These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aeon Veritas
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#501 - 2016-04-22 13:51:23 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
why would you ever use the siren? you should have tackle in your fleet

This is so much right. It would be more usefully if the Siren would be a sensor dampener.

A Celestis would do a much better job, survive longer and not require a carrier losing 1/3rd of its dps.

If you want to go that way...
There are many ships who are more suitable for tackle purposes...

Sgt Ocker wrote:
... , un-repairable light fighters.
...

Hornestly, I don't know what you want to repair.
They have 100 hull-HP, no armor and the biggest chunk of their HP on the shield.
But as far as i could observe they basicly just die if they are out of shield.
The shield is restored after having them scoped and redeployed.
For me they were even repacked when i removed them from the launch tube.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#502 - 2016-04-22 13:58:49 UTC
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Aeon Veritas wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
why would you ever use the siren? you should have tackle in your fleet

This is so much right. It would be more usefully if the Siren would be a sensor dampener.

A Celestis would do a much better job, survive longer and not require a carrier losing 1/3rd of its dps.

If you want to go that way...
There are many ships who are more suitable for tackle purposes...



thats the point

the support fighters have no use

the only decent ones are the neuts but even they are not worth 1/3 your dps

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#503 - 2016-04-22 14:00:29 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Gary Webb wrote:
I take it CCP still hasnt commented on the price of fighters as we still cant rep them?? i looked through this thread but couldnt find any response from Larrakin. Have I missed it or has it not happened?

They'll cost 1/6 what they do now for light fighters and 1/4 for heavies. When the patch hits all existing fighters and production jobs will turn into 6 or 4. Just don't try to buy fighters on patch day because it will probably cancel all sell orders and jack up the price for a while before people relist them.
So each of my 20 mil isk fighters is going to be transformed into 6 worthless T1 light fighters?


One current Firbolg equals six light T1 Firbolg fighters. (I presume; can't see Devs turning them into something useful)
That works out at around 3.5 mil per T1 light fighter - So around 7 to 10 mil per T2 light fighter or between 56 to 90 mil isk per squad for disposable, un-repairable light fighters.
These may or may not be useful, depending on whether Fax's get sorted out or not and if players are willing to pay 50% more for a very limited use carrier. Including the already known drawbacks with carriers + light fighters - Long reload (refueling time), limited damage application, easily destroyed and now cost of light fighters.

Risk (isk outlay) vs Reward (ability and usefulness) - Carriers fall a long way short on any potential reward.

T1 light fighters should cost no more than T2 sentry drones with T2 being double that, so under 3 mil for T2 Light Fighters or 27 mil per squad - Times that by 3 it is still a considerable isk outlay for something that is likely to be single use.


Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit.

I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others.
This quote
Quote:
Using 8 Million isk as a quick estimator we find Carriers BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil Dread BASE 1.4-1.5 Bil F Aux BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil
From This Reddit post would indicate Carriers will be around 1.3 to 1.4 bil build cost. That is just a bit more than 8% of the current build cost of a Thany at around 900 mil - It is actually adding 400 to 500 mil to the build cost or around 50%.

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
#504 - 2016-04-22 14:24:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:

Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit.

I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others.
This quote
Quote:
Using 8 Million isk as a quick estimator we find Carriers BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil Dread BASE 1.4-1.5 Bil F Aux BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil
From This Reddit post would indicate Carriers will be around 1.3 to 1.4 bil build cost. That is just a bit more than 8% of the current build cost of a Thany at around 900 mil - It is actually adding 400 to 500 mil to the build cost or around 50%.


Ok, let's just say I did an Evepraisal of the materials required now vs the materials required on SiSi as of 3 days ago. For ME 0 it gave the current cost as 1.42 bil and the new cost as 1.52 bil. Now that's with Jita mineral prices and ME 0, so it's a bit on the high side but the ratio is the same.

Also where are you getting the materials to build a Thanny for 900 mil? I've never seen a build price estimate below 1.28 or one on firesale cheaper than 1.05 bil.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#505 - 2016-04-22 14:30:37 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:

Also where are you getting the materials to build a Thanny for 900 mil? I've never seen a build price estimate below 1.28 or one on firesale cheaper than 1.05 bil.


using buy orders i have managed to build them for around 850 but your other point stands the price is not going up anyplace close to what he is stating


that said it is unnecessary to raise the carriers cost at all if they are losing usability not to mention their "drones" are also geetting more expensive

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#506 - 2016-04-22 21:36:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
so today fozzie said that the superiority fighters should be about as strong as a group of warriors when used against anything not a drone yet currently they have on adv less than half the DPS of warriors. or is the damage reduction not 90% anymore.


also an idea that may greatly help fighters. give them a sig amount per fighter so say the locust II would be 3 per fighter or a dragonfly II would be 4.44 per fighter

this would mean as fighters died they would be harder to kill

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Zenafar
#507 - 2016-04-22 22:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Zenafar
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

also an idea that may greatly help fighters. give them a sig amount per fighter so say the locust II would be 3 per fighter or a dragonfly II would be 4.44 per fighter

this would mean as fighters died they would be harder to kill


That's good. It won't solve carrier problems but this is really good idea
Lugh Crow-Slave
#508 - 2016-04-22 22:49:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
just got back from testing superiority fighters they actualy do a good deal of DPS on cruiser and below and may be something that gives carriers a role that dreads don't. they nuke frigs and wreck desi (t3d be warned) they also do more dps to cruisers than attack fighters do w/o the HM salvo


EDIT

i would still like to note they are still now where near as good as dreads with haw and there is very little reason to use them just that at least now they have gone from no reason to having a very niche reason(you know one that can be handled just as well with RLML)

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#509 - 2016-04-23 01:03:43 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:

Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit.

I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others.
This quote
Quote:
Using 8 Million isk as a quick estimator we find Carriers BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil Dread BASE 1.4-1.5 Bil F Aux BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil
From This Reddit post would indicate Carriers will be around 1.3 to 1.4 bil build cost. That is just a bit more than 8% of the current build cost of a Thany at around 900 mil - It is actually adding 400 to 500 mil to the build cost or around 50%.


Ok, let's just say I did an Evepraisal of the materials required now vs the materials required on SiSi as of 3 days ago. For ME 0 it gave the current cost as 1.42 bil and the new cost as 1.52 bil. Now that's with Jita mineral prices and ME 0, so it's a bit on the high side but the ratio is the same.

Also where are you getting the materials to build a Thanny for 900 mil? I've never seen a build price estimate below 1.28 or one on firesale cheaper than 1.05 bil.
Sorry your right, I was comparing an ME 9 BPO on TQ with an ME 0 on SISI.

It is somewhat odd how they are doing this - At ME 0 on both servers a Thanatos will have 50% less armor but requires 6 more armor plates. Overall there will be 4 extra parts required to build a Thanatos but of course the nice juggling act Devs did with components (makes no sense as far as attributes the ship has) means it is going to cost substantially more to build.
With an end result of, less EHP, less effective DPS and application, disposable DPS, far less chance of surviving even a moderate sized fight involving capitals AND worst of all, its 100% reliance on Triage Fax's to even be deployed.

Build costs being equal - Forget carriers just bring dreads

Can we get even a cursory "yeah we can't answer your questions" from a dev on this team?
Surely 2 mins wouldn't be too hard to swing for a "This is how it is" response.....

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
#510 - 2016-04-23 01:12:48 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:

Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit.

I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others.
This quote
Quote:
Using 8 Million isk as a quick estimator we find Carriers BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil Dread BASE 1.4-1.5 Bil F Aux BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil
From This Reddit post would indicate Carriers will be around 1.3 to 1.4 bil build cost. That is just a bit more than 8% of the current build cost of a Thany at around 900 mil - It is actually adding 400 to 500 mil to the build cost or around 50%.


Ok, let's just say I did an Evepraisal of the materials required now vs the materials required on SiSi as of 3 days ago. For ME 0 it gave the current cost as 1.42 bil and the new cost as 1.52 bil. Now that's with Jita mineral prices and ME 0, so it's a bit on the high side but the ratio is the same.

Also where are you getting the materials to build a Thanny for 900 mil? I've never seen a build price estimate below 1.28 or one on firesale cheaper than 1.05 bil.
Sorry your right, I was comparing an ME 9 BPO on TQ with an ME 0 on SISI.

It is somewhat odd how they are doing this - At ME 0 on both servers a Thanatos will have 50% less armor but requires 6 more armor plates. Overall there will be 4 extra parts required to build a Thanatos but of course the nice juggling act Devs did with components (makes no sense as far as attributes the ship has) means it is going to cost substantially more to build.
With an end result of, less EHP, less effective DPS and application, disposable DPS, far less chance of surviving even a moderate sized fight involving capitals AND worst of all, its 100% reliance on Triage Fax's to even be deployed.

Build costs being equal - Forget carriers just bring dreads

Can we get even a cursory "yeah we can't answer your questions" from a dev on this team?
Surely 2 mins wouldn't be too hard to swing for a "This is how it is" response.....



it does bug me with how much fighters will cost that carriers and dreads are going to cost the same :/

however i think capitals are actually getting cheaper right now the 2% bonus on CSAA do little to nothing for most capitals but in the fall the industry building will probably have more than 2% so it may be carriers are staying about the same price or cheaper it's just they are balancing them for the new structures coming out in the fall.


also they do not "need" Fax a decent guardian wing can hold them up and these things are not meant to be in capital fights so i don't think them not being able to survive in one is a bad thing. the problem is they are not good enough in a sub cap fight to be worth the cost of replacing fighters

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#511 - 2016-04-23 04:42:04 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


it does bug me with how much fighters will cost that carriers and dreads are going to cost the same :/

however i think capitals are actually getting cheaper right now the 2% bonus on CSAA do little to nothing for most capitals but in the fall the industry building will probably have more than 2% so it may be carriers are staying about the same price or cheaper it's just they are balancing them for the new structures coming out in the fall.


also they do not "need" Fax a decent guardian wing can hold them up and these things are not meant to be in capital fights so i don't think them not being able to survive in one is a bad thing. the problem is they are not good enough in a sub cap fight to be worth the cost of replacing fighters
A capital ship - Any Capital ship, that can't be useful and competitive in a capital ship fight isn't worth fielding.

They have actually balanced Carriers out of the new structure meta - So it matters little that nulsec Citadels get a manufacturing bonus. All they will be building is Dreads if Citadel shoots are the goal.

As for Fax's - Ok, Guardians will do a better job but isn't that in itself just really poor design? Add to that, Guardians means Armor is all that will ever be used - 2 complete lines of Capitals left out in the cold, right where they have been for years now.


A 2 billion isk + carrier, with disposable fighters (@ around 250 mil per flight - 3 squads) that may or may not be able to kill a 500 mil isk battleship - Really isn't worth fielding.

R-isk vs Reward - Carriers suck - By Design
-- - -- - -- - --
Devs can't respond in this thread - They know carriers are bad and don't want to admit their plan all along was to make them next to useless.

How about we just drop the pretense and simply remove carriers - It will save A LOT of negative feedback over time. Although, Devs are great at ignoring customers and just doing their own thing - So negative feedback probably won't be an issue, they just continue to ignore paying customers.

How few subs is enough to keep the servers up?

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.
Sekeris
Order of Celestial Knights
#512 - 2016-04-23 06:29:44 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
It really is a shame devs put up these feedback threads, then totally ignore them by not keeping them up to date. Or even bothering to respond to simple questions.


This bothers me most of all, OP is still out of date, non of our problems questions and concerns have ever been adressed and the last dev post in this thread is over 2 weeks ago.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#513 - 2016-04-23 10:58:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


it does bug me with how much fighters will cost that carriers and dreads are going to cost the same :/

however i think capitals are actually getting cheaper right now the 2% bonus on CSAA do little to nothing for most capitals but in the fall the industry building will probably have more than 2% so it may be carriers are staying about the same price or cheaper it's just they are balancing them for the new structures coming out in the fall.


also they do not "need" Fax a decent guardian wing can hold them up and these things are not meant to be in capital fights so i don't think them not being able to survive in one is a bad thing. the problem is they are not good enough in a sub cap fight to be worth the cost of replacing fighters
A capital ship - Any Capital ship, that can't be useful and competitive in a capital ship fight isn't worth fielding.

They have actually balanced Carriers out of the new structure meta - So it matters little that nulsec Citadels get a manufacturing bonus. All they will be building is Dreads if Citadel shoots are the goal.

As for Fax's - Ok, Guardians will do a better job but isn't that in itself just really poor design? Add to that, Guardians means Armor is all that will ever be used - 2 complete lines of Capitals left out in the cold, right where they have been for years now.


A 2 billion isk + carrier, with disposable fighters (@ around 250 mil per flight - 3 squads) that may or may not be able to kill a 500 mil isk battleship - Really isn't worth fielding.

R-isk vs Reward - Carriers suck - By Design
-- - -- - -- - --
Devs can't respond in this thread - They know carriers are bad and don't want to admit their plan all along was to make them next to useless.

How about we just drop the pretense and simply remove carriers - It will save A LOT of negative feedback over time. Although, Devs are great at ignoring customers and just doing their own thing - So negative feedback probably won't be an issue, they just continue to ignore paying customers.

How few subs is enough to keep the servers up?


nothing says capitals need to be good against capitals

basilisk work when you need shields rather than guardians

nothing says they need to be good against citadels however a single carrier can eat a citadels fighters (depending on fit they can be over 1/2 it's dps)

ccps idea isn't bad they are just executing it poorly

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#514 - 2016-04-23 15:12:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


it does bug me with how much fighters will cost that carriers and dreads are going to cost the same :/

however i think capitals are actually getting cheaper right now the 2% bonus on CSAA do little to nothing for most capitals but in the fall the industry building will probably have more than 2% so it may be carriers are staying about the same price or cheaper it's just they are balancing them for the new structures coming out in the fall.


also they do not "need" Fax a decent guardian wing can hold them up and these things are not meant to be in capital fights so i don't think them not being able to survive in one is a bad thing. the problem is they are not good enough in a sub cap fight to be worth the cost of replacing fighters
A capital ship - Any Capital ship, that can't be useful and competitive in a capital ship fight isn't worth fielding.

They have actually balanced Carriers out of the new structure meta - So it matters little that nulsec Citadels get a manufacturing bonus. All they will be building is Dreads if Citadel shoots are the goal.

As for Fax's - Ok, Guardians will do a better job but isn't that in itself just really poor design? Add to that, Guardians means Armor is all that will ever be used - 2 complete lines of Capitals left out in the cold, right where they have been for years now.


A 2 billion isk + carrier, with disposable fighters (@ around 250 mil per flight - 3 squads) that may or may not be able to kill a 500 mil isk battleship - Really isn't worth fielding.

R-isk vs Reward - Carriers suck - By Design
-- - -- - -- - --
Devs can't respond in this thread - They know carriers are bad and don't want to admit their plan all along was to make them next to useless.

How about we just drop the pretense and simply remove carriers - It will save A LOT of negative feedback over time. Although, Devs are great at ignoring customers and just doing their own thing - So negative feedback probably won't be an issue, they just continue to ignore paying customers.

How few subs is enough to keep the servers up?


nothing says capitals need to be good against capitals

basilisk work when you need shields rather than guardians

nothing says they need to be good against citadels however a single carrier can eat a citadels fighters (depending on fit they can be over 1/2 it's dps)

ccps idea isn't bad they are just executing it poorly
Seriously? Carriers are going from a jack of all trades useful ship to a niche "it might work" ship and you seem to be saying this is ok?
I agree the execution of this whole thing is bad. Half finished, untested projects being released onto TQ have always been bad and this one is no better. Problem is, once this goes live it could be years before Devs even look at it again as the next stage of this project will be all consuming - Carriers, Fax's and relevant mechanics need to be as close to right as possible before being released. Right now, carriers are very underwhelming (for those who have spent the time maxing out skills for them) and Fax's are basically not usable, especially with the changes to triage bonuses. Which should really be classed as Drawbacks, not bonuses, whoever thought 70% reduction in cycle time would be a bonus when the modules require so much capacitor, really should learn to play Eve and see how these sort of bonuses / drawbacks work.

Why release a new line of ships that is by design not able to effectively carry out its role. there was nothing wrong with how triage works currently, self repping Archons out of triage were the problem. So why break Triage so badly, if not deliberately when introducing a ship class with that specific role?
Devs have gone out of their way to make ALL capital ships so much more vulnerable - The only likely result being, only large groups will ever use them.
Fax's if not fixed to be effective could lead Eve right back to the days of game destroying ever growing alliances and coalitions. N+1 is just so good for Eve - Look how well it has gone so far.

The larger groups are allowed to grow, the less content there will be - This current war is the greatest show case for how bad large coalitions and alliances are. It has taken countless groups combining (into a giant coalition) and a bunch of overall pretty boring engagements in the effort to break up the CFC and now we have so many blues there is just no content.


Personally, I would like the option on patch day to have all my carrier related skills turned into unallocated SP - The time and SP I have wasted training these ships needs to be taken into consideration and players should have the choice of either risking all that time and SP on whether Devs "might" eventually get it right or not.
Increased build costs, disposable overpriced light fighters, lack of any worthwhile role; my guess is, it will be a very long time before carriers are in a good place again, if ever.

Remote repping Archons were game breaking and needed fixing - Unfortunately Devs got carried away and removed everything a carrier was good for and replaced it with - well nothing really except a lot of crappy micromanagement, a large section of screen space taken up by the new over sized fighter management interfaces, disposable DPS, limited target choice, limited use fighters, etc, etc.
And this is being called "good" only by Devs, who haven't bothered responding to anything in the forums regarding how bad this all looks for the future of Carriers AND the new Fax's.

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
#515 - 2016-04-23 16:08:38 UTC
Your rants seem to be based more on "it don't want change" then any actual issues tough you do bring up the main ones.


Fax now don't even have enough cap to run without working against nuets and the new cap boosters are worthless even on the gal/minm fax.


There is nothing wrong with giving a jack of all trades ships a specific role but they need to make sure they are not severely out preformed in that role by cheaper and less skill intensive ships. So the idea of a dedicated anti sub cap carrier is not a bad thing but in its current state it can't fulfill that role properly.

I have also given up in support fighters being any better than ewar drones

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#516 - 2016-04-23 17:09:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
So assuming they keep the damage and reload as is I think giving them on grid warp drives (again need valid targets just like a ship so you can't just have them warp onto an enemy fleet i.e book mark or fleet member)

Can even give them a low warp speed of 50-100km/s depending on the fighter and its race.

To be honest with this I would even accept the reload to go up from 48s to 60s

Sure they would have low dps but they would have the ability to make use of that range they boast.

Would also mean if you did put a carrier way back behind your lines it could make it very vulnerable

EDIT

They also still need to fix the sensor strength

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#517 - 2016-04-23 19:59:24 UTC
Since there is no Dread thread im just gonna respond here to something i saw a couple pages back.

Dreads fit with HAW's are going to die insanely quickly to capital fit dreads. there should be something like a mode switch where both sets of guns can be equipped and the mode can be switched as we can no longer refit in combat. put a timer on it or something so we are not just waiting to die to a blob of subs or a blap dread. What happened to everyhting allegedly having a counter? what do you guys think?

as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit.

I really love the idea that ccp is trying to present us with more opportunities to use caps in PVP and PVE but PVP i think they have gone in a seriously bad direction and PVE has been all over the place. I'm just lost as to what they thought they were "fixing" with all these changes to carriers in paticular.

I mean i understand they are trying to prevent people botting with carriers but that means nerfing and overcomplicating for legitimate players.

DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#518 - 2016-04-23 20:12:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Gary Webb wrote:
Since there is no Dread thread im just gonna respond here to something i saw a couple pages back.

Dreads fit with HAW's are going to die insanely quickly to capital fit dreads. there should be something like a mode switch where both sets of guns can be equipped and the mode can be switched as we can no longer refit in combat. put a timer on it or something so we are not just waiting to die to a blob of subs or a blap dread. What happened to everyhting allegedly having a counter? what do you guys think?

as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit.

I really love the idea that ccp is trying to present us with more opportunities to use caps in PVP and PVE but PVP i think they have gone in a seriously bad direction and PVE has been all over the place. I'm just lost as to what they thought they were "fixing" with all these changes to carriers in paticular.

I mean i understand they are trying to prevent people botting with carriers but that means nerfing and overcomplicating for legitimate players.

DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT


Anti capital fit dreads should counter anti-subcap fit dreads with ease. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And the counter to anti-capital fit dreads is A: Subcaps, B: Other anti cap Dreads, C: Titans and Supers. You know, basically everything that isn't a carrier. You are really bad at understanding this whole counter thing.

And by the way, angrily yelling at the devs for doing what you think is a poor job and not actually including any way you think they should be changed just makes you look like an idiot.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#519 - 2016-04-23 20:19:55 UTC
Gary Webb wrote:


as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit.

DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT



Carriers don't need drones their superiority fighters eat frigs and desi and the attack fighters are OK against cruisers.


The problem with carriers isn't that they are not good it's that they are more expensive more limited and have a higher sp requirement than other ships that do the same thing. It's why I said range (and sensor strength)is all they really need now

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#520 - 2016-04-23 21:57:38 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Gary Webb wrote:


as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit.

DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT



Carriers don't need drones their superiority fighters eat frigs and desi and the attack fighters are OK against cruisers.


The problem with carriers isn't that they are not good it's that they are more expensive more limited and have a higher sp requirement than other ships that do the same thing. It's why I said range (and sensor strength)is all they really need now


thanks for the constuctive reply. I didnt intednt the caps to be "yelling". just to underscore it as being the most important point of the post.

I didnt not mean to imply I thought the problem was that carriers arent good, I was trying to say that the functionality of a ship I put a lot of time training into can no longer fill a role as well as it used to/it could be filled easier by another ship. I will grant you that the superiority fighters ae not something i have spend much time testing and I will admit that it my own problem. I will hop on sisi tonight and spend some serious time with them. and as for the counters, maybe im just a poor and have a hard time accepting that if i fit my ship to go after sub caps i will be helpless to anything larger and watch my 2.5 billion go boom. but thats just me. just cuz we can afford it doesnt meen we have to like it