These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Post Nerf Carrier Roles: Some thoughts

Author
Fyt 284
Requiem Eternal Holdings
Requiem Eternal
#1 - 2016-06-28 09:22:20 UTC
This post is being made with the assumption that damage numbers are going to be boned for the foreseeable future. Carriers will be in a worse state than they were pre-citadel after the nerfs. Citadel changes made carriers a strong anti-subcap choice, after removing triage and slowcat roles for carriers. This was good, as it made a role for carriers that made sense and fit well. Post nerf, application and damage will be so low that the anti-subcap role will be replaced by HAW dreads, who can continue to use ewar, unlike carriers. They'll have better application, better support fittings, and better tank, not to mention be cheaper to lose than a carrier. (Fighter costs / insurance numbers)

A few of the problems I see with carriers as they stand post nerf:
#1: Support fighters are functionally useless. This is probably the biggest problem with post nerf carriers. You can replace basic functionality that literally every other ship in the game can use, by sacrificing 2/3rds of your dps. Even pre-nerf, this choice was uncommon, and unpopular, and post nerf, when carriers will be hurting for damage, this will become non-existent. A simple solution would be to add a 4th/6th tube (yes, supers are included in this) that can only use support fighters, and make the carrier choose between which support fighters they want to bring, and what role they want to fill (anti-sub cap or anti fighter). Worse yet, they can't even fill in as capital support because they can only launch one wing of support fighters.

#2: Inability to use ewar. The ewar penalty made sense when carriers had the 900% NSA, as instalocking ewar carriers would be toxic as ****. Now that carriers will no longer have that advantage, it makes little sense to prevent ewar from being used while the NSA is active. Waiting a minute (which will be the case with or without the NSA) to apply webs, tps, points, etc doesn't promote making choices, it negates them. I am aware that one of the original intents was to fill that void with support fighters, but you can see above why I feel that doesn't work.

#3: Anemic Fighter bays. I doubt anyone has brought this up, because as a dps platform, they don't have a problem. The problem emerges when you force a carrier to adapt to a situation, and *try* to support. Support fighters are big, and very very squishy. There isn't enough room to bring light fighters, anti fighters, and 1 or 2 different support fighters without running the risk of being completely defanged the moment frigates start engaging your fighters. It doesn't help that you can't utilize your entire fighter bay because you can't switch wings without having room to unload your fighters.

These are just my views on carriers, as a carrier pilot. Please note that I did not say that nerfs were unwarranted, but the degree to which carriers were nerfed is extreme, and forces us out of the only role we have.
Shalashaska Adam
Snakes and Lasers
#2 - 2016-06-29 10:21:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalashaska Adam
They really need to add the ability to swap out fighters in the tubes just by dragging a group over another group.

That by itself would fix the hangar size issue pretty much single handedly.

Right now the chimera literally doesn't have the room to use a full wing of each of it's racial fighter types.

You don't have the room to even bring 1 squad of support fighters with you in the first place.
Anthar Thebess
#3 - 2016-06-29 11:21:18 UTC
Can confirm that carriers need to have some niche role.
No ewar if you use NSA, inability to lock stuff fast enough if you don't use NSA.
Support fighters, all fighters are anemic - even if you can deploy multiple wings and have them in different places of the grid, they are to easy to kill, jam, damp, scramble that they are made way to fast useless.


For people who don't use carriers and wonder - why 1 nerf changed situation so much:
It is very simple, carrier light fighters rocket salvo allowed them to clear grid around them from light tackling ships and untanked targets.
This provided carrier with unique ability to provide meaningful function on field at expense of heavy fighter and possibly carrier loses.
One of the few capital engagements we had proved that you have chance of saving tackled supers, by doping enough carriers to clear dictors and hictors.
Carriers will be lost in the process, but supercapitals have chance of extraction.
Nerf to rocket salvo damage and application removed this totally, as carriers are unable any more to clear tackle, dictors or hictors.
Marcus Aeg
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2016-06-29 15:03:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Aeg
I agree,

it's like if they nerfed the doomsday to avoid to oneshot a t1 frigate, " which is not fair for the frigate player ". Carriers were good in the previous patch, and had their place. Now it becomes AGAIN useless for the price.

It's supposed to be a capital ship, expensive, big, and feared. Now it will be a flying beehive unable to destroy a frigate with this nerfed tracking speed.
Kei Nagasai
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2016-06-30 22:42:39 UTC
Are carriers even worth training into now? I mean, the hell? It takes a LONG time to train into these ships, with the carrier being the most used, it finally had a use as an anti-sub cap platform, with dread being anti cap and the new logi caps there for reps. It made sense and was logical. What was the thinking behind these nerfs anyway? Did CCP realise that a ship bigger than a cruiser was actually FUN to play?
Erstan
Space Cavalry Regiment
#6 - 2016-07-01 08:22:06 UTC
To me carrier is again useless. They have too low dps to kill big target (like dred npc for example) and to kill many small targets it is micromanagement nightmare. It should be brought back to pre-nerf and also there should be improvement in the UI to reduce micro. I don't say it should be afk boat again, but it was pushed in the opposite direction way too much.
Kei Nagasai
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2016-07-01 08:58:10 UTC
Erstan wrote:
To me carrier is again useless. They have too low dps to kill big target (like dred npc for example) and to kill many small targets it is micromanagement nightmare. It should be brought back to pre-nerf and also there should be improvement in the UI to reduce micro. I don't say it should be afk boat again, but it was pushed in the opposite direction way too much.


The clicky doesn't bother me so much as CCP catering to whiners "oh, my T1 ship hold down a carrier anymore, I cant get easy kills" etc etc. CCP proving yet again they dont really give a toss about any ship bigger than cruiser
Momiji Yakumo
Big Yoshi Energy Inc.
#8 - 2016-07-01 15:11:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Momiji Yakumo
You know you broke carriers when carrier ratting brings you almost the same isk per tick as a battleship, and when you are essentially worth 2 battleships worth of DPS in pvp, only you will die surely in a carrier because a t1 frigate can not only tackle you, but single handedly kill your fighters.

You should not be able to last 5 seconds if you take on a carrier with anything subcapital without logi and neuts, it's a flipping capital ship that has been nerfed to the point that a couple of battleships is literally better, I mean, what is the purpose of carriers now? To counter.... other carriers? It almost has the same ehp as a freighter for Bob's sakes, it can no longer kill interceptors, fighters are squishy and can be killed by said interceptor you can't touch or whoever has a web and scram, and they are now practically squishy giant bricks with squishy fighters that pokes battleships, if you are lucky you will kill 1 before you loose your expensive wing and become helpless. At the very least if they were going to do that to fighters, double the fighter speed and make them tankier.

As for the post, I agree with the OP's points and I think they are fair. CCP Plez un-nerf carriers so we can use them again, the nerfs addressed things that were not an issue and some that where, you fixed the fast locking issue, then for some reason destroyed its tank, its dps, and made it helpless against small stuff, that escalated quickly.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2016-07-04 15:40:04 UTC
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
wall of poo


Do you make stuff up for a living?
Romarius Antollare
xHELLonEARTHx
Simple Farmers
#10 - 2016-07-05 14:36:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Romarius Antollare
As a nano cruiser pilot on my main for the most part, orthrus, cynabal, etc. and a carrier pilot on an alt I can say with absolute certainty that the carrier is now horribly unbalanced.
1. Scan Resolution - yes I agree with the changes to scan resolution. The carrier was a little overpowered in that regard, but the again svipul *cough* *cough*.

2. Ewar and the NSA - this utterly makes no sense. It is a capital anti-subcap platform. You absolutely have to have the NSA to do anything noteworthy in a subcapital engagement as was mentioned earlier in this article. You also absolutely need to be able to apply EWAR during an engagement. As you are limited to a single support wing (size and mechanic, speaking for carriers here) that in all reality is very limited in its own function as well as survivability you need those EWAR mods available asap.

3. Light Fighter DPS and Alpha - Once again, this is an ANTI subcapital platform. If you think carriers are anything more then you are happily delerious. Carriers DO NOT dps things off field. They are not HAW dreads. They cannot function capital vs capital with any great success to note as that is dreadnought, supercarrier, titan territory and always will be. They must be the end all be all name in subcapital warfare as that has always been their main focus.

4. Tank - As I have never really had an issue with this and don't have much experience flying a "tanky" carrier, I cannot really advise on or judge the current mechanics. If you are ganking it doesn't matter and if you are in a fleet with multiple carriers and you have FAX support it matters very little.
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2016-07-05 15:48:53 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Can confirm that carriers need to have some niche role.
No ewar if you use NSA, inability to lock stuff fast enough if you don't use NSA.
Support fighters, all fighters are anemic - even if you can deploy multiple wings and have them in different places of the grid, they are to easy to kill, jam, damp, scramble that they are made way to fast useless.


For people who don't use carriers and wonder - why 1 nerf changed situation so much:
It is very simple, carrier light fighters rocket salvo allowed them to clear grid around them from light tackling ships and untanked targets.
This provided carrier with unique ability to provide meaningful function on field at expense of heavy fighter and possibly carrier loses.
One of the few capital engagements we had proved that you have chance of saving tackled supers, by doping enough carriers to clear dictors and hictors.
Carriers will be lost in the process, but supercapitals have chance of extraction.
Nerf to rocket salvo damage and application removed this totally, as carriers are unable any more to clear tackle, dictors or hictors.


"Anti-subcap" is just too damn wide of an assignment to make something that is both workable and balanced. Any game where balance is at elast remotely important end up with situation like this. When you design something that has too many jobs, it's either not good enough to use over a dedicated version or it's just a flat out better option because it does it and then some. "Jack of all trades" rarely ever get good balance spots because of that.
eddie valvetino
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2016-07-05 16:10:28 UTC
Romarius Antollare wrote:
As a nano cruiser pilot on my main for the most part, orthrus, cynabal, etc.


to be fair buddy

your post should have ended there.. as "nano-faggotry" means your opinion it worth zero.

I happen to agree that if you have invested in a carrier, skills and isk.. then they should be better than they are...

CCP have a tricky job here, some many people with so many interests, all of the them valid (apart of nano-fags) and all paying their monthly subs.

Logi dictates that "capital" ships should be hard, bruisers and cable to dealing a lot of damage, whilst soaking it up too. However, logi also dictates that capital ships should need support. Eve isn't real world, i know that.. but if you are gonna to use real world logic i.e. "capital ships should be hard as ****" then it stands that capitals need support.

I will say however.. 100% agree... fighters need to be cheaper or MUCH harder to kill.. i'd even settle of a method of repairing them in-space as we used to have. currently each fighter as the cost of a well fit T1 cruiser, but they simply DO NOT perform like them.. Remember, lore tells us fighters are indeed ships, with pilots that are not pod capable.

The new fighter system is clearly designed to reduce server and client lag. which is a good thing...

personally, i think with the range of fighters with have, then having an anti-frig, anti cruiser fighters would be good..... oh wait, have them, they called drones... but CCP wont let us use them in carriers any more.....

I am wondering also, weather the chaps posting here are concerned about PvP or PvE.
Momiji Yakumo
Big Yoshi Energy Inc.
#13 - 2016-07-05 17:42:54 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
wall of poo


Do you make stuff up for a living?

Clearly you have never flown a carrier. You will find the most hilarious fighter wing killmails to frigates.
Lenny Weber
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2016-07-05 21:20:27 UTC
Agreed.
Romarius Antollare
xHELLonEARTHx
Simple Farmers
#15 - 2016-07-05 23:48:55 UTC
eddie valvetino wrote:
Romarius Antollare wrote:
As a nano cruiser pilot on my main for the most part, orthrus, cynabal, etc.


to be fair buddy

your post should have ended there.. as "nano-faggotry" means your opinion it worth zero.


Thank you for those kind words :)
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#16 - 2016-07-06 05:25:20 UTC
eddie valvetino wrote:
....blurrbbh...CCP have a tricky job here, some many people with so many interests, all of the them valid (apart of nano-fags. translation: I are pvppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppper, mekkkh all ship stop with mwd on so I can press FONE. Bwhaaaaaah!!!! Mekk ship insta-kill-IWIN-WTF-BBQ-solo-PWN-mobile again so pvp un-complitatettht for career pilot. career pilot guddh. mekkh win fight.) and all paying their monthly subs....


Carriers used to rep a boat or tell their fighters to shoot other capitals. And you misspelled something..

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2016-07-06 05:45:57 UTC
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
wall of poo


Do you make stuff up for a living?

Clearly you have never flown a carrier. You will find the most hilarious fighter wing killmails to frigates.



If you've flown a carrier and lost fighters to 1 T1 frigate, I have to tell you that carriers are not at fault here
Momiji Yakumo
Big Yoshi Energy Inc.
#18 - 2016-07-07 18:56:20 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
wall of poo


Do you make stuff up for a living?

Clearly you have never flown a carrier. You will find the most hilarious fighter wing killmails to frigates.



If you've flown a carrier and lost fighters to 1 T1 frigate, I have to tell you that carriers are not at fault here

Web + scram + friends or friends + ecm light drones and your fighters are dead. It's that simple, ask anyone who currently uses them for PVP, in any given engagement when a carrier is facing a few cruisers, tackle and logi, you will almost always loose your fighters if you engage. Yes, a t1 frigate can easily kill your fighter wing, and that's if they don' primary, it, if everyone goes for them instead of just permajamming your fighters, you're screwed.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2016-07-07 19:02:44 UTC
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
because a t1 frigate can not only tackle you, but single handedly kill your fighters.



Bolded for emphasis
Zix Isu
Vidu Express
#20 - 2016-07-07 22:54:58 UTC
Carrier's dont really have a role anymore after the changes. The argument can be made over them being capital neut boats but even thats debatable.

With the fighter changes they have a brutal time applying to anything moving faster then 100ms, Frigs will chew up fighters like candy. They need heavy support to apply to desy's and cruisers. But the big thing is that DPS wise and cost wise its much more efficient bring a BC or something along those lines. Since losing two wings of fighters just to kill a cruiser or two or being defanged by a pair of frigs without any real way to even hurt them really turns them into very expensive fireworks ships.


Supers are arguably even worse now, since i think bombers cant hit a BS if their lives depended on it.

So again what's their role again?
12Next page