These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#761 - 2016-07-01 16:13:43 UTC
Robertina Palazzo wrote:
I just laugh when people post how now t3 destroyers and cruisers godmode vs carriers and people say "working as intended"

How is godmoding against anything working as intended? A carrier fields only "light" fighters and "general" light fighters, both supposed to beat small targets, but cannot beat small targets kappa.

I don't know what's worse, this happened or that people genuinely think it's logical because it only suits themselves.


There are plenty of ships that hard-counter other ships if one or the other is used well or the other incorrectly. Speed tanking Frigates have hard-countered Battleships for years, for example, that's why you either need webs and TPs or Frigate and Cruiser support if you want to run Battleships.

There's an old video of 50 noob-ships killing a Rokh that can't do anything against them, for example.

Also please show where it's stated, anywhere, that Light Fighters should be super amazingly effective against Cruiser and smaller targets... In the original dev blog on Capital Changes the role of Light Fighters was "Optimized for anti-Fighter combat and light damage roles". I get how someone could get "nuke Frigates and Cruisers off the field" out of how they've been performing for the last couple months, but not out of that sentence.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#762 - 2016-07-01 16:29:21 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
..........................

Also please show where it's stated, anywhere, that Light Fighters should be super amazingly effective against Cruiser and smaller targets... In the original dev blog on Capital Changes the role of Light Fighters was "Optimized for anti-Fighter combat and light damage roles". I get how someone could get "nuke Frigates and Cruisers off the field" out of how they've been performing for the last couple months, but not out of that sentence.


I don't often - but that's just a deliberate mis-quotation! Shocked

This is the quote you are looking for......

Quote:
Light Fighters (Usable by all)

Attack - General purpose attack craft.
Space Superiority - Designed to be lethal to fighter and drone craft in its area of operations.


The emphasis is mine - but the quote is from here and long after Fighters were changed from 3 types to 5:

Original Citadel Patch Notes

Long after Devs stopped writing proper Blogs and threw stuff out on Reddit (Arrggghhhh) where it can be conveniently lost.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Momiji Yakumo
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#763 - 2016-07-01 16:52:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Momiji Yakumo
Just saying~ You know you broke carriers when carrier ratting brings you almost the same isk per tick as a battleship, and when you are essentially worth 2 battleships worth of DPS in pvp, only you will die surely in a carrier because a t1 frigate can not only tackle you, but single handedly kill your fighters.

You should not be able to last 5 seconds if you take on a carrier with anything subcapital without logi and neuts, it's a flipping capital ship that has been nerfed to the point that a couple of battleships is literally better, I mean, what is the purpose of carriers now? To counter.... other carriers? It almost has the same ehp as a freighter for Bob's sakes, it can no longer kill interceptors, fighters are squishy and can be killed by said interceptor you can't touch or whoever has a web and scram, and they are now practically squishy giant bricks with squishy fighters that pokes battleships, if you are lucky you will kill 1 before you loose your expensive wing and become helpless. At the very least if they were going to do that to fighters, double the fighter speed and make them tankier. Funny thing is, a carrier cant even break another carriers tank(if active tanked) so its a mandatory suicide fighter match. lol

As for the post I quote now, I agree with the guy's points and I think they are fair. CCP Plez un-nerf carriers so we can use them again, the nerfs addressed things that were not an issue and some that where, you fixed the fast locking issue, then for some reason destroyed its tank, its dps, and made it helpless against small stuff, that escalated quickly.

I quote this guy.

Fyt 284 wrote:
This post is being made with the assumption that damage numbers are going to be boned for the foreseeable future. Carriers will be in a worse state than they were pre-citadel after the nerfs. Citadel changes made carriers a strong anti-subcap choice, after removing triage and slowcat roles for carriers. This was good, as it made a role for carriers that made sense and fit well. Post nerf, application and damage will be so low that the anti-subcap role will be replaced by HAW dreads, who can continue to use ewar, unlike carriers. They'll have better application, better support fittings, and better tank, not to mention be cheaper to lose than a carrier. (Fighter costs / insurance numbers)

A few of the problems I see with carriers as they stand post nerf:
#1: Support fighters are functionally useless. This is probably the biggest problem with post nerf carriers. You can replace basic functionality that literally every other ship in the game can use, by sacrificing 2/3rds of your dps. Even pre-nerf, this choice was uncommon, and unpopular, and post nerf, when carriers will be hurting for damage, this will become non-existent. A simple solution would be to add a 4th/6th tube (yes, supers are included in this) that can only use support fighters, and make the carrier choose between which support fighters they want to bring, and what role they want to fill (anti-sub cap or anti fighter). Worse yet, they can't even fill in as capital support because they can only launch one wing of support fighters.

#2: Inability to use ewar. The ewar penalty made sense when carriers had the 900% NSA, as instalocking ewar carriers would be toxic as ****. Now that carriers will no longer have that advantage, it makes little sense to prevent ewar from being used while the NSA is active. Waiting a minute (which will be the case with or without the NSA) to apply webs, tps, points, etc doesn't promote making choices, it negates them. I am aware that one of the original intents was to fill that void with support fighters, but you can see above why I feel that doesn't work.

#3: Anemic Fighter bays. I doubt anyone has brought this up, because as a dps platform, they don't have a problem. The problem emerges when you force a carrier to adapt to a situation, and *try* to support. Support fighters are big, and very very squishy. There isn't enough room to bring light fighters, anti fighters, and 1 or 2 different support fighters without running the risk of being completely defanged the moment frigates start engaging your fighters. It doesn't help that you can't utilize your entire fighter bay because you can't switch wings without having room to unload your fighters.

These are just my views on carriers, as a carrier pilot. Please note that I did not say that nerfs were unwarranted, but the degree to which carriers were nerfed is extreme, and forces us out of the only role we have.


source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6550068#post6550068
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#764 - 2016-07-01 17:04:55 UTC
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
Just saying~ You know you broke carriers when carrier ratting brings you almost the same isk per tick as a battleship


You're doing it wrong.
Cade Windstalker
#765 - 2016-07-01 17:17:27 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
I don't often - but that's just a deliberate mis-quotation! Shocked

This is the quote you are looking for......

Quote:
Light Fighters (Usable by all)

Attack - General purpose attack craft.
Space Superiority - Designed to be lethal to fighter and drone craft in its area of operations.


The emphasis is mine - but the quote is from here and long after Fighters were changed from 3 types to 5:

Original Citadel Patch Notes

Long after Devs stopped writing proper Blogs and threw stuff out on Reddit (Arrggghhhh) where it can be conveniently lost.


Wasn't aware of the other quote, and I wasn't trying to deliberately obscure or misquote anything. That said, I'm still not seeing anything there that translates to "nukes small ships off the grid" in any way.

"General purpose attack craft" just means DPS ships, and nothing more or less than that.
Momiji Yakumo
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#766 - 2016-07-01 17:50:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Momiji Yakumo
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
Just saying~ You know you broke carriers when carrier ratting brings you almost the same isk per tick as a battleship


You're doing it wrong.

Please teach me Senpai. How is this possible? Could it be because of the NPC types you are killing? I do 1390 to a Blood Pope per hit. lol
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#767 - 2016-07-01 20:21:42 UTC
so, we going to hear anything from a dev weaither they will look further at the over kill nerf to the missiles?
Cade Windstalker
#768 - 2016-07-01 20:28:59 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
so, we going to hear anything from a dev weaither they will look further at the over kill nerf to the missiles?


They've already said they're going to keep looking at it, I linked a post by Larrikin from over in the patch day thread a few pages back. TLDR, they're going to keep iterating but they know exactly what they did to your missiles and it was intentional. They'll see how it performs and look at tweaking things further next patch.

IMO though, you won't be getting your anti-Frigate tactical nukes back.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#769 - 2016-07-01 23:04:23 UTC
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
Just saying~ You know you broke carriers when carrier ratting brings you almost the same isk per tick as a battleship


You're doing it wrong.

Please teach me Senpai. How is this possible? Could it be because of the NPC types you are killing? I do 1390 to a Blood Pope per hit. lol


High attentiveness.
Robertina Palazzo
#770 - 2016-07-01 23:30:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Robertina Palazzo
Cade Windstalker wrote:


There are plenty of ships that hard-counter other ships if one or the other is used well or the other incorrectly. Speed tanking Frigates have hard-countered Battleships for years, for example, that's why you either need webs and TPs or Frigate and Cruiser support if you want to run Battleships.

There's an old video of 50 noob-ships killing a Rokh that can't do anything against them, for example.

Also please show where it's stated, anywhere, that Light Fighters should be super amazingly effective against Cruiser and smaller targets... In the original dev blog on Capital Changes the role of Light Fighters was "Optimized for anti-Fighter combat and light damage roles". I get how someone could get "nuke Frigates and Cruisers off the field" out of how they've been performing for the last couple months, but not out of that sentence.



To address your...point... if i dare to call it that

If the devs say carrier's ONLY role is killing supercarrier fighters.

There is a problem. Period. No ship in the game is that pathetically weak that it's only role is to try and hurt the dps of a single other ship class. I guarantee you that yes, the generalized light fighters are good at killing frigate sized drones. But it's stupid that people cannot, for whatever your reasons are, see that FRIGATE SIZED DRONES = FRIGATE SIZE. Which includes. Wait for it.... frigates!

Yes. a ship that kills frigate sized targets should kill frigates. That is common sense come on

and to quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:


IMO though, you won't be getting your anti-Frigate tactical nukes back.
which i find humorous. Considering. YOU POSTED a link of the devs saying the drones were meant for frigate-sized targets. Pick a point and stand by it, don't just justify your iwin small kitey bullshit button so blindly. every 18 seconds being able to kill an untanked small target is not "op"

its "HARD COUNTERS" which
Cade Windstalker wrote:
There are plenty of ships that hard-counter other ships if one or the other is used well or the other incorrectly.


Your own words
She11by
Big Boys Don't Cry
Kids With Guns Alliance
#771 - 2016-07-02 00:16:50 UTC
Yeah, carrier got dps of the battleship nice ... balanced, btw fighters weak as hell
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#772 - 2016-07-02 00:45:14 UTC
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.

I have removed a rant.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Robertina Palazzo
#773 - 2016-07-02 01:14:56 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Momiji Yakumo wrote:
Just saying~ You know you broke carriers when carrier ratting brings you almost the same isk per tick as a battleship


You're doing it wrong.

Please teach me Senpai. How is this possible? Could it be because of the NPC types you are killing? I do 1390 to a Blood Pope per hit. lol


High attentiveness.


or use a supercarrier which this person is failing to mention :P
Bailian Moxtain
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#774 - 2016-07-02 01:21:26 UTC
Fix CPU on avatar/amarr caps; esp amarr haw-guns are close to impossible to fit
Jalon Kaladreel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#775 - 2016-07-02 05:11:43 UTC
Carrier changes are absolutely ridiculous. Hit the undo button, try again. Seriously. Terrible.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#776 - 2016-07-02 05:35:01 UTC
Robertina Palazzo wrote:


or use a supercarrier which this person is failing to mention :P



I actually get ticks right around and over that as well and I'm in a Nid, not a super. So it's completely possible post patch, just have to adapt and use your salvos on BB only now. But these changes weren't about wallet ticks, they were about insta-locking players on gates and then later, about blapping them off field.

I still think they should have stuck to NSA nerfs only before moving on to application, but it's too late now. Esp when you consider they're now on vacation so we have this for a while.
She11by
Big Boys Don't Cry
Kids With Guns Alliance
#777 - 2016-07-02 14:32:45 UTC
What's the point of getting 9 fighters in 1 squad if u lock all 9 at once? If u want so then make one fighter 9 times stronger \ more durable.
Tony Anders
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#778 - 2016-07-02 15:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tony Anders
She11by wrote:
What's the point of getting 9 fighters in 1 squad if u lock all 9 at once? If u want so then make one fighter 9 times stronger \ more durable.

Becouse carrier (A CAPITAL SHIP) having only 3 fighter (a.k.a. drones) would be re_tarded since even frigates can operate 5 drones at once. and super big ship with super stroong computers controling only 3 drones again is stupid.
That's why it having 27 fighter's.
Szchyactszky
Perkone
Caldari State
#779 - 2016-07-02 17:21:01 UTC
Tony Anders wrote:
She11by wrote:
What's the point of getting 9 fighters in 1 squad if u lock all 9 at once? If u want so then make one fighter 9 times stronger \ more durable.

Becouse carrier (A CAPITAL SHIP) having only 3 fighter (a.k.a. drones) would be re_tarded since even frigates can operate 5 drones at once. and super big ship with super stroong computers controling only 3 drones again is stupid.
That's why it having 27 fighter's.

:D
but essentialy you have only 3 drones....
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#780 - 2016-07-02 17:31:54 UTC
Szchyactszky wrote:
Tony Anders wrote:
She11by wrote:
What's the point of getting 9 fighters in 1 squad if u lock all 9 at once? If u want so then make one fighter 9 times stronger \ more durable.

Becouse carrier (A CAPITAL SHIP) having only 3 fighter (a.k.a. drones) would be re_tarded since even frigates can operate 5 drones at once. and super big ship with super stroong computers controling only 3 drones again is stupid.
That's why it having 27 fighter's.

:D
but essentialy you have only 3 drones....

No, they designed everything around supers, so they still have 5. Normal carriers have to be weaker though, so of course the easiest way is to just force them to use less fighters and only the weak kind.