These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Benjamin Hamburg
Chaos.Theory
#161 - 2017-02-28 16:09:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Benjamin Hamburg
I'll give my opinion on this at the end... for now the amount of salty tears here justify we sit together and talk before this thread become the Dead Sea.

Basically, most points of concerns about carriers vs Small gang were:


  • Insane amount of alpha, dps, and application
  • Lock faster than your mother, actually faster than most cruisers (which mean: initiative)
  • Fighters goes so fast I'm pretty sure Han Solo don't have the fastest ship in the Galaxy anymore
  • Incredible synergy when several carriers are on field. Quickly reach the GTFO point.


According to Wikipedia, "The GTFO point is a bit like the Godwin point: it may be funny to reach it once per week, but when it become each day, it quickly p*** people off."

This lead to some aberration, gameplay wise:


  • Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
  • Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
  • Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
  • End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#


* Being restrained to specifics shiptypes choices isn't exactly what the term «meta» imply. In this case, it's the absolute obligation to choose the least punishing scenario vs what is perceived to be overpowered.

# Because the inability to tank fighters, this lead to a single, efficient way to deal with them: 100mn AB on everything. Literally: 100mn Orthruses, 100 mn Tengues, 100 mn VNI, 100mn Recon ships... I see 100mn so much I even came to think that if I die and for some unexplainable reasons, go to paradise: I won't be welcomed by 100 virgins but by 100 freaking meganewtons. I just know it.

--
So after all this, what does sig augmentation and npc aggro REALLY change? Nothing. People are mad because fighters will die like flies and other pvp groups will probably continue to be mad because they still get stomped by carriers.

Since people are complaining about the sig augmentation, why not just nerf something else? Like damage application and MWD for example?

--

TL;DR People complaining about the proposed signature radius augmentation are just asking for a worse nerf. We'll take it.
Cade Windstalker
#162 - 2017-02-28 17:31:21 UTC
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:
I'll give my opinion on this at the end... for now the amount of salty tears here justify we sit together and talk before this thread become the Dead Sea.

Basically, most points of concerns about carriers vs Small gang were:


  • Insane amount of alpha, dps, and application
  • Lock faster than your mother, actually faster than most cruisers (which mean: initiative)
  • Fighters goes so fast I'm pretty sure Han Solo don't have the fastest ship in the Galaxy anymore
  • Incredible synergy when several carriers are on field. Quickly reach the GTFO point.


According to Wikipedia, "The GTFO point is a bit like the Godwin point: it may be funny to reach it once per week, but when it become each day, it quickly p*** people off."

This lead to some aberration, gameplay wise:


  • Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
  • Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
  • Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
  • End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#


* Being restrained to specifics shiptypes choices isn't exactly what the term «meta» imply. In this case, it's the absolute obligation to choose the least punishing scenario vs what is perceived to be overpowered.

# Because the inability to tank fighters, this lead to a single, efficient way to deal with them: 100mn AB on everything. Literally: 100mn Orthruses, 100 mn Tengues, 100 mn VNI, 100mn Recon ships... I see 100mn so much I even came to think that if I die and for some unexplainable reasons, go to paradise: I won't be welcomed by 100 virgins but by 100 freaking meganewtons. I just know it.

--
So after all this, what does sig augmentation and npc aggro REALLY change? Nothing. People are mad because fighters will die like flies and other pvp groups will probably continue to be mad because they still get stomped by carriers.

Since people are complaining about the sig augmentation, why not just nerf something else? Like damage application and MWD for example?

--

TL;DR People complaining about the proposed signature radius augmentation are just asking for a worse nerf. We'll take it.


I think your logic here is pretty good, but I don't think that necessarily means that the current changes are well balanced. The thing I'm most concerned about and want to see some testing on is the effect this sig bloom has on a MWDing Fighter squad, especially on burn in towards a target, and the combination of the sig changes and the agro fix.
Ion Blacknight
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2017-03-01 12:24:06 UTC
Juvir wrote:


They're also piloted by people, rather than being computer controlled. Being harder to hit makes more sense in that aspect. Which is why I personally have always questioned how they sit still and do NOTHING without a command, since they are supposed to be piloted by a sentient being. Are people dumber than computers in Eve?

While I don't think they need an auto aggress feature like drones have (I honestly LIKE the active management required while ratting in a carrier, vs afk VNI ratting) why don't they orbit a nearby celestial? Or auto return? Or orbit themselves in a small pattern? These are people, why in the world would they sit absolutely still for that long, seeing how much fire they are under?


+1 They could orbit the wreck of the last target killed, or orbit the ship firing on them, anything except sit still. Things like this are what CCP should address and not fix things which are not broken and no one is complaining about. All that work put into the carrier interface to make them exciting to use again, and then this. It's hard to comprehend.

War reports: Blacknight active
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2017-03-01 12:25:49 UTC
Well I use a carrier to rat in null. I find it very inconsistent how NPCs agress fighters. In Rock Havens they agress my fighters, in cloud havens they dont.

But I am very concernd that more agression to fighters pared with the increased Sig radius will lead to a lot more fighter losses in PvE. That beeing said, even a single lost T2 fighter can ruin your ratting tick. So if it turns out that losing a fighter is inevitable, then T2 fighters are totally useless in PvE.

In order to compensate, I suggest that the ressist profiles of T2 fighters are switched so they match the dmg type of the NPCs they are used against.

So a Templar II for example would get a 30% EM / 15% Thermal resist bonus instead of the 30% Explosion / 15% Kinetic resist it currently has.
Aleverette
Bag ol' Dciks
#165 - 2017-03-01 12:34:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Aleverette
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:
I'll give my opinion on this at the end... for now the amount of salty tears here justify we sit together and talk before this thread become the Dead Sea.

Basically, most points of concerns about carriers vs Small gang were:


  • Insane amount of alpha, dps, and application
  • Lock faster than your mother, actually faster than most cruisers (which mean: initiative)
  • Fighters goes so fast I'm pretty sure Han Solo don't have the fastest ship in the Galaxy anymore
  • Incredible synergy when several carriers are on field. Quickly reach the GTFO point.


According to Wikipedia, "The GTFO point is a bit like the Godwin point: it may be funny to reach it once per week, but when it become each day, it quickly p*** people off."

This lead to some aberration, gameplay wise:


  • Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
  • Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
  • Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
  • End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#


* Being restrained to specifics shiptypes choices isn't exactly what the term «meta» imply. In this case, it's the absolute obligation to choose the least punishing scenario vs what is perceived to be overpowered.

# Because the inability to tank fighters, this lead to a single, efficient way to deal with them: 100mn AB on everything. Literally: 100mn Orthruses, 100 mn Tengues, 100 mn VNI, 100mn Recon ships... I see 100mn so much I even came to think that if I die and for some unexplainable reasons, go to paradise: I won't be welcomed by 100 virgins but by 100 freaking meganewtons. I just know it.

--
So after all this, what does sig augmentation and npc aggro REALLY change? Nothing. People are mad because fighters will die like flies and other pvp groups will probably continue to be mad because they still get stomped by carriers.

Since people are complaining about the sig augmentation, why not just nerf something else? Like damage application and MWD for example?

--

TL;DR People complaining about the proposed signature radius augmentation are just asking for a worse nerf. We'll take it.


I feel the problem comes from the all-purpose light fighters.

How about giving space superiority fighters capability of dealing a moderate amount of damage to small ships (200 dps per squadron maybe fine?) with regular attack, and additional damage to drones/fighters when "tackle" ability is activated?
(Come on, what the heck type of "Space Superiority" are they when they even can not fight against a interceptor?)

In exchange, significantly decreases normal light fighters' accuracy but blesses them with heavier weaponry so they can only hurt battlecruiser and above?
Aleverette
Bag ol' Dciks
#166 - 2017-03-01 12:45:02 UTC
Ion Blacknight wrote:
Juvir wrote:


They're also piloted by people, rather than being computer controlled. Being harder to hit makes more sense in that aspect. Which is why I personally have always questioned how they sit still and do NOTHING without a command, since they are supposed to be piloted by a sentient being. Are people dumber than computers in Eve?

While I don't think they need an auto aggress feature like drones have (I honestly LIKE the active management required while ratting in a carrier, vs afk VNI ratting) why don't they orbit a nearby celestial? Or auto return? Or orbit themselves in a small pattern? These are people, why in the world would they sit absolutely still for that long, seeing how much fire they are under?


+1 They could orbit the wreck of the last target killed, or orbit the ship firing on them, anything except sit still. Things like this are what CCP should address and not fix things which are not broken and no one is complaining about. All that work put into the carrier interface to make them exciting to use again, and then this. It's hard to comprehend.


Exactly, one small lag now could directly result in one fighter loss even when people manage to control them perfectly right.

Giving more manual control to carrier ratting is the right direction, I mean, but fighters are just... not stupid, but brainless.
At least give them ability to auto-orbit the wreck of previously destroyed target.
Problem Addict
#167 - 2017-03-02 09:49:09 UTC
People actually lose fighters in PvE?

I've never lost a fighter. I just like. . . . pay attention and like. . . . . . think.

Do you alt tab and watch an entire episode on netflix then alt tab back and freak out because you lost 2 fighters?

What's going on here?

Get real.
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#168 - 2017-03-02 13:19:16 UTC
Problem Addict wrote:
People actually lose fighters in PvE?

I've never lost a fighter. I just like. . . . pay attention and like. . . . . . think.

Do you alt tab and watch an entire episode on netflix then alt tab back and freak out because you lost 2 fighters?

What's going on here?

Get real.


Losing a figher is acutally quite rare atm. But currently, only a fiew NPCs actually bother to shoot at the fighters at all.
The concern is that with the proposed changes the combination of increased sig radius and increased NPC agression to fighters, losing some will be inevetable.
A single T2 fighter currently costs about 10m isk. So loosing even a single one srews your ratting income to a point where afk VNI ratting is more profitable and less risk.

Pulling them back isnt going to help ether. You may prevent fighter losses, but pulling them back all the time will screw your effective DPS and you are again back to below VNI income.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#169 - 2017-03-02 15:13:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Captain Awkward wrote:


But muh ISK ticks!.


Maybe thats the point, carrier ratting is pulling in absurd amounts of isk and was never intended as a mostly risk free way to make absurds amount of isk. So theyre making it more difficult.

Frankly, the propogation of carriers in all aspects of EVE disgusts me and makes me a little salty. Newbie carrier doctrines (edit, i should rephrase this as trying to get newbros into carriers ASAP), the overwhelming spread of carrier ratting, carriers in small gang, fighting carriers in solo roams... its like the sentry carriers of old, and CCP didnt learn that making something that can kill anything from its class and down makes for very stale gameplay.

"Carriers fielding sentries able to blap every subcap is too strong and breaks class balance"

"Lets give them light support fighters that do the same thing, just with a 10 second delay before they can apply that damage and alpha any ship with an MWD on, or any BC/BS that just exists."

If anything, I think light fighters need an application nerf more than a sig increase.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Cade Windstalker
#170 - 2017-03-02 15:34:11 UTC
Captain Awkward wrote:
Problem Addict wrote:
People actually lose fighters in PvE?

I've never lost a fighter. I just like. . . . pay attention and like. . . . . . think.

Do you alt tab and watch an entire episode on netflix then alt tab back and freak out because you lost 2 fighters?

What's going on here?

Get real.


Losing a figher is acutally quite rare atm. But currently, only a fiew NPCs actually bother to shoot at the fighters at all.
The concern is that with the proposed changes the combination of increased sig radius and increased NPC agression to fighters, losing some will be inevetable.
A single T2 fighter currently costs about 10m isk. So loosing even a single one srews your ratting income to a point where afk VNI ratting is more profitable and less risk.

Pulling them back isnt going to help ether. You may prevent fighter losses, but pulling them back all the time will screw your effective DPS and you are again back to below VNI income.


Changes are up on SiSi. Instead of posting about how concerned people are about these changes how about going out and actually testing it for an hour and then posting results?
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2017-03-02 18:40:27 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Changes are up on SiSi. Instead of posting about how concerned people are about these changes how about going out and actually testing it for an hour and then posting results?


Id love to. However, I cant find any Combat Anomalys on SiSi to actually test the carrier against a Sanctum or Haven.
Cade Windstalker
#172 - 2017-03-03 04:01:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
No one is forcing anyone to assume anything... Roll

If your account has Alpha status on the Test Server at present you can request that be fixed in the appropriate forum section.

Also for the guy who can't get anoms to spawn, you should be able to claim sov if needed for testing. IIRC CCP pulls down all the sov structures to avoid Test Server intel.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2017-03-03 04:37:24 UTC
Rowells wrote:
firkinballbag wrote:
from what i can see this topic is pretty much clear that noone likes it noone wants it its not good for the game but heh ho ccp dont care they gonna introduce it anyway so why are we wasting our time putting posts here.i think we all know the ccp motto if its not broke FIX IT.

From this thread alone maybe.

Let's not pretend that 150 posts (not 150 people, and not all in agreement) represents the thousands or hundreds of thousands of players in Eve.

Doing that would be even worse than not taking feedback at all imo.


By exactly 0 likes on your post we may agree that squaeking for these changes represents nobody, while the voice against them represents at least someone.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#174 - 2017-03-03 04:41:49 UTC
Dude, I already know from the last thread that you are a hisec moron, please kindly buzz off from null discussion and go whine about wardec avoidance or whatever is hisec most important whine right now.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to assume anything... Roll


yeah because due to the way to get solid data being broken for the 3rd month now we're not forced to assume.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
If your account has Alpha status on the Test Server at present you can request that be fixed in the appropriate forum section.


And while you're at it, update your info. The reactivation thread was permanently closed last year with a post saying that new alpha-omega status doesn't require reactivation. Then, alpha-omega status link between TQ and Sisi was broken and currently the only omegas on it are people who were omega on TQ on new year. There is no service currently that can make alpha into omega on Sisi.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2017-03-03 04:45:04 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Captain Awkward wrote:


But muh ISK ticks!.


But muh 10mil cruiser blap!


Give this guy a 4 bil cruiser which doesn't get alpha'd by carriers and call it a day.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#176 - 2017-03-03 04:56:18 UTC
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:

  • Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
  • Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
  • Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
  • End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#

This part completely killed your argument.

  • If you have problems killing fighters, which are squishier than practically any ship, then how are you killing anything at all?
  • You're trying to sell us the point of view where A ******* WEB, ECM AND PAINT is "dedicated ship to counter fighters". Those are present in every gang. Get real.
  • If you can't tank a ratting carrier, you're bad and deserve to die.
  • PvP carriers get tankable in a minute it takes to defang them. Are you mad you're not allowed to do that without SOME losses in a fleet that costs like ONE fighter squadron? (and even then, with ECM, you can do that without any loss).


HTFU.
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#177 - 2017-03-03 05:17:47 UTC
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
March rabbit wrote:

Choose another tree if you need to bark to make a post on forums Lol




Let's be honest, most of the people here are bitching because they'll lose more fighters to rats than before, which noone care.


Let's be honest, most of the people on your side of the argument are crying me a retriever that their 10mil cruiser just died to 27 of 10mil fighters and somehow assume this is not rightfully so.

And it's even funny how you try to pretend it's a big deal while you are literally less than a fighter squadron in representation here.
Atum' Ra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2017-03-03 11:23:38 UTC
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:
I'll give my opinion on this at the end... for now the amount of salty tears here justify we sit together and talk before this thread become the Dead Sea.

Basically, most points of concerns about carriers vs Small gang were:


  • Insane amount of alpha, dps, and application
  • Lock faster than your mother, actually faster than most cruisers (which mean: initiative)
  • Fighters goes so fast I'm pretty sure Han Solo don't have the fastest ship in the Galaxy anymore
  • Incredible synergy when several carriers are on field. Quickly reach the GTFO point.


According to Wikipedia, "The GTFO point is a bit like the Godwin point: it may be funny to reach it once per week, but when it become each day, it quickly p*** people off."

This lead to some aberration, gameplay wise:


  • Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
  • Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
  • Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
  • End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#

....
TL;DR People complaining about the proposed signature radius augmentation are just asking for a worse nerf. We'll take it.


Now please make your logic at finance way...
Super = 25b
so you will need a gang with the ship cost at 1.5*25b to defeat the target without problems.
Doctor Tower
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2017-03-03 12:42:41 UTC
please also nerf networked sensor array for 50% scan resolution, to make BS greate again
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#180 - 2017-03-03 14:16:34 UTC
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.


Removed a Post for the above.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.