These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[118.6] Capital Balancing

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#481 - 2016-06-23 00:36:02 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Tony Anders wrote:
Yeah, then it wasn't me alone with 8 rockets
CCP are not telling the truth



The charge count seems to be an omission and, if past test servers are any indication, should get patched as soon as CCP realize someone fat-fingered a value.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
New Carrier with fighters, will be worse than "real carriers with old fighters" were prior to Citadel.
There was a reason old carriers used subcap drones in combat - It was because Fighters were bad. Now new carrier with fighters is just as bad as old and without the option to use subcap drones.


Old Carriers were bad for the game in general and generally fluctuated between pure Triage platforms and "horribly OP super-Dominix" depending on where the meta went and how many people an Alliance had that could actually field Carriers.

Comparing current carriers to old Carriers is pretty much an exercise in time wasting because old carriers aren't coming back, especially not the old ones that could use sub-cap drones, and because it's missing everything to do with how new Fighters work.

The biggest thing in this instance is it's looking purely at DPS and not at burst damage. Current Carriers are getting nerfed because their ability to apply burst damage to sub-caps is *way* out of proportion with any other ship in the game right now, and on top of that they're still Capitals which means they out-tank any Sub-cap and can actively tank DPS from multiple of most Sub-Caps.

Doing a straight DPS comparison and then declaring them bad is like looking at 1400 Arties and declaring the DPS bad. You are technically correct, but you are also entirely missing the point.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Small gang should adapt to new carrier/fighters not nerf carrier/fighters to suit small gang.
Planning and implementing changes gradually to see effects is what is needed here, not what is happening (nerf everything at once). Try just reducing NSA and adding sebo stacking penalties first, then see how carriers perform, if they are still considered OP (via collecting statistics, not listening to whiners) then look at other options.


This seems to completely ignore the idea that Carriers may be seriously OP, by statistics, already and in ways that don't just have to do with gate-camps and insta-locking and nothing to do with how many people whine on the forums about something. If what the devs did was entirely based off of whining Cloaks would have been completely removed from the game *years* ago. Those things produce more whine than all of France, Italy, Spain, and California put together.

Only thing I hate more than overly harsh, badly thought out nerfs - Those who multi quote.

Ok mr "CCP know best and I can't think for myself so neither should anyone else".
Fat fingered a value?? It hasn't changed, fat fingering would indicate someone changed something by accident. (the value "8" has been there since these changes were announced

Lets see, IF it indeed does get changed to 12, that will be even worse, unless "someone" at CCP also realize the reload time of light fighters will render them even worse - 72 seconds to reload a squad of light fighters = Dead Carrier.

Old carriers were bad for the game in the context you use. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said - Keep trying.

It is way too soon for such harsh nerfs to something that has been in the game for such a short time. CCP would not have had time to collect a broad enough set of stats to warrant these nerfs, without the stat of whingy whiners being the main one.

Looking at a simple stat for solo kills (which seems to be the biggest issue with carriers)
- In the last 24 hours;

Thanatos - 29
Archon - 9
Nidhoggur - 24
Chimera - 7
Total - 69 solo kills from a class of ship that is an anti subcap platform (it has no other real use)

Svipul - 139 for the same time period
No other ship (admittedly I only searched a limited selection of ships I encounter daily in lowsec) came close to the Svipul, though a few out shined individual carriers it wasn't by enough to be news worthy.

Why has the Svipul for so long been allowed to continue this OP performance in solo PVP, yet carriers which are little more than a month old are going to be nerfed so harshly?
I'll tell you what I think - Carries are capital ships that for a long time were "a jack of all trades", then someone at CCP decided they needed a change, so - minus 50% EHP, minus remote repping, minus triage, minus drones,minus any role in a fleet.
Replaced with, the ability with new light fighters to fight small gangs and stand a chance of victory (in the past, your only hope of surviving was having a decent enough support fleet close to you)

Then it started - Players went out in their small gangs, which could previously easily kill a carrier - and started getting killed by carriers - One month in to the new carrier meta, the tears from those who didn't adapt started flooding devs desks - Devs looked at what was happening (rightly so, small subcap gangs should not die to a capital ship they attacked and are trying to kill) and without looking at the whole picture, which would include - Why are these guys trying to kill a ship that has anti-subcap abilities with such ill prepared gangs, why have they not tried new tactics or even used what existing tactics are available to a gang with murder of a solo ship in mind.
Devs response - We hear you, worry no more, carriers will be nerfed.

Yes carriers need to be balanced but there is a BIG difference between finding "balance" and the proposal Devs have come up with.
NSA reductions first - removes insta locking and blapping of small ships by a solo carrier. Then after a reasonable time if they are still seen as OP, look at other changes.

End Rant.,.,.,.,.

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.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#482 - 2016-06-23 01:00:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:

while i agree that the old fighters would be better than the proposed changes, i still like the idea of making the heavy rocket attack something that you should actually think about when to use; and keeping or increasing the alpha and just nerfing it's application on frigs/cruisers is one way of doing that.


If the balance state of fighters on the test server made them capable of applying more than a single digit percentage of their damage to a frigate under ideal circumstances, I might be on board with this concept. As things stand, the carrier is not capable of applying even 25% of its damage to a slow boating heavy assault cruiser, and requires a substantial number of webs and paints (3 webs, 2 painters) to apply all of it. As things stand, the carriers are essentially an inferior, and more expensive, high angle dreadnought that can be quickly de-fanged and rendered defenseless by a modest number of cruiser-on-down hulls. The carrier simply is honestly not worth fielding over other ships if their damage application remains this poor - with the exception of augmenting the firepower of already powerful and well supported N+1 fleets who were already going to bring enough tackle for the carriers to apply full damage, and dedicated supercarrier disarmament.

While a lot of the flack for the current state of carriers has come from small gang groups and pilots without the option to escalate with capital ships or other reinforcements, these changes will make the entire environment around fielding capital ships even more toxic than it is today.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#483 - 2016-06-23 01:18:20 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
C-137 wrote:
PS. Please post Zealot fit that can apply 100+ dps @ 50km @ 3100ms transveral @ 33m sig. KTHXBAI.

First things first, in a Zealot you have the ability to go around 1500m/s before links in an attempt to reduce transversal. You can also use that speed to close some of the distance, and Zealots are a lot better around 40km than 50km. If you just sit there while the tackle orbits you in a perfect circle at their max speed, you probably won't apply over 100 DPS.

This fit I threw together in a couple minutes can apply over 200 DPS at 50km if it manages to put 1000m/s of its own speed into matching transversal. Obviously there are cap issues but it's just a quick proof of concept.

Note that both of those fits have a reasonable bit of tank. Obviously you could do even better filling the lows with damage/application/cap mods, but we're talking fleet ships here.


I was trying to avoid target painters, since this is not really about fits, but weapon system mechanics... But if you insist, I can put 2 TPs on the VNI, or a TP on the Carrier, or a Capital Neut on the Carrier, or the inty could just warp off from your fits because it is 50km away, you don't have SeBos, and you need someone to tackle it. Even then the carrier I show still does more. Your Valks would take 90s to even reach the Inty. The War-IIs will be 1/3 as potent at best. The harb is a contender, but it's damage band is narrow. A Confessor is pretty much the best out to 50 ish, but is still worse than a carrier.

As for the rest of the thread:

8 Missiles on Light Fighters still on SiSi (reload time is still 6s) 8x6 vs 12x4 (48s both ways, QQ less)
Refueling Fighters resets their MWD cooldown (used for ECM baiting)
VNI with TP's outdamages your Zealot still, and the Harb has a 5% advantage on paper (260 vs 249 applied dps)

People seriously think a carrier applies 25% to a slowHac? Thanatos can hit them for 50% without even any application mods. (This is 1500 applied dps vs 140m sig @ 300 m/s transversal)

I think I got stuck on SiSi by doing a session change 1s before cluster restart, so I might have to wait till next DT for more combat logs.
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#484 - 2016-06-23 01:22:45 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:

while i agree that the old fighters would be better than the proposed changes, i still like the idea of making the heavy rocket attack something that you should actually think about when to use; and keeping or increasing the alpha and just nerfing it's application on frigs/cruisers is one way of doing that.


If the balance state of fighters on the test server made them capable of applying more than a single digit percentage of their damage to a frigate under ideal circumstances, I might be on board with this concept. As things stand, the carrier is not capable of applying even 25% of its damage to a slow boating heavy assault cruiser, and requires a substantial number of webs and paints (3 webs, 2 painters) to apply all of it. As things stand, the carriers are essentially an inferior, and more expensive, high angle dreadnought that can be quickly de-fanged and rendered defenseless by a modest number of cruiser-on-down hulls. The carrier simply is honestly not worth fielding over other ships if their damage application remains this poor - with the exception of augmenting the firepower of already powerful and well supported N+1 fleets who were already going to bring enough tackle for the carriers to apply full damage, and dedicated supercarrier disarmament.

While a lot of the flack for the current state of carriers has come from small gang groups and pilots without the option to escalate with capital ships or other reinforcements, these changes will make the entire environment around fielding capital ships even more toxic than it is today.


agreed, the application nerfs are FAR too harsh as they stand. as i've said before, the main thing that actually needs to happen right now is the addition of sebos to the list of mods disallowed in conjunction with an NSA; do that and suddenly the insta-locking carrier is a thing of the past. this should be done first and ALONE, and then after it is done, ccp should watch and see how much crying there is for more nerfs once the biggest issue is gone.
Fyt 284
Requiem Eternal Holdings
#485 - 2016-06-23 02:00:44 UTC
I think the fact there has been no dev response to the criticism when the nerf goes live in a week is absolutely appalling.
Cade Windstalker
#486 - 2016-06-23 02:18:46 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Only thing I hate more than overly harsh, badly thought out nerfs - Those who multi quote.

Ok mr "CCP know best and I can't think for myself so neither should anyone else".
Fat fingered a value?? It hasn't changed, fat fingering would indicate someone changed something by accident. (the value "8" has been there since these changes were announced


I prefer to be clear about what I'm referring to. I'm also perfectly capable of thinking for myself and forming my own opinions about the changes, but I appreciate your concern.

As for mistakes, fat-fingering, or whatever, I was simply trying to indicate that the value is incorrect on SiSi by mistake, not by intentional malice, which is generally what "lying" refers to. Also if you've ever worked in software you'll know that it's very possible to fat-finger something into *not* changing.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lets see, IF it indeed does get changed to 12, that will be even worse, unless "someone" at CCP also realize the reload time of light fighters will render them even worse - 72 seconds to reload a squad of light fighters = Dead Carrier.

Old carriers were bad for the game in the context you use. Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said - Keep trying.


Nothing forces you to pull in your fighters when they've expended their secondary payload. You can keep them out and dealing damage with their primary weapon or you can stagger your reloads.

As for old Carriers, they were pretty much just bad. Especially the version that could field basically unlimited sub-cap drones, though even old Fighters managed to be pretty terrible for the game with the advent of Skynetting.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
It is way too soon for such harsh nerfs to something that has been in the game for such a short time. CCP would not have had time to collect a broad enough set of stats to warrant these nerfs, without the stat of whingy whiners being the main one.

Looking at a simple stat for solo kills (which seems to be the biggest issue with carriers)
- In the last 24 hours;

Thanatos - 29
Archon - 9
Nidhoggur - 24
Chimera - 7
Total - 69 solo kills from a class of ship that is an anti subcap platform (it has no other real use)

Svipul - 139 for the same time period
No other ship (admittedly I only searched a limited selection of ships I encounter daily in lowsec) came close to the Svipul, though a few out shined individual carriers it wasn't by enough to be news worthy.


This strikes me as a remarkably limited view of the game world and of game balance in general. Carriers have been around for a good few months, and there are some pretty well settled patterns of use at this point. Yes the low-sec camping is an issue, but it's hardly the only one. There's also the issue of Carriers in fleet-fights basically invalidating Logi as they just alpha-strike targets of any size off the field with massed missile spam.

In small gangs a Carrier is a terror, and is even capable of engaging a small gang that isn't prepared fairly specifically to kill one.

The idea that it's *just* solo-camping Carriers that is the issue is laughable.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Why has the Svipul for so long been allowed to continue this OP performance in solo PVP, yet carriers which are little more than a month old are going to be nerfed so harshly?
I'll tell you what I think - Carries are capital ships that for a long time were "a jack of all trades", then someone at CCP decided they needed a change, so - minus 50% EHP, minus remote repping, minus triage, minus drones,minus any role in a fleet.
Replaced with, the ability with new light fighters to fight small gangs and stand a chance of victory (in the past, your only hope of surviving was having a decent enough support fleet close to you)

Then it started - Players went out in their small gangs, which could previously easily kill a carrier - and started getting killed by carriers - One month in to the new carrier meta, the tears from those who didn't adapt started flooding devs desks - Devs looked at what was happening (rightly so, small subcap gangs should not die to a capital ship they attacked and are trying to kill) and without looking at the whole picture, which would include - Why are these guys trying to kill a ship that has anti-subcap abilities with such ill prepared gangs, why have they not tried new tactics or even used what existing tactics are available to a gang with murder of a solo ship in mind.
Devs response - We hear you, worry no more, carriers will be nerfed.


This is pretty ignorant of how CCP have balanced things historically (hint, it's not actually at the whims of whiners). It also misses the note where the Svipul has already gotten a pretty heavy swing with the nerf bat, and CCP actually wanted to nerf it more than they ended up doing but it would have rendered the ship all but useless. Also interestingly those Svipul and Confessor nerfs came after a shorter period than new Carriers have been out for, and before the other 2 T3 Destroyers had even been released.

If you look at what CCP have released as far as the general capital balance plan Carriers were *never* intended by CCP to dominate sub-caps the way they have since release, and they were never supposed to be able to solo roam. Capitals are supposed to be fun and interesting, but that doesn't mean blatantly OP and it certainly doesn't mean 'good value for isk' just 'good value for Pilot at what they do'.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Yes carriers need to be balanced but there is a BIG difference between finding "balance" and the proposal Devs have come up with.
NSA reductions first - removes insta locking and blapping of small ships by a solo carrier. Then after a reasonable time if they are still seen as OP, look at other changes.

End Rant.,.,.,.,.


The main difference, seems to be that you don't like what the devs have come up with, therefore it's not balanced...
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#487 - 2016-06-23 02:23:35 UTC
Fyt 284 wrote:
I think the fact there has been no dev response to the criticism when the nerf goes live in a week is absolutely appalling.


agreed, normally they are really good about listening, and so far the only thing that they seem to have read was the issue with the nag and powergrid...
Cade Windstalker
#488 - 2016-06-23 02:27:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Evelgrivion wrote:
If the balance state of fighters on the test server made them capable of applying more than a single digit percentage of their damage to a frigate under ideal circumstances, I might be on board with this concept. As things stand, the carrier is not capable of applying even 25% of its damage to a slow boating heavy assault cruiser, and requires a substantial number of webs and paints (3 webs, 2 painters) to apply all of it. As things stand, the carriers are essentially an inferior, and more expensive, high angle dreadnought that can be quickly de-fanged and rendered defenseless by a modest number of cruiser-on-down hulls. The carrier simply is honestly not worth fielding over other ships if their damage application remains this poor - with the exception of augmenting the firepower of already powerful and well supported N+1 fleets who were already going to bring enough tackle for the carriers to apply full damage, and dedicated supercarrier disarmament.

While a lot of the flack for the current state of carriers has come from small gang groups and pilots without the option to escalate with capital ships or other reinforcements, these changes will make the entire environment around fielding capital ships even more toxic than it is today.


How is this toxic though? The current environment is basically: see Carrier -> Do I feel like losing most/all of my ships today just to fight something? No? Run awaaaayyyyyy!!!

It sounds like, in your own words, this gives Carriers a role in fleets, just not a dominant one, and it also kind of sounds like there's room in the small to medium gang meta for Carriers with support ships as a tactic, with the fleet built around the Carrier(s) and their ability to project damage on the field. If this kills the solo-PvP Carrier why is that a bad thing for anyone who isn't a solo-Carrier pilot or one of the small number of people dedicated to killing solo-Carriers? (probably by dropping Dreads on them at that...)

Fyt 284 wrote:
I think the fact there has been no dev response to the criticism when the nerf goes live in a week is absolutely appalling.


The devs have pretty much never responded unless they see something worth responding to with something other than "No" or some other argument against what players are saying. They could wade in and explain more or something, but that's generally left for Dev Blogs and IMO it's pretty much a waste of dev time when the best response they could give is something along the lines of "we have heard and considered all of your criticism and feedback, but we disagree and honestly a lot of the feedback was pretty rubbish, so we're going ahead with the changes".

The people who are dead-set against the nerfs are almost certainly not going to have their minds changed by anything less than a thesis level proof, and everyone else will either have their minds changed by the eventual results on Live or CCP will go back to the drawing board and we can have this debate again with the next round of changes.
NaK'Lin
Seamen Force
#489 - 2016-06-23 02:47:28 UTC  |  Edited by: NaK'Lin
Evelgrivion wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:

while i agree that the old fighters would be better than the proposed changes, i still like the idea of making the heavy rocket attack something that you should actually think about when to use; and keeping or increasing the alpha and just nerfing it's application on frigs/cruisers is one way of doing that.


If the balance state of fighters on the test server made them capable of applying more than a single digit percentage of their damage to a frigate under ideal circumstances, I might be on board with this concept. As things stand, the carrier is not capable of applying even 25% of its damage to a slow boating heavy assault cruiser, and requires a substantial number of webs and paints (3 webs, 2 painters) to apply all of it. As things stand, the carriers are essentially an inferior, and more expensive, high angle dreadnought that can be quickly de-fanged and rendered defenseless by a modest number of cruiser-on-down hulls. The carrier simply is honestly not worth fielding over other ships if their damage application remains this poor - with the exception of augmenting the firepower of already powerful and well supported N+1 fleets who were already going to bring enough tackle for the carriers to apply full damage, and dedicated supercarrier disarmament.

While a lot of the flack for the current state of carriers has come from small gang groups and pilots without the option to escalate with capital ships or other reinforcements, these changes will make the entire environment around fielding capital ships even more toxic than it is today.


I'm just going to leave this here:

Pastebin with horrible numbers
The percentages represent how much of the maximum damage they are applying. So 8% means that attack is only applying 8% of it's full damage.

Nope, it's not good now. Literally 2 BONUSED rapier painters and three webs...
Also, in a an interceptor I will *virtually* hold point on a single ratting / solo carrier, forever. Without much attention and just Orbit it'd be somewhere in the 3-5 minute range. With actual effort potentially going into the upper spectrum.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#490 - 2016-06-23 03:19:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Cade Windstalker wrote:
How is this toxic though? The current environment is basically: see Carrier -> Do I feel like losing most/all of my ships today just to fight something? No? Run awaaaayyyyyy!!!

It sounds like, in your own words, this gives Carriers a role in fleets, just not a dominant one, and it also kind of sounds like there's room in the small to medium gang meta for Carriers with support ships as a tactic, with the fleet built around the Carrier(s) and their ability to project damage on the field. If this kills the solo-PvP Carrier why is that a bad thing for anyone who isn't a solo-Carrier pilot or one of the small number of people dedicated to killing solo-Carriers? (probably by dropping Dreads on them at that...)


You are misreading the direction this is going to evolve. With this change in direction, carriers are going to become a ship that requires critical mass to use - but once you reach that critical mass, it becomes incredibly, ridiculously powerful, and the mechanics for countering the carrier will be even more difficult to bring into play than they are now if you are trying to fight outnumbered. Carriers, like Dreadnoughts, will remain dominant on the battlefield (but the situations where you'll actually want carriers over dreadnoughts will once again be limited to near zero). The bar on being able to use them just happens to be going up in a way that limits the number of organizations who will be able to make use of them.

In the current tranquility stats, if you expect carriers, you need ECM to jam the fighters, and you need an unreasonably fast locking speed on your ECM ships to avoid scenarios where the carrier pilot recalls his fighters and re-deploys them to one-shot the ECM ship before he can react. Beyond that unreasonable scenario, the fighters quickly die if they're webbed.

Personally I think the carrier mechanics would play better if the tracking/application was poorer while the fighters were MWDing around the field. Outside of that Zoom-and-boom tactic that deletes ships from the field, I think carriers are in a pretty good place mechanically. Above all else, It's the perfect damage application, regardless of fighter speed, that's currently broken. A more nuanced approach than the missile formula should be used. Nerfing the missile damage application into the ground doesn't actually fix anything.
Shalashaska Adam
Snakes and Lasers
#491 - 2016-06-23 05:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalashaska Adam
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Fyt 284 wrote:
I think the fact there has been no dev response to the criticism when the nerf goes live in a week is absolutely appalling.


The devs have pretty much never responded unless they see something worth responding to.


They update a thread with changes if they alone decide upon them.

That isn't what feedback is meant to be. There should be dialogue, and rebuttals, a back and forth, with reasons stated for their decision, and reasons stated if they disagree with the community provided feedback. Silence isn't feedback.

You have plenty of people just yelling no, sure, but a lot of peoples willingness to write out long reasoned feedback is diminished by the fact it is not responded to. You would be surprised how much people would prefer to be told "no, here is our reasons for not wanting to do that", rather than nothing.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#492 - 2016-06-23 05:33:39 UTC
Shalashaska Adam wrote:
You have plenty of people just yelling no, sure, but a lot of peoples willingness to write out long reasoned feedback is diminished by the fact it is not responded to. You would be surprised how much people would prefer to be told "no, here is our reasons for not wanting to do that", rather than nothing.

Devil's advocate here, since I deal (on a MUCH smaller scale) with customer service -

There's a rule of thumb that you almost never explain a "why" in customer service. You simply and politely lay down a decision. I don't know if it's an American thing, or perhaps global, but people get told a perfectly rational "why", then they want to argue about the "why". It ends up being very unproductive, because customers want to argue every point up to and including the very foundation of your business model because they're "special" and "rules should have exceptions" and "it's just this one time" and "I have a right to know" and and and and....

...and it never ends. We are lucky that we get as much explanation as we do with CCP. Part of it is probably because the "why" is straightforward. "Why were heavy missiles nerfed so bad?" "Because their application was too good". And what does that usually bring here on the forums? Pages of people citing personal and general examples where the application sucks, turrets are better, etc.

The thing is, in my quick example, heavy missiles may have needed a nerf for a hundred different reasons, ranging from over-representation in large fleet battles, play and counterplay factor for both the person using it and the person hit by it, plans down the line to nerf or readjust all missiles and this is just convenient or a bit more urgent right now, etc. But if you post an eight-page summary of the years of data and future plans, you'll have the entire playerbase nitpicking and arguing one way or the other, over every. single. detail.

That's not to say all this are the reasons for a lack of CCP interaction on the forums, I'm just saying it makes sense from my line of experience. Also worth noting, there was a similarly-themed article written on Cracked.com some years back. A mother wrote a funny article about how, when she was growing up, she hated when her parents dropped the "because I said so!" excuse during an argument, and that now that she's a mother, she finds herself finding many very good reasons to do the same to her child. The themes are about identical. If you were ever curious to look it up, I'm sure you could glean some insight into the Developer/customer relationship.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Anthar Thebess
#493 - 2016-06-23 06:11:40 UTC
Sorry, but "ships dying even when we have 30 logistic ships on grid" is not a problem.
This 30 logistics repairing 1 ship is more cancerous than carrier sitting on lowsec gate.

Nothing should be untouchable - and biggest argument against current carrier is that : this ships should not die, because :
- it was linked and snaked and moving fast
- it was repaired by so many logistics ...


CCP re analyze this changes.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#494 - 2016-06-23 06:54:56 UTC
Fyt 284 wrote:
I think the fact there has been no dev response to the criticism when the nerf goes live in a week is absolutely appalling.

Quote for truth.

A triple simultaneous nerf because a group that uses ships as broken as snaked linked Orthruses complained is so absurd that it actually makes me reconsider my subscription (main and cyno).
Robertina Palazzo
#495 - 2016-06-23 07:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Robertina Palazzo
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Sorry, but "ships dying even when we have 30 logistic ships on grid" is not a problem.
This 30 logistics repairing 1 ship is more cancerous than carrier sitting on lowsec gate.

Nothing should be untouchable - and biggest argument against current carrier is that : this ships should not die, because :
- it was linked and snaked and moving fast
- it was repaired by so many logistics ...


CCP re analyze this changes.



Pvpers who want easy kills whine harder than anything else on the entire forums. Most people who cry about "ships being too safe" either a) afk cloak camp for hot drops or b) only fly interceptors/other "untouchable" ships they EXPECT never to die in

But somehow use the argument other things should die easier. Roll

CCP ****** up making carriers anti small ship platforms, ruining the whiniest group in eve's free kill train, and they would NOT change their ways to work around it.

CCP is just trying to fix it before we all drown in the tears of pvp carebears who need their nigh-untouchable cheap ships to remain that way in small gang pvp.
Anthar Thebess
#496 - 2016-06-23 07:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
I have no problem that carriers will die.
Current fighter bombers even ensure that carrier will die - people use them in battles as they are useful.
Slow but useful.
All groups start to evolve to 3 fleets working together.

Sub capitals (battleships or cruiser) try to do main objective, or pin down enemy fleet so it can be escalated to carriers, both groups also keep dreads ready if any carriers will be tackled.

This is how it should be working - and what is wrong with this?
At some point it will end up in 100 dead capitals on a killboard (now the best part ) from both fighting groups.
Huge PR for CCP and a lot of fun for players.

For people who someone say that light fighters will hit dreads good - no one will drop dreads on carriers that cannot do good damage against sub capitals, as sub capitals will take care of them easily - so what is the point of any escalation?

What is the point of bringing carrier on battlefield grid when the same pilot in battleship will be more useful?
Battlefields are to dynamic for upcoming carriers to have any effect.


Next thing is the anti tackle capability of carrier - currently i will gladly drop my carrier in the middle of the enemy fleet to kill few dictors or hictors before it will die - just to save something bigger.
After this change i will just bring some hac that will outperform new carrier.


We have issues with T3 destroyers, nullified interceptors, linked ships like orthurus, swarm of logistic ships that can save any thing from dying for years , and yet after a month carriers are nerfed to the ground as they are no more easy targets for small gangs.
We didn't have bigger capital fight.
Few battles that have dedicated capital wing , PL vs OSS fight - and in all cases carriers proved to be useful as support, that will die.

They cannot have big impact on new sov mechanic - nodes spawn and despawn - carriers are to slow.

If someone form CCP read this posts, can we get at least clarification - what is wrong with current carriers?
There is easier to find DEV on reddit than on official forum

For me and many other players - the only issue with carriers are the lowsec gate and FW plex camps.
Instant lock is going away - and people don't have any issue with this.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Robertina Palazzo
#497 - 2016-06-23 07:36:22 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
I have no problem that carriers will die.
Current fighter bombers even ensure that carrier will die - people use them in battles as they are useful.
Slow but useful.
All groups start to evolve to 3 fleets working together.

Sub capitals (battleships or cruiser) try to do main objective, or pin down enemy fleet so it can be escalated to carriers, both groups also keep dreads ready if any carriers will be tackled.

This is how it should be working - and what is wrong with this?
At some point it will end up in 100 dead capitals on a killboard (now the best part ) from both fighting groups.
Huge PR for CCP and a lot of fun for players.

For people who someone say that light fighters will hit dreads good - no one will drop dreads on carriers that cannot do good damage against sub capitals, as sub capitals will take care of them easily - so what is the point of any escalation?

What is the point of bringing carrier on battlefield grid when the same pilot in battleship will be more useful?
Battlefields are to dynamic for upcoming carriers to have any effect.


Next thing is the anti tackle capability of carrier - currently i will gladly drop my carrier in the middle of the enemy fleet to kill few dictors or hictors before it will die - just to save something bigger.
After this change i will just bring some hac that will outperform new carrier.


We have issues with T3 destroyers, nullified interceptors, linked ships like orthurus, swarm of logistic ships that can save any thing from dying for years , and yet after a month carriers are nerfed to the ground as they are no more easy targets for small gangs.
We didn't have bigger capital fight.
Few battles that have dedicated capital wing , PL vs OSS fight - and in all cases carriers proved to be useful as support, that will die.

They cannot have big impact on new sov mechanic - nodes spawn and despawn - carriers are to slow.

If someone form CCP read this posts, can we get at least clarification - what is wrong with current carriers?
There is easier to find DEV on reddit than on official forum

For me and many other players - the only issue with carriers are the lowsec gate and FW plex camps.
Instant lock is going away - and people don't have any issue with this.


What's wrong is simple in people's eyes: they kill subcaps as a role. But...

"Subcaps" apparantly means nothing but battleships and slow battlecruisers (unless they have logi then they should still live)

The other "unintended inclusions' into the subcap category somehow losing to an anti subcap platform is the problem
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#498 - 2016-06-23 07:42:53 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Shalashaska Adam wrote:
You have plenty of people just yelling no, sure, but a lot of peoples willingness to write out long reasoned feedback is diminished by the fact it is not responded to. You would be surprised how much people would prefer to be told "no, here is our reasons for not wanting to do that", rather than nothing.

Devil's advocate here, since I deal (on a MUCH smaller scale) with customer service -

There's a rule of thumb that you almost never explain a "why" in customer service. You simply and politely lay down a decision. I don't know if it's an American thing, or perhaps global, but people get told a perfectly rational "why", then they want to argue about the "why". It ends up being very unproductive, because customers want to argue every point up to and including the very foundation of your business model because they're "special" and "rules should have exceptions" and "it's just this one time" and "I have a right to know" and and and and....

...and it never ends. We are lucky that we get as much explanation as we do with CCP. Part of it is probably because the "why" is straightforward. "Why were heavy missiles nerfed so bad?" "Because their application was too good". And what does that usually bring here on the forums? Pages of people citing personal and general examples where the application sucks, turrets are better, etc.

The thing is, in my quick example, heavy missiles may have needed a nerf for a hundred different reasons, ranging from over-representation in large fleet battles, play and counterplay factor for both the person using it and the person hit by it, plans down the line to nerf or readjust all missiles and this is just convenient or a bit more urgent right now, etc. But if you post an eight-page summary of the years of data and future plans, you'll have the entire playerbase nitpicking and arguing one way or the other, over every. single. detail.

That's not to say all this are the reasons for a lack of CCP interaction on the forums, I'm just saying it makes sense from my line of experience. Also worth noting, there was a similarly-themed article written on Cracked.com some years back. A mother wrote a funny article about how, when she was growing up, she hated when her parents dropped the "because I said so!" excuse during an argument, and that now that she's a mother, she finds herself finding many very good reasons to do the same to her child. The themes are about identical. If you were ever curious to look it up, I'm sure you could glean some insight into the Developer/customer relationship.



In general I'd say you have a point, but asking for feedback or what people think of the changes demands (to my mind at least) some background information otherwise people have no context to the changes, what goals it delivers.
Lug Muad'Dib
Funk'in Hole
#499 - 2016-06-23 09:43:39 UTC
"Anti-subcap" isn't a role, it's a godmod.
Crazy Vania
EM Program for Training and Youth
#500 - 2016-06-23 09:57:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Crazy Vania
Greetings. I do not own a Carrier. I am an interceptor pilot, and as such I am here to give some perspective.

Today I have spent 4 hours on SiSi with my friends testing these upcoming changes in a standard Malediction[All our inties have a template: Unlinked and Unsnaked [5km/s]+[5k ehp]+[3pts]

I come from a background of 8 years doing things in Stilettos or Maledictions that keep me alive while pointing stuff, so I might be kinda ok at it.

We have, as many other groups, done our testing methodically, from both the perspective of killing carriers, and flying carriers. Post Citadel we saw what carriers did to interceptors and I wept while my friends cheered. Today I sadistically laughed while my friends wept.

Today:

Can a Carrier on sisi kill a single interceptor? No.
Can it force the interceptor to drop the point? Yes, after approx 60 seconds, but not using Cenobytes or Fighters or Grams, but using 2x Heavy neuts, just like any old battleship.

The reason is: I can scram whatever support drone the carrier throws at me at 13km (cenobyte range is 10 I think) and I can survive the Einrehjis by just tanking the light amount of damage they'll do before their MWD turns off and I orbit away. All the while keeping point on the carrier.

A carrier's only hope then is to have 2 heavy neuts, which, well, many will, right? It's just sound. But Heavy Neuts is what battleship use to get rid of tackle. And they won't really kill the inty, they'll just eventually make it have a bad point cycle and either drop point or take too much damage so it has to warp away.

Is this acceptable? I don't know... I don't think so? Before Citadels, a combat fitted carrier could wipe me out in 10 seconds with a flight of 10-15 warriors.

Even though it benefits me as a tackler, I'd like it if Carriers weren't completely shite. I'm happy they don't immediately blap my Malediction anymore, but maybe give them a way to make it risky for me to get in range to them. Right now there is zero risk.

---

And I don't know if my corpies have posted this yet, but this is what I wrote yesterday sitting in a Rapier on sisi:

http://pastebin.com/raw/H2S7s4YC

Enjoy!