Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Arguing for the sake of it - Typical (but I did think you were better than that)
CCP didn't have to say that was the design intention - Common sense, actually using the ship it should be pretty self explanatory - CCP didn't type cast them as having a usefulness anywhere in the game - Players do that working with what CCP provide.
IF CCP didn't design them to be good at killing subcaps, they didn't design them with any thought as to how they would be used (so it would just be poor design). CCP didn't design T3D's to be able to kill everything with all but impunity either but they do.

Your right and as I stated in my post - CCP should have waited more than a few weeks before taking such drastic measures. CCP is well known for swinging the nerf bat too hard and maybe now is the time they stop that and start looking at balancing rather than nerfing.

Yes T3D's were "redesigned" prior to and soon after release - Because they were simply too OP - Since then it has been pretty obvious that the Svipul for one is far to good compared to the other 3 (maybe the confessor comes close), yet any and all complaints about them fall on deaf ears.
PS; it is only laughable if you don't actually play Eve and encounter these things every day. As for the rest being baseless - Again, you would have to play Eve (outside highsec preferably) to see, it really isn't.

Oh and referring to an 8 month old blog that really didn't reveal much of anything in any detail - How out of touch are you with what goes on in Eve TODAY.

I could have just ignored your entire post, which is what I generally do with anything that contains that much unsupported CCP-bashing by volume, but you had some interesting points so I figured I'd address them. If you'd like to put away the insults, towards myself and the devs, since I don't think they add anything or are going to provoke the response you want, then I'd be happy to continue this discussion.

As for design intent vs usage, I don't think you're wrong here, but there has to be some recognition of designer intent vs player usage, and there has to be some give and take here. Players have taken what CCP has given them and made things like 2.5mil EHP T3 Cruisers, Blap-dreads, Blap-Titan fleets, and all manner of other things that were just hilariously bad for the game. Even in the words of the people actually using them.

I'm not pretending that Carriers, in their current incarnation, are anything near that bad, but they do seem to be a bit imbalanced, and I don't think CCP intended for them to be quite as devastating to sub-caps as they've turned out to be. They seem to have been intended as a jack of all trades, master of none, with their utility belt of different Fighters and ability to engage at incredibly long ranges. I don't think this is fully realized even after these proposed changes, but I also think we'll be seeing iterations on Capitals for another 6 months to a year at least, so it's not like this is going to be the final word on Carriers.



I never said I thought they were moving too quickly here, I said there were other examples of them moving this quickly and called out the T3 Destroyers specifically since you seem to think they're still OP. Personally I'm kind of generally ambivalent on the subject. I know they're strong and fairly dominant, but there are also counters available.

Nerfs have to be a part of balancing, if something is performing too strongly it makes zero sense to try and bring everything else up to that thing's level, that is the textbook definition of power-creep. Also you seem to be specifically calling here for the Svipul or T3 Destroyers in general to be nerfed, so I'm not really sure what to make of your apparent distaste for nerfs in general. Do you only dislike them when they affect things you like to play?



I do generally try to cite my sources, and that old blog is about the only one we have for CCP's general intent for the Capital changes. The game is neither purely defined by the players nor by CCP. If you're going to cite intent of design you should be referring to CCP's intent, not what some percentage of the players want for something that is currently in the game or in development.

Also, again, please leave the insults out of it, they don't add anything to the discussion.

On further testing, the raw damage nerf to the secondary attack of light fighters is completely unnecessary.

The application hit does enough to balance out the attack, the raw damage reduction then makes it underpowered.

You have limited charges, and the attack is meant to be used against larger craft.

Why then, does it do less raw dps, than the primary attack.

There is meant to be an interesting choice between stopping to reload or not, currently there isn't.

It feels like a chore simply manually cycling the secondary attack now that it is so weak.

Please restore the raw dps of the attack, and try putting through the (extreme on its own) application change only.

"Powerful secondary attack" no longer describes the ability in its current state.

Would also be very helpful if the secondary attack would simply autorepeat like the primary does.

Cade your argumentation gets us nowhere, you contradict yourself and do not put ANY argument that is actually in favor or against the nerf, or even related to the nerf. so its quite pointless for this thread, so I am just going to be brief.



why are you telling this to me? you are the one that claimed that ccp must have proof and evidence that a nerf is a good idea if they suggest it.

Your whole argument consists of "everything ccp suggest must be a good idea" and goes in circles from there.
The idea that we should prove that a nerf is bad idea without being given any reason for the nerf is just silly. Its basically impossible.
I could do a long explanation why it is to be expected that the damage is already too low against big targets (and already gave a short one) but that is not a proof. And even if it were you could just ask: "well maybe its causing problems in incursion that allow now capitals, your proof didnt contain this!" then I could go back to a lot of analysis, and the you ask "Well maybe they are too strong against citadels!". Then maybe they are too strong against sleeper. then against pocos. then against pos. and so on. This would be completely useless procedure and a huge waste of time.
With what you suggest, it would be impossible to argue against a nerf EVER.

Its quite simpel: if something is not too strong then dont nerf it. if you think its too strong then tell us why and then we can talk about it.

You want to be able to rat without any threat? Go to highsec mate.

no a carrier should be dead meat w/o a support fleet but it should be the undisputed sub cap killing king if it has support. Right now its just useless in a fleet and after this it will be useless period.

either way if a cepter has you held for 30 min where is your def fleet?

Yeah, that's not how Devs work.

The fact carriers will now be weaker against larger ships is simply the way devs see "balance" - Capital ships are meant to die and die relatively easily at that, so by mitigating damage against small ships (deliberately) and against battleships as a side effect - They are essentially following the new ethos of - Everything must be destructible.
Whether it is balanced or fair to carrier pilots is of no concern to Devs, they are appeasing the ones who want easier kills on carriers without having to adapt to a new meta.

For balance, these changes should be introduced 1 at a time over a period of months, not all at once as is intended. By doing it all at once it is carrier pilots who need to once again adjust the way they use their ships, while the risk averse who don't want adapt or whatever get what they want. Easier carriers kills.

Carriers are being nerfed before they have even found their role on TQ and this will continue for as long as a carrier stands a chance of winning a solo vs gang encounter - CCP are making it pretty clear, solo carrier play is not wanted in Eve - Even with the risk, it is seen as unfair to small roaming gangs who primarily, prey on solo players.

PS; Don't put off life waiting for any sort of decent explanation from Devs as to why these nerfs are needed or good for the game - You'll die having missed out on a lot.
Quite simply, these nerfs are what they are because a dev thinks it should be so.



For Devs, once carriers are forced to always have support - The whining will increase 10 fold because the small gangs who want to kill carriers will become lossmails even more efficiently. But then, you can always nerf carriers - Again..

Edit; I agree scan res of the NSA being reduced and stacking bonuses is a good thing - Lets start with that and see how things go for a month or 2 before introducing more nerfs.

if you lower alpha even if giving more shots you lose the point of the carrier and break them in large numbers.


however if they raised the alpha lowered the ROF and total number of charges keeping the overall rearm time the same we would get somewhere.

make the rocket salvo something that takes thought to use rather than something you spam when its cool down is up

Current fighters are fine.
Carriers need to have ability to clear tackle for the rest of the fleet.

1.
The light/heavy fighter have a warp drive, so they can follow the carrier through warp. If you recall them while you are warping or before warp it spawn at the edge of the grid and fly the 15000km manually.
Before the capital patch fighter warp every distance over 150km and warps back to your carrier after warping to the edge of the grid.

2.
I do not know which fleet type the carrier should counter. I don't think battleship or dread because they are countering carrier. Carrier are made for killing smaller ships because you do not have big guns but lots of ships(fighters) in frigate size.
First i thought of T3's or T2 frigs but now you raise the signature of the missiles so it cannot be. And fighter are dying very fast vs T3's.

If you use a bomber to counter a battleship you need round about 50m to kill 250m.

So why is a T1 ship that cost 1500m or more so ineffective vs his targets? And what should be the target?
You need lots of skills and isk to fly carrier with faux support but where is their part that a fleet of cheaper and easier to fly faction BS cannot do, especially with a bridge titan?

At the moment carrier are good (gate)camping ships. Well, not the best role i wish but a role. So please do not nerf/kill a role of a ship if you do not have another one. You did this with supercapitals all the years. So please be constructive. Open a door before you close one. It happened too often that someone closed a door and said we will open another one soon™.