These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fighters are pointless now.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2011-10-11 05:31:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
I like how virtually none of the responses actually attempt to mathematically counter the point made by the OP. If fighters are in fact made useless by this change, there's a problem and CCP needs to be made aware quickly.

Though I can tell you from experience on Sisi, CCP seems to be oblivious to these things. Bugs will get reported on the test server repeatedly and CCP will deploy it anyway and then once people scream on in the general forum they'll finally get around to fixing it, saying it slipped through testing.

Rakshasa Taisab wrote:
So fighters will not be able to even hit stationary battleships... You better tell them immediately.

It will be horrible if their nerf of capital ship damage against sub-cap ships ends up nerfing capital ships' ability to damage sub-cap ships, the travesty.


You do understand the difference between fighters and fighter-bombers, right? If you make fighters useless against anything but capital ships, why would you ever use them over fighter bombers, which are specifically made for cap ships?

What the OP is saying is that there is no role for regular fighter drones to fill anymore.
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#22 - 2011-10-11 05:39:34 UTC
Ciel Dunois wrote:
Fighters will have their tracking nerf more than 3 times with the increase of resolution from 125 to 400.

...

That means that fighters will no longer be able to hit STATIONARY BATTLESHIPS.


Resolution and tracking are different things. You can't equate one to the other. Tracking affects how likely you are to hit the target, resolution affects how much damage you do when you do hit. In practice, when you have guns grouped up, they seem very similar since both low tracking speeds or high resolutions mean you have a hard time killing small ships, but it's an important difference. You resolution can never get so bad that you won't damage your target at all where tracking can get that bad.

The damage reduction from having a large signature resolution only kicks in when your resolution is larger than the target's radius. Battleships are all over 400, so your ability to damage battleships will not be affected at all. What it will mean is that you'd have a slightly harder time killing cruisers with fighters and a very hard time killing frigates with them. So, you'll want to stick with fighters for battleships, then go to smaller drones for smaller ships.

PyroTech03 wrote:
Umm...they won't be able to carry t2 heavies and sentries. The bay will only hold fighters and bombers now.

Way to read only part of it :P


No, that was only about supercapitals. Carriers will still get the full range of drones.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2011-10-11 05:40:31 UTC
Oh noes, your supercarrier can no longer solo 5000 battleships.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#24 - 2011-10-11 05:44:00 UTC
OP might have a very valid point. For more info, check some of the information on this thread:

http://eve-search.com/thread/893748

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#25 - 2011-10-11 05:44:49 UTC
I like people here haven't trained reading comprehension I. He's talking about carrier NOT supercarriers. Fighters have trouble hitting cruisers, now they will have trouble hitting battleships.
Zirse
Risktech Analytics
#26 - 2011-10-11 06:32:08 UTC
death2allsupercaps and everything, but I have to agree with the OP.

Give supercarriers the fighter sig nerf if you have to, but keep carriers as they are. They feel perfectly balanced at the moment, disregarding supercaps, I'd like to see them stay that way.
BLACK-STAR
#27 - 2011-10-11 06:48:45 UTC  |  Edited by: BLACK-STAR
despite the morons and before nerf, the fighters are, still till this day... useless. @Obsidian Hawk @DarkAegix btw you're both idiots. biomass yourselves now.

Fighters, true, they can't hit anything. They certainly do deserve much more respect now with the nerfs.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#28 - 2011-10-11 06:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Teamosil wrote:
Resolution and tracking are different things. You can't equate one to the other.
No, they're not and yes you can.

Sig res is a direct multiplier to tracking and an increase in sig res is the exact same thing as a decrease in tracking.
Quote:
Tracking affects how likely you are to hit the target, resolution affects how much damage you do when you do hit.
No. Both affect how likely you are to hit your target.

For reference, the relevant part of the formula is this:

ChanceToHit = 0.5^[ ( angular velocity ÷ tracking × sig resolution ÷ sig radius)² ]

Notice how we're only dealing with multiplication and division in there, so everything works like a multiplier to everything else. Halving the tracking speed has the exact same effect as doubling the signature resolution. Trippling the signature radius has the exact same effect as trippling the tracking. Halving the angular velocity has the exact same effect as halving the signature resolution etc.
Quote:
You resolution can never get so bad that you won't damage your target at all where tracking can get that bad.
Yes it can, for the same reason that the tracking can — because they are all mixed in together. The only unique factor is the angular velocity, which is the only number that can be zero, and which in turn can give you a 100 percent hit chance.
Quote:
The damage reduction from having a large signature resolution only kicks in when your resolution is larger than the target's radius.
There is no damage reduction for turrets. You are confusing them with missiles.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#29 - 2011-10-11 06:51:16 UTC
for fucks sake, forums Evil
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#30 - 2011-10-11 07:06:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Renan Ruivo
It is all so complex that i do believe that it is quite possible that CCP got confused in their own math. I want a supercarrier nerf as well but that is basically making them completely useless for anything other then shooting other capitals.

Which is fine.. but the same goal can also be achieved by removing normal fighters from them.


Carriers are only going to be glorified battleships, whose main use will be for heavy drones.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
CaptainFalcon07
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#31 - 2011-10-11 07:09:26 UTC
Renan Ruivo wrote:
It is all so complex that i do believe that it is quite possible that CCP got confused in their own math. I want a supercarrier nerf as well but that is basically making them completely useless for anything other then shooting other capitals.

And carriers are only going to be glorified battleships, whose main use will be for heavy drones.


A carrier with 10 Heavy drones does 634 DPS, you doing less than a battleship. A rorqual outdpses a carrier using only 5 drones.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#32 - 2011-10-11 07:10:24 UTC
I've been wondering how a ship/drone/etc orbiting another motionless ship has any issues with tracking its target? Are the turrets not always pointing in the same direction, thus resulting in 0 rotation of the turret?

Also, Is the velocity reduction while orbiting at close range and high speed somehow related?

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#33 - 2011-10-11 07:11:12 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
:David Attenborough:

And here, we see the FOTM kiddie in its natural habitat, the forums. This one has just lost his ability to hunt with impunity, never needing to rely on his wit nor his skill. Having grown soft when he could hunt with ease, he has realized that he may struggle to hunt, now that he is on a level playing field with the rest of the jungle. His response, as you can see, is to pull out his hair and gnash at the shadows, occasionally screaming gibberish. He may not survive the winter.

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#34 - 2011-10-11 07:12:33 UTC
well this could be solved easily if they give carriers a bonus on fighters sigs.

Not really bothered with the fact that supercarriers can't kill cruisers anymore.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]
CaptainFalcon07
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#35 - 2011-10-11 07:13:18 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
I've been wondering how a ship/drone/etc orbiting another motionless ship has any issues with tracking its target? Are the turrets not always pointing in the same direction, thus resulting in 0 rotation of the turret?

Also, Is the velocity reduction while orbiting at close range and high speed somehow related?


In real life that how it should be, but CCP have no common sense and make the so that there is transversal.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#36 - 2011-10-11 07:14:04 UTC
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
Renan Ruivo wrote:
It is all so complex that i do believe that it is quite possible that CCP got confused in their own math. I want a supercarrier nerf as well but that is basically making them completely useless for anything other then shooting other capitals.

And carriers are only going to be glorified battleships, whose main use will be for heavy drones.


A carrier with 10 Heavy drones does 634 DPS, you doing less than a battleship. A rorqual outdpses a carrier using only 5 drones.


Yes, but it has much more EHP and its the top word in logistics. Also, its the most versatile ship in the game with the wide variety in drone selection. Not only damage, but all EWAR drones as well. An almost endless supply of heavy EWAR drones is somethin..

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#37 - 2011-10-11 07:14:10 UTC
Renan Ruivo wrote:
Carriers are only going to be glorified battleships, whose main use will be for heavy drones.
No, they will be glorified Logistics ship, whose main use will be to keep the subcap fleet alive while it grinds down the enemies subcap fleet so they can all get to work on the capships, all while said capships are trying to grind down the carriers so their subcap fleet can gain field superiority…

That sad, I kind of agree that 400 sig res is a bit much — somewhere along the lines of 300 base, reduced by skill down to 200–250 could probably do the trick.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#38 - 2011-10-11 07:15:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Renan Ruivo
Ciar Meara wrote:
Not really bothered with the fact that supercarriers can't kill cruisers anymore.


QFT.

Thread is about normal carriers.


Tippia wrote:
Renan Ruivo wrote:
Carriers are only going to be glorified battleships, whose main use will be for heavy drones.
No, they will be glorified Logistics ship, whose main use will be to keep the subcap fleet alive while it grinds down the enemies subcap fleet so they can all get to work on the capships, all while said capships are trying to grind down the carriers so their subcap fleet can gain field superiority…

That sad, I kind of agree that 400 sig res is a bit much — somewhere along the lines of 300 base, reduced by skill down to 200–250 could probably do the trick.


Yes, like i posted above. Did not mean heavy scout drones only, but all kinds of heavy drones.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2011-10-11 07:20:57 UTC
Renan Ruivo wrote:

Which is fine.. but the same goal can also be achieved by removing normal fighters from them.


That sure does seem like an easier solution, doesn't it?
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#40 - 2011-10-11 07:22:34 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Renan Ruivo wrote:

Which is fine.. but the same goal can also be achieved by removing normal fighters from them.


That sure does seem like an easier solution, doesn't it?


Yup.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.