These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sekeris
Order of Celestial Knights
#281 - 2016-04-08 10:23:32 UTC
Sekeris wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Speaking of drone rigs - Related question. 1, Why is it capital shield booster uses 4 times the cpu as armor, yet armor carriers have more cpu than shield. 2, Why do local armor reps have such a stupidly long cycle time in a changing meta that could use to local reps.

And for the love of Bob, please seed deadspace and faction modules to SISI so we can at least fit a ship as we intend to use it. With a fittings being so tight having access to ore than T2 modules is pretty important..


I dont think shield carriers is the problem, it seems to be mostly the nid that is CPU starved. And while i agree deadspace mods would be nice, a T2 fit should work also (or at least a mostly T2 fit) without having to use a faction cap mods just to be able to fit. I have made a post on the capital thread on the test server feedback forum showing that for a normal cap fit you could gain 200 tf of cpu with faction mods, which on under 1000 tf total seems a bit excessive.


Ok, some further fitting testing i have to take back this. While the earlier point about the nid still stands as completely lacking in cpu, the new mods seem to lean towards cpu more. I think fitting and slots need to be reviewed in more detail now that the role of the carrier is changing.

On the archon i have no problem fitting, but the chimera also is a bit of a puzzle. On the other side, if the chimera (and nid) get more CPU they are able to fit additional dmg mods since the tank doesnt compete for the same slots.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#282 - 2016-04-08 12:13:28 UTC
Sekeris wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Speaking of drone rigs - Related question. 1, Why is it capital shield booster uses 4 times the cpu as armor, yet armor carriers have more cpu than shield. 2, Why do local armor reps have such a stupidly long cycle time in a changing meta that could use to local reps.

And for the love of Bob, please seed deadspace and faction modules to SISI so we can at least fit a ship as we intend to use it. With a fittings being so tight having access to ore than T2 modules is pretty important..


I dont think shield carriers is the problem, it seems to be mostly the nid that is CPU starved. And while i agree deadspace mods would be nice, a T2 fit should work also (or at least a mostly T2 fit) without having to use a faction cap mods just to be able to fit. I have made a post on the capital thread on the test server feedback forum showing that for a normal cap fit you could gain 200 tf of cpu with faction mods, which on under 1000 tf total seems a bit excessive.
Maybe but with faction mods you also have an inferior tank so there is a pretty big trade off. Deadspace requires higher fitting but with added benefit of making your chances of survival a little better.


I can save over 150 CPU on a battleship with 750 CPU (just 125 less cpu than a niddy, which has much higher cpu requirements) using faction mods (more if I faction damage mods as well), allowing me to fit neutrons instead of electrons but with 25K less ehp over deadspace mods - Should that be classed as excessive as well, or is it only certain ships can't spend the extra isk for a slight advantage - The 200 cpu you may save fitting faction mods comes at a cost (in both isk and ehp); what makes it excessive?

NB; you can't put a "mostly" T2 fit on a niddy without cpu upgrades. If you need to drop 50% of the fit to meta and still need a cpu upgrade so as to not have empty slots - there is not enough cpu.

-- - -- - -- - --
Bottom line is - Capital meta has always been armor and with the perfect opportunity to bring shield doctrines up to par with armor, Devs decided it wasn't worth it.
With the planned removal of POS's, chimeras and nidhoggurs will soon have no role at all. Thankfully you can still armor fit the Nag, so at least 2 possibly 3 of 4 dreads will get used. Phoenix will once again slip into uselessness and be laughed out of fleets, already they are up against it in larger fleets as no-one brings shield triage. With the fitting restrictions of everything shield, well who wants to field ships that need as many fitting upgrades as they do useful modules.

Pity the Hell and Rag - The best of the supers (personal preference), left with less than adequate support. Oh and the levi and wyvern, must not forget them.

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.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#283 - 2016-04-08 12:17:33 UTC
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
--------------
Right now on SISI you can't interact with fighters other than to launch and recall them.
1) lock target 2) make sure locked target is selected 3) Activate a function button over a deployed fighter squad, such as Attack or MWD. Then fighters will move to the selected target.

Here's to hoping that shortcut keys like "F" will eventually work on squads, like it does for regular drones.

Yeah I was referring to a new ability - The one where you can place fighters at spots around a grid without targets. You know the one Devs have been telling us is so game changing.

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.
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#284 - 2016-04-08 14:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Larrikin
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
--------------
Right now on SISI you can't interact with fighters other than to launch and recall them.
1) lock target 2) make sure locked target is selected 3) Activate a function button over a deployed fighter squad, such as Attack or MWD. Then fighters will move to the selected target.

Here's to hoping that shortcut keys like "F" will eventually work on squads, like it does for regular drones.

Yeah I was referring to a new ability - The one where you can place fighters at spots around a grid without targets. You know the one Devs have been telling us is so game changing.


Once you have a fighter squadron selected, try Q :)
You can also tell your fighters to orbit targets, keep at range, approach (all basic ship commands) with the standard rightclick menu, if you have them selected on the fighter HUD.

Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#285 - 2016-04-08 14:38:43 UTC
CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).
Lugh Crow-Slave
#286 - 2016-04-08 17:34:07 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).


this please


suggestions in thread

- make carriers better against subs than supers (like they are now on tq)

- make carriers have faster drones than supers

- give carriers an advantage to using E-war drones
-possible with just a power bonus or with giving carriers an extra tube and support fighter slot


after the mass test another idea came to me

don't let supers use space superiority fighters and make these smaller

this would mean to effectively counter a super you need a carrier


even if you do none of these the interceptor fighters do need to be smaller it makes no seance that such a niche fighter takes up so much space. ideally one flight would be less than the attack fighters but at the very least make them take the same space as attack fighters

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Circumstantial Evidence
#287 - 2016-04-08 17:50:03 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Once you have a fighter squadron selected, try Q :)
You can also tell your fighters to orbit targets, keep at range, approach (all basic ship commands) with the standard rightclick menu, if you have them selected on the fighter HUD.
Awesome. I saw orbit/approach etc on right-click menus but assumed that would move my ship, so I didn't try it.

Bug: Fighters health shown in fighter bay does not always match HUD fighters health.
Circumstantial Evidence
#288 - 2016-04-08 17:57:19 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).
Carriers are much less expensive than supercarriers. They will cause damage for as long as they live in a battle, much like BC's can help a BS fleet, even though they are volleyed off the field in a battleship face-off. Let the guy bring a Drake, if that's all he can bring ;)

That said, I liked your idea of giving carriers a unique support role, by dis-allowing support fighters on supercarriers.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#289 - 2016-04-08 18:04:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).
Carriers are much less expensive than supercarriers. They will cause damage for as long as they live in a battle, much like BC's can help a BS fleet, even though they are volleyed off the field in a battleship face-off. Let the guy bring a Drake, if that's all he can bring ;)

That said, I liked your idea of giving carriers a unique support role, by dis-allowing support fighters on supercarriers.


but battle cruisers can do things BBs cant like better application on small ships and command links

there needs to be a reason to use every ship in the game independant of its cost

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#290 - 2016-04-08 20:48:45 UTC
All ships are supposed to be useful, and "more expensive" is not supposed to mean "strictly better". Sure, a BS can tank more than a BC, and also hit harder, but the BC has better application, and is more agile. While the BS can be considered more powerful in a broade sense, and also more expensive, there are many situations in which a BC is prefered. In small-mid scale pvp, you usually prefer BC over BS, and the reason is not the price.
So which ship to choose is not only based on the what you want to spend, but more importantly on what you want to do with it.

The only exception are faction ships and certain T2 ships. And I will just quote myself on that topic:

Marranar Amatin wrote:
There are also T2 ships that could generally be considered better, for example there is hardly a reason to use a cruiser, if you could get a heavy assault cruiser for the same price. Or a frigate if you could also use an assault frigate.
But this usually comes from a huge increase in price (a vexor is ~10mio, an ishtar 170mio, so about a factor 17), a much higher skill requirement, for a moderate performance increase. An ishtar has roughly 2x the ehp of a vexor, and maybe 25% damage more (depending on how you fit of course.

Now the only thing of carrier vs supercarrier, that is comparable to ishtar vs vexor is the price. A carrier is maybe 1.2 billion, a supercarrier about 20 (not sure of the exact price), so 20/1.2=16.7, about the same factor.
But both have the same skill requirements, and the supercarrier is just much much better at everything.
A chimera has 68.000 shield, a wyvern has 500.000. A Wyvern has a 400% bonus to shield extenders. A wyvern has strong resistances to electronic warfare. The wyvern has 20% damage bonus. It can launch 3 heavy fighters, where each long range heavy squadron is about as strong as all 2-3 light squadrons from the chimera. Additionally it can also launch 2 light squads. And it can launch anti capital fighters which probably do an order of magntiude more damage than the light fighters (I didnt really test them).

This is completely out of proportion to the usually T2 bonus. Supercarrier should not be so much better at everything.

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#291 - 2016-04-08 21:22:13 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
--------------
Right now on SISI you can't interact with fighters other than to launch and recall them.
1) lock target 2) make sure locked target is selected 3) Activate a function button over a deployed fighter squad, such as Attack or MWD. Then fighters will move to the selected target.

Here's to hoping that shortcut keys like "F" will eventually work on squads, like it does for regular drones.

Yeah I was referring to a new ability - The one where you can place fighters at spots around a grid without targets. You know the one Devs have been telling us is so game changing.


Once you have a fighter squadron selected, try Q :)
You can also tell your fighters to orbit targets, keep at range, approach (all basic ship commands) with the standard rightclick menu, if you have them selected on the fighter HUD.

So what is Q supposed to do? I unbound whatever it was before to set the new M ability to Q and now neither of them do anything.
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#292 - 2016-04-08 21:23:38 UTC
Q is what M did before.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#293 - 2016-04-08 21:34:30 UTC
Marranar Amatin wrote:
Q is what M did before.


What did M do before?
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#294 - 2016-04-08 21:37:52 UTC
sending fighters to a certain point in space.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#295 - 2016-04-08 21:54:50 UTC
Marranar Amatin wrote:
sending fighters to a certain point in space.


however it can now be used to control any ship in game

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#296 - 2016-04-08 21:54:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Marranar Amatin wrote:
sending fighters to a certain point in space.

When did it change and why?

Better still, when will there be an up to date blog with accurate information regarding Fighters.

18 days till this goes live, minus 4 days for fanfest, leaves 14 days of development time, for changes that are far from TQ ready and no answers regarding concerns with carriers.

If this is the final iteration of carriers that will be going live on TQ - Let us know please, I'd rather sell mine off now while I can still get a decent price for them.

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.
cBOLTSON
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#297 - 2016-04-09 14:20:56 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).


Wait a second what? I knew about the first two proposals but Carriers are losing their ability to dock?? What the hell.

The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......
Lugh Crow-Slave
#298 - 2016-04-09 14:24:06 UTC
cBOLTSON wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).


Wait a second what? I knew about the first two proposals but Carriers are losing their ability to dock?? What the hell.


No was talking about how supers can now dock so carriers no longer have that advantage over them

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#299 - 2016-04-09 15:01:03 UTC
cBOLTSON wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).


Wait a second what? I knew about the first two proposals but Carriers are losing their ability to dock?? What the hell.


No, Supercarriers are gaining the ability to dock. Which means that Carriers are losing one unique advantage they had vis-a-vis Supercarriers. The argument is, now that you can dock a Supercarrier, why bother to fly a Carrier?

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#300 - 2016-04-09 15:26:34 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
cBOLTSON wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).


Wait a second what? I knew about the first two proposals but Carriers are losing their ability to dock?? What the hell.


No, Supercarriers are gaining the ability to dock. Which means that Carriers are losing one unique advantage they had vis-a-vis Supercarriers. The argument is, now that you can dock a Supercarrier, why bother to fly a Carrier?


Well that's an extremely abridged version of the argument

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble