Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2831
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:25:36 -
[391] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Because the salvo still works. We could clear the HICs incredibly quickly as a result allowing the supers to leave field.
That would have been 100% impossible after the changes and everything on field would have died.
well yeah what i mean is how did the carriers fighters do it better than the supers?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2831
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:30:15 -
[392] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:wait... how were the carriers better at saving the supers then the supers were at saving themselves?
also carriers should not be able to function w/o support at least not easily something that is true of them now if they go up against a decent gang Carrier cannot do nothing against decent gang. Carrier can be countered by 1 person in blackbird. People are crying that "carrier killed my sabre, while rest of fleet was just 4 jumps away". This OSS vs PL fight showed that new fighters allow smaller groups to do something when they get PL supers hot drop. Something that was not possible before capital changes, and will not be again after new fighter arrives.
lol carriers can be countered by one person in a griffin.
but yeah this is a point that myself have been trying to make since they were on sisi and feared a nerf like this once ppl started using them on camps.
we tried giving alternatives to a direct nerf and still do that would keep them in a fleet role but make solo camping in a carrier much harder. I guess the straight nerf is just easier.
whats surprising is there seems to be very few ppl who think this nerf is the right way to go just ppl who are glad they will be off gates :/
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1460
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:31:28 -
[393] - Quote
Supers had LR fibos out when we were dropped. No one had time to pull and redeploy in that event. Plus LR fighters actually wreck subcaps well (like I keep telling people but no one listens) |
Anthar Thebess
1551
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:35:59 -
[394] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
whats surprising is there seems to be very few ppl who think this nerf is the right way to go just ppl who are glad they will be off gates :/
Solution can be simple - make gate guns auto attack any fighter in range of the gate or station - this is only viable for lowsec - but it will be good enough change for removing this issue in lowsec. You cannot camp gate in lowsec if all your squadrons are dead long before something jump in.
Nullsec gate camping carrier - this is nullsec.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2831
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:36:02 -
[395] - Quote
i guess what i meant was could have just dropped more supers. Also you can abandon fighters :p drop one LR and launch 3 lights.
and yes we pointed out how strong the lr ones were back on the sisi thread...
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:37:21 -
[396] - Quote
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote:that said, carriers should be able to defend themselves from small vessels; should they be able to insta them? no, but they should be able to kill them withing a short amount of time, otherwise you have the bullshit of solo ceptors holding a carrier for 30mins while a fleet forms to kill it. You can fit a couple of neuts and/or a flight of support fighters. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2831
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:37:48 -
[397] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: Solution can be simple - make gate guns auto attack any fighter in range of the gate or station - this is only viable for lowsec - but it will be good enough change for removing this issue in lowsec. You cannot camp gate in lowsec if all your squadrons are dead long before something jump in.
Nullsec gate camping carrier - this is nullsec.
or just nerf the NSA to give carriers closer to BB lock time and nerf the tracking links/enhancers
this would still make gate/station camping a ***** but not remove carriers from any LS gate fight
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1461
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:38:38 -
[398] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i guess what i meant was could have just dropped more supers. Also you can abandon fighters :p drop one LR and launch 3 lights.
and yes we pointed out how strong the lr ones were back on the sisi thread...
Yeah, but even the loading time hurts. The LR ones hammer the crap out of things. It would have been a waste of time which was spent killing instead. Was like 19 or so HICs down in about 3.5 minutes |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2831
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:40:44 -
[399] - Quote
aye but again what i was trying to say is its still not really a role for carriers unless you simply don't have more supers. a ship should not just be relegated to "well we don't have anything better" to be useful
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1462
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:46:44 -
[400] - Quote
Yes, I agree. Although it's still a good move and allows supers more bay space for other fighters, be that bombers or their better (through the hull bonus) superiority ones. |
|
FistyMcBumBardier
New Caldari Bureau of Investigation
125
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 09:18:42 -
[401] - Quote
As someone who flies primarily sub capitals I look forward to this change as it will help deal with the problem of ridiculously powerful fighter alpha strike. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2831
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 09:26:27 -
[402] - Quote
FistyMcBumBardier wrote:As someone who flies primarily sub capitals I look forward to this change as it will help deal with the problem of ridiculously powerful fighter alpha strike.
so does an AB and ECM....
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
288
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 09:47:32 -
[403] - Quote
Do you folks really want to pigeon-hole carriers into The Role? Carrier is a hull above battleship, decent and versatile - that is the role.
As they are drone-based unlike BS, which are mostly turret-based, it may not be really obvious. But think about it: a fleet of carriers will destroy a fleet of BS, hands down. Just as easy as BS smash BC and BC wreck t1 cruisers. Carriers can fit XL neuts, which would be a royal pita for fax-machines. People keep saying carriers stand no chance vs. dreads - well, that is not true. Carrier vs. dread is a kiter vs. brawler. At point blank, dreads obviously win. But if you manage to start a fight at 100 km, dreads are doomed (granted you have enough carriers to break local tank).
A big concern for me is that battleships now have way to many natural enemies. But that's a whole nother story. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2831
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 09:55:09 -
[404] - Quote
....
maybe if it was only a fleet of dreads VS a fleet of carriers otherwise they will be out of fighters b4 the dreads are out of siege also dreads still deal more DPS than carriers beyond 200km....and thats b4 this DPS nerf
how the hell is a carrier versatile? and a fleet of carriers will not destroy a fleet of BBs even now so long as you have half decent logi carriers can't touch a BB.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
CyberRaver
Tri-gun Psychotic Tendencies.
48
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 10:55:20 -
[405] - Quote
This change needs rethinking before it goes live
the volleys need to apply 100% to a battleship target which they wont after this change
Small gangs do not deserve special treatment just because they fly non committal doctrines
destroyers and below should not get instapopped but cruisers and above should really feel the pain
|
Blaststar Revenge
Higher Than Everest The-Culture
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 11:37:30 -
[406] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi M8s, With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback! Carriers & Fighters- Long Range Heavy Fighters (Ametat, Termite, Antaeus, Gungnir) bomb ability now correctly scales with squadron size.
- Warp Scramblers now stop Fighter MWDs and MJDs mid-cycle.
- Networked Sensor Array bonus to Scan Resolution now has a stacking penalty with sensor boosters.
- Networked Sensor Array bonus to Scan Resolution reduced to 500% (from 900%)
- Networked Sensor Array no longer gives a bonus to number of locked targets.
- Networked Sensor Array sensor strength bonuses now also apply to the Carrier's fighter squadrons.
- Fighters now have orbit ranges more appropriate to their weapons system (you can see this in Show Info)
- General Light Fighters (Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg, Einherji) have had their basic attack application stats increased and their heavy rocket salvo application & damage stats decreased:
Basic Attack - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 160 (-80) Basic Attack - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 150 (+30) Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 350 (+250) Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 100 (-20) Heavy Rocket Salvo - Speed: 14 seconds (-4) Heavy Rocket Salvo - Damage (Average): 146 (-94) Heavy Rocket Salvo - Charges: 12 (+4) Heavy Rocket Salvo - Reload Time: 4 seconds (-2) * All stats per fighter, before skills/mods. Force Auxiliaries- Triage Mode now gives ECM Immunity
- Triage Mode's bonus to Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%)
Dreadnoughts- Siege Mode now gives ECM Immunity
- Siege Module I has had its bonus to missile ROF increased to 80%
- Siege Mode's bonus to Weapon Disruption Resistance & Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%)
- Naglfar now has 3 turret hard-points (and an extra high slot) and has lost its role bonus of +50% damage.
- Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU and +80,000 PG
- XL Artillery power grid requirements have been reduced (T1: 162,500 > 125,000)
Miscellaneous- Void Bombs now respect Energy Warfare Resistance
- Void Bombs and Lockbreaker Bombs now give more verbose messages about their effects in the combat log.
- Missiles now have the correct range when fired from large ships.
- All Capital Shield Extenders now provide 10% less shield HP.
- Bastion Module now gives ECM Immunity
- The missile damage formula has been simplified. Ln(drf) / Ln(5.5) has been reduced to a precalculated value. This change has no effect on game-play! More details below.
There are more changes planned. We will be looking at HAW Tracking (more info here) and Light Fighter application / alpha. As always, we welcome your feedback! Carrier with no application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 11,94% Carrier with one application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 16,39% Carrier with two application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 21,73% Carrier with three application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 26,05% __ Carrier with no application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 37,1% Carrier with one application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 51,2% Carrier with two application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 67,59% Carrier with three application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 81,3%
with the changes suggested by you to figthers. That to me seems a bit to "bad" in terms of application against comon battleship doctrines. While this maybe the most extreme example to pick from the application is "only" about 20% better when faced with large sig doctrines such as rattlesnakes.
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 300 (+200) Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 100 (-20)
I think this would be more resonble as it would still keep cruisers and such perfectly safe from the much reduced alpha of the ability yet keep it useful against battleships and battle cruisers. |
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc. Asteria Concord.
36
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 14:11:57 -
[407] - Quote
FistyMcBumBardier wrote:As someone who flies primarily sub capitals I look forward to this change as it will help deal with the problem of ridiculously powerful fighter alpha strike.
or you could bring something with actual tank...
that's what a lot of folks dont seem to get, fly anything other than paper-tanked kitey **** and the carrier alpha doesn't hurt anywhere near as bad, to the point that logi can easily keep your ass up. |
leich
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
58
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 18:11:29 -
[408] - Quote
WTF?
Its not anti sub cap Its not anti capital, the dread is far better Its not good at PVE.
So as far as i can tell its a link ship or an anti fighter platform.
Really CCP? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
441
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 19:48:41 -
[409] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:Cade your argumentation gets us nowhere, you contradict yourself and do not put ANY argument that is actually in favor or against the nerf, or even related to the nerf. so its quite pointless for this thread, so I am just going to be brief.
I don't have to have a hard position in favor of or against the changes. My entire point is, and has been for a good several pages now, that other people don't have any good evidence for the arguments that they're trying to present or that the evidence they're presenting doesn't actually support the argument they're trying to make.
Marranar Amatin wrote:why are you telling this to me? you are the one that claimed that ccp must have proof and evidence that a nerf is a good idea if they suggest it.
Yup, I also said repeatedly that there are plenty of potential reasons they may not want to share that evidence, which are perfectly valid. Only that if they are suggesting a change that they have sufficient evidence on their side to think that a change is needed and that the change they are making is a good one. The purpose of these threads is for people to put forth reasons a change may not be good.
"This is going to result in X% drop in damage! I think that's too much!" is not a well reasoned argument, it's an opinion. Opinions are not what balance decisions should be based off of and CCP are right to ignore opinions with no facts or evidence to back them up.
Marranar Amatin wrote:Your whole argument consists of "everything ccp suggest must be a good idea" and goes in circles from there. The idea that we should prove that a nerf is bad idea without being given any reason for the nerf is just silly. Its basically impossible.
No, no it is not, because to prove that a change is a bad idea doesn't require that you disprove the reasoning for the change it just requires that you show a negative effect of the change and why it's a negative.
For example if CCP were to come out and say they're buffing Scram range to 30km I would immediately shoot back with that rendering Points largely obsolete in most circumstances and making MWD reliant ships largely useless because they can no longer close to short-range gun range. I don't need to know anything about why CCP proposed the change to point out why it's bad.
I'm also not just assuming that everything CCP suggests is a good idea, but I am giving them a modicum of credit that their ideas have been put through some basic testing and that they have a reason for what they do, as opposed to those people who seem to believe that CCP are just arbitrarily listening to people whine and making balance decisions purely based on that.
Marranar Amatin wrote:I could do a long explanation why it is to be expected that the damage is already too low against big targets (and already gave a short one) but that is not a proof. And even if it were you could just ask: "well maybe its causing problems in incursion that allow now capitals, your proof didnt contain this!" then I could go back to a lot of analysis, and the you ask "Well maybe they are too strong against citadels!". Then maybe they are too strong against sleeper. then against pocos. then against pos. and so on. This would be completely useless procedure and a huge waste of time. With what you suggest, it would be impossible to argue against a nerf EVER.
You are far too focused on trying to disprove the underlying reasoning for the changes and not enough on looking at the impact of the changes themselves.
You have also done nothing to show that damage is actually "too low already", you've just posted a bunch of application percentages and other numbers with no context and no look at their wider implication. Show me things like a spreadsheet of how long it takes a Carrier to kill various sig sizes and EHP amounts and maybe you'll have the start of something with some decent real-world context. Of course you also need to look at the amount of damage these things output, it doesn't really matter if a Carrier takes 20% longer to kill a single Battleship if that Battleship is never going to kill the Carrier.
Marranar Amatin wrote:Its quite simpel: if something is not too strong then dont nerf it. if you think its too strong then tell us why and then we can talk about it.
CCP does not have to give a detailed explanation for every change they do. They're generally pretty good about it, but they are not required to lay out every single test and statistic they're referencing, in large part because if they did it would do nothing but give people information to exploit in-game. This is why so many of those reports CCP gives out don't actually go into much detail and stick to broad categories.
Focus on showing why a change is good or bad, or on why the current state of affairs is good or bad, not on disproving the underlying reasoning.
CCP will respond to the former quite well, believe me I know from experience. |
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
100
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 20:52:46 -
[410] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: (...) My entire point is, and has been for a good several pages now, that other people don't have any good evidence for the arguments that they're trying to present (...) "This is going to result in X% drop in damage! I think that's too much!" is not a well reasoned argument, it's an opinion. (...) No, no it is not, because to prove that a change is a bad idea doesn't require that you disprove the reasoning for the change it just requires that you show a negative effect of the change and why it's a negative. (...) You have also done nothing to show that damage is actually "too low already", you've just posted a bunch of application percentages and other numbers with no context and no look at their wider implication.
Basically there are two options: 1. your standard for "good evidence" is extremely high (for a game forum), so that you whole reasoning is pointless. Because unless its the most obvious bullshit it will NEVER possible to satisfy your standards, so according to your logic it would be basically impossible to argue against any nerf ever. 2. your are willfully ignoring the arguments.
I already showed you a clearly negative effect. Here I will repeat it for you. 1. fighter carrier were never really used before the changes. 2. fighter carrier had more dps, more ehp, fighters that were harder to jam, fighters that were harder to kill and easier to replace than before the patch.
From this follows, we can expect carriers being TOO WEAK against large targets right now. because they were better before, but hardly used. everyone used sentries which they cant use anymore. or triage, which they also cant do anymore. The only thing that got much better is against small targets. Against large targets it was just a nerf.
And now they make them EVEN WEAKER against large targets even though they are not too strong but probably too weak. This clearly is a negative effect. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
441
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 23:19:31 -
[411] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:Basically there are two options: 1. your standard for "good evidence" is extremely high (for a game forum), so that you whole reasoning is pointless. Because unless its the most obvious bullshit it will NEVER possible to satisfy your standards, so according to your logic it would be basically impossible to argue against any nerf ever. 2. your are willfully ignoring the arguments.
Neither of these is the case, when I see someone saying "I feel that this is too high!" I simply have to ask the question "why is that" and look for any kind of supported answer, and I'm not seeing that *ever*. The best we've gotten in this thread has been people calculating application percentages on common fits, something I could have done (and have done in the past) with a spreadsheet in about half an hour given their sig radius and speed.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, it's not me you have to convince and it's not my standards you have to live up to, it's CCP's. Their standards are pretty simple, present a good evidence based argument, not one based on "I feel" or "I think" or "I want". I've been around these forums for as long as this character has been around (over 8 years at this point) and I have a pretty good idea of what passes for a good argument, and what you're presenting here isn't it:
Marranar Amatin wrote:I already showed you a clearly negative effect. Here I will repeat it for you. 1. fighter carrier were never really used before the changes. 2. fighter carrier had more dps, more ehp, fighters that were harder to jam, fighters that were harder to kill and easier to replace than before the patch.
From this follows, we can expect carriers being TOO WEAK against large targets right now. because they were better before, but hardly used. everyone used sentries which they cant use anymore. or triage, which they also cant do anymore. The only thing that got much better is against small targets. Against large targets it was just a nerf.
And now they make them EVEN WEAKER against large targets even though they are not too strong but probably too weak. This clearly is a negative effect.
Allow me to explain why this is not an argument against CCP's changes:
First off, point one doesn't really matter, because Carriers before the changes bear very little resemblance to Carriers after the changes. Also the Capital ecosystem that Carriers are being used in bears very little resemblance to the ecosystem after the changes *because of* the Capital changes.
Your logic says that no one should be using Carriers *right now* because they're overall weaker than they were before the changes, but people very clearly are using Carriers.
It also completely ignores anything about Carriers other than tank and raw DPS, for example Sentries were used over Fighters not because they had higher DPS (even against Battleships) but because they applied that DPS instantly and Carriers could carry so many of them they would effectively never run out.
From the dev-blog that I've linked about a half dozen times now we know that CCP never intended Carriers to be the killers of large targets. That role belongs to Dreadnaughts and SuperCarriers with their Heavy Fighters, so lowering their effectiveness against large targets isn't really a big issue, except maybe in the case of something like a HAW fit Dread vs a Carrier, though that's basically a slap-fight and therefore has minimal effect on balance decisions.
I would argue that the effectiveness of Carriers against other Capitals has almost no impact on this set of balance changes, it's almost entirely about Carriers and their effectiveness against sub-capital targets. This has only been reinforced by the discussion in this thread, which has been about how Carriers have only been good against sub-capitals since the changes.
I am assuming you're talking about Capitals when you say "large targets" but if you're talking about Battleships it doesn't really matter, because of this line:
> are not too strong but probably too weak
You have no evidence for this, at all, presented anywhere. I am sorry if you feel that presenting evidence for this is too much of a burden for a forum discussion but if that's the case I wonder how you intend to convince the devs, who spend their days working up spreadsheets and testing things to see if they work, without some hard evidence of your own. |
Nerokor
Machiavellian Empire Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 23:29:21 -
[412] - Quote
Carrier changes comment:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CCP don't nerf the heavy missile salvo explosion radius to 350! They won't apply damage to anything and it will be right back to pre-citadel. Carriers are in a great spot atm but they do need some tweaks.
The NSA changes I can agree with, a carrier should not be able to instalock without some SERIOUS drawbacks fitting wise, they should be able to target relatively fast though because they are damaging platforms. The believe the application of fighter damage is fine as it is, if you nerf it they won't apply any damage to anything!
I do agree with the changes reducing the missile salvo alpha damage though. Carriers shouldn't be instapopping everything off the field, instead, applying some serious dps. Nerfing the alpha and increasing the amount of charges and decreasing reload times would help them apply a more constant dps, not huge spikes of damage. Leave the application alone! They are anti-subcap platforms!
tldr:
Leave fighter damage application alone Lower missile salvo alpha damage Increase missile salvo charges and decrease reload times Lower scan res bonus from NSA, etc. |
Mike Right
hirr Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 00:42:32 -
[413] - Quote
fighter speed needs a huge nerf too by like 30-70% einherjis with 3 drone navigations computers on a nidho do 20km/s for 20s??? those are pre speed nerf values - CCP tried so hard to get stuff down to 5-6km /s and maybe like 8/10k a second with snakes and links on ceptors and now introduce a ultra hard hitting fighter that goes far beyond those limits
why probe stuff thats 150-300km away now if your just quicker sending your fighters there ? those speeds are just ******** |
Lugh Crow-Slave
2841
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 00:56:06 -
[414] - Quote
leich wrote:WTF?
Its not anti sub cap Its not anti capital, the dread is far better Its not good at PVE.
So as far as i can tell its a link ship or an anti fighter platform.
Really CCP?
Lol it's not am anti fighter platform because the supers anti fighters will eat yours alive
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2841
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 01:00:57 -
[415] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Marranar Amatin wrote:Basically there are two options: 1. your standard for "good evidence" is extremely high (for a game forum), so that you whole reasoning is pointless. Because unless its the most obvious bullshit it will NEVER possible to satisfy your standards, so according to your logic it would be basically impossible to argue against any nerf ever. 2. your are willfully ignoring the arguments. Neither of these is the case, when I see someone saying "I feel that this is too high!" I simply have to ask the question "why is that" and look for any kind of supported answer, and I'm not seeing that *ever*. The best we've gotten in this thread has been people calculating application percentages on common fits, something I could have done (and have done in the past) with a spreadsheet in about half an hour given their sig radius and speed. I've said this before and I'll say it again, it's not me you have to convince and it's not my standards you have to live up to, it's CCP's. Their standards are pretty simple, present a good evidence based argument, not one based on "I feel" or "I think" or "I want". I've been around these forums for as long as this character has been around (over 8 years at this point) and I have a pretty good idea of what passes for a good argument, and what you're presenting here isn't it: Marranar Amatin wrote:I already showed you a clearly negative effect. Here I will repeat it for you. 1. fighter carrier were never really used before the changes. 2. fighter carrier had more dps, more ehp, fighters that were harder to jam, fighters that were harder to kill and easier to replace than before the patch.
From this follows, we can expect carriers being TOO WEAK against large targets right now. because they were better before, but hardly used. everyone used sentries which they cant use anymore. or triage, which they also cant do anymore. The only thing that got much better is against small targets. Against large targets it was just a nerf.
And now they make them EVEN WEAKER against large targets even though they are not too strong but probably too weak. This clearly is a negative effect. Allow me to explain why this is not an argument against CCP's changes: First off, point one doesn't really matter, because Carriers before the changes bear very little resemblance to Carriers after the changes. Also the Capital ecosystem that Carriers are being used in bears very little resemblance to the ecosystem after the changes *because of* the Capital changes. Your logic says that no one should be using Carriers *right now* because they're overall weaker than they were before the changes, but people very clearly are using Carriers. It also completely ignores anything about Carriers other than tank and raw DPS, for example Sentries were used over Fighters not because they had higher DPS (even against Battleships) but because they applied that DPS instantly and Carriers could carry so many of them they would effectively never run out. From the dev-blog that I've linked about a half dozen times now we know that CCP never intended Carriers to be the killers of large targets. That role belongs to Dreadnaughts and SuperCarriers with their Heavy Fighters, so lowering their effectiveness against large targets isn't really a big issue, except maybe in the case of something like a HAW fit Dread vs a Carrier, though that's basically a slap-fight and therefore has minimal effect on balance decisions. I would argue that the effectiveness of Carriers against other Capitals has almost no impact on this set of balance changes, it's almost entirely about Carriers and their effectiveness against sub-capital targets. This has only been reinforced by the discussion in this thread, which has been about how Carriers have only been good against sub-capitals since the changes. I am assuming you're talking about Capitals when you say "large targets" but if you're talking about Battleships it doesn't really matter, because of this line: > are not too strong but probably too weak You have no evidence for this, at all, presented anywhere. I am sorry if you feel that presenting evidence for this is too much of a burden for a forum discussion but if that's the case I wonder how you intend to convince the devs, who spend their days working up spreadsheets and testing things to see if they work, without some hard evidence of your own.
Okay good sir where do carriers fit into the game after this change?
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
2841
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 01:01:55 -
[416] - Quote
Mike Right wrote:fighter speed needs a huge nerf too by like 30-70% einherjis with 3 drone navigations computers on a nidho do 20km/s for 20s??? those are pre speed nerf values - CCP tried so hard to get stuff down to 5-6km /s and maybe like 8/10k a second with snakes and links on ceptors and now introduce a ultra hard hitting fighter that goes far beyond those limits
why probe stuff thats 150-300km away now if your just quicker sending your fighters there ? those speeds are just ********
... why are you worried after this change toy can just pretend the fighters aren't there
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Mike Right
hirr Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 01:11:48 -
[417] - Quote
carriers are so **** after the patch their damage dealt in pvp spiked up by 350%?? less crying about ticks and dank instapops and more NERFING plz https://i.imgur.com/SRnIFFA.png |
C-137
C3 Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 01:15:13 -
[418] - Quote
Blaststar Revenge wrote: Carrier with no application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 11,94% Carrier with one application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 16,39% Carrier with two application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 21,73% Carrier with three application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links and Afterburner damage application = 26,05% __ Carrier with no application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 37,1% Carrier with one application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 51,2% Carrier with two application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 67,59% Carrier with three application mods Vs Armor Machariels with links damage application = 81,3%
application mods = omnidirectional tracking links with tracking scripts.
with the changes suggested by you to figthers. That to me seems a bit to "bad" in terms of application against comon battleship doctrines. While this maybe the most extreme example to pick from the application is "only" about 20% better when faced with large sig doctrines such as rattlesnakes.
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 300 (+200) Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 100 (-20)
I think this would be more resonble as it would still keep cruisers and such perfectly safe from the much reduced alpha of the ability yet keep it useful against battleships and battle cruisers.
You need to learn some math and not just repost stuff from Reddit. The best ship in the entire game to shoot a Mach going 700 m/s @ 182m Sig IS A CARRIER. Even a Rigged, Implanted, MissileGuidance Tengu is worse at doing damage to this TheoryMach. AND THIS THANNY IS NAKED! No rigs, no mods, no implants.
Math for Carrier Balance |
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
22
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 01:19:12 -
[419] - Quote
Mike Right wrote:carriers are so **** after the patch their damage dealt in pvp spiked up by 350%?? less crying about ticks and dank instapops and more NERFING plz https://i.imgur.com/SRnIFFA.png You sound like someone who would go to nebraska to surf. Yeah, you sound that dumb. You do realize that carriers were only glorified logistic ships and null ratters before the patch? The patch brought about a fundamental change to carriers that saw them shift to an anti subcapital platform and yet the spike comes as a shock to you? |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
615
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 01:41:50 -
[420] - Quote
Jessie McPewpew wrote:Mike Right wrote:carriers are so **** after the patch their damage dealt in pvp spiked up by 350%?? less crying about ticks and dank instapops and more NERFING plz https://i.imgur.com/SRnIFFA.png You sound like someone who would go to nebraska to surf. Yeah, you sound that dumb. You do realize that carriers were only glorified logistic ships and null ratters before the patch? The patch brought about a fundamental change to carriers that saw them shift to an anti subcapital platform and yet the spike comes as a shock to you?
Cade Windstalker wrote: It also completely ignores anything about Carriers other than tank and raw DPS, for example Sentries were used over Fighters not because they had higher DPS (even against Battleships) but because they applied that DPS instantly and Carriers could carry so many of them they would effectively never run out.
Not that I have a horse in this race, but "glorified logistic ships"? Not that long ago, people were constantly up in arms over sentry carriers whelping subcap fleets, including but not limited to slowcat fleets. People often took to the forums to complain about it, saying that carriers should not have access to subcap drones (specifically sentries) because, well, precisely what I quoted from Cade Windstalker. Great damage, no ammo, no cap, applied instantly, long range, and carry an almost inexhaustible supply. Plus, sentry drones are cheap.
That said, I'm not entirely sold on this idea that fighters are helping carriers do significantly more damage than they did before. I am sold on the idea that capitals, with immense EHP pools, capacitor, and high powered (if still poorly-tracking) weapons, should still be vulnerable to subcaps otherwise endgame fleets are just a mass of anti-cap capitals and anti-subcap capitals. That results in the sort of nullsec stagnation (and "I got here first and built more of everything first" advantage) CCP has been effectively breaking up over the past few years.
None of this should be taken to imply that I agree or disagree with any of the changes laid out by the Devs or by the players in this thread. I'm just saying that conceptually, having carriers too good at taking out subcaps is probably a bad idea, and that seems to be getting addressed with these proposed changes. Whether or not that problem actually existed in the first place, well, is obviously debatable judging by the way this thread has gone.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |