Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

or you could bring something with actual tank...

that's what a lot of folks dont seem to get, fly anything other than paper-tanked kitey **** and the carrier alpha doesn't hurt anywhere near as bad, to the point that logi can easily keep your ass up.

I don't have to have a hard position in favor of or against the changes. My entire point is, and has been for a good several pages now, that other people don't have any good evidence for the arguments that they're trying to present or that the evidence they're presenting doesn't actually support the argument they're trying to make.



Yup, I also said repeatedly that there are plenty of potential reasons they may not want to share that evidence, which are perfectly valid. Only that if they are suggesting a change that they have sufficient evidence on their side to think that a change is needed and that the change they are making is a good one. The purpose of these threads is for people to put forth reasons a change may not be good.

"This is going to result in X% drop in damage! I think that's too much!" is not a well reasoned argument, it's an opinion. Opinions are not what balance decisions should be based off of and CCP are right to ignore opinions with no facts or evidence to back them up.



No, no it is not, because to prove that a change is a bad idea doesn't require that you disprove the reasoning for the change it just requires that you show a negative effect of the change and why it's a negative.

For example if CCP were to come out and say they're buffing Scram range to 30km I would immediately shoot back with that rendering Points largely obsolete in most circumstances and making MWD reliant ships largely useless because they can no longer close to short-range gun range. I don't need to know anything about why CCP proposed the change to point out why it's bad.

I'm also not just assuming that everything CCP suggests is a good idea, but I am giving them a modicum of credit that their ideas have been put through some basic testing and that they have a reason for what they do, as opposed to those people who seem to believe that CCP are just arbitrarily listening to people whine and making balance decisions purely based on that.



You are far too focused on trying to disprove the underlying reasoning for the changes and not enough on looking at the impact of the changes themselves.

You have also done nothing to show that damage is actually "too low already", you've just posted a bunch of application percentages and other numbers with no context and no look at their wider implication. Show me things like a spreadsheet of how long it takes a Carrier to kill various sig sizes and EHP amounts and maybe you'll have the start of something with some decent real-world context. Of course you also need to look at the amount of damage these things output, it doesn't really matter if a Carrier takes 20% longer to kill a single Battleship if that Battleship is never going to kill the Carrier.



CCP does not have to give a detailed explanation for every change they do. They're generally pretty good about it, but they are not required to lay out every single test and statistic they're referencing, in large part because if they did it would do nothing but give people information to exploit in-game. This is why so many of those reports CCP gives out don't actually go into much detail and stick to broad categories.

Focus on showing why a change is good or bad, or on why the current state of affairs is good or bad, not on disproving the underlying reasoning.

CCP will respond to the former quite well, believe me I know from experience.

Neither of these is the case, when I see someone saying "I feel that this is too high!" I simply have to ask the question "why is that" and look for any kind of supported answer, and I'm not seeing that *ever*. The best we've gotten in this thread has been people calculating application percentages on common fits, something I could have done (and have done in the past) with a spreadsheet in about half an hour given their sig radius and speed.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, it's not me you have to convince and it's not my standards you have to live up to, it's CCP's. Their standards are pretty simple, present a good evidence based argument, not one based on "I feel" or "I think" or "I want". I've been around these forums for as long as this character has been around (over 8 years at this point) and I have a pretty good idea of what passes for a good argument, and what you're presenting here isn't it:



Allow me to explain why this is not an argument against CCP's changes:

First off, point one doesn't really matter, because Carriers before the changes bear very little resemblance to Carriers after the changes. Also the Capital ecosystem that Carriers are being used in bears very little resemblance to the ecosystem after the changes *because of* the Capital changes.

Your logic says that no one should be using Carriers *right now* because they're overall weaker than they were before the changes, but people very clearly are using Carriers.

It also completely ignores anything about Carriers other than tank and raw DPS, for example Sentries were used over Fighters not because they had higher DPS (even against Battleships) but because they applied that DPS instantly and Carriers could carry so many of them they would effectively never run out.

From the dev-blog that I've linked about a half dozen times now we know that CCP never intended Carriers to be the killers of large targets. That role belongs to Dreadnaughts and SuperCarriers with their Heavy Fighters, so lowering their effectiveness against large targets isn't really a big issue, except maybe in the case of something like a HAW fit Dread vs a Carrier, though that's basically a slap-fight and therefore has minimal effect on balance decisions.

I would argue that the effectiveness of Carriers against other Capitals has almost no impact on this set of balance changes, it's almost entirely about Carriers and their effectiveness against sub-capital targets. This has only been reinforced by the discussion in this thread, which has been about how Carriers have only been good against sub-capitals since the changes.

I am assuming you're talking about Capitals when you say "large targets" but if you're talking about Battleships it doesn't really matter, because of this line:

> are not too strong but probably too weak

You have no evidence for this, at all, presented anywhere. I am sorry if you feel that presenting evidence for this is too much of a burden for a forum discussion but if that's the case I wonder how you intend to convince the devs, who spend their days working up spreadsheets and testing things to see if they work, without some hard evidence of your own.

fighter speed needs a huge nerf too by like 30-70%
einherjis with 3 drone navigations computers on a nidho do 20km/s for 20s??? those are pre speed nerf values -
CCP tried so hard to get stuff down to 5-6km /s and maybe like 8/10k a second with snakes and links on ceptors and now introduce a ultra hard hitting fighter that goes far beyond those limits

why probe stuff thats 150-300km away now if your just quicker sending your fighters there ? those speeds are just ********

Okay good sir where do carriers fit into the game after this change?

carriers are so **** after the patch their damage dealt in pvp spiked up by 350%??
less crying about ticks and dank instapops and more NERFING plz
https://i.imgur.com/SRnIFFA.png

You sound like someone who would go to nebraska to surf. Yeah, you sound that dumb. You do realize that carriers were only glorified logistic ships and null ratters before the patch? The patch brought about a fundamental change to carriers that saw them shift to an anti subcapital platform and yet the spike comes as a shock to you?

Yeah they became broken for easy camps but these nerffsites extend beyond that

The issues with pre-nano-nerf speeds had more to do with them being applied to a ship not with things being able to move that fast in general. Fighters being able to run out 250km and hit something isn't hugely different from being able to send a Cruise Missile that far in terms of impact on the game. Also you would need to fit *three* Drone Nav computers to do that which is a pretty significant fitting cost for a really questionable benefit.



I don't really have a satisfying answer for that one right now.

The only two that I've got, based on what I've seen, are:

• Jack of all trades, master of none, because they're fairly decent damage dealers, can project damage basically anywhere on grid, and have Support Fighters to respond to various situations and threats. That said the Support Fighters seem a bit lackluster at the moment and suffer from some of the same issues EWar drones have.
• They're Carriers. They've got some pretty unique mechanics now and I think there's still a lot of room to figure out what they can do with those and what they're good for. Obviously "this seems interesting and has potential" isn't *really* a satisfying answer.

I don't think "wrecker of sub-caps" is really healthy though. CCP seems to rather badly want to move away from the idea that you can field *just* capitals and succeed, and I fully agree that this is a good idea. We've seen what that does to Null and to PvP in general and it just wasn't a great environment for anyone who wasn't a capital pilot.

That said, I don't think I need a satisfying answer to believe that being able to fairly easily blap sub-caps off the field is a bad place for Carriers to be sitting.



More of this please! This is what I call solid supporting evidence! Though please do upload that spreadsheet to Google Drive and post a link so other people can play with it :)

Marranar Amatin take note.

well they have less DPS than dreads and less DPM than a cruiser so thats out. their range (other than nid) is 100km that is not anywhere (paper is not the same as practice) support fighters are a useless joke and their job is done better and should be by the carriers support fleet.


this lake of point of a carriers and this change putting them further into uselessness is the issue. Right now carriers can not be fielded w/o subcap support in any real fight or their fighters will be neutralized almost immediately but with subcap support they are powerful. This is how it should be and even when gate/station camping they still need sub caps to catch anything smaller than a cruiser.

what the issue is right now is that with a carrier and 1-2 ships for tackle you can lock down a gate this change solves that but then goes waaaay beond. A capital can be built to be anti sub cap so long as it can't do that w/o the help of other sub caps and we have this right now.