Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

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.

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

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.

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)

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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?