These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
C-137
C3 Corporation
#561 - 2016-06-24 08:49:28 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
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.


How are you getting 50% optimal bonus to take 20km past 30km lock range? 25% from skills, 20% from a T2 rig, 15% from a max skills T2 OTLII. If you have 2 scripted range OTE's then thats your problem lol. A T2 rig gives your Sup Fighters max range.

Also I never ran into that message, odd.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#562 - 2016-06-24 08:54:05 UTC
I told you, two omnis. Add range scripts. Profit.

And it is not a problem, it's how you kill interceptors.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#563 - 2016-06-24 08:55:23 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I told you, two omnis. Add range scripts. Profit.

And it is not a problem, it's how you kill interceptors.


1 OTE and 1 DNC would be better, but whatever.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#564 - 2016-06-24 08:58:54 UTC
C-137 wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I told you, two omnis. Add range scripts. Profit.

And it is not a problem, it's how you kill interceptors.


1 OTE and 1 DNC would be better, but whatever.



No, it wouldn't. If you're chasing the ceptor at all you're doing it wrong.


Btw: T1 fighters are even worse with lock range.
C-137
C3 Corporation
#565 - 2016-06-24 09:24:22 UTC  |  Edited by: C-137
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
C-137 wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I told you, two omnis. Add range scripts. Profit.

And it is not a problem, it's how you kill interceptors.


1 OTE and 1 DNC would be better, but whatever.



No, it wouldn't. If you're chasing the ceptor at all you're doing it wrong.


Btw: T1 fighters are even worse with lock range.


Yea I suppose you can just use them like Sentry Drones, but that feels super broken. More broken than reseting the MWD I should add. Which I was asked not to do...

You can press F1 and then tell them to orbit you again, instead of spamming manual move commands too fyi.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#566 - 2016-06-24 09:38:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Precisely Smile

I couldn't get a self orbit, it kept trying to select the thanatos, so I just did it manually.

I'm ok with the technique because in reality what needs to happen is the carrier pulls the drones it was using>X seconds time sink. Then they are reloaded and refuelled>5-50 seconds. Then you unload them and reload the others>another 20 or so seconds, I didnt time it. THEN you can launch.

That's a long time just to get them on field compared to other drones which are instant launch. And you'll need to rescript the omnis which have a 30 second cycle time to boot.
Anthar Thebess
#567 - 2016-06-24 09:40:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
When people are looking solutions trying to use things against the design, then something broken.


Using Space Superiority fighters to kill frigates :
The Gram can launch a swarm of missiles that are especially apt at destroying fighter and drone craft. These however do very little damage to full-sized starships.


Resetting MWD cycle by scoping fighters to deal sufficient damage.

Fighter lock range smaller than optimal range.

Secondary attack unable to do full damage to armor battleship.

For me carriers need big re-balance after upcoming patch, as a ship class they will be broken.

Maybe in upcoming patch we will simply get :
- well deserved NSA nerf.
- Nerf to missile attack - 80% reduction to alfa by reducing the damage not application, and giving the fighters additional charges to compensate total damage at 70% of current


We have capital focus group - why not giving them possibility to balance the fighters?
Who know maybe they will actually give some positive feedback.

Balance to carriers don't have to be by nerfing them to ground, but by introducing good counter play.
Maybe ECM burst can make them dormant for 4-6 seconds?
Saleya Blackheart
I've no Idea
#568 - 2016-06-24 10:40:43 UTC
Why not just lower the rocket dmg/alpha and increase normal gun dps (not alpha) to compensate?!
Problem was never the dps but the alpha so why do both get nerfed now?
Nikel Ivanovich
#569 - 2016-06-24 14:03:51 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi M8s,

With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback!

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)


As always, we welcome your feedback!



why then need these useless abilities? if they do less damage than basic attack to the same small number of times?
all changes carriers become meaningless. expensive ship which again has nothing

experimentation on the test server showed that F3 abilities with the above characteristics does not carry any danger for any type of capital ships and subcapitals, with such characteristics "button following to the target" or "button warp to target" would be useful, and a useless ability at all to remove, otherwise they will look like a joke
Cade Windstalker
#570 - 2016-06-24 14:06:25 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
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.


They're a lot less effective vs small ships, they can't easily one-shot them without a ton of assistance and coordination, and their overall DPS has been reduced. Overall I would hardly call that a "murderzone" unless what you're flying is un-tanked Battleships, in which case I have no sympathy.

As for the fleets, good. Easy alpha-strikes are bad for the game, they invalidate Logi as a class.

Saleya Blackheart wrote:
Why not just lower the rocket dmg/alpha and increase normal gun dps (not alpha) to compensate?!
Problem was never the dps but the alpha so why do both get nerfed now?


Seems to me that the fact that they changed it suggests that the DPS was a problem, just not one that's come up from the people you've talked to.

Anthar Thebess wrote:
When people are looking solutions trying to use things against the design, then something broken.


Using Space Superiority fighters to kill frigates :
The Gram can launch a swarm of missiles that are especially apt at destroying fighter and drone craft. These however do very little damage to full-sized starships.


Resetting MWD cycle by scoping fighters to deal sufficient damage.

Fighter lock range smaller than optimal range.

Secondary attack unable to do full damage to armor battleship.

For me carriers need big re-balance after upcoming patch, as a ship class they will be broken.

Maybe in upcoming patch we will simply get :
- well deserved NSA nerf.
- Nerf to missile attack - 80% reduction to alfa by reducing the damage not application, and giving the fighters additional charges to compensate total damage at 70% of current


We have capital focus group - why not giving them possibility to balance the fighters?
Who know maybe they will actually give some positive feedback.

Balance to carriers don't have to be by nerfing them to ground, but by introducing good counter play.
Maybe ECM burst can make them dormant for 4-6 seconds?


Use (or abuse, depending on your perspective) of mechanics has a long and storied history in Eve. Personally I don't have a problem with the MWD refueling trick, it even makes a fair amount of sense in lore. You're sending out a fast attack squad, having them make a strike, calling them back, and then sending them out again after refueling their MWDs off of the ship's energy rather than their own limited power pack.

The fighter attack range is only smaller if you specifically buff it that far.

The secondary attack not doing full damage to a sig/speed tanking Battleship is perfectly reasonable. That's what that fit is designed to do, mitigate damage by being hard to hit.

Making ECM burst the counter to Carriers would be ridiculous. That module can only be fitted to Super Capital class hulls, and this would leave sub-caps with no way to counter Carriers.

Primary This Rifter wrote:
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.


Yeah, not a huge fan of this. I'm fine with the idea that they don't fire until they're locked and in range and everything, but why not let the module activate out at range? This is Eve, it's not like we're going to accidentally shoot someone out in Low or Null.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#571 - 2016-06-24 14:57:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
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.


They're a lot less effective vs small ships, they can't easily one-shot them without a ton of assistance and coordination, and their overall DPS has been reduced. Overall I would hardly call that a "murderzone" unless what you're flying is un-tanked Battleships, in which case I have no sympathy.

As for the fleets, good. Easy alpha-strikes are bad for the game, they invalidate Logi as a class.


I feel like only one of us has tested them and it wasn't you. Major small gang complaint, major: They drop a few carriers and that's it over, nothing else needed to be brought to the fight.

That will not change. A small group of carriers will still dunk/drive off small gangs.


And "easy" alpha strikes? Don't make me laugh, try "easily" alphaing a well tanked fleet ship. Perhaps with a DOZEN carriers, but then should a dozen caps burning a limited fire cooldown on a single target not maybe kill it?
Cade Windstalker
#572 - 2016-06-24 15:10:28 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I feel like only one of us has tested them and it wasn't you. Major small gang complaint, major: They drop a few carriers and that's it over, nothing else needed to be brought to the fight.

That will not change. A small group of carriers will still dunk/drive off small gangs.


And "easy" alpha strikes? Don't make me laugh, try "easily" alphaing a well tanked fleet ship. Perhaps with a DOZEN carriers, but then should a dozen caps burning a limited fire cooldown on a single target not maybe kill it?


It's not about testing, it's that I'm fine with that outcome.

As things stand on TQ your options are either to bring a hyper-specialized fleet just to deal with a single Carrier, die, run away, or escalate with your own caps. That much is changing.

What's changed is that the Carriers can no longer do so with little to no support on field, and most of the gang will escape as opposed to getting nuked off field. A large enough gang or one who is prepared to fight capital ships (neuts!) even has a decent chance of turning the tables on a small number of Carriers without having to resort to Capitals of their own.

As for the fleet engagements, a sufficient number of anything will always be able to alpha-strike targets. Now it requires support ships with painters and webs to be really effective and it takes a lot more of those to bring down small ships, who generally have less EHP and are therefore more vulnerable to any alpha strikes that can actually apply damage to them.

What part of this sounds like a bad thing for the game?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#573 - 2016-06-24 16:03:20 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
...
As for the fleet engagements, a sufficient number of anything will always be able to alpha-strike targets. Now it requires support ships with painters and webs to be really effective and it takes a lot more of those to bring down small ships, who generally have less EHP and are therefore more vulnerable to any alpha strikes that can actually apply damage to them.

What part of this sounds like a bad thing for the game?


I don't see that as bad, depending on the situation. What hopefully is getting fixed is that you can not longer launch 3 squads of gallente fighters as answer to everything on the field, small or large.

Those Equite fighters can be good against frigate class ships but those "light former fighter drones" are currently like an IWIN button.

What I am hoping for is that there is a substantial risk of losing a squad when launching them to fight small cruisers but currently you cannot even get a target lock on them before you are getting nuked to kingdom come.

In the future I would like a damage reduction thing in ship vs ship combat like citadels have so that alpha-ing is becoming a thing of the past and we need to fly a ship to sink it or die trying.
That would split the 10000000 vs 3 "fleets" into smaller groups instead of hammering the poor hamsters with tidi.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Cade Windstalker
#574 - 2016-06-24 16:21:58 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
...
As for the fleet engagements, a sufficient number of anything will always be able to alpha-strike targets. Now it requires support ships with painters and webs to be really effective and it takes a lot more of those to bring down small ships, who generally have less EHP and are therefore more vulnerable to any alpha strikes that can actually apply damage to them.

What part of this sounds like a bad thing for the game?


I don't see that as bad, depending on the situation. What hopefully is getting fixed is that you can not longer launch 3 squads of gallente fighters as answer to everything on the field, small or large.

Those Equite fighters can be good against frigate class ships but those "light former fighter drones" are currently like an IWIN button.

What I am hoping for is that there is a substantial risk of losing a squad when launching them to fight small cruisers but currently you cannot even get a target lock on them before you are getting nuked to kingdom come.

In the future I would like a damage reduction thing in ship vs ship combat like citadels have so that alpha-ing is becoming a thing of the past and we need to fly a ship to sink it or die trying.
That would split the 10000000 vs 3 "fleets" into smaller groups instead of hammering the poor hamsters with tidi.


Given the current state of the changes I wouldn't worry about Light Fighters being a solo I-Win button. If you get nuked by a single carrier's fighters, in a decently tanked Cruiser, it will be because you've been webbed, painted, and EWar'd to Jita and back.

As for the last bit, I don't really see that happening. Big fights are, in general, good for the game and 3 players are never going to have a chance against 1000. Not that people really form up fleets like that unless they expect major resistance so... not sure what the actual example case for your issue is. Seems like you may have obscured your point a bit with hyperbole.
Sekeris
Order of Celestial Knights
#575 - 2016-06-24 19:42:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Sekeris
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hi M8s,

With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback!

Carriers & Fighters
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)


This seems a little heavy handed. Yes currently it is too strong, but +250 -20 to application will mean these will apply worse then fury heavy missiles, which are pretty poor against anything but battleships. I would be ok with +100, that way they would at least be somewhat viable against cruisers. Damage nerf might be a little heavy handed also. Overall getting ~1/5th the dmg it currently does seems a bit overboard even if the blasters work better.

Edit:
This combines into a large dps loss (500-750 depending on the fit of the carrier) and should be compensated by updating the basic attack of the fighter. Currently carrier might be too strong, but this is going a step to far in the other direction.
Cade Windstalker
#576 - 2016-06-24 20:49:41 UTC
Sekeris wrote:
This seems a little heavy handed. Yes currently it is too strong, but +250 -20 to application will mean these will apply worse then fury heavy missiles, which are pretty poor against anything but battleships. I would be ok with +100, that way they would at least be somewhat viable against cruisers. Damage nerf might be a little heavy handed also. Overall getting ~1/5th the dmg it currently does seems a bit overboard even if the blasters work better.

Edit:
This combines into a large dps loss (500-750 depending on the fit of the carrier) and should be compensated by updating the basic attack of the fighter. Currently carrier might be too strong, but this is going a step to far in the other direction.


I believe making them apply poorly to anything but a slow moving Battleship is kind of the point. If you want to apply well to Cruisers and Frigates use your Support Fighters or bring other players in Support Ships.

Also you're not giving a reason here *why* you think this is too far the other direction, and there's been some pretty decent math over the last 10 pages or so that say this isn't going to be the apocalypse as far as Carriers vs small targets go, unless you get mobbed in which case... 1 vs 20, oh well bring friends next time?
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#577 - 2016-06-24 21:02:39 UTC
Is the Maximum Velocity Bonus (500%) for Light Fighters balanced enough in game versus the speed of Frigates Question

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#578 - 2016-06-24 23:14:13 UTC
whelp.... game, set, match folks; that's it for us.

patch notes are out, no mention of changes to the stuff in the first post of this thread, so much for us trying to get ccp to listen.
Cade Windstalker
#579 - 2016-06-24 23:44:10 UTC
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
whelp.... game, set, match folks; that's it for us.

patch notes are out, no mention of changes to the stuff in the first post of this thread, so much for us trying to get ccp to listen.


CCP does listen.

Sometimes the answer to your request is "no".
Fyt 284
Requiem Eternal Holdings
Requiem Eternal
#580 - 2016-06-25 00:04:10 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
whelp.... game, set, match folks; that's it for us.

patch notes are out, no mention of changes to the stuff in the first post of this thread, so much for us trying to get ccp to listen.


CCP does listen.

Sometimes the answer to your request is "no".

And sometimes, we just have adapt and stop using ****** ships. If people stop using carriers because they are garbage, maybe something will get fixed.