These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Fyt 284
Requiem Eternal Holdings
Requiem Eternal
#521 - 2016-06-23 14:28:16 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Crazy Vania wrote:
Can a Carrier on sisi kill a single interceptor? No.
Can it force the interceptor to drop the point? Yes, after approx 60 seconds, but not using Cenobytes or Fighters or Grams, but using 2x Heavy neuts, just like any old battleship.

The reason is: I can scram whatever support drone the carrier throws at me at 13km (cenobyte range is 10 I think) and I can survive the Einrehjis by just tanking the light amount of damage they'll do before their MWD turns off and I orbit away. All the while keeping point on the carrier.

Cenobite II has 10km optimal and 5km falloff. And you're a really good ceptor pilot if you can actually do what you claim.

Crazy Vania wrote:
Is this acceptable? I don't know... I don't think so?

I think it is acceptable. A good (excellent?) ceptor pilot should be able to tackle a carrier that is ****-fit (t1 support drones only), ratting unaligned, not paying attention on local and intel channels - and hold it tackled for the whooping 60 seconds.

Crazy Vania wrote:
Before Citadels, a combat fitted carrier could wipe me out in 10 seconds with a flight of 10-15 warriors.

Before Citadel, a carrier with whatever fit they could come up with, could do nothing to a half-decent interdictor. Now I get dry in a second even if it's 1x heavy neut and then die horribly in my own bubble. Doesnt look like it will change after this patch goes live, but I'm fine with that, just for the record.

Unless its a sebo fit archon / thanny, dictor pilots will be able to moonwalk out of their bubble before the carrier can lock them.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#522 - 2016-06-23 14:34:21 UTC
NaK'Lin wrote:
C-137 wrote:
Crazy Vania wrote:


A single carrier can only field 1 support drone at all time. No existing drone mechanics allow to scram subcapitals (only point).

Are you sure you're a carrier pilot trying to argue from their perspective? You seem a little bit removed from reality :)


So Super Carriers do not exist? Waiting on your PM for SiSi testing still... Also I use scram as a hold over from the old days before MWD would be shut off. The days when real nano kite existed.

Just out of curiosity, in which scenario in your world would you send in a solo ceptor to tackle a supercarrier, rather than a HIC or a DIC???


This isn't about fits, its about fighter mechanics. In which scenario would like a 3100m/ms 33m sig target to die in 16s?
C-137
C3 Corporation
#523 - 2016-06-23 14:35:13 UTC
Crazy Vania wrote:
I'm on Sisi. I'm waiting :) Crazy Vania ingame mate! Convo me and I'll /moveme wherever.


I will message you after SiSi restarts. Also your Mael fit died in 94s without webs.
Crazy Vania
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#524 - 2016-06-23 14:37:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Crazy Vania
Hi! We have been testing in more detail this afternoon. The angry guy saying "fite me brah" here still has not, I'm sad to say :(

T2 Cenobytes on a Niddy were very annoying indeed. I think I do need a faction scram to keep them out of their falloff range. Or links. But otherwise it was a matter of using a cap boosted inty that did the trick. That'll survive for 2-3m.

Dromis were ineffective. You can either overheat away from the 16km webs and survive for about 3-4m, or you can rep the incoming damage in an active rep Malediction like Roigon's (famous Agony/Camel interceptor pilot).

And now I go play Overwatch :) Too much sisi testing is not so healthy! And plus servers are going down.
Cade Windstalker
#525 - 2016-06-23 14:41:54 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
You are misreading the direction this is going to evolve. With this change in direction, carriers are going to become a ship that requires critical mass to use - but once you reach that critical mass, it becomes incredibly, ridiculously powerful, and the mechanics for countering the carrier will be even more difficult to bring into play than they are now if you are trying to fight outnumbered. Carriers, like Dreadnoughts, will remain dominant on the battlefield (but the situations where you'll actually want carriers over dreadnoughts will once again be limited to near zero). The bar on being able to use them just happens to be going up in a way that limits the number of organizations who will be able to make use of them.

In the current tranquility stats, if you expect carriers, you need ECM to jam the fighters, and you need an unreasonably fast locking speed on your ECM ships to avoid scenarios where the carrier pilot recalls his fighters and re-deploys them to one-shot the ECM ship before he can react. Beyond that unreasonable scenario, the fighters quickly die if they're webbed.

Personally I think the carrier mechanics would play better if the tracking/application was poorer while the fighters were MWDing around the field. Outside of that Zoom-and-boom tactic that deletes ships from the field, I think carriers are in a pretty good place mechanically. Above all else, It's the perfect damage application, regardless of fighter speed, that's currently broken. A more nuanced approach than the missile formula should be used. Nerfing the missile damage application into the ground doesn't actually fix anything.


I'll accept that this is a possible direction Carrier use could go with these changes, but at the end of the day you and I are both speculating about how the vast numbers of players will react to this change and while someone will almost certainly be right I'd be more money on both of us being wrong than on either of us being right.

As for your 'unreasonable scenario' that kind of misses the even more unreasonable scenario where, if the ECM dies, the carrier probably kills everything else on field that can't run away.

There is no scenario where sufficient numbers can't make something OP (IMO the case and point for this is old Alpha-maelstrom fleets). If you get enough pilots you can one-shot a Titan.

While it's nice to imagine that a skilled group can beat a larger enemy that's just not realistic unless your enemy screws up in some catastrophic way or is less skilled than you.

The problem with making Fighters use turret damage rules is that it makes them close to worthless against anything they can't track with their base speed and very frustrating to use, in the same but less extreme way old and even dumber drones were frustrating when they used to require you to not train Drone-Nav past 3 or they would pretty much just perma MWD and be worthless.

Also if they used the turret damage formula then it becomes much much easier for them to nail many fast and small targets because of how turret tracking works, as opposed to missiles which can't be mitigated based on how closely you're matching the enemy's speed. For example if the Fighters travel at 1k and they're tracking someone traveling at 1.1k, that enemy is going to be effectively moving at .1k for most of the time the Fighters are shooting at him and he's going to take much more damage. They would also need to not out-track themselves while orbiting, giving them very high base application because of their own high speed.

Shalashaska Adam wrote:
They update a thread with changes if they alone decide upon them.

That isn't what feedback is meant to be. There should be dialogue, and rebuttals, a back and forth, with reasons stated for their decision, and reasons stated if they disagree with the community provided feedback. Silence isn't feedback.

You have plenty of people just yelling no, sure, but a lot of peoples willingness to write out long reasoned feedback is diminished by the fact it is not responded to. You would be surprised how much people would prefer to be told "no, here is our reasons for not wanting to do that", rather than nothing.


I had a response to this, but really I'm just going to defer to Khan Wrenth, for his fantastic explanation.

In my experience *all* of what they said applies to CCP's interactions with players here on FAID. I've seen the few times CCP has weighed in on a discussion and it almost never actually stops people arguing or improves the quality of the discourse, it just changes what people are arguing about.

Anthar Thebess wrote:
Sorry, but "ships dying even when we have 30 logistic ships on grid" is not a problem.
This 30 logistics repairing 1 ship is more cancerous than carrier sitting on lowsec gate.

Nothing should be untouchable - and biggest argument against current carrier is that : this ships should not die, because :
- it was linked and snaked and moving fast
- it was repaired by so many logistics ...


CCP re analyze this changes.


You're basically saying that you're fine with Carriers invalidating Logistics as a thing in even fairly small fights.

Given that CCP's original statement, not just for the Capitals re-balance but for the grand ship and module re-balance itself, was that no ship class should completely invalidate another I don't think you're going to win this one.

And to head off the inevitable rebuttal. Yes, I know T3 Destroyers and T3 Cruisers basically invalidate AFs and HACs respectively. That makes them a problem as well, not a good counter-example.
Cade Windstalker
#526 - 2016-06-23 15:05:19 UTC
For anyone who is interested CCP confirmed that the 8 missile load was indeed an error.

Crazy Vania wrote:
Hi! We have been testing in more detail this afternoon. The angry guy saying "fite me brah" here still has not, I'm sad to say :(

T2 Cenobytes on a Niddy were very annoying indeed. I think I do need a faction scram to keep them out of their falloff range. Or links. But otherwise it was a matter of using a cap boosted inty that did the trick. That'll survive for 2-3m.

Dromis were ineffective. You can either overheat away from the 16km webs and survive for about 3-4m, or you can rep the incoming damage in an active rep Malediction like Roigon's (famous Agony/Camel interceptor pilot).

And now I go play Overwatch :) Too much sisi testing is not so healthy! And plus servers are going down.


This sounds like it's getting into an awfully niche (and expensive) fit just to tackle a carrier, and if you're relying on Cap Boosters you're probably going to have issues in general as soon as you run out, or at the very least have a useless mod.

Unless you're in a large fleet I don't really see the point in fitting an Inty specifically to deal with Carriers when you could bring a HIC or a T3 to point them and survive much longer with remote reps, except maybe some very niche uses. In general you're probably going to bring a generic Inty fit and tackle whatever you can find.
Unconspicous Alt
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#527 - 2016-06-23 15:12:15 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Btw since capitals were just recently rebalanced and now the Nag is getting another pass which potentially changes the way it is fit completely, any kind of compensation for potential billions lost on rigs?


lol remember when the nag lost its xl missile capabilities ?
now ccp just wants to force players to spend another 200 mil on a new turret. just like that.
Cade Windstalker
#528 - 2016-06-23 15:20:02 UTC
Unconspicous Alt wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Btw since capitals were just recently rebalanced and now the Nag is getting another pass which potentially changes the way it is fit completely, any kind of compensation for potential billions lost on rigs?


lol remember when the nag lost its xl missile capabilities ?
now ccp just wants to force players to spend another 200 mil on a new turret. just like that.


A turret they would have had to buy anyway if they had been using any other Dread, which was always expressly going to get a third turret slot when it was originally changed to lose its missiles and gained the 50% bonus?
C-137
C3 Corporation
#529 - 2016-06-23 15:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Crazy Vania is not online for testing, so I am still testing on my own. I have been using his fleet fit interceptors as a baseline to compare to my earlier results with a more real-world fit. Current TTK: 43s without webs (manual piloting mistake on my part, could probably get it down to 35s)

http://pastebin.com/Z6cD0WJf (134 applied dps before resists, no webs, no TPs, room for Cloak, Smartbomb, Capital Neut, MWD, 3 slot tank, and a cap mod.

Seems broken to me.

E1:

Fleet Inty vs 2 Fighter, 1 Web

Dromi's overshoot their target every time, and only web on a 2nd or 3rd pass. I cannot dual box fast enough to lock the fighters before it doesn't matter, mainly because of the need to control the fighters (good thing imo, regular drones are boring). Total combat time including targeting is 34s.... 34s!
Degnar Oskold
Moira.
Villore Accords
#530 - 2016-06-23 16:21:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Degnar Oskold
C-137 wrote:

Fleet Inty vs 2 Fighter, 1 Web

Dromi's overshoot their target every time, and only web on a 2nd or 3rd pass. I cannot dual box fast enough to lock the fighters before it doesn't matter, mainly because of the need to control the fighters (good thing imo, regular drones are boring). Total combat time including targeting is 34s.... 34s!


How do your Gram IIs catch the inty? Aren't they much too slow because they have no MWD ability, only AB? Do you manually position them in the orbit path of the inty?
C-137
C3 Corporation
#531 - 2016-06-23 16:39:00 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Degnar Oskold wrote:
C-137 wrote:

Fleet Inty vs 2 Fighter, 1 Web

Dromi's overshoot their target every time, and only web on a 2nd or 3rd pass. I cannot dual box fast enough to lock the fighters before it doesn't matter, mainly because of the need to control the fighters (good thing imo, regular drones are boring). Total combat time including targeting is 34s.... 34s!


How do your Gram IIs catch the inty? Aren't they much too slow because they have no MWD ability, only AB? Do you manually position them in the orbit path of the inty?


The Gram MWD is a combo Speed + Defense cooldown. The hilarious thing is they are slower than Einherji's by a lot.

E: My testing is like this:

Inty warps in at 30km, turns MWD on, orbits at 30.
I turn on NSA, target Inty, lanch fighters, Spam F1 (turn off NSA and will set all fighters to attack target when they launch)
Once you see fighters in space, spam F1 and F2 till they MWD.
Pretty much can keep spamming F1 and F2 to victory, but you lose a bit of DPS unless you manage F1 properly (range overshoot issues with MWD active)

If your target is further out, like 50km faction point with links range and a 100mn AB like I tested earlier, you have to pilot all the fighters better.
Evelgrivion
Origin.
#532 - 2016-06-23 16:53:11 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The problem with making Fighters use turret damage rules is that it makes them close to worthless against anything they can't track with their base speed and very frustrating to use, in the same but less extreme way old and even dumber drones were frustrating when they used to require you to not train Drone-Nav past 3 or they would pretty much just perma MWD and be worthless.

Also if they used the turret damage formula then it becomes much much easier for them to nail many fast and small targets because of how turret tracking works, as opposed to missiles which can't be mitigated based on how closely you're matching the enemy's speed. For example if the Fighters travel at 1k and they're tracking someone traveling at 1.1k, that enemy is going to be effectively moving at .1k for most of the time the Fighters are shooting at him and he's going to take much more damage. They would also need to not out-track themselves while orbiting, giving them very high base application because of their own high speed.


To address this point in particular, the simplest solution off the top of my head is to add a penalty element to the missile application formula based on how fast the fighters and their target are going. Basically the tracking speed formula, but re-purposed for damage percentiles rather than hit/miss.
Cade Windstalker
#533 - 2016-06-23 17:38:23 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
To address this point in particular, the simplest solution off the top of my head is to add a penalty element to the missile application formula based on how fast the fighters and their target are going. Basically the tracking speed formula, but re-purposed for damage percentiles rather than hit/miss.


There's no reason to do this, missile weapons are already adjusted to take into account their better and more consistent application vs guns against small targets. This is just Light Fighters getting balanced around the same principal and for more or less the same reason.
Evelgrivion
Origin.
#534 - 2016-06-23 17:42:56 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
To address this point in particular, the simplest solution off the top of my head is to add a penalty element to the missile application formula based on how fast the fighters and their target are going. Basically the tracking speed formula, but re-purposed for damage percentiles rather than hit/miss.


There's no reason to do this, missile weapons are already adjusted to take into account their better and more consistent application vs guns against small targets. This is just Light Fighters getting balanced around the same principal and for more or less the same reason.


The missile formula does not take into account the velocity of the fighters themselves, which is where I believe the problem lies. The current state of carriers would be a lot less troublesome if they couldn't just zip across two hundred kilometers of space at 16+ kilometers per second and delete enemy ships with guns and volleys the second they get in range because of reduced damage from their extraordinarily high velocity.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#535 - 2016-06-23 17:44:51 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Fleet Inty vs 2 Einherji 1 WebTTK: 1:30

Einherji guns only. Web Fighter is slower than other fighters and falls behind (after overshooting). I recall web fighter (~25-30km distance no MWD). Fighters get off a few more shots as inty pulls away. Recall Fighters, Dromi refuels and relaunches (saving aprox 10-15s on MWD cooldown). Engage drones again, web lands before Einherji's due to manual recall.

Fleet Inty @ 50km as an example.TTK: 2:30 Main attack only, started targeting before turning NSA on.

Fleet inty @ 50km - Gram II's + DromiTTK: ~40s - The Dromi actually slingshot itself away from the inty retrograde as it's MWD finished lol. MVP DROMI XD
C-137
C3 Corporation
#536 - 2016-06-23 17:47:12 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
To address this point in particular, the simplest solution off the top of my head is to add a penalty element to the missile application formula based on how fast the fighters and their target are going. Basically the tracking speed formula, but re-purposed for damage percentiles rather than hit/miss.


There's no reason to do this, missile weapons are already adjusted to take into account their better and more consistent application vs guns against small targets. This is just Light Fighters getting balanced around the same principal and for more or less the same reason.


The missile formula does not take into account the velocity of the fighters themselves, which is where I believe the problem lies. The current state of carriers would be a lot less troublesome if they couldn't just zip across two hundred kilometers of space at 16+ kilometers per second and delete enemy ships with guns and volleys the second they get in range because of reduced damage from their extraordinarily high velocity.


The MWD cooldown is actually quite obnoxious. If you are fighting within 35kms, it is better to recall and relaunch between targets than wait for the MWD, unless you are already near the next target obviously. It seems too much like a Fire-and-forget ability right now. Very little interactivity, you pretty much use it when its up, no matter the situation.
Evelgrivion
Origin.
#537 - 2016-06-23 17:51:06 UTC
C-137 wrote:
The MWD cooldown is actually quite obnoxious. If you are fighting within 35kms, it is better to recall and relaunch between targets than wait for the MWD, unless you are already near the next target obviously. It seems too much like a Fire-and-forget ability right now. Very little interactivity, you pretty much use it when its up, no matter the situation.


It's a pretty boring and often tedious ability, I agree with that. You basically wish your drones moved that fast all the time, and otherwise manage your fighters by working around the MWD cool-down cycle.
Anthar Thebess
#538 - 2016-06-23 17:54:25 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
For anyone who is interested CCP confirmed that the 8 missile load was indeed an error.

Crazy Vania wrote:
Hi! We have been testing in more detail this afternoon. The angry guy saying "fite me brah" here still has not, I'm sad to say :(

T2 Cenobytes on a Niddy were very annoying indeed. I think I do need a faction scram to keep them out of their falloff range. Or links. But otherwise it was a matter of using a cap boosted inty that did the trick. That'll survive for 2-3m.

Dromis were ineffective. You can either overheat away from the 16km webs and survive for about 3-4m, or you can rep the incoming damage in an active rep Malediction like Roigon's (famous Agony/Camel interceptor pilot).

And now I go play Overwatch :) Too much sisi testing is not so healthy! And plus servers are going down.


This sounds like it's getting into an awfully niche (and expensive) fit just to tackle a carrier, and if you're relying on Cap Boosters you're probably going to have issues in general as soon as you run out, or at the very least have a useless mod.

Unless you're in a large fleet I don't really see the point in fitting an Inty specifically to deal with Carriers when you could bring a HIC or a T3 to point them and survive much longer with remote reps, except maybe some very niche uses. In general you're probably going to bring a generic Inty fit and tackle whatever you can find.


If he can survive 2-3 minutes tackling a carrier .... he don't need to do it more.
During a fleet fight 1 minute is long, for ratting carrier even less.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#539 - 2016-06-23 17:59:01 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:

If he can survive 2-3 minutes tackling a carrier .... he don't need to do it more.
During a fleet fight 1 minute is long, for ratting carrier even less.


http://pastebin.com/SxcvUWxe 30s at 30km

http://pastebin.com/RfruHCCu 40s at 50km

Sick tank.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#540 - 2016-06-23 18:11:16 UTC
C-137 wrote:
Degnar Oskold wrote:
C-137 wrote:

Fleet Inty vs 2 Fighter, 1 Web

Dromi's overshoot their target every time, and only web on a 2nd or 3rd pass. I cannot dual box fast enough to lock the fighters before it doesn't matter, mainly because of the need to control the fighters (good thing imo, regular drones are boring). Total combat time including targeting is 34s.... 34s!


How do your Gram IIs catch the inty? Aren't they much too slow because they have no MWD ability, only AB? Do you manually position them in the orbit path of the inty?


The Gram MWD is a combo Speed + Defense cooldown. The hilarious thing is they are slower than Einherji's by a lot.

E: My testing is like this:

Inty warps in at 30km, turns MWD on, orbits at 30.
I turn on NSA, target Inty, lanch fighters, Spam F1 (turn off NSA and will set all fighters to attack target when they launch)
Once you see fighters in space, spam F1 and F2 till they MWD.
Pretty much can keep spamming F1 and F2 to victory, but you lose a bit of DPS unless you manage F1 properly (range overshoot issues with MWD active)

If your target is further out, like 50km faction point with links range and a 100mn AB like I tested earlier, you have to pilot all the fighters better.



The chap you're arguing/debating with is scramming the dromis. You seem not to be? This will make a huge difference if that is the case.