These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] Carriers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#941 - 2016-06-20 15:17:24 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements

Hey look Idea

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Tetrach Naari
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#942 - 2016-06-20 22:56:48 UTC
Chimera is now the most useless carrier in game... Fighter ECM boni and resistance is a waste Oops! Thanny easyly gets 1k more dps!!! Carriers are not evenly balanced and should have overall equal dmg application. Since their role is damage application they shoudn't have any ECM nor tanking bonis Ugh
Lugh Crow-Slave
#943 - 2016-06-21 01:04:00 UTC
.... the problem with the archon and chimera is the fighter bay that's it. There is nothing wrong with having the choice of tank over dps

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#944 - 2016-06-21 01:05:25 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements

Hey look Idea



What's your point I have also given several solutions that fix the camp issue without nerfing the hull in the rest of the game

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Blood ofGODS
Relentless Destruction
Immediate Destruction
#945 - 2016-06-22 20:22:01 UTC
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#946 - 2016-06-22 22:11:53 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
but they don't have 100%

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

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

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


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


Well carriers and above are now IWIN-solo-wtf-bbq-pwn-mobiles for all situations and it is okay?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#947 - 2016-06-23 10:23:47 UTC
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.



Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any?
Blood ofGODS
Relentless Destruction
Immediate Destruction
#948 - 2016-06-23 16:22:51 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.



Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any?


Still doesn't change how good they are for PVE, still good for projecting damage, they still do a ton of dps. Now you need a web and an unbonused target painter to apply damage with a capital ship to small targets. Seems reasonable, don't you think?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#949 - 2016-06-23 21:24:03 UTC
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.



Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any?


Still doesn't change how good they are for PVE, still good for projecting damage, they still do a ton of dps. Now you need a web and an unbonused target painter to apply damage with a capital ship to small targets. Seems reasonable, don't you think?


PvE?

LOL
Fyt 284
Requiem Eternal Holdings
#950 - 2016-06-26 13:21:08 UTC
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.



Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any?


Still doesn't change how good they are for PVE, still good for projecting damage, they still do a ton of dps. Now you need a web and an unbonused target painter to apply damage with a capital ship to small targets. Seems reasonable, don't you think?


It would be reasonable, IF CARRIERS COULD USE THEM! In case you forgot, the NSA makes all ewar unusable.

Carriers at the moment have ONE thing going for them: their extreme range. They have no role in fleets, given the fact that if there are caps on field, its better to bring a dread, and if there are subcaps on field, its also better to bring a HAW dread (or more subcaps). Their application is so garbage on SISI that they do less than half their damage to battleships. They no longer have any alpha what so ever, and their total damage was just cut a raw 40%. Tell me, how does all that seem reasonable?
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#951 - 2016-06-26 18:13:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Fyt 284 wrote:
...their total damage was just cut a raw 40%. Tell me, how does all that seem reasonable?

Actually, the total DPS will decrease by about 11%. The alpha of the "rocket" salvo is getting cut by 40% but with an increased rate of fire, resulting in a 26.7% decrease in DPS. The main attack damage remains untouched.

That said, it does seem quite unreasonable. Their DPS is already kind of pathetic when the alpha doesn't get the job done, so they could use more DPS, not less, especially when they can't even apply it all to a battleship without painting and webs.
Blood ofGODS
Relentless Destruction
Immediate Destruction
#952 - 2016-06-27 17:11:35 UTC
Fyt 284 wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.



Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any?


Still doesn't change how good they are for PVE, still good for projecting damage, they still do a ton of dps. Now you need a web and an unbonused target painter to apply damage with a capital ship to small targets. Seems reasonable, don't you think?


It would be reasonable, IF CARRIERS COULD USE THEM! In case you forgot, the NSA makes all ewar unusable.

Carriers at the moment have ONE thing going for them: their extreme range. They have no role in fleets, given the fact that if there are caps on field, its better to bring a dread, and if there are subcaps on field, its also better to bring a HAW dread (or more subcaps). Their application is so garbage on SISI that they do less than half their damage to battleships. They no longer have any alpha what so ever, and their total damage was just cut a raw 40%. Tell me, how does all that seem reasonable?


You mean to tell me that a capital ship might need help from a sub capital ship to apply it's damage? What an unheard of concept. And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#953 - 2016-06-28 07:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.



You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself.

0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits


Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#954 - 2016-06-28 11:56:20 UTC
Actually, it is more like 2 or 3 subcaps to apply around 60% of their DPS to a slow moving battleship.
Even if every fleet had to bring just one subcap to support each carrier, carriers become useless in fleets. You never want more support than DPS.

I know the popular and most used meta for a long time has been N+1 for everything but surely it is time players were able to start looking at different strategies and tactics.

Carriers and Dreads were designed with exactly that in mind and in less than a month Devs decided that carriers were OP so reverted them back to - You need tons of them to be effective, N+1 rules the field once again.

Their logic and reasoning here is exactly the same as with the removal of fighter assist. A minority of players whined loudly enough to the right Dev and because an even smaller minority of players were seen to be abusing a legitimate game mechanic, a well meaning but uninformed Dev helped the whiners by having it, not fixed but removed.
At the time, there were better options but Devs took the easy way out and just removed it, thereby affecting the whole player base rather than just those seen as using it in ways CCP hadn't intended.
They have done the same thing here with carrier light fighter nerfs - The easiest way to be seen to appease the whiners was to nerf carriers beyond anything resembling what they were.

It has been a common outcome for a long time now, with things Devs don't have time to fix (or just don't know how to do it right) they just nerf the shite out of it.

It is time that big Norse nerf hammer was locked in a glass cabinet and put on display in the CCP bar, as a reminder on how not to "balance" the game.
Planning and moderation, will always prove to be better.

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.
Blood ofGODS
Relentless Destruction
Immediate Destruction
#955 - 2016-07-01 01:15:54 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.



You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself.

0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits


Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there.


Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#956 - 2016-07-01 01:21:24 UTC
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.



You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself.

0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits


Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there.


Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron.

Actually, a large signature can compensate for the target moving quickly, so the target painters are a valid approach. Given that they have vastly more range than webs, they may be the only choice.

Also, have you ever seen someone make a Machariel move under 120m/s in actual combat? It's not as easy as it sounds.
Blood ofGODS
Relentless Destruction
Immediate Destruction
#957 - 2016-07-01 02:24:27 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.



You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself.

0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits


Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there.


Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron.

Actually, a large signature can compensate for the target moving quickly, so the target painters are a valid approach. Given that they have vastly more range than webs, they may be the only choice.

Also, have you ever seen someone make a Machariel move under 120m/s in actual combat? It's not as easy as it sounds.


In an actual fleet confrontation, you would use webs. If you use a shield MWD machariel, then your sig is about 2k. You get trashed hardcore. If you use an AB machariel, you're easily caught up to and webbed -- problem solved. Signature only compensates for velocity when the signature is significantly larger than the explosion radius, like 2-3x as much. Why the 100m sig rocket salvo pre-patch could volley a shield cruiser no matter how fast it was going.

That being said, I think the rocket salvo explosion radius nerf was a tad much. It should be around 250~. The rockets should be able to wreck BCs with little issue.
Saleya Blackheart
I've no Idea
#958 - 2016-07-01 08:29:49 UTC
Blood ofGODS wrote:
stuff


Taking your killboard into consideration it is crystal clear why you are defending the fighter nerf this strongly.
Robertina Palazzo
#959 - 2016-07-02 02:50:03 UTC
I do have to ask why pvpers claim "carebears" cry and whine and want safety yet cry every time something requires setup to kill until it is nerfed back into free kb stats?

If you have to cry and throw a tantrum because something is "too hard" to handle (even though others handle it quite fine), well, i needn't even say.

if carriers were "omgbbqwtfwin" mobiles, why were people killing them with easy tank setups? why do they do less dps than dreads (before nerf)? why do fleets destroy their utility? It isn't even difficult logic, you cannot live forever EVEN in small ships, isn't that what you all tell the "carebears"?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#960 - 2016-07-02 20:48:34 UTC
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.



You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself.

0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits


Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there.


Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron.



I'm the "moron" after I trivially demonstrate your claim was complete and unadulterated bullshit? Ok chief.

Let me repaste your drivel for you:

Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints


Or are you trying to claim a completely stationary battleship is relevant?