These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[118.6] Capital Balancing

First post First post First post
Author
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#221 - 2016-06-14 23:24:27 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to start with stacking penalties on the NSA before hacking the bonus down as well?

With the decrease in carriers ability to lock and respond it might be worth revisiting fighter stats at the same time to up their HP some to give the carrier pilots more time to respond before their squadrons are all dead.

(edit: While looking at fighters you might want to consider upping their sensor strength slightly as well)


I don't think that carriers and dreads share the same engagement profile anymore. I think that carriers are really more suited to smaller engagements where the opportunistic combat style of fighters comes in to play more. Were eve fought on a 2d plane like world of warships then I'd guarantee that fighters would all have toggled powers.
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2016-06-15 01:59:25 UTC
Siege Mode's bonus to Weapon Disruption Resistance & Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%)

What is the impact of this?
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#223 - 2016-06-15 02:46:59 UTC
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
Siege Mode's bonus to Weapon Disruption Resistance & Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%)

What is the impact of this?

It means your locking range can be reduced to sh**
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#224 - 2016-06-15 05:54:18 UTC
I think it was done to maybe devalue the absolute power of escalation? Just look at the objectives of the capital rebalance top-down and it makes more sense.
Bakuhz
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#225 - 2016-06-15 09:20:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bakuhz
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Why nerf to shield extenders?
Way to early - we didn't have any big capital battles or citadel sieges.
Cutting it by 10% will put shield capitals again below EHP achievable by armor versions, without increased signature.

3 x extender Chimera is 15.4 KM in signature
3 x pladed archon is 9.94 KM


come back when CCP actually has weapons that have effect on that diffrence 40km sigs not much of an issue.
calculate speed into this aswell shields are faster wich compensate

https://zkillboard.com/character/584042527/

Tim Nering
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#226 - 2016-06-15 12:01:42 UTC
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:
ECM immune capitals?

I don't understand why you decide to break what you had fixed earlier.

This is something I can't approve of in the slightest. I'd love to see your reasoning behind this.



i actually have a really good video to help you understand. Wormhole space is a big reason this change happened. Watch this video as the jam pilots just plop all their ECM on the FAX. They will fail 50 times in a row, but on the 51st try they will finally get one jam, and now since the logi is broken, you get kills until it comes back online.

It was really stupid. It was such a perfect strategy the trumped everything in regards to using FAXes.

Short version: it broke wspace triage in a very bad uninteresting way. The adaptation that occurred was not meaningful and very unfun.

Stop Caring Start Fragging! Join R3D Fire Today!

Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#227 - 2016-06-15 12:11:37 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
We will be looking at... Light Fighter application / alpha.
Tread lightly. Carriers can counter the subcaps that are too small/fast for the HAWs to manage, and that's about it. They are a small nerf away from being totally outclassed by dreads.
CCP Larrikin wrote:
As always, we welcome your feedback!
Roll
In other news, supers and titans, after a decade of feedback, are still needlessly expensive ships whose only counter is more supers and titans.

They have a subcap fleet? Bring a capital fleet.
They have a capital fleet? Bring a super fleet.
They have a super fleet? Bring an subcap fleet.
Maybe in another ten years we'll give this model a chance.

Real fleet comps where evey ship matters. That's the EvE I want to play.
Tory Lynx
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#228 - 2016-06-15 12:14:54 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 350 (+200)


It's 100 now so +250
NaK'Lin
7-2 Ronin
#229 - 2016-06-15 12:22:50 UTC
Carriers outclassed by dreads for Capital vs Capital.
/clap

Carriers now less good at fighting subcaps in small numbers; need moar carriers. N+1
/clap

Micro-gang nerds with a single interceptor will hold a carrier on grid for a good 5+ minutes easily because they should be allowed to take all engagements.
/clap

People should never have to adapt to new and emergent gameplay. It was interesting while it lasted, people preferred to whine rather than come up with ways to deal with it (and there were ways to deal with it).
Other than shitfit interceptors, no inty would be one-volley'd off grid. that was a myth. None of our intys got one volley'd that I know of.

If the Fighters are now able to get their MWD cycle interrupted entirely by a scram, I would like to suggest shorter cooldown / cycle adjustments. Having your fighter's basically die and watching 100+ Mil disappear now that their firepower is nerfed AND their mobility is nerfed is far from fun. There's no need to fit grams on carriers, when 3 subcaps will literally shred enemy fighters now.

Adjusting Fighter MWD cycle- / cool-down timers would help cope with the scram, and maybe, just MAYBE not be entirely bad on grid? After playing on SiSi and assuming my fighters don't use prop-mod to simulate being scrammed, i can already now with old damage application pretty much kiss my whole squad goodbye.
There's no counterplay.

GG to the QQ, GG to CCP.
you had Capitals back in the game, being used and dying.
Please consider these points.
Also, thanks for such a quick notice before patch hits so we can extensively test on SiSi /endsarcasm
NaK'Lin
7-2 Ronin
#230 - 2016-06-15 12:51:27 UTC
Additionally, Bombers (Heavy Fighters) should SERIOUSLY not be scrammable by stuff other than Anti-fighters, still)
They are already slow as hell, and of no real danger of anything but capital ships.
There's no point in throwing Supercapitals another curve-ball.

Please CCP, look at that and consider it.

Furthermore, Fighters are already affected by bubbles and don't warp back to your ship if you warp of and stay in a bubble instead of burning slowboating out and then warp. Which leaves the carrier with agression, still and unable to cloak and no option but to literally abandon several hundreds of millions worth of crap that he can't reconnect to.

Which also, CCP, please. Can we reconnect to our fighters again after abandoning them?
I hope that was an oversight, but it makes no logical sense why abandoning a squad of drones has no permanent commitment but fighters it does. For their price we should be able to get them back if abandoned. might as well give them all the Jihadi ability of the shadows. then at least you lose them for a cause.

Thanks for looking into this.
Anthar Thebess
#231 - 2016-06-15 12:52:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
This Explosion Radius for Heavy Rocket Salvo look extreme now, rename it to Torpedo Salvo or Heavy Assault Missile Salvo as it is misleading people.

Just for reference - by weapon size :
S: Light missiles / Rockets
M: Heavy Missile / Heavy Assault Missile
L: Cruise Missile / Torpedoes
XL: XL Cruise Missile / XL Torpedo

Current Heavy Rocket Salvo salvo stats put them between S and M , new fighter missiles put them between M and L, very close to L statistics - when you include player skills for L weapon system, and lack of skills that affect fighter missile.

This is no longer Rocket Salvo

What also worry me is that new Heavy Rocket Salvo have statistics similar to those you get from cruise missiles and torpedoes on a well skilled character. But this can still be improved by using :
- proper hull (example: 5% bonus per level on Typhoon to explosion velocity)
- drugs ( example : Mindflood)
- modules ( example : Missile guidance )
- implants ( example : Zainou 'Deadeye' Guided Missile Precision line)
- rigs ( example : Warhead Flare Catalyst)

From what i noticed the only thing that affect fighter missiles are drone related modules.

I don't know how to express, how this explosion radius and damage reduction brake this weapon system when i compare it to Torpedo application i can get on Typhoon, Missile guidance, and cheep implant - while still ignoring drug and rig.


Rockets are not main weapon of the fighters, but so huge nerf to this mechanic will make them quite unusable - in this case why even bother with it?
Remove Rocket salvo and trade it to bigger base damage of the fighters.

Even at lvl 5 no one is mounting Torpedoes on hulls that don't have bonus to missiles - as there is no point, mostly because of the bad application.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
#232 - 2016-06-15 13:08:16 UTC
I find the nerf to light fighter salvo DPS a bit concerning. Reducing the alpha and application is a good move, but carriers will need at least as much DPS as they have now, if not more, to be viable without the alpha. I would expect roughly a 25% increase in overall DPS with this much of a hit to application, not a ~15% decrease.
NaK'Lin
7-2 Ronin
#233 - 2016-06-15 13:36:31 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
I find the nerf to light fighter salvo DPS a bit concerning. Reducing the alpha and application is a good move, but carriers will need at least as much DPS as they have now, if not more, to be viable without the alpha. I would expect roughly a 25% increase in overall DPS with this much of a hit to application, not a ~15% decrease.

I'm not having access to excel right this very moment.
Can I get the math behind this?

What's the exact impact to sustained DPS now? -15%? (ignore application, pure perfect numbers)


  • it's -40% salvo damage
  • reload shortened by 1/3 (6s to 4s)
  • More charges by 50% (8 charges to 12 charges) (this should cancel itself out with the shortened reload times. no change on the "hey, i'm not contributing to combat" time)
  • Rate of fire increased (18s cycles down to 14s cycles).


Normal "auto-attack" has not been affected in damage numbers, only application, iirc.
So only the difference in Special attack (F3) needs to be considered. It used to contribute roughly about 45% of total sustained DPS, iirc. So the sustained number of the Salvo special attack (F3) must've gone down by 33.33333333333333333333333333333333333% for it to affect the total sustained DPS by -15%.

Again, I might be wrong, I'm on the road and doing napkin math.
Someone please do an actual math behind this and check by how much sustained DPs is affected. it's rather important.

Thank you.
Anthar Thebess
#234 - 2016-06-15 13:59:34 UTC
Don't forget about application.
Now this new Rocket Salvo look more than Torpedo Salvo.
Check how torpedo apply damage.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
Villore Accords
#235 - 2016-06-15 14:48:17 UTC
Do omni's affect rocket salvo sig rad?
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
#236 - 2016-06-15 14:48:27 UTC
NaK'Lin wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
I find the nerf to light fighter salvo DPS a bit concerning. Reducing the alpha and application is a good move, but carriers will need at least as much DPS as they have now, if not more, to be viable without the alpha. I would expect roughly a 25% increase in overall DPS with this much of a hit to application, not a ~15% decrease.

I'm not having access to excel right this very moment.
Can I get the math behind this?

What's the exact impact to sustained DPS now? -15%? (ignore application, pure perfect numbers)


  • it's -40% salvo damage
  • reload shortened by 1/3 (6s to 4s)
  • More charges by 50% (8 charges to 12 charges) (this should cancel itself out with the shortened reload times. no change on the "hey, i'm not contributing to combat" time)
  • Rate of fire increased (18s cycles down to 14s cycles).


Normal "auto-attack" has not been affected in damage numbers, only application, iirc.
So only the difference in Special attack (F3) needs to be considered. It used to contribute roughly about 45% of total sustained DPS, iirc. So the sustained number of the Salvo special attack (F3) must've gone down by 33.33333333333333333333333333333333333% for it to affect the total sustained DPS by -15%.

Again, I might be wrong, I'm on the road and doing napkin math.
Someone please do an actual math behind this and check by how much sustained DPs is affected. it's rather important.

Thank you.

My math wasn't precise for the 15%; doing the math again it looks more like 11% less paper DPS while the missile attack still has ammo. The cycle time effectively went from 19 seconds to 15 (remember you can't activate the ability till after the cycle has finished, then you have to wait till the next tick.) for a 26.67% improvement. With the 40% decrease in damage, that comes out to a 24% decrease in DPS for the salvo.
On top of the paper DPS nerf, the salvo can no longer fully apply to most battleships, let alone cruisers or frigates.

Beyond the paper math it's more subjective, but I just can't really see a noteworthy use for carriers if they lose the one thing they were good at, which was doing a lot of damage in a very short time. If you want sustained DPS, HAW dreads are a little better against battleships and with proper support, vastly better against smaller targets.
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#237 - 2016-06-15 16:36:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessie McPewpew
WTH is with this explosion radius? Please make it similar to that of heavy missiles. This is ridiculous. No one flies heavy missile ships but you want us to be flying torpedos that are restricted to bombers and golems with a bilion tps.
sHanQ Myteia
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2016-06-15 16:40:06 UTC
good decision to nerf them, carriers were and probably still are OP
Cade Windstalker
#239 - 2016-06-15 16:48:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:

My math wasn't precise for the 15%; doing the math again it looks more like 11% less paper DPS while the missile attack still has ammo. The cycle time effectively went from 19 seconds to 15 (remember you can't activate the ability till after the cycle has finished, then you have to wait till the next tick.) for a 26.67% improvement. With the 40% decrease in damage, that comes out to a 24% decrease in DPS for the salvo.
On top of the paper DPS nerf, the salvo can no longer fully apply to most battleships, let alone cruisers or frigates.

Beyond the paper math it's more subjective, but I just can't really see a noteworthy use for carriers if they lose the one thing they were good at, which was doing a lot of damage in a very short time. If you want sustained DPS, HAW dreads are a little better against battleships and with proper support, vastly better against smaller targets.


Making Light Fighters less effective against sub-cap targets seems to be part of the overall point here. While HAW Dreads may do better on paper they're also easier to deal with. They represent a single target, rather than a Carrier plus all its fighters, and they have less ability to project damage than a Carrier does. While you could argue that Fighters can be killed independently and that justifies their effectiveness in practice this seems to be harder to do than just targeting and neuting out a single Dread, running away from it, or bringing in your own Dreads to kill the HAW fit one(s).

Also it's worth noting that this is only a change to Light Fighters, not the Heavies, so Carriers are only really losing a bit of effectiveness against Sub-Caps, not larger targets.

Correction: Also it's worth noting that this is only really affecting how effective Light Fighters are against smaller targets, not really larger Battleships or larger targets.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#240 - 2016-06-15 16:50:40 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Also it's worth noting that this is only a change to Light Fighters, not the Heavies, so Carriers are only really losing a bit of effectiveness against Sub-Caps, not larger targets.



Were only it possible to stuff heavy fighters into my carrier.

Currently I'm better off using long range fibos vs subcaps, than light fighters. I don't even....