Test Server Feedback

There is nothing wrong with the nidhogger it actually one of the better carriers so stop with that bs the hel & the revenant are completely BROKEN!!

From what I see, this shows that the Revelation (for a long time the go-to dread) is going to have some issues. Having said that, this supports the need for a higher explosion velocity (double or triple it, sig radius will still keep it from raping subcaps) for citadel weapons. As I said, the rails on a Moros are clearly going to be powerful. The Naglfar seems to have little to no issues, other than EHP. Having said that, what did you do to get such a low EHP on the Naglfar? 3x LCDFEs, 2x invul IIs, and a DCU give 1.9 mil EHP. Were you assuming different rigs, and, if so, what were your lows for the Moros and Revelation, given that you need 3x trimark is to get that 2m EHP?

Invul II can also be overheated when you need it most in nullsec

We aren't arguing to make the naglfar OP , we just are asking if CCP can put back the buff they already did like 2 years ago making the nag a pure artie/ac cannon boot , because you see training for 2 weapon systems while having the worst tank to be just second in dps in all races isnt really that much fun .

And your argument about changing ammo is really moot because in fleet fights you bring 2 ammo types one long range one short range, the rest we dont use, 100VS100 dreads we would be like changing ammo for every single primary , with lag factored in good luck doing any kind of damage to primary.

Not to mention that if naglfar is that op everyone should be flying it right?

A: The active tank is not the worst, it is the second best for burst
B: The EHP is worst by a small margin (1.9 m vs the Moros's 2.05m).
C: Bringing autocannons and torps to this capital blob is not going to happen, that only applies to long range warfare.
D: At blaster range, the fact that you use cap is very important (w-space is full of bhaalgorns)
E: We know not to expect CCP to change the Naglfar's slot layout. I would love to see this changed, but :CCP:. If we assume that CCP continues to refuse to redo the Naglfar's slot layout, your arguments suggest that it should out-dps a Moros, which uses capacitor and has only a little bit more EHP.
F: The revelation shines in being cheap. Bashing a pos with faction ammo, no problem. However, in pvp, we can assume that both dreads have faction ammo, and it falls behind again.



I assume that everyone would (given the current meta-game) bring the ammo that is highest in explosive (because of Nyx / Aeon / Avatar / Erebus) damage for nullsec warfare as well as enough other ammo to properly mess up your given choice of POS.

(Also, from above: E: We know not to expect CCP to change the Naglfar's slot layout. I would love to see this changed, but :CCP: If we assume that CCP continues to refuse to redo the Naglfar's slot layout, your arguments suggest that it should out-dps a Moros, which uses capacitor and has only a little bit more EHP.)

Well the forums ate my longer post so here is a shorter version. Instead of nit picking which dread is better than another. Isn't it more important to wonder if they are going to be used in any number for it to matter?

I am not sure myself, what is everyone else's opinions of the changes? Are they enough to cause a resurgence of dread use in fleets? Or no?

Disclaimer: I have 3 minmatar capital characters, two of which are supercapital capable. So, apply a grain of salt or two.

Shield capitals: remove shieldrecharge. There, done. If you unsub because you passive shield tanked your capital, good riddance. Now, apply gang bonuses like armor ones. If you can't remove shield recharge due to code, set the recharge time to 14 days and apply gang bonuses like armor. Instant win.
Introduce a new implant type (concord lp?) that gives slave-like bonuses to capital shields (not subcap shields, since in subcap land there are valid reasons for passive shield tanks) Or also make them increase recharge time so that passive regen stays the same...

Naglfar:
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. A slight tad more cap recharge would be nice so we do not have to cripple our fittings to be jump capable after a 5 minute cycle would be nice, but I won't /emoragequitwristslash if it simply stays as it is.
The tracking increase in siege seems to work from my tests on Sisi (2* AC/Torp Naglfars vs Hel at 30-40km with 100m/s transversal; nice hits).

Nidhoggur:
I personally consider the niddy one of the best 0.0 carriers, because it has armor tank, armor-rr for fleets, shield-rr for towers and reasonable fittings and damage. But, since it is make-a-wish time:
- two Archons remote-repairing each other with unbonused reps receive a 33% increase in repair effectiveness from their resistance bonus. Two Nids doing that only gain +25%. The "logistics" carrier should be on even ground here.
- the Nid is the only carrier whose racial bonus affects a cap using module. Yet, is has by far the worst - probably because projectiles do not use cap.... Well, please subscribe to a current version of reality. Carriers do not have turrets. Similarly, archons do not have lasers either, but they get the built-in because-of-lasors cap bonus. There is something wrong with that.

Hel:
Oh boy. I could actually stop after those 2 words.
- the two points from the niddy apply as well, only more. In terms of RR-performance per needed capital energy transfer it is more effective to bring another nyx than a single hel. It's cap is THAT BAD. And do not get me started on the overall damage implications of the additional nyx.
- when SCs were rebuilt as DPS platforms, it was left behind as the only SC without either an offensive or defensive bonus as its originally intended bonus (-7.5%/lvl reduction to fighter bomber signature radius) was deemed too powerful (it had more effective dps against a subcap than a Nyx).
- all the racial t1 traits of Matari ships are built around versatility (extra slots here or there, a bit more speed, smaller sig (lol supercapital), weird half/half tanking slots etc), yet this expansion is explicitly about removing versatility. I consider this a problem. No ship should have design guidelines forcing it to be useless.
- Speed: the hel is too fast. An typical fit aeon has 62-66 m/s max speed. A typical fit hel has 100m/s. So to not leave the bulk, stay in range of its own RR modules to stay useful and the aeons RR-cap to not cap out, it has to slow down to those speeds too. At which point it is the only SC that is not above the warp threshold and therefor much more risky to deploy - at no gain. If you want to keep it minmatar with a mobility advantage, increase its agility, not topspeed.
- EHP: it wasn't stellar before. It sucks now. I do not have an armor SC (....yet), but currently on sisi the hel barely breaks 20m EHP with an officer fit containing modules whose price exceeds the entire fitting of an armor sc including the hg slaves. Price shouldn't be a balancing factor, yes, but it is a good indicator.
- CPU: the introduction of the meta shield transporters made fitting shield tank (hardeners, not boosters) locally and shield transfers (oh my, what a combination) more manageable, so this is probably fine now by way of costing a lot more isk..

It boils down to this:
Supercarrier pilots should be excited about a hel in their midst because of the things the ship contributes to the fleet, not because every additional hel means one ship that is a dead given primary before them like it is currently the case.

Ragnarok:
I haven't sat in one yet (), but I would guess it could use an EHP nudge and a speednerf aswell.

Please carve whatever space you need out of my cavernous cargo bay to give me back at least 50 cubic meters of drone space on my Erebus, thanks in advance

+2 and the galente preforms better also.

the super nerf is just far too ******** to be considered for rollout. testing has shown me everything that i feared to be true. there are many more resonable approaches to what is required in the dev-blog thread.

personally i'd be much better off with a removal of the corp hanger, inability to fit spider tanking/cap mods and a limit to the number operational in a fleet.

the real heart of the problem is not a single super-cap or even two - the new agression timers and tier3 bcs is good for a small numbers of SCs against fleets that "deserve" to kill them. The real issue is when we're talking about 10-20 or more of them in a fleet, in a system. you have to be kidding thinking that these changes address this fundamental issue - unfortunately the changes as proposed makes it impossible for a small corp to run SCs and will either force them (and their accounts) out of the game or merge them into super alliances - which magnifies the issue instead of correcting it.

the siege timer on the dreads seems to be working nicely, however the carrier as a class seems to suffer more as a result (more than i thought). again the removal of drone bays is a travesty for the dreads.

have been thinking that a new set of implants that provides either resistance or amount of shield would help drive the shield based capitals into consideration. this ofc would have to be balanced with perhaps a armour resist or cap recharge implant for armour tankers. the other alternative is to flip it and introduce a significant damage boost to the shield based caps, offering pilots the ability to train towards survivability OR max damage. again a range of implants aimed at decreasing siege/triage module timers would be interesting - giving pilots an opportunity to pick tank, resist, cap or time committed on field.