These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels Release] Capital Ship changes reaching Singularity!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Soleil Fournier
Fliet Pizza Delivery
Of Essence
#141 - 2016-03-23 10:07:53 UTC
Need to change the Masteries for caps too. Supers need Remote Armor, Shield, and Cap removed. Fighter and Burst Projector skills should be added.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#142 - 2016-03-23 10:09:59 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Do FAXes really need 6 high slots? You cannot fit them all reliably with remote assistance modules without sacrificing local tank which was not the case with current triage carriers. I would prefer one of their high slots moved to either a mid or low.
They also need a decrease in scale as you currently cannot see the entirety of their hull in station hangar.


I can get them all full easily of the gal/minm and only with miner sacrifice on the amarr caldari did need some fitting mods however.


Also the carriers stats have not been reballances to accommodate the new changes (like how their thp has not been lowered) so CPU and PG may be changing

Not to mention the compact rr mods ate not even seeded yet

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#143 - 2016-03-23 10:41:45 UTC
Okay, homeworlding fighters is in, and it has a problem.
A big problem
A camera problem.

Well, okay, it's actually a sympthom of a bigger problem - the general control problem.

Currently fighter movement commands are issued in two steps - first you choose azimuth, then you choose elevation.
This means that if the desired waypoint is off-plane, you HAVE to properly determine azimuth before you can visually identify elevation, otherwise you have to redo the sequence from scratch.

This means that a proper identification of azimuth is crucial, and it's best done switching to "top" view (placing the camera to look perpendicularly to the, ehhhm, universal New Eden ecliptic plane).

Here lies the problem - you can't rotate your camera when issuing fighter movement commands, because both things are done with LMB, and fighter movement mode prevents the use of LMB for camera rotation. So you are stuck with whatever viewport you have chosen before entering the fighter movement mode for the whole duration. USing top view from the starts will prevent you from correctly determining elevation. Using any other view from the start will prevent you from determining azimuth.

There are 2 possible solutions:
1) The bad one. Use some other button to separate command steps. This will allow for camera rotation.
2) The good one. Do not atomize the movement mode. Make it possible to freely change both azimuth and elevation at any point during the fighter movement mode, so you could fine-tune the destination in steps.

Okay, actually, do both.
Soleil Fournier
Fliet Pizza Delivery
Of Essence
#144 - 2016-03-23 11:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
Math on Ship bonuses in reference to the 7.5% nyx damage bonus:

HP on Wyvern: 16,579,501 million EHP.
HP on Nyx: 9,800,311

That's a -69%- increase from the Nyx to the Wyvern. Plus, the Wyvern used a low to add a drone damage unit, counteracting the nyx 12.5% damage bonus on the hull and even overtaking it in damage. If the nyx wanted to add a damage unit of its own to keep pace, it lost an additional 2 million HP by taking off an EANM.

The fits were as close to mirror as I could get: 2 Plates / Capital Shield extenders, 2 EANM / Invulns, 3 active hardeners. 2x PDU, DCU, DDU in the lows for the wyvern. Wyvern has an additional mid slot to use for ASB/MWD/Cap Booster.

The Nyx needs its 10% damage bonus back.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#145 - 2016-03-23 11:46:18 UTC
Soleil Fournier wrote:
Math on Ship bonuses in reference to the 7.5% nyx damage bonus:

HP on Wyvern: 16,579,501 million EHP.
HP on Nyx: 9,800,311

That's a -69%- increase from the Nyx to the Wyvern. Plus, the Wyvern used a low to add a drone damage unit, counteracting the nyx 12.5% damage bonus on the hull and even overtaking it in damage. If the nyx wanted to add a damage unit of its own to keep pace, it lost an additional 2 million HP by taking off an EANM.

The fits were as close to mirror as I could get: 2 Plates / Capital Shield extenders, 2 EANM / Invulns, 3 active hardeners. 2x PDU, DCU, DDU in the lows for the wyvern. Wyvern has an additional mid slot to use for ASB/MWD/Cap Booster.

The Nyx needs its 10% damage bonus back.


What about the respective fighter bay sizes?

Also has the hp rebalance happened yet? If not these numbers are useless

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Luscius Uta
#146 - 2016-03-23 12:12:09 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Do FAXes really need 6 high slots? You cannot fit them all reliably with remote assistance modules without sacrificing local tank which was not the case with current triage carriers. I would prefer one of their high slots moved to either a mid or low.
They also need a decrease in scale as you currently cannot see the entirety of their hull in station hangar.


I can get them all full easily of the gal/minm and only with miner sacrifice on the amarr caldari did need some fitting mods however.


Also the carriers stats have not been reballances to accommodate the new changes (like how their thp has not been lowered) so CPU and PG may be changing

Not to mention the compact rr mods ate not even seeded yet


Admittedly I tried only with Apostle since it's the only one I can fly, and noticed it doesn't have enough PG to fit 4+1 remote modules and 2 local reppers. Though I suppose that CCP is mimicking logistics cruisers who typically need an ACR rig to be fit properly.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#147 - 2016-03-23 12:25:08 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Do FAXes really need 6 high slots? You cannot fit them all reliably with remote assistance modules without sacrificing local tank which was not the case with current triage carriers. I would prefer one of their high slots moved to either a mid or low.
They also need a decrease in scale as you currently cannot see the entirety of their hull in station hangar.


I can get them all full easily of the gal/minm and only with miner sacrifice on the amarr caldari did need some fitting mods however.


Also the carriers stats have not been reballances to accommodate the new changes (like how their thp has not been lowered) so CPU and PG may be changing

Not to mention the compact rr mods ate not even seeded yet


Admittedly I tried only with Apostle since it's the only one I can fly, and noticed it doesn't have enough PG to fit 4+1 remote modules and 2 local reppers. Though I suppose that CCP is mimicking logistics cruisers who typically need an ACR rig to be fit properly.


also it looks like the apostle is meant to use buffer to survive triage and cycle out to get RR rather than rep itself. while the gal one is built to be self sustainable

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#148 - 2016-03-23 14:54:50 UTC
Can you please bump the lock range cap up passed 300km?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#149 - 2016-03-23 15:02:26 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Can you please bump the lock range cap up passed 300km?


... GL getting fighters to and from the fight at that range







Also CCP are you meant to be able to BM fighters? atm it lets carrier pilots bounce around the feild and makes it very easy for the enemy to intercept them

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#150 - 2016-03-23 15:06:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Can you please bump the lock range cap up passed 300km?


... GL getting fighters to and from the fight at that range







Also CCP are you meant to be able to BM fighters? atm it lets carrier pilots bounce around the feild and makes it very easy for the enemy to intercept them



I meant in general, not just for caps.

425 lolrokhs ahoy.



But yes, fighter are so slow, the carrier range is essentially meaningless. Unless they are getting to warp?
Nouramon Alvestrasza
State War Academy
Caldari State
#151 - 2016-03-23 16:00:30 UTC
Soleil Fournier wrote:


HP on Wyvern: 16,579,501 million EHP.
HP on Nyx: 9,800,311



Tested this today.

My Leviathan has only 8.5 Mil EHP!

As Discussed in the Sigularity Chat on SiSi all Titans should get a 900% buff to Shieldextender/Armorplates.

Titans are so massive and large Ships they need to have much more EHP then a Supercarrier.

Im Auftrag

Nouramon Alvestrasza

Fleet Admiral

Terran Confederation Navy

www.terran-confederation.de
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#152 - 2016-03-23 18:29:21 UTC
Torgeir Hekard wrote:
Okay, homeworlding fighters is in, and it has a problem.
A big problem
A camera problem.

Well, okay, it's actually a sympthom of a bigger problem - the general control problem.

Currently fighter movement commands are issued in two steps - first you choose azimuth, then you choose elevation.
This means that if the desired waypoint is off-plane, you HAVE to properly determine azimuth before you can visually identify elevation, otherwise you have to redo the sequence from scratch.

This means that a proper identification of azimuth is crucial, and it's best done switching to "top" view (placing the camera to look perpendicularly to the, ehhhm, universal New Eden ecliptic plane).

Here lies the problem - you can't rotate your camera when issuing fighter movement commands, because both things are done with LMB, and fighter movement mode prevents the use of LMB for camera rotation. So you are stuck with whatever viewport you have chosen before entering the fighter movement mode for the whole duration. USing top view from the starts will prevent you from correctly determining elevation. Using any other view from the start will prevent you from determining azimuth.

There are 2 possible solutions:
1) The bad one. Use some other button to separate command steps. This will allow for camera rotation.
2) The good one. Do not atomize the movement mode. Make it possible to freely change both azimuth and elevation at any point during the fighter movement mode, so you could fine-tune the destination in steps.

Okay, actually, do both.

This was addressed in the thread about the new tactical overlay. It sounds like they're making it so you choose distance based on the new curved lines. The current method is something of a relic from the old tactical overlay.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#153 - 2016-03-23 18:38:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Crazy KSK
I find the emergency hull energizer almost impossible to use with the terrible tick rate that eve has it has only saved me once when activating it after a titan has locked me in anticipation of being DD'd every other time I was dead before it even registered that I clicked the module

the module should have an option to auto activate it when hitting 50% hull

Edit: I also don't feel like it should count as a damage control, preventing you from fitting one

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#154 - 2016-03-23 18:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Thoor Achasse wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Why would i fly any carrier not a Than it gets the most DPS and can has the largest fighter bay

and then why would i ever fly a chimera if i need tank the archon tanks better has more fighter space

and its the same with the FAX the archon has the best tank and cap by a mile unless the cap boosters are really powerful there will be no point using anything else



just saying right now we are going back gal being the end all for fighters and amarr being the end all for triage

Ugh


maybe if the amarr and caldari fighters also got a per level resist bonus to compensate for the smaller drone bays? still not sure this would be enough but maybe




where did the thany got the most dps ? the bonus dmg from fighters got removed , all carries does the same DPS now , racial carrier skill gives +10% FIghter dmg. the bonus got updated yesterday


No today it was 2.5 dmg and velocity for minm 2.5 damage and hit points for gal just 4% tank resists for amarr and caldari

The caldari now has an anemic capacity of sub 70k fighter storage while minm and galleries are over 80 these numbers are with fighter hanger skill maxed it a has changed since carrier bonuses were first altered

To be honest the dps isn't even the main issue is the limited fighter capacity that will make the biggest difference

Hell the two carriers with the largest fighter bays also are the two with fighter survivability bonuses

EDIT

They all also get 5%optimal to racial Ewar fighters

Let's put it this way: Why would you fly a carrier with a measly 12.5% bonus to damage when you can fly one with 25% more buffer and rep power? Sure, the Thanatos and Nidhoggur get a little extra damage and more fighters, but they'll still come out WAY behind an Archon or Chimera in a battle because they don't have nearly as much bonus damage as the tank bonus. Just remember, you can't (once they fix bugs) do damage after you die or warp out, so unless you're dropping on something with overwhelming force to kill it as quickly as possible, the resistance bonus is far more powerful.

The Thanatos and Nidhoggur need a 30-35% damage bonus to be a viable alternative to taking 20% less damage, and thus tanking 25% better.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2016-03-23 18:50:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Stan
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Let's put it this way: Why would you fly a carrier with a measly 12.5% bonus to damage when you can fly one with 25% more buffer and rep power? Sure, the Thanatos and Nidhoggur get a little extra damage and more fighters, but they'll still come out WAY behind an Archon or Chimera in a battle because they don't have nearly as much bonus damage as the tank bonus. Just remember, you can't (once they fix bugs) do damage after you die or warp out, so unless you're dropping on something with overwhelming force to kill it as quickly as possible, the resistance bonus is far more powerful.


I tend to agree.

I also am concerned about the slot layouts. Archon is 5/4/7 and Thanatos is 5/5/6. That extra low slot on the Archon lets it put a LOT of tank on, and still fit some DDAs. While the extra mid on the Thanny does... what? Not very useful for a carrier, IMO. It would have been better to swap the slot layouts - give the Thanny the extra low so that it can fit some tank to compensate for not having a tank bonus, and give the Archon the extra mid since it doesn't need to use as many low slots to get its tank up. (But maybe that'll make the two carriers too similar? Then maybe the Thanny can have a 6/4/6 layout, with that extra high for an additional Fighter Support to help out those fighters, or smartbombs/neuts/links to complement it's DPS combat role?)
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#156 - 2016-03-23 19:01:25 UTC
Well, dunno about thanny, but the Nid has a single advantage. It's fast. Namely, it can be made fast enough to outrun fighters and FBs. In fact, it can be made faster than some typical battleship fits while still retaining capital level tank, capacitor and DPS. Which begs the question. What's the position of battleships in the new meta?
Soleil Fournier
Fliet Pizza Delivery
Of Essence
#157 - 2016-03-23 19:44:10 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:


What about the respective fighter bay sizes?

Also has the hp rebalance happened yet? If not these numbers are useless


I can only provide testing feedback with the information I have available. My feedback would change if the numbers did.

HP and damage > fighter bay size.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#158 - 2016-03-23 20:41:14 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Let's put it this way: Why would you fly a carrier with a measly 12.5% bonus to damage when you can fly one with 25% more buffer and rep power? Sure, the Thanatos and Nidhoggur get a little extra damage and more fighters, but they'll still come out WAY behind an Archon or Chimera in a battle because they don't have nearly as much bonus damage as the tank bonus. Just remember, you can't (once they fix bugs) do damage after you die or warp out, so unless you're dropping on something with overwhelming force to kill it as quickly as possible, the resistance bonus is far more powerful.


I tend to agree.

I also am concerned about the slot layouts. Archon is 5/4/7 and Thanatos is 5/5/6. That extra low slot on the Archon lets it put a LOT of tank on, and still fit some DDAs. While the extra mid on the Thanny does... what? Not very useful for a carrier, IMO. It would have been better two swap the slot layouts - give the Thanny the extra low so that it can fit some tank to compensate for not having a tank bonus, and give the Archon the extra mid since it doesn't need to use as many low slots to get its tank up. (But maybe that'll make the two carriers too similar? Then maybe the Thanny can have a 6/4/6 layout, with that extra high for an additional Fighter Support to help out those fighters, or smartbombs/neuts/links to complement it's DPS combat role?)

I'm not so sure about making the Thanatos 5/4/7 or 6/4/6, but that did remind me of something: Why is the Nidhoggur also 5/5/6 like the Thanatos? The Hel has more mids and less lows than the Nyx, and it would make sense for the Nid to be 5/6/5 instead of 5/5/6.

Torgeir Hekard wrote:
Well, dunno about thanny, but the Nid has a single advantage. It's fast. Namely, it can be made fast enough to outrun fighters and FBs. In fact, it can be made faster than some typical battleship fits while still retaining capital level tank, capacitor and DPS. Which begs the question. What's the position of battleships in the new meta?

Probably about the same role they have now. Any battleship fleet would just have some faster tackle and a couple HACs to take out fighters, but otherwise it doesn't seem much different.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#159 - 2016-03-23 21:04:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Crazy KSK
The power grid on the Ninazu is too low!
I'ts probably the same for the other FAX too.
Quote:
[Ninazu, Crazy KSK's Ninazu]
CONCORD Capital Armor Repairer
Capital Emergency Hull Energizer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
CONCORD Capital Armor Repairer

Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II

Capital Remote Armor Repairer I
Capital Remote Armor Repairer I
Capital Remote Armor Repairer I
Capital Remote Armor Repairer I
Capital Murky Remote Capacitor Transmitter
Triage Module I

Capital Ancillary Current Router I
Capital Nanobot Accelerator II
Capital Ancillary Current Router II


Warrior II x15
Heavy Hull Maintenance Bot II x5
Heavy Armor Maintenance Bot II x10
Ogre II x5
Heavy Shield Maintenance Bot II x5

Strontium Clathrates x933


If I did not have the concord reps I would need 3 power grid rigs for t2 reps if that would even be enough, and if capital cap boosters where seeded I would want to fit at least one of them too forcing me to leave highslots empty
This is just too little fitting space to make a nice fit happen.

I think that the Ninazu should have around 1.4mil PG if not more with lvl 5 skills so that a good active tank fit without empty slots and fitting rigs is possible.

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Fird
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#160 - 2016-03-23 21:55:25 UTC
This is garbage.

Carriers were fine as they were.

You guys keep stirring the pot with the collective **** and you'll end up screwing the whole works.

I'm sure all complaints will be ignored as usual.