Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I understand the point you're trying to make, but what you're actually saying is a better argument for nerfing Heavy Fighters than it is for actually supporting the point you're trying to make here.

Basically what this guy said the comment right after yours, in response to someone else:



So, Morrigan, if you want to argue that the nerfs are too severe then come up with some examples for why this is the case against real-world targets, don't just point to something else and say "but now this other thing that should be worse is better!", that probably just means that the aforementioned other thing is also in for a round with the nerf bat.

How about that I need painters to apply fully to a linked mwding rattlesnake? Think 1.8km sig.

How about that I need several webs and linked painters to apply well to an armor mach?

These are battleships. Heaven forfend I should want to shoot a T3 or a logi with their sigs.

Ask yourself this, why are torp fleets not a thing today?

Run the numbers, I've been doing it most of the day, the nerf is exceptionally severe.


Seriously when you're talking about need linked painters AND webs to apply to a BATTLESHIP that's some appalling application, especially when you consider you're incapable of threatening a ship of your own size.


Edit: Here is what torps vs an armor mach look like. http://i.imgur.com/NKhjmst.png

I invite you to look at the hilarious application. NB that fighters will do a bit better because of DRF, but it is a reasonable proxy and quite eye opening.

Yes, thats the problem... carrier is a capital thats bad against capitals.

It was good against subcaps instead, but now this gets nerfed into the ground.

Seriously this nerf is way too much, I can understand to tone the burst/applications against small subcaps down, but a 38% volley decrease together with a 250% expl radius increase together with a 17% expl vel. increase is just too much.

What exactly are carriers supposed to be good against now?
This nerf makes them even worse against caps and bs too. This is ridicilous.

So torps being non viable (because of their application) has nothing to do with fighters being nerfed to have lower application?

I'm having trouble applying damage to anything without so much support it is hilarious.

Were buffer fleet battleships complaining? I certainly missed that.


If light fighters, designed to shoot subcaps cannot get full (or even close to) DPS into a battleship I'm left questioning what the point is.

On top of everything else, that seems way too high.

I was all for moving dps from the missiles to the guns, but this basically just makes the missiles another button we have to press (instead of a special attack), making the carrier playstyle much more bland.

A carrier has about 54.5% damage from primary attack and the rest from spamming the secondary. The secondary got a flat out nerf of about 25% damage, so thats roughly a 12.4% decrease in overall dps. Against large targets!


Against small targets it gets a lot worse, but also more complicated to calculate. From older tests I estimated a DRF of about 3-3.5 for fighters. This puts the application nerf at an additional 63% damage increase, while the primary got a damage increase of about 51%.
This leads to a total decrease of the secondary of about 72%. Since the target was small to begin with, the dps ratio between primary and secondary weapon was different to begin with. The primary has an additional 57% loss compared to the secondary, so the ratio changes to 40% on the primary and 60% on the secondary. This makes this an overall nerf of about 23% against smaller targets.


So your 20% estimation is not far off... depending on the target size and speed, dps decrease is somewhere between 12.4% and 23%.
The decrease in volley is much higher, this came mostly from missiles anyway, so this was decreased by about 75%.

You mean like most Battleship guns can't get their full DPS onto another Battleship (let alone a Cruiser) without significant help either in the form of fittings or EWar?

Not getting the full damage against a target is *not* the same thing as "having trouble" applying damage to it. Blasters at 50km is "having trouble", Arty on a moving target at 10km is "Having Trouble", getting a fairly minor DPS drop on a target at any range because they're moving (at all) is pretty normal.

Torps aren't relevant because the main reason they aren't used isn't really their application, it's because there are just better options for most PvP situations where a torp-fitted ship would be useful. Light Fighters are working in a completely different ecosystem, don't have competition from other weapons a Carrier could fit, and have other advantages over Torpedoes. There is no equivalence between Light Fighters and Torpedoes except on *one stat* which happens to be close in value, which does not make comparing the two in any way valid.

If you want to start making a case for this being a bad change, I suggest you start posting some hard numbers for a variety of cases rather than just alluding to them and then making false equivalencies between Light Fighters and a Torp-fitted Raven (especially using fits and situations that seem to be chosen specifically to be effective at tanking Light Fighters).

Because this goal of yours is explicitly against the goals stated in the original Capital Re-balance, where Capitals, Supers, and Sub-caps wouldn't overshadow each other?

If something is only fun because it's OP then that's bad for the game as a whole. Not because any of the groups you seem intent on disparaging are complaining, but because it creates a game imbalance and pushes everyone toward a monolithic singular style of play that they may not actually enjoy.

Wow, the flood of tears in this thread is amazing.

1. "Dreads are so much better!"
No they are not. Dreads are stationary, carriers are mobile. Carriers can receive reps, dreads not. Dreads can be trackdised, fighters can be killed. You just cant compare them, they are different.

2. "I used to pwn in my big shiny expensive and SP-intensive ship! And now I can not, screw you CCP!"
Maybe you also dream of ye olde days when tracking titans were a thing?

3. "I want to eat battleships on breakfast!"
How long would it take for battleship pilot to understand: see carrier = run ? Not so long, I think. After that, you'll end up fighting ~swordfleets~, svipuls, bombers etc. and complain of frigate menace.

Dreads will apply dps much better to subcaps. Their dps can't be jammed or killed easily like those on a carrier. They can tank much better. They also stand a better chance when fighting super caps unlike carriers with their puny dps and puny tank. The carrier also doesn't have a mobility advantage because it's dog slow and can't be arsed roaming with it; you are committing just as much as a dread when you bring it ongrid.

TL;DR Carriers don't have a place in this game anymore. At no point in time are you fighting battleships on a regular to invest in one and you might as well get a dread with HAW. You are even more likely to use a super carrier than the new carriers.