These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#381 - 2016-06-20 07:49:48 UTC
Carriers saved our supers like bosses. I guess those days are over now. Man that would have been so different in the new world.

Let's bring support for our support. Woooooo
Lugh Crow-Slave
#382 - 2016-06-20 08:13:55 UTC
wait... how were the carriers better at saving the supers then the supers were at saving themselves?


also carriers should not be able to function w/o support at least not easily something that is true of them now if they go up against a decent gang
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#383 - 2016-06-20 08:17:00 UTC
Because the salvo still works. We could clear the HICs incredibly quickly as a result allowing the supers to leave field.

That would have been 100% impossible after the changes and everything on field would have died.
Anthar Thebess
#384 - 2016-06-20 08:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
wait... how were the carriers better at saving the supers then the supers were at saving themselves?


also carriers should not be able to function w/o support at least not easily something that is true of them now if they go up against a decent gang

Carrier cannot do nothing against decent gang.
Carrier can be countered by 1 person in blackbird.

People are crying that "carrier killed my sabre, while rest of fleet was just 4 jumps away".

This OSS vs PL fight showed that new fighters allow smaller groups to do something when they get PL supers hot drop.
Something that was not possible before capital changes, and will not be again after new fighter arrives.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Because the salvo still works. We could clear the HICs incredibly quickly as a result allowing the supers to leave field.

That would have been 100% impossible after the changes and everything on field would have died.


New fighters offered you fighting chance - something impossible after next patch.
PL could easily wreck your fleet if the supers deployed anti fighters.
After the changes there will be no need to use anti fighters in this kind of fight again from the blobing side.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#385 - 2016-06-20 08:25:36 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Because the salvo still works. We could clear the HICs incredibly quickly as a result allowing the supers to leave field.

That would have been 100% impossible after the changes and everything on field would have died.


well yeah what i mean is how did the carriers fighters do it better than the supers?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#386 - 2016-06-20 08:30:15 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
wait... how were the carriers better at saving the supers then the supers were at saving themselves?


also carriers should not be able to function w/o support at least not easily something that is true of them now if they go up against a decent gang

Carrier cannot do nothing against decent gang.
Carrier can be countered by 1 person in blackbird.

People are crying that "carrier killed my sabre, while rest of fleet was just 4 jumps away".

This OSS vs PL fight showed that new fighters allow smaller groups to do something when they get PL supers hot drop.
Something that was not possible before capital changes, and will not be again after new fighter arrives.



lol carriers can be countered by one person in a griffin.

but yeah this is a point that myself have been trying to make since they were on sisi and feared a nerf like this once ppl started using them on camps.

we tried giving alternatives to a direct nerf and still do that would keep them in a fleet role but make solo camping in a carrier much harder. I guess the straight nerf is just easier.


whats surprising is there seems to be very few ppl who think this nerf is the right way to go just ppl who are glad they will be off gates :/
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#387 - 2016-06-20 08:31:28 UTC
Supers had LR fibos out when we were dropped. No one had time to pull and redeploy in that event. Plus LR fighters actually wreck subcaps well (like I keep telling people but no one listens)
Anthar Thebess
#388 - 2016-06-20 08:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:



whats surprising is there seems to be very few ppl who think this nerf is the right way to go just ppl who are glad they will be off gates :/

Solution can be simple - make gate guns auto attack any fighter in range of the gate or station - this is only viable for lowsec - but it will be good enough change for removing this issue in lowsec.
You cannot camp gate in lowsec if all your squadrons are dead long before something jump in.


Nullsec gate camping carrier - this is nullsec.

What is more broken - carrier killing a single ship on gate or a titan DD whole fleet there.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#389 - 2016-06-20 08:36:02 UTC
i guess what i meant was could have just dropped more supers. Also you can abandon fighters :p drop one LR and launch 3 lights.


and yes we pointed out how strong the lr ones were back on the sisi thread...
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#390 - 2016-06-20 08:37:21 UTC
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
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.

You can fit a couple of neuts and/or a flight of support fighters.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#391 - 2016-06-20 08:37:48 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Solution can be simple - make gate guns auto attack any fighter in range of the gate or station - this is only viable for lowsec - but it will be good enough change for removing this issue in lowsec.
You cannot camp gate in lowsec if all your squadrons are dead long before something jump in.


Nullsec gate camping carrier - this is nullsec.



or just nerf the NSA to give carriers closer to BB lock time and nerf the tracking links/enhancers


this would still make gate/station camping a ***** but not remove carriers from any LS gate fight
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#392 - 2016-06-20 08:38:38 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i guess what i meant was could have just dropped more supers. Also you can abandon fighters :p drop one LR and launch 3 lights.


and yes we pointed out how strong the lr ones were back on the sisi thread...



Yeah, but even the loading time hurts. The LR ones hammer the crap out of things. It would have been a waste of time which was spent killing instead. Was like 19 or so HICs down in about 3.5 minutes
Lugh Crow-Slave
#393 - 2016-06-20 08:40:44 UTC
aye but again what i was trying to say is its still not really a role for carriers unless you simply don't have more supers. a ship should not just be relegated to "well we don't have anything better" to be useful
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#394 - 2016-06-20 08:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Yes, I agree. Although it's still a good move and allows supers more bay space for other fighters, be that bombers or their better (through the hull bonus) superiority ones.
FistyMcBumBardier
Goryn Clade
#395 - 2016-06-20 09:18:42 UTC
As someone who flies primarily sub capitals I look forward to this change as it will help deal with the problem of ridiculously powerful fighter alpha strike.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#396 - 2016-06-20 09:26:27 UTC
FistyMcBumBardier wrote:
As someone who flies primarily sub capitals I look forward to this change as it will help deal with the problem of ridiculously powerful fighter alpha strike.


so does an AB and ECM....
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#397 - 2016-06-20 09:47:32 UTC
Do you folks really want to pigeon-hole carriers into The Role? Carrier is a hull above battleship, decent and versatile - that is the role.

As they are drone-based unlike BS, which are mostly turret-based, it may not be really obvious. But think about it: a fleet of carriers will destroy a fleet of BS, hands down. Just as easy as BS smash BC and BC wreck t1 cruisers. Carriers can fit XL neuts, which would be a royal pita for fax-machines. People keep saying carriers stand no chance vs. dreads - well, that is not true. Carrier vs. dread is a kiter vs. brawler. At point blank, dreads obviously win. But if you manage to start a fight at 100 km, dreads are doomed (granted you have enough carriers to break local tank).

A big concern for me is that battleships now have way to many natural enemies. But that's a whole nother story.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#398 - 2016-06-20 09:55:09 UTC
....

maybe if it was only a fleet of dreads VS a fleet of carriers otherwise they will be out of fighters b4 the dreads are out of siege also dreads still deal more DPS than carriers beyond 200km....and thats b4 this DPS nerf

how the hell is a carrier versatile? and a fleet of carriers will not destroy a fleet of BBs even now so long as you have half decent logi carriers can't touch a BB.
CyberRaver
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#399 - 2016-06-20 10:55:20 UTC
This change needs rethinking before it goes live

the volleys need to apply 100% to a battleship target which they wont after this change

Small gangs do not deserve special treatment just because they fly non committal doctrines

destroyers and below should not get instapopped but cruisers and above should really feel the pain

Blaststar Revenge
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#400 - 2016-06-20 11:37:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Blaststar Revenge
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi M8s,

With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback!

Carriers & Fighters
  • Long Range Heavy Fighters (Ametat, Termite, Antaeus, Gungnir) bomb ability now correctly scales with squadron size.
  • Warp Scramblers now stop Fighter MWDs and MJDs mid-cycle.
  • Networked Sensor Array bonus to Scan Resolution now has a stacking penalty with sensor boosters.
  • Networked Sensor Array bonus to Scan Resolution reduced to 500% (from 900%)
  • Networked Sensor Array no longer gives a bonus to number of locked targets.
  • Networked Sensor Array sensor strength bonuses now also apply to the Carrier's fighter squadrons.
  • Fighters now have orbit ranges more appropriate to their weapons system (you can see this in Show Info)
  • 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.

Force Auxiliaries
  • Triage Mode now gives ECM Immunity
  • Triage Mode's bonus to Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%)

Dreadnoughts
  • Siege Mode now gives ECM Immunity
  • Siege Module I has had its bonus to missile ROF increased to 80%
  • Siege Mode's bonus to Weapon Disruption Resistance & Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%)
  • Naglfar now has 3 turret hard-points (and an extra high slot) and has lost its role bonus of +50% damage.
  • Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU and +80,000 PG
  • XL Artillery power grid requirements have been reduced (T1: 162,500 > 125,000)

Miscellaneous
  • Void Bombs now respect Energy Warfare Resistance
  • Void Bombs and Lockbreaker Bombs now give more verbose messages about their effects in the combat log.
  • Missiles now have the correct range when fired from large ships.
  • All Capital Shield Extenders now provide 10% less shield HP.
  • Bastion Module now gives ECM Immunity
  • The missile damage formula has been simplified. Ln(drf) / Ln(5.5) has been reduced to a precalculated value. This change has no effect on game-play! More details below.

There are more changes planned. We will be looking at HAW Tracking (more info here) and Light Fighter application / alpha.

As always, we welcome your feedback!

Carrier with no application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 11,94%
Carrier with one application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 16,39%
Carrier with two application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 21,73%
Carrier with three application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 26,05%
__
Carrier with no application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 37,1%
Carrier with one application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 51,2%
Carrier with two application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 67,59%
Carrier with three application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 81,3%

application mods = omnidirectional tracking links with tracking scripts.

with the changes suggested by you to figthers. That to me seems a bit to "bad" in terms of application against comon battleship doctrines. While this maybe the most extreme example to pick from the application is "only" about 20% better when faced with large sig doctrines such as rattlesnakes.

Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 300 (+200)
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 100 (-20)

I think this would be more resonble as it would still keep cruisers and such perfectly safe from the much reduced alpha of the ability yet keep it useful against battleships and battle cruisers.