These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aeon Veritas
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#561 - 2016-04-25 12:08:55 UTC
PAPULA wrote:
This is stupid, but the blog says we only need:
Quote:
You will only require the Fighters skill to use Light, Support and Heavy Fighters.


That's why i am confused.

yeah, the dev-blog is from feb, the OP is from march and says this.
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Notes:

  • ...
  • Generic drone skills (Drone Durability, Drone Navigation, etc) also provide bonuses to fighters (check show info on those skills for details).
  • The Fighter Bomber skill has been converted to 'Heavy Fighters', and now gives a 5% damage bonus to heavy fighters per level.
  • A new skill is being introduced called 'Light Fighters', this provides a 5% velocity bonus per level and is required for the operation of light fighters.
  • A new skill is being introduced called 'Support Fighters', this provides a 5% hitpoint bonus per level and is required for the operation of support fighters.
  • The fighters skill now provides a 5% damage bonus per level and is required for the operation of all fighters.
PAPULA
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#562 - 2016-04-25 12:23:51 UTC
Oh ok, then they should remove this statement from February blog.
Now i have to get 100mil for the skill so i can use same item i was using before.

Roll
Kirito Kid
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#563 - 2016-04-25 12:40:13 UTC
Nothing new with the patch notes it seems :(
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#564 - 2016-04-25 13:37:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Attention
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So I decided to try a Ninazu using its new found Warfare links bonus and set it up with Armor links (seemed logical as it is supposed to be an armor logi boat).
My advice - Don't do it. 1.8 second cycle time on remote reps is ok, until you try to keep capacitor up to them. With all 5's, you'll need 2 capital cap boosters perma running (have 36% cap after one triage cycle and use 36 cap charges to get back to at least 80%)
With less than perfect skills (remote reps at 4, everything else 5) you will be using 3 cap boosters and still be close to no cap at the end of one triage cycle (low cap alarm screaming at you).

T2 capital remote reps do 4,813 per cycle each (in triage), so around 9,600 HP every +-2 s, a T2 Auto cannon fit Nag using Hail hits for around 22K HP every 3.2 seconds - Your going to need 3 fax's to keep reps up to one carrier that is being shot by ONE dread.
Interesting point (probably a bug) I let the nag drop siege, re-initiated it and didn't lose lock on the carrier.

Devs have done a wonderful job at breaking the OP status of self repping carriers (which is a good thing), sadly they broke triage carriers (new fax's) at the same time. You'll now need all 5's in skills, +5 cap and shield or armor implants and a darn big lucky streak to survive any fight in one of these. As for applying logistics to even a small gang, bring as many fax's as you can muster - They won't last long and can't rep a great deal individually so more will always be better.

N+1 is still the number one rule for any capital fight, so make sure you have plenty of blues and a reliable batfone network.



Not sure you understand logistics based on your comparison with nag dps.remember a nag has to deal with resists rr does not

Also there is a link meant to be used with the cycle time reduction one that reduces capacitor cost

The fax are bad but not quite as bad as your making them seem. They would be fixed significantly if there were larger cap charges they could use


Edit:

Not saying this in a way to make your input seem unwanted just trying to make sure good feed back that isn't bogged down with misconceptions (you know since ccp doesn't seem to want to clear things up)

What link? Is it something new as there is no link to reduce cap use aside from the armor links which I was using for the tests.
Just to be clear though - the cycle time reduction I have been referring to is a Triage trait, which is different to the warfare link.

Triage module gives a 70% cycle time reduction to remote reps - It gives no bonus to remote cap transfer, which is a somewhat useless bonus for those Fax's to have as they don't have enough cap to share it with anyone.. And out of triage, they'll just die so won't get cap either.

My comparison was made using a nag to shoot a carrier that was being repped by a new logistics capital.. A Ninazu was unable to rep enough to save a Thany from a lone nag. The buffer fit carrier died helplessly in under 5 minutes (Fax ran out of cap with the Thany at 10% armor).

NB; Larger cap charges? You already need to fill your cargo hold and 3/4 of your fleet hangar with cap charges just for ONE triage cycle.
Issue is not only the cap charges but the volume of them - Higher value cap charges = Higher volume, which the fax's and carriers just don't have to carry them.

CCP have gone out of their way to make Fax's and Carriers as difficult to manage and use as they possibly could. They took some really good ideas and just broke them. What could have been some very positive changes, has turned into Devs finding new ways to punish players with game mechanics and inefficient modules.

Can't really say I am surprised though - It is easier to come up with this sort of thing that it is to use imagination and add an aspect of fun to game play.

On a happy note - If this is how it is to be, there are 3 more accounts can go inactive as I will no longer need 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.
Desimus Maximus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#565 - 2016-04-25 13:45:33 UTC
@CCP Larrikin is there a video on how to target with the new aoe bomb targeting for Heavy fighter squads explaining how to hit things or are they just broken atm ?
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#566 - 2016-04-25 16:15:16 UTC
Desimus Maximus wrote:
@CCP Larrikin is there a video on how to target with the new aoe bomb targeting for Heavy fighter squads explaining how to hit things or are they just broken atm ?

It's not too hard except that the bombs have a certain range that can be hard to determine. I normally have the fighters orbit/keep range 30km from something near their target and use the ability then. It's still not the most accurate thing.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#567 - 2016-04-25 16:24:07 UTC
John Hand wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

ok, I don't have all 5's for the Apostle as I do for the Ninazu but with all applicable skills to 4 (T1 triage module) the apostle with T2 remote reps, 5,250 every 2.4 seconds (will be faster cycle time with T2 triage so more cap used) X 3 reps, with links - 1 T2 Cap battery, 1 X T2 capital cap booster it caps out at just on half triage cycle.

You still need the T2 ancillary current router to fit 2 more meta capital cap boosters which will JUST allow a full triage cycle to complete as your cap runs dry using 3 reps. Pray you don't get any aggro, you can't run your local rep without turning off all remote reps.


A smart FC will split DPS between a primary target and any Fax's on grid (only takes 1 Dread to bother a Fax enough he needs to rep = less reps on the primary)

5.250 for the Apostle vs 4813 for the Ninazu, it really isn't much of a bonus when both cap out so fast as to only be relatively useful for one triage cycle. Admittedly the Apostle is far better on cap in that it can run 3 reps for one cycle where as the Ninazu can only run 2.


Maybe don't run triage? You know, maybe run the Pantheon layout instead with some normal carriers in the mix?

Personally I have always found Triage to be a death sentence in combat, its fine if your doing a tower save, but in combat your just asking to die. Having been in fleets where you are LOOKING for a carrier to go triage so you can focus his ass down because now he cannot get any reps from his friends, it usually means your dead. This is even more compounded by the fact that CCP just did nerf cap reps, means that triage is even more deadly to you.

Is this the end of combat Triage? Maybe, some people will still try it, and lose there ship accordingly. Only time will tell if the FAX are good/bad/meh.


you know they removed this tactic right? capital reps now only work in triage outside of triage they are weaker than large reps so if this change is the death of triage it's simple the death of capital logistics

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#568 - 2016-04-25 16:38:59 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Attention
Sgt Ocker wrote:
So I decided to try a Ninazu using its new found Warfare links bonus and set it up with Armor links (seemed logical as it is supposed to be an armor logi boat).
My advice - Don't do it. 1.8 second cycle time on remote reps is ok, until you try to keep capacitor up to them. With all 5's, you'll need 2 capital cap boosters perma running (have 36% cap after one triage cycle and use 36 cap charges to get back to at least 80%)
With less than perfect skills (remote reps at 4, everything else 5) you will be using 3 cap boosters and still be close to no cap at the end of one triage cycle (low cap alarm screaming at you).

T2 capital remote reps do 4,813 per cycle each (in triage), so around 9,600 HP every +-2 s, a T2 Auto cannon fit Nag using Hail hits for around 22K HP every 3.2 seconds - Your going to need 3 fax's to keep reps up to one carrier that is being shot by ONE dread.
Interesting point (probably a bug) I let the nag drop siege, re-initiated it and didn't lose lock on the carrier.

Devs have done a wonderful job at breaking the OP status of self repping carriers (which is a good thing), sadly they broke triage carriers (new fax's) at the same time. You'll now need all 5's in skills, +5 cap and shield or armor implants and a darn big lucky streak to survive any fight in one of these. As for applying logistics to even a small gang, bring as many fax's as you can muster - They won't last long and can't rep a great deal individually so more will always be better.

N+1 is still the number one rule for any capital fight, so make sure you have plenty of blues and a reliable batfone network.



Not sure you understand logistics based on your comparison with nag dps.remember a nag has to deal with resists rr does not

Also there is a link meant to be used with the cycle time reduction one that reduces capacitor cost

The fax are bad but not quite as bad as your making them seem. They would be fixed significantly if there were larger cap charges they could use


Edit:

Not saying this in a way to make your input seem unwanted just trying to make sure good feed back that isn't bogged down with misconceptions (you know since ccp doesn't seem to want to clear things up)

What link? Is it something new as there is no link to reduce cap use aside from the armor links which I was using for the tests.
Just to be clear though - the cycle time reduction I have been referring to is a Triage trait, which is different to the warfare link.

Triage module gives a 70% cycle time reduction to remote reps - It gives no bonus to remote cap transfer, which is a somewhat useless bonus for those Fax's to have as they don't have enough cap to share it with anyone.. And out of triage, they'll just die so won't get cap either.

My comparison was made using a nag to shoot a carrier that was being repped by a new logistics capital.. A Ninazu was unable to rep enough to save a Thany from a lone nag. The buffer fit carrier died helplessly in under 5 minutes (Fax ran out of cap with the Thany at 10% armor).

NB; Larger cap charges? You already need to fill your cargo hold and 3/4 of your fleet hangar with cap charges just for ONE triage cycle.
Issue is not only the cap charges but the volume of them - Higher value cap charges = Higher volume, which the fax's and carriers just don't have to carry them.

CCP have gone out of their way to make Fax's and Carriers as difficult to manage and use as they possibly could. They took some really good ideas and just broke them. What could have been some very positive changes, has turned into Devs finding new ways to punish players with game mechanics and inefficient modules.

Can't really say I am surprised though - It is easier to come up with this sort of thing that it is to use imagination and add an aspect of fun to game play.

On a happy note - If this is how it is to be, there are 3 more accounts can go inactive as I will no longer need them.




the gal/minm FAX are for reping sub caps not capitals thats why they have a cycle time bonus and much less buffer

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
DONEYE lightning
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#569 - 2016-04-25 17:20:21 UTC
Mimiko Severovski wrote:
What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%)
Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more.


because its the damge output is going up like 200%? lol mabe not 200% but enough to insta kill battlecruisers cruisers and destroyers lol
Lugh Crow-Slave
#570 - 2016-04-25 17:23:04 UTC
DONEYE lightning wrote:
Mimiko Severovski wrote:
What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%)
Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more.


because its the damge output is going up like 200%? lol mabe not 200% but enough to insta kill battlecruisers cruisers and destroyers lol


it's still 5%


also thanny is only getting a bit more dps than on tq but it it losing a **** load of dpm

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Neera Saldana
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#571 - 2016-04-25 20:56:57 UTC
Flying a carrier feels.. off.
You cant see fighter HP without mouseover.
Controlling them with module cycles is weird when you have 3+ of them out and the cycles keep being off from each other.
The switching between fighter can ship control isnt obvious enough, there needs to be some big text telling you youre not controlling you ship anymore.
Lost fighters dont reload automatically when recalled.
Having the same icon different kinds of fighters is weird, make something new for the ewar ones or something.
Put the role icon as well as the type icon on fighters in fighter bay.
Allow fighters to be moved out of bay in space, if you fill tubes and fighter bay you cant switch fighters anymore!
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#572 - 2016-04-25 21:13:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Neera Saldana wrote:
Allow fighters to be moved out of bay in space, if you fill tubes and fighter bay you cant switch fighters anymore!

You can launch a squadron, abandon them, load another, and scoop the abandoned squadron back to the bay.

I'm honestly quite surprised they didn't make squadrons in the tubes still take space in the bay. It would really simplify things if the carrier could hold exactly a certain amount of fighters instead of a certain amount plus up to 3/5 squadrons.
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#573 - 2016-04-26 00:52:31 UTC
Chimera eats **** once again. That severely gimped fighter Bay is just hilariously bad. But don't worry it has lock range lololol
Lugh Crow-Slave
#574 - 2016-04-26 01:27:03 UTC
lol i'm not the only one who sees the issue with the chimeras bay \o/

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#575 - 2016-04-26 03:41:16 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Neera Saldana wrote:
Allow fighters to be moved out of bay in space, if you fill tubes and fighter bay you cant switch fighters anymore!

You can launch a squadron, abandon them, load another, and scoop the abandoned squadron back to the bay.

I'm honestly quite surprised they didn't make squadrons in the tubes still take space in the bay. It would really simplify things if the carrier could hold exactly a certain amount of fighters instead of a certain amount plus up to 5 squadrons.

It's all about micromanagement - Devs Want the confusion and messing about due to really quite silly un-intuitive over sized fighter interfaces. Having to leave a certain amount of your fighter bay empty makes no sense in game play but an enormous amount of sense when it comes to "micromanaging" (taking a lot longer to do anything with) your fighters.
If it is streamlined and player friendly, Devs have not succeeded in their primary goal of making player involvement and micromanagement "a thing" for carriers and supers.


What i find really annoying (on a 32" monitor) is losing nearly 1/4 of my screen to the fighter bay and Hud. Having to have your fighter bay open as well as the fighter control hud, is not good design as far as screen space goes. But then this is CCP Devs we are talking about here - Everything has to be bigger (according to the Citadel team at fanfest) and it seems this doesn't stop at structures - It also includes how much space on your monitor is taken up with interface windows.


I often wonder if designing things for eve in a way to make it as difficult as possible for players, leaves Devs feeling good about their achievements. I'm sure designing things to be more difficult and less effective must bother at least some of the more professional developers that work for CCP.

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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#576 - 2016-04-26 07:51:32 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
What i find really annoying (on a 32" monitor) is losing nearly 1/4 of my screen to the fighter bay and Hud. Having to have your fighter bay open as well as the fighter control hud, is not good design as far as screen space goes.

The physical size of your monitor isn't really relevant. If you want to talk about screen space, it's the resolution that matters.

Why do you have to have your fighter bay open? You can do pretty much anything you need with the right click menu of the fighter/tube icons on the main fighter HUD. The only exception I can think of is merging stacks of fighters after returning incomplete squadrons.
Thercon Jair
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#577 - 2016-04-26 09:25:57 UTC
Well, guess we'll get FAXes as is. No discussion or feedback going on about them, eh? (I hear there's some only on reddit, but I am unable to locate said threads.Focus group only?)


Also: is the Capital Ancillary Shield Booster final? Because if it is, it's going to be the "de facto" standard for FAXes. It boosts nearly twice as much as the T2 Capital Shield Booster, uses less cap than the T2 when not used with charges, and even uses considerably less fitting resources.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#578 - 2016-04-26 09:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Thercon Jair wrote:
Well, guess we'll get FAXes as is. No discussion or feedback going on about them, eh? (I hear there's some only on reddit, but I am unable to locate said threads.Focus group only?)


Also: is the Capital Ancillary Shield Booster final? Because if it is, it's going to be the "de facto" standard for FAXes. It boosts nearly twice as much as the T2 Capital Shield Booster, uses less cap than the T2 when not used with charges, and even uses considerably less fitting resources.



Being The optimist I am I think think ccp has pre-nerfed fax and carriers to make sure they are not op and will tweak numbers after getting more data.

I mean ccp is active and posting in the other threads so I'm sure they are still reading this one even if not posting

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Zockhandra
Canadian Bacon.
Honorable Third Party
#579 - 2016-04-26 13:37:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Zockhandra
Thats great and all.....How do the fighter changes effect the current blueprints? will material costs change, will they produce several fighters per run instead of one?

Theres been no information on that front, frankly its quite concerning especially considering the large isk investment needed for ships of this size...



On a more related note, those fighters are waaaaay too powerful now..

Light and heavy fighters are capable of one hitting a fairly tanky stealth bomber, which was equipped with high-grade halos and an afterburner....That's just not fair at all. It almost feels like youve tried interbreeding gheckos and fighters.....and youve somehow made something that isnt better....Its disgustingly effective.

Carriers now have the potential to slaughter dozens of ships without much concern for fighters (thanks to the insanely small fighter size and stupid big bays) without worrying too much about fighter squads....I thought the theme of EVE Online was that bigger Does NOT necessarily mean better..

Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you. Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned, across from the bubble and into your hull.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#580 - 2016-04-26 13:41:41 UTC
Zockhandra wrote:
Thats great and all.....How do the fighter changes effect the current blueprints? will material costs change, will they produce several fighters per run instead of one?

Theres been no information on that front, frankly its quite concerning especially considering the large isk investment needed for ships of this size...


one fighter per run

about 2hrs for a light attack fighter

less mats to build one fighter but one flight will cost more than one fighter does now


all this info is on sisi

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble