These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lugh Crow-Slave
#921 - 2016-06-05 22:24:32 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
...


1 by that logic battle ship guns should be better against frigates than frig guns. all sizes of neuts have their uses by making it so the capital ones were not as strong against sub caps ccp only had to balance them against capitals allowing them to be much more powerful in their given role.

2.... again it's almost as strong as an x-type and can swap resistances. the reason no one uses them is because the x-type is still 4% better

3 just because you have no use for the tool doesn't mean there is an issue with the tool


with the NSA by having it add resists you now must take away base resists of the hull making it almost mandatory to use this mod (to lock in smaller fleets and to tank in larger ones) right now it is a much bigger chose. removing the carriers ability to warp does very little balance wise. if you could not catch a carrier you do not deserve the carrier. On a more superficial level it removes the current theme of mobility the carriers have

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#922 - 2016-06-05 22:38:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
...


1 by that logic battle ship guns should be better against frigates than frig guns. all sizes of neuts have their uses by making it so the capital ones were not as strong against sub caps ccp only had to balance them against capitals allowing them to be much more powerful in their given role.

2.... again it's almost as strong as an x-type and can swap resistances. the reason no one uses them is because the x-type is still 4% better

3 just because you have no use for the tool doesn't mean there is an issue with the tool


with the NSA by having it add resists you now must take away base resists of the hull making it almost mandatory to use this mod (to lock in smaller fleets and to tank in larger ones) right now it is a much bigger chose. removing the carriers ability to warp does very little balance wise. if you could not catch a carrier you do not deserve the carrier. On a more superficial level it removes the current theme of mobility the carriers have

1. Wrong. Currently a Heavy neut, medium neut, and small neut are all useful against all classes of ship. Heavy neuts to nuke out targets and then smaller neuts to keep the cap drained with the fast cycle time. The Capital neut is the only one that is useless against every ship except capitals.

2. The resist bonus isn't strong enough to make choosing it over a second Invuln or EANM viable. Only when you get onto the third you would consider using one.

3. They designed a tool that has a very limited use in the majority of situations and is overshadowed by sub capital modules.

4. Disallowing warp wouldn't impact on a carriers mobility if it stays on grid.

Again its just poor design, testing, and balancing on these modules. You even admit that the capital neut was probably developed like that so they didn't have to bother balancing it versus sub capitals. That is just lazy design. (I understand they probably needed to rush these module out in time for the release)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#923 - 2016-06-05 22:52:54 UTC
1. ... i said they each had their uses not that they were only useful against certain classes.

2 not if you are trying to use them as an adaptive but they are not meant to be used as adaptives

3. something niche isn't bad.

4 mobility isn't tied to the grid. besides if they disabled warp the null bears would cry so loud about their ratting ship being pointlessly nerfed it would be swapped right back

the design isn't poor just not what you want. balance is again fine none of the mods are over powered or under powered and each one has situations where they are more viable than their competitors.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#924 - 2016-06-05 23:00:12 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
1. ... i said they each had their uses not that they were only useful against certain classes.

2 not if you are trying to use them as an adaptive but they are not meant to be used as adaptives

3. something niche isn't bad.

4 mobility isn't tied to the grid. besides if they disabled warp the null bears would cry so loud about their ratting ship being pointlessly nerfed it would be swapped right back

the design isn't poor just not what you want. balance is again fine none of the mods are over powered or under powered and each one has situations where they are more viable than their competitors.

I am glad that you are happy with these modules and do not think the design is poor; but I will have to respectfully disagree with you there.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#925 - 2016-06-05 23:02:21 UTC
why because they are not clearly better??

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Longdrinks
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#926 - 2016-06-06 03:36:03 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
maCH'EttE wrote:
[quote=Longdrinks]Are carriers supposed to be able to kill targets while they themselves are safe inside pos shields?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHS-r5v01M

IF CCP WISHES AND THE LARGE ALLIANCES AND CORPS DEMAND IT, IT SHALL HAPPEN. WHO GIVES A TWO SH*** A*** ABOUT THE SMAL GANG PVP CORPS OR PLAYERS.
DROP CARRIERS ON EVERYTHING, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFTY OF A CITADEL, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFETY OF A POS..


Roll

it's a bug report it

The fighters seemed idle. Maybe they "had" been shooting the poco and the Thany warped to the pos when the neutral cloaky cyno came into system.

You know - The smart thing to do if you want to keep your carrier alive.

Patch notes May 2016
Quote:
It is no longer possible to give any commands to fighters (except Recall) while the commanding ship is in a forcefield.

thats why i lock up the poco so you can see it going from 57% to 56% armor because its still being shot by the fighters.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#927 - 2016-06-06 03:39:27 UTC
and you bug reported it right?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Longdrinks
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#928 - 2016-06-06 14:51:32 UTC
yup
Justin Cody
War Firm
#929 - 2016-06-07 21:52:34 UTC
Carriers are dumb at the moment. HIC's despite the long scram are ridiculously vulnerable to being volleyed as are interdiction destroyers. I'm not sure if CCP has really addressed the N+1 situation that existed before properly. It was a good start...but now people are forced into over-sized prop mods since fighters can do 11-15k m/sec and volley interceptors -> Battleships.

I'm excited to abuse this before it gets nerfed.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#930 - 2016-06-07 22:29:23 UTC
Justin Cody wrote:
Carriers are dumb at the moment. HIC's despite the long scram are ridiculously vulnerable to being volleyed as are interdiction destroyers. I'm not sure if CCP has really addressed the N+1 situation that existed before properly. It was a good start...but now people are forced into over-sized prop mods since fighters can do 11-15k m/sec and volley interceptors -> Battleships.

I'm excited to abuse this before it gets nerfed.

With a carrier you are extremely vulnrable to dreads. Literally one dread will ruin your 4-5 billion ISK carrier. I'm glad HICs are getting volleyed off the field, they were far too overpowered and with carriers being the new dominant force in subcapital warfare it levels this playing field out.

A well orchestrated small gang could still quite easily take down a carrier. Although with a dread it is literally as easy as hitting scram and pressing F1 and you can kiss goodbye to that carrier. I don't think people realise quite how easily a dreadnought will demolish a carrier in the current meta.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#931 - 2016-06-07 23:33:02 UTC
Justin Cody wrote:
Carriers are dumb at the moment. HIC's despite the long scram are ridiculously vulnerable to being volleyed as are interdiction destroyers. I'm not sure if CCP has really addressed the N+1 situation that existed before properly. It was a good start...but now people are forced into over-sized prop mods since fighters can do 11-15k m/sec and volley interceptors -> Battleships.

I'm excited to abuse this before it gets nerfed.

So nerfing Carriers and Supers is the answer to "fixing" something that is working as intended?

Actually people are being forced to adapt to a new style of combat, oversize prop mods is one of many options available to those who want to kill carriers.
You bring out a carrier and someone turns up with a small gang or fleet that is fit to fight it, the carrier will die. If you expect to kill carriers with frigates and destroyers - Expect losses, this is how Eve works. The right ship for the right job.

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.
Ormarr Kai
Pator Tech School
#932 - 2016-06-13 18:40:33 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Justin Cody wrote:
Carriers are dumb at the moment. HIC's despite the long scram are ridiculously vulnerable to being volleyed as are interdiction destroyers. I'm not sure if CCP has really addressed the N+1 situation that existed before properly. It was a good start...but now people are forced into over-sized prop mods since fighters can do 11-15k m/sec and volley interceptors -> Battleships.

I'm excited to abuse this before it gets nerfed.

So nerfing Carriers and Supers is the answer to "fixing" something that is working as intended?

Actually people are being forced to adapt to a new style of combat, oversize prop mods is one of many options available to those who want to kill carriers.
You bring out a carrier and someone turns up with a small gang or fleet that is fit to fight it, the carrier will die. If you expect to kill carriers with frigates and destroyers - Expect losses, this is how Eve works. The right ship for the right job.



Exactly this. Destroyers and frigates should stand no chance against a carrier, if you want to bring them down you need to ship up appropriately.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#933 - 2016-06-19 06:54:21 UTC
I'm not really concerning myself about carrier damage output against smaller hulls.
What I AM concerned about is the retardation that is instalocking with the NSA.

I mean, I didn't really want to roam around in a Cruiser or larger anyways Straight


Maybe you folks should sit back and fix/play the game you've ALREADY broken before adding more aust garbage Idea

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Lugh Crow-Slave
#934 - 2016-06-19 07:57:19 UTC
... but even with an nsa they cant insta lock

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#935 - 2016-06-19 09:06:13 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
... but even with an nsa they cant insta lock

2 seconds or under is pretty well instalocking for most ships.
Especially if they have to try to burn back to a gate or out of a bubble.

Currently, a BC will be locked the moment it is lockable, regardless of any module activation.
A Cruiser will be locked in ~2 seconds or less.

Even WITH the proposed changes, if fighters are already on location you will be shredded before you can turn around or warp. Don't even DREAM of roaming anywhere in something remotely tanky.

Instalocking is already a ******* problem in this game, and the NSA just furthers the issue.


Devs, play the game & stop adding garbage.
Just because it looks neat on paper, and maybe the 10% of time there's a massive engagement, doesn't mean it isn't broken as hell for the other 90%.

We're still waiting on those bloody Svipul nerfs.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Lugh Crow-Slave
#936 - 2016-06-19 09:54:43 UTC
.... server ticks alone prevent the carrier + fighters from engaging in 2 seconds even if their scan res was 99999

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#937 - 2016-06-19 17:41:43 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
.... server ticks alone prevent the carrier + fighters from engaging in 2 seconds even if their scan res was 99999


go try it Idea

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Lugh Crow-Slave
#938 - 2016-06-19 23:22:57 UTC
i have and there is even a video in this thread showing the delay....

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#939 - 2016-06-20 02:18:47 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i have and there is even a video in this thread showing the delay....


Once a freaking tech 1 fighter looks at you funny, you go poof in a large frigate. You can't even get a target lock on those. Can I know has 100% application missiles?

Fighters got them, I want them too.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Lugh Crow-Slave
#940 - 2016-06-20 03:47:13 UTC
but they don't have 100%

and the application is easily mitigated so long as the carriers are not full of omnis those are what is to strong not the base states

i have had a mord frig survive 2 volley shots from two carriers so that's a total of 4. with logistics support only reason i died was because i flew into a citadel and let my speed drop to 0.

besides with the changes coming to carriers they are about to get a lot more broken against frigs :/


carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble