These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cade Windstalker
#241 - 2016-06-15 17:01:59 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
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....


Fixed.

Also are you really better off using one battleship over 1 Carrier? I can't check the numbers at the moment but I kind of highly doubt that even with the nerfs...
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
#242 - 2016-06-15 17:02:13 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
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.

OFC, because you fly battleships.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#243 - 2016-06-15 17:06:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
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....


Fixed.

Also are you really better off using one battleship over 1 Carrier? I can't check the numbers at the moment but I kind of highly doubt that even with the nerfs...


I feel like you misunderstood my post.

I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

I'm 100% serious.

Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
expl rad | 330 | 350
expl vel | 110 | 100

Alpha from a 2x DDA thanatos and nyx respectively (post changes)? 17900ish vs 36000ish. Almost twice the damage, better applied and available to fire again. And at longer range.

Now, this isn't a "nerf supers", this is a "in what world does that even make sense to nerf light fighters this hard"
FistyMcBumBardier
Goryn Clade
#244 - 2016-06-15 17:09:00 UTC
I like these changes as they remove the majority of dps (applicable to subcaps) from the rocket salvo to the auto attack. This will reduce the horrible feeling of 'whoops, just got deleted from this fight despite burning at full speed'. Now the target of the fighters will have a few more seconds to react.

Add me in the list of people that would like to see the fighters 'rocket salvo' name changed to 'torpedo salvo' to better reflect it's application abilities. Makes it easier on everyone.
Cade Windstalker
#245 - 2016-06-15 17:09:15 UTC
Jessie McPewpew wrote:

OFC, because you fly battleships.


Doesn't almost everyone, at one point or another?

Mostly though I'm just interested in seeing the game have a balanced ecosystem. Carriers, as they stand right now, offer a lot of utility and power all in one package, and as CCP said way back when this whole Capital Balance ball got rolling:


  • Capital ships should be effective in most combat situations without completely dominating the battlefield and without invalidating other ship types.


If the best solution to killing sub-caps is "bring fewer of X capital ship" then I'm pretty sure that's invalidating a ship type. Probably a lot of ship types, really. Capitals are almost always going to be incredibly efficient *per player* so if they also become very ISK efficient then we're back to the whole "the only counter to capitals is more capitals or more Supers" problem, and that's just blatantly and obviously bad for the game.

(Also, for the record, Carriers 5 in two races)
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#246 - 2016-06-15 17:09:47 UTC
NaK'Lin wrote:
Can we reconnect to our fighters again after abandoning them?

+1

I was really upset when accidentally docked my carrier while fighters were 50+ km away. Was playing on TQ, not SiSi, so took a while to scoop them all.
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#247 - 2016-06-15 17:10:34 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback!

Carriers & Fighters
  • General Light Fighters (Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg, Einherji) have had their basic attack application stats increased and their heavy rocket salvo application & damage stats decreased:
  • Basic Attack - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 160 (-80)
    Basic Attack - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 150 (+30)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 350 (+250)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 100 (-20)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Speed: 14 seconds (-4)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Damage (Average): 146 (-94)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Charges: 12 (+4)
    Heavy Rocket Salvo - Reload Time: 4 seconds (-2)



    Switching the application between basic attack and rocket salvo might be ok (even though the number seems to be too high to me... a 3.5x increase in explosion radius while still nerfing the velocity, seriously?), but nerf to rocket dps also needs a compensation.

    Carrier dps is not too high. What might be too high is the combinated burst and application against small targets.
    But the basic attack got a huge nerf compared to the dps that carrier used to do before the whole capital rebalance. The dps of the secondary attack is necessary to compensate for that loss, so if you nerf that dps by 25% the basic damage needs to be increased.

    Carrier dps is already quite bad against large targets, what you are doing now is another flat nerf to large targets. The increased application on the basic attack is completely useless against large targets.

    Seriously CCP, please consider this question carefully:

    Do you want to nerf carrier dps against large targets?

    Because this is exactly what you are doing. I feel this is a really bad move, and probably not even intended, so please give the main attack more damage, or something similar.
    Cade Windstalker
    #248 - 2016-06-15 17:17:02 UTC
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    I feel like you misunderstood my post.

    I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

    I'm 100% serious.

    Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
    expl rad | 330 | 350
    expl vel | 110 | 100

    Alpha from a 2x DDA thanatos and nyx respectively (post changes)? 17900ish vs 36000ish. Almost twice the damage, better applied and available to fire again. And at longer range.

    Now, this isn't a "nerf supers", this is a "in what world does that even make sense to nerf light fighters this hard"


    Okay, yes, I did misunderstand and I see your point.

    That said, I think that does make this look a lot like a "this other thing should maybe be nerfed too" at least just on the numbers. Carriers have been getting a lot of complaints lately, and the nerf seems pretty justified overall. Super-carriers may just be less of a problem even with more sub-cap damage, because they are a *lot* more expensive and logistics hard to field in large numbers than a regular Carrier, and part of the reason Carriers are getting nerfed is because of how ubiquitous and dangerous they are to sub-caps.

    If I find a Carrier out ratting alone right now it's "eh, lets see if it's worth it" because you'll almost guaronteed take losses killing the thing even if he doesn't have a Cyno. If I find a Super it's "Holy **** who can I call to bring this sucker down!" because it's just that tempting of a target, which is why supers getting deployed (or killed) makes news but no one really cares if 10 carriers die of in Low Sec space.

    Those Fibo application numbers are live right now and yet I've heard zero complaints about them. I've heard Carriers mentioned probably two dozen times in the last week (generally accompanied by some variation of the word "nerf") in *high sec Incursion Coms*. Yes a fair number of these people are WH and Null players on alts, but it still says a lot about the state of carriers that it's coming up in a conversation in space where you can't even see one.
    Skia Aumer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #249 - 2016-06-15 17:18:01 UTC
    CCP Larrikin wrote:
    General Light Fighters (Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg, Einherji) have had their basic attack application stats increased and their heavy rocket salvo application & damage stats decreased

    Good one.
    Marranar Amatin
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #250 - 2016-06-15 17:20:00 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    [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.



    no, against battleships this is still a 25% nerf on the secondary dps without any compensation.
    Skia Aumer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #251 - 2016-06-15 17:21:14 UTC
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

    I'm 100% serious.

    Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
    expl rad | 330 | 350
    expl vel | 110 | 100

    Is that bad?
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #252 - 2016-06-15 17:22:29 UTC
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

    I'm 100% serious.

    Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
    expl rad | 330 | 350
    expl vel | 110 | 100

    Is that bad?



    It's like a raven being better at killing frigates than a cerberus. What do you think?
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #253 - 2016-06-15 17:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    I feel like you misunderstood my post.

    I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

    I'm 100% serious.

    Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
    expl rad | 330 | 350
    expl vel | 110 | 100

    Alpha from a 2x DDA thanatos and nyx respectively (post changes)? 17900ish vs 36000ish. Almost twice the damage, better applied and available to fire again. And at longer range.

    Now, this isn't a "nerf supers", this is a "in what world does that even make sense to nerf light fighters this hard"


    Okay, yes, I did misunderstand and I see your point.

    That said, I think that does make this look a lot like a "this other thing should maybe be nerfed too" at least just on the numbers. Carriers have been getting a lot of complaints lately, and the nerf seems pretty justified overall. Super-carriers may just be less of a problem even with more sub-cap damage, because they are a *lot* more expensive and logistics hard to field in large numbers than a regular Carrier, and part of the reason Carriers are getting nerfed is because of how ubiquitous and dangerous they are to sub-caps.

    If I find a Carrier out ratting alone right now it's "eh, lets see if it's worth it" because you'll almost guaronteed take losses killing the thing even if he doesn't have a Cyno. If I find a Super it's "Holy **** who can I call to bring this sucker down!" because it's just that tempting of a target, which is why supers getting deployed (or killed) makes news but no one really cares if 10 carriers die of in Low Sec space.

    Those Fibo application numbers are live right now and yet I've heard zero complaints about them. I've heard Carriers mentioned probably two dozen times in the last week (generally accompanied by some variation of the word "nerf") in *high sec Incursion Coms*. Yes a fair number of these people are WH and Null players on alts, but it still says a lot about the state of carriers that it's coming up in a conversation in space where you can't even see one.


    Yeah that's because carriers had very high alpha with excellent application.

    Now they have vastly reduced alpha (~28%) but this has been coupled with making the application worse than faction torps. Given my damage is laughable vs capitals, I'm rather disappointed to be faced with needing webs and painters to apply effectively to battleships, never mind anything smaller: god forbid you shoot logi, or a T3.
    Skia Aumer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #254 - 2016-06-15 17:34:32 UTC
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

    I'm 100% serious.

    Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
    expl rad | 330 | 350
    expl vel | 110 | 100

    Is that bad?



    It's like a raven being better at killing frigates than a cerberus. What do you think?

    I dont think raven cost like 10 cerbs.
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #255 - 2016-06-15 17:37:38 UTC
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

    I'm 100% serious.

    Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
    expl rad | 330 | 350
    expl vel | 110 | 100

    Is that bad?



    It's like a raven being better at killing frigates than a cerberus. What do you think?

    I dont think raven cost like 10 cerbs.



    And still you're missing my point.

    Why on earth is a super better served using HEAVY FIGHTERS instead of LIGHT ONES to kill subcaps?

    What then, is the point of lights?
    Marranar Amatin
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #256 - 2016-06-15 17:42:39 UTC
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    Skia Aumer wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

    I'm 100% serious.

    Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
    expl rad | 330 | 350
    expl vel | 110 | 100

    Is that bad?



    It's like a raven being better at killing frigates than a cerberus. What do you think?

    I dont think raven cost like 10 cerbs.



    well than compare raven and caracal... a raven costs about 20 caracal and still is not better at killing frigs.
    Cade Windstalker
    #257 - 2016-06-15 17:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
    Marranar Amatin wrote:
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    [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.



    no, against battleships this is still a 25% nerf on the secondary dps without any compensation.


    Okay, fair point, my original comment was clearly overly generalized.

    That said, I think the burst damage nerf is kind of justified and the increased application from the primary weapons against smaller targets (that tend to threaten fighters) helps offset this at least somewhat, albeit indirectly.

    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    Yeah that's because carriers had very high alpha with excellent application.

    Now they have vastly reduced alpha (~28%) but this has been coupled with making the application worse than faction torps. Given my damage is laughable vs capitals, I'm rather disappointed to be faced with needing webs and painters to apply effectively to battleships, never mind anything smaller: god forbid you shoot logi, or a T3.


    They still have around 2+ times the EHP of a Battleship though. The entire point of the capital rebalance, as I pointed out over here was for Capitals to stop invalidating smaller ship types. Having Carriers just be amazingly awesome at blapping sub-caps defeats that rather drastically.

    That is the entire reason Carriers lost the ability to run regular Drones, because we ended up with entire fleets of carriers running Sentries assisted to the FC just erasing sub-caps.

    I get the desire to roam around in an OP ship just stomping on other players, but that's a really bad state for capitals to be in for the game as a whole and while it might be fun it's still blatantly OP...

    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    And still you're missing my point.

    Why on earth is a super better served using HEAVY FIGHTERS instead of LIGHT ONES to kill subcaps?

    What then, is the point of lights?


    You're really just making a case for Heavy Fighters to get a similar application nerf here, not one for Lights to be nerfed less.

    Light Fighters are currently an issue in the balance between Carriers and sub-caps, hence the nerf. If Heavy Fighters are now invalidating Light Fighters with these changes then the answer to that is to nerf Heavies, not to not nerf Light Fighters.
    Krovos
    Clone Vat Bay
    #258 - 2016-06-15 17:46:11 UTC
    CyberRaver wrote:
    Empress Honeybadger wrote:
    CyberRaver wrote:
    Agrakari Saraki wrote:
    The original 900% NSA scanres boost made it a nightmare to keep carriers tackled with dictors, as they just instalock you and alpha the dictor off the field. If the intention was to prevent this, I don't think that the nerf to 500% meaningfully improves this situation. The carriers can still lock dictors in 3 seconds, which isn't enough time to burn out of your bubble and escape. Add to that the immense buff to cruiser application, and even HICs have a hard time keeping a carrier tackled before help arrives.

    I think that this situation is negatively impacting content generation by allowing carriers to clear their tackle without assistance, leading to less fleet fights and content generated over tackled carriers.



    Carriers have less ehp and are the anti subcap platform

    Kindly eat a **** with your small gang bullshit

    You want to kill capitals come properly prepared with ecm or your own caps






    Carriers atm are a pve ratting platform for most of all.

    Why as a small fleet I field 4-5 times more ISK and men for a single carrier yet am unable to take it down? Because nullbears like you gotta nullbear for every single proposal against them and you are in majority. And they just made it so that its impossible to jam the figther. So all I can do according to you is bring my capitals in your staging system. OK.




    Keep your risk averse ass out of sov null then


    3 patrol boats dont hold down a aircraft carrier, even if you gold plate the engines to make them cost more

    Small gangs should be fighting small gangs, 3 frigates die to a ishtar so 3 lightly tanked stealth ships should die to a carrier many times bigger

    You arent meant to butt heads with blops but be rather tactical and kill smaller things







    And you continue to show that you have absolutely no idea what small gang is.
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #259 - 2016-06-15 17:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    Morrigan LeSante wrote:
    And still you're missing my point.

    Why on earth is a super better served using HEAVY FIGHTERS instead of LIGHT ONES to kill subcaps?

    What then, is the point of lights?


    You're really just making a case for Heavy Fighters to get a similar application nerf here, not one for Lights to be nerfed less.

    Light Fighters are currently an issue in the balance between Carriers and sub-caps, hence the nerf. If Heavy Fighters are now invalidating Light Fighters with these changes then the answer to that is to nerf Heavies, not to not nerf Light Fighters.



    No, my point is that the nerfs are too strong. Remember the application nerf is on top of a 28% reduction to volley as well.

    It is not as if this is just an application change.

    Furthermore we should keep in mind carriers are absolutely useless vs other caps, except killing their drones. All they have is subcap capabilities and this has just been nerfed into the dirt and then some.
    Skia Aumer
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #260 - 2016-06-15 17:56:26 UTC
    Marranar Amatin wrote:
    well than compare raven and caracal... a raven costs about 20 caracal and still is not better at killing frigs.

    Alright, you got me. Caracal is OP!
    On a serious note, if heavy fighters should be nerfed - ask CCP to nerf them, rather than use it as excuse to keep light fighters OP.