These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Crazy Vania
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#541 - 2016-06-23 18:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Crazy Vania
I'm back. Finally got my ranking in Overwatch PTR: confirmed International 2017. Lol

I'd rather not do it, since you are so very clearly biased and single-minded about this, and the discussion has now thankfully switched to reddit, but I'm available on Sisi once again to test your "time to kill" which is, by the way, all in your head. It's not "time to kill" it's "time until the point is forced off". You're not killing any interceptors today except your [dual boxing] own.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#542 - 2016-06-23 18:28:52 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

The chap you're arguing/debating with is scramming the dromis. You seem not to be? This will make a huge difference if that is the case.


I cannot target them fast enough on my 2nd account to scram them before they are already in web range, at which point scramming them is bad because they overshoot with the MWD on, and you would just web yourself earlier. If you overheat your scram you scram at 13k factoring travel and the Dromi webs at 16km... I have no idea what that guy is talking about other than they have bad fighter skills.
Evelgrivion
Origin.
#543 - 2016-06-23 18:38:02 UTC
C-137 wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

The chap you're arguing/debating with is scramming the dromis. You seem not to be? This will make a huge difference if that is the case.


I cannot target them fast enough on my 2nd account to scram them before they are already in web range, at which point scramming them is bad because they overshoot with the MWD on, and you would just web yourself earlier. If you overheat your scram you scram at 13k factoring travel and the Dromi webs at 16km... I have no idea what that guy is talking about other than they have bad fighter skills.


Carrier and anti-carrier combat is not multibox friendly.
Cade Windstalker
#544 - 2016-06-23 19:33:16 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
The missile formula does not take into account the velocity of the fighters themselves, which is where I believe the problem lies. The current state of carriers would be a lot less troublesome if they couldn't just zip across two hundred kilometers of space at 16+ kilometers per second and delete enemy ships with guns and volleys the second they get in range because of reduced damage from their extraordinarily high velocity.


Then you would run into the same problem as if you just gave them 'guns' and made them use that damage formula, where they would need to get increased application to offset Drones (and Fighters) being dumber than a sack of hammers about shutting off their MWDs and reducing speed close to a target, or even about reducing speed in general to better apply damage. Making Fighters lose damage based on their own speed would just create frustration by the pilot's inability to tell them to do something even an hour old newbie out on a fleet can manage, slow down their ship.

Drones get around this problem by having fantastic application but relatively low DPS, except for Sentries which are basically deploy-able guns and sit stationary, thus not needing the crutch of fantastic application for what they are.

Fighters are doing something similar, but because of how they function the gun damage formula would be massively impractical, for more or less exactly the reason you seem to want them to use some half-way version of it.

That said...

C-137 wrote:
The MWD cooldown is actually quite obnoxious. If you are fighting within 35kms, it is better to recall and relaunch between targets than wait for the MWD, unless you are already near the next target obviously. It seems too much like a Fire-and-forget ability right now. Very little interactivity, you pretty much use it when its up, no matter the situation.


I really don't disagree with this. While I think micromanaging fighter recalls is a good challenge for Carrier pilots I think there are better ways this could be accomplished.

While I don't think it would be good to let pilots micro the speed of their Fighters (hard on the server load from Fighters, potential for abuse, and not very immersive or engaging) that is the first thing that comes to mind.

Maybe give Fighters a sort of "fuel" bar that recharges over time and is burned by the MWD. This would mimic the fuel management aspects of a real-world carrier. Then let the Carrier pilot toggle the MWD on and off at will, but have the sig bloom tick down over time after it's shut off instead of an immediate drop, so the Carrier pilot has to manage their (slowly recharging) fuel supplies, can burst the MWD for shorter periods, but has to consider when they're going to shut it off because the fighters lose speed more rapidly than they lose sig radius, making them vulnerable as they come out of a boost.

Also I missed that you can only launch one squad of Support Fighters. This seems a little arbitrary and not all that compelling to me, unless they're worried about these things being too good?
Evelgrivion
Origin.
#545 - 2016-06-23 20:14:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Then you would run into the same problem as if you just gave them 'guns' and made them use that damage formula, where they would need to get increased application to offset Drones (and Fighters) being dumber than a sack of hammers about shutting off their MWDs and reducing speed close to a target, or even about reducing speed in general to better apply damage. Making Fighters lose damage based on their own speed would just create frustration by the pilot's inability to tell them to do something even an hour old newbie out on a fleet can manage, slow down their ship.

Drones get around this problem by having fantastic application but relatively low DPS, except for Sentries which are basically deploy-able guns and sit stationary, thus not needing the crutch of fantastic application for what they are.

Fighters are doing something similar, but because of how they function the gun damage formula would be massively impractical, for more or less exactly the reason you seem to want them to use some half-way version of it.


I want them to use a half-way version of it because outside of situations where the fighters are moving extremely quickly and obliterating their targets as soon as they get close enough, the balance isn't that far off. I could agree that missile volleys are a bit too powerful, but it's only in conjunction with the microwarpdrive ability that fighters are truly broken.
Cade Windstalker
#546 - 2016-06-23 20:51:15 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
I want them to use a half-way version of it because outside of situations where the fighters are moving extremely quickly and obliterating their targets as soon as they get close enough, the balance isn't that far off. I could agree that missile volleys are a bit too powerful, but it's only in conjunction with the microwarpdrive ability that fighters are truly broken.


I don't really agree with this. The overall application is out of control and there's some pretty good math in this thread showing that. If the MWD ability was at the root of it they could just make them move slower and call it a day, but it's not, it's that they're doing the whole "nuke sub-caps off the field entirely" thing, not really how fast the fighters get out to 100km and start doing it.

I'm not saying that you couldn't make Fighters useless with a sufficient nerf to the MWD, but I think that would mostly just be frustrating to everything than an actual fix. What CCP are doing with these changes is an actual fix.
Evelgrivion
Origin.
#547 - 2016-06-23 21:01:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I want them to use a half-way version of it because outside of situations where the fighters are moving extremely quickly and obliterating their targets as soon as they get close enough, the balance isn't that far off. I could agree that missile volleys are a bit too powerful, but it's only in conjunction with the microwarpdrive ability that fighters are truly broken.


I don't really agree with this. The overall application is out of control and there's some pretty good math in this thread showing that. If the MWD ability was at the root of it they could just make them move slower and call it a day, but it's not, it's that they're doing the whole "nuke sub-caps off the field entirely" thing, not really how fast the fighters get out to 100km and start doing it.

I'm not saying that you couldn't make Fighters useless with a sufficient nerf to the MWD, but I think that would mostly just be frustrating to everything than an actual fix. What CCP are doing with these changes is an actual fix.


I'm not sure you understand my argument. What? They aren't broken because the MWD is fast, they're broken because there's no strategic tradeoff in using the MWD. Aside from cooldown management, the MWD is nothing but a benefit to fighters, and it makes the time-to-target extremely low.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#548 - 2016-06-23 21:08:06 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I want them to use a half-way version of it because outside of situations where the fighters are moving extremely quickly and obliterating their targets as soon as they get close enough, the balance isn't that far off. I could agree that missile volleys are a bit too powerful, but it's only in conjunction with the microwarpdrive ability that fighters are truly broken.


I don't really agree with this. The overall application is out of control and there's some pretty good math in this thread showing that. If the MWD ability was at the root of it they could just make them move slower and call it a day, but it's not, it's that they're doing the whole "nuke sub-caps off the field entirely" thing, not really how fast the fighters get out to 100km and start doing it.

I'm not saying that you couldn't make Fighters useless with a sufficient nerf to the MWD, but I think that would mostly just be frustrating to everything than an actual fix. What CCP are doing with these changes is an actual fix.


I'm not sure you understand my argument. What? They aren't broken because the MWD is fast, they're broken because there's no strategic tradeoff in using the MWD. Aside from cooldown management, the MWD is nothing but a benefit to fighters, and it makes the time-to-target extremely low.


Large sig bloom is attached. Makes them miles easier to kill with appropriate weapons.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#549 - 2016-06-23 22:46:14 UTC
So Crazy Vania and I tested some fits. I can't really give any specific logs because I didn't mark down what was what, and we tried a few things. The take aways:

3xDDA is the minimum to force an Inty off-grid.
Tracking Links and Tracking Enhancers are pointless (at least when using Superiority Fighters, but my earlier testing showed them to be useless for Einherji's as well)
Fighter Speed is critical

The Fit I used on my tests
Crazy Vania didn't like the Rigs, so I removed them.

Actual Fit Used:

Buffer Fit Inty was forced off grid in under 1 min using MWD recycling two back to back tests. 2nd test had piloting errors on both sides

Crazy Vania asked that I not recycle the MWD, as it may be unintended mechanics. Same fit as above:

Buffer Fit Inty was forced off grid around 2:30 (IIRC) without a Dromi II due to Gram II low speed. No MWD trick
Buffer Fit Inty was forced off grid around 1:30 (IIRC) with a Dromi II and no MWD trick.
AAR Inty fared better, but ran into reload issues, forced off at 3:00 (IIRC). No MWD trick
S-AR Inty with Exile Booster was able to tank this fit. No MWD trick
S-AR Inty with Exile Booster was killed by this fit in about 1:30 (IIRC) No MWD trick

I am missing a few trials in the middle, but they were similar or irrelevant.

I might test some battleship damage application later if I am bored.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#550 - 2016-06-23 23:14:35 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
I want them to use a half-way version of it because outside of situations where the fighters are moving extremely quickly and obliterating their targets as soon as they get close enough, the balance isn't that far off. I could agree that missile volleys are a bit too powerful, but it's only in conjunction with the microwarpdrive ability that fighters are truly broken.


I don't really agree with this. The overall application is out of control and there's some pretty good math in this thread showing that. If the MWD ability was at the root of it they could just make them move slower and call it a day, but it's not, it's that they're doing the whole "nuke sub-caps off the field entirely" thing, not really how fast the fighters get out to 100km and start doing it.

I'm not saying that you couldn't make Fighters useless with a sufficient nerf to the MWD, but I think that would mostly just be frustrating to everything than an actual fix. What CCP are doing with these changes is an actual fix.


I'm not sure you understand my argument. What? They aren't broken because the MWD is fast, they're broken because there's no strategic tradeoff in using the MWD. Aside from cooldown management, the MWD is nothing but a benefit to fighters, and it makes the time-to-target extremely low.
Only if the target is within the 20 second MWD abilities range, if not, it is another minute before those fighters can chase again.
IF the target is too close and you use the MWD ability - You miss your target altogether because fighters will overshoot due to speed.

So, without even having to think about it, there are 2 drawbacks to MWD use on fighters. Morrigan came up with the most obvious drawback, MWD bloom, so that makes at least 3. More?
Sure;
Cooldown management is a pain, I've lost squads of fighters because of them being stuck 100+k from my carrier and ceptors being fast enough to kill them off. (160 to 200 mil at a time, adds up)
Now we have 4 drawbacks to MWD ability on light fighters - Strategy of using MWD light fighters requires everything to be, just right, 10K short here, too close (and overshoot) there - MWD ability is wasted and your fighters die.

Suggestion - Remove MWD ability from Light Fighters, increase base speed by 25%. In exchange (so they are useful in longer range combat situations as CCP intended - 4,000Km lock range) Allow fighters to warp to and from a target using the tactical overview.

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.

cheekybot Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#551 - 2016-06-24 00:09:40 UTC
You know, the nerf hammers are stupid, this is eve, counter it, a captor should have trouble with carriers, it's a damn ceptor. This comes from a ratter pve point of view, nerfing fighters hurts carrier ratting, why do the pve guys always get the **** end of the nerfs, that in mind I'm not stupid I stay aligned and pay attention, so I haven't been caught yet. But u wanna catch a ratting carrier? Bring more dudes, I shouldn't have to worry about some dude with a month of training for a ceptor being able to solo tackle me after training a year or more to effectively fly said carrier. On the pve side of things why should I rat in a carrier when I can make the same isk/hr in a rattlesnake? So why did I train into the carrier then? This isn't a pvp toon. He makes money. Ccp shots on money makers all the time when do we get the buff? Oh we had one, then all the hard core pvpers who collect tears start shedding them because pvers get the upper hand once, oh well, how dare we make pvpers work for content, I like it when I have to work for it and not **** on dudes trying to make a Lil isk
Cade Windstalker
#552 - 2016-06-24 00:14:36 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
I'm not sure you understand my argument. What? They aren't broken because the MWD is fast, they're broken because there's no strategic tradeoff in using the MWD. Aside from cooldown management, the MWD is nothing but a benefit to fighters, and it makes the time-to-target extremely low.


I would point out that the primary trade-off on using the MWD ability is the inability to use it again for a while. It's basically managing cooldowns. With that said...

I disagree with nothing here except the supposition that it's somehow at the root of the issues Carriers have. It might be part of the reason they can effectively camp gates, but there's plenty of evidence in this thread that that's not anywhere near the only issue Carriers have right now with game balance. Though it might be the one getting the most vocal opponents and proponents. After all, camping a gate solo makes you feel awesome and powerful, and having that taken away kind of sucks, but in this case I think it's better for the game.

Like I said, I wouldn't mind seeing the MWD ability made into something more interesting, provided server stress allows for it, but that's because I like interesting mechanics and it would give Carrier players more options, not because I think MWDs, or being able to apply damage with them running, is what's broken about Fighters.

Also Morrigan has a pretty good point about the sig-bloom.

C-137 wrote:
So Crazy Vania and I tested some fits. I can't really give any specific logs because I didn't mark down what was what, and we tried a few things. The take aways:

3xDDA is the minimum to force an Inty off-grid.
Tracking Links and Tracking Enhancers are pointless (at least when using Superiority Fighters, but my earlier testing showed them to be useless for Einherji's as well)
Fighter Speed is critical

The Fit I used on my tests
Crazy Vania didn't like the Rigs, so I removed them.

Actual Fit Used:

Buffer Fit Inty was forced off grid in under 1 min using MWD recycling two back to back tests. 2nd test had piloting errors on both sides

Crazy Vania asked that I not recycle the MWD, as it may be unintended mechanics. Same fit as above:

Buffer Fit Inty was forced off grid around 2:30 (IIRC) without a Dromi II due to Gram II low speed. No MWD trick
Buffer Fit Inty was forced off grid around 1:30 (IIRC) with a Dromi II and no MWD trick.
AAR Inty fared better, but ran into reload issues, forced off at 3:00 (IIRC). No MWD trick
S-AR Inty with Exile Booster was able to tank this fit. No MWD trick
S-AR Inty with Exile Booster was killed by this fit in about 1:30 (IIRC) No MWD trick

I am missing a few trials in the middle, but they were similar or irrelevant.

I might test some battleship damage application later if I am bored.


Love so much about this.

So, I think the takeaways here are:


  • Carriers aren't completely helpless against an Inty, and an Inty can't perma-tackle a Carrier with a decently balanced Fighter loadout.
  • A Carrier can't blap an Inty without so much support as to make the exercise pointless, the support could just kill the Inty.
  • The MWD ability is *really* powerful and cycling it is very strong.
  • Fitting choice matters a lot in a Carrier's ability to deal with very small, very fast ships.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#553 - 2016-06-24 00:23:34 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Cade Windstalker wrote:


  • Carriers aren't completely helpless against an Inty, and an Inty can't perma-tackle a Carrier with a decently balanced Fighter loadout.
  • A Carrier can't blap an Inty without so much support as to make the exercise pointless, the support could just kill the Inty.
  • The MWD ability is *really* powerful and cycling it is very strong.
  • Fitting choice matters a lot in a Carrier's ability to deal with very small, very fast ships.


The 'MWD recycling' I mention is recalling all fighters back into the launch tubes and relaunching them. I was able to run 2 MWD cycles on the Grams IIs in under 40s, this is what forced the inties off the hardest.

I am reasonable sure with Rigs I can blap an inty in under 30s anywhere within 40km.

This fit is possible, and has 445 vs 487 scan res (not the 780 that EFT shows). This fit has more damage and better apllication than any fit Crazy Vania and I tested. Also NSA + Sebo gives 800 ish Sensor Res.

We both agreed that 2 Inties would post a major problem to a carrier.
Je'sus Quintana
Doomheim
#554 - 2016-06-24 01:11:37 UTC
If the solution for anti-subcap ship to kill subcaps is to bring subcaps to fight them then the dev team has completely failed. Thank you for demonstrating this.

Cade Windstalker
#555 - 2016-06-24 01:38:17 UTC
Je'sus Quintana wrote:
If the solution for anti-subcap ship to kill subcaps is to bring subcaps to fight them then the dev team has completely failed. Thank you for demonstrating this.



The Carrier has never, ever, been billed by CCP as an Anti-Subcap ship. This is something players decided must be the case because of how effective Carriers were at killing sub-caps. It has been decided that this is a bad thing so their ability to kill subcaps is being nerfed.

This really shouldn't surprise anyone since "super effective against sub-caps" is one of the things CCP was pretty explicitly against capitals being, since then the answer becomes "bring all the Capitals" if they're just flat more effective on a per-ship basis..
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#556 - 2016-06-24 04:07:40 UTC
CCP, what's up with the change (as it is on SiSi) causing fighter primary weapons not to activate until they're within range? You're making carriers even more difficult to micromanage than they already are, please don't put that in the patch.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#557 - 2016-06-24 07:06:21 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Je'sus Quintana wrote:
If the solution for anti-subcap ship to kill subcaps is to bring subcaps to fight them then the dev team has completely failed. Thank you for demonstrating this.



The Carrier has never, ever, been billed by CCP as an Anti-Subcap ship. This is something players decided must be the case because of how effective Carriers were at killing sub-caps. It has been decided that this is a bad thing so their ability to kill subcaps is being nerfed.

This really shouldn't surprise anyone since "super effective against sub-caps" is one of the things CCP was pretty explicitly against capitals being, since then the answer becomes "bring all the Capitals" if they're just flat more effective on a per-ship basis..


Well given their comical ineffective nature vs other capitals, was that really a shock to anyone?

And you're mistaken, by the way, they just didn't like the alpha, the result was OK not the method. They're still going to murder zone small ships, just a bit slower after the changes. Where they are going to suck more is fleets and trying to use burst damage there.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#558 - 2016-06-24 07:24:27 UTC
C-137 wrote:
So Crazy Vania and I tested some fits. I can't really give any specific logs because I didn't mark down what was what, and we tried a few things. The take aways:

3xDDA is the minimum to force an Inty off-grid.
Tracking Links and Tracking Enhancers are pointless (at least when using Superiority Fighters, but my earlier testing showed them to be useless for Einherji's as well)
Fighter Speed is critical


I respectfully disagree. I killed the ceptor in 30 seconds using 2 T1 FSUs and 2 T2 DDAs. Twisted


However there are much bigger issues abound - the lock range change is a nightmare.


  1. I can shoot at a higher optimal than I can lock (without a weird fit) and cannot increase fighter lock range
  2. I cannot see the fighter range to target so I need to button mash against something flitting in and out of range like a ceptor
  3. Fighter UI is flood controlled and locks you out for 40 seconds if you issue too many commands in short order. Coupled with the point above, this is a total killer.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#559 - 2016-06-24 08:20:52 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
C-137 wrote:
So Crazy Vania and I tested some fits. I can't really give any specific logs because I didn't mark down what was what, and we tried a few things. The take aways:

3xDDA is the minimum to force an Inty off-grid.
Tracking Links and Tracking Enhancers are pointless (at least when using Superiority Fighters, but my earlier testing showed them to be useless for Einherji's as well)
Fighter Speed is critical


I respectfully disagree. I killed the ceptor in 30 seconds using 2 T1 FSUs and 2 T2 DDAs. Twisted


However there are much bigger issues abound - the lock range change is a nightmare.


  1. I can shoot at a higher optimal than I can lock (without a weird fit) and cannot increase fighter lock range
  2. I cannot see the fighter range to target so I need to button mash against something flitting in and out of range like a ceptor
  3. Fighter UI is flood controlled and locks you out for 40 seconds if you issue too many commands in short order. Coupled with the point above, this is a total killer.



0) if you did you can post logs
1) No you can't
2) Fighter range to target would be nice, but you can estimate with the Tactial Overlay and Figher Orbit display
3) Buttom mash works fine, whats the issue?
4) I spammed F1, F2, and F3 and was never locked out, client issue? (you can see from my logs up in the thread I was hitting F1 at least 1x a second)
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#560 - 2016-06-24 08:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
0) I'll await Vania confirming, he was surprised too. I don't have captures on this machine (I'm at work), it was late and I was in a rush.

1) Yes, you can. It's trivial. Maybe not that far passed, but you can do wit with just two omnis and the testing last night demonstrated it works. Remember the show info panel is at 0 skills Blink

Lockout Results: http://i.imgur.com/clCEajV.png this actually starts at 40 seconds counts down and happens when you have things like a keres damping and scramming the fighters trying to kill it, or if you're peeling a ceptor using the method I used last night. It's a total pain.