These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#361 - 2016-06-19 01:18:39 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
The biggest argument against these changes you just made yourself Cade - Comparing new light fighter carriers to sentry carriers of old.

Carriers are being nerfed for ONE reason and one reason only - The little roaming gank gangs want easy kills on a ship that is (was) deigned to counter them - They whined loud enough that the new ethos of Devs at CCP kicked in.

This new Ethos (which could very well be the straw that eventually breaks the Camels back) EVERYTHING must be "easily destructible".
New Carriers were doing the job they were designed for; it seems, a little too well for the short time they have been around. So instead of being professional and letting PLAYERS find a way to counter them (as Eve has always done in the past) Devs again lowered the standards of all of Eve and Swung the Nerf Bat - And as is usually the case, it was swung the wrong way and far too hard.

Eve has/had always been about overcoming, adapting, winning and losing on the battlefield, gate, moon, where ever you found a fight. Now it is about who can cry the loudest and get Devs attention first to get that nerf bat winning fights for them.


Where to start with all of this...

First off, saying that a ship "was designed to do X" when A. CCP never said that was the case and B. CCP were the ones who designed the ship is really quite silly. Seriously, look through the original post on the Capital rebalance, no where does it say that Carriers are supposed to be good against Sub-Caps, in fact the only mention of Sub-Capitals is in the Dreadnaught section.

As to the claim that Eve has always been about finding a way to counter something that's OP, that's just laughable. Eve has a long long history going all the way back to its inception and things like the Nano-nerfs of CCP going in and axing things that were OP or generally bad for gameplay.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
There are ships killing things all over TQ that we all know are OP for their class - Yet they are not nerfed after less than 2 months in the game - Why? because the same people complaining about carriers fly these little OP things, to gank solo ratters, gate camp and kill lone travellers, etc BUT they can't kill a lone carrier so the whine fest began and sadly for the whole of TQ, they were listened to and so carriers have been nerfed to suit the small ship flying gank gangs. They aren't pvpr's - pvpr's adapt and overcome using whatever is available in the game (different ships, tactics etc) - these guys are whiny kids who don't want to adapt to anything new - they want it to adapt to them - and CCP did just that for them. Carriers have been "adapted" to suit a minority too afraid to play Eve any other way than they have in the past.

"MY Svipul Can't do it like it used to" - nerf carriers so I can keep using it for everything.
Or
Our roaming gang of frigates and destroyers could kill carriers before they were turned into subcap killing specialists (their ONLY role) - Now we can't, CCPlease fix this - - - - So CCP did.


This is just kind of laughable too. T3 Destroyers got hit with the nerf bat before all four were even released and within 3 months of one being released and less than a month for the other.

The rest of this isn't worth responding to except to say that it's pretty baseless.

Persila wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
[quote=Marranar Amatin](eft does not show rocket salvo dps).


Yes it does, right click on a fighter squadron and turn on Weapon 2.

Lol, no it do's not. there is no turn on weapon 2


Update your version of EFT? I can post you a picture of the right-click menu I'm getting if you'd like.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#362 - 2016-06-19 04:17:24 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
The biggest argument against these changes you just made yourself Cade - Comparing new light fighter carriers to sentry carriers of old.

Carriers are being nerfed for ONE reason and one reason only - The little roaming gank gangs want easy kills on a ship that is (was) deigned to counter them - They whined loud enough that the new ethos of Devs at CCP kicked in.

This new Ethos (which could very well be the straw that eventually breaks the Camels back) EVERYTHING must be "easily destructible".
New Carriers were doing the job they were designed for; it seems, a little too well for the short time they have been around. So instead of being professional and letting PLAYERS find a way to counter them (as Eve has always done in the past) Devs again lowered the standards of all of Eve and Swung the Nerf Bat - And as is usually the case, it was swung the wrong way and far too hard.

Eve has/had always been about overcoming, adapting, winning and losing on the battlefield, gate, moon, where ever you found a fight. Now it is about who can cry the loudest and get Devs attention first to get that nerf bat winning fights for them.


Where to start with all of this...

First off, saying that a ship "was designed to do X" when A. CCP never said that was the case and B. CCP were the ones who designed the ship is really quite silly. Seriously, look through the original post on the Capital rebalance, no where does it say that Carriers are supposed to be good against Sub-Caps, in fact the only mention of Sub-Capitals is in the Dreadnaught section.

As to the claim that Eve has always been about finding a way to counter something that's OP, that's just laughable. Eve has a long long history going all the way back to its inception and things like the Nano-nerfs of CCP going in and axing things that were OP or generally bad for gameplay.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
There are ships killing things all over TQ that we all know are OP for their class - Yet they are not nerfed after less than 2 months in the game - Why? because the same people complaining about carriers fly these little OP things, to gank solo ratters, gate camp and kill lone travellers, etc BUT they can't kill a lone carrier so the whine fest began and sadly for the whole of TQ, they were listened to and so carriers have been nerfed to suit the small ship flying gank gangs. They aren't pvpr's - pvpr's adapt and overcome using whatever is available in the game (different ships, tactics etc) - these guys are whiny kids who don't want to adapt to anything new - they want it to adapt to them - and CCP did just that for them. Carriers have been "adapted" to suit a minority too afraid to play Eve any other way than they have in the past.

"MY Svipul Can't do it like it used to" - nerf carriers so I can keep using it for everything.
Or
Our roaming gang of frigates and destroyers could kill carriers before they were turned into subcap killing specialists (their ONLY role) - Now we can't, CCPlease fix this - - - - So CCP did.


This is just kind of laughable too. T3 Destroyers got hit with the nerf bat before all four were even released and within 3 months of one being released and less than a month for the other.

The rest of this isn't worth responding to except to say that it's pretty baseless.



Arguing for the sake of it - Typical (but I did think you were better than that)
CCP didn't have to say that was the design intention - Common sense, actually using the ship it should be pretty self explanatory - CCP didn't type cast them as having a usefulness anywhere in the game - Players do that working with what CCP provide.
IF CCP didn't design them to be good at killing subcaps, they didn't design them with any thought as to how they would be used (so it would just be poor design). CCP didn't design T3D's to be able to kill everything with all but impunity either but they do.

Your right and as I stated in my post - CCP should have waited more than a few weeks before taking such drastic measures. CCP is well known for swinging the nerf bat too hard and maybe now is the time they stop that and start looking at balancing rather than nerfing.

Yes T3D's were "redesigned" prior to and soon after release - Because they were simply too OP - Since then it has been pretty obvious that the Svipul for one is far to good compared to the other 3 (maybe the confessor comes close), yet any and all complaints about them fall on deaf ears.
PS; it is only laughable if you don't actually play Eve and encounter these things every day. As for the rest being baseless - Again, you would have to play Eve (outside highsec preferably) to see, it really isn't.

Oh and referring to an 8 month old blog that really didn't reveal much of anything in any detail - How out of touch are you with what goes on in Eve TODAY.

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.

Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Reckless Contingency.
#363 - 2016-06-19 06:29:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ncc 1709
too much of a nerf...
you have gone from beind able to defend your self, to not being able to lay any damage down onto a hostile...

Combat 29 to Ascensions[FUSEN](Crow) - Firbolg II - Hits

really??

give the ships 2 or 3 point warp stab to compensate for not being able to kill solo ceptor....
Cade Windstalker
#364 - 2016-06-19 06:31:37 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Arguing for the sake of it - Typical (but I did think you were better than that)
CCP didn't have to say that was the design intention - Common sense, actually using the ship it should be pretty self explanatory - CCP didn't type cast them as having a usefulness anywhere in the game - Players do that working with what CCP provide.
IF CCP didn't design them to be good at killing subcaps, they didn't design them with any thought as to how they would be used (so it would just be poor design). CCP didn't design T3D's to be able to kill everything with all but impunity either but they do.


I could have just ignored your entire post, which is what I generally do with anything that contains that much unsupported CCP-bashing by volume, but you had some interesting points so I figured I'd address them. If you'd like to put away the insults, towards myself and the devs, since I don't think they add anything or are going to provoke the response you want, then I'd be happy to continue this discussion.

As for design intent vs usage, I don't think you're wrong here, but there has to be some recognition of designer intent vs player usage, and there has to be some give and take here. Players have taken what CCP has given them and made things like 2.5mil EHP T3 Cruisers, Blap-dreads, Blap-Titan fleets, and all manner of other things that were just hilariously bad for the game. Even in the words of the people actually using them.

I'm not pretending that Carriers, in their current incarnation, are anything near that bad, but they do seem to be a bit imbalanced, and I don't think CCP intended for them to be quite as devastating to sub-caps as they've turned out to be. They seem to have been intended as a jack of all trades, master of none, with their utility belt of different Fighters and ability to engage at incredibly long ranges. I don't think this is fully realized even after these proposed changes, but I also think we'll be seeing iterations on Capitals for another 6 months to a year at least, so it's not like this is going to be the final word on Carriers.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Your right and as I stated in my post - CCP should have waited more than a few weeks before taking such drastic measures. CCP is well known for swinging the nerf bat too hard and maybe now is the time they stop that and start looking at balancing rather than nerfing.


I never said I thought they were moving too quickly here, I said there were other examples of them moving this quickly and called out the T3 Destroyers specifically since you seem to think they're still OP. Personally I'm kind of generally ambivalent on the subject. I know they're strong and fairly dominant, but there are also counters available.

Nerfs have to be a part of balancing, if something is performing too strongly it makes zero sense to try and bring everything else up to that thing's level, that is the textbook definition of power-creep. Also you seem to be specifically calling here for the Svipul or T3 Destroyers in general to be nerfed, so I'm not really sure what to make of your apparent distaste for nerfs in general. Do you only dislike them when they affect things you like to play?

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Yes T3D's were "redesigned" prior to and soon after release - Because they were simply too OP - Since then it has been pretty obvious that the Svipul for one is far to good compared to the other 3 (maybe the confessor comes close), yet any and all complaints about them fall on deaf ears.
PS; it is only laughable if you don't actually play Eve and encounter these things every day. As for the rest being baseless - Again, you would have to play Eve (outside highsec preferably) to see, it really isn't.

Oh and referring to an 8 month old blog that really didn't reveal much of anything in any detail - How out of touch are you with what goes on in Eve TODAY.


I do generally try to cite my sources, and that old blog is about the only one we have for CCP's general intent for the Capital changes. The game is neither purely defined by the players nor by CCP. If you're going to cite intent of design you should be referring to CCP's intent, not what some percentage of the players want for something that is currently in the game or in development.

Also, again, please leave the insults out of it, they don't add anything to the discussion.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#365 - 2016-06-19 06:53:31 UTC
I'm not really concerning myself about carrier damage output against smaller hulls.
What I AM concerned about is the retardation that is instalocking with the NSA.

I mean, I didn't really want to roam around in a Cruiser or larger anyways Straight


Maybe you folks should sit back and fix/play the game you've ALREADY broken before adding more aust garbage Idea

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Shalashaska Adam
Snakes and Lasers
#366 - 2016-06-19 10:28:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalashaska Adam
On further testing, the raw damage nerf to the secondary attack of light fighters is completely unnecessary.

The application hit does enough to balance out the attack, the raw damage reduction then makes it underpowered.

You have limited charges, and the attack is meant to be used against larger craft.

Why then, does it do less raw dps, than the primary attack.

There is meant to be an interesting choice between stopping to reload or not, currently there isn't.

It feels like a chore simply manually cycling the secondary attack now that it is so weak.

Please restore the raw dps of the attack, and try putting through the (extreme on its own) application change only.

"Powerful secondary attack" no longer describes the ability in its current state.

Would also be very helpful if the secondary attack would simply autorepeat like the primary does.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#367 - 2016-06-19 10:38:10 UTC
even without the damage nerff they have become under powered against larger craft. They can keep the alpha the same but considering you will be taking a major reduction against most battleships it's not going to be worth the nearly 60s reload.


before this carriers were outclassed and grossly under powered in any normal engagement only being op in gate camps and ganks. rather than fix them where there is a problem they are through a blanket nerf just like they did with the drake and heavy missiles...

unless you can show me a situation were a carrier is a good choice i'll stay convinced they are dead
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#368 - 2016-06-19 18:20:56 UTC
Cade your argumentation gets us nowhere, you contradict yourself and do not put ANY argument that is actually in favor or against the nerf, or even related to the nerf. so its quite pointless for this thread, so I am just going to be brief.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
First off, game balance for any sufficiently complicated game will never be an exact science. Second, it's very possible for something to look like a good idea but have issues in practice that math and analysis just don't reveal.


why are you telling this to me? you are the one that claimed that ccp must have proof and evidence that a nerf is a good idea if they suggest it.

Your whole argument consists of "everything ccp suggest must be a good idea" and goes in circles from there.
The idea that we should prove that a nerf is bad idea without being given any reason for the nerf is just silly. Its basically impossible.
I could do a long explanation why it is to be expected that the damage is already too low against big targets (and already gave a short one) but that is not a proof. And even if it were you could just ask: "well maybe its causing problems in incursion that allow now capitals, your proof didnt contain this!" then I could go back to a lot of analysis, and the you ask "Well maybe they are too strong against citadels!". Then maybe they are too strong against sleeper. then against pocos. then against pos. and so on. This would be completely useless procedure and a huge waste of time.
With what you suggest, it would be impossible to argue against a nerf EVER.

Its quite simpel: if something is not too strong then dont nerf it. if you think its too strong then tell us why and then we can talk about it.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#369 - 2016-06-19 21:39:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Shalashaska Adam wrote:
On further testing, the raw damage nerf to the secondary attack of light fighters is completely unnecessary.

The application hit does enough to balance out the attack, the raw damage reduction then makes it underpowered.

You have limited charges, and the attack is meant to be used against larger craft.

Why then, does it do less raw dps, than the primary attack.

There is meant to be an interesting choice between stopping to reload or not, currently there isn't.

It feels like a chore simply manually cycling the secondary attack now that it is so weak.

Please restore the raw dps of the attack, and try putting through the (extreme on its own) application change only.

"Powerful secondary attack" no longer describes the ability in its current state.

Would also be very helpful if the secondary attack would simply autorepeat like the primary does.

Exaclty.

I think they need to take another look and either go with one of two options for the secondary attack.

1) Restore raw damage to previous levels and keep the explosion radius and velocity as proposed.
2) Double or triple the damage from the ability and increase the exp radius and vel to that of a small capital ship.

Option one makes it a good anti BS ability.

Option two would give carriers a good tool against other capitals which at the moment is severely lacking

I'd suggest going for option 2 as it makes carriers viable in capital warfare (with enough fighters being able to alpha strike through another capitals reps).
Krovos
Clone Vat Bay
#370 - 2016-06-19 23:01:45 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
too much of a nerf...
you have gone from beind able to defend your self, to not being able to lay any damage down onto a hostile...

Combat 29 to Ascensions[FUSEN](Crow) - Firbolg II - Hits

really??

give the ships 2 or 3 point warp stab to compensate for not being able to kill solo ceptor....


You want to be able to rat without any threat? Go to highsec mate.
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#371 - 2016-06-19 23:17:54 UTC
Krovos wrote:
Ncc 1709 wrote:
too much of a nerf...
you have gone from beind able to defend your self, to not being able to lay any damage down onto a hostile...

Combat 29 to Ascensions[FUSEN](Crow) - Firbolg II - Hits

really??

give the ships 2 or 3 point warp stab to compensate for not being able to kill solo ceptor....


You want to be able to rat without any threat? Go to highsec mate.


normal caps should not have built-in warp core stabs, as much as us cap pilots would love it, as you point out there's too little risk in using them then.

that said, carriers should be able to defend themselves from small vessels; should they be able to insta them? no, but they should be able to kill them withing a short amount of time, otherwise you have the bullshit of solo ceptors holding a carrier for 30mins while a fleet forms to kill it.


personally i think that ccp should do one of 2 things but not both:

1. nerf the damage of the rocket volley but not it's application, makes it a non-overpowered tool that the carrier can use on everything.

2. nerf the application but leave or buff the dmg so that it's a tool designed to be used on larger, harder targets. as others have pointed out, carriers currently have very little recourse against other caps, this option would help fix this.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#372 - 2016-06-19 23:26:29 UTC
no a carrier should be dead meat w/o a support fleet but it should be the undisputed sub cap killing king if it has support. Right now its just useless in a fleet and after this it will be useless period.

either way if a cepter has you held for 30 min where is your def fleet?
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#373 - 2016-06-19 23:55:13 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
no a carrier should be dead meat w/o a support fleet but it should be the undisputed sub cap killing king if it has support. Right now its just useless in a fleet and after this it will be useless period.

either way if a cepter has you held for 30 min where is your def fleet?


i disagree, no ship should be completely helpless against a single inty, they should have some option to try and fight back alone. whether or not they succeed is another matter and up to a lot of variables. for most ships this is drones, but carriers dont have that option, all they have are fighters.

with the changes that are proposed to light fighters, they wont be good for killing battleships let alone trying to kill a inty. right now the descriptions of the fighters put their roles as anti-fighter for SS, anti-ship for lights, anti-cap for heavies, and ewar for support. heavies and support are fine, they do their jobs and they do it well. right now folks are bitching that lights and their rocket volleys are murdering folks way too easily. while that is debatable, it's caused enough whining for ccp to go and hit lights with the nerf-sledge, essentially leaving them as easier to kill heavies with **** application and damage; eg worthless. now, so as to not make carriers completely worthless, the nerfs to lights either need to be dialed back in one way or another (which i am in favor of), or ccp need to consider adding some functionality to allow carriers the ability to try and fight frigs(with the same level of chance as any other ship has against the same threat).
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#374 - 2016-06-19 23:55:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Marranar Amatin wrote:
Cade your argumentation gets us nowhere, you contradict yourself and do not put ANY argument that is actually in favor or against the nerf, or even related to the nerf. so its quite pointless for this thread, so I am just going to be brief.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
First off, game balance for any sufficiently complicated game will never be an exact science. Second, it's very possible for something to look like a good idea but have issues in practice that math and analysis just don't reveal.


why are you telling this to me? you are the one that claimed that ccp must have proof and evidence that a nerf is a good idea if they suggest it.

Your whole argument consists of "everything ccp suggest must be a good idea" and goes in circles from there.
The idea that we should prove that a nerf is bad idea without being given any reason for the nerf is just silly. Its basically impossible.
I could do a long explanation why it is to be expected that the damage is already too low against big targets (and already gave a short one) but that is not a proof. And even if it were you could just ask: "well maybe its causing problems in incursion that allow now capitals, your proof didnt contain this!" then I could go back to a lot of analysis, and the you ask "Well maybe they are too strong against citadels!". Then maybe they are too strong against sleeper. then against pocos. then against pos. and so on. This would be completely useless procedure and a huge waste of time.
With what you suggest, it would be impossible to argue against a nerf EVER.

Its quite simpel: if something is not too strong then dont nerf it. if you think its too strong then tell us why and then we can talk about it.
Yeah, that's not how Devs work.

The fact carriers will now be weaker against larger ships is simply the way devs see "balance" - Capital ships are meant to die and die relatively easily at that, so by mitigating damage against small ships (deliberately) and against battleships as a side effect - They are essentially following the new ethos of - Everything must be destructible.
Whether it is balanced or fair to carrier pilots is of no concern to Devs, they are appeasing the ones who want easier kills on carriers without having to adapt to a new meta.

For balance, these changes should be introduced 1 at a time over a period of months, not all at once as is intended. By doing it all at once it is carrier pilots who need to once again adjust the way they use their ships, while the risk averse who don't want adapt or whatever get what they want. Easier carriers kills.

Carriers are being nerfed before they have even found their role on TQ and this will continue for as long as a carrier stands a chance of winning a solo vs gang encounter - CCP are making it pretty clear, solo carrier play is not wanted in Eve - Even with the risk, it is seen as unfair to small roaming gangs who primarily, prey on solo players.

PS; Don't put off life waiting for any sort of decent explanation from Devs as to why these nerfs are needed or good for the game - You'll die having missed out on a lot.
Quite simply, these nerfs are what they are because a dev thinks it should be so.



For Devs, once carriers are forced to always have support - The whining will increase 10 fold because the small gangs who want to kill carriers will become lossmails even more efficiently. But then, you can always nerf carriers - Again..

Edit; I agree scan res of the NSA being reduced and stacking bonuses is a good thing - Lets start with that and see how things go for a month or 2 before introducing more nerfs.

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.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#375 - 2016-06-20 00:11:34 UTC
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
no a carrier should be dead meat w/o a support fleet but it should be the undisputed sub cap killing king if it has support. Right now its just useless in a fleet and after this it will be useless period.

either way if a cepter has you held for 30 min where is your def fleet?


i disagree, no ship should be completely helpless against a single inty, they should have some option to try and fight back alone. whether or not they succeed is another matter and up to a lot of variables. for most ships this is drones, but carriers dont have that option, all they have are fighters.


that is true unless your ship is not supposed to be alone you are a capital not a cruiser.

besides you still have 150-300 perfectly applying dps at your disposal depending on carrier and fit...



right now carriers are dead w/o a support fleet but powerful in a fleet (just not as much as a dread so still useless) they only break and start alphaing un-tackled cruisers/frigs when omnis are used rather than nerfing the hell out of fighters they just need to stop omnies from affecting them(and then for good measure get e-war to start working on them)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#376 - 2016-06-20 04:28:54 UTC
if you lower alpha even if giving more shots you lose the point of the carrier and break them in large numbers.


however if they raised the alpha lowered the ROF and total number of charges keeping the overall rearm time the same we would get somewhere.

make the rocket salvo something that takes thought to use rather than something you spam when its cool down is up
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Sedition.
#377 - 2016-06-20 06:39:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Another concern about switching carriers from relying on alpha to DPS is gate/station guns in lowsec. As it is now, if a carrier is a valid target for the guns, they rarely manage to get more than 2 volleys off before the guns start shredding fighters and they need to be pulled. That's fine when camping a gate and you only need one volley, but it's a major pain in any real fight to repeatedly have to pull fighters and wait for them to reload and get back to the target. It basically forces the carriers to stay far off the gate/station, which was literally the exact thing fighter aggro was intended to prevent.
Anthar Thebess
#378 - 2016-06-20 07:00:44 UTC
Current fighters are fine.
Carriers need to have ability to clear tackle for the rest of the fleet.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#379 - 2016-06-20 07:20:24 UTC
wait you think carriers should have a role in a fleet?
Laso Mbra
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#380 - 2016-06-20 07:32:02 UTC
1.
The light/heavy fighter have a warp drive, so they can follow the carrier through warp. If you recall them while you are warping or before warp it spawn at the edge of the grid and fly the 15000km manually.
Before the capital patch fighter warp every distance over 150km and warps back to your carrier after warping to the edge of the grid.

2.
I do not know which fleet type the carrier should counter. I don't think battleship or dread because they are countering carrier. Carrier are made for killing smaller ships because you do not have big guns but lots of ships(fighters) in frigate size.
First i thought of T3's or T2 frigs but now you raise the signature of the missiles so it cannot be. And fighter are dying very fast vs T3's.

If you use a bomber to counter a battleship you need round about 50m to kill 250m.

So why is a T1 ship that cost 1500m or more so ineffective vs his targets? And what should be the target?
You need lots of skills and isk to fly carrier with faux support but where is their part that a fleet of cheaper and easier to fly faction BS cannot do, especially with a bridge titan?

At the moment carrier are good (gate)camping ships. Well, not the best role i wish but a role. So please do not nerf/kill a role of a ship if you do not have another one. You did this with supercapitals all the years. So please be constructive. Open a door before you close one. It happened too often that someone closed a door and said we will open another one soon™.