since it can counter literally everything that is thrown at them. From the largest ships to the smallest ships.

Agreed (mostly) Armor carriers are in a reasonable place, being able to use mids for fighter enhancements, which actually makes them useful for PVE, less so in PVP.
Sadly though this is not reflected over to shield carriers, 3 cpu upgrades to fit a 50/50 T2 - meta fit, that has way less utility then either of the armor carriers.

All carriers need CPU and PG balanced Prior to this going live.
They need 1 more launch tube and 10K more space in fighter bays, or support fighters need to be the same size as the others. One flight (3 support fighters) is 9K m3 of a relatively small holding bay and as you can only use 1 flight at a time it is a shame it has to be at the expense of being able to apply any real damage to larger ships.
If a new carrier is incapable of defending itself from and even killing a battleship, then what use are they?

Capital warfare should be about capital ships being able to kill each other - Not one whole class dedicated to killing subcaps but being killed by any other capital with no chance to defend itself. Especially when you have super carriers capable of volleying carriers off the field.

If the plan is to reduce carrier use by making them barely useful - Your on the right track.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#308 - 2016-04-10 00:58:06 UTC
Charlemeign wrote:
@CCP Larrikin

I keep hearing conflicting news about what level of 'x fighters' (x being heavy/light/support) T2 Fighters will require. Can you please address whether lvl 4 or 5 or will be needed for T2 Fighters?



Last I heard Fighters V, light/support IV
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#309 - 2016-04-10 01:11:16 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Charlemeign wrote:
@CCP Larrikin

I keep hearing conflicting news about what level of 'x fighters' (x being heavy/light/support) T2 Fighters will require. Can you please address whether lvl 4 or 5 or will be needed for T2 Fighters?



Last I heard Fighters V, light/support IV

Ahh sweet. I just checked on SiSi and that's what they're currently at. I'm glad they didn't stay with the 5/5 that would've taken way too long to train.
Charlemeign
Gladiators of Rage
Fraternity.
#310 - 2016-04-10 05:10:41 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Charlemeign wrote:
@CCP Larrikin

I keep hearing conflicting news about what level of 'x fighters' (x being heavy/light/support) T2 Fighters will require. Can you please address whether lvl 4 or 5 or will be needed for T2 Fighters?



Last I heard Fighters V, light/support IV


Ahh sweet. I just checked on SiSi and that's what they're currently at. I'm glad they didn't stay with the 5/5 that would've taken way too long to train.


Awesome
Sekeris
Order of Celestial Knights
#311 - 2016-04-10 07:07:11 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Agreed (mostly) Armor carriers are in a reasonable place, being able to use mids for fighter enhancements, which actually makes them useful for PVE, less so in PVP.
Sadly though this is not reflected over to shield carriers, 3 cpu upgrades to fit a 50/50 T2 - meta fit, that has way less utility then either of the armor carriers.

All carriers need CPU and PG balanced Prior to this going live.
They need 1 more launch tube and 10K more space in fighter bays, or support fighters need to be the same size as the others. One flight (3 support fighters) is 9K m3 of a relatively small holding bay and as you can only use 1 flight at a time it is a shame it has to be at the expense of being able to apply any real damage to larger ships.
If a new carrier is incapable of defending itself from and even killing a battleship, then what use are they?

Capital warfare should be about capital ships being able to kill each other - Not one whole class dedicated to killing subcaps but being killed by any other capital with no chance to defend itself. Especially when you have super carriers capable of volleying carriers off the field.

If the plan is to reduce carrier use by making them barely useful - Your on the right track.


Actually, as pointed out in the other thread, shield carriers work perfectly if you fit just buffer. The archon (armor) thanny and nid (shiled) are able to fit a ~1.6-1.8 mil buffer. The chimi might actually be OP buffer fit at just north of 3 mil buffer. However if you want active tank you will not be able to stick it on a shield carrier due to cpu limitations. As such i think now the problem is not with the carriers, but with the requirements for the mods.

Agree on the support fighters, as long as the space superiority fighters can kill em this quick, they need to be smaller. And they are not all that great to start with, as you lose 33% of your dps if you launch a tube of those.

Carriers need a defined role, and supers need to not be able to kill them quite so quickly..
Sekeris
Order of Celestial Knights
#312 - 2016-04-10 07:10:05 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Josef Kennet wrote:
Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters?
Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc
Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter
Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter

Same with their movement ability

Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool.

Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities.
I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them.
So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key.



Echoing this. I currently use fighters a lot in PvE, splitting fighters between various targets. The incoming system is interesting, but I'd really like to be able to say assign attack commands for specific fighter squadrons to different keys without needed to manually switch focus between different fighter squads.

An entire carrier worth of DPS is overkill in a carrier for one target in PvE, being able to F1, F2, F3 (or other assigned keys) to tell squads 1, 2, and 3 to each attack the selected enemy target would be excellent.

How do you send different groups of fighter at targets now?
Would it be, select target, select fighters, send fighters?

The whole idea behind new fighter mechanics is to get players involved - Not provide more hotkeys to mash.
The Eve player base has to be one of the laziest of any online game.


I split all my fighters into two drone groups, then use F to tell all to attack one target, then manually tell the second group to attack a different target. It's a bit clunky but it works.

As for your objection to the proposal, you don't seem to have an actual reason for the objection.

You can already split and group guns into whatever arrangement of groupings and hotkeys keys you want. Extending that system of grouping and hotkeys to the drone UI has been something people have been asking about for years, but has been set aside for a long time due to issues with legacy code.

Do you have an actual reason for objecting to it, or does customization of controls and a responsive UI somehow offend you?


At the moment F1 gives the order to all fighters squadrons with a blue ring, so if you want to split them you have to click the fighter group, the target, F1, the next fighter group, the next target, F1, etc. Or select all fighters and F1 to get all of them to attack one target. Being able to rebind squadrons to Crtl + F1 / F2 etc sounds like a good idea to take some of the clunkyness out of that.
Oxide Ammar
#313 - 2016-04-10 07:25:17 UTC
Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest.

Lady Areola Fappington:  Solo PVP isn't dead!  You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Sekeris
Order of Celestial Knights
#314 - 2016-04-10 07:45:23 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest.


Active fit modules are probably too cpu hungry, a buffer works well on the chimi, and as a shield buffer it is probably a little too strong at the moment as it gets almost 33% more buffer then any other carrier. It cannot fit a active tank though, and the nid is even more bothersome for active tank.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#315 - 2016-04-10 08:18:05 UTC
Sekeris wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest.


Active fit modules are probably too cpu hungry, a buffer works well on the chimi, and as a shield buffer it is probably a little too strong at the moment as it gets almost 33% more buffer then any other carrier. It cannot fit a active tank though, and the nid is even more bothersome for active tank.

I just had a thought about the Nid. Everyone complains that it in particular doesn't have enough CPU. Could it be because it still has the CPU/PG from when it had the 5/5/6 slot layout that favored armor?
Sekeris
Order of Celestial Knights
#316 - 2016-04-10 08:25:22 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sekeris wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:
Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest.


Active fit modules are probably too cpu hungry, a buffer works well on the chimi, and as a shield buffer it is probably a little too strong at the moment as it gets almost 33% more buffer then any other carrier. It cannot fit a active tank though, and the nid is even more bothersome for active tank.

I just had a thought about the Nid. Everyone complains that it in particular doesn't have enough CPU. Could it be because it still has the CPU/PG from when it had the 5/5/6 slot layout that favored armor?


Possibly, it has the same CPU/PG as on live now. Which is the biggest gap between carrier > super for cpu.
Atum' Ra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#317 - 2016-04-10 09:43:02 UTC
When you fix fighters bug on sisi? They do not warp over the target now.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#318 - 2016-04-10 09:51:52 UTC
Atum' Ra wrote:
When you fix fighters bug on sisi? They do not warp over the target now.

Not a bug. Fighters will only warp to follow you if you warp off grid. You might actually have to recall them too.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#319 - 2016-04-10 10:04:04 UTC
Sekeris wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
I just had a thought about the Nid. Everyone complains that it in particular doesn't have enough CPU. Could it be because it still has the CPU/PG from when it had the 5/5/6 slot layout that favored armor?


Possibly, it has the same CPU/PG as on live now. Which is the biggest gap between carrier > super for cpu.

Well if that's the case, they didn't take into account the change in slot layout. On TQ the Nidhoggur has CPU/PG designed for the 5/5/6 slot layout while the Hel has a 6/7/5 layout. That means the Nid->Hel CPU gap is huge and PG gap is tiny. I'm going to bug report this and hopefully it'll be fixed.
Atum' Ra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#320 - 2016-04-10 10:19:26 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Atum' Ra wrote:
When you fix fighters bug on sisi? They do not warp over the target now.

Not a bug. Fighters will only warp to follow you if you warp off grid. You might actually have to recall them too.


It is the most powerful nerf of carriers... eve nerf of skynet was not so devastating.
RIP

Pls rename the game from EVE online to Frigates online.