These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FiveDollar Love
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#721 - 2016-06-28 20:47:18 UTC
I dont like it.......... What? to much imoAttention
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Sedition.
#722 - 2016-06-28 21:25:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals?
I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;(


Seriously? That PG requirement wasn't hint enough - It would not fit... Or was common sense (check fitting requirements) too hard for you?

I mean do Devs also need to put, won't fit on a frigate on T2 1600 plates and Large guns.



Yeah but it is a hardcoded limit. Some battleships CAN meet the fitting requirements.

Please show me a battleship that has 75,000 PG (T1 Capital Shield Extender).
Even the Regolith (62,500 PG) - Which requires the least fitting, WILL NOT fit any battleship, even with 3 T2 Ancillary Current Routers.

Have I been missing something? Like a new Battleship that can get at least 3 times the maximum PG of any existing Battleship.


Ok, here's a ridiculously blingy one I had in pyfa, but a good proof of concept. Note that it can fit not only the shield extender, but also a full rack of Tachyon beams, which are well known for their insane power grid use.
[Apocalypse Navy Issue, Capital Shield]

Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System

CONCORD Capital Shield Extender
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field

Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L

Large Ancillary Current Router II
Large Ancillary Current Router II
Large Ancillary Current Router I


Inherent Implants 'Squire' Power Grid Management EG-605


With all 5 skills, a compact or faction Capital Shield Extender only uses 46875MW. There's also the Core Defense Charge Economizer rig to reduce that further, and there are no stacking penalties on mods that increase power grid.
With a Genolution pod, 6% implant, 2 T2 + 1 T1 Ancillary Current Routers, and a full rack of faction Reactor Control Units, the Apocalypse Navy Issue can hit 140900 PG.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#723 - 2016-06-28 21:39:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals?
I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;(


Seriously? That PG requirement wasn't hint enough - It would not fit... Or was common sense (check fitting requirements) too hard for you?

I mean do Devs also need to put, won't fit on a frigate on T2 1600 plates and Large guns.



Yeah but it is a hardcoded limit. Some battleships CAN meet the fitting requirements.

Please show me a battleship that has 75,000 PG (T1 Capital Shield Extender).
Even the Regolith (62,500 PG) - Which requires the least fitting, WILL NOT fit any battleship, even with 3 T2 Ancillary Current Routers.

Have I been missing something? Like a new Battleship that can get at least 3 times the maximum PG of any existing Battleship.


Ok, here's a ridiculously blingy one I had in pyfa, but a good proof of concept. Note that it can fit not only the shield extender, but also a full rack of Tachyon beams, which are well known for their insane power grid use.
[Apocalypse Navy Issue, Capital Shield]

Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System

CONCORD Capital Shield Extender
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field

Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L

Large Ancillary Current Router II
Large Ancillary Current Router II
Large Ancillary Current Router I


Inherent Implants 'Squire' Power Grid Management EG-605


With all 5 skills, a compact or faction Capital Shield Extender only uses 46875MW. There's also the Core Defense Charge Economizer rig to reduce that further, and there are no stacking penalties on mods that increase power grid.
With a Genolution pod, 6% implant, 2 T2 + 1 T1 Ancillary Current Routers, and a full rack of faction Reactor Control Units, the Apocalypse Navy Issue can hit 140900 PG.

And for the poorer/lowskilled members:
[Apocalypse Navy Issue, Apocalypse Navy Issue]
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Reactor Control Unit II
Co-Processor II
Reactor Control Unit II

Capital Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Thermal Dissipation Field II
Capital Flex Shield Hardener II, Shield EM Resistance Script

Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I
Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I
Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I
Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I
Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I
Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I
Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I
Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I

Large Ancillary Current Router I
Large Ancillary Current Router I
Large Ancillary Current Router I


I would show you the dual compact XL extender fit, but that would just be rediculous, no? :)
s33ker
Doomheim
#724 - 2016-06-28 21:52:48 UTC
The new "Lights" that come down from above when you are docked in station ruins white ships like; Astero, Stratious and Nestor .

It removes all the details of the ships since the "white on white" makes it hard to see the design of the actual ship.

CCP Please change that.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#725 - 2016-06-28 22:04:44 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals?
I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;(


Seriously? That PG requirement wasn't hint enough - It would not fit... Or was common sense (check fitting requirements) too hard for you?

I mean do Devs also need to put, won't fit on a frigate on T2 1600 plates and Large guns.



Yeah but it is a hardcoded limit. Some battleships CAN meet the fitting requirements.

Please show me a battleship that has 75,000 PG (T1 Capital Shield Extender).
Even the Regolith (62,500 PG) - Which requires the least fitting, WILL NOT fit any battleship, even with 3 T2 Ancillary Current Routers.

Have I been missing something? Like a new Battleship that can get at least 3 times the maximum PG of any existing Battleship.



Some nutter did it with a NApoc, iirc.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#726 - 2016-06-28 22:31:39 UTC
Rowells wrote:

I would show you the dual compact XL extender fit, but that would just be rediculous, no? :)

Ok, I'll concede. If someone wants to spends billions of isk on a ship that will be next to useless, in any situation other than bait, they can fit it.
I suppose it's no different to my Bhal being cap stable perma running 7 heavy neuts with 1 heavy cap booster and 3200 charges. Of course they aren't in a category that states "Capital" as the fitting requirement.

Tell me, did you put these fits together with the intention of using them, or just to see if you could fit it?

My reasoning still stands, if capital mods need to be marked "Capital Only", Large guns should be marked "Won't fit anything below a battleship aside from a tier 3 battlecruiser".

Do Eve players really need to have their hands held that tightly?

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.

Anthar Thebess
#727 - 2016-06-28 22:36:00 UTC
To big fighter nerf!
Cade Windstalker
#728 - 2016-06-28 22:38:01 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Rowells wrote:

I would show you the dual compact XL extender fit, but that would just be rediculous, no? :)

Ok, I'll concede. If someone wants to spends billions of isk on a ship that will be next to useless, in any situation other than bait, they can fit it.
I suppose it's no different to my Bhal being cap stable perma running 7 heavy neuts with 1 heavy cap booster and 3200 charges. Of course they aren't in a category that states "Capital" as the fitting requirement.

Tell me, did you put these fits together with the intention of using them, or just to see if you could fit it?

My reasoning still stands, if capital mods need to be marked "Capital Only", Large guns should be marked "Won't fit anything below a battleship aside from a tier 3 battlecruiser".

Do Eve players really need to have their hands held that tightly?


It's actually a pretty fair point to want all Capital Modules to be clearly marked because some of them are, and most other modules that have hard limits on fitting (rather than just high fitting requirements) are similarly marked.

Costs you next to nothing, costs some intern at CCP an hour or so editing descriptions. Less if he's clever with his regex... Lol and it makes things more clear and consistent for everyone.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Sedition.
#729 - 2016-06-28 22:42:57 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Rowells wrote:

I would show you the dual compact XL extender fit, but that would just be rediculous, no? :)

Ok, I'll concede. If someone wants to spends billions of isk on a ship that will be next to useless, in any situation other than bait, they can fit it.
I suppose it's no different to my Bhal being cap stable perma running 7 heavy neuts with 1 heavy cap booster and 3200 charges. Of course they aren't in a category that states "Capital" as the fitting requirement.

Tell me, did you put these fits together with the intention of using them, or just to see if you could fit it?

My reasoning still stands, if capital mods need to be marked "Capital Only", Large guns should be marked "Won't fit anything below a battleship aside from a tier 3 battlecruiser".

Do Eve players really need to have their hands held that tightly?

Yes, because for everything else it's just fitting that stops you from using them, not the absolute inability to put them on the ship.
Ida Aurlien
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#730 - 2016-06-28 22:59:25 UTC
Idea lets all just fly frigates !!!! They nerf all that's any larger so they don't get hit as hard anyways. big ships nerfed so the little ones can kill them why have big ships then ??
C0ATL
Renegade Stars
Stellae Renascitur
#731 - 2016-06-29 00:01:48 UTC  |  Edited by: C0ATL
I just love how people flying Covert Ops BS are complaining about not being able to make a FREE and EASY meal out of a carrier since the capital patch.

One word to those imbeciles: ADAPT.

I've seen a Thanatos being taken down by 2 falcons and 12 bombers in 20 secs. Let me say that again.... TWENTY SECONDS.
Now do the math for 12 bombers and 2 falcons then complain some more about fielding 4 times the carrier's cost and getting no results.

Here's another one for you. I tested my PVE Thanatos (for the extra 25% dmg bonuses to fighters) against friendly fleets to get an idea on what to expect from a real situation. It took 6 properly fitted HACs (Sacriledge x 6) to kill me, and I could only kill 1 before they took me down. 2 Bhaalgorns and 2 random t1 BS (tried with various combos) to take down me down, and only sometimes I would get to kill a Bhaalgorn before that happened. Both the options above as well as the bomber ones were very cost efficient... but yeah, they had to make the sacrifice of being... you know... PROPERLY FITTED FOR HUNTING A CARRIER... which is what you should be prepared for if you want to kill one.


Excuse the **** out of me for believing that a 2.5-4 bil kill should not be easy to get by 3 idiots who thought they can cram as much dps into their t2 BS... cyno in, pew pew and gtfo before anybody can react to their presence. It is a capital ship.C-A-P-I-T-A-L. Its not one level above battleships and saying that to make an argument just proves how ignorant you have been about this entire game up until now.


Yes.. carriers alpha ceptors... and even properly tanked t1 cruisers if you focus enough on dps (losing your own tank in the process)... and bear with my logic now...but maybe an 80m long ship shouldn't be able to hold down a 3km one, especially when the later is able to launch no less than 18 of its own 'frigate sized ships'. It is as surreal as expecting a fly being able to hold down a man until a pack of dogs can run to him and tear him appart, no? And if you complain about flying a battleship or t2 cruiser and being one-shotted then you are poorly prepared for the encounter and deserve to die.

Ow.. you cant fly exactly the way you've been doing thus far because a capital ship can defend itself.... and instead of thinking creatively you decide to ***** on the forums. Cry me a river.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#732 - 2016-06-29 00:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Ok, I'll concede. If someone wants to spends billions of isk on a ship that will be next to useless, in any situation other than bait, they can fit it.

Indeed, the nature of a sandbox at work. Creates some fantastic stories.
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I suppose it's no different to my Bhal being cap stable perma running 7 heavy neuts with 1 heavy cap booster and 3200 charges. Of course they aren't in a category that states "Capital" as the fitting requirement.

Thats correct. Your cap charges don't state any limitations. Other ammunitions typically do. Geuss a difference in intent by developers. Maybe.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Tell me, did you put these fits together with the intention of using them, or just to see if you could fit it?

Back to my sandbox remark. You can use them seriously, badly, jokingly, however you like. Ships and modules don't run an intentions check before you undock.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
My reasoning still stands, if capital mods need to be marked "Capital Only", Large guns should be marked "Won't fit anything below a battleship aside from a tier 3 battlecruiser".

It's funny you mention that. I was just testing this Aug Navy with two Dual Heavy Pulse Lasers. Surely if they were not meant to be on anything smaller than a battlecruiser this would not work? At the least I shouldn't be able to fire them too, no? Quite an odd occurrence really. Would you look at that, it works. Funny.

I geuss putting "for battleships only" would be unnecessary.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Do Eve players really need to have their hands held that tightly?

No handholds necessary, but if you need help understanding game mechanics I'm sure we could find you a suitable teacher somewhere...

And look what came in the patch today!: http://imgur.com/jU3lpET
Robertina Palazzo
#733 - 2016-06-29 01:24:05 UTC
C0ATL wrote:
I just love how people flying Covert Ops BS are complaining about not being able to make a FREE and EASY meal out of a carrier since the capital patch.

One word to those imbeciles: ADAPT.

I've seen a Thanatos being taken down by 2 falcons and 12 bombers in 20 secs. Let me say that again.... TWENTY SECONDS.
Now do the math for 12 bombers and 2 falcons then complain some more about fielding 4 times the carrier's cost and getting no results.

Here's another one for you. I tested my PVE Thanatos (for the extra 25% dmg bonuses to fighters) against friendly fleets to get an idea on what to expect from a real situation. It took 6 properly fitted HACs (Sacriledge x 5) to kill me, and I could only kill 1 before they took me down. 2 Bhaalgorns and 2 random t1 BS (tried with various combos) to take down me down, and only sometimes I would get to kill a Bhaalgorn before that happened. Both the options above as well as the bomber ones were very cost efficient... but yeah, they had to make the sacrifice of being... you know... PROPERLY FITTED FOR HUNTING A CARRIER... which is what you should be prepared for if you want to kill one.


Excuse the **** out of me for believing that a 2.5-4 bil kill should not be easy to get by 3 idiots who thought they can cram as much dps into their t2 BS... cyno in, pew pew and gtfo before anybody can react to their presence. It is a capital ship.C-A-P-I-T-A-L. Its not one level above battleships and saying that to make an argument just proves how ignorant you have been about this entire game up until now.


Yes.. carriers alpha ceptors... and even properly tanked t1 cruisers if you focus enough on dps (losing your own tank in the process)... and bear with my logic now...but maybe an 80m long ship shouldn't be able to hold down a 3km one, especially when the later is able to launch no less than 18 of its own 'frigate sized ships'. It is as surreal as expecting a fly being able to hold down a man until a pack of dogs can run to him and tear him appart, no? And if you complain about flying a battleship or t2 cruiser and being one-shotted then you are poorly prepared for the encounter and deserve to die.

Ow.. you cant fly exactly the way you've been doing thus far because a capital ship can defend itself.... and instead of thinking creatively you decide to ***** on the forums. Cry me a river.



Too much logic. People will just call you a carebear claiming you just want easy godmode and move on.

Your facts will not work here, god i wish they would though
Cade Windstalker
#734 - 2016-06-29 17:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Cross posting CCP Larrikin commenting on the Fighter chanes here because not everyone is going to be in the patch thread:

Link to post.

CCP Larrikin wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
How effective was it compared to prior to yesterday? When carriers for the first time in their history didn't need to be in a blob (big or small) to be effectively used in PVP..


In real terms, the nerf to general light fighters is approximately a 20% damage reduction versus destroyer and smaller targets, and a 10% damage reduction to Battlecruisers/Battleships (while they have charges). This is completely dependent on fits , tackle and circumstances. In some cases it's worse than this, in others it's better. For example, once you've run out of charges, general light fighters apply a lot better than pre-118.6.

As we said in our first communications about the new fighters that where deployed with Citadels and started taking your feedback, the balance of the new fighters and capitals would need tweeking. The 118.6 patch is the start of that process, but by no means the end.

We had the opinion (and the data since the citadels patch backs it up) that general light fighters could alpha out small targets too well with their heavy rocket salvo, especially combined with the networked sensor array's bonus to locking speed. Given the excellent application of the old heavy rocket salvo ability there was little incentive to fit target painters or webifiers.
Additionally, there is some thematic discontinuance with the heavy rocket salvo having better application than fighter guns.

Post-118.6, carriers can still apply damage quite well to small targets. They also have options with the space superiority fighters, which while do a lot less damage to sub-capitals, can apply incredibly well. Your choices of fit are more important after the 118.6 patch.

We take a lot of time to read the feedback forum posts here, tweetfleet slack (o/ #capitals m8s), the capital focus group, the CSM, and various other community groups. Player feedback is incredibly important and influential to the design process. We don't always reply, and we're sorry about that.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Sedition.
#735 - 2016-06-29 18:24:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
The thing about the damage reduction is that carriers didn't have very good damage output to begin with. The incredible alpha with a long cycle time helped a lot because it let you apply a huge amount of damage instantly, allowing fighters to move to another target while the cycle finishes. With that gone, the raw DPS is too low to be useful given the drawbacks and the fact that fighters can't keep up with fast targets after the MWD cycle finishes.
Cheradenine-Zakalwe Amtiskaw
The Kronos Ritual
#736 - 2016-06-29 19:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheradenine-Zakalwe Amtiskaw
And we're basically back to where we started in real terms.

http://evf-eve.com/services/brcat/?s=3954&b=7096434&e=121&t=bb

Our roaming gang got blobbed by Svipuls, everything died except for the Paladin. We dropped carriers and a fax. Took a couple minutes to kill the Sabre, couldn't kill the Svipuls or the logi frigs.

gg cap balance pass

See you on the next one Five-O. o/
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#737 - 2016-06-29 20:11:48 UTC
So..... Carriers can't kill T3 ships with Logi without support ships to web/tp for them with bonuses.
That sounds kinda working as intended.
It seems however that you think the balance should be elsewhere?
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#738 - 2016-06-29 20:14:38 UTC
Cheradenine-Zakalwe Amtiskaw wrote:
And we're basically back to where we started in real terms.

http://evf-eve.com/services/brcat/?s=3954&b=7096434&e=121&t=bb

Our roaming gang got blobbed by Svipuls, everything died except for the Paladin. We dropped carriers and a fax. Took a couple minutes to kill the Sabre, couldn't kill the Svipuls or the logi frigs.

gg cap balance pass

See you on the next one Five-O. o/


your link is broken man
Cade Windstalker
#739 - 2016-06-29 20:16:21 UTC
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
Cheradenine-Zakalwe Amtiskaw wrote:
And we're basically back to where we started in real terms.

http://evf-eve.com/services/brcat/?s=3954&b=7096434&e=121&t=bb

Our roaming gang got blobbed by Svipuls, everything died except for the Paladin. We dropped carriers and a fax. Took a couple minutes to kill the Sabre, couldn't kill the Svipuls or the logi frigs.

gg cap balance pass

See you on the next one Five-O. o/


your link is broken man


Works fine for me, it links to a battle report.
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#740 - 2016-06-29 20:19:02 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
Cheradenine-Zakalwe Amtiskaw wrote:
And we're basically back to where we started in real terms.

http://evf-eve.com/services/brcat/?s=3954&b=7096434&e=121&t=bb

Our roaming gang got blobbed by Svipuls, everything died except for the Paladin. We dropped carriers and a fax. Took a couple minutes to kill the Sabre, couldn't kill the Svipuls or the logi frigs.

gg cap balance pass

See you on the next one Five-O. o/


your link is broken man


Works fine for me, it links to a battle report.


huh, maybe it's on my end then. for me it just loads a blank page where the BR should be.