These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#861 - 2016-08-06 01:31:16 UTC
ok, I know im always in here ranting about some thing or another with capital changes and this time is no different.
ie Capital Neuts and Nos. This sig res is ridiculous! It mkaes them utterly useless outside of those huge once in a great while capital on capital fights. Most response fleets form sub caps and these cap warfare modules do next to nothing against anything non capital! I'm not saying they need to instantly drain anything subcap but for example a Battle cruiser or cruiser with an 800 sig is only going to be neuted at 10% effectiveness? I could see this being acceptable if the cycle time wasnt 48 frikkin seconds! This needs to be rebalanced. As the effectiveness goes down, so should the cycle time to reflect as cap war module comparable to the amount being neuted. there should be a direct correlation between cycle and neut amount
Cade Windstalker
#862 - 2016-08-06 01:58:56 UTC
Gary Webb wrote:
ok, I know im always in here ranting about some thing or another with capital changes and this time is no different.
ie Capital Neuts and Nos. This sig res is ridiculous! It mkaes them utterly useless outside of those huge once in a great while capital on capital fights. Most response fleets form sub caps and these cap warfare modules do next to nothing against anything non capital! I'm not saying they need to instantly drain anything subcap but for example a Battle cruiser or cruiser with an 800 sig is only going to be neuted at 10% effectiveness? I could see this being acceptable if the cycle time wasnt 48 frikkin seconds! This needs to be rebalanced. As the effectiveness goes down, so should the cycle time to reflect as cap war module comparable to the amount being neuted. there should be a direct correlation between cycle and neut amount


The entire point of those modules is to be used and useful against capitals, not sub-caps. If you know they're not going to be useful then bring something else and save those for when you need to neut out an enemy capital to kill it...
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#863 - 2016-08-06 11:10:34 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Gary Webb wrote:
ok, I know im always in here ranting about some thing or another with capital changes and this time is no different.
ie Capital Neuts and Nos. This sig res is ridiculous! It mkaes them utterly useless outside of those huge once in a great while capital on capital fights. Most response fleets form sub caps and these cap warfare modules do next to nothing against anything non capital! I'm not saying they need to instantly drain anything subcap but for example a Battle cruiser or cruiser with an 800 sig is only going to be neuted at 10% effectiveness? I could see this being acceptable if the cycle time wasnt 48 frikkin seconds! This needs to be rebalanced. As the effectiveness goes down, so should the cycle time to reflect as cap war module comparable to the amount being neuted. there should be a direct correlation between cycle and neut amount


The entire point of those modules is to be used and useful against capitals, not sub-caps. If you know they're not going to be useful then bring something else and save those for when you need to neut out an enemy capital to kill it...

No arguing dumb logic.
The fact you often don't know what your fighting until the escalation lands on grid does indeed make fitting capital neuts all but useless. Then of course you can always carry one or 2 in your fleet hangar and risk being killed while you wait out the minute + to refit.
Or just do what most groups do when there is capitals to kill - Just bring more subcaps.

Unfortunately, these modules were designed with CCP's slim hopes of large capital/super fights in mind. While ever subcaps are as adept as they are at killing capitals, there is unlikely to be another large capital/super fight (sadly). So either sell your capital neuts and spend the isk on something more useful or just keep it and hope it one day finds a use.

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
#864 - 2016-08-07 22:58:06 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
No arguing dumb logic.
The fact you often don't know what your fighting until the escalation lands on grid does indeed make fitting capital neuts all but useless. Then of course you can always carry one or 2 in your fleet hangar and risk being killed while you wait out the minute + to refit.
Or just do what most groups do when there is capitals to kill - Just bring more subcaps.

Unfortunately, these modules were designed with CCP's slim hopes of large capital/super fights in mind. While ever subcaps are as adept as they are at killing capitals, there is unlikely to be another large capital/super fight (sadly). So either sell your capital neuts and spend the isk on something more useful or just keep it and hope it one day finds a use.


I'm well aware of all of this, and that it makes these modules more niche, but that's more or less the same for Neuts and NOS at the sub-cap level too. You either fit it for something specific or it's used in a utility high, and not much in between.

None of this has stopped people from doing stuff like Neuting FAX fits though, which at least shows that these modules are getting some use.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#865 - 2016-08-08 07:17:56 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
No arguing dumb logic.
The fact you often don't know what your fighting until the escalation lands on grid does indeed make fitting capital neuts all but useless. Then of course you can always carry one or 2 in your fleet hangar and risk being killed while you wait out the minute + to refit.
Or just do what most groups do when there is capitals to kill - Just bring more subcaps.

Unfortunately, these modules were designed with CCP's slim hopes of large capital/super fights in mind. While ever subcaps are as adept as they are at killing capitals, there is unlikely to be another large capital/super fight (sadly). So either sell your capital neuts and spend the isk on something more useful or just keep it and hope it one day finds a use.


I'm well aware of all of this, and that it makes these modules more niche, but that's more or less the same for Neuts and NOS at the sub-cap level too. You either fit it for something specific or it's used in a utility high, and not much in between.

None of this has stopped people from doing stuff like Neuting FAX fits though, which at least shows that these modules are getting some use.


It's still a pretty needless and frankly arbitrary limitation which ironically diminishes meaningful fitting choices because the times a cap neut is ever worth it are so rare that you'd be insane to suck up the very high fitting costs for a module useless 99% of the time.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#866 - 2016-08-08 11:02:31 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
No arguing dumb logic.
The fact you often don't know what your fighting until the escalation lands on grid does indeed make fitting capital neuts all but useless. Then of course you can always carry one or 2 in your fleet hangar and risk being killed while you wait out the minute + to refit.
Or just do what most groups do when there is capitals to kill - Just bring more subcaps.

Unfortunately, these modules were designed with CCP's slim hopes of large capital/super fights in mind. While ever subcaps are as adept as they are at killing capitals, there is unlikely to be another large capital/super fight (sadly). So either sell your capital neuts and spend the isk on something more useful or just keep it and hope it one day finds a use.


I'm well aware of all of this, and that it makes these modules more niche, but that's more or less the same for Neuts and NOS at the sub-cap level too. You either fit it for something specific or it's used in a utility high, and not much in between.

None of this has stopped people from doing stuff like Neuting FAX fits though, which at least shows that these modules are getting some use.

You do know 2 or 3 machs with utility neut's are far more effective at neuting a Fax than a capital neut is. A Bhal or Geddon, even more so.
Which might be why, capital neuts aren't in any well used doctrines - Check the killboards if you don't believe me.

Mention fitting capital neuts to any alliance capital doctrine designer (worth half his salt) and expect to be removed from the discussion channel.

NB; most capital fits are so tight the trade off of fitting a capital neut (even if they were useful in more than the odd rare situation) is not worth it.

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
#867 - 2016-08-08 18:13:37 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
You do know 2 or 3 machs with utility neut's are far more effective at neuting a Fax than a capital neut is. A Bhal or Geddon, even more so.
Which might be why, capital neuts aren't in any well used doctrines - Check the killboards if you don't believe me.

Mention fitting capital neuts to any alliance capital doctrine designer (worth half his salt) and expect to be removed from the discussion channel.

NB; most capital fits are so tight the trade off of fitting a capital neut (even if they were useful in more than the odd rare situation) is not worth it.


I'm not saying they're widely used, I'm saying they get some niche use where dropping a single FAX for neuting is a good move, generally in smaller engagements.

As for your examples, you're comparing three sub-caps to one capitals module. I would kind of expect it to be more effective, doubly so for the Bhaalgorn which gets a specific bonus to Neuts. If we ever see a Neut-bonused faction FAX then I would expect that to be pretty ridiculous itself.

The application bonus is to prevent caps from dominating sub-caps, which is a reasonable risk for a module that neuts half of a Battleship's cap in one cycle, or 7.25 times a Heavy Neut in twice the cycle time (which, btw, means those three Machs actually neut less total over time than the single Capital neut, they make up for it with stagger, but the capital neut will still drop cap faster in general).

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
It's still a pretty needless and frankly arbitrary limitation which ironically diminishes meaningful fitting choices because the times a cap neut is ever worth it are so rare that you'd be insane to suck up the very high fitting costs for a module useless 99% of the time.


It's not needless or arbitrary, it's the same kind of penalty most capital offensive modules got to prevent them from dominating sub-cap ships. It's still a very effective module if used situationally, but that's fine it doesn't need to be amazingly good and a must-have to justify its existence.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#868 - 2016-08-08 18:47:46 UTC
There's literally no point in discussing any of this as long as people hold the viewpoint that because it's a "capital" it should, nay, it must have all kinds of limitations which do not apply to any other class. Seems because it has a certain name tag, it has handcuffs on it preventing people from using it creatively.

The inconsistency is baffling: Make a battleship to kill cruisers and frigates and it's all good. Make a capital fit to fight down classes and suddenly everyone loses their minds.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#869 - 2016-08-08 21:58:11 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
You do know 2 or 3 machs with utility neut's are far more effective at neuting a Fax than a capital neut is. A Bhal or Geddon, even more so.
Which might be why, capital neuts aren't in any well used doctrines - Check the killboards if you don't believe me.

Mention fitting capital neuts to any alliance capital doctrine designer (worth half his salt) and expect to be removed from the discussion channel.

NB; most capital fits are so tight the trade off of fitting a capital neut (even if they were useful in more than the odd rare situation) is not worth it.


I'm not saying they're widely used, I'm saying they get some niche use where dropping a single FAX for neuting is a good move, generally in smaller engagements.

As for your examples, you're comparing three sub-caps to one capitals module. I would kind of expect it to be more effective, doubly so for the Bhaalgorn which gets a specific bonus to Neuts. If we ever see a Neut-bonused faction FAX then I would expect that to be pretty ridiculous itself.

The application bonus is to prevent caps from dominating sub-caps, which is a reasonable risk for a module that neuts half of a Battleship's cap in one cycle, or 7.25 times a Heavy Neut in twice the cycle time (which, btw, means those three Machs actually neut less total over time than the single Capital neut, they make up for it with stagger, but the capital neut will still drop cap faster in general).

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
It's still a pretty needless and frankly arbitrary limitation which ironically diminishes meaningful fitting choices because the times a cap neut is ever worth it are so rare that you'd be insane to suck up the very high fitting costs for a module useless 99% of the time.


It's not needless or arbitrary, it's the same kind of penalty most capital offensive modules got to prevent them from dominating sub-cap ships. It's still a very effective module if used situationally, but that's fine it doesn't need to be amazingly good and a must-have to justify its existence.
Mate I'm sorry but all your going to achieve with a capital neut fit on a fax, is a fax without cap.
A fax, with active modules (doing its designed role of repping ships) can't keep cap up to itself with as few as 3 Machs with T2 neuts on it. As most Mach fleets have far more than 3 machs - What chance do you think the Fax has?

The current attributes of Capital neuts - Makes them a very poor fitting choice.

Once and only once have I seen a carrier fit a capital neut - He activated it on an Opposing Apostle as it was called primary - The Fax was dead before the Capital Nuet had cycled once - The carrier pilot now uses the same as the rest of us - T2 large neuts.

Who would waste a Fax (a capital logistics ship) by fitting it with capital neuts? They don't get a bonus to them, they don't have the cap to run them and it is just a waste unless your in a huge engagement where you know there will be caps to use them on, before you die horribly.
If they ever do release a faction fax with a neut bonus, it will once and for all show - Devs have no idea what they are doing. Unless that bonus is 100% reduction to activation cost.

NB; you do know, most Fax's, especially in smaller engagements are used to rep subcaps right?

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
#870 - 2016-08-08 23:36:26 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Mate I'm sorry but all your going to achieve with a capital neut fit on a fax, is a fax without cap.
A fax, with active modules (doing its designed role of repping ships) can't keep cap up to itself with as few as 3 Machs with T2 neuts on it. As most Mach fleets have far more than 3 machs - What chance do you think the Fax has?

The current attributes of Capital neuts - Makes them a very poor fitting choice.

Once and only once have I seen a carrier fit a capital neut - He activated it on an Opposing Apostle as it was called primary - The Fax was dead before the Capital Nuet had cycled once - The carrier pilot now uses the same as the rest of us - T2 large neuts.

Who would waste a Fax (a capital logistics ship) by fitting it with capital neuts? They don't get a bonus to them, they don't have the cap to run them and it is just a waste unless your in a huge engagement where you know there will be caps to use them on, before you die horribly.
If they ever do release a faction fax with a neut bonus, it will once and for all show - Devs have no idea what they are doing. Unless that bonus is 100% reduction to activation cost.

NB; you do know, most Fax's, especially in smaller engagements are used to rep subcaps right?


IIRC it was a cap boosting Lif, but I can't recall exactly. Mention of the fit came up in passing in a discussion about FAXes and capitals in general. I believe they dropped the fit in a small cap fight and used cap boosters to keep it running. They used a FAX because they're cheap and have tons of cargo for cap booster charges.

As for who it was I honestly can't be sure since the discussion was mixed company and most everyone was on High Sec alts at the time (don't know most of their Null characters).

Overall you just seem to be remarkably anti-experimentation or anything niche. Or anything for uses outside of your limited slice of the game. Almost every example I've seen you pull is from a large fleet fight, and that's really not all there is to the game.
Gary Webb
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#871 - 2016-09-28 03:10:49 UTC
CCplease fix the fighter follow mechanic so they dont land 5000 Km off of the carrier after warp. a couple hundered, sure, but this is refreakingdiculous
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#872 - 2016-09-28 21:49:54 UTC
Gary Webb wrote:
CCplease fix the fighter follow mechanic so they dont land 5000 Km off of the carrier after warp. a couple hundered, sure, but this is refreakingdiculous


Don't recall them until you've come out of warp.

If they're already returning before you commence warp, then stop them (send them somewhere else first) - then recall them after you have warped.

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium

Anthar Thebess
#873 - 2016-09-29 07:43:36 UTC
Marcus Tedric wrote:
Gary Webb wrote:
CCplease fix the fighter follow mechanic so they dont land 5000 Km off of the carrier after warp. a couple hundered, sure, but this is refreakingdiculous


Don't recall them until you've come out of warp.

If they're already returning before you commence warp, then stop them (send them somewhere else first) - then recall them after you have warped.


It is still a bug.
Cade Windstalker
#874 - 2016-09-29 13:15:45 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
Gary Webb wrote:
CCplease fix the fighter follow mechanic so they dont land 5000 Km off of the carrier after warp. a couple hundered, sure, but this is refreakingdiculous


Don't recall them until you've come out of warp.

If they're already returning before you commence warp, then stop them (send them somewhere else first) - then recall them after you have warped.


It is still a bug.


It's not actually, the drones are showing up at the point you recalled them to.

You could make a case for the drones warping if they're on-grid but outside 150km but that would be a new feature.
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#875 - 2016-11-03 13:36:27 UTC
Where did the conversation get left off with respect to:
Naglfars >>> Other Dreads
Apostles/Minokawas >>> Ninazu/LiFs

Where there/are there any tweaks recommended to balance them without changing the dynamic greatly?
While running fits, Ninazu could use +1 low for -1 mid. LiF could maybe use a bit more CPU. If everyone thinks they are balanced then I will concede my point.

I just see/hear a lot about Nags/Apost/Mino's being way better than the others.
C02
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#876 - 2016-12-19 08:44:37 UTC
Can we please address the insane disparity between T1 and T2 Fighter Support Units?? Seriously CCP, a 1% bonus BEFORE stacking penalties in no way justifies the price. Please give a 2-4% buff to the bonus on the t2
Lugh Crow-Slave
#877 - 2016-12-19 11:50:59 UTC
C02 wrote:
Can we please address the insane disparity between T1 and T2 Fighter Support Units?? Seriously CCP, a 1% bonus BEFORE stacking penalties in no way justifies the price. Please give a 2-4% buff to the bonus on the t2


When compared to dreads fighters aren't worth the cost
Cade Windstalker
#878 - 2016-12-19 20:15:15 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
C02 wrote:
Can we please address the insane disparity between T1 and T2 Fighter Support Units?? Seriously CCP, a 1% bonus BEFORE stacking penalties in no way justifies the price. Please give a 2-4% buff to the bonus on the t2


When compared to dreads fighters aren't worth the cost


The playerbase as a whole appears to disagree. Carriers have seen consistently more kills than dreads since these changes despite being close to even before the original Citadel changes. See the zKill monthly stats for data.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#879 - 2016-12-20 02:51:00 UTC
but thats because they are very easy to camp with still as opposed to being used in actual fights. at the same time they are attacked more often when ratting. biggest problem with them is they have almost 0 resistance to ECM making them very easy to totally shut down.
Cade Windstalker
#880 - 2016-12-20 04:14:14 UTC
There is no way that all of those engagements are just gate camps, and they're absolutely getting more use than they saw Pre-Citadel. Just anecdotally people are using Carriers in more or less the same ways they did before, just more so. The two exceptions are Triage which has been replaced by FAXes and drone death-balls which have been relegated to sub-caps.