These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[118.6] Capital Balancing

First post First post First post
Author
Cade Windstalker
#821 - 2016-07-08 17:47:16 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Trimming things due to character limit


As far as training goes, my point was that groups absolutely will push their players to train what's effective if it's good enough, and Slowcats are a good example of that even though doing that training was time consuming and expensive for a lot of people. Plus a lot of newbies are drawn to Null fights, and being able to participate meaningfully in sub-caps is important to that. It takes a lot less time, starting from a new toon, to train into any Sub-Cap than it does a Capital Ship.

I think trying to head off the push towards that sort of shift is part of why CCP acted so quickly.

Regarding Capital Logi, I'm not sure that I agree with you that Capital Logi is in a bad place. While it's certainly not equivalent to sub-cap RR it's certainly getting used and is seen as valuable by groups using Capitals at all levels. Just because it doesn't perform like old Triage Carriers doesn't mean it's inherently bad or broken. Not getting into Shield vs Armor FAXes, I don't know enough to say anything about that right now.

As far as Machs go, in order for that Mach to blap your Fighters he either needs to send his drones after them (which your fighters out-range, out-DPS, and out-run) or catch them at extreme range so he can even hit them. That's not significantly different from you having an ally web him, or doing it yourself, or just catching him sitting still, in terms of mechanics.

Just because he can use mechanics to kill your Fighters doesn't mean you should be able to blap him off the field in return without any effort.

I don't think they balanced this off of *just* a month's worth of data out of Capital Fights. As I've been trying to stress this is a multi-facetted problem. It was never just the NSA gate-camps or just Carriers in small fights or just Carriers in Large fights, but the aggregate of all of those. Saying "they didn't have enough data to reach these conclusions!" seems more like wishful thinking than anything.

Looking at HAW Dreads they're no where near where Carriers were pre-patch. They need support to apply anywhere near their full DPS and while it's more than Carriers had or have it's still not so much that they're going to be nuking things off field, especially when you look at their application against a moving Cruiser or Frigate. Realistically they're putting out the DPS of about 2 Battleships, and applying less than that without support ships making targets easier to hit. Far less against anything that's doing a decent job of being hard to hit, like a Cruiser and even BCs and some Battleships get decent mitigation against HAW dreads.

Those Dreads also have to Siege to even get that DPS in the first place, and don't have near the range a Carrier has with Fighters.

As far as solo vs group balancing, there are absolutely other ships you can't use solo or that are balanced specifically around group play. Logistics and Command Ships are both only really useful with other ships to support. In PvP Battleships in general don't really see a ton of solo use and are largely fleet boats. Stealth Bombers are also specifically balanced around group play. You can use them solo but it's far from ideal and there are specific balancing decisions that were made there for group play (bombing runs) that render part of the ship far less useful solo.

Lastly, and most importantly, it's arguable that Capitals in general have always been balanced around "you can't really use this solo". For a long time you couldn't even move them without a second pilot, and Carriers have always been more the exception than the rule for their small scale of use, though I don't think I'd ever have called old Carriers actually effective solo.

I get your stance on this, and it makes sense from where you're coming from, but I think CCP's stand on Carriers, especially on group vs solo play, makes a lot more sense at least for this balance pass.

I think there's plenty of room for Carriers to be made more interesting and useful though, but I think that should come through things like Support Fighters and making Carriers the braodly useful Swiss Army Knife to the Titan's wrecking ball and the Dreadnaught's hammer. Not just making Carriers better at punching sub-caps in the face than a Dread when the Dread has to Siege to even punch.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#822 - 2016-07-08 17:47:19 UTC
Just a friendly reminder on some of our rules:

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

6. Racism and discrimination are prohibited.

Racism, gender stereotyping, hate speech, and sexism are not permitted on the EVE Online Forums. Derogatory posting that includes race, religion or sexual preference based personal attacks and trolling can result in immediate suspension of forum posting privileges.

7. Discussion of real life religion and politics is prohibited.

Discussion of real life religion and politics is strictly prohibited on the EVE Online forums. Discussions of this nature often creates animosity between forum users due to real life political or military conflicts. CCP promotes the growth of a gaming community where equality is at the forefront. Nationalist, religious or political affiliations are not part of EVE Online, and should not be part of discussion on the EVE Online forums.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

9. Posting of personal information is prohibited.

The posting of personal information, or “doxxing”, including but not limited to personal contact numbers, email addresses, account names and passwords, home addresses and real life names is strictly prohibited. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy, and will not tolerate the divulging of real life personal details.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

I have removed a post that included profanity and was off-topic.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

S'totan
x13
#823 - 2016-07-09 06:55:37 UTC
CCP,
First off. I love the new carriers. Can we get some shortcuts for them.
Launch all fighters Shortcut (they are already in the tube and a button exists for them so a hotkey option should not be to complicated)
Select group 1/2/3/4/5 shortcut.

Even if these are not assigned to a key. I would love you.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#824 - 2016-07-09 07:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
OK, I'll try to keep this to the point and short Twisted

As far as training goes; Slowcats were bad, new carriers (released 1 month before being nerfed) had an opportunity to change how the class was used by moving away from the N+1 nature of everything Eve. Risk vs Reward, carriers should be better than they were pre Citadel, They aren't.
Disposable DPS that can't be repped and now with limited use against anything smaller than an MWD Battle Cruiser, leaving only 2 classes of ship a carrier can with any sort of reliability shoot.

Carriers and the NSA - Insta lock, insta blap was the main issue - If you can't insta lock a target, you can't insta blap it. Now, you can't insta lock or blap anything smaller than an MWD shield cruiser even with support.

A brand new character has every right to fly his 1 mil isk Thrasher (example only, Talwars are more common) into a nulsec fight if he or she chooses but not with any real expectation of surviving against superior ships and skilled players (skilled as in practiced, not SP). "Meaningful" participation is being there, that's why the original Brave was so successful - They didn't expect their cheap as, low skill, Dessy fleets to do anything other than fight and die in extremely large numbers.
> Sp is no barrier for new players since the introduction of Injectors. There is a guy mines ice in the same systems as my miners - He has 11 characters, all max skilled Skiff pilots and an Orca booster - When I first saw and spoke to him, All his miners were less than a week old. I'm not advocating every new player spend billions on Injectors but it certainly isn't a barrier to flying what you want.

Heading off a shift in a positive thought out way is good - Doing it based on a few weeks of data in one hit, is no more than a knee jerk reaction. Devs could have started by balancing the primary issue, NSA, then waited even another couple of weeks to see what effect that had before swinging the nerf hammer as hard as they did. But that would mean they aren't fully committed to the next project, due for release soon. "Balancing" is not part of CCP's release schedule, so Devs are forced to make rash decisions.
I believe ANY ship regardless of class should at least have the option to make up their own minds regarding Risk VS Reward.
What we had; Carriers due primarily to the NSA, were OP in certain situations.
What we have; Is a capital class ship that requires, EWAR support ships to kill anything larger than an MWD cruiser and DPS support ships to kill anything smaller. N+1 Again.

HAW Dreads; Just for interests sake I thought this worth a mention.

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.

Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Brave Collective
#825 - 2016-07-09 15:19:02 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
OK, I'll try to keep this to the point and short Twisted

As far as training goes; Slowcats were bad, new carriers (released 1 month before being nerfed) had an opportunity to change how the class was used by moving away from the N+1 nature of everything Eve. Risk vs Reward, carriers should be better than they were pre Citadel, They aren't.
Disposable DPS that can't be repped and now with limited use against anything smaller than an MWD Battle Cruiser, leaving only 2 classes of ship a carrier can with any sort of reliability shoot.

Carriers and the NSA - Insta lock, insta blap was the main issue - If you can't insta lock a target, you can't insta blap it. Now, you can't insta lock or blap anything smaller than an MWD shield cruiser even with support.

A brand new character has every right to fly his 1 mil isk Thrasher (example only, Talwars are more common) into a nulsec fight if he or she chooses but not with any real expectation of surviving against superior ships and skilled players (skilled as in practiced, not SP). "Meaningful" participation is being there, that's why the original Brave was so successful - They didn't expect their cheap as, low skill, Dessy fleets to do anything other than fight and die in extremely large numbers.
> Sp is no barrier for new players since the introduction of Injectors. There is a guy mines ice in the same systems as my miners - He has 11 characters, all max skilled Skiff pilots and an Orca booster - When I first saw and spoke to him, All his miners were less than a week old. I'm not advocating every new player spend billions on Injectors but it certainly isn't a barrier to flying what you want.

Heading off a shift in a positive thought out way is good - Doing it based on a few weeks of data in one hit, is no more than a knee jerk reaction. Devs could have started by balancing the primary issue, NSA, then waited even another couple of weeks to see what effect that had before swinging the nerf hammer as hard as they did. But that would mean they aren't fully committed to the next project, due for release soon. "Balancing" is not part of CCP's release schedule, so Devs are forced to make rash decisions.
I believe ANY ship regardless of class should at least have the option to make up their own minds regarding Risk VS Reward.
What we had; Carriers due primarily to the NSA, were OP in certain situations.
What we have; Is a capital class ship that requires, EWAR support ships to kill anything larger than an MWD cruiser and DPS support ships to kill anything smaller. N+1 Again.

HAW Dreads; Just for interests sake I thought this worth a mention.


the video of him doing that was amazing, and is a perfect example of how risk vs reward should work. could he tank that fleet in shield? yes no problem, but then they would have known he wasn't breaking and they would have disengaged. so, he took the risk of letting himself bleed armor and then structure to keep luring in more ships to die. it worked out for him, but if for instance they had come in as one group and not 1's and 2's when he was in structure, it could have turned into a very bad day for the nag.

this is the kind of play styles that need to be available to every ship class, and capitals especially due to their increased training and isk costs across the board.
Cade Windstalker
#826 - 2016-07-09 22:00:16 UTC
No worries with long posts, I'm not exactly brief myself (this post, case and point), I just don't like to snip-quote people without saying why.

As far as Old Carriers go, no arguments that they weren't in a great spot, they were just always used because they could Triage, and sometimes because they could do that and DPS in smaller fights as needed. I don't think pure damage output should be how we measure the fun and effectiveness of new Carriers though. If we're doing that then in every case that could be called a success Carriers are just in competition with Dreads for DPS slots and since the only real thing Dreads are is "be a bigger stick" (literally in the case of the Nag...) that's not a really great place to be putting the 'success' marker. It's unhealthy for Carriers and for Dreads, never mind what it would do to the relationship between Caps and Sub-Caps if HAWs and Light Fighters were in competition to see who could kill sub-caps better.

As for the NSA issue, I agree but I think both parts were the issue. Not just the insta-locking but also the insta-blap nature of pre-nerf Light Fighters. Easily insta-blapping ships off the field (at least ones that aren't being stupid) is pretty much bad mechanics by definition. It gives the person being blapped no chance for counter-play or response, it's just "press button, remove ship". CCP even seem to have realized this as an issue with Doomsdays and given Capitals a way to avoid getting nuked in the "Emergency Hull Energizer".

If you require other ships for anything close to an insta-blap to happen then you both raise the bar on the offensive side to get it working, and you give the defending side more chances to respond as a result.

It's not that I feel that that Thrasher player should have a high expectation of survival, I think he should have a reasonable chance of participating more meaningfully than just dying, and learn something more from it than "don't get red-boxed by a Carrier", even if that something is that if he gets webbed and TP'd then he's probably about to get blapped. More realistically though is that if he can't be insta-blapped by a big ship he'll get taken down in a few hits by small ones, which shows him that he can contribute as part of a group and the power of teamwork, rather than just "Carriers will remove you from grid, good day".

Sgt Ocker wrote:
"Balancing" is not part of CCP's release schedule, so Devs are forced to make rash decisions.


This I just disagree with entirely, both as a dev myself and based on what we've seen out of CCP over the last four years of ship and module balance changes.

Four years is a long time and we've seen the devs push back the schedule in the name of doing things right plenty of times. I just don't think the argument that this was too much of an over-reaction or that they would have done things significantly differently given more time holds up.

There were two basic components to this nerf, neither of which were going to change given more time. The first was the NSA, which almost everyone agrees was an issue. The second was the secondary weapon alpha from Light Fighters. This wasn't going to stop nuking things in a month, or two months. People might have gotten better at hunting Carriers but the basic facts of this ability weren't going to change given more time, and that seems to be what CCP nerfed it based on, not because they felt Carriers were drastically over-performing by metrics alone. CCP Larrikin says almost exactly this in his post over in the general patch feedback.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I believe ANY ship regardless of class should at least have the option to make up their own minds regarding Risk VS Reward.
What we had; Carriers due primarily to the NSA, were OP in certain situations.
What we have; Is a capital class ship that requires, EWAR support ships to kill anything larger than an MWD cruiser and DPS support ships to kill anything smaller. N+1 Again.


I think I either don't understand your definition of N+1 or don't understand how this wasn't, still, N+1. Either we have "It takes N+1 Carriers to nuke a sub-cap off grid" or we have "It takes N+1 Carriers and Y support ships to nuke a sub-cap off grid". There's always that element of "bringing more people is better" but by making ships more effective when synergized with other ships you introduce complex elements of fleet composition into the equation. For example Logi is a force multiplier. A fleet with logi will generally beat a fleet that is much larger so long as they have enough Logi and enough DPS.

In this case, with the changes, you need to balance the number of support ships vs logi vs other ships that you bring. In your example, and based on Morgaine Mighthammer's comment it sounds like that HAW dread played very carefully and used his small support fleet to achieve that result. Personally I don't have a problem with that. The Dread had to siege, exposing himself to substantial risk, and the enemies had to pretty royally fluff up their assessment of what that Dread could tank and whether or not they were being baited.



Overall I think there's plenty of room for CCP to do more with Carriers, and I think at this point I agree that they should be improved generally, but not in terms of raw DPS or ability to nuke sub-caps off field, for reasons stated above. Let Dreads be the big beat-stick, Carriers should be a swiss army knife with lots of options and flexibility. That makes them good and fun to use without turning them into steamrollers for sub-caps.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#827 - 2016-07-10 08:20:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Actually, old carriers were in a far better place than what is being passed off as a carrier today.
Carriers pre Citadel had a pretty big selection of DPS to rely on (any drone they wanted + fighters that could all be repped), remote reps, high EHP and were relatively cheap to field.
They are now limited to disposable light fighters (@ over 100 mil per squad), which since the nerfs are all but ineffective without multiple support ships, their ability to survive is far lower and they cost a lot more to field.


The NSA was OP and allowed carriers to insta blap small ships - That was bad but carriers were still getting killed by gangs who specifically adapted and set out to kill them. Devs stepped in and rather than fix the insta lock blap issue - Nerfed carriers out of contention to kill anything smaller than an MWD shield cruiser - That isn't balance, it is simply placing carriers in a no win situation without a reasonable sized fleet to support them - This of course leads to more of everything being fielded, which is bad for Eve in general. 20 man gate camps insta blapping solo players or even small gangs - Isn't "fun"

Quote:
Goals
Before we started looking at details, we wanted to firmly fix the goal of the design for capitals

A; Provide interactive, meaningful, gameplay.
B; Obtaining and mastering capital ships, as well as fighting and destroying them, should be a compelling aspirational goal for players.
C; Capital ships are the premier weapon for killing structures.
D; Capital ships should be effective in most combat situations without completely dominating the battlefield and without invalidating other ship types.

A; Failed - It's either gank or be ganked - Bring more you gank, don't and you die
B; Failed - See A
C; Failed - Carrier can hit Poco's and small pos's and are way outclassed by Dreads when it comes to shooting any structure including Citadels, even some subcaps are more effective. Their only real role in a Citadel shoot is as an anti-subcap role, which has just been nerfed by a large amount, requiring anyone fielding them to just bring more of everything.
> Fleet ad goes up, Ships required in order of preference (usefulness) - Dreads, Triage (for subcap reps), Subcap DPS, Subcap support Then Carriers - If you can fly any of the others, don't bring a carrier. (pretty common fleet MOTD, sadly)
D; It is the carrier that has been invalidated due to no effective role - They don't do enough damage compared to Dreads (and some subcaps) to Structures, they aren't effective as an anti subcap platform, without multiple support ships.
(when the number of support required is as high as the DPS, it is not balanced)


Balance for the Rocket Salvo would have been increasing the exp radius to say 200 (doubling it would have been reasonable as a starting point) then collecting statistics to see how it plays out BUT as I said (poorly, as it seems you completely misunderstood what I meant) Once something is in game, there is no allowance for "balancing" as Devs have moved on to their next project which HAS to be released "ready or not" ("Not" seems to have become the norm) by the next patch.



Yes that guy played it just right and those attacking him, well what can you say. Try that in a carrier with the new lack of damage application and you have a recipe for - dead carrier.
My Nag can hit out to 80K without the risk of losing one or more 100+ million isk squad of fighters if I were to do that with a carrier. Range isn't an issue, if you fit for it. But as most of what your going to be fighting is going to be within 50K due to their ranges, well.. .. .. Much the same as the wasted role bonus on carriers (4,000Km lock range), typical fights aren't at long ranges.

Hmmm - Capital Logi not as effective as subcap equivalent - That really hits the nail right on the head. When a subcap performs better than a specifically designed capital equivalent (and they do), there is something wrong with the design. But then effectiveness over (or even equal to) disposability would have to have been a consideration during design - Kill a fleets Fax = Win the fight.
Devs did well in that part by making it so you can either tank a Fax or use it to repair the fleet it is part of. By ensuring they never had enough cap to do both, they designed a perfectly disposable 2 billion isk class of ship.
Unfortunately they didn't use any imagination (severely lacking with this bunch of Devs, unless it is based on "pretty" effects that many, as seen with the latest OFF switch due to a really annoying animation someone thought would be good for the game) when it came to Capital Logistics, they took the easy road that didn't require any "balance", thought or room for the new strategies and tactics they said would come with them.
All they really did was break the game as far as actually using a grid for a capital (or any other type) of fight - But it was easy so the only way they could go.
Slow lumbering easily killed capital logistics = Lazy, narrow minded, unimaginative development (oooh, CCP Devs trade mark)

I don't singly blame Devs for the mess Carriers are in - Much of it is down to CCP's leadership, who are obviously more concerned with release dates and adding more fluff than they are with a well balanced exciting game.

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.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#828 - 2016-07-10 09:04:36 UTC
Carriers should get at least 1 support fighter tube. That would give them more significance on the field. I'd go as far as giving them 2 dedicated support fighters, while leaving them the 3 light fighter tubes.
Fighters should also get on grid warp capability, that requires the target (or destination) to be more than 150 km away, and lands them 50km off grid. Nullified perhaps so they can even warp in & out of bubbles since it's on grid only. Obviously the warp also takes some time to align, warp etc.

Between those two you now have a much better role for carriers in a fight, and they can actually use their lock range. It may still not make them favoured in the current meta, but it gives them something significantly unique.

FAX should be able to move while in Triage, again that makes use of the grid size and with selective Ewar immunity doesn't break anything since webs, scrams & points can still be applied while it is in triage. This then allows fights to move. (Siege/Bastion should also get the same treatment)
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#829 - 2016-07-10 23:17:50 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Carriers should get at least 1 support fighter tube. That would give them more significance on the field. I'd go as far as giving them 2 dedicated support fighters, while leaving them the 3 light fighter tubes.
Fighters should also get on grid warp capability, that requires the target (or destination) to be more than 150 km away, and lands them 50km off grid. Nullified perhaps so they can even warp in & out of bubbles since it's on grid only. Obviously the warp also takes some time to align, warp etc.

Between those two you now have a much better role for carriers in a fight, and they can actually use their lock range. It may still not make them favoured in the current meta, but it gives them something significantly unique.

FAX should be able to move while in Triage, again that makes use of the grid size and with selective Ewar immunity doesn't break anything since webs, scrams & points can still be applied while it is in triage. This then allows fights to move. (Siege/Bastion should also get the same treatment)

Carriers could even be given real support role.
1 Extra dedicated launch tube for Support Fighters.
Instead of 5% to X support fighter ability (dependent on which carrier you are using) - Make it 5% to Support Fighter Abilities.
Siren's could be useful in a fight, as long as you have a niddy with you to use Dromi's.

Balance Support Fighters to be useful - Either reduce Sig radius or sig bloom when using secondary MWD Ability. (they are just too easy to kill right now for the size of the squad).
With the size of grids now and the extended lock range bonus on carriers, fighters should be able to warp on grid. I would suggest minimum 200Km to allow carriers/fighters to engage the warp in warp out fleets (strategies and tactics - for both sides in a fight). The bonus is wasted if it takes your fighters longer to get to point "A" than it does for who your fighting (who are at point A) to warp to another location.

-- - -- - -- - --
As for Faxes, I suggested (a few months ago) a new type of Triage/Siege module. 75% effectiveness of current module but without the mobility drawback. So you rep a little less, Siege Dreads do a little less damage, Carriers have the option to not just sit next to a triage Fax for reps - Strategies and Tactics..

Or - the Lif and Ninazu (which really don't have a place right now) could get role bonuses to Triage - 25% reduction to ability bonuses, 100% bonus to mobility drawback.
This would open up more possibilities for Carriers and Faxes (both shield and armor), allowing them to move about on a grid rather than just sitting close to a Fax in hopes of surviving.

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.

Kabantik
Accidentally Seriously
#830 - 2016-07-14 18:19:05 UTC
Aaron Mirrorsaver wrote:
In summary the people crying to nerf carriers are saying:

1) Waa waa, my interceptor was alphad in four seconds. (A guy made a video about this one) His ceptor vs a carrier.

2) 3 WHOLE Blops can't kill a carrier

3) I want to be able to kill a carrier every time I roam, sometimes I can't kill one

4) Carriers should not be able to kill dictors/hictors so fast with the locking time and damage application of missile volleys, so that my hero dictor can hold down said carrier and create content because carrier calls in friends, thus leading to initiation of super content good fights

5) Carriers should have a beacon so that when they are ratting, all of Eve is aware

6) There should be a map filter to show carriers ratting in space in the last ten minutes to assist with #5

7) My 10 man roaming inty gang can no longer kite/hold/point carrier for 1 hour while we call in reinforcements to kill it

8) no one should be able to rat in safety, they should be able to be killed by my small gang, because small gang pvp. CCP why you do this to small gang pvp.
(small gang pvp == looking to gank pve ships )

9) there's no risk to ratting carrier, risk/reward out of balance.
CCP anyone writing such nonsense can seriously provide good feedback? Someone talking about risk/reward in null sec ratting? Everyone knows that the definitive shooty shooty type pve isk making is now done in hi sec (incursions). In fact there's almost 0 reason to exist in null sec, apart from building super caps or mining moon minerals for production. ISk has become to so easy to farm in multiple ways that the importance of 'home space' or 0.0 is out the door. This more than anything is what has driven null sec to be stagnated. Other than personal vendettas, what can create content now?

Anything missed?

Can I just ask though who gets caught ratting in a carrier besides afk ratters? What happened to constantly be aligned and warp?

Regards fighters, why is it ok to nerf back into oblivion the only defense a ship has? Fighters are easily destroyed and a carrier is then useless, especially since it can no longer have heaps of drones.

Maybe CCP could add a 'point defense module' able to be fitted to carriers only, which shoots down small ships in 'X' range? It's kind of sad that across that huge ship, there's not even a single gun to defend it.


Eve has more out lived its design in all aspects, and all this balance and re-working is patch work to prolong it.


I logged in to both +1 and quote this post.
Cade Windstalker
#831 - 2016-07-15 15:25:16 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Actually, old carriers were in a far better place than what is being passed off as a carrier today.


I really don't think I agree with this. Yes, in theory, they were better but in practice this just doesn't hold up. If you look at the stats on zKillboard for July vs the previous two months, and then every month before April Carriers post-nerfs here are still doing better than they were before Citadel. Right now we're on track for ~8k kills and 20k points, which would have been a good month for old Carriers, but so far July has been fairly quiet with nothing to suggest that this is a "good month" for space-violence.

Fighters before were more survivable, sure, but they had worse application by a mile even than the current Rockets, and you could field one flight and that's it, no spares. That left sub-cap drones, which basically turned Carriers into two Dominixes glued together. Better? Maybe, but that doesn't hold up in how they're performing.

I can certainly agree that Fighters are either too expensive or too fragile, but I think both beats, from an overall gameplay perspective, the old "one flight of super-fighters" setup since the current method offers more in the way of counter-play.

Maybe some sort of "damaged return" mechanic could be introduced, where Fighters have a chance to return crippled and need to be repaired for a minute or two, instead of always exploding when 'shot down'.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
20 man gate camps insta blapping solo players or even small gangs - Isn't "fun"


Someone who is going to bring a 20 man gate-camp was going to do that more or less regardless of where Carriers sit in the game, the only thing that's really been removed is the ability for Carriers without support to nuke things off the field. In effect I disagree with your premise that this leads to more stuff in general getting fielded. Generally, in Eve, you work with the pilots you have, and you ship them into something that works for those numbers.

The only thing this has really removed is solo-carriers, I don't think it's going to lead to more stuff being fielded.

I also think that the loss in "fun" is greater from having Carriers, without support, be able to nuke Frigs and Cruisers off the field. That just feels unfair, at least to me, and based on complaints I would say a lot of others agree. Gate camps are unfair too, but they're unfair in a very obvious way and are something that's accepted by the Eve Community. If you want to break one you bring a bunch of ships and a plan to counter what they've got, and that's pretty accepted practice. One ship locking down a gate isn't "Eve Normal" and so got a lot of backlash because it feels unfair that that one ship can do something that previously required a lot of ships.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
A; Failed - It's either gank or be ganked - Bring more you gank, don't and you die
B; Failed - See A
C; Failed - Carrier can hit Poco's and small pos's and are way outclassed by Dreads when it comes to shooting any structure including Citadels, even some subcaps are more effective. Their only real role in a Citadel shoot is as an anti-subcap role, which has just been nerfed by a large amount, requiring anyone fielding them to just bring more of everything.
> Fleet ad goes up, Ships required in order of preference (usefulness) - Dreads, Triage (for subcap reps), Subcap DPS, Subcap support Then Carriers - If you can fly any of the others, don't bring a carrier. (pretty common fleet MOTD, sadly)
D; It is the carrier that has been invalidated due to no effective role - They don't do enough damage compared to Dreads (and some subcaps) to Structures, they aren't effective as an anti subcap platform, without multiple support ships.
(when the number of support required is as high as the DPS, it is not balanced)


This feels a lot more like bitter-vet than it does reasonable critique of the system.

For A, everything I've heard says that the new method of controlling Fighters is better than the old one, and that Capitals are overall a better experience *to fly* post Citadel than they were before, even if the Carrier as a hull is specifically less useful. To some extent whether the gameplay is engaging is going to be subjective, but personally I don't think "stomps all over sub-caps" qualified.

B is also always going to be somewhat subjective. Personally I'd call it solved when Capitals have useful roles outside of massive fleet fights and every Cap has something that it does reasonably well. Overall Caps feel like they're in a better place, there's just more work to be done.

C you're either being silly, unrealistic, or willfully misinterpreting the statement. It says "Capital Ships" not "All Capital Ships" and not "Carriers". Caps are the best thing for shooting structures, that doesn't mean that all Capitals should be amazing at it, just that the class as a whole should be what you use for structure shooting.

D on that point people seem to disagree, see the zKillboard link above. Personally I can see where you're coming from, and like I've said before I think they could use a buff, but not back into the "murderer of all things Frigate and Cruiser" role. That's not a role any ship should have, at least to the extent that pre-nerf Citadel Carriers embodied it.
Cade Windstalker
#832 - 2016-07-15 15:26:28 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Balance for the Rocket Salvo would have been increasing the exp radius to say 200 (doubling it would have been reasonable as a starting point) then collecting statistics to see how it plays out BUT as I said (poorly, as it seems you completely misunderstood what I meant) Once something is in game, there is no allowance for "balancing" as Devs have moved on to their next project which HAS to be released "ready or not" ("Not" seems to have become the norm) by the next patch.


I understood you perfectly fine, I just disagree with your assumptions about how CCP works behind the scenes. They've pushed things back a patch if they needed more work, and the whole point of these smaller incremental patches was that things could be worked on for longer without actually needing to hit that bi-yearly patch date.

You disagree with CCP's decision on how to balance Carriers, I get that, but saying that what they're doing isn't actually balancing at all is just ridiculous. There's clear logic, and math, behind their decision regarding the Rocket Salvo, so better to just make the full change and then walk it back (or adjust in some other way) rather than make half the change they want to make and then do the rest later, since the goal of nerfing the Rocket Salvo was very clearly to make them worse at blapping small targets and the math to figure out where that line is for various hulls and fittings is *really easy*.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Yes that guy played it just right and those attacking him, well what can you say. Try that in a carrier with the new lack of damage application and you have a recipe for - dead carrier.


Different hulls, different roles, I'm not seeing much of an issue here if a role that required tanky-DPS bait can't be filled by a ship that is neither tanky nor a primary DPS role. Carrier Fighters still have more utility though, and if CCP are going to make further changes to Carriers I'd rather see those played up than just have the damage bumped.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Hmmm - Capital Logi not as effective as subcap equivalent - That really hits the nail right on the head.


Now you're just being close minded, and honestly the conversation is devolving pretty badly.

I never said Capital Logi is less effective, it's just different and from what I'm hearing it is *very* effective. NC. requires their Titan pilots to have FAX alts, and to drop a FAX with each Titan that jumps into a fight. That's not something you do when a class of ship is useless or ineffective.

Capitals have different requirements for balance than sub-caps. They've changed a lot over the years and we've seen the full gamut from barely anyone wanting to use Caps to them being an overwhelming force in Null fleet fights to the point that they overwhelmed everything else.

That alone should show that Capital Logistics *can't* work like Sub-Cap Logi, it wouldn't be balanced.

Anyways, if you want to continue this discussion please leave the "CCP are bad at their jobs" rhetoric at home. You can disagree with their direction all you want, but that doesn't make it bad, it just makes it something you disagree with. Hurling around insults (which is what the last third of that post was, almost entirely) doesn't contribute to a productive discussion and it certainly doesn't help you get what you want. It may get your post edited or deleted though, which would be a shame because you've shared some interesting and useful perspectives in this thread.

If the discussion had been as productive in the first 20 pages as it has been in the last 20 there might have been some more iteration on CCP's initial ideas regarding Carriers.
Cade Windstalker
#833 - 2016-07-15 15:41:04 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Carriers could even be given real support role.
1 Extra dedicated launch tube for Support Fighters.
Instead of 5% to X support fighter ability (dependent on which carrier you are using) - Make it 5% to Support Fighter Abilities.
Siren's could be useful in a fight, as long as you have a niddy with you to use Dromi's.

Balance Support Fighters to be useful - Either reduce Sig radius or sig bloom when using secondary MWD Ability. (they are just too easy to kill right now for the size of the squad).
With the size of grids now and the extended lock range bonus on carriers, fighters should be able to warp on grid. I would suggest minimum 200Km to allow carriers/fighters to engage the warp in warp out fleets (strategies and tactics - for both sides in a fight). The bonus is wasted if it takes your fighters longer to get to point "A" than it does for who your fighting (who are at point A) to warp to another location.

-- - -- - -- - --
As for Faxes, I suggested (a few months ago) a new type of Triage/Siege module. 75% effectiveness of current module but without the mobility drawback. So you rep a little less, Siege Dreads do a little less damage, Carriers have the option to not just sit next to a triage Fax for reps - Strategies and Tactics..

Or - the Lif and Ninazu (which really don't have a place right now) could get role bonuses to Triage - 25% reduction to ability bonuses, 100% bonus to mobility drawback.
This would open up more possibilities for Carriers and Faxes (both shield and armor), allowing them to move about on a grid rather than just sitting close to a Fax in hopes of surviving.


Honestly I'm kind of coming to dislike the idea of a dedicated Support Fighter tube. It seems weirdly limiting and unintuitive. I would like to see the limit on Support Fighter squads removed though. Like I said earlier, it sort of makes sense while CCP figure out where Support Fighters sit but not so much now that no OP combos of Support Fighters (or from stacking support Fighters) have presented themselves.

I'd rather see Support Fighters made good enough to potentially replace DPS in some circumstances rather than having to stuff a dedicated tube onto the ship for them.

I do like the idea of a bonus to Support Fighter effects on Carriers though. It gives them something unique and distinct from Super Carriers and the potential to be useful in all sorts of situations. It also opens up a lot of fighter loadout options, like a Support-Heavy carrier, that you wouldn't get with racial bonuses.

Not a fan in general of 'mobile Triage/Siege'. It seems like it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. Being immobile and committed to the fight is part of Triage and Siege, and at least while POSes still exist being able to move would only open up the potential for exploits with POS shields to deaggress and avoid dying. Not really something we should be encouraging.

Other than that I'm not really seeing the advantage here. Any kind of significant drop in damage or reps means that the side that brought stationary ships is probably going to win a stand up fight, and while moving might reduce incoming DPS it will reduce your outgoing similarly, and on top of that it's not like Caps can speed tank.
She11by
Big Boys Don't Cry
Kids With Guns Alliance
#834 - 2016-07-24 12:31:00 UTC
They didn't even make opportunity to comfortably bind squads what are u want from them lol?
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#835 - 2016-07-24 19:35:50 UTC
Lots of good points have been brought up but the fact remains that opportunites for capital content are seriously lacking in eve. Its unfortunate that the ships that take by far the longest training commitment have such little content available. They are consistently being nerfed in favor of sub cap playstyles. CCP should create certian mechanics that REQUIRE capitals to solidify their role in many areas of the game. I firmly believe that capitals should be exceedingly hard to kill. As it stands Capitals are extremely vulnerable to a blob of subcaps whereas the subcaps are practically untouchable. HAW guns are next to useless for anything under a battlecruiser and thats even a stretch. I would just like to see a little more actual balance rather than things constantly being skewed in favor of subcap fleets. If the objective is to make it accessable to new players, please create some type of content only available to capitals and those cap pilots whom have invested the training time to fly them. It creates a sort of end goal for newer players to aspire to while getting many of these station/pos queens out on grid and having some fun. I for one am not a fan of spending 2-5 bil on a dread or 30 bil on a super just to stare at it and only use it for 1 hour a month if that.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#836 - 2016-07-24 21:08:07 UTC
Carrier's still pretty good at dunking subcaps tho.
She11by
Big Boys Don't Cry
Kids With Guns Alliance
#837 - 2016-07-24 21:16:05 UTC  |  Edited by: She11by
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Carrier's still pretty good at dunking subcaps tho.

If it's almost not moving and not jumping away otherwise u need to get at least dromi + siren's and get ~500dps(with perfect skills) from 1 left damage squad which btw can be killed pretty quickly. All that u got approximately for 4-6b
Nya Kittenheart
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#838 - 2016-07-25 01:30:15 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Q: How has the missile damage formula been changed?
A: The current missile damage formula looks like this (thanks EVE Uni!).


That akward moment a GAME DESIGNER realize his company has to rely on a third party website to access the technical documentation about their own game.
Pretty much like if secretary of Justice was asking a human right association if by any luck they arent in possesion of a laws codex copy ...
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#839 - 2016-07-25 13:57:18 UTC
Nya Kittenheart wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Q: How has the missile damage formula been changed?
A: The current missile damage formula looks like this (thanks EVE Uni!).


That akward moment a GAME DESIGNER realize his company has to rely on a third party website to access the technical documentation about their own game.
Pretty much like if secretary of Justice was asking a human right association if by any luck they arent in possesion of a laws codex copy ...

No point in reinventing the wheel just to change the tire.
Cade Windstalker
#840 - 2016-07-25 14:47:14 UTC
Gary Webb wrote:
Lots of good points have been brought up but the fact remains that opportunites for capital content are seriously lacking in eve. Its unfortunate that the ships that take by far the longest training commitment have such little content available. They are consistently being nerfed in favor of sub cap playstyles. CCP should create certian mechanics that REQUIRE capitals to solidify their role in many areas of the game. I firmly believe that capitals should be exceedingly hard to kill. As it stands Capitals are extremely vulnerable to a blob of subcaps whereas the subcaps are practically untouchable. HAW guns are next to useless for anything under a battlecruiser and thats even a stretch. I would just like to see a little more actual balance rather than things constantly being skewed in favor of subcap fleets. If the objective is to make it accessable to new players, please create some type of content only available to capitals and those cap pilots whom have invested the training time to fly them. It creates a sort of end goal for newer players to aspire to while getting many of these station/pos queens out on grid and having some fun. I for one am not a fan of spending 2-5 bil on a dread or 30 bil on a super just to stare at it and only use it for 1 hour a month if that.


We've had this though, and it just resulted in Caps stomping all over sub-caps. Remember Dread-blapping? That wasn't fun content for the majority of pilots.

There's also a bit of a catch-22 here. If Capitals are absolutely required for some piece of non-optional content (like, required to take Sov for example) at a mechanical level then what about Supers? The current role of Super Capitals is basically to be really good at killing Capitals. They're not bad against sub-caps either, but they're *really* good against Caps. That now means that we're sort of back to Supers winning because the only way to keep Caps alive on grid when the other side has Supers is to have enough Supers or Caps, either on-grid or as an open threat, that they don't want to drop. This pretty clearly undermines the idea behind the sov update which was to make huge blobby alliances less feasible, and make it easier for smaller and newer entities to take Sov.

Per-ship Capitals are still fantastic, what you're saying here is that a few Capitals are vulnerable to a comparatively large force of sub-caps, to which I really have to reply "So what?" Bring your own sub-caps, or even bring more capitals with utility slots or something. The idea that one ship should be immune to a dozen or more smaller ships is just silly and very much not in the spirit of Eve.

HAW guns are basically arrays of Battleship guns, so it makes sense that they can't blap Frigates or Cruisers without support. Again, not seeing a problem here. HAWs already let you put the DPS of ~2-3 Battleships on grid, which is pretty fantastic if used correctly.

I get the desire for caps-only content, but there's a pretty tiny box for stuff like that. It can't be reliant on Sov, for reasons I just went over. If it's PvE driven then it needs to be stupidly rewarding, probably more so than current Carrier ratting (though there's an argument to be made that this is serving the purpose you're looking for just fine), which risks breaking the PvE reward curve or causing inflation issues. A PvE driven incentive also just wouldn't be fun or rewarding to a lot of people making these sorts of complaints.

Honestly I'm kind of left wondering if the solution here isn't a small decrease in the build cost of Capital hulls (not supers) to make them more appealing to fly and less painful to lose, since in almost any case where capitals are deployed you should be ready to lose them.