These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#581 - 2016-06-25 00:09:33 UTC
Fyt 284 wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
whelp.... game, set, match folks; that's it for us.

patch notes are out, no mention of changes to the stuff in the first post of this thread, so much for us trying to get ccp to listen.


CCP does listen.

Sometimes the answer to your request is "no".

And sometimes, we just have adapt and stop using ****** ships. If people stop using carriers because they are garbage, maybe something will get fixed.


Probably. Generally if CCP over-nerf something they do get around to fixing it, and for something as integral as Capitals (which CCP have given a ton of attention to and have a strong incentive to make fun and rewarding but not OP) it's likely exactly that will happen if that's what happens.

Personally, based on what we've seen out of this thread, I think Carriers are going to be plenty worth using, just probably not completely solo. Since that seems to be intended on CCP's part I don't think they'll get a big buff back up just because they can't solo-stomp sub-caps anymore.
Fyt 284
Requiem Eternal Holdings
#582 - 2016-06-25 00:41:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Fyt 284
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Fyt 284 wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
whelp.... game, set, match folks; that's it for us.

patch notes are out, no mention of changes to the stuff in the first post of this thread, so much for us trying to get ccp to listen.


CCP does listen.

Sometimes the answer to your request is "no".

And sometimes, we just have adapt and stop using ****** ships. If people stop using carriers because they are garbage, maybe something will get fixed.


Probably. Generally if CCP over-nerf something they do get around to fixing it, and for something as integral as Capitals (which CCP have given a ton of attention to and have a strong incentive to make fun and rewarding but not OP) it's likely exactly that will happen if that's what happens.

Personally, based on what we've seen out of this thread, I think Carriers are going to be plenty worth using, just probably not completely solo. Since that seems to be intended on CCP's part I don't think they'll get a big buff back up just because they can't solo-stomp sub-caps anymore.



Unless you are part of a blob alliance, they are now long worth flying. There are other ships that will apply more DPS, to small and large targets for cheaper. Super carriers kinda still have a role for anticapital warfare, but regulars have nothing worthwhile to bring to the field anymore.

So yeah, I am extraordinarily disappointed with this patch, since flying carriers has been the most enjoyable part of the game(pre and post citadel). These changes just make it so I am stupid for bringing one out.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#583 - 2016-06-25 01:03:00 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
whelp.... game, set, match folks; that's it for us.

patch notes are out, no mention of changes to the stuff in the first post of this thread, so much for us trying to get ccp to listen.


CCP does listen.

Sometimes the answer to your request is "no".
Much of the time feedback, just seems to be ignored. Devs have better things to do (they have a private bar at CCP HQ remember) than correspond with players in threads they start and ask for feedback in...


And (as in this case) feedback they ask for, isn't really wanted - They only ask for it for appearances sake. Decisions had already been made..

Devs couldn't even be honest about the Shield Extender nerf - My Rag has lost 4.5 mil EHP and passive recharge went down by 136hp/s - 745hp/s compared to 609 now. Really? That little bit of passive recharge means I lose 4.5 mil EHP?

Does anyone honestly think 700 or even 1,000 hp/s passive recharge is going to be of any use to a shield fit super capital in a fight? (on sisi, 3 dreads hit for a combined volley of around 90K hp/s, how does 700 hp/s passive recharge help me?) I'd rather have the 4.5 mil EHP and no passive recharge - At least then I would have close to the same EHP as an Armor ship of the same class.

-- - -- - --
All this nerf does is once again put my Titan on the - NOT TO BE USED - list.
I again have a 115 bil, sort of mobile, jump portal, so others can get to fights.

Thank you Devs so very Fukin much.

I luv my Rag but should have listened to those who knew better and trained for an Erebus or Avatar. After all, Armor is the only meta Devs balance for.

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.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#584 - 2016-06-25 01:18:36 UTC
Fyt 284 wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Fyt 284 wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
whelp.... game, set, match folks; that's it for us.

patch notes are out, no mention of changes to the stuff in the first post of this thread, so much for us trying to get ccp to listen.


CCP does listen.

Sometimes the answer to your request is "no".

And sometimes, we just have adapt and stop using ****** ships. If people stop using carriers because they are garbage, maybe something will get fixed.


Probably. Generally if CCP over-nerf something they do get around to fixing it, and for something as integral as Capitals (which CCP have given a ton of attention to and have a strong incentive to make fun and rewarding but not OP) it's likely exactly that will happen if that's what happens.

Personally, based on what we've seen out of this thread, I think Carriers are going to be plenty worth using, just probably not completely solo. Since that seems to be intended on CCP's part I don't think they'll get a big buff back up just because they can't solo-stomp sub-caps anymore.



Unless you are part of a blob alliance, they are now long worth flying. There are other ships that will apply more DPS, to small and large targets for cheaper. Super carriers kinda still have a role for anticapital warfare, but regulars have nothing worthwhile to bring to the field anymore.

So yeah, I am extraordinarily disappointed with this patch, since flying carriers has been the most enjoyable part of the game(pre and post citadel). These changes just make it so I am stupid for bringing one out.
You can still bring it out mate. That small gang of ceptors and dessies will luv the relatively easy, guaranteed killmail.

Take a carrier out - Die in a blaze of glory (as is CCP intended) - Buy 10 or 12 skill extractors (also good for CCP) - Problem solved.

Alternative - Insure said carrier for max insurance payout - Find 2 or 3 friends and a quiet spot - cash in insurance - use isk to buy anything other than a carrier. (you can get 3 or 4 Rattlesnakes, a dozen Cerberus's or any combination of other ships that will outperform a carrier with the insurance payout)

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.
Cade Windstalker
#585 - 2016-06-25 01:20:39 UTC
Fyt 284 wrote:
Unless you are part of a blob alliance, they are now long worth flying. There are other ships that will apply more DPS, to small and large targets for cheaper. Super carriers kinda still have a role for anticapital warfare, but regulars have nothing worthwhile to bring to the field anymore.

So yeah, I am extraordinarily disappointed with this patch, since flying carriers has been the most enjoyable part of the game(pre and post citadel). These changes just make it so I am stupid for bringing one out.


If I had a million ISK for every person I've seen predict something like this, and then be dead wrong, I'd be able to buy every PLEX in Jita.

Personally I'm not really seeing it. I think they might need some tweaks to get to a really good spot, but I just don't think this is as apocalyptically bad as yourself and some others are making it out to be, and I absolutely thinks Carriers are still going to see use after this patch.

If they're not worth it to you then that sucks, but I think these changes are better for the game than most of the softball stuff I've seen out of this thread, and especially out of the "But Carriers are anti-subcap!" crowd.
Cade Windstalker
#586 - 2016-06-25 01:41:17 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Much of the time feedback, just seems to be ignored. Devs have better things to do (they have a private bar at CCP HQ remember) than correspond with players in threads they start and ask for feedback in...


I assure you, someone at CCP reads more or less everything in these threads, but there is a big difference between volume of feedback and quality of feedback.

"I don't like this!"

"You've ruined this ship/class/skill/weapon/game for me!"

"But now it does 80% less damage against _________"

All of these are not useful feedback for CCP, nor are they anything worth responding to. The closest to useful is the last one, but it's both obvious and says nothing useful or interesting that CCP doesn't already know. They know how much they reduced the damage and application by, that's why they did it.

The only thing that CCP could reasonably expect from responding to feedback like that is an argument, and not a terribly productive one at that.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
And (as in this case) feedback they ask for, isn't really wanted - They only ask for it for appearances sake. Decisions had already been made..


If you want something to not happen then come up with a better argument against it, backed up by more than emotion and "but you're doing [obvious thing] and this is totally bad!"

Good arguments do get results, and CCP definitely pay attention to them. I've seen them change CCP's mind plenty of times, but you really do need a good argument and not just disagreement and emotion. CCP have actually flat out stated the sorts of things they look for several times over the years, and 90% of the posts in this thread were not it.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Devs couldn't even be honest about the Shield Extender nerf - My Rag has lost 4.5 mil EHP and passive recharge went down by 136hp/s - 745hp/s compared to 609 now. Really? That little bit of passive recharge means I lose 4.5 mil EHP?


Somehow I don't think Titans are where the issue comes in.

Best run down I can find of why these things got nerfed is more or less this reddit thread. Passive regen is part of it, but I think the big thing is that if shield can get *fairly close* to Armor in terms of buffer their massive advantage in DPS pushes them over the top in a big way. On top of that CCP seem to be intent on releasing "Shield Slaves" soon, which further buffs shield fits if that happens.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Does anyone honestly think 700 or even 1,000 hp/s passive recharge is going to be of any use to a shield fit super capital in a fight? (on sisi, 3 dreads hit for a combined volley of around 90K hp/s, how does 700 hp/s passive recharge help me?) I'd rather have the 4.5 mil EHP and no passive recharge - At least then I would have close to the same EHP as an Armor ship of the same class.

-- - -- - --
All this nerf does is once again put my Titan on the - NOT TO BE USED - list.
I again have a 115 bil, sort of mobile, jump portal, so others can get to fights.

Thank you Devs so very Fukin much.

I luv my Rag but should have listened to those who knew better and trained for an Erebus or Avatar. After all, Armor is the only meta Devs balance for.


The problem here is that you're both forgetting the Shield/DPS half of the equation here, and that Null fleet fights aren't the only meta the devs have to balance for. They need to try and strike a balance on everything from small fleet engagements in High, Low, Null, and Wormholes all the way up to those massive 5,000 person brawls lasting most of a day, and everything in between.

While I can sympathize on the desire to have your ship be more useful in some area, especially a Titan, the overall game balance has to trump any specific use-case.

Hope this helps explain a few things and help the bitter pill go down easier.
DragonZer0
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#587 - 2016-06-25 01:42:32 UTC
CCP Larrikin would you mind taking a second look at the Nyx? So far out of all the super normal super carrier it is by far the weakest of the group currently.


EHP wise running full tank and based on omni dps
High grade Slave & HG-1006 Implants
x2 faction armor plates and a damage control
A full spread of x-type hardeners and t2 trimarks
I'm seeing an anemic 24mil EHP.

Running x-type explosive and x3 A-type adaptive
Roughly giving it 28mil EHP.

In comparison to any of the others Super carriers using a Hel with out implants
Syndicate Damage Control
Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System x4
Capital 50000MN Microwarpdrive
CONCORD Capital Shield Extender x2
Pith X-Type EM Ward Field
Pith X-Type Thermal Dissipation Field
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Capital Core Defense Field Extender II x3
This gives the Hel just over 29mil EHP before heat.
Add another shield extender for the mwd and an increase of another 8mil ehp.

While the Aeon and Wyvern are suppose to be able to tank more damage they have a reduction to fighter dps.
The Hel on the other hand puts out the same amount of dps as the Nyx and in most ways will out tank it.

More or less I just wanted to bring this up as a topic that should be adjusted.
Personally I would like to see the Nyx give a much higher dps bonus to the heavy fighters making it more of a glass cannon super or another thought would be to add another low slot to offset it low ehp.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#588 - 2016-06-25 03:24:56 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Given the current state of the changes I wouldn't worry about Light Fighters being a solo I-Win button. If you get nuked by a single carrier's fighters, in a decently tanked Cruiser, it will be because you've been webbed, painted, and EWar'd to Jita and back.

As for the last bit, I don't really see that happening. Big fights are, in general, good for the game and 3 players are never going to have a chance against 1000. Not that people really form up fleets like that unless they expect major resistance so... not sure what the actual example case for your issue is. Seems like you may have obscured your point a bit with hyperbole.


I have logs a few pages back showing carrier applying 600+ dps to a cruiser size ship (175m sig) going 900-950m/s, without webs or TPs. That seems a tad high to me.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#589 - 2016-06-25 03:39:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
C-137 wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Given the current state of the changes I wouldn't worry about Light Fighters being a solo I-Win button. If you get nuked by a single carrier's fighters, in a decently tanked Cruiser, it will be because you've been webbed, painted, and EWar'd to Jita and back.

As for the last bit, I don't really see that happening. Big fights are, in general, good for the game and 3 players are never going to have a chance against 1000. Not that people really form up fleets like that unless they expect major resistance so... not sure what the actual example case for your issue is. Seems like you may have obscured your point a bit with hyperbole.


I have logs a few pages back showing carrier applying 600+ dps to a cruiser size ship (175m sig) going 900-950m/s, without webs or TPs. That seems a tad high to me.


Didn't you have a Thanatos fit with Tech 2 fighters, four Fighter Support Units, quad DDAs, two Omnidirectional Tracking Computers with tracking speed scripts, and two more omnidirectional tracking enhancers in the lows?
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#590 - 2016-06-25 05:48:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Can all us carrier pilots start bitching for a 4th fighter tube for support squadrons only now? Also a buff to them while we're at it as they are very lackluster right now. It worked for the small gang to get LFs nerfed because they refused to bring what was necessary to a fight. Maybe we can do it in reverse so we can have options on what to actually launch. (Mind you I completely agree with the NSA nerf and still think it should turn off all SEBOs while active and prevent their activation)


Seriously tho, lets face it, it will always be worth more using 3x light fighter squadrons than 2xLF and a support in near every situation not just simply for damage output. While we're at it I'd also give support squadrons a special ability to add options and power to these little guys.
Cenobite
Basic: Tracking disruption
Special: "Heavy" neut

Scarab
Basic: Jamming
Special: ECM burst

Dromi
Basic: Web
Special: Painter

Siren:
Basic: Sensor Dampening
Special: Scram

I would treat all but the Scarab's specials as a type of overheat, you can leave it running but once its burnt out you lose it till it returns and repairs. Scarab I'd see limited to single use due to it's possible extreme power in a fleet setting. Also would see the Siren changed to a scram to turn off any MWD/MJD but again it's a special, so it would burn out quickly giving only a limited kill time on target before it would be required to return and repair. This now give it a chance to stand against the Dromi which offers consistent webbing of a target.


TLDR - I'd like to see a 4th tube added for support fighters only as was originally thought out. And each support frigate given the abilities of the electronic attack ship counterparts. However giving their more powerful secondary abilities a form of overheat to prevent constant usage to keep power in check.
Robertina Palazzo
#591 - 2016-06-25 05:52:23 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Can all us carrier pilots start bitching for a 4th fighter tube for support squadrons only now? Also a buff to them while we're at it as they are very lackluster right now. It worked for the small gang to get LFs nerfed because they refused to bring what was necessary to a fight. Maybe we can do it in reverse so we can have options on what to actually launch. (Mind you I completely agree with the NSA nerf and still think it should turn off all SEBOs while active and prevent their activation)


Seriously tho, lets face it, it will always be worth more using 3x light fighter squadrons than 2xLF and a support in near every situation not just simply for damage output. While we're at it I'd also give support squadrons a special ability to add options and power to these little guys.
Cenobite
Basic: Tracking disruption
Special: "Heavy" neut

Scarab
Basic: Jamming
Special: ECM burst

Dromi
Basic: Web
Special: Painter

Siren:
Basic: Sensor Dampening
Special: Scram

I would treat all but the Scarab's specials as a type of overheat, you can leave it running but once its burnt out you lose it till it returns and repairs. Scarab I'd see limited to single use due to it's possible extreme power in a fleet setting. Also would see the Siren changed to a scram to turn off any MWD/MJD but again it's a special, so it would burn out quickly giving only a limited kill time on target before it would be required to return and repair. This now give it a chance to stand against the Dromi which offers consistent webbing of a target.


TLDR - I'd like to see a 4th tube added for support fighters only as was originally thought out. And each support frigate given the abilities of the electronic attack ship counterparts. However giving their more powerful secondary abilities a form of overheat to prevent constant usage to keep power in check.


I like it, it beats the current "oh **** an interceptor gang didnt auto win, blanket nerf the hell out of whatever caused that"

Adds complexity, utility, and fixes the issue of one-sided tradeoffs carriers have to face
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#592 - 2016-06-25 06:04:15 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
...
Given the current state of the changes I wouldn't worry about Light Fighters being a solo I-Win button. If you get nuked by a single carrier's fighters, in a decently tanked Cruiser, it will be because you've been webbed, painted, and EWar'd to Jita and back.

As for the last bit, I don't really see that happening. Big fights are, in general, good for the game and 3 players are never going to have a chance against 1000. Not that people really form up fleets like that unless they expect major resistance so... not sure what the actual example case for your issue is. Seems like you may have obscured your point a bit with hyperbole.


I tend to exaggerate sometimes, anyway does a 1.6b pirate boat count as decently tanked cruiser count?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#593 - 2016-06-25 06:19:34 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
...
Given the current state of the changes I wouldn't worry about Light Fighters being a solo I-Win button. If you get nuked by a single carrier's fighters, in a decently tanked Cruiser, it will be because you've been webbed, painted, and EWar'd to Jita and back.

As for the last bit, I don't really see that happening. Big fights are, in general, good for the game and 3 players are never going to have a chance against 1000. Not that people really form up fleets like that unless they expect major resistance so... not sure what the actual example case for your issue is. Seems like you may have obscured your point a bit with hyperbole.


I tend to exaggerate sometimes, anyway does a 1.6b pirate boat count as decently tanked cruiser count?


depends, is it actually tanked or is it fit out for kitey bullshit?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#594 - 2016-06-25 11:17:37 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Much of the time feedback, just seems to be ignored. Devs have better things to do (they have a private bar at CCP HQ remember) than correspond with players in threads they start and ask for feedback in...


I assure you, someone at CCP reads more or less everything in these threads, but there is a big difference between volume of feedback and quality of feedback.

"I don't like this!"

"You've ruined this ship/class/skill/weapon/game for me!"

"But now it does 80% less damage against _________"

All of these are not useful feedback for CCP, nor are they anything worth responding to. The closest to useful is the last one, but it's both obvious and says nothing useful or interesting that CCP doesn't already know. They know how much they reduced the damage and application by, that's why they did it.

The only thing that CCP could reasonably expect from responding to feedback like that is an argument, and not a terribly productive one at that.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
And (as in this case) feedback they ask for, isn't really wanted - They only ask for it for appearances sake. Decisions had already been made..


If you want something to not happen then come up with a better argument against it, backed up by more than emotion and "but you're doing [obvious thing] and this is totally bad!"

Good arguments do get results, and CCP definitely pay attention to them. I've seen them change CCP's mind plenty of times, but you really do need a good argument and not just disagreement and emotion. CCP have actually flat out stated the sorts of things they look for several times over the years, and 90% of the posts in this thread were not it.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Devs couldn't even be honest about the Shield Extender nerf - My Rag has lost 4.5 mil EHP and passive recharge went down by 136hp/s - 745hp/s compared to 609 now. Really? That little bit of passive recharge means I lose 4.5 mil EHP?


Somehow I don't think Titans are where the issue comes in.

Best run down I can find of why these things got nerfed is more or less this reddit thread. Passive regen is part of it, but I think the big thing is that if shield can get *fairly close* to Armor in terms of buffer their massive advantage in DPS pushes them over the top in a big way. On top of that CCP seem to be intent on releasing "Shield Slaves" soon, which further buffs shield fits if that happens.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Does anyone honestly think 700 or even 1,000 hp/s passive recharge is going to be of any use to a shield fit super capital in a fight? (on sisi, 3 dreads hit for a combined volley of around 90K hp/s, how does 700 hp/s passive recharge help me?) I'd rather have the 4.5 mil EHP and no passive recharge - At least then I would have close to the same EHP as an Armor ship of the same class.

-- - -- - --
All this nerf does is once again put my Titan on the - NOT TO BE USED - list.
I again have a 115 bil, sort of mobile, jump portal, so others can get to fights.

Thank you Devs so very Fukin much.

I luv my Rag but should have listened to those who knew better and trained for an Erebus or Avatar. After all, Armor is the only meta Devs balance for.


The problem here is that you're both forgetting the Shield/DPS half of the equation here, and that Null fleet fights aren't the only meta the devs have to balance for. They need to try and strike a balance on everything from small fleet engagements in High, Low, Null, and Wormholes all the way up to those massive 5,000 person brawls lasting most of a day, and everything in between.

While I can sympathize on the desire to have your ship be more useful in some area, especially a Titan, the overall game balance has to trump any specific use-case.

Hope this helps explain a few things and help the bitter pill go down easier.
There is also a very big difference between having someone read a thread and being active in it..
I'll admit, some devs obviously glance at their threads as can be seen herebut if the response doesn't address the post, it is hardly worth them responding at all. Thing goes live in 4 days, while there is still no relevant information about it.

Sorry but your wrong on so many levels here - For a start, the only time my titan has been in nulsec was when it was built..
Shield DPS equation? Who said anything about nulsec?
No they don't, lowering the EHP of shield capitals to less than 3/4 of armor because of a useless attribute - IS NOT BALANCE.
Larrikins Q&A - "Shield gets some passive regen, repairs on the start of the cycle" - Since when do shield extenders have a rep cycle? Making things up as you go using incorrect information as a justification - is not balance.

Massive DPS> With faction guns, I have roughly the same DPS as an Avatar, less than an Erebus. A 2 damage mod Erebus has more EHP (slaves and built in armor bonus), about the same resists and more DPS (18K+) than a 3 damage mod Rag (17K). With stacking penalties, the 4th gyro ends up equal to the Erebus for DPS.
With the changes being released on the 28th, the Rag loses 4.5 million EHP, with no added benefit for it. Putting me even further behind Armor ships of the same class.


Don't presume, or believe everything Devs write, it makes you look a bit of an Ass-inine fool.

PS, you do realize both the titans shown in the reddit post you believe these changes were based on - Have the same DPS and the only reason the shield one has more EHP is due to using all mids and all lows for tank. Shield slaves, coming soon? Do you know how long we have been hearing that. Even if they are coming, wait until they are in the game before "balancing" Shield vs Armor.

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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#595 - 2016-06-25 12:11:35 UTC
Well, RIP carriers. I guess there's a reason they're the only combat capital the Serpentis don't have.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#596 - 2016-06-25 14:20:30 UTC
DragonZer0 wrote:
CCP Larrikin would you mind taking a second look at the Nyx? So far out of all the super normal super carrier it is by far the weakest of the group currently.


EHP wise running full tank and based on omni dps
High grade Slave & HG-1006 Implants
x2 faction armor plates and a damage control
A full spread of x-type hardeners and t2 trimarks
I'm seeing an anemic 24mil EHP.

Running x-type explosive and x3 A-type adaptive
Roughly giving it 28mil EHP.

In comparison to any of the others Super carriers using a Hel with out implants
Syndicate Damage Control
Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System x4
Capital 50000MN Microwarpdrive
CONCORD Capital Shield Extender x2
Pith X-Type EM Ward Field
Pith X-Type Thermal Dissipation Field
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Capital Core Defense Field Extender II x3
This gives the Hel just over 29mil EHP before heat.
Add another shield extender for the mwd and an increase of another 8mil ehp.

While the Aeon and Wyvern are suppose to be able to tank more damage they have a reduction to fighter dps.
The Hel on the other hand puts out the same amount of dps as the Nyx and in most ways will out tank it.

More or less I just wanted to bring this up as a topic that should be adjusted.
Personally I would like to see the Nyx give a much higher dps bonus to the heavy fighters making it more of a glass cannon super or another thought would be to add another low slot to offset it low ehp.


Funny, using EveHq - Nyx with the spread hardener fit has 29,851,294
Triple A Type +X type EXP fit has 35,799,351
Hell with the fit you list - 29,066,225, using 11 slots for tank
Replace MWD with 3rd Extender 37,958,442 but then that is a ship using 12 fitting slots for tank.

And do remember, in a few days Shield Extenders are losing 10% of their strength. So the Nyx will be miles ahead.

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.
Cade Windstalker
#597 - 2016-06-25 16:26:52 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
I tend to exaggerate sometimes, anyway does a 1.6b pirate boat count as decently tanked cruiser count?


Probably, but I'd be really curious to see the fit and how quickly it actually died.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
There is also a very big difference between having someone read a thread and being active in it..
I'll admit, some devs obviously glance at their threads as can be seen herebut if the response doesn't address the post, it is hardly worth them responding at all. Thing goes live in 4 days, while there is still no relevant information about it.


Like I said, and have been saying, CCP will respond when they feel they have something worth saying. Having them jump in to say "no, we disagree" is just going to create a big argument. There was a great post back here that sums up the issues with jumping into a thread to disagree with a user far better than I can here.

There have been threads where CCP were much more active and responsive, and based on what I've seen out of those threads I think they've learned better. Engaging with every bad argument or piece of faulty logic just creates even more and either pisses off or encourages those users who firmly believe that what CCP are doing is the wrong decision and will not be swayed to think otherwise.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Sorry but your wrong on so many levels here - For a start, the only time my titan has been in nulsec was when it was built..
Shield DPS equation? Who said anything about nulsec?
No they don't, lowering the EHP of shield capitals to less than 3/4 of armor because of a useless attribute - IS NOT BALANCE.
Larrikins Q&A - "Shield gets some passive regen, repairs on the start of the cycle" - Since when do shield extenders have a rep cycle? Making things up as you go using incorrect information as a justification - is not balance.


Sorry, I was using "Null fleet fight" as short-hand for "Fleet fight on a scale where Titans might be deployed" or something similar. Doesn't really matter where your Titan is fighting, it's unlikely you're going to drop it on a 20 man gang fight.

Also the repair comment refers to local and remote repair, not Shield Extenders. Having Shields repair on the start of the cycle makes them more Alpah resistant since the server adds up incoming repairs and then subtracts damage each tick before applying that damage to the target.

I honestly have no idea where you got the idea that he was talking about Shield Extenders having a repair cycle...

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Massive DPS> With faction guns, I have roughly the same DPS as an Avatar, less than an Erebus. A 2 damage mod Erebus has more EHP (slaves and built in armor bonus), about the same resists and more DPS (18K+) than a 3 damage mod Rag (17K). With stacking penalties, the 4th gyro ends up equal to the Erebus for DPS.
With the changes being released on the 28th, the Rag loses 4.5 million EHP, with no added benefit for it. Putting me even further behind Armor ships of the same class.

Don't presume, or believe everything Devs write, it makes you look a bit of an Ass-inine fool.

PS, you do realize both the titans shown in the reddit post you believe these changes were based on - Have the same DPS and the only reason the shield one has more EHP is due to using all mids and all lows for tank. Shield slaves, coming soon? Do you know how long we have been hearing that. Even if they are coming, wait until they are in the game before "balancing" Shield vs Armor.


From my perspective you're the one presuming that I don't fact check what I read, no matter who is writing it. If I find reason to disbelieve something I will, but I don't disbelieve it just because it comes from a dev, that's ridiculous, as is the idea that the devs are out to screw the players or are this massively biased entity.

You should also look at situations like when you through a Levi in boosting your Rag to give it more Shield HP.

Also it seems like you're still a little too focused on the Titan use-case and not the much more common Dread/Carrier cases where a Shield Extender or Plate is providing more of a benefit due to the lower base shield HP pool. I get that you're focused on how this applies to and affects you, and I'll agree that right now you're getting the short end of the stick, but CCP have to balance for more cases than just your Rag.
ISD Lyrin Rands
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#598 - 2016-06-25 17:41:07 UTC
I've deleted a couple posts that were obvious rants and not constructive.

Quote:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.


Quote:

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

ISD Lyrin Rands

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#599 - 2016-06-25 18:23:34 UTC
I like the idea with a dedicated support fighter tube. But this was already suggested quite often when the great capital changes were first on the testserver, and never got any feedback from ccp.

Another option would be to increase the number of charges of the rocket salvo to about 30 -40, reduce the reloading to 1-2 seconds per charge, and allow auto repeat.

With the current changes, the rocket salvo is not a burst ability anyway. It does next to no damage against small targets, and so few damage against large targets (which have a lot of ehp), that the alpha is mostly irrelevant.

Its just a "spam this against large targets, to increase your damage from horrible to mediocre" ability.

Considering that the total dps with spamming rocket salvo is now below the dps of old the carrier that could fire indefinitely, and there is no serious alpha as an advantage, there is no reason to keep the disadvantage of having to reload often.
A large number of charges that can be quickly reloaded might be ok, as a drawback when the fighters are used a long distance away, but otherwise there is no reason for this drawback.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#600 - 2016-06-25 20:04:53 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
I tend to exaggerate sometimes, anyway does a 1.6b pirate boat count as decently tanked cruiser count?


Probably, but I'd be really curious to see the fit and how quickly it actually died..


Really?? Fighters were approaching and poof. And on which obituary would you look for ships that died?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever