These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#961 - 2016-07-03 01:19:46 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.



You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself.

0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits


Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there.


Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron.



I'm the "moron" after I trivially demonstrate your claim was complete and unadulterated bullshit? Ok chief.

Let me repaste your drivel for you:

Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints


Or are you trying to claim a completely stationary battleship is relevant?

Thanatos with T1 Firbolgs will hit a POCO for full damage, without webs or painters (although it was webbed I'm assuming as it is a structure, it didn't matter, lol)

Carriers are able to support subcaps on a POCO shoot - I'm impressed Roll

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
#962 - 2016-07-03 01:28:35 UTC
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.

Yes unfortunately the whiners were louder than those seeking any sort of balance.

As for "Majority"; Not sure where you get that you are in the majority.

The "majority" don't post on the forums but the whiners do have a loud voice.

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.
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#963 - 2016-07-04 01:20:12 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.

Yes unfortunately the whiners were louder than those seeking any sort of balance.

As for "Majority"; Not sure where you get that you are in the majority.

The "majority" don't post on the forums but the whiners do have a loud voice.


Is there anyone else that's kept up with this thread who also appreciates the irony of this statement?
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#964 - 2016-07-04 01:41:31 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements

Hey look Idea


Nice to see that you're back. Hope all is well and will check in to your stream again soon.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#965 - 2016-07-04 15:00:33 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.

Yes unfortunately the whiners were louder than those seeking any sort of balance.

As for "Majority"; Not sure where you get that you are in the majority.

The "majority" don't post on the forums but the whiners do have a loud voice.


Is there anyone else that's kept up with this thread who also appreciates the irony of this statement?


I do but then, its darkness.. they need 3 destroyers, 2 battleships and 3 battlecruisers to kill a frigate, so their word almost matters.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Blood ofGODS
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#966 - 2016-07-04 17:49:43 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.



You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself.

0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits
Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits


Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there.


Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron.



I'm the "moron" after I trivially demonstrate your claim was complete and unadulterated bullshit? Ok chief.

Let me repaste your drivel for you:

Blood ofGODS wrote:
And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints


Or are you trying to claim a completely stationary battleship is relevant?


Because most nearly all battleships have a velocity under 120 m/s and a sig over 350, therefore it will apply fully. Do I need to break out the missile damage calculation formula for you, who clearly can't do math?
DoingUntoOthers
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#967 - 2016-07-04 23:30:08 UTC
Blood ofGODS wrote:


Because most nearly all battleships have a velocity under 120 m/s and a sig over 350, therefore it will apply fully. Do I need to break out the missile damage calculation formula for you, who clearly can't do math?



This is true. a sniping battleship will indeed be that slow.

Every other battleship fit ingame however, are we ignoring them? I mean we can but, it's more ignorant than intuitive for someone telling others they cannot do math <.<
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#968 - 2016-07-05 00:34:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Blood ofGODS wrote:


Because most nearly all battleships have a velocity under 120 m/s and a sig over 350, therefore it will apply fully. Do I need to break out the missile damage calculation formula for you, who clearly can't do math?

The 2 most common battleships found in fleets, Mach and Snake both do well over 120m/s, sig on the Mach, is exactly 350. So unless it is stationary, your not hitting it for full damage. Then, take into account links and drugs, your chances of a full damage hit are further reduced.
Even my dual extender Snake, sig 565 before links, implants and drugs, doesn't get hit for full damage doing around 330m/s. (Nano Snake, just because so many low slots - 410m/s with fairly cheap AB and 2 nanos)
Dual plate Mach, T2 Trimarks + faction AB = 485m/s (Base speed of a Mach with skills applied and no fittings - is over 200m/s)

You need to at least dual web those 2 (pretty commonly seen) battleships to get them under 120m/s and only one of those has a sig over 350. Presuming the missile calculator spreadsheet is accurately applied in the game (it isn't), you may hit a Snake for full damage if it is dual webbed and painted but your not hitting the commonly seen Mach for full damage unless it is stationary.

I think in all fairness, you should "break out the missile calculation formula" apply it to ships and fittings actually seen and used, then apologize to Morrigan (and anyone else reading this that actually plays the game and flies carriers). Don't forget to actually test your findings on SISI or even TQ, spreadsheet/ EFT warriors often come undone when it comes to applying their findings in game. "Things often just don't work out as EFT/Spreadsheets suggest".
(Edit; I know this from experience)


Yes, in an ideal situation, everything you shoot will be dual webbed, scrammed and not have links, implants or drugs to change how spreadsheets say it will go down. Reality is, a spreadsheet is only a guide, it can't actually apply damage for you. There are a multitude of variations that can change damage application and when you start out with poor application and reduced damage (due to recent nerfs) your up against it.

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.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#969 - 2016-07-05 11:03:00 UTC
Thanks for saving me the effort. Maybe he just fights a lot of propless, shield buffer abaddons Lol