These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Citadels] Carriers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lugh Crow-Slave
#201 - 2016-04-04 16:22:36 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:


And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital.


with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig

no each class should have a role that it does better than any other

and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#202 - 2016-04-04 17:23:44 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:


And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital.


with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig

no each class should have a role that it does better than any other

and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different


I'm not sure how you expand on that logic to the point of absurdity, but whatever floats your boat. I never suggested that T2 should be 100% better than T1.

If you want to cut grass with a katana, you can, but you can do the job better and cheaper with a scythe. I don't really find it necessary to spell out all the substantial differences between Titans and Dreadnoughts. If you want to use your Titans just like Dreadnoughts, go right ahead. Cut grass with a katana... You'll find that the Dreadnought does the job better for a lower price. Additionally, the Titan is clearly more specialized in other ways. For day to day use, however, the Dreadnought is essentially a perfect ship. And for day to day use, a Titan is essentially useless (mostly for meta game reasons).

The differences between Carriers and Supercarriers are less substantial, but that depends a lot on the strength of the new utility modules available to Super Carriers. Still the differences are much more akin to a Vexor versus an Ishtar. Given the choice, I'll use an Ishtar most of the time. Supercarriers are basically T2 Carriers. I don't plan on using Carriers very much after the patch - I'm planning to convert them all to Fleet Auxiliaries. For everything else, I have an Aeon...

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#203 - 2016-04-04 18:00:11 UTC
How much easier are these going to be to probe with the new hilarious sigs?
Zenafar
#204 - 2016-04-04 18:01:48 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
so i just did the math 3 mill for one t1 light fighter ? thats 89 3 flights

and you have 3 flights of T2 at 189 mill

so a thanny needs to hold 609mill (if it goes all light fighters) thats over half the cost of the hull


Yep. Still too expensive. + % from the market :)

It's not a big problem for PvE i suppose, but u'll lose lot's of isk in PvP even if u didn't die :)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#205 - 2016-04-04 18:04:17 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:


And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital.


with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig

no each class should have a role that it does better than any other

and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different


I'm not sure how you expand on that logic to the point of absurdity, but whatever floats your boat. I never suggested that T2 should be 100% better than T1.

If you want to cut grass with a katana, you can, but you can do the job better and cheaper with a scythe. I don't really find it necessary to spell out all the substantial differences between Titans and Dreadnoughts. If you want to use your Titans just like Dreadnoughts, go right ahead. Cut grass with a katana... You'll find that the Dreadnought does the job better for a lower price. Additionally, the Titan is clearly more specialized in other ways. For day to day use, however, the Dreadnought is essentially a perfect ship. And for day to day use, a Titan is essentially useless (mostly for meta game reasons).

The differences between Carriers and Supercarriers are less substantial, but that depends a lot on the strength of the new utility modules available to Super Carriers. Still the differences are much more akin to a Vexor versus an Ishtar. Given the choice, I'll use an Ishtar most of the time. Supercarriers are basically T2 Carriers. I don't plan on using Carriers very much after the patch - I'm planning to convert them all to Fleet Auxiliaries. For everything else, I have an Aeon...


i wasn't saying that they should not be better i was saying that if cost is not an issue there should be a reason to use the other ones

dreads are not so bad as carriers are where there is no reason to bring in a thanny if you can bring a nyx

but the real issue with that is it seems that carriers are being gimped to make sure that they dont get to close to supers when using lights or support fighters

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#206 - 2016-04-04 19:12:05 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:


And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital.


with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig

no each class should have a role that it does better than any other

and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different


I'm not sure how you expand on that logic to the point of absurdity, but whatever floats your boat. I never suggested that T2 should be 100% better than T1.

If you want to cut grass with a katana, you can, but you can do the job better and cheaper with a scythe. I don't really find it necessary to spell out all the substantial differences between Titans and Dreadnoughts. If you want to use your Titans just like Dreadnoughts, go right ahead. Cut grass with a katana... You'll find that the Dreadnought does the job better for a lower price. Additionally, the Titan is clearly more specialized in other ways. For day to day use, however, the Dreadnought is essentially a perfect ship. And for day to day use, a Titan is essentially useless (mostly for meta game reasons).

The differences between Carriers and Supercarriers are less substantial, but that depends a lot on the strength of the new utility modules available to Super Carriers. Still the differences are much more akin to a Vexor versus an Ishtar. Given the choice, I'll use an Ishtar most of the time. Supercarriers are basically T2 Carriers. I don't plan on using Carriers very much after the patch - I'm planning to convert them all to Fleet Auxiliaries. For everything else, I have an Aeon...
The hardest part about this discussion is not having working models to test. What is on SISI is not close to what is expected end up on TQ. Devs are doing themselves and the game a great dis-service by adding broken and incomplete mechanics to the test server.
You can't test something that doesn't work as intended from the start. Basic fittings can't be tested because modules just aren't on SISI, mechanics can't be tested because they just aren't applied, many modules that are available just don't work and so on. Then we have devs expecting relevant feedback based on these same conditions.

FT, sadly most people I have spoken to that have tested the "new" carriers on SISI agree with you (as do I) - Carriers will hold a very low place of use on TQ because they just don't do anything very well.

New fighters and mechanics leave a lot to be desired, they are either not working as devs intended or the plan is to leave carriers with no real place on the battlefield.


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.
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2016-04-04 19:14:13 UTC
T2 ships are usually more specialized variants of the T1 ships.
There are also T2 ships that could generally be considered better, for example there is hardly a reason to use a cruiser, if you could get a heavy assault cruiser for the same price. Or a frigate if you could also use an assault frigate.
But this usually comes from a huge increase in price (a vexor is ~10mio, an ishtar 170mio, so about a factor 17), a much higher skill requirement, for a moderate performance increase. An ishtar has roughly 2x the ehp of a vexor, and maybe 25% damage more (depending on how you fit of course.

Now the only thing of carrier vs supercarrier, that is comparable to ishtar vs vexor is the price. A carrier is maybe 1.2 billion, a supercarrier about 20 (not sure of the exact price), so 20/1.2=16.7, about the same factor.
But both have the same skill requirements, and the supercarrier is just much much better at everything.
A chimera has 68.000 shield, a wyvern has 500.000. A Wyvern has a 400% bonus to shield extenders. A wyvern has strong resistances to electronic warfare. The wyvern has 20% damage bonus. It can launch 3 heavy fighters, where each long range heavy squadron is about as strong as all 2-3 light squadrons from the chimera. Additionally it can also launch 2 light squads. And it can launch anti capital fighters which probably do an order of magntiude more damage than the light fighters (I didnt really test them).

This is completely out of proportion to the usually T2 bonus. Supercarrier should not be so much better at everything.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#208 - 2016-04-05 00:27:52 UTC
Marranar Amatin wrote:
T2 ships are usually more specialized variants of the T1 ships.
There are also T2 ships that could generally be considered better, for example there is hardly a reason to use a cruiser, if you could get a heavy assault cruiser for the same price. Or a frigate if you could also use an assault frigate.
But this usually comes from a huge increase in price (a vexor is ~10mio, an ishtar 170mio, so about a factor 17), a much higher skill requirement, for a moderate performance increase. An ishtar has roughly 2x the ehp of a vexor, and maybe 25% damage more (depending on how you fit of course.

Now the only thing of carrier vs supercarrier, that is comparable to ishtar vs vexor is the price. A carrier is maybe 1.2 billion, a supercarrier about 20 (not sure of the exact price), so 20/1.2=16.7, about the same factor.
But both have the same skill requirements, and the supercarrier is just much much better at everything.
A chimera has 68.000 shield, a wyvern has 500.000. A Wyvern has a 400% bonus to shield extenders. A wyvern has strong resistances to electronic warfare. The wyvern has 20% damage bonus. It can launch 3 heavy fighters, where each long range heavy squadron is about as strong as all 2-3 light squadrons from the chimera. Additionally it can also launch 2 light squads. And it can launch anti capital fighters which probably do an order of magntiude more damage than the light fighters (I didnt really test them).

This is completely out of proportion to the usually T2 bonus. Supercarrier should not be so much better at everything.

It always has been - Supers have had Bombers for ever, that hit like battlecruisers compared to T1 cruisers from carriers.
This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. They are meant to be a focal point or main force of a battle, where a carrier is like the meat shield.

The whole discussion here should not be about how powerful supers are, it should be about how under powered new carriers are.


CCP was on the right track removing slowcats but went too far and have made carriers sub standard with nothing to offer in a capital fight.

First thing that needs to be looked at is the imbalance between the LIF and the Ninazu. These are both the same class of logi, one being shield the other armor. Yet the Armor Ninazu which has far lower fitting requirements for its role has more CPU and power grid than the LIF which being shield requires far more fitting room due to higher CPU and PG requirements for anything shield. To fit the two for the same logistics and defensive capabilities, the LIF requires 2 CPU upgrades where the Ninazu has 300 CPU left over with no fitting upgrades required.
NB; Haven't checked the other 2 Fax as I don't and have no intention of flying them.

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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#209 - 2016-04-05 00:36:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Sgt Ocker wrote:

This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field.

Ok, if a normal carrier costs about 1.5-2 bil, please show me a 300-400 bil super besides a very shiny Revenant.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#210 - 2016-04-05 02:13:36 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field.

Ok, if a normal carrier costs about 1.5-2 bil, please show me a 300-400 bil super besides a very shiny Revenant.

My bad, was supposed to be 20 times not 200

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.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#211 - 2016-04-05 02:41:27 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field.

Ok, if a normal carrier costs about 1.5-2 bil, please show me a 300-400 bil super besides a very shiny Revenant.

My bad, was supposed to be 20 times not 200


and besides that carriers have always been better at hitting sub caps than suppers as they could use sub cap drones so not only are carriers now being forced into nothing but an anti sub cap role suppers are getting the tools to do that better



i have no issue with carriers not getting bombers so long as carriers can do the anti sub cap role or on par with HAW and supers


if not that then let them be better with E-war fighters (can start by making these useful)


there is already enough of a reason to use supers over a carrier but currently there is very little reason to use a carrier over a dread or a T3 cruiser

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Side1Bu2Rnz9
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#212 - 2016-04-05 02:50:46 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • A new skill is being introduced called 'Light Fighters', this provides a 5% velocity bonus per level and is required for the operation of light fighters.
  • A new skill is being introduced called 'Support Fighters', this provides a 5% hitpoint bonus per level and is required for the operation of support fighters.
  • The fighters skill now provides a 5% damage bonus per level and is required for the operation of all fighters.
    • [/list]

    All of these changes are on Sisi, and we'd appreciate you jumping on and helping to test them!
    [/list]


    So I got onto Sisi, fit up a carrier, bought the new fighters... and realized they all require Fighters 5, Light Fighters/Support Fighters 5 to use.

    Will all fighters require the Fighters and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters just to use in the first place on TQ?

    Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1.

    I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable.


    Welp, that fixes it. Thank you.

    I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days)


    If you look at the capital focus group logs. https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/capitals/2016-03-31/#17:16:52

    Larrik states that he agrees T2 fighters should only require lvl 5 Fighter and lvl 4 light/support/heavy fighter skill.
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #213 - 2016-04-05 04:20:22 UTC
    Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote:
    M1k3y Koontz wrote:
    Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
    M1k3y Koontz wrote:
    CCP Larrikin wrote:

  • A new skill is being introduced called 'Light Fighters', this provides a 5% velocity bonus per level and is required for the operation of light fighters.
  • A new skill is being introduced called 'Support Fighters', this provides a 5% hitpoint bonus per level and is required for the operation of support fighters.
  • The fighters skill now provides a 5% damage bonus per level and is required for the operation of all fighters.
    • [/list]

    All of these changes are on Sisi, and we'd appreciate you jumping on and helping to test them!
    [/list]


    So I got onto Sisi, fit up a carrier, bought the new fighters... and realized they all require Fighters 5, Light Fighters/Support Fighters 5 to use.

    Will all fighters require the Fighters and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters just to use in the first place on TQ?

    Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1.

    I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable.


    Welp, that fixes it. Thank you.

    I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days)


    If you look at the capital focus group logs. https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/capitals/2016-03-31/#17:16:52

    Larrik states that he agrees T2 fighters should only require lvl 5 Fighter and lvl 4 light/support/heavy fighter skill.


    Bit he had since stated on the greed back thread on the test server that they now have the accurate skill requirements

    And they are 5/5 :/

    BLOPS Hauler
    The 16.8km Bubble
    Marranar Amatin
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #214 - 2016-04-05 06:54:29 UTC
    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    It always has been - Supers have had Bombers for ever, that hit like battlecruisers compared to T1 cruisers from carriers.
    This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. They are meant to be a focal point or main force of a battle, where a carrier is like the meat shield.

    The whole discussion here should not be about how powerful supers are, it should be about how under powered new carriers are.



    But the old bonus were not strictly better.
    Supercaps were a lot better against caps, because of the high damage of bombers, and thats ok.
    But carriers could use normal drones, and also fit triage module. That gave them uses that super caps didnt have. Now this is gone, and supers are just better at everything.

    Also while carriers are very underpowered right now, we should not forget that fixing the bugs alone will mean a 50% damage increase, 20% fighter hp increase and 20% fighter speed increase. Thats a lot.
    So before the discussion about carriers being underpowered can go on, ccp needs to fix the bugs.
    Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
    CK-0FF
    Intergalactic Space Hobos
    #215 - 2016-04-05 07:29:03 UTC
    Marranar Amatin wrote:
    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    It always has been - Supers have had Bombers for ever, that hit like battlecruisers compared to T1 cruisers from carriers.
    This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. They are meant to be a focal point or main force of a battle, where a carrier is like the meat shield.

    The whole discussion here should not be about how powerful supers are, it should be about how under powered new carriers are.



    But the old bonus were not strictly better.
    Supercaps were a lot better against caps, because of the high damage of bombers, and thats ok.
    But carriers could use normal drones, and also fit triage module. That gave them uses that super caps didnt have. Now this is gone, and supers are just better at everything.

    Also while carriers are very underpowered right now, we should not forget that fixing the bugs alone will mean a 50% damage increase, 20% fighter hp increase and 20% fighter speed increase. Thats a lot.
    So before the discussion about carriers being underpowered can go on, ccp needs to fix the bugs.

    But when the skills apply properly it will affect supers just as much as normal carriers. It should definitely help the carrier/dread balance, but not the carrier/super balance. On the other hand, titans are becoming basically stronger dreads that don't need to siege, so the same lack of purpose affects that side too.
    Zenafar
    #216 - 2016-04-05 08:06:18 UTC
    without triage carriers are useless. So they need to be more powerfull now.

    Speaking of Scarrier/Carrier balance - maybe role bonus + Light fighter dmg for carriers? So carriers will be stronger against subcaps. Just thinking.
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #217 - 2016-04-05 08:31:44 UTC
    Zenafar wrote:
    without triage carriers are useless. So they need to be more powerfull now.

    Speaking of Scarrier/Carrier balance - maybe role bonus + Light fighter dmg for carriers? So carriers will be stronger against subcaps. Just thinking.


    Assuming The missing skills will help the damage is think it would be better to give them e-war fighter bonuses (the crappy range ones don't count) and/or a speed bonus to the fighters (with a higher bonus still on the nid)

    I also still like the idea of giving them an extra launch bay and second support fighter squad

    As well if a support fighters bonus is given idk if it should be racial or general (worried about one carrier being to strong with its racial e-war) but at the same time more individually is not a bad thing

    BLOPS Hauler
    The 16.8km Bubble
    Sgt Ocker
    What Corp is it
    #218 - 2016-04-05 09:07:07 UTC
    Marranar Amatin wrote:
    Sgt Ocker wrote:
    It always has been - Supers have had Bombers for ever, that hit like battlecruisers compared to T1 cruisers from carriers.
    This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. They are meant to be a focal point or main force of a battle, where a carrier is like the meat shield.

    The whole discussion here should not be about how powerful supers are, it should be about how under powered new carriers are.



    But the old bonus were not strictly better.
    Supercaps were a lot better against caps, because of the high damage of bombers, and thats ok.
    But carriers could use normal drones, and also fit triage module. That gave them uses that super caps didnt have. Now this is gone, and supers are just better at everything.

    Also while carriers are very underpowered right now, we should not forget that fixing the bugs alone will mean a 50% damage increase, 20% fighter hp increase and 20% fighter speed increase. Thats a lot.
    So before the discussion about carriers being underpowered can go on, ccp needs to fix the bugs.

    Pretty sure I mentioned in an earlier post - CCP is not going about any of this in a very professional way. What is on SISI is far from what is expected on TQ and we are running out of time to test any of it before it goes live.

    By under powered I was including the carrier itself which is possibly more important than the dps from the anti subcap fighters they will use.
    But again, your right, half the modules required to realistically test the new carriers and Fax's are not available on sisi or just bugged.


    What strictly made Supers better was their ability to tank as well as they did combined with massive DPS from Bombers and the fact you needed a Hic to stop one just warping off or jumping out.

    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.
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #219 - 2016-04-05 09:36:47 UTC
    To be fair they have a always said it was released waaaaaay earlier than would normally be so we can get a feel for mechanics etc.

    Patience on our side is fair.

    Just remember to bug reports weird stuff.
    Circumstantial Evidence
    #220 - 2016-04-05 16:17:06 UTC
    The devs are working hard to get all the modules and mechanics working. Anything related to how much better this is from that - is a game balance question. Those get fixed in quick patches following the expansion. I've no doubt that on day 1 some module or mechanic will be underpowered and another OP. It's been a long time since CCP has made SO MANY changes to the game at once. Lots of new combinations to try out. Very exciting.