These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Degnar Oskold
Moira.
Villore Accords
#841 - 2016-07-25 15:51:34 UTC
It took me a while but I have now adjusted to the changes and am reasonably satisfied with carrier performance. Their optimal role has changed but they are very viable in the right type of combat.

Source: been involved with 30 kills with the Nidhoggur in the last 2 weeks and am now the #6 Niddy pilot on zkill this week.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#842 - 2016-07-26 11:21:51 UTC
Degnar Oskold wrote:
It took me a while but I have now adjusted to the changes and am reasonably satisfied with carrier performance. Their optimal role has changed but they are very viable in the right type of combat.

Source: been involved with 30 kills with the Nidhoggur in the last 2 weeks and am now the #6 Niddy pilot on zkill this week.

Not that I myself have a horse in the race, but could you do something in furtherance of your statement? Since a large part of this thread has been trying to figure out what the role is...and you just said the role changed but they are viable in the right type of combat, could you simply elaborate a little bit on what that precisely is? I'm sure that the other participants in the thread would appreciate that bit of insight, if you could be so kind.
Cade Windstalker
#843 - 2016-07-26 18:42:57 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Degnar Oskold wrote:
It took me a while but I have now adjusted to the changes and am reasonably satisfied with carrier performance. Their optimal role has changed but they are very viable in the right type of combat.

Source: been involved with 30 kills with the Nidhoggur in the last 2 weeks and am now the #6 Niddy pilot on zkill this week.

Not that I myself have a horse in the race, but could you do something in furtherance of your statement? Since a large part of this thread has been trying to figure out what the role is...and you just said the role changed but they are viable in the right type of combat, could you simply elaborate a little bit on what that precisely is? I'm sure that the other participants in the thread would appreciate that bit of insight, if you could be so kind.


Seconded. Would very much like a more detailed post on what you've been doing, what you think works, and what you think doesn't work.

One of the tragedies of the balance forums is that the only people who tend to get actively involved in discussions are people who really hate a proposed change or numbers nuts like myself who just like to hash things out. There's not nearly enough reasonable feedback from people who are seriously impacted by a change but have mixed feelings and useful feedback to provide.
Degnar Oskold
Moira.
Villore Accords
#844 - 2016-07-26 20:22:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Degnar Oskold
I've been using them in lowsec as part of armour BS fleets.

Since you are going to have logi with you you don't need to pack a big buffer or a self rep. You just need to be high resists to catch reps well from the accompanying Guardians. You can rig and fit the carriers to be about as mobile as an armour BS. You fit cheap, minimise the cost. Resist tank the lows, fill any extra space with DDAs. Drone mods in the mids for damage application and speed, and a AB to pulse into warp and keep up with BSes.. Highs to taste.

You end up with a ship that, if you lose it post-insurance, costs only about twice as much as losing a normally blinged PVP faction BS (ie one with deadspace resists), but which has 3 times the tank of that BS and slightly more hitting power. With support fighters you also get some interesting options to mess with tricky enemies. The webbing and painting that gets done to help the BS fleet apply damage benefits you immensely too.

If you look me up on zkill, all of my kills on Jul 16th and Jul 25th were in a carrier in a BS fleet. In fact, in all of the kills in Nennamaila on Jul 25th against armour cruisers, my carrier applied more DPS to all the cruisers than the BSes were able to do.
Similarly, when a 10MN Bifrost was webbed down at range and pointed, my carrier was able to start applying damage to it much faster than the armour BSes were able to do and I did 60% of the damage to a target with just a 60 meter signature radius, reduced further by off-grid links.

In all of these fights, my carrier was mostly ignored by the enemy because they knew it would have a lot of EHP but presumably they mistakingly thought that it would not be able to apply much DPS.

On July 25th, the only reason why I didn't influct much damage to the Naglfar was that my fighters ran out of missiles as it jumped in and I had to bring them in for rearming. The naglfar did make a nice 16th killmark at the back of the Niddy because my fighters hit it hard when they did eventually arrive.
Cade Windstalker
#845 - 2016-07-26 21:37:13 UTC
^^^^^^^^^^

Love this to death. This is the kind of thing people should do in response to changes like these, and exactly the sort of thing a lot of the "Don't nerf my Fighters" crowd were saying other people should do in response to blap-Fighters.

Instead of just going "meh, worthless now, unsubbing" you've actually worked at figuring out how to use the ship within the changes and made something really effective.

Looking at your Killboard it's pretty impressive what you're doing here. Did have a couple of questions though.

I assume you were using the Grams 1s to swat the Rattlesnakes' drones on those three kills on your headline for the month. How effective was that? Were you blapping them off the field or did they take a bit of killing?

What's the story on that Orthrus kill? There's just you and a Brutix on there so it stands out a bit.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#846 - 2016-07-27 00:15:16 UTC
Degnar Oskold wrote:
I've been using them in lowsec as part of armour BS fleets.

Since you are going to have logi with you you don't need to pack a big buffer or a self rep. You just need to be high resists to catch reps well from the accompanying Guardians. You can rig and fit the carriers to be about as mobile as an armour BS. You fit cheap, minimise the cost. Resist tank the lows, fill any extra space with DDAs. Drone mods in the mids for damage application and speed, and a AB to pulse into warp and keep up with BSes.. Highs to taste.

You end up with a ship that, if you lose it post-insurance, costs only about twice as much as losing a normally blinged PVP faction BS (ie one with deadspace resists), but which has 3 times the tank of that BS and slightly more hitting power. With support fighters you also get some interesting options to mess with tricky enemies. The webbing and painting that gets done to help the BS fleet apply damage benefits you immensely too.

If you look me up on zkill, all of my kills on Jul 16th and Jul 25th were in a carrier in a BS fleet. In fact, in all of the kills in Nennamaila on Jul 25th against armour cruisers, my carrier applied more DPS to all the cruisers than the BSes were able to do.
Similarly, when a 10MN Bifrost was webbed down at range and pointed, my carrier was able to start applying damage to it much faster than the armour BSes were able to do and I did 60% of the damage to a target with just a 60 meter signature radius, reduced further by off-grid links.

In all of these fights, my carrier was mostly ignored by the enemy because they knew it would have a lot of EHP but presumably they mistakingly thought that it would not be able to apply much DPS.

On July 25th, the only reason why I didn't influct much damage to the Naglfar was that my fighters ran out of missiles as it jumped in and I had to bring them in for rearming. The naglfar did make a nice 16th killmark at the back of the Niddy because my fighters hit it hard when they did eventually arrive.

I'm curious, how do you get High Resists AND Damage mods on a ship that has 5 lowslots?

Cade Windstalker said - What's the story on that Orthrus kill? There's just you and a Brutix on there so it stands out a bit..
Did you miss the carrier not doing any damage to it and the Ponitfex that got top damage and final blow?

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
#847 - 2016-07-27 01:29:24 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I'm curious, how do you get High Resists AND Damage mods on a ship that has 5 lowslots?

Cade Windstalker said - What's the story on that Orthrus kill? There's just you and a Brutix on there so it stands out a bit..
Did you miss the carrier not doing any damage to it and the Ponitfex that got top damage and final blow?


Carriers have pretty good damage compared to a BS even without damage mods. I'd imagine he's not running much past a single DDA if that. He also does't seem to have lost a fleet Nid fit though so it's hard to say.

As for the Orthrus, I did forget to mention the guy at the top (or the Sleepers for that matter) but I'm still curious what the story there is, since he did still manage to get on the KM with damage fighters.
Degnar Oskold
Moira.
Villore Accords
#848 - 2016-07-27 04:25:26 UTC
To answer the question, swatting Rattlesnake drones with SSFs was faster than any other way of doing it, but still too slow and in future the Carrier would be better used to just kill the Rattlesnakes directly. The SSFs did help to murder the 3 Geckos that the enemy used . Because of their scram/web ability, when the Geckos owners tried to recall the Geckos because they were dying .... the geckos still died.

The Orthrus is misleading , I got one vague shot from my fighters at him on station before he warped out but died to a Brutix I system a few minutes later.

The Nidhoggur has to use all of its lows for tank and cannot fit DDAs while maintaining 70%+ resists, but it gets a hull bonus to damage anyway. The Chimera can't fit any either. The Thanatos can fit 1 DDA. The Archon can fit 2.

Fit up this way, you get the following results

Nidhoggur: OK tank , 3rd best DPS, fastest fighters (partly compensates for DPS)
Chimera: Worst tank, worst DPS, good damage application and fighter speed from many Mids.
Archon: Best tank, 2nd best DPS, slowest fighters.
Thanatos: OK tank, best DPS, ok fighter speed
C0ATL
Renegade Stars
Stellae Renascitur
#849 - 2016-07-27 06:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: C0ATL
I love how somebody comes along that states they have been using a carrier efficiently for a week since the changes and everybody who agreed with the nerf just jumps on his band-wagon.


Let me not be missunderstood: I >really< like what he did with the carrier. Its a fresh way to use it. It shows that he thought how to compensate for the arising problem and made a specific fit to get success. I always try to encourage that type of thinking whenever I see it. So I am approaching the topic again not because I want to pick at him, but to remind people of some particularities:


1. It is a specific fit. Not all carrier pilots have a fleet of battleships as our escort. And maybe not all carrier pilots would want to roam with a fleet of battleships, as the (so far) only way to make flying a 2-4 bil ship feasible.

(And here comes the more important point to make)

2. Why is it that when somebody who comes up with a carrier build adapted to the new changes, everybody goes "Oh, see? It can be done!" .. "I love this kind of post!" .. "Carrier pilots are QQing for no reason, this is proof that carriers are balanced!" ............ so everybody is expecting carrier pilots to just adapt to a sudden 40% dmg and 60% tracking nerf. Ok... seems fair. EvE >IS< a game about adapting, evolving, out-thinking your opponents, at the end of the day.
But then... why the actual **** were the carrier hunting gangs composed of 2-3 BS not get asked to adapt and evolve when the carriers changed the first time? Its their QQ-without-any-attempt-at-adapting that lead CCP into believing this abysmal nerf was a good idea. And we all know how CCP always listens to QQ more than reason, after all.

So, as I draw the line, I guess my logical arguments like "Frigate sized fighters should be able to hit frigates (given how frigates can hit frigates -.-' )" ..... or "Have you maybe thought a 40% dmg and 60% tracking nerf is waaaaay too much and should run tests for a week or so on the test servers? Might help you learn the difference between balancing something and breaking it to pieces." ...... or "How come a group of pilots is expected to adapt to any changes but for another, CCP changes the game to suit their needs?".... should all just go unwritten in future posts, because CCP only always prioritizes "OMG WTF is this?! I call BULLSHIT and will be un-subscribing my char+10 alts....while asking my close friends and their friends to do the same!"



Carriers were unfairly nerfed and the numbers need to be re-evaluated.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#850 - 2016-07-27 11:22:26 UTC
Degnar Oskold wrote:
To answer the question, swatting Rattlesnake drones with SSFs was faster than any other way of doing it, but still too slow and in future the Carrier would be better used to just kill the Rattlesnakes directly. The SSFs did help to murder the 3 Geckos that the enemy used . Because of their scram/web ability, when the Geckos owners tried to recall the Geckos because they were dying .... the geckos still died.

The Orthrus is misleading , I got one vague shot from my fighters at him on station before he warped out but died to a Brutix I system a few minutes later.

The Nidhoggur has to use all of its lows for tank and cannot fit DDAs while maintaining 70%+ resists, but it gets a hull bonus to damage anyway. The Chimera can't fit any either. The Thanatos can fit 1 DDA. The Archon can fit 2.

Fit up this way, you get the following results

Nidhoggur: OK tank , 3rd best DPS, fastest fighters (partly compensates for DPS)
Chimera: Worst tank, worst DPS, good damage application and fighter speed from many Mids.
Archon: Best tank, 2nd best DPS, slowest fighters.
Thanatos: OK tank, best DPS, ok fighter speed

My question should have been a little more specific - What is the fit your using?

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.

Degnar Oskold
Moira.
Villore Accords
#851 - 2016-07-27 15:03:34 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Degnar Oskold wrote:
To answer the question, swatting Rattlesnake drones with SSFs was faster than any other way of doing it, but still too slow and in future the Carrier would be better used to just kill the Rattlesnakes directly. The SSFs did help to murder the 3 Geckos that the enemy used . Because of their scram/web ability, when the Geckos owners tried to recall the Geckos because they were dying .... the geckos still died.

The Orthrus is misleading , I got one vague shot from my fighters at him on station before he warped out but died to a Brutix I system a few minutes later.

The Nidhoggur has to use all of its lows for tank and cannot fit DDAs while maintaining 70%+ resists, but it gets a hull bonus to damage anyway. The Chimera can't fit any either. The Thanatos can fit 1 DDA. The Archon can fit 2.

Fit up this way, you get the following results

Nidhoggur: OK tank , 3rd best DPS, fastest fighters (partly compensates for DPS)
Chimera: Worst tank, worst DPS, good damage application and fighter speed from many Mids.
Archon: Best tank, 2nd best DPS, slowest fighters.
Thanatos: OK tank, best DPS, ok fighter speed

My question should have been a little more specific - What is the fit your using?



I haven't lost a carrier with the new fit yet so I'm a bit reluctant to share it, because it will highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of what I'm doing. I've probably given out more info than I should have already, to be honest.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#852 - 2016-07-28 01:44:22 UTC
Degnar Oskold wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Degnar Oskold wrote:
To answer the question, swatting Rattlesnake drones with SSFs was faster than any other way of doing it, but still too slow and in future the Carrier would be better used to just kill the Rattlesnakes directly. The SSFs did help to murder the 3 Geckos that the enemy used . Because of their scram/web ability, when the Geckos owners tried to recall the Geckos because they were dying .... the geckos still died.

The Orthrus is misleading , I got one vague shot from my fighters at him on station before he warped out but died to a Brutix I system a few minutes later.

The Nidhoggur has to use all of its lows for tank and cannot fit DDAs while maintaining 70%+ resists, but it gets a hull bonus to damage anyway. The Chimera can't fit any either. The Thanatos can fit 1 DDA. The Archon can fit 2.

Fit up this way, you get the following results

Nidhoggur: OK tank , 3rd best DPS, fastest fighters (partly compensates for DPS)
Chimera: Worst tank, worst DPS, good damage application and fighter speed from many Mids.
Archon: Best tank, 2nd best DPS, slowest fighters.
Thanatos: OK tank, best DPS, ok fighter speed

My question should have been a little more specific - What is the fit your using?



I haven't lost a carrier with the new fit yet so I'm a bit reluctant to share it, because it will highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of what I'm doing. I've probably given out more info than I should have already, to be honest.

That's ok, I'll just keep an eye on Zkill. It will turn up there eventually.

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
#853 - 2016-07-28 14:19:15 UTC
C0ATL wrote:
I love how somebody comes along that states they have been using a carrier efficiently for a week since the changes and everybody who agreed with the nerf just jumps on his band-wagon.


Let me not be missunderstood: I >really< like what he did with the carrier. Its a fresh way to use it. It shows that he thought how to compensate for the arising problem and made a specific fit to get success. I always try to encourage that type of thinking whenever I see it. So I am approaching the topic again not because I want to pick at him, but to remind people of some particularities:


1. It is a specific fit. Not all carrier pilots have a fleet of battleships as our escort. And maybe not all carrier pilots would want to roam with a fleet of battleships, as the (so far) only way to make flying a 2-4 bil ship feasible.

(And here comes the more important point to make)

2. Why is it that when somebody who comes up with a carrier build adapted to the new changes, everybody goes "Oh, see? It can be done!" .. "I love this kind of post!" .. "Carrier pilots are QQing for no reason, this is proof that carriers are balanced!" ............ so everybody is expecting carrier pilots to just adapt to a sudden 40% dmg and 60% tracking nerf. Ok... seems fair. EvE >IS< a game about adapting, evolving, out-thinking your opponents, at the end of the day.
But then... why the actual **** were the carrier hunting gangs composed of 2-3 BS not get asked to adapt and evolve when the carriers changed the first time? Its their QQ-without-any-attempt-at-adapting that lead CCP into believing this abysmal nerf was a good idea. And we all know how CCP always listens to QQ more than reason, after all.

So, as I draw the line, I guess my logical arguments like "Frigate sized fighters should be able to hit frigates (given how frigates can hit frigates -.-' )" ..... or "Have you maybe thought a 40% dmg and 60% tracking nerf is waaaaay too much and should run tests for a week or so on the test servers? Might help you learn the difference between balancing something and breaking it to pieces." ...... or "How come a group of pilots is expected to adapt to any changes but for another, CCP changes the game to suit their needs?".... should all just go unwritten in future posts, because CCP only always prioritizes "OMG WTF is this?! I call BULLSHIT and will be un-subscribing my char+10 alts....while asking my close friends and their friends to do the same!"



Carriers were unfairly nerfed and the numbers need to be re-evaluated.


Couple of points here.

First, carrier pilots adapted pretty quickly to a very significant set of buffs so I don't see why they can't adapt back towards something closer to how Carriers were used before those changes. Certainly someone must be because zKill shows Carriers having a better July than one would expect based on past data from before Citadel and that's with Carriers not being brought in for Triage and getting to ninja their way onto kills because of that.

Quote:
why the actual **** were the carrier hunting gangs composed of 2-3 BS not get asked to adapt and evolve when the carriers changed the first time?


That's actually been pretty well documented in this thread and elsewhere. Carriers were just way too good against small ships (which is what they mostly got nerfed against) and were performing ridiculously well compared to past metrics. Eve is about adapting to changes and continuously learning, certainly, but CCP;s job as the arbitrators of game balance is to maintain something of a fair playing field.

In short, not everything should just be looked at as something to adapt to just because it made it into the game. Some things need to have their balance tweaked.

Case and point, Svipuls...

Anyways.

Frigate sized fighters can hit frigates. For frigate-sized damage. Their giant "whack you in the face" torps are what got nerfed, their main weapons are now more effective at applying DPS to frigates and Cruisers. The change was also on the test server, for almost a month actually, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about there.

If CCP prioritized whining then Svipuls would be a smoking crater where a ship used to be, as would half the other ships in the game. This change didn't come about just because of whining, it came about because Carriers were objectively too powerful in certain situations or against certain classes of ship.

I am not claiming that Carriers are fine and perfect now, I think they should get a further pass or two to refine the class and give it more utility, but I think this past round of nerfs were 100% justified. I'm sorry if that ruined your solo Carrier wrecking ball, but personally I don't think that was healthy for the game, and given that it's something that only existed for 2 months I'd say it's fine that it got removed quickly.
Degnar Oskold
Moira.
Villore Accords
#854 - 2016-07-28 16:31:56 UTC
Yes, the role of carriers is different vs immediately post citadel. They are not solo ships anymore

However, before Citadels (and following the nerfing of drone assits) carrier were not great combat additions to fleets. Yes, they were welcomed for repping, but DPS carriers were generally laughed at, and you would really not take a carrier out solo except for novelty.

Under the current iteration, carriers are shifted to being fleet DPS platforms. They are still bad solo boats, just as they have been since the pre-citadel days.

People had the ship class boosted into being a solo pwnmobile for a month and are mostly struggling to move beyond that.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#855 - 2016-07-29 00:52:23 UTC
Degnar Oskold wrote:
Yes, the role of carriers is different vs immediately post citadel. They are not solo ships anymore

However, before Citadels (and following the nerfing of drone assits) carrier were not great combat additions to fleets. Yes, they were welcomed for repping, but DPS carriers were generally laughed at, and you would really not take a carrier out solo except for novelty.

Under the current iteration, carriers are shifted to being fleet DPS platforms. They are still bad solo boats, just as they have been since the pre-citadel days.

People had the ship class boosted into being a solo pwnmobile for a month and are mostly struggling to move beyond that.

I'm sorry, in what universe are carriers DPS platforms?

Your a proven carrier pilot, surely you can't for a second believe carriers are a DPS platform. Unless killing drones is counted.

Carriers pre Citadel were a far more useful DPS platform than they are now. The whole reason behind the new carriers was because carriers pre Citadel were virtually unstoppable killing machines (Remote reps + Sentry drones).

The primary idea behind the capital changes was to bring something new to capital warfare other than, sit in a blob and shoot. On that Devs failed miserably.



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.

C0ATL
Renegade Stars
Stellae Renascitur
#856 - 2016-07-29 04:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: C0ATL
Frigate sized fighters can hit frigates. For frigate-sized damage. Their giant "whack you in the face" torps are what got nerfed, their main weapons are now more effective at applying DPS to frigates and Cruisers. The change was also on the test server, for almost a month actually, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about there.

If CCP prioritized whining then Svipuls would be a smoking crater where a ship used to be, as would half the other ships in the game. This change didn't come about just because of whining, it came about because Carriers were objectively too powerful in certain situations or against certain classes of ship.

I am not claiming that Carriers are fine and perfect now, I think they should get a further pass or two to refine the class and give it more utility, but I think this past round of nerfs were 100% justified. I'm sorry if that ruined your solo Carrier wrecking ball, but personally I don't think that was healthy for the game, and given that it's something that only existed for 2 months I'd say it's fine that it got removed quickly.[/quote]

Quote:
First, carrier pilots adapted pretty quickly to a very significant set of buffs so I don't see why they can't adapt back towards something closer to how Carriers were used before those changes.


Interesting how you state that carrier pilots adapted to a significant set of buffs, as if the chances did not wipe more than a considerable chunk of the guaranteed EHP you get just by flying one. (sure, the other capitals got this HP nerf as well, but dreads/supercarriers/titans didnt get a 40% dmg reduction and 60% tracking nerf after a month).

Quote:
That's actually been pretty well documented in this thread and elsewhere. Carriers were just way too good against small ships (which is what they mostly got nerfed against) and were performing ridiculously well compared to past metrics.


'Well documented' is a set of examples in which carriers can one-shot frigates or even cruisers. Yes, it was very much the case because most pvpers just go around in gangs and cram as much DPS as possible into their hulls, expecting to one-shot ships with their blob. Stop me if I am wrong, but I do believe that both from a logical stand-point and also a gameplay one... the strategies for engaging a capital ship should change from the standard gatecamp. I've also given examples in a previous post on sets of ships that cost much less than the 2-4 bil which could do an exemplary job in taking down a carrier. People are unwilling to change their stagnant play style and for that, a ship that was finally getting a proper place amongst its capital piers went to **** again.

Quote:
This change didn't come about just because of whining, it came about because Carriers were objectively too powerful in certain situations or against certain classes of ship.


Carriers were performing ridiculously well against sub-caps because that was the only role left for them which was still unique. Just as dreads are anti-cap/anti-structure platforms.... force aux are logi platforms.... supercarriers are capital killers... and titans are mobile starbases with a big red button... so do carriers need to fill a specific role so that they wouldn't stand in the shadow of other ships, and in this case, they were the capital ship designed for sub-capital warfare.

Quote:
Frigate sized fighters can hit frigates. For frigate-sized damage. Their giant "whack you in the face" torps are what got nerfed, their main weapons are now more effective at applying DPS to frigates and Cruisers.


This would be an oversimplification, ofc, but the way to see it is that carriers have 3 assault frigates at their command. How many solo sub-cruiser level ships can survive 3 assault frigs? Would any ceptor not be one-shotted if attacked simultaneously by 3 Enyos? How about a t1 destroyer...or even a t2 for that matter? And what about cruisers? If a cruiser doesn't go into the fight prepared to fight 3 Enyos, its going to have a hard time... which leads me back to one of my previous statements, that players don't want to prepare properly for a carrier fight. They just want their same copy-pasted fits to work for a ship which was designed to fill in an anti-sub-capital role.
Also... that part with their main guns being better against frigs and cruisers is CCP's failed attempt to not make the nerf seem as bad as it was. I say failed because the main turrets had no trouble hitting frigates or cruisers. So what we ended up with was a huge nerf in rockets and a useless buff in main turrets, just so the devs and people like you could cling to that bit and say "see? its not all bad in the patch notes"

To conclude.... I've never used my carriers as 'solo-wrecking' balls, but I do understand that you were addressing the people who did, through that snarky part of your comment.... and YES.. the nerfs were justified in some aspects, but not applied in the way that they were... and by that I mean the numbers and the mechanics. Dont want solo carriers? Take away their locking speed. That was ALL that was needed to stop that, given how they cant even lock a battleship before that thing warps off. ~ 1 minute for a frigate, ~25 seconds for a cruiser, ~17 seconds for a battleship. That is default + max skills locktime of a carrier. Simply removing the 900% res scan bonus would have made solo carriers useless. Would have allowed gangs to light cynos and actually jump before their point-ship got summarily destroyed. And through all of this, carriers would have maintained their roles as dedicated anti-subcap platforms, but would have still needed a support fleet, just as any other capital... All the while players bitching about being one-shotted for trying to tackle a ship that is 20-30 times more expensive and designed to kill them would have 900% more time to re-evaluate their poor decision. ;)
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#857 - 2016-07-29 14:47:25 UTC
"Dedicated Anti-Subcapital Platform"

In trying to come up with a sarcastic remark, but I'm still flabbergasted that this is a thing.
Cade Windstalker
#858 - 2016-07-29 17:12:49 UTC
Rowells wrote:
"Dedicated Anti-Subcapital Platform"

In trying to come up with a sarcastic remark, but I'm still flabbergasted that this is a thing.


It's not, because that would be hilariously OP and mess up the Cap/Subcap balance. That's what these Carrier pilots are complaining about with the changes.
Cade Windstalker
#859 - 2016-07-29 17:31:16 UTC
C0ATL wrote:
Interesting how you state that carrier pilots adapted to a significant set of buffs, as if the chances did not wipe more than a considerable chunk of the guaranteed EHP you get just by flying one. (sure, the other capitals got this HP nerf as well, but dreads/supercarriers/titans didnt get a 40% dmg reduction and 60% tracking nerf after a month).


First off your numbers are off, the actual DPS nerf was closer to 20% and only on the missile side. The main guns got a tracking buff and now apply better to smaller targets than they did before.

Also the tracking and application are still better than Carriers had pre-Citadel when Fighters applied worse than poorly skilled Torpedoes *and* you couldn't really fix this with fittings since most normal drone modules didn't apply to Fighters. Sure you could do pretty well with Sentries but at that point Carriers were really just acting as two Dominixes taped together, not doing anything particularly unique or interesting.

C0ATL wrote:
'Well documented' is a set of examples in which carriers can one-shot frigates or even cruisers. Yes, it was very much the case because most pvpers just go around in gangs and cram as much DPS as possible into their hulls, expecting to one-shot ships with their blob. Stop me if I am wrong, but I do believe that both from a logical stand-point and also a gameplay one... the strategies for engaging a capital ship should change from the standard gatecamp. I've also given examples in a previous post on sets of ships that cost much less than the 2-4 bil which could do an exemplary job in taking down a carrier. People are unwilling to change their stagnant play style and for that, a ship that was finally getting a proper place amongst its capital piers went to **** again.


Your definition of "proper balance" seems to be a bit twisted. You neither needed massive DPS nor weird fittings for a pre-118.6 Carrier to one shot a Frigate or even a lightly tanked Cruiser, and a very small number could even volley Logistics Cruisers quite easily. That was the issue, and as I said it *is* very well documented. Just because there were very specialized fits that could deal with a Carrier in that configuration doesn't mean that they were balanced. There are super specialized fits that can deal with a Svipul but no one is claiming those things are in a good state because they kill everything that isn't specialized to kill them.

C0ATL wrote:
Carriers were performing ridiculously well against sub-caps because that was the only role left for them which was still unique. Just as dreads are anti-cap/anti-structure platforms.... force aux are logi platforms.... supercarriers are capital killers... and titans are mobile starbases with a big red button... so do carriers need to fill a specific role so that they wouldn't stand in the shadow of other ships, and in this case, they were the capital ship designed for sub-capital warfare.


"Dedicated anti-sub-capital Cap Ship" is a terrible role. They were over performing because CCP messed up the initial balance, not because that was the only thing they could do with the hulls. There's plenty of room for Carriers to be a utility ship that is flexible and brings a lot of options to the field with its Fighters without it becoming a dedicated "remove sub-caps from the field" pwn-boat.

C0ATL wrote:
This would be an oversimplification, ofc, but the way to see it is that carriers have 3 assault frigates at their command. How many solo sub-cruiser level ships can survive 3 assault frigs?


That's massively over-simplified and a bad way to think about it, because a Carrier should never balance like a ship that's bringing three Assault Frigates worth of DPS to the field. It has about 3-400 times the HP of even a ridiculously tanked AF, has Fighters that are faster than Inties, and whacks targets for Alpha in the same Ballpark as Battleships.

Thinking about Fighters in terms of numbers of Frigates just puts unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of performance into a person's head, and balancing around that would be *terrible*.

C0ATL wrote:
Dont want solo carriers? Take away their locking speed. That was ALL that was needed to stop that, given how they cant even lock a battleship before that thing warps off. ~ 1 minute for a frigate, ~25 seconds for a cruiser, ~17 seconds for a battleship. That is default + max skills locktime of a carrier. Simply removing the 900% res scan bonus would have made solo carriers useless.


The problem was never *just* solo carriers, but the problem was what allows solo-pwn-Carriers to be a thing.

The locking speed wasn't the issue, the alpha and application was.

A single Carrier could and would swat Frigates before reps could land. 2-3 Carriers can get into the realm of swatting Logi Cruisers before reps can land. From that point the things a group of Carriers can nuke off field independent of remote repairs just keeps going up. Sure you can do something vaguely similar with HAWs, but it's very hard to get HAWs to apply that well to a moving target, a problem Carrier Fighters did *not* have, which means you need a lot more of them to pull it off and most of the time you could do exactly the same thing with more pilots in Battleships, a tactic that's been common for years now. This high ability to blap things off field with small numbers of Carriers is the main reason they were nerfed.

Making it impossible for Carriers to lock up sub-caps would make them annoying to use and almost completely remove their anti-Fighter role in cap fights. Something introduced specifically by CCP and definitely something that has value as a mechanic.

Pre-nerf carriers just applied and alpha'd far to well. They were never intended as an "Anti-sub-capital platform". That sentence, or anything like it, appears no where in any of CCP's discussions or publications about the Capital rebalance.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#860 - 2016-07-31 15:11:10 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Nevermind.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.