Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I also didn't say that, this is the character I consider my main and my identity in-game. But it's a poor assumption at best to assume that a single character represents the sum of anyone's experience in-game.



How about I'll present my case and my arguments and you can take them or leave them, correct them, respond to them, whatever. Personally though I find very little value in relating my personal experiences in balance discussions. As you've pointed out, it's a big game and it's silly to assume that my experience is representative of everyone's experience or the sum of what should be considered for the balance of the game as a whole.



I'm actually well aware of how effective remote Logistics can be. It was one of the first T2 ship hulls I trained into and it's still one of my favorite roles to play in fleets.

I'm also a big fan of anything that increases complexity of play at the tactical level, and I do like the changes to RR range, the introduction of MJDs, and the Command Destroyers. I'm also looking forward to Command Links being brought on-grid and being turned into a positional ability as well.

That said though, I don't think any ship type should make another redundant, and that's very much my worry with the amount of alpha Carriers are currently able to put out towards sub-capital targets, especially Cruisers and Frigates. Logistics may be extremely powerful but they don't invalidate DPS ships on their own, and certainly not through base mechanics. They need other ships to function effectively and teamwork is something I am almost always fine with, hence why I keep arguing over TPs and Webs and how that lets you get back most of a Carrier's application against most ship classes.

There are also some fairly solid counters to Logi in the form of Sensor Damps and ECM, and while I'll admit that gets back towards my point about specialist anti-Carrier fleets, remote repair is much more ubiquitous than Carriers (a single ship class). If you bring ECM and Sensor Damps and don't run into a gang with Logi they're still quite useful, and if you do they give you a very effective counter.

As for Carriers vs Logi, that's a fair point. I've been in some of those fights and while I personally had fun I know walking away without much dying leaves a sour taste in some people's mouths. That said, I think there are enough existing counters to Logi that don't completely invalidate them as a class, which is basically what being able to easily nuke things off field does to Logi.

As for Carriers, I should have been a bit more clear that these are things I am worried about happening with the state of the game if things stayed as they are. It's very rare that something comes around and people get immediately sick of dealing with it. That tends to happen over time as what used to be a fun challenge (how can I break this gang's Logi-tank?) turns into a chore (ugh, they have how many Guardians?!?). If Carriers get left in a position where they can just stomp all over everything more or less on their own my worry is that that will put a damper on sub-cap use and smaller roams in general, as what was a fun challenge for some players turns into "Ugh, not this **** again" to the majority.

So I guess my question to you is, at what point do you think a Carrier should *need* support to really be effective? Personally I think they should more or less require it period even at the small gang level, but we clearly disagree on this point at least somewhat, I'd like to figure out where you think Carrier balance should land in numbers rather than "I like it where it is now" because that encompasses a lot of invisible things inherent to your experience that I can't see.

Cade Windstalker - Repeated the same old rhetoric... ...

Pedantic, is about the only word I can think of here, without getting insulting. (which I go to great lengths not to do, even when replying to someone who so obviously blurs the lines between fact and fiction)


My biggest bug with these nerfs - There will be a lot less solo carriers to kill. Those who continue to use carriers for gate camping, will have/need support making them harder to kill. Those small ship, small gang players who complained about being alpha'd by carriers are likely to find the going far tougher once carriers have support that can insta lock, point and web them.

Carriers couldn't (or shouldn't) have been judged as OP in fleets (there hasn't been enough time to gather that type of statistic). Any statistics influencing Devs decisions here would have to be deemed very incomplete.
The meta is too new for Devs to have enough valid information to justify these all these nerfs at once.
I don't know what Devs motive for this knee jerk set of nerfs was but it certainly wasn't metrics or statistics.
Using "balancing" carriers as the objective - The NSA was too strong, change it, then allow a reasonable amount of time to gather relevant information (2 or 3 weeks is not long enough) before making any other changes.

Problem is, CCP's release cycle of, "add it ready or not", has side effects and allowing Devs to fix (balance) one thing before moving onto something else is just not in the program. Nerf it into the sewer, or just leave it as an opt in (new map, probe and scanning for example) is really not very professional.
Best direction for CCP now, would be to stop adding new stuff until what is already in the game is working as it should be. Using a professional approach and relevant (accurate) information would make Eve a so much better game to play.


And please devs not liking OP - You are kidding right?
-- - -- - --
"By my own admission", I never said carriers would still be able to kill things, as they do now. In fact they will not be able to kill anything as they do now. These nerfs will ensure carriers are far less useful in small gangs, even more so in a fleet situation. Having to use 3 or 4 carriers with support to kill a single subcap, is not balanced. 300% increase in exp radius and 40% reduction in damage isn't seeking balance, it is a direct, deliberate and unnecessary nerf.

Carriers have been treated harshly by Devs here and it will be a long time before they get another look at - Unless it is to further nerf them due to some minority group whining loudly enough.

I know your post was some time ago but please bear with me.

This is bad reasoning. If carriers are supposed to be anti-fighter crafts, how would they be able to hit fighters at all if (in your opinion) they should just be able to hit slow moving battleships?
You are contradicting yourself.

CCP current carriers are solution for the bad logistic ship design.

Can we at least get light fighter regular damage buffed since you know....

they nerfed missile salvo burst by a huge margin AND application as well?

or will that get nerfed too because frigates cant kill carriers easily enough again?



solopwnmobiles generally win vs equal firepower.

and an isd removed a post when i pointed this out(lol), but HAW weapons and light fighters are indeed meant to combat subcaps. Period. That is their sole reason for existence (and sorry mr isd for pointing this out again, but it's the blooming truth).


PS tldr; HAW weapons are made for smaller targets. So are light fighters. They are easily countered by minimal effort and that's something that shouldn't be bitched into nerfs, but played around like every other tactic

thank you for the fact that with every new update makes more and more of our ships useless and not interesting

Wonder if devs do even read the forum, or they just listen to crybaby's and make their own decision regardless of looking at anything what others say what is the real problem. Just a quick question, why didn't t3s got nerfed this fast?

Blin... forgot this one, we're still playing frigate online. Where is Hyde? That's why we voted for him, to do something about the situation.

Too Much Fighter nerf!

You can get enough power grid to fit capital or a plate.
1600 Plates are battleship size yet people put them on cruisers.