Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I hope you guys agree on this:

The Phoenix uses a low amount of BS sized torpedoes, the HAW nag and moros use massive amounts of XL ammo. Hail XL is 12 times the price of Hail L. Void XL is 30 times more expensive then L ....



Pleas change the ammo size to L on all dreads!

Thanks for the extra PG on the nag, but it should be 99K not 80....

Tb o/


ps: For now its still ECM the fighters!!! Dont you just love getting hot dropped by a falcon and poof, useless heaps of space trash....

Well I've got 35 mil EHP for shield vs 42 mil for armor. And that is not including armor bonus from Bus itself, which brings us to 40 vs 54 mil.

That doesnt mean I'm against nerfing CSE, I just dont find that argument valid.

Not really - while torps and the new rocket salvo have very similar explosion velocities and radii once skills are accounted for, the salvo has a much lower damage reduction factor (3 rather than 5), which means it applies significantly better to smaller targets than torps do - for example, torpedoes with two precision-scripted guidance comps would get around 25% damage application to your linked AB mach whereas the salvo with two omnis gets around 36%.

Anyway, I think rapid light/heavy missile launchers are a pretty good point of reference for what constitutes reasonable application for the salvo because they have so many similarities - all three are bursty weapons with long reloads that use missile mechanics and are designed for use on larger ships whose main purpose is to shoot smaller targets. With rapid launchers, you generally apply pretty well to ships one size class down, but those ships can significantly reduce that damage using afterburners and skirmish links. If you're shooting ships two or more size classes down, your application is generally very poor even if the ships aren't taking special measures to mitigate damage. The proposed changes to the salvo seem completely consistent with that trend: you apply the vast majority of your damage to BS and BCs, although they can mitigate it with afterburners and links; you apply a rather smaller fraction to ships two size classes down - i.e. cruisers and below - even if they don't take special measures to mitigate.

As an aside, re: application to the MWD mach, that's again entirely consistent with the trend established by rapid launchers - a rapid light missile ship shooting an MSE dramiel will only achieve 50% damage application under comparable conditions. Using the fastest and lowest sig subcaps in the game as your test cases doesn't give you a representative general picture.

I personally suspect the CSE nerf is more about smaller engagements, like Wormholes or Faction Warfare, PvE fittings of various types, and potential off-brand Battleship fits than it is large capital fights.

That said, given the amount of dislike the CSE changes are getting I'm wondering if people wouldn't feel better about a similar Shield Recharge penalty being added to the CSE rather than the proposed 10% shield amount nerf. That would leave Shield Caps in a better position for those big fleet fights, but nerf them basically everywhere else that I can think of and remove the big concern that large Shield Buffer tanks generally create.

Thoughts, comments?

Woops, my mistake, correcting my post. Thought you could actually fit Cap modules to smaller ships x.x

How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate?

At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones.

^^this^^

imo, the fighters being exactly that, bloody fighters. craft smaller than frigates should have perfect application for their guns on all ships. they are small nimble, weak and vulnerable gunboats that get right up in your face, they should do their normal dps just fine across the board. the rocket salvo alpha was pretty high, and should have been lowered, with the number of salvos usable before reload raised to compensate to keep the dps even.

Based on these changes I suspect CCP disagrees entirely with this supposition, and the general opinion of the player-base seems to agree, considering the number of times I've heard Carriers referred to as OP in just the last couple of weeks.

More than that you're not really basing your argument on any sort of in-game logic here. You're saying that because the Fighters are small they should apply full damage, but that's saying "because real world logic, therefore game mechanics". If you want a game mechanics change it needs to be rooted in game mechanics, to a large extent.

As things stand it's just not balanced for Fighters to apply full DPS to targets of all sizes. They either end up not doing enough DPS to larger targets or too much to smaller ones. Given that an application change makes sense since that's the same scale that other weapons are balanced on, with Battleship guns being bad at hitting Frigates and only okay at hitting Cruisers without assistance of some kind.

Given that, if you want to argue that this is a bad change we shouldn't be talking in terms of percent changes from where things are currently, since CCP clearly feel that where things are now is a bad place to be, but in terms of absolute numbers like volley, sustained DPS, and burst DPS against various targets.

For example it doesn't matter if something only has 20% application to Frigates if that 20% is still over 20k damage (numbers pulled out of this air, not related to Fighter Damage, for example purposes only). Exactly this sort of relationship is what got us old-school blap-dreads and blap-Titans where very little out of a salvo even glanced the target but was still enough to alpha it off field in one go.

Reduced DPS overall, at least without support, seems to be the point.

Out of curiosity what do you think would be the best way to achieve this if not an unassisted application nerf? Leave the application alone and just drop the overall DPS?

You seem to be treating this like CCP don't know what they've done, like they somehow accidentally lowered overall Light Fighter DPS as well as application when that was very clearly intentional. If you have some massive negative effect from all of this then point it out with a coherent argument and numbers to back it up, but just waving around percentages is just going to make whoever at CCP is reading this nod their head and go "yup, that's what we did alright."

The why seems pretty self-explanatory: Light Fighters are too effective.