These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cheradenine-Zakalwe Amtiskaw
The Kronos Ritual
#801 - 2016-07-05 20:23:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Cheradenine-Zakalwe Amtiskaw
I originally posted this on Reddit but it's appropriate here:

First of all, I want to frame this conversation by saying that I am aware of how balance issues affect gameplay differently depending on gameplay style and area of space. With this in mind, I am writing this piece from the perspective of a member of an active small high SP alliance which holds sov that is being utilized in all its aspects to a reasonably high degree.

I'm not going to speculate on the future iterations or structure releases except to say the general trend and trajectory seems to indicate that CCP wants to give sov holders more control over the utilization and defense of their space. I think the community generally agrees that buffing if not the benefits of sov but the quality of life for sov holders who live in and utilize their space is a universal good for the game. Aegis sov took away the benefits and necessity for huge coalitions to own vast swaths of fallow space; the new mechanics enable small alliances to make some temporary friends and actually take space. Future releases seem to be aimed at helping those alliances keep that space and capitalize on the promise of their new homes.

These are all very positive directions! But all is not well.

The Fall release is going to see major changes to the way industry is done in nullsec. It's no secret that the miners of nullsec, mining the best ores with the best boosts offered by Rorquals, fuel the economy of New Eden. Unless you've lived out in nullsec either as a member of a militarized sov holding alliance or an industrialist, it can be difficult to understand the flow of life when nothing else is going on: log in, mine or rat, keep eyes on intel and reap the rewards of owning space you live in. When neutrals come in, assess the threats and usually get safe. When roaming gangs come in, usually they are on their prime time and in well comped doctrines. The locals on the other hand, may be just a handful of people in their off time, or simply without enough available to form a reasonable response.

The roamers find a few stragglers or not, and move on, the locals undock and go about their business again. All's fair. Right? Not for long!

Well, the teams responsible for capital balance and industry are going to be making a just massive change to this formula by forcing the Rorqual boosts to be on grid. Not a big deal you say if you don't want to risk it? Well you've never gotten Rorqual boosts! Mining in nullsec without boosts is a non-starter for a serious industrial operation. Full Stop.

This change will be balanced by the increased yield from "mining fighters" deployed from the Rorqual and the invulnerability shield the Rorqual can put up to defend industrial ships on grid in its fleet. The purpose of this mechanic is to give a response fleet a chance to get to the Rorqual.

Team Five-O, what response fleet do you envision coming to the aid of this mining fleet in a typical sov holding alliance pocket? Usually, the people on hand who have useful ships will be carrier ratting. The easiest answer to having a mining fleet locked down by a roaming gang would be to cyno available carriers to the Rorqual, the same answer a well prepared alliance has to having a ratting carrier locked down.

This is precisely why carriers have to be good against the things that are likely to conduct strikes into sov. Weakening carriers nerfs Sov and industry. Strengthening carriers buffs Sov and industry.

TL;DR Before releasing sweeping changes to industry, please consider the roles that carriers play to a sov holding alliance in defending its space. Carriers are the balancing tool that allow sov holding alliances to reasonably defend their space against incursions aimed at disrupting sov utilization.

A nerf or buff to carriers is a nerf or buff to Sov.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4rde59/open_letter_to_team_fiveo_regarding_carrier/
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#802 - 2016-07-06 07:27:52 UTC
Cheradenine-Zakalwe Amtiskaw wrote:
I originally posted this on Reddit but it's appropriate here:

First of all, I want to frame this conversation by saying that I am aware of how balance issues affect gameplay differently depending on gameplay style and area of space. With this in mind, I am writing this piece from the perspective of a member of an active small high SP alliance which holds sov that is being utilized in all its aspects to a reasonably high degree.

I'm not going to speculate on the future iterations or structure releases except to say the general trend and trajectory seems to indicate that CCP wants to give sov holders more control over the utilization and defense of their space. I think the community generally agrees that buffing if not the benefits of sov but the quality of life for sov holders who live in and utilize their space is a universal good for the game. Aegis sov took away the benefits and necessity for huge coalitions to own vast swaths of fallow space; the new mechanics enable small alliances to make some temporary friends and actually take space. Future releases seem to be aimed at helping those alliances keep that space and capitalize on the promise of their new homes.

These are all very positive directions! But all is not well.

The Fall release is going to see major changes to the way industry is done in nullsec. It's no secret that the miners of nullsec, mining the best ores with the best boosts offered by Rorquals, fuel the economy of New Eden. Unless you've lived out in nullsec either as a member of a militarized sov holding alliance or an industrialist, it can be difficult to understand the flow of life when nothing else is going on: log in, mine or rat, keep eyes on intel and reap the rewards of owning space you live in. When neutrals come in, assess the threats and usually get safe. When roaming gangs come in, usually they are on their prime time and in well comped doctrines. The locals on the other hand, may be just a handful of people in their off time, or simply without enough available to form a reasonable response.

The roamers find a few stragglers or not, and move on, the locals undock and go about their business again. All's fair. Right? Not for long!

Well, the teams responsible for capital balance and industry are going to be making a just massive change to this formula by forcing the Rorqual boosts to be on grid. Not a big deal you say if you don't want to risk it? Well you've never gotten Rorqual boosts! Mining in nullsec without boosts is a non-starter for a serious industrial operation. Full Stop.

This change will be balanced by the increased yield from "mining fighters" deployed from the Rorqual and the invulnerability shield the Rorqual can put up to defend industrial ships on grid in its fleet. The purpose of this mechanic is to give a response fleet a chance to get to the Rorqual.

Team Five-O, what response fleet do you envision coming to the aid of this mining fleet in a typical sov holding alliance pocket? Usually, the people on hand who have useful ships will be carrier ratting. The easiest answer to having a mining fleet locked down by a roaming gang would be to cyno available carriers to the Rorqual, the same answer a well prepared alliance has to having a ratting carrier locked down.

This is precisely why carriers have to be good against the things that are likely to conduct strikes into sov. Weakening carriers nerfs Sov and industry. Strengthening carriers buffs Sov and industry.

TL;DR Before releasing sweeping changes to industry, please consider the roles that carriers play to a sov holding alliance in defending its space. Carriers are the balancing tool that allow sov holding alliances to reasonably defend their space against incursions aimed at disrupting sov utilization.

A nerf or buff to carriers is a nerf or buff to Sov.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4rde59/open_letter_to_team_fiveo_regarding_carrier/




Extremely well written an relevant. Thanks you for being able to word what was in my brain and more.
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#803 - 2016-07-06 07:42:38 UTC
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:
it's still more **** added to the pile without any notification, and it's honestly ridiculous how much it has happened with these latest patches.


.... It's really not. It's a minor change that makes Fighters follow existing mechanics, not more anything on the pile, if anything it sounds like a bug fix or something, since even Drones have a lock range.


yes, drones have lock ranges, but you can still order them to attack something well beyond that range and they will fly out there and do it, you cant now with fighters and it's annoying as all hell and makes flying them even more of a micro-managing nightmare.

The point is it is just one more thing to have to micromanage now. It is extremely difficult to try and manage 3 fighter squads, have to account for their new attack range, and have to move them manually now. no other ship in the game has that much it needs to to to apply dps and with the latest nerf they have even taken the damage application from we carrier pilots. its ridiculous. CCP just doesnt know how to quit while they are ahead sometimes and it is the player base that suffers. All because people cried about not being able to kill something easy enough anymore....
Cade Windstalker
#804 - 2016-07-06 18:39:04 UTC
Gary Webb wrote:
The point is it is just one more thing to have to micromanage now. It is extremely difficult to try and manage 3 fighter squads, have to account for their new attack range, and have to move them manually now. no other ship in the game has that much it needs to to to apply dps and with the latest nerf they have even taken the damage application from we carrier pilots. its ridiculous. CCP just doesnt know how to quit while they are ahead sometimes and it is the player base that suffers. All because people cried about not being able to kill something easy enough anymore....


You're assuming that this was done based on whining, and not based on "Hmm, maybe we shouldn't let a ship with millions of EHP and amazing range blap Cruisers and Frigates off the field in one shot..."

Regardless, I agree that they should make the primary attack auto-attack the same way drones do, but that doesn't mean the lock range change should be undone.
Tony Anders
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#805 - 2016-07-06 19:49:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tony Anders
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Gary Webb wrote:
The point is it is just one more thing to have to micromanage now. It is extremely difficult to try and manage 3 fighter squads, have to account for their new attack range, and have to move them manually now. no other ship in the game has that much it needs to to to apply dps and with the latest nerf they have even taken the damage application from we carrier pilots. its ridiculous. CCP just doesnt know how to quit while they are ahead sometimes and it is the player base that suffers. All because people cried about not being able to kill something easy enough anymore....


You're assuming that this was done based on whining, and not based on "Hmm, maybe we shouldn't let a ship with millions of EHP and amazing range blap Cruisers and Frigates off the field in one shot..."

Regardless, I agree that they should make the primary attack auto-attack the same way drones do, but that doesn't mean the lock range change should be undone.

In PVE fit (aka 5 DDA) you dont have millions of EHP (not even 500thousand). You have 350 thousand of EHP.
Dont overdo it.
Yes you can fit carrier "with millions of EHP" but then dps and damage is so low that you cant one shot frigates!

Here is quote from another thread

Marcus Aeg wrote:
I agree,

it's like if they nerfed the doomsday to avoid to oneshot a t1 frigate, " which is not fair for the frigate player ". Carriers were good in the previous patch, and had their place. Now it becomes AGAIN useless for the price.

It's supposed to be a capital ship, expensive, big, and feared. Now it will be a flying beehive unable to destroy a frigate with this nerfed tracking speed.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#806 - 2016-07-06 20:02:06 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Gary Webb wrote:
The point is it is just one more thing to have to micromanage now. It is extremely difficult to try and manage 3 fighter squads, have to account for their new attack range, and have to move them manually now. no other ship in the game has that much it needs to to to apply dps and with the latest nerf they have even taken the damage application from we carrier pilots. its ridiculous. CCP just doesnt know how to quit while they are ahead sometimes and it is the player base that suffers. All because people cried about not being able to kill something easy enough anymore....


You're assuming that this was done based on whining, and not based on "Hmm, maybe we shouldn't let a ship with millions of EHP and amazing range blap Cruisers and Frigates off the field in one shot..."

Regardless, I agree that they should make the primary attack auto-attack the same way drones do, but that doesn't mean the lock range change should be undone.

What is the point of having a bonus to lock range (4,000Km) and a 70Km control range? The whole idea of Light Fighters was, they could be placed anywhere around a grid. No point sending your fighters 100Km or 1,000Km from your carrier, when you only have 70Km control range.

"millions of EHP".. When was the last time you even looked at a carrier and its fitting possibilities?

And yes, these changes were based on the whine effect, otherwise Devs would not have made such drastic changes such a short time from release. They obviously weren't seeking "balance", it was straight up nerfs.
When you reduce damage by 40% and decrease application by 250%, your not looking for balance.

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.

Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#807 - 2016-07-06 21:29:07 UTC
sure about the 70km? im too lazy to check tranq, but on sisi I could attack much further without any problem.

Control range of 70km for a carrier would be beyond stupid, maybe you have a bug?
Cade Windstalker
#808 - 2016-07-06 21:47:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Tony Anders wrote:
In PVE fit (aka 5 DDA) you dont have millions of EHP (not even 500thousand). You have 350 thousand of EHP.
Dont overdo it.
Yes you can fit carrier "with millions of EHP" but then dps and damage is so low that you cant one shot frigates!

Here is quote from another thread

Marcus Aeg wrote:
I agree,

it's like if they nerfed the doomsday to avoid to oneshot a t1 frigate, " which is not fair for the frigate player ". Carriers were good in the previous patch, and had their place. Now it becomes AGAIN useless for the price.

It's supposed to be a capital ship, expensive, big, and feared. Now it will be a flying beehive unable to destroy a frigate with this nerfed tracking speed.


That quote from another thread is a hilarious exaggeration to say the least, though the Doomsday comparison is somewhat apt because those too got nerfs to not be usable on subcaps for a similar reason. There was no way to make a Frigate class ship survive a Carrier's fighters pre-nerf if they could hit the Frigate because the secondary could nuke any reasonably fitted frigate with base damage alone.

Besides, my original quote said "Frigates and Cruisers" and with 2-3 Carriers you could nuke most T2 Cruisers off field too, without any support ships.

Now, you need to bring more than just Carriers if you want to welp someone's sub-cap fleet, which seems like a generally good idea. Bring support ships with webs and TPs, especially bonused ones, and your Carriers can still wreck plenty of face.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
What is the point of having a bonus to lock range (4,000Km) and a 70Km control range? The whole idea of Light Fighters was, they could be placed anywhere around a grid. No point sending your fighters 100Km or 1,000Km from your carrier, when you only have 70Km control range.

"millions of EHP".. When was the last time you even looked at a carrier and its fitting possibilities?

And yes, these changes were based on the whine effect, otherwise Devs would not have made such drastic changes such a short time from release. They obviously weren't seeking "balance", it was straight up nerfs.
When you reduce damage by 40% and decrease application by 250%, your not looking for balance.


When did I say anything about a 70km control range? Someone else did but that was, at best, a bug and it doesn't even seem to have been a terribly consistent one since other people are reporting no issues.

As for my comment, that was a touch tongue in cheek and upon double checking the fit I had in mind was an over-tanked Chimera. Still, 5-600k is pretty reasonable and that's easily 5-6 times the health of a Battleship.

Your belief in what the devs would or would not have done without people's whining (lets call it feedback) is kind of amusing. There have been past cases where the devs have gone, without much whining at all "woops, we over did that one!" just like this.

Sometimes what's balanced for the entire game *is* straight up nerfs for one class, weapon, module or whatever else. Also overall damage dropped by about 11% so I've no idea where you're pulling 40% from unless you think the alpha-rockets were the only source of damage Carriers had?

Carriers, in this itteration, are very new and I don't think anyone really knew how they were going to work out. Apparently the answer was "horrifically OP" so we got some pretty hard swing back the other direction and now we'll probably get some more tweaks either laterally or some buffs, but after this thread and all the math people posted it's pretty hard to see what we had pre-patch as "Balanced" in any sense of the word.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#809 - 2016-07-06 22:01:59 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Carriers, in this itteration, are very new and I don't think anyone really knew how they were going to work out.

It's funny, I specifically remember people telling me that the extra control range would be useless and no one would ever use it. Similar things about damage too.

Geuss it depends on who's upset that round vOv
Cade Windstalker
#810 - 2016-07-06 22:30:32 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Carriers, in this itteration, are very new and I don't think anyone really knew how they were going to work out.

It's funny, I specifically remember people telling me that the extra control range would be useless and no one would ever use it. Similar things about damage too.

Geuss it depends on who's upset that round vOv


Yup, I'm sure there were also people who predicted the various things that have happened here, but unless they had sound reasoning and can do stuff like that consistently then they didn't really know, they were just guessing...
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#811 - 2016-07-07 01:39:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Cade Windstalker wrote:


When did I say anything about a 70km control range? Someone else did but that was, at best, a bug and it doesn't even seem to have been a terribly consistent one since other people are reporting no issues.

As for my comment, that was a touch tongue in cheek and upon double checking the fit I had in mind was an over-tanked Chimera. Still, 5-600k is pretty reasonable and that's easily 5-6 times the health of a Battleship.

Your belief in what the devs would or would not have done without people's whining (lets call it feedback) is kind of amusing. There have been past cases where the devs have gone, without much whining at all "woops, we over did that one!" just like this.

Sometimes what's balanced for the entire game *is* straight up nerfs for one class, weapon, module or whatever else. Also overall damage dropped by about 11% so I've no idea where you're pulling 40% from unless you think the alpha-rockets were the only source of damage Carriers had?

Carriers, in this itteration, are very new and I don't think anyone really knew how they were going to work out. Apparently the answer was "horrifically OP" so we got some pretty hard swing back the other direction and now we'll probably get some more tweaks either laterally or some buffs, but after this thread and all the math people posted it's pretty hard to see what we had pre-patch as "Balanced" in any sense of the word.
So.... Because everyone this has happened to didn't post on the forums, it isn't happening?

One hour on Mumble last night from just after DT. Topic (after a capital hotdrop) Why the Fuk won't my fighters go out to attack, bloody thing was 85K from me and my fighters wouldn't engage. This in turn led to a debate about submitting support tickets, posting on the forums or trying to submit a bug report in game.

Outcome, you can use any and all of these options but it generally won't lead to much. Bug reports get ignored if you can't show precisely how to reproduce it (intermittent bugs are still bugs, only if you can reproduce them on demand).
My fav, was support insinuating I was telling lies and refusing my ticket request. Then asking me to send them logs and explain ways to reproduce what happened - In case there was actually something to my request.

NB; As I was looking at the "Rocket Salvo" I thought it ok to respond with how it was effected. The "primary" ability of Light Fighters has been stealth nerfed, because Devs altered the standard orbit range so your Light Fighters are always applying their normal attack (blasters or whatever) in falloff. Firbolg Blaster Cannon Optimal range 4,000m, orbit 4,500m, you need to fit an Omni (unscripted) just to get fighters to hit at close to optimal. Poor old Einherji is even worse off, Optimal range 4,000m, orbit 7,000m. So any added damage to that ability is negated by orbit range.
An Omni is a must have if you want to apply damage at optimal ranges. I don't know of any other weapon type that forces a pilot to fit a module just to apply damage at its optimal range.
Devs made it so ALL carriers have either one less mid slot or lowslot, that's balance CCP style.

So yes your right, on paper Light Fighter main attack received a slight buff lowering the overall effect of the Rocket Salvo nerfs - which is negated (and then some) by the new orbit of Light Fighters.
-- - -- - --
I have no "belief" or anything else about what Devs do. All I see is, they care less about balance and more about "look what we did", carriers are now worse than prior to Citadel. Balance isn't something that can be just tossed out after a few weeks of a meta being introduced because this or that group says it is too strong.
Balance is only found in baby steps, look at one piece work on it then see how the outcome effects everything else.

All Devs needed to do was rework / balance the NSA (which was needed), that fixes the insta lock blap of small ships by solo carriers - The primary complaint.
Then in time if carriers are still seen as OP (overall not just in the ratting fit, gate camping meta) you tweak something else.
What Devs did, was roll out a bunch of (all but crippling) nerfs at once, which contrary to your thinking "they will get tweaks later if needed" will only get further nerfs because that is seen as balance.

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.

Cade Windstalker
#812 - 2016-07-07 01:59:10 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Bug reports get ignored if you can't show precisely how to reproduce it (intermittent bugs are still bugs, only if you can reproduce them on demand).


Want to address this because it's kind of frustrating on both sides of the coin, speaking as someone who works support/bug-fixing for a living. It's not so much that these things get ignored as it's like if someone ran up to you, randomly, in the middle of the street and handed you a potato with a message on it written in a language you can neither recognize nor read. It's like "well thanks, but what am I supposed to do with this?"

That's what bug reports that don't describe how to reproduce the bug (or at least provide a high level of detail) are like. It's not that CCP are ignoring them, it's that saying "There's a bug!" isn't really helpful. They can be aware there's a bug but if they can't reproduce it then they can't really start working on a fix for it, at least not in a time efficient manner. Generally it's more time efficient to work on the bugs you can actually do something productive about, even if they're less important, than it is to work on a bug you don't have enough info on and hope you stumble into something. Most of the time all that effort gets thrown out when you do finally get enough info, so you've just wasted time.

Sucks, I know, it sucks to be on the side that has no bloody clue what's wrong too.


Sgt Ocker wrote:
So.... Because everyone this has happened to didn't post on the forums, it isn't happening?


Didn't say it wasn't happening, just said that it's not universal by any stretch, and I was unsure how it got into the conversation as your first response to something I posted, since I didn't mention it or anything about it.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
NB; As I was looking at the "Rocket Salvo" I thought it ok to respond with how it was effected. The "primary" ability of Light Fighters has been stealth nerfed, because Devs altered the standard orbit range so your Light Fighters are always applying their normal attack (blasters or whatever) in falloff. Firbolg Blaster Cannon Optimal range 4,000m, orbit 4,500m, you need to fit an Omni (unscripted) just to get fighters to hit at close to optimal. Poor old Einherji is even worse off, Optimal range 4,000m, orbit 7,000m. So any added damage to that ability is negated by orbit range.
An Omni is a must have if you want to apply damage at optimal ranges. I don't know of any other weapon type that forces a pilot to fit a module just to apply damage at its optimal range.
Devs made it so ALL carriers have either one less mid slot or lowslot, that's balance CCP style.


Yeah, I'll give you that's a little screwy. I have to assume someone thought Fighters had some skill or other that increased optimal, or something, and tried to take that into account. At the least they should try to orbit just inside their optimals rather than outside them, since orbits generally get pushed out by speed and other factors.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I have no "belief" or anything else about what Devs do. All I see is, they care less about balance and more about "look what we did", carriers are now worse than prior to Citadel. Balance isn't something that can be just tossed out after a few weeks of a meta being introduced because this or that group says it is too strong.
Balance is only found in baby steps, look at one piece work on it then see how the outcome effects everything else.

All Devs needed to do was rework / balance the NSA (which was needed), that fixes the insta lock blap of small ships by solo carriers - The primary complaint.
Then in time if carriers are still seen as OP (overall not just in the ratting fit, gate camping meta) you tweak something else.
What Devs did, was roll out a bunch of (all but crippling) nerfs at once, which contrary to your thinking "they will get tweaks later if needed" will only get further nerfs because that is seen as balance.


Generally I agree with you, and generally that's been more or less what CCP have been doing the last... three or so years now I think? This, I think, got the drastic treatment not because of whining (that rarely produces this kind of reaction, if it did Svipuls would be a smoking crater) but because of what this threatened to do to the Capital/sub-cap balance.

I have nothing to support this but my own supposition but I think CCP looked at the ecosystem with Carriers, thought it might be heading for another caps-only fleet doctrine setup where Carriers hard-countered sub-caps so hard people stopped bringing them to fights, and put the brakes on hard. That they were causing other issues as well was just more reason to whack them hard and then help them get back up afterwords, and before people could start investing in doctrines like they did with slowcats before they got tactical-nuked.

If you can answer this for them then go ahead, but so far I haven't heard a good answer to this situation:

So, you have two sub-cap fleets, one side drops Carriers. The other side drops Dreads to counter the Carriers, the other side then either counter-drops Dread or Dreads and Supers/Titans because that counters Dreads. At this point the Dreads/Supers/Titans are probably pretty much just nuking each other, which leaves the Carriers on either side to sweep off the sub-caps. Alternatively the Titans/Dreads nuke the Carriers off field before chewing into each other.

So my question here is why do I bother bringing sub-caps to this party in the first place as anything but fodder? Carriers will get brought regardless to counter Super's HFs and to shoot Dictors and HICs, but if Carriers hard-counter Sub-caps on their own then why would I ever intentionally bring sub-caps to a fleet fight if I don't have to? It takes tons of them to matter to a Dread or FAX, and even more to bother a Titan, so just in terms of raw ISK I'm better off fielding more Dreads and other Caps, right?
Cade Windstalker
#813 - 2016-07-07 02:00:19 UTC
Also thank you for the detailed and civil response :)
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#814 - 2016-07-07 07:22:56 UTC
Guys. Seriously.

The fighters have an independent lock range from the carrier. It works relative to their position. If your fighter is further away than its lock range, it wont attack. It may move to orbit, but you'll still need to tell it to re-attack. You may need to manually give it an orbit command then attack when it is closer.

To be honest your only legitimate gripe here, which to my knowledge no-one has actually made yet but me is that you can't easily tell what range the target is at relative to the fighter so there is an element of command spamming. This was why CCP increased their lock range also this patch. It used to be really, really low until we asked nicely and laid out the issues faced.


tl;dr: Experiment with them more before complaining. Please.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#815 - 2016-07-07 11:49:33 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also thank you for the detailed and civil response :)

I always try to be civil. Thanks though..

Seriously, you should join a group that either fights capitals or uses them.
Subcaps are far more of a threat to Dreads and carriers than Supers and Titans. Primarily due to the N+1 factor involved whenever Supers get dropped, sadly Titans have an even more limited role in capital combat (since the shield nerf and lack of any realistic shield triage, my Rag is once again relegated to a 110 bil bridge - Thank you Devs).

Drop a Titan or two and expect every group within range to turn up, subcaps through to capitals. It's like they just come out of the woodwork.
My most recent experience of this, group A engaged group B in an 80 odd vs 80 odd fight, both sides ended up dropping supers - within 10 minutes, local went from around 200 to just over 1,000. Ended up 900+ vs what was left of the 80 man fleet fielded by Group A.
NB; My Dread died early in the fight, to 41 Machs (no capitals on the killmail) less than 30 seconds after entering siege.

Put carriers and supers (armor only, shield is not repped) on field together, carriers are unlikely to get reps - Priority is always the supers (rightly so), Carriers have no defense vs Dreads and limited defense vs Supers. Add subcaps to the mix and carriers are the fodder, not as many presume, the subcaps. The FC leading the subcaps will win or lose the fight, not the capitals.

CCP looked at a limited use scenario of carriers and nerfed them accordingly, while not taking into account the resulting damage it did to the whole class.
So carriers were a little OP in one area, fixing that didn't require the extent of nerfs applied. But it is easier to remove any chance of carriers being used the way they were than let the meta find its own balance - Yes carriers killed a lot of stuff in gate camps but many of them also died doing the same thing. But because the frigate / destroyer pilots got heard it was decided a ship that takes the best part of 2 years to train into and costs billions of isk, shouldn't be able to risk that investment by using it in a solo way to kill and or die to small ships.
Before you (or anyone else) can say it - I don't believe a big ship should be able to just stomp small ships but at the same time that big ship should be at least able to try with some expectation of success.
Devs could have balanced Carriers / Light Fighters to enable this play style but for whatever reason (probably lack of knowing how to within the short period the nerfs were rolled out) decided not to.

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.

Cade Windstalker
#816 - 2016-07-07 17:50:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Guys. Seriously.

The fighters have an independent lock range from the carrier. It works relative to their position. If your fighter is further away than its lock range, it wont attack. It may move to orbit, but you'll still need to tell it to re-attack. You may need to manually give it an orbit command then attack when it is closer.

To be honest your only legitimate gripe here, which to my knowledge no-one has actually made yet but me is that you can't easily tell what range the target is at relative to the fighter so there is an element of command spamming. This was why CCP increased their lock range also this patch. It used to be really, really low until we asked nicely and laid out the issues faced.


tl;dr: Experiment with them more before complaining. Please.


I dunno, I think "this UI is extremely unintuitive and does not behave like it used to or like Drone controls do" is a pretty legitimate complaint here.

I mean, it's nice to know what's going on and how to get around the problem for the moment, but it should be pretty simple to make the Fighters go orbit and then try to attack when I tell them to attack. The people piloting these things are not drooling idiots, they shouldn't just sit there mashing their lock button when I tell them to go shoot the thing 200km away...

I get how this happened and all, but really this should absolutely be fixed. It's just bad UI design.
Cade Windstalker
#817 - 2016-07-07 18:04:16 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I always try to be civil. Thanks though..

Seriously, you should join a group that either fights capitals or uses them.
Subcaps are far more of a threat to Dreads and carriers than Supers and Titans. Primarily due to the N+1 factor involved whenever Supers get dropped, sadly Titans have an even more limited role in capital combat (since the shield nerf and lack of any realistic shield triage, my Rag is once again relegated to a 110 bil bridge - Thank you Devs).

Drop a Titan or two and expect every group within range to turn up, subcaps through to capitals. It's like they just come out of the woodwork.
My most recent experience of this, group A engaged group B in an 80 odd vs 80 odd fight, both sides ended up dropping supers - within 10 minutes, local went from around 200 to just over 1,000. Ended up 900+ vs what was left of the 80 man fleet fielded by Group A.
NB; My Dread died early in the fight, to 41 Machs (no capitals on the killmail) less than 30 seconds after entering siege.

Put carriers and supers (armor only, shield is not repped) on field together, carriers are unlikely to get reps - Priority is always the supers (rightly so), Carriers have no defense vs Dreads and limited defense vs Supers. Add subcaps to the mix and carriers are the fodder, not as many presume, the subcaps. The FC leading the subcaps will win or lose the fight, not the capitals.

CCP looked at a limited use scenario of carriers and nerfed them accordingly, while not taking into account the resulting damage it did to the whole class.
So carriers were a little OP in one area, fixing that didn't require the extent of nerfs applied. But it is easier to remove any chance of carriers being used the way they were than let the meta find its own balance - Yes carriers killed a lot of stuff in gate camps but many of them also died doing the same thing. But because the frigate / destroyer pilots got heard it was decided a ship that takes the best part of 2 years to train into and costs billions of isk, shouldn't be able to risk that investment by using it in a solo way to kill and or die to small ships.
Before you (or anyone else) can say it - I don't believe a big ship should be able to just stomp small ships but at the same time that big ship should be at least able to try with some expectation of success.
Devs could have balanced Carriers / Light Fighters to enable this play style but for whatever reason (probably lack of knowing how to within the short period the nerfs were rolled out) decided not to.


This has been a pretty heated discussion, respectful discourse has been something of a rarity and I figured I'd call it out Big smile

I get that that's how things work now, but if Carriers had been left in a position where a sufficient volume of them just nuked sub-caps off the field then I really do wonder if we wouldn't have seen all, or mostly, Capital fleets start to become the norm. I think you'd always have sub-caps, but more as an afterthought instead of things like the current sub-cap focused doctrines. When it only takes 2-3 Machariels to equal the cost of a fully kitted out Dread or Carrier, and the Carriers are far more effective on a per-ship basis, then why bring the Machs at all unless you absolutely have to?

I have friends out in Null in Alliances that have said "everyone train for Carriers" back when Slowcats were just becoming a thing and it took most of them 6 months or so. Personally I think it's a lot more fun for everyone if fleet fights need a sufficient range of ships that pretty much everyone can fly what they want because it's all needed, and the only thing clamping on people is ratios. So maybe someone has to fly a Dread this time and gets to bring their T2 Logi Cruiser next time.

Overall I just don't think "solo Carrier" is something CCP wants to be viable, for more or less the same reason solo Battleships have gone from king of the roost way back in the pre-Nanonerf days to somewhere between hilarious joke and super niche thing now. It ends up being a choice between giving the ship all of these other advantages, like HP, fittings, DPs, and alpha, or making it balanced for it to be able to operate without support.

There may be a balance there that allows for both, but personally I think it's such a thin window that we'd have a better game if CCP took all of the time and effort it would take to find that balance and put it into easier and more obvious balance paths, both for Capitals and for the game in general.

Am I making something resembling sense?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#818 - 2016-07-08 00:21:06 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:



This has been a pretty heated discussion, respectful discourse has been something of a rarity and I figured I'd call it out Big smile

I get that that's how things work now, but if Carriers had been left in a position where a sufficient volume of them just nuked sub-caps off the field then I really do wonder if we wouldn't have seen all, or mostly, Capital fleets start to become the norm. I think you'd always have sub-caps, but more as an afterthought instead of things like the current sub-cap focused doctrines. When it only takes 2-3 Machariels to equal the cost of a fully kitted out Dread or Carrier, and the Carriers are far more effective on a per-ship basis, then why bring the Machs at all unless you absolutely have to?

I have friends out in Null in Alliances that have said "everyone train for Carriers" back when Slowcats were just becoming a thing and it took most of them 6 months or so. Personally I think it's a lot more fun for everyone if fleet fights need a sufficient range of ships that pretty much everyone can fly what they want because it's all needed, and the only thing clamping on people is ratios. So maybe someone has to fly a Dread this time and gets to bring their T2 Logi Cruiser next time.

Overall I just don't think "solo Carrier" is something CCP wants to be viable, for more or less the same reason solo Battleships have gone from king of the roost way back in the pre-Nanonerf days to somewhere between hilarious joke and super niche thing now. It ends up being a choice between giving the ship all of these other advantages, like HP, fittings, DPs, and alpha, or making it balanced for it to be able to operate without support.

There may be a balance there that allows for both, but personally I think it's such a thin window that we'd have a better game if CCP took all of the time and effort it would take to find that balance and put it into easier and more obvious balance paths, both for Capitals and for the game in general.

Am I making something resembling sense?

So instead of carriers being "balanced" they get left in a position where they don't really have a role in a fleet AND Dreads are still able to nuke subcaps of the field. Where I play the game, Capital fleets are the norm. We aren't asked to train into a carrier or dread; A super or Titan is requested.
Slowcats which BTW if it only took 6 months for your friends to train slowcats, they were letting the side down, or already had many of the skills trained. Look at the skill requirements for them taking into account, lvl 4 skills are acceptable but 5 is better. Funnily enough, those requirements are higher now for carriers with all the added T2 and fighter skills. (the cost to field a carrier is also higher now thanks to disposable DPS)
Slowcats - Minimum skills to sit in it, around 180 days - Skills to lvl 4 (minimum req) 235 days and that's without any drone skills thrown in.

Where Slowcats were OP due to remote repping - That is the same thing that makes carriers so bad now. Capital Logistics is not in a good place. Apostle with max skills and two remote reps, requires 3 mids for cap and still can't run both for a full triage cycle. Forget Capital shield logi in any combat role, they just can't fit tank and cap so while the Caldari Fax reps like a mofo (or tanks like one, it can't do both), it is only useful for pos reps because it has the EHP of a tanky battleship.

Carriers like Fax's are considered disposable, Dreads even more so. The difference is, unlike carriers dreads can be useful in a fight.
Yes having more ships die in fights is good but not when a whole class of ship has no role other than an "anti Drone / Fighter" platform. This is a capital ship, that is only useful in a very limited way for shooting drones or fighters, does that in any way make sense. Funny that the guns on a Mach will kill a carriers fighters but the carriers fighters are only useful to kill the Machs sentries (secondary DPS), if you can get them into range before they die. Oh and sending 3 squads of light fighters to kill "A" sentry drone, please.


Finally, Devs "balancing" carriers based on a months worth of skewed stats, does seem somewhat out of place. Due to limited ranges and fatigue capital fights in nul are few and far between (unless your being blobbed by PL or the like) while in lowsec, there is capital fights every day, sure many of them are ganks on traveling capitals but they still happen.

A Solo Carrier :- It was; A capital ship that launched 3 cruiser sized craft - It is technically solo but isn't really (without its support craft - Light Fighters - it is a dead fish), it contains a lot of micro management, high risk compared to what it generally fights and can just as easily be killed by any group who sets out to hunt carriers.
What we have now, is a capital ship that is all but useless without at least 3 or 4 dedicated support ships either multi boxed or flown by others. Devs seem to have lost the risk vs reward concept Eve was built on in favour of - Solo carrier play is bad so we are "balancing" things so you can't with any reasonable expectation of winning, use a carrier solo .

No other ship or class is balanced around, "you can't use it solo" - Why do it to a capital ship that whether by design or not, could be used as a solo hunter, with the risk of losing it being very real.
Any ship in Eve can and should be able to be used in solo pvp, who or what you run into decides whether you are successful or not - Carriers have had that option removed.

The window (narrow or not) for carrier balance was an option, Devs decided to bypass.

So yes from a single aspect point of view, your stance makes sense but it isn't accurate for much of TQ.

Eve should be about Risk VS Reward, not decided by "balancing" ships so you need more of X, XY to undock.

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.

Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#819 - 2016-07-08 09:48:16 UTC
Devs balanced their carriers to mimmick the CV class as found in WOWS. I also see them having the same problems. If they're dedicated anti battleship ships then that's one thing but it's not what I'm seeing.

As for the support fleet idea yes I guess so they should require a support fleet.. so long as ccp remember that CV tiers 6 and up as CACL speed and sometimes faster than BB and this is one of their saving graces.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#820 - 2016-07-08 12:36:44 UTC
I believe he refers to world of warships.