Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I shouldn't have to spoon feed you a standard armor mach. Application percentages on p15.

You're handwaving everything away because it doesnt suit.

I cannot get 100% applied to a DOUBLE PAINTED BATTLESHIP

This is simply wrong. If that would be the case, it would not be necessary to make a huge nerf to the missile salvo just 2 month after they implemented it. Obviously just because they want to change something does not mean they did have sufficient proof and evidence. CCP makes mistakes. Everyone does. That is what these threads are for.



If they tell me what the data is showing, sure. Obviously I am not going to accept a damage nerf if they tell me the data shows that the application is too good.



Again this is simply wrong. They never said that they want to lower carrier dps. Only application and alpha.



Still wrong, the idea is based on facts, math and tests. There was no hint that they are going to nerf overall dps, there was no complaint about overall dps. These are hints that the dps nerf is a mistake.
There is math to show what this change means (I postet a calculation about 3 pages ago), there are tests and more calculations on the application.
There was a long long discussion in the testserver forum about the carrier changes (just look it up, its probably still there). The result was about this: Carriers are going to be bad against big targets (basically everyone agreed). Some claimed carrier will be useless, some claimed that its ok because carrier are meant to fight smaller targets now, obviously, the latter were right.
Now the first part is pretty obvious if you compare old and new carriers. How often did you see fighter carrier used in serious pvp? Basically never. It was mostly triage or sentries. And the old carrier did a lot more dps than the new one. Just load a old and new eft version, and check the dps numbers. Thanny with 3 DDA, 5x FSU/DCU and 15/27 templar is about 3k dps on old thanny and about 1.7 k dps on new one (eft does not show rocket salvo dps). So you need to spam rocket salvo to get about the same dps as old thanny, but then you are stuck reloading for 48 seconds every 144 seconds, plus flight time (so about 30% dps decrease). So even assuming perfect salvo spamming, and assuming salvos do the same damage as main gun (they do less) you end up with about 2400 dps (new) vs 3000 dps (old)
Additionally the old fighters were harder to kill, harder to jam, and overall faster, except for the short mwd period. And STILL the old carriers were not really used as fighter platforms except for ratting. Obviously the carrier dps is NOT a problem against big targets, if anything it is too weak. Otherwise fighter carrier would have been quite frequent before in pvp.

I am still waiting for ANY good reason to nerf carrier dps against large targets. "They want to do it, so it must be fine" is NOT a good argument, its a really bad one. It that would be a good argument we could just close the feedback forum forever.

The fundamental problem here, I think, is that the battleship you're trying to hit basically has the speed and sig of a fat unlinked cruiser (the mach does 580 m/s with a sig of 229m; an unlinked shield tanked AB moa does 565 m/s with a sig of 180 m). With the missile damage formula being what it is, there's no way to create a weapon system that hits the former for near-full damage without also applying very well to the latter. Linked AB machs mitigate damage from a lot of other missile type weapons - not just cruises and torpedoes, but also faction heavy and heavy assault missiles.

why not adjust it based on the race of fighter

minm low alpha high aplication

gal high alpha low application


also are the support fighters going to get a look at?

if carriers can't find a place as anti sub cap because they will either be "too strong" against small gangs or useless in fleets maybe giving them an e-war role would be better

The mach was not linked. Not recon paints either but still.

So here is a calculation of the damage changes against various targets. The sig and velocity are just simple eft values, without links or anything, just using a typical amount of rigs, plates, extenders. The absolute dps number is for a single templar, not affected by skills, but the important number is the dps change anyway, and that will not change with skills. I used a DRF of 3, not sure if that is correct, but it should be close

            
macha AB            
        primary    secondary
sig    350        
vel    477        
dps old    18,6733259909    7,5670241145    11,1063018764
dps new    14,6537542998    11,3464176868    3,3073366129
difference    0,2152574048    -0,4994557326    0,7022108124
            
            
Macha MWD            
        primary    secondary
sig    2100        
vel    1308        
dps old    24,5891455217    12,5335899661    12,0555555556
dps new    19,9180849591    14,44    5,4780849591
difference    0,1899643303    -0,1521040691    0,5455966393
            
            
            
Rattle MWD            
        primary    secondary
sig    3265        
vel    870        
dps old    26,4955555556    14,44    12,0555555556
dps new    23,492    14,44    9,052
difference    0,1133607314    0    0,2491428571
            
            
Rattle AB            
        primary    secondary
sig    563        
vel    317        
dps old    25,4315564113    13,3760008558    12,0555555556
dps new    20,2862794218    14,44    5,8462794218
difference    0,202318604    -0,0795453855    0,5150551632
            
            
            
Guardian AB            
        primary    secondary
sig    70        
vel    541        
dps old    6,1029277767    2,4730999543    3,6298278224
dps new    4,789227382    3,7083039037    1,0809234783
difference    0,2152574048    -0,4994557326    0,7022108124
            
Guardian AB            
        primary    secondary
sig    70        
vel    237        
dps old    10,3881445211    4,2096057304    6,1785387907
dps new    8,1225174442    6,3121174442    1,8104
difference    0,2180973775    -0,4994557326    0,7069857354
            
Guardian MWD            
        primary    secondary
sig    420        
vel    1384        
dps old    10,571068511    4,2837323344    6,2873361765
dps new    8,2955677377    6,4232670056    1,8723007321
difference    0,2152574048    -0,4994557326    0,7022108124
            
            
            
            
osprey AB            
        primary    secondary
sig    153        
vel    575        
dps old    9,7124301457    3,935784828    5,7766453177
dps new    7,6217576386    5,9015351224    1,7202225162
difference    0,2152574048    -0,4994557326    0,7022108124
            
            
osprey MWD            
        primary    secondary
sig    902        
vel    1506        
dps old    16,3833383283    6,6390484623    9,744289866
dps new    12,8567034384    9,9549592755    2,9017441629
difference    0,2152574048    -0,4994557326    0,7022108124
            
            
            
Archon AB            
        primary    secondary
sig    9920        
vel    206        
dps old    26,4955555556    14,44    12,0555555556
dps new    23,492    14,44    9,052
difference    0,1133607314    0    0,2491428571
            
            
            
Archon MWD            
        primary    secondary
sig    59520        
vel    534        
dps old    26,4955555556    14,44    12,0555555556
dps new    23,492    14,44    9,052
difference    0,1133607314    0    0,2491428571
            
            
Tristan AB            
        primary    secondary
sig    41        
vel    1078        
dps old    2,772458846    1,1234882824    1,6489705636
dps new    2,17566655    1,6846209455    0,4910456045
difference    0,2152574048    -0,4994557326    0,7022108124
            
            
Tristan MWD            
        primary    secondary
sig    246        
vel    2980        
dps old    4,5683006629    1,8512203608    2,7170803021
dps new    3,584940118    2,7758229822    0,8091171358
difference    0,2152574048    -0,4994557326    0,7022108124

(copy and pasting frome excel might have ****** up the formation, I hope its still readable).

As you can see we roughly get a 22% dps nerf for everything. The only exception being bs with very large sigs like Rattlesnakes, where the dps nerf is "only" between 20% and 11%, depending depending on MWD or AB, and capitals where its "only" 11%.
Seriously, this is very bad way of handling the problem of application. For most purposes, you did not nerf application, but just did a huge dps nerf.

edit: the "," is used as a decimal point here.

This is dps.

So here is a suggestion that would give a better result in my opinion:

Based on the planned changes, so the starting point are the nerfs that ccp suggested, i.e. a 350m radius on secondary:
DRF 3 -> 4
Primary damage 72.2 -> 100 (for Templar, same procentual change for other fighters)
Secondary damage 125 -> 150 (for Templar, same procentual change for other fighters)

Compared to the status on tranq, this will result in only slight nerf against fast battleships (-5% for AB Macha), a slight buff against battleships with large signature (+3% AB Rattle, +4% MWD Macha), a signficant buff against ships with huge signature (+16% against capitals or MWD Rattle), about the same nerf as CCPs suggestion against Cruiser with a large signature (-20% for an AB Osprey and MWD guardian), a stronger nerf against cruiser with a small signature (-29% against an AB Guardian) and a much stronger nerf against frig sized targets (-42%/-32% against an AB/MWD Tristan).

You seem to be misunderstanding the point of threads like these. It's not to gather primary feedback on whether or not a change is a good idea, it's to run it by the community, gather feedback, and see if the masses of players have noticed anything that the devs may not have.

As for the idea that CCP should never have to change anything after release, that's laughable. First off, game balance for any sufficiently complicated game will never be an exact science. Second, it's very possible for something to look like a good idea but have issues in practice that math and analysis just don't reveal. Clearly that's what has happened here.



Then I suggest that you just be willing to make some assumptions and assume that if they are nerfing (and to some extent juggling around) application and nerfing the secondary weapon damage then both of those are considered to need a nerf. That's really not much of a stretch and *really* should be very obvious here.



And yet, they've stated specifically what they've done here. You just seem to be unwilling to accept that CCP can change their minds without the need to explicitly state that they've done so.



They really aren't hints at any such thing, and if you've been around the feedback and idea forums long enough you should know this. The general complaint has been that Carriers are too powerful, just because you haven't seen a specific complaint about DPS doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Besides that the idea that CCP needs a specific complaint in order to make a change is way off base. If CCP notices something and thinks it's a problem they can change it, no player feedback needed.



No, there's math to show the percentage difference the changes cause, but nothing that's actually looking at what that *means*. It's all well and good to say that I'm now going X% less damage to ship Y, but unless you get into a discussion of what that means in practice you haven't actually presented any argument for or against the changes, just a bunch of numbers.

How long is that ship going to survive, how much is an alpha-strike going to do, how many Logi would it take to prop up that ship against a given number of Carriers, and how long would those Logi survive if attacked. In order to convince anyone that a change is having an actually negative effect you need to find a situation where the change causes a demonstrated problem, not just wave around percentages, which is most of what's been happening so far in this thread.

Yes it does, right click on a fighter squadron and turn on Weapon 2.

Lol, no it do's not. there is no turn on weapon 2