These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#461 - 2016-06-21 14:36:27 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:
That was a problem when you had lots of carriers on grid. The same would probably happen if you had many dreads on field. With very few support and logi, a dread fleet will wipe out a subcap fleet many times its size, if done properly.


That was called "blap dreads" and it actually required a decent amount of support, and was ridiculous OP as well. That fleet comp is basically the entire reason capital guns are now so bad at hitting sub-caps. (That and a certain Alliance using Titans like Battleships in some fleets...)

The reason we now have HAW is the acknowledgement by CCP that Dreads (and other Capitals) should be viable against sub-caps or no one will ever bring them, but also that if a cap-fleet can paste a fleet of sub-caps "many times its size" then no one wants to fight them and that's equally bad for the game.

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
are you just trolling now??

the reason heavies get it is because they are only supposed to be used against capitals if they did not they would be broken against sub caps

the reason superiority fighters get it is because they would be broken against everything if they didn't

attack fighters don't because their damage is meant to apply to sub caps what would you reduce their damage against??


Here is where carriers break

Nid/than being given 5% damage bonus (this should have stayed at 2.5% like it was originally)
and the omnis that give way to high of an application bonus remove the Expl vel bonus from them and things would be much better.

do those too things and carriers will stop alphaing cruisers and under


Based on the posts in the Capital FAQ it's not entirely unreasonable to ask if Light Fighters have a penalty against sub-caps with their missiles. Since that's been settled I think you two can shelve the insults.

Stripping away any reason Carriers have to fit Tracking mods removes a fitting choice, which is its own negative, so it's better to nerf the base values and give Carriers the option to fit better tracking/application than to simply make it a fixed value.

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
yes and like he said the sisi one applies far far worse than a vexor with warriors you just proved the point


The problem here seems to be the assumption on your part that Fighters should apply quite well against a *very* fast moving Inty, which seems more than a little silly if Capitals are supposed to be fielded with support. If they can easily kill anything sent after them on their own then they don't actually need support, they just need more Carriers until you hit a critical mass of hit-points that the enemy can't grind through before the Carriers kill them all.

While you might be able to neutralize a fighter squadron with a griffin that's still a ship dedicated to something other than killing the Carrier, and that can be easily killed by Support.

Also "that's stopped by ECM" isn't much of an argument in practice. Generally speaking ECM is often more of a theoretical bogeyman than it is a practical one.

Fyt 284 wrote:
Which wouldn't be AS much of an issue, if we could use webs / tps / points while running an NSA, but CCP decided that having a 99999% increase in cap use while the NSA is on made sense post nerf. (I completely understand why it was added in the first place, but now it just serves to keep carriers even more crippled)

2 things that would have been viable ideas:
1) Make it so that sensor boosters get the same cap penalty as ewar when the NSA is running, and have the sensor strength at 650% while nerfing the raw damage of missile volleys
2) If you are going to keep the absolutely overbearing nerf numbers, add an additional launch tube ONLY for support fighters, and keep the other tubes damage only. That way carriers have a way to actually be useful, and will have to make choices on which support fighters to bring / use. (since support fighters are generally fairly useless in comparison with damage fighters, even post change.)

Also, thank you for the spreadsheet, I'm going to be playing around with the more.


That's what Support Fighters are (or should be) for, if you want to manage your own EWar. Alternatively fleet with a few Recons, T3s, or other EWar platforms and you're golden.

I support the idea of a Support Fighter-only tube. That was included in the original white-paper for Carriers but seems to have slipped by the wayside somewhere apparently?



Also ****-**** it only took 20 pages or so but we've finally got a decent numbers-based debate going! Big smile

On a related note, would anyone be interested in throwing together a data-sheet of ships speeds, sig radiuses, rough EHP totals, and maybe even tank amounts for various ships and maybe some common fits? Nothing super fine-grain (you're never going to get every possible fit down on paper) but it would be useful to have as a starting-point for future discussions. Throw in stuff that's easy to export from the client like weapon stats and the few formulas that get used in combat and it becomes *really* easy to throw together spreadsheets like we've seen in the last few pages of this thread. Easy access to things like this makes for better debate and therefore better changes. Anyone interested in contributing if I get the ball rolling?
Blaststar Revenge
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#462 - 2016-06-21 14:48:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Blaststar Revenge
C-137 wrote:
Blaststar Revenge wrote:
For all the bros interested I updated the google sheet for figther/bomber/etc dps volly ability calculation with the new numbers suggested by CCP.. its set to view only so if you wanna use it just make a copy for yourself to play with it..

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QUYXTcG8E7Yxfad_THbmv1Tn_E1hsaon1-AuoIq2GsI/edit?usp=sharing

Your basic ability will have more volly damage then the Missile ability against subcapitals. Web's will become mandatory for the missile ability to have any effect.


You are using 4.0 as the DRF for all fighter guns and 3.0 DRF for fighter torps, and thus your spreadsheet is showing lower than actual dps. Should 3 for the guns and 4 for the Torps, almost doubling your sheet's applied dps vs small targets. Also you are using Log Base 10 instead of the Natural Logarithm.

E: Also you have the Explosion Velocity wrong for Fighter Torps (150 should be 100)


fixed ya application is even worse lol:D at least for missile ability:)
FistyMcBumBardier
Goryn Clade
#463 - 2016-06-21 21:40:28 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
the fact that someone else is needed to use webs/scram is not a bad thing

nerfing the raw damage hurts the application to large targets and thats not the issue


Nerfing the raw damage was decreased. But the firing speed and the amount of charges have been increased to compensate. This decreases the raw alpha from the strike.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#464 - 2016-06-22 00:41:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
FistyMcBumBardier wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
the fact that someone else is needed to use webs/scram is not a bad thing

nerfing the raw damage hurts the application to large targets and thats not the issue


Nerfing the raw damage was decreased. But the firing speed and the amount of charges have been increased to compensate. This decreases the raw alpha from the strike.


yes that was the entire point it was a way for smaller groups to beat the n+1 of logi

and even with this a tackled BB takes far less damage from fighters now something that was not needed and that says nothing for the small sig logi cruisers


if they would have put the thanny and nid damage back dow to 2.5 per level and removed the exp rad from omnis along with the nsa nerf the current issues with carriers would be fixed. This nerf is going waaay beyond

they need to do this more gradually or remove carriers from the game at this point as there is no reason to use them at all after this
C-137
C3 Corporation
#465 - 2016-06-22 02:28:39 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
C-137 wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Dealing with server ticks at 10km/s? Good luck.

Go get some proof on sisi or hush up to be honest.


Proof of what, that I can click a button every 5 seconds?



Go see how fast you kill the ceptor, assuming the pilot isn't brain dead. Go get into your magic thanny (you have one right, this isn't all hilarious theorycraft?) and fire up the proof of them vaporising it.

Should be dead easy, right? How hard can it be pressing a button every x seconds.


http://pastebin.com/apF9Rwzj

Thanatos L3 Gallente Carrier: TTK 24s
VNI Max Skills (L4 DroneSpec): TTK 25s (Average Hit Quality 104.88%)

When in a situation where both sets of Drones are able to keep up with the target, the Thanatos did even better than expected. Some other interesting results, Warriors are much better at keeping up with something doing 3,500m/s than they used to, and in this case they outshine the T2 Fighters that were only going 8,300 m/s because I was lazy injecting on SiSi.

When the Inty is going 3,500 ms @ 100km range, the VNI took 1:52 TTK (92.01% hit quality, spread sheet predicted 93.4%) while the Thanatos took 6:08TTK. This is because of the Fighter speed being short 1,100 m/s from max due to skills, and also due to my ****** manual piloting. There were multple MWD cycles where I engaged the guns too late and only got off 1.5 salvos per MWD cycle (should be able to get 2.5 reliably). I might test this again as I suspect the Thanny can get to about 3min kill time (without using the web support fighter, which would slow the Inty enough to allow the fighters to orbit)

If I get bored I might go quaff 30 more injectors on SiSi and max all the Thanny skills.

Oh yea, there also appears to be a bug with drones operating over 100km, they would occasionally lose their target and go Idle. Issue was not present for the fighters.

E: Looking a the log, it is possible I forgot to use the Fighter Torps more than once o.O (there should be 3 more hits in @ 29s) Actual thanny TTK on this ceptor is probably in the 18s range with max skills...

E2: CPPls seed Polarized Weapons on SiSi for testing :(

E3: I should mention that pastebin link both ships had no damage or tracking mods.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#466 - 2016-06-22 06:58:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Yeah, and I mean this nicely, as you can see there's a lot more to it than the eft values at those speeds and distances.

Good tests :)
Anthar Thebess
#467 - 2016-06-22 07:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
What do you want to prove?
What i see :
Normal drones can have critical shoots (31 :Glances Off, 49. Penetrates ;168 : Wrecks)
Fighters cannot (Hits)
(nothing new)

Lowest damage per ship :
17:24:34 Combat 18 from VNI_Pilot(Vexor Navy Issue) - Warrior II - Grazes
17:18:15 Combat 18 from Einherji II[Thanny](Einherji II) - Hits

Highest damage per ship :
17:24:53 Combat 168 from VNI_Pilot(Vexor Navy Issue) - Warrior II - Wrecks
17:18:34 Combat 130 from Einherji II[Thanny](Einherji II) - Hits

Average damage per shoot
VNI : ~90
Carrier :~75.3

But there is more!
If you analyze carrier and VNI damage you will notice huge spike of damage at the end.
Target stopped?

Next thing :
VNI get 10% damage bonus and 5% tracking speed bonus per level.
Carrier gets 5% damage per level.

How this is important?
Because hull bonuses and modules don't stack, adding just 1 damage and 1 tracking module favors VNI.

Price - this never should be a balancing factor - but lets try it.
VNI - 70mil
3 Wing of Einherji 180mil ; carrier 1.5bil

Conclusion? Bring VNI instead of carrier to fight off light tackle.
You will get better result for much lower price!

But then you can bring rapid light Cerberus and kill this interceptor much faster, or anti tackling zealot.

Carriers need to have a role in fleet.
Current carrier role is fighting off sub capitals and providing anti fighter coverage.
Your test on SISI proved that carrier is worst anti tackler than a VNI.
Why?

Carriers is expensive, carrier is slow.
My VNI ( or other better anti tackler) can rewarp between ships on grid and in system scarring off and killing the tackle while carrier still will recall fighters and align.

TL:DR:
You compared VNI and carrier in killing a interceptor.
VNI is bad anti tackler.
Carrier is anti subcapital ship.
VNI was as successful in killing inty as a carrier.

If bad anti tackler cruiser can be as good at killing interceptor as a carrier - why risking 1.7bil ship, when you can get VNI for 70mil, or true anti tackling ship for 120-150mil that will do the job much faster.
Making carrier worst than dedicated anti tackler is good.
Making carrier worst than random T1 cruiser at killing small ships is bad.

Making carrier bad at killing HIC is favoring blobs.

Edit:

If you don't believe me try to do the same test using specific anti tacklers :
- rapid light caracal
- rapid light cerberus
- anti tackler zealot
Onictus
SniggWaffe
Pandemic Horde
#468 - 2016-06-22 11:25:54 UTC
C-137 wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
C-137 wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Dealing with server ticks at 10km/s? Good luck.

Go get some proof on sisi or hush up to be honest.


Proof of what, that I can click a button every 5 seconds?



Go see how fast you kill the ceptor, assuming the pilot isn't brain dead. Go get into your magic thanny (you have one right, this isn't all hilarious theorycraft?) and fire up the proof of them vaporising it.

Should be dead easy, right? How hard can it be pressing a button every x seconds.


http://pastebin.com/apF9Rwzj

Thanatos L3 Gallente Carrier: TTK 24s
VNI Max Skills (L4 DroneSpec): TTK 25s (Average Hit Quality 104.88%)

When in a situation where both sets of Drones are able to keep up with the target, the Thanatos did even better than expected. Some other interesting results, Warriors are much better at keeping up with something doing 3,500m/s than they used to, and in this case they outshine the T2 Fighters that were only going 8,300 m/s because I was lazy injecting on SiSi.

When the Inty is going 3,500 ms @ 100km range, the VNI took 1:52 TTK (92.01% hit quality, spread sheet predicted 93.4%) while the Thanatos took 6:08TTK. This is because of the Fighter speed being short 1,100 m/s from max due to skills, and also due to my ****** manual piloting. There were multple MWD cycles where I engaged the guns too late and only got off 1.5 salvos per MWD cycle (should be able to get 2.5 reliably). I might test this again as I suspect the Thanny can get to about 3min kill time (without using the web support fighter, which would slow the Inty enough to allow the fighters to orbit)

If I get bored I might go quaff 30 more injectors on SiSi and max all the Thanny skills.

Oh yea, there also appears to be a bug with drones operating over 100km, they would occasionally lose their target and go Idle. Issue was not present for the fighters.

E: Looking a the log, it is possible I forgot to use the Fighter Torps more than once o.O (there should be 3 more hits in @ 29s) Actual thanny TTK on this ceptor is probably in the 18s range with max skills...

E2: CPPls seed Polarized Weapons on SiSi for testing :(

E3: I should mention that pastebin link both ships had no damage or tracking mods.



So the moral of the story is that 1.5 billion doesn't do the job close to as well as a Zealot. Got ya.
Anthar Thebess
#469 - 2016-06-22 13:04:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
Onictus wrote:

So the moral of the story is that 1.5 billion doesn't do the job close to as well as a Zealot. Got ya.

You are wrong, it is worst than VNI - that is not anti tackling ship in any way.
Subcapital drone ship is last thing someone want to use for anti tackling.

Skilled zealot pilot will kill a tackling interceptor in 2-3 shoots, even 1 shoot for totally untanked ship.


Current carrier allow magnificent thing that i rly missed in eve.
Holding the line !
Current carrier is giving clear statement : "THIS IS MY HOME, YOU SHALL NOT PASS"
Carrier was about grid control, something that will be no more possible any more - all what you need is just n+1 logi again.

Sorry CCP, but current carriers solved a lot of issues - yes they created some way but instead of fixing them you are creating again big whales easy to kill for roaming groups.

Let me tell you what things carriers solved :
- untouchable kite ships (many people consider them svipuls, sorry cancer)
- N+1 logistics in any scale, thanks to Rocket salvo ships will die on both sides - something that many players don't want to accept
- grid control - this is amazing what this ships can do up to 150km from them self
- hic/dictor clearing - something we had in PL vs OSS fight. Before fighter changes and now after implemented changes - there will be no way to save your fleet/ supers from dying to a Super Blob - HICS and dictors have enough tank and can get reps fast enough to survive enough to get reps or someone else to take over

Upcoming change negates all of above - like planed modification to super fittings - mounting capital sized warp scramblers to keep some of the ships still tackled.

What problems where created?
- Lowsec gate camps - newbie moving in this areas
- FW plex camping


What some people see as problem :
- Un-scouted ships dying to nullsec gatecamps ( as if this ever was a problem)
- Dictor or interceptor used for initial carrier tackle will probably die.
- Having a single ECM ship in fleet to keep ratting carrier fighters jammed.
- Kite ships no longer untouchable - exact problem : ship that have oversized prop mod, that have links and snakes dying.
My only response to above is - we have a problem if ship that have oversized prop mod, links and snakes is considered untouchable.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#470 - 2016-06-22 14:35:11 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Anthar Thebess wrote:

TL:DR:
You compared VNI and carrier in killing a interceptor.
VNI is bad anti tackler.
Carrier is anti subcapital ship.
VNI was as successful in killing inty as a carrier.

If bad anti tackler cruiser can be as good at killing interceptor as a carrier - why risking 1.7bil ship, when you can get VNI for 70mil, or true anti tackling ship for 120-150mil that will do the job much faster.
Making carrier worst than dedicated anti tackler is good.
Making carrier worst than random T1 cruiser at killing small ships is bad.

Making carrier bad at killing HIC is favoring blobs.

Edit:

If you don't believe me try to do the same test using specific anti tacklers :
- rapid light caracal
- rapid light cerberus
- anti tackler zealot


Caracal hulls need to use 2x MGC (range), and 4x BCU, MaxSkills, and even then the Cerb will have around 40s TTK minimum.
The base Caracal is bad, you can tank them in a ceptor unless they have tackle.
Zealot does even less damage.

The VNI can apply more DPS than the Cerb (~110 vs ~100) since the cerb will have to reload once (pushing TTK to ~90s). If you have multiple ships, missile coordination gets impossible. Drone travel time is aprox = to missile travel time (11s vs 8s) (The VNI can also put weapons on...)

That pastebin was the baseline, now you get to see the dumb ****. Keep in mind the carrier locks faster than all the ships you mentioned, along with all the other carrier bonuses...

Thanatos - L4 Carrier L4 Light Fighter L4 Support Fighter
Target Interceptor - 3100ms, 33m, 2,800 EHP Explosive, 50km range (max point range-ish)

Best TTK: 16s (175 applied dps before resits)
Best TTK Light Fighters: 26s
Best TTK with Point: 34s (1 fighter)

VNI - Max Skills (until I see a ship that does better, maybe a RLMLbarghest or something)

Best TTK: 24s (116 applied dps before resists)

Thanatos vs Onyx - 43k EHP, 98 passive regen vs Explosive, 100mn AB, Scripted point range

TTK: 74-79s (~640 applied dps before resists)

(800mm Mach: 440 + 2xGecko)(Nightmare:372)(Blap Moros: 371)(RHML Barghest: 356)(Oracle: 316)(HM Cerb: 248)(RattlesnakeGeko: 236+ 5.95xGeko)(DomiGeko:???)

As for the rest of your inane post:
-Damage Increases because of Hull Resists (no polarized weapons for testing on SiSI)
-Drone Tracking mods did nothing for the VNI

TL:DR
Carrier still applies damage better than any other ship in the game to all sub cap ships.

PS. Please post Zealot fit that can apply 100+ dps @ 50km @ 3100ms transveral @ 33m sig. KTHXBAI.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
#471 - 2016-06-22 16:17:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
C-137 wrote:
PS. Please post Zealot fit that can apply 100+ dps @ 50km @ 3100ms transveral @ 33m sig. KTHXBAI.

First things first, in a Zealot you have the ability to go around 1500m/s before links in an attempt to reduce transversal. You can also use that speed to close some of the distance, and Zealots are a lot better around 40km than 50km. If you just sit there while the tackle orbits you in a perfect circle at their max speed, you probably won't apply over 100 DPS.

This fit I threw together in a couple minutes can apply over 200 DPS at 50km if it manages to put 1000m/s of its own speed into matching transversal. Obviously there are cap issues but it's just a quick proof of concept.
[Zealot, Anti Tackle]

Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
1600mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Reactor Control Unit II
Tracking Enhancer II

Target Painter II
Target Painter II
50MN Microwarpdrive II

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Scorch M

Medium Energy Locus Coordinator II
Medium Energy Locus Coordinator II


Or if you want the last word in lazily popping interceptors at 50km with lasers, take this. It can apply over 100 DPS before drones to your sample target without any attempt to match transversal, and it doesn't have the cap issues the Zealot does. It is overall an inferior ship for general anti-tackle though.
[Harbinger Navy Issue, Anti Tackle]

Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
1600mm Steel Plates II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Target Painter II
Target Painter II
Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
50MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive

Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Infrared M
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Infrared M
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Infrared M
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Infrared M
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Infrared M
Focused Medium Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Infrared M
[Empty High slot]

Medium Energy Metastasis Adjuster II
Medium Energy Locus Coordinator II
Medium Energy Locus Coordinator I


Warrior II x5
Valkyrie II x5


Note that both of those fits have a reasonable bit of tank. Obviously you could do even better filling the lows with damage/application/cap mods, but we're talking fleet ships here.
Tony Anders
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#472 - 2016-06-22 18:03:46 UTC
Is it me or does heavy rocket salvo on SiSi STILL has 8 missiles (not 12), but it's damage and explosion velociity are ALREADY reduced!!
Cade Windstalker
#473 - 2016-06-22 20:02:10 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Let me tell you what things carriers solved :
- untouchable kite ships (many people consider them svipuls, sorry cancer)
- N+1 logistics in any scale, thanks to Rocket salvo ships will die on both sides - something that many players don't want to accept
- grid control - this is amazing what this ships can do up to 150km from them self
- hic/dictor clearing - something we had in PL vs OSS fight. Before fighter changes and now after implemented changes - there will be no way to save your fleet/ supers from dying to a Super Blob - HICS and dictors have enough tank and can get reps fast enough to survive enough to get reps or someone else to take over


People are still going to die to alpha-strikes from Carriers, but now you need more Carriers and it's not as easy to pull off. Aren't things never supposed to be too easy in Eve?

In general this seems to boil down to a difference of opinion as to whether these things are problems or benefits in Eve. If you dislike Logistics and want lots of things to die regardless of planning or preparation then unavoidable alpha is great, if not then it kind of sucks. These changes seem to indicate that CCP have come down on the side that doesn't more or less completely invalidate sub-cap Logistics in fights. Personally I'm kind of unsurprised by this decision...

As for "untouchable kite ships", bring Support Fighters, nail down the Svipul with your "If I can lock you then I can hit you" range Fighters with Webs and Points, and then nail him with a Light Fighter squad. It won't swat him off the field, and he has some opportunity to fight back, but that sounds like good play to me on both sides.

Anthar Thebess wrote:
Upcoming change negates all of above - like planed modification to super fittings - mounting capital sized warp scramblers to keep some of the ships still tackled.

What problems where created?
- Lowsec gate camps - newbie moving in this areas
- FW plex camping


You forgot making a lot of sub-caps, including Logistics (by your own argument) fairly useless in any fight involving substantive numbers of Carriers.

Anthar Thebess wrote:
What some people see as problem :
- Un-scouted ships dying to nullsec gatecamps ( as if this ever was a problem)
- Dictor or interceptor used for initial carrier tackle will probably die.
- Having a single ECM ship in fleet to keep ratting carrier fighters jammed.
- Kite ships no longer untouchable - exact problem : ship that have oversized prop mod, that have links and snakes dying.
My only response to above is - we have a problem if ship that have oversized prop mod, links and snakes is considered untouchable.


This is absolutely the most biased and negative way I think you could have phrased all of this, and some of it seems to be your impression of what people must be complaining about.

For example the gate-camping Carrier issue. The issue isn't people dying to gate-camps, it's an insta-locking capital able to stop anything bigger than an Inty (and even some of those) from passing through a gate on its own, with just the one ship and maybe a bubble. If someone in a solo-Dictor wasn't to do the same thing they face a lot more risk of running into something that can actually kill them, where as to kill a Carrier with sub-caps take at least a small fleet to break their tank.

As this thread has proven rather ably it's not so much that the Ceptor or Dictor will probably die, it's that the first 2-3 will probably die without even getting tackle off on the thing unless they warp to zero. Capitals are supposed to require a support fleet specifically to avoid getting swarmed by smaller ships.

IMO CCP should actually look at the ECM issue with Fighters, though personally I think they should look at ECM in general so... yeah.

Like I've said above, Carriers easily swatting small ships is a pretty legitimate issue. Now you need to actually expose your expensive Fighters to risk to kill a small ship and you need to do more than just launch three squads of Light Fighters and hit "sick em" to kill a small ship. It's not even like these hulls are untouchable. They give up a lot to be able to pick their engagements and get in and out of trouble, and a fit designed specifically to kill them can be very successful at doing so. The point of contention here seems to be whether or not Carriers should be able to swat small ships like flies, and there has been some pretty compelling math in this thread that says "no, no they shouldn't".
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#474 - 2016-06-22 20:22:35 UTC
FistyMcBumBardier wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
the fact that someone else is needed to use webs/scram is not a bad thing

nerfing the raw damage hurts the application to large targets and thats not the issue


Nerfing the raw damage was decreased. But the firing speed and the amount of charges have been increased to compensate. This decreases the raw alpha from the strike.

No, I'm sorry but your wrong on a couple of points here;

With my skills (all 5's)
TQ Firbolg I - ROF 18s, Charge Count 8, Therm Damage 251 HP, EXP Radius 100m, EXP Velocity 120 m/s.
SISI Firbolg I - ROF 14s, Charge count 8, Therm Damage 153 HP, EXP radius 350m, Exp Velocity 100 m/s.

ROF slightly faster (have to reload more often)
Charge count, unchanged (have to reload more often)
Therm Damage, reduced substantially (need more rockets to apply same damage)
EXP Radius, more than tripled (smaller targets less likely to get hit, larger targets get hit for less)
EXP Velocity, reduced (less likely to even hit small target for any worth while damage, large target will absorb most if not all damage applied via logi between volleys)
Reload, 44 seconds every 121 seconds. (Add 2 more rounds, 60 sec reload every 140 seconds)
Combined changes - Light Fighters - Are just bad (at just about everything).

New Carrier with fighters, will be worse than "real carriers with old fighters" were prior to Citadel.
There was a reason old carriers used subcap drones in combat - It was because Fighters were bad. Now new carrier with fighters is just as bad as old and without the option to use subcap drones.

-- - -- - --
Suggestion for new carriers - Remove all offensive weapons, increase fleet hangar size to 100K, increase jump range to 10LY, reduce fatigue by 90%. New role - Suitcase.
They won't be good for anything else...


Small gang should adapt to new carrier/fighters not nerf carrier/fighters to suit small gang.
Planning and implementing changes gradually to see effects is what is needed here, not what is happening (nerf everything at once). Try just reducing NSA and adding sebo stacking penalties first, then see how carriers perform, if they are still considered OP (via collecting statistics, not listening to whiners) then look at other options.


Light Fighters get nerfed like this in one hit - How long do we wait for them to be usable ?
Nerfing light fighters so carriers die more easily - Is just wrong.
These changes (citadel carriers) were meant to bring new life to carrier/fighter combat - Your now taking it away in one fell swoop.

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.

Tony Anders
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#475 - 2016-06-22 20:37:29 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
FistyMcBumBardier wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
the fact that someone else is needed to use webs/scram is not a bad thing

nerfing the raw damage hurts the application to large targets and thats not the issue


Nerfing the raw damage was decreased. But the firing speed and the amount of charges have been increased to compensate. This decreases the raw alpha from the strike.

No, I'm sorry but your wrong on a couple of points here;

With my skills (all 5's)
TQ Firbolg I - ROF 18s, Charge Count 8, Therm Damage 251 HP, EXP Radius 100m, EXP Velocity 120 m/s.
SISI Firbolg I - ROF 14s, Charge count 8, Therm Damage 153 HP, EXP radius 350m, Exp Velocity 100 m/s.

ROF slightly faster (have to reload more often)
Charge count, unchanged (have to reload more often)
Therm Damage, reduced substantially (need more rockets to apply same damage)
EXP Radius, more than tripled (smaller targets less likely to get hit, larger targets get hit for less)
EXP Velocity, reduced (less likely to even hit small target for any worth while damage, large target will absorb most if not all damage applied via logi between volleys)
Reload, 44 seconds every 121 seconds. (Add 2 more rounds, 60 sec reload every 140 seconds)
Combined changes - Light Fighters - Are just bad (at just about everything).

New Carrier with fighters, will be worse than "real carriers with old fighters" were prior to Citadel.
There was a reason old carriers used subcap drones in combat - It was because Fighters were bad. Now new carrier with fighters is just as bad as old and without the option to use subcap drones.

-- - -- - --
Suggestion for new carriers - Remove all offensive weapons, increase fleet hangar size to 100K, increase jump range to 10LY, reduce fatigue by 90%. New role - Suitcase.
They won't be good for anything else...


Small gang should adapt to new carrier/fighters not nerf carrier/fighters to suit small gang.
Planning and implementing changes gradually to see effects is what is needed here, not what is happening (nerf everything at once). Try just reducing NSA and adding sebo stacking penalties first, then see how carriers perform, if they are still considered OP (via collecting statistics, not listening to whiners) then look at other options.


Light Fighters get nerfed like this in one hit - How long do we wait for them to be usable ?
Nerfing light fighters so carriers die more easily - Is just wrong.
These changes (citadel carriers) were meant to bring new life to carrier/fighter combat - Your now taking it away in one fell swoop.

Yeah, then it wasn't me alone with 8 rockets
Quote:
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Charges: 12 (+4)
CCP are not telling the truth
Cade Windstalker
#476 - 2016-06-22 21:12:44 UTC
Tony Anders wrote:
Yeah, then it wasn't me alone with 8 rockets
CCP are not telling the truth



The charge count seems to be an omission and, if past test servers are any indication, should get patched as soon as CCP realize someone fat-fingered a value.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
New Carrier with fighters, will be worse than "real carriers with old fighters" were prior to Citadel.
There was a reason old carriers used subcap drones in combat - It was because Fighters were bad. Now new carrier with fighters is just as bad as old and without the option to use subcap drones.


Old Carriers were bad for the game in general and generally fluctuated between pure Triage platforms and "horribly OP super-Dominix" depending on where the meta went and how many people an Alliance had that could actually field Carriers.

Comparing current carriers to old Carriers is pretty much an exercise in time wasting because old carriers aren't coming back, especially not the old ones that could use sub-cap drones, and because it's missing everything to do with how new Fighters work.

The biggest thing in this instance is it's looking purely at DPS and not at burst damage. Current Carriers are getting nerfed because their ability to apply burst damage to sub-caps is *way* out of proportion with any other ship in the game right now, and on top of that they're still Capitals which means they out-tank any Sub-cap and can actively tank DPS from multiple of most Sub-Caps.

Doing a straight DPS comparison and then declaring them bad is like looking at 1400 Arties and declaring the DPS bad. You are technically correct, but you are also entirely missing the point.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Small gang should adapt to new carrier/fighters not nerf carrier/fighters to suit small gang.
Planning and implementing changes gradually to see effects is what is needed here, not what is happening (nerf everything at once). Try just reducing NSA and adding sebo stacking penalties first, then see how carriers perform, if they are still considered OP (via collecting statistics, not listening to whiners) then look at other options.


This seems to completely ignore the idea that Carriers may be seriously OP, by statistics, already and in ways that don't just have to do with gate-camps and insta-locking and nothing to do with how many people whine on the forums about something. If what the devs did was entirely based off of whining Cloaks would have been completely removed from the game *years* ago. Those things produce more whine than all of France, Italy, Spain, and California put together.
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
#477 - 2016-06-22 22:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalashaska Adam
Increasing the number of charges for the secondary attack just makes the whole using of it more monotonous.

The secondary attack needs to remain high alpha, low number of shots, that is what made it interesting.

All that needed to change was the application.

Slashing the damage per shot, and upping the number of shots, just makes it act like 30% of the primary attack.

It's not interesting, it's not effective even against it's intended battleship targets, it is a chore.

So many good choices and excellent concept work was done making these new carriers.

Don't just trash them barely a month later due to a simple lack of effort and testing.

An alpha-strike of 30-40k on a battleship is perfectly acceptable, pressing that button would actually be fun.

The only problem with it was its ridiculous application on frigs and cruisers, that never needed to be like that.

I would be in favour of the attack having far less charges, something like 5 even, if it simply hit a battleship hard.

You can fix the frig alpha gate camp problem without completely ruining something that was a good idea.

Make it LESS LIKE the primary attack, not more so. It should not be relegated to "ah well I guess I have to keep clicking this button to get an extra few percent of dps", no, make it unique, make it fun to use, give it a separate purpose.

If you get 5-6 carriers syncing their attacks together, you SHOULD be able to alpha through a battleship that is under reps, then you would have an actual fleet role for carriers, and their superiority fighters would have a fleet role stopping the enemy carriers. With these changes you wont see any of that, they wont be the ship that an aircraft carrier should be.

You had the IDEA right the first time. It should be a low-number-of-charges, high-alpha-against-battleships, attack.
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#478 - 2016-06-22 23:06:36 UTC
Shalashaska Adam wrote:
Increasing the number of charges for the secondary attack just makes the whole using of it more monotonous.

The secondary attack needs to remain high alpha, low number of shots, that is what made it interesting.

All that needed to change was the application.

Slashing the damage per shot, and upping the number of shots, just makes it act like 30% of the primary attack.

It's not interesting, it's not effective even against it's intended battleship targets, it is a chore.

So many good choices and excellent concept work was done making these new carriers.

Don't just trash them barely a month later due to a simple lack of effort and testing.

An alpha-strike of 30-40k on a battleship is perfectly acceptable, pressing that button would actually be fun.

The only problem with it was its ridiculous application on frigs and cruisers, that never needed to be like that.

I would be in favour of the attack having far less charges, something like 5 even, if it simply hit a battleship hard.

You can fix the frig alpha gate camp problem without completely ruining something that was a good idea.

Make it LESS LIKE the primary attack, not more so. It should not be relegated to "ah well I guess I have to keep clicking this button to get an extra few percent of dps", no, make it unique, make it fun to use, give it a separate purpose.

If you get 5-6 carriers syncing their attacks together, you SHOULD be able to alpha through a battleship that is under reps, then you would have an actual fleet role for carriers, and their superiority fighters would have a fleet role stopping the enemy carriers. With these changes you wont see any of that, they wont be the ship that an aircraft carrier should be.

You had the IDEA right the first time. It should be a low-number-of-charges, high-alpha-against-battleships, attack.

Just give us the old fighters. Those are actually better than this steaming pile of garbage.
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#479 - 2016-06-22 23:44:41 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:

Just give us the old fighters. Those are actually better than this steaming pile of garbage.



while i agree that the old fighters would be better than the proposed changes, i still like the idea of making the heavy rocket attack something that you should actually think about when to use; and keeping or increasing the alpha and just nerfing it's application on frigs/cruisers is one way of doing that.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
Feign Disorder
#480 - 2016-06-23 00:25:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Red Teufel
Wow just wow carriers are horrible on the test server. Go try it it's stupid bad now. I thought carriers were meant to kill subcaps. If you're going to nerf it this hard you better give me twice the tank ccp and a self destruct button named easy button....because that's what this is..a coffin.

I seriously want my carrier sp and fighter sp back including the isk I spent on this peace of junk.