These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[118.6] Capital Balancing

First post First post First post
Author
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#281 - 2016-06-15 20:34:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
CCP Larrikin wrote:
  • General Light Fighters (Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg, Einherji) have had their basic attack application stats increased and their heavy rocket salvo application & damage stats decreased:
  • Basic Attack - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 160 (-80)
    Basic Attack - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 150 (+30)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 350 (+250)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 100 (-20)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Speed: 14 seconds (-4)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Damage (Average): 146 (-94)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Charges: 12 (+4)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Reload Time: 4 seconds (-2)
    * All stats per fighter, before skills/mods.[/list]

    Can you post the exact stats as this doesn't really collerate to the individual fighters very well as each have different stats. For the damage reduction it seems like your going for 40% in the example above across the board.

    If you can give us percentage changes and maybe a bit of info about your reasoning behind each change that would be helpful.
    Marranar Amatin
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #282 - 2016-06-15 20:37:03 UTC
    I would be especially interested in the intention behind the nerf against large targets such as capitals...
    Skia Aumer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #283 - 2016-06-15 21:13:59 UTC
    Jessie McPewpew wrote:
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Wow, the flood of tears in this thread is amazing.

    1. "Dreads are so much better!"
    No they are not. Dreads are stationary, carriers are mobile. Carriers can receive reps, dreads not. Dreads can be trackdised, fighters can be killed. You just cant compare them, they are different.

    2. "I used to pwn in my big shiny expensive and SP-intensive ship! And now I can not, screw you CCP!"
    Maybe you also dream of ye olde days when tracking titans were a thing?

    3. "I want to eat battleships on breakfast!"
    How long would it take for battleship pilot to understand: see carrier = run ? Not so long, I think. After that, you'll end up fighting ~swordfleets~, svipuls, bombers etc. and complain of frigate menace.

    Dreads will apply dps much better to subcaps. Their dps can't be jammed or killed easily like those on a carrier. They can tank much better. They also stand a better chance when fighting super caps unlike carriers with their puny dps and puny tank. The carrier also doesn't have a mobility advantage because it's dog slow and can't be arsed roaming with it; you are committing just as much as a dread when you bring it ongrid.

    TL;DR Carriers don't have a place in this game anymore. At no point in time are you fighting battleships on a regular to invest in one and you might as well get a dread with HAW. You are even more likely to use a super carrier than the new carriers.

    Take a look what the other no-name guy from random alliance said about dreads. NSFW though.
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #284 - 2016-06-15 21:40:22 UTC
    remove nsa or make it only for locking fighters pls
    Anna Faquarl
    Worthless Carebears
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #285 - 2016-06-15 21:45:31 UTC
    Ok let's step back CCP and figure out what your original goal was; anti-subcapital capital. Ok. So let's see how these nerfs help that exactly when suddenly an anti-subcapital platform is nerfed to the ground and can barely apply half its dps to all goddamn subcaps and even battleships.

    A good solution would have been to increase base turret damage and reduce rocket alpha so that you do more damage over time instead of instantly while getting rid of what 99% of "small-gang" were whining about - being alphaed off the field by rockets. A worse solution would have been to reduce rocket volley alpha and spread it over more charges with less dps so that ~some~ lightly tanked nerds could survive and burn back to gate to run home and whine about Carriers being OP but not dying to them. Carriers are inherently useless vs other capitals because they:

    1. Don't tank as much (compared to even dreads let alone OPfaxes)
    2. Don't do as much dps (vs dreads and above)
    3. Only do damage through one means - fighters, which are vulnerable to interference/ewar and are also very, very juicy targets for subcaps and get less effective as they get taken out and have to be reloaded/rearmed.

    Soon they'll also be useless vs most subcapitals because:

    1. They'll have **** damage application with rockets and considering most people fly hacs/t3cs in nullsec, that about renders them useless
    2. Without rockets (being so ****** at application that they might not as well exist) they barely do more damage than top of the line battleships
    3. Their fighters will still get taken out even more easily by inties/frigates/small bullshit with scrams which takes out 90% of their mobility
    4. They aren't worth their weight in larger fleet fights because of the first 3 reasons and therefore nobody will use them outside of ratting, if at all now that rockets suck ass vs small stuff. Thanks for the new ratting capital CCP.

    Why add a 3b+ capital to a fight when battleships can do the same thing (dps role) but better? As it is, very few people actually use carriers in fleets with only some like Vanguard Coalition starting to test the waters with carrier doctrines against the battleships their rivals tend to use.
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #286 - 2016-06-15 21:49:03 UTC
    the idea that you can just be 'anti-subcap' and apply big damage to all subcaps with one weapon type is crazy. I guess I shouldn't be replying to such obvious bads though.
    Sgt Ocker
    What Corp is it
    #287 - 2016-06-15 21:50:59 UTC
    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Q&A


    Q: Why are you nerfing Capital Shield Extenders?
    A: The balance between shield and armor is a complicated issue. Shield gets some passive regen, repairs on the start of the cycle and the ability to fit both damage and tank at the same time. While armor often has a higher buffer and greater accesability to EWar modules while fitting tank.
    We believe that for capitals the balance is just a little too strong toward shields.

    Just curious but could you show where the small amount of passive regen helps when your being shot by, say 10 Dreads or 30 or 40 Machs?

    Having lost a T2 fit shield Nag in less than 30 seconds after hitting siege (to 43 machs) - I'm curious as to why shield should have less buffer than armor.
    Shield regen is only really useful, until you get targeted or after a fight, if you manage to survive (unless your doing PVE and you know your incoming damage after having run the same mission 100+ times)

    NB; My current Nag fit has 2.4 mil EHP (roughly the same as other Dreads) - With your "minor" (I don't see 10% as minor but...) adjustment it will have 1.8.. Essentially shield is now "again" the worst option - Due to a small amount of (during a fight) useless passive regen.

    Feedback - Leave shield amount as it is and remove regen (shield operation skill regen bonus) from capital shields - That would at least keep shield capitals at the same level as armor.

    (until whenever, armor caps have a huge advantage with slaves, leave any other adjustments until AFTER shield is on par with armor for implants, when they eventually get released)

    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.

    Moac Tor
    Cyber Core
    Immediate Destruction
    #288 - 2016-06-15 21:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Jessie McPewpew wrote:
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Wow, the flood of tears in this thread is amazing.

    1. "Dreads are so much better!"
    No they are not. Dreads are stationary, carriers are mobile. Carriers can receive reps, dreads not. Dreads can be trackdised, fighters can be killed. You just cant compare them, they are different.

    2. "I used to pwn in my big shiny expensive and SP-intensive ship! And now I can not, screw you CCP!"
    Maybe you also dream of ye olde days when tracking titans were a thing?

    3. "I want to eat battleships on breakfast!"
    How long would it take for battleship pilot to understand: see carrier = run ? Not so long, I think. After that, you'll end up fighting ~swordfleets~, svipuls, bombers etc. and complain of frigate menace.

    Dreads will apply dps much better to subcaps. Their dps can't be jammed or killed easily like those on a carrier. They can tank much better. They also stand a better chance when fighting super caps unlike carriers with their puny dps and puny tank. The carrier also doesn't have a mobility advantage because it's dog slow and can't be arsed roaming with it; you are committing just as much as a dread when you bring it ongrid.

    TL;DR Carriers don't have a place in this game anymore. At no point in time are you fighting battleships on a regular to invest in one and you might as well get a dread with HAW. You are even more likely to use a super carrier than the new carriers.

    Take a look what the other no-name guy from random alliance said about dreads. NSFW though.

    He's complaining about the removal of Ewar immunity which has now been re-added for sieged dreads. So if anything it backs up the fact that dreads outclass carriers in capital warfare now the ECM immunity is back.

    You need between 4 / 5 carriers to equal the dps of a dread, and that is considering your fighters survive and don't get ECM'd which is unlikely.

    It is considered standard knowledge now that carriers are good sub cap platforms but are vulnerable to other capitals.
    Inslander Wessette
    Unleashed' Fury
    The Initiative.
    #289 - 2016-06-16 03:17:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Inslander Wessette
    Larrkin my man . Its the intent of the ppl . Ppl who want to gate camp with sebos will continue to use sebos and do the same old thing . The ppl who will be affect by this are real combat carriers and ratting carriers .

    I will give you an example

    Assume sensor booster as an after burner and NSA as Microwarpdrive

    ab gives less boost but less sig rad and less cap usage . MWD give more sig consumes more cap for more power

    BUT BOTH CANNOT BE OPERATED SIMULTANEOUSLY . the same should apply to carriers . Pls bring back the old 900% bonus without bonus applied to fighters .

    pls do not nerf damage . nerf Application of damage . Isn't that the main problem here ? sub caps being blaped . If you make rocket salvos like drake HMLs i'm sure frigates and ab cruisers can tank it . while battleships and BC should have a hard time . If anything they need a bonus to damage as a capital weapon with a nerf to cruiser and below damage application .
    Anthar Thebess
    #290 - 2016-06-16 08:06:23 UTC
    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    Q&A


    Q: Why are you nerfing Capital Shield Extenders?
    A: The balance between shield and armor is a complicated issue. Shield gets some passive regen, repairs on the start of the cycle and the ability to fit both damage and tank at the same time. While armor often has a higher buffer and greater accesability to EWar modules while fitting tank.
    We believe that for capitals the balance is just a little too strong toward shields.

    Just curious but could you show where the small amount of passive regen helps when your being shot by, say 10 Dreads or 30 or 40 Machs?

    Having lost a T2 fit shield Nag in less than 30 seconds after hitting siege (to 43 machs) - I'm curious as to why shield should have less buffer than armor.
    Shield regen is only really useful, until you get targeted or after a fight, if you manage to survive (unless your doing PVE and you know your incoming damage after having run the same mission 100+ times)

    NB; My current Nag fit has 2.4 mil EHP (roughly the same as other Dreads) - With your "minor" (I don't see 10% as minor but...) adjustment it will have 1.8.. Essentially shield is now "again" the worst option - Due to a small amount of (during a fight) useless passive regen.

    Feedback - Leave shield amount as it is and remove regen (shield operation skill regen bonus) from capital shields - That would at least keep shield capitals at the same level as armor.

    (until whenever, armor caps have a huge advantage with slaves, leave any other adjustments until AFTER shield is on par with armor for implants, when they eventually get released)

    It will not leave shields in the same position.
    Shields get much bigger signature and all shield modules consume a lot of cap.
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #291 - 2016-06-16 08:38:51 UTC
    It's at the super level.

    Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4hs25d/capital_shield_extenders_are_op/

    tl;dr: Shield tanked bus has more ehp than a slaved armor one.
    Shank Ronuken
    TURN LEFT
    HYDRA RELOADED
    #292 - 2016-06-16 08:51:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Shank Ronuken
    Bless up for Mr Hyde

    Maybe instead of crying about the fighter changes you should adapt as the meta changes and HTFU

    A carrier shouldn't be able to solo dunk a proper gang, maybe you should stop dropping lightly tanked gank carriers and actually have some support.

    These changes are healthy Bear
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #293 - 2016-06-16 09:12:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
    The direction certainly, but the degree is, imo, too far.

    Unless my math is wrong, this is the new state of affairs.

    NB this is with two omnis running, not something every carrier has the luxury of.

    These are samples of typical fits I've seen in recent times. Sig/velocity can be seen.

    Target                         Sig    Vel  %Base damage applied
    Proteus                        176    495     34.2%
    Linked Proteus                 115    581     23.4%
    Scimi                          620    2068   30.6%
    Linked Scimi                   406    2597   20.1%
    Basi                           147    575     27.6%
    Linked Basi                    96.3    676     19.0%
    Armor Mach                     350    491     53.5%
    Linked Armor Mach              229    584     36.4%
    Armor phoon                    330    359     63.1%
    Armor phoon linked             216    424     43.1%
    Rattlesnake (MWD off)          530    118  100.0%
    Rattlesnake (MWD on)           2814    863    100.0%
    Rattlesnake (MWD off) Linked   347    118      100.0%
    Rattlesnake (MWD on) Linked    1843  1088  93.5%



    These are extremely low numbers. Particularly dismaying are the sub battleship fleet hulls regularly seen. Obviously support can be factored in, but out of the box for a carrier using two of the only application mods effectively available these numbers are horribly low given it has no other role in life but shooting smaller things.


    Sorry about formatting, I gave up after a while.

    I mean, I get small gang was suffering under these, but the changes are horrible at the fleet level.
    Kayalia Noble
    dead.Orbit
    #294 - 2016-06-16 09:19:08 UTC
    Shank Ronuken wrote:
    Bless up for Mr Hyde

    Maybe instead of crying about the fighter changes you should adapt as the meta changes and HTFU

    A carrier shouldn't be able to solo dunk a proper gang, maybe you should stop dropping lightly tanked gank carriers and actually have some support.

    These changes are healthy Bear


    But, but, this is A CAPITAL CLASS SHIP!
    It should trump everything smaller than it with ease because it's big and expensive!
    Requiring a sub-cap support fleet with scrams/webs/tps to make my damage apply is ridiculous!
    I should be able to solo blap those pesky ceptors in 2 hits rather than rely on a subcap fleet supporting me to keep me safe from the smaller ships!


    Seriously though, good changes, carriers still strong at killing fighters and subcaps, less press F3, collect loot without needing any sort of support.

    To the people saying they've been nerfed too far, maybe bring some support ships with webs and target painters, I know, sub-caps needing to support a capital is crazy, but I guess you just have to adapt. :)

    This is a good balance for everyone - carriers still strong, sub-cap roaming fleets can come out and play again without every fight being carrier(s) because there was no reason to bring anything else, ratting carriers get a slight buff, overall sustained dps better, less burst and 1-shotting small things that aren't even scrammed/webbed/painted.
    Skyler Hawk
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #295 - 2016-06-16 09:51:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Skyler Hawk
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    These are extremely low numbers. Particularly dismaying are the sub battleship fleet hulls regularly seen. Obviously support can be factored in, but out of the box for a carrier using two of the only application mods effectively available these numbers are horribly low given it has no other role in life but shooting smaller things.

    You're completely ignoring the fact that the fighters' primary weapons, which provide the majority of a carrier's dps, will apply perfectly to most of those targets even without omnis. If you're concerned about fleet-level application with the rocket salvo, you or another member of your fleet can easily bring a few painters and long-range webs along, exactly as you would for any other large ship weapon system.

    e: it's also worth noting that most of your cases involve ships with afterburners, although you don't see fit to mention that. Complaining that you don't get perfect application without support against smaller ships that have been specifically fit to mitigate incoming damage seems a little daft, to say the least.
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #296 - 2016-06-16 10:01:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
    Skyler Hawk wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    These are extremely low numbers. Particularly dismaying are the sub battleship fleet hulls regularly seen. Obviously support can be factored in, but out of the box for a carrier using two of the only application mods effectively available these numbers are horribly low given it has no other role in life but shooting smaller things.

    You're completely ignoring the fact that the fighters' primary weapons, which provide the majority of a carrier's dps, will apply perfectly to most of those targets even without omnis. If you're concerned about fleet-level application with the rocket salvo, you or another member of your fleet can easily bring a few painters and long-range webs along, exactly as you would for any other large ship weapon system.


    Well yes, but they are not the subject of complaint, are they?


    For what it is worth, the ONLY things the turret will apply perfectly to with BOTH onmis are the unlinked battleships. You're looking at ~50% for the linked cruiser hulls, ~60-75% unlinked. Without omnis the only thing taking 100% damage is the rattlesnake (no shock there, it has the sig of a moon).



    Remember this is a limited fire cooldown attack (which takes carrier DPS to 0 for almost a full minute on reload). It should be powerful. I don't think it is unreasonable to think it should be hitting battleships for full damage. Do you? I mean, it is not as if carriers are remotely capable of threatening other capitals, is it?
    Skyler Hawk
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #297 - 2016-06-16 10:14:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Skyler Hawk
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    Well yes, but [the fighter turrets] are not the subject of complaint, are they?

    No, but the fact that carriers will continue to apply the majority of their damage well to most subcaps does make your arguments rather questionable because you're acting as though carriers are being made completely incapable of applying meaningful damage to subcaps when in reality they will apply most of their damage pretty well, even without support.


    Quote:
    Remember this is a limited fire cooldown attack. It should be powerful. I don't think it is unreasonable to think it should be hitting battleships for full damage. Do you? I mean, it is not as if carriers are remotely capable of threatening other capitals, is it?

    It should be powerful and it is powerful. It still delivers a lot of alpha, and applies well to larger subcaps that have not taken measures to mitigate incoming damage. Complaining that you have trouble applying full damage (without tackle/support) to ABing subcaps makes exactly as little sense as an orthrus pilot complaining that a linked AB dramiel can reduce his RLML damage by around 75%, or a barghest pilot complaining that an AB scimitar can reduce his RHML damage similarly, even though they're both using weapons specifically designed for shooting smaller ships.
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #298 - 2016-06-16 10:19:58 UTC
    You and I will have to disagree on our definitions of "applies well".
    Skyler Hawk
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #299 - 2016-06-16 10:44:24 UTC
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    You and I will have to disagree on our definitions of "applies well".

    I don't know about that. For example, I think we'd both agree that rapid light missile launchers, as weapons designed for larger ships to shoot smaller ones, apply quite well to frigates even though afterburning frigates can mitigate quite a lot of light missile damage. Would you say that's fair?
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #300 - 2016-06-16 10:55:56 UTC
    Do you think torps apply well? Because that's what we're talking about here, not rapid lights.

    I mean, even changing the linked machariel to a MWD, you'll do 55.3%. A microwarping battleship.


    I realise many of these situations are ships going for mitigation and survival, but that is the essence of medium and up sized conflicts, just as the essence of small gang things are speed and agility over buffer.

    Small gang impact needed adjustment, but with the changes as slated it's a pretty huge impact across the board. We need not throw the baby out with the bathwater which is what is dangerously close here.

    And in fact, the application buff to the turrets is still probably too strong vs small things. It's the worst of all worlds Sad