These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors

First post First post First post
Author
Zazz Blammy Matazz
The Institution.
#221 - 2017-03-06 18:10:48 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:
Larrakin, the risk from firing a bust projector is still not inline with the reward. They have near the same penalty as a doomsday with
Nowhere near the offensive/defensive capabilities. If you insist on these rediculously useless periods of effect, you need to remove the jump/cloak/warp penalty if you actually want them used. As they stand, they're still useless.


They're not supposed to be in line with the reward of a Titan Doomsday though. That's a much more expensive ship producing a shorter duration effect. Completely removing the penalties associated with a Burst Projector would also completely remove almost all trade off with their use and make them incredibly ubiquitous in Null combat. Given the strength of their AoE effects I don't think that would be particularly good for the game.



I'm not saying do away with the penalty, just either shorten the penalty or lengthen the effect
Cade Windstalker
#222 - 2017-03-06 19:12:48 UTC
Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:
I'm not saying do away with the penalty, just either shorten the penalty or lengthen the effect


Which is what they're doing now. Given the tweaks they've been making to caps fairly regularly since Citadel dropped I'd be very surprised if this is the last change they make to the class as a whole. If they don't see any changes to Burst Projector use after this then they'll probably tweak things again since this suggests that they want to differentiate Supers from "Carriers but bigger and better" in a meaningful way and are trying to use the BPs to do that to an extent.

xOmGx wrote:
CCP nerfs everything people like


Nah, it only seems that way because people like and gravitate towards OP things. Those things are then fun for the players using them and less fun for everyone who isn't. Then the thing gets nerfed, the people who didn't like it just silently nod and breath a sigh of relief, and people using the OP thing get pissed.

This holds for every game, not just Eve.

Trevize Demerzel wrote:
Few things


#1 - I don't understand the point of these Dev posts. All they do is anger the player base and CCP does the change anyway ignoring pages of feedback.

#2 - before this change goes live I believe they must first fix/change he ui so players can easily see the % health of each fighter.

#3 - for ewar each fighter must be treated as an individual. Why should it be easier to lock down a [super]carrier then a drone boat Dominix.



  1. Two things here. One, if CCP doesn't make these announcement posts people get even more pissed. Two, CCP listens but "OMG no nerfs! Nerfs bad!!!" isn't much of an argument. People get pissed whenever CCP changes anything, or refuses to change anything, or pretty much does or doesn't do anything. If people not yelling in a thread was a criteria for game balance CCP would never change anything. These posts exist primarily for people to point out issues or things CCP might have missed and for CCP to provide explanations and feedback to the playerbase, not for CCP to bow to a few dozen player's rage-post objections and reverse course on something they already believe will be a good change.

  2. While I think pretty much everyone with any interest in Carriers supports this idea I don't think it needs to happen before this change goes in. The current Fighter survivability is based on the current information level, so the information this change is based on is valid regardless of any changes to the UI. Also a change like that is likely non-trivial or it would be out already.

  3. By that logic why should it be easier to lock down a regular Battleship than a Carrier or Dominix? Ignoring that ECM as a whole isn't a great mechanic I don't think this is much of an argument. Different things have different counters, making ECM affect a squad of 9 Fighters individually would just swing it from a reasonably effective counter to completely ineffective and worthless.
Tydorus Adoudel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#223 - 2017-03-07 00:18:13 UTC
Honestly you guys just ****** me over. I do not multi box I only have one account and I carrier rat. I just started carrier ratting and now I am going to lose my fighters and not make isk. Why not raise the Hp for fighters if They are going to be easier to kill or make it to where the ratts do not aggro fighters as much. I really do not understand this and its a **** idea.
Oracle of Machina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2017-03-07 00:38:48 UTC
I love how two weeks later, the "Reserved for answers" section contains exactly zero answers or explanations.

Great change, CCP! Make carriers useless again!
Aernir Ridley
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#225 - 2017-03-07 02:25:46 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

FIGHTERS
We'd like to increase the potential counter-play options vs fighters. We're going to do this by increasing their signature radius which makes them a little easier to hit. They are currently around the small-medium drone range. This will put them in the same size category as heavy drones.
[/list]


Would you be willing to take a look at the hard ECM counter to fighters at the moment? As is, a single griffin is basically a hard counter a single carrier. Would you consider buffing the sensor strength of fighters in some way as a way to balance this out if you're going to make larger ships able to hit them?

"For most people, the sky's the limit... For those who love aviation, the sky, is home."

-Cheers! :D

Cade Windstalker
#226 - 2017-03-07 02:53:01 UTC
Aernir Ridley wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

FIGHTERS
We'd like to increase the potential counter-play options vs fighters. We're going to do this by increasing their signature radius which makes them a little easier to hit. They are currently around the small-medium drone range. This will put them in the same size category as heavy drones.


Would you be willing to take a look at the hard ECM counter to fighters at the moment? As is, a single griffin is basically a hard counter a single carrier. Would you consider buffing the sensor strength of fighters in some way as a way to balance this out if you're going to make larger ships able to hit them?


The flip side of this is that if that Griffin is even a tiny big slow on his locks he just disappears off grid in a puff of missiles, and he can be easily killed by any kind of support fleet.

While I'm certainly not a fan of ECM as it currently stands I don't think ECM as Fighter counterplay is inherently broken. It's not really out of line with how ECM works with other ships, except that it basically takes one ECM ship and a lot of micro to tie down one Carrier, where as a single ECM ship can normally tie down multiple sub-caps.
Aegon Cadelanne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#227 - 2017-03-07 02:53:46 UTC
Tabyll Altol wrote:
So much tears from the PVE 0.0 Carebears.

I ratted about 40 hours in a niddy. My drones had around 5-6 times the aggro and i managed to lose only 1 fighter.

If this is 100% for some guys or way to much. No it isn´t stop crying. Carrier ratting was/is way to safe for the ticks.

This is a start.

+1




soooo null space is safe huh?
Kagi Anzomi
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#228 - 2017-03-07 02:55:55 UTC
Oracle of Machina wrote:
I love how two weeks later, the "Reserved for answers" section contains exactly zero answers or explanations.

Great change, CCP! Make carriers useless again!

There really haven't been many questions asked. This thread is 85% "no, please don't do this" and 15% "yay, now nerf carrier damage so they can't kill cruisers" with approximately 0% questions.
Moxy Algaert
Abusive Tax Shelters
#229 - 2017-03-07 05:05:40 UTC
Mousing over squadrons to see damage % is beyond annoying. Fighter damage needs to be indicated in some heads-up display (like drones).
Kagi Anzomi
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#230 - 2017-03-07 08:19:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagi Anzomi
Moxy Algaert wrote:
Mousing over squadrons to see damage % is beyond annoying. Fighter damage needs to be indicated in some heads-up display (like drones).

Indeed. Let me just point over to this little mockup I made nearly a year ago. The top is what we have now. Not much useful information, is there? The next three rows are very simple changes that would make a world of difference for all of us carrier pilots who don't like keeping our cursors over fighter squads at all times.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2017-03-07 09:13:15 UTC
If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why!

From the Economic Report

The massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting.

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

Lugia3
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#232 - 2017-03-07 12:27:15 UTC
Wow this thread is delicious. Smile

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

comander klieve
Resource Procurement Services
#233 - 2017-03-07 12:40:37 UTC
I think if you are going to increase the sig of fighters you should give a slight buff to fighter resists (or add a skill that can effect this?).

But as much as I am gonna be pissed the sig of a fighter being less then a heavy drone was kinda dumb in the first palce
Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2017-03-07 13:22:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Awkward
Marcus Tedric wrote:
If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why!

From the Economic Report

The massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting.


If carriers need to be nerfed then they need to be nerfed. But making NPCs volly 10m fighers of the field is a realy stupid way to nerf carrier income. There are so many ways they could have nerfed carrier ratting without making it feel so dumb and punishing.
Le Prospecteur
El Ultimo Hombre
Goonswarm Federation
#235 - 2017-03-07 13:24:24 UTC
Captain Awkward wrote:
Marcus Tedric wrote:
If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why!

From the Economic Report

The massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting.


If carriers need to be nerfed then they need to be nerfed. But making NPCs volly 10m fighers of the field is a realy stupid way to nerf carrier income. There are so many ways thay could have nerfed carrier ratting without making it feel so dumb and punishing.


Particularly when the BS bounty is around 1mil..

It's beyond ridiculous
Gosch Ti
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2017-03-07 13:52:22 UTC
Fighter aggro was fine before.

This just smells like a nerf to carrier ratting to close the faucet.



Just the next step to interceptors online.
Hurri Nakrar
Liga Freier Terraner
Northern Coalition.
#237 - 2017-03-07 14:08:01 UTC
The horrible thing about all this is the follow:

Once the patch is coming we gonna hear from CCP: We are so happy about all your positive feedback about this patch and we are excited to see your reaction.
The thing that any player who is doing ratting/PVP in a super or carrier want to throw their Capital into their faces is being ignored right from the ground.

I own one of the most expensive Ships in all the universe (Super) and CCP just took it and made it into the most useless Ship. It´s not worth to fight with it so in fact i got a 30 Bil Logistic Super for no other use than transporting my Subcaps from A to B in the huge Shipbay.

It takes years of training which means i payed a shitload of money to CCP and a hell lot of time to get the isk for this Ship and all the modules you need. And theirs no better thing than getting smashed right into to the face by having the most useless Ships ever.

CCP Instead of trying to get new people into the game quick as possible how about you try to keep the current one instead of nerfing them away in every way you can?
Shkiki
MastersCraft
#238 - 2017-03-07 14:56:07 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.


I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower.

Carrier ratting is already a very user interactive play style, you need to be on top of the situation with drones so you don't lose them currently. As it stands there is already a long list of anom's that carrier pilots will not attempt because you will lose drones to them. If fighters become a bigger target, what's to say they won't simply take their 2.4 billion isk ship off the field in favor of something cheaper that is less isk intensive. This takes juicy potential pvp kills out of play for roaming gangs and penalizes higher skilled players from using the skill they earned.

To be fair, if you are risking not only the ship hull, but ~430m worth of fighters already, and if rats will obliterate fighters more often then not, then risk to reward diminishes drastically. If you lose even a handful of drones in an anom, then you've lost isk and doing the anom in a carrier was worthless.

The isk per hour of a carrier isn't so vast that it qualifies for a nerf. I think it's unwarranted at this time.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#239 - 2017-03-07 15:02:48 UTC
Shkiki wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.


I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower.



How can you say they were "in line" when they were not even 50% of a heavy drone sig size?
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks
Requiem Eternal
#240 - 2017-03-07 15:44:09 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Shkiki wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.


I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower.



How can you say they were "in line" when they were not even 50% of a heavy drone sig size?


Because drones get resistances, and 3 layers of HP. Fighters have shields only, and no resists.