EVE Search - so new fb damage

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

so new fb damage

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Crias Taylor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.24 01:28:00 - [31] Originally by: Fuujin Nerfing supercarriers isn't really required, beyond reducing bombers' ability to hurt subcaps. A good support fleet can already defang supercarriers just fine. I hope the damage output gets tweaked to being back near where it was for capital targets...otherwise CCP just took something intended to counter massive dread fleets and made it ineffectual for that task. Only time can tell. They haven't posted a Fighter Bomber feedback thread yet though. I do like that Fighter Bombers no longer **** subcaps and I'm happy with that from what I've tested on sisi. I'm going with capital DPS nerf will get fixed to be back where it was otherwise we are going back to capital fleets thrown around and super capitals stay in a pos shield.
davet517 Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.11.24 03:03:00 - [32] Edited by: davet517 on 24/11/2010 03:04:12 Originally by: Crias Taylor I'm going with capital DPS nerf will get fixed to be back where it was otherwise we are going back to capital fleets thrown around and super capitals stay in a pos shield. I could see them cutting it back to be comparable with a sieged Dread, and I still think they'd get used, though the QQ thread would be epic. Even if they cut the damage output to sieged dread level, they'd still be able to do that damage while not sieged, and while being repped, and their tank would still be far superior, not to mention the e-war invuln. I'm sure the current situation where you've got nearly twice as many of them in the game as dreads, and dreads hardly being used at all is not what CCP had in mind. A re-balance should come as no suprise. I'd personally prefer to see them buff dreads, as I said in a diffrent thread, but this will work too.
Crias Taylor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.24 03:06:00 - [33] Edited by: Crias Taylor on 24/11/2010 03:07:01 Don't be dumb, you can insure dreads and dock them. The DPS shouldn't be equal. You are fielding a bunch of isk that gets wiped out if lost. Like up to 20 dreads worth.
davet517 Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.11.24 03:14:00 - [34] Edited by: davet517 on 24/11/2010 03:17:38 Originally by: Crias Taylor Edited by: Crias Taylor on 24/11/2010 03:07:01 Don't be dumb, you can insure dreads and dock them. The DPS shouldn't be equal. You are fielding a bunch of isk that gets wiped out if lost. Like up to 20 dreads worth. As I said, they have substantial advantages over dreads other than DPS. These are supposed to be "elite" ships. The fact that you've got nearly twice as many of them running around as plain old dreads and being built at a faster rate than dreads is a pretty good indication that they're out of balance. Again, I'd prefer to see them buff dreads, but one way or another the gap between the two needs to be narrowed some so that dreads and carriers are the bulk of the fleet, and these are less common.
Prof Fail Minmatar	Posted - 2010.11.24 03:27:00 - [35] Edited by: Prof Fail on 24/11/2010 03:31:11 Originally by: davet517 As I said, they have substantial advantages over dreads other than DPS. These are supposed to be "elite" ships. The fact that you've got nearly twice as many of them running around as plain old dreads and being built at a faster rate than dreads is a pretty good indication that they're out of balance. They wont be "elite" ships if dps su***, plain and simple. More ISK and more efford must result in better performance. Everything else makes no sense. The rest of your statement is just wrong. There arent more Supercarriers around than Dreads. Also Supers cant be build faster than Dreads^^ Btw. Dreads are E-War immune, too (while in siege)....just saying. If they nerf DPS to Dread level, there arent enough advantages left to justify why supercarriers cost that much isk. I guess now one wants to have back useless Supercarrier no one ever uses.
davet517 Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.11.24 03:36:00 - [36] Originally by: Prof Fail They wont be "elite" ships if dps su*, plain and simple. More ISK and more efford must result in a better performance. Everything else makes no sense. Yes, it should, but right now, everyone sees these as made of gold dust and win, so there's no reason for a pilot who can fly one to fly anything else. Add to that the fact that you can be in one in about 6 weeks of determined Sanctum grinding and it's not hard to see why they are replacing, not reinforcing, conventional capital fleets. The rest of your statement is just wrong. There arent more Supercarriers around than Dreads. Also Supers cant be build faster than Dreads^^ I think if you read the latest econ report you'll find that there are 700 and change dreads in the game, and 1300 and change SCs, and the number of SCs is rising faster. So yeah, they can be built faster than dreads if that's what people are choosing to build. Quote:** Btw. Dreads are also E-War immune while in siege....just saying. If they nerf DPS to Dread level, there arent enough thing left to justify why a super cost that much isk. They do, but they are also locked in place for 10 minutes, so, other than not getting jammed by a falcon for their entire siege cycle (the intended purpose of that immunity), they can't warp off or jump out while pointed, like a SC can. It's hardly comparable. I know you don't want the shiney taken away, but lets talk facts here.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.24 04:36:00 - [37] Right now its far under what the DPS should be. 2 SC's with FB 5 can't kill a single rev in siege.
Dix0r	Posted - 2010.11.24 04:45:00 - [38] Originally by: davet517 I know you don't want the shiney taken away, but lets talk facts here. Okey lets talk facts, fact is an SC costs 8,5b-9b in minerals alone to build if you add bpc costs you're at 11-13b. And another 3b for imps (slave set+8% imp) as well as a fitting that makes the ship accualy worth a while so another 6b gone that puts us at 22-24b. Now you tell me that all you get for that ****load of isk is a ship that can take a hell of allot but won't do decent damage can't dock and can't be insured.. how does that add up? All that that will lead to is that ppl will change to titans.. I know I will if this change sticks.
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.11.24 05:38:00 - [39] Super Carrier DPS is fine on tranquility, when looking at it vs capitals. the DPS needs a tweak vs sub caps. These should be great weapons against the Capital fleet but easy prey for support fleets which can declaw their fighter bombers and which would leave them defenseless against a cap fleet. A squad of assault frigs can make quick work of FB's (if lag isnt a problem). So as intended, super carriers wouldnt beable to work alone as conventional cap fleets are a bit better suited to fighting sub caps and support fleets are best suited for that.
Fuujin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.24 07:20:00 - [40] Originally by: davet517 Edited by: davet517 on 24/11/2010 03:42:07 I think if you read the latest econ report you'll find that there are 700 and change dreads in the game, and 1300 and change SCs, and the number of SCs is rising faster. So yeah, they can be built faster than dreads if that's what people are choosing to build. ... I know you don't want the shiney taken away, but lets talk facts here. Your strawman needs some more straw. The econ report is a snapshot of what ships active characters were sitting in, in that moment. Supercarrier and titan population is accurate since you can't leave them. Dread population however would likely be very inaccurate since you can dock and leave them, and you only sit in them for ops. Put simply, there are thousands of dreads out there. I'm willing to throw down a few billion to bet that their build rate is still on par with or exceeding supercarrier construction. A supercarrier or a titan is an endgame ship for most characters. You can't dock, its difficult to earn isk in one, and you're very vulnerable without a support fleet. You become a ******-strong brain damaged relative requiring family to protect you 24/7. Right now they've got a thick skin and can hit big things freakishly hard. They can serve a purpose. Take that away from them and you go back to the days where they were never seen in the wild outside of a POS somewhere.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.24 07:39:00 - [41] EHP is the problem with supercaps, not DPS :ccp: -----------------
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.11.24 08:23:00 - [42] Edited by: Furb Killer on 24/11/2010 08:28:34 Originally by: Bobbeh Super Carrier DPS is fine on tranquility, when looking at it vs capitals. the DPS needs a tweak vs sub caps. These should be great weapons against the Capital fleet but easy prey for support fleets which can declaw their fighter bombers and which would leave them defenseless against a cap fleet. A squad of assault frigs can make quick work of FB's (if lag isnt a problem). So as intended, super carriers wouldnt beable to work alone as conventional cap fleets are a bit better suited to fighting sub caps and support fleets are best suited for that. So what exactly again would be the role of dreads? It is a reasonable estimate you need 20 non supers per SC you want to kill. So that pretty much makes it mandatory to make it a race who has more SCs, unless you horribly outnumber an SC heavy opponent. Quote: So why does the dps need to be nerfed? Should not a ship that costs 6 times more than a dread be at least 3 times better dps wise. Or a ship that cost 16.66 times as much as a carrier be at least 8 times as effective dps wise? Good job ignoring ewar immunity, not being locked in place for 10 minutes, being highly effective against sub caps (and no FB nerf against sub caps wont change that fact, you can still send 20 warrios against a frig, or 20 fighters/sentries against a BS, while a dread cant do **** against anything sub cap), having load of utility highs and having 30 times the EHP of a dread. If i get my caracal and place an estamel invuln on it i dont come here whining that i spend way more than those 2 other caracal pilots, and they still owned me 2v1.
Fuujin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.24 08:34:00 - [43] Edited by: Fuujin on 24/11/2010 08:34:31 Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 24/11/2010 08:28:34 So what exactly again would be the role of dreads? It is a reasonable estimate you need 20 non supers per SC you want to kill. So that pretty much makes it mandatory to make it a race who has more SCs, unless you horribly outnumber an SC heavy opponent. Good job ignoring ewar immunity, not being locked in place for 10 minutes, being highly effective against sub caps (and no FB nerf against sub caps wont change that fact, you can still send 20 warrios against a frig, or 20 fighters/sentries against a BS, while a dread cant do **** against anything sub cap), having load of utility highs and having 30 times the EHP of a dread. If i get my caracal and place an estamel invuln on it i dont come here whining that i spend way more than those 2 other caracal pilots, and they still owned me 2v1. If you're dumb enough to try and engage in a capital battle without a support fleet, don't bother whining about getting hurt by drones. By your argument vanilla carriers should slaughter subcaps.
davet517 Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.11.24 08:35:00 - [44] Edited by: davet517 on 24/11/2010 09:09:19 Originally by: Fuujin A supercarrier or a titan is an endgame ship for most characters. You can't dock, its difficult to earn isk in one, and you're very vulnerable without a support fleet. You become a ****-strong brain damaged relative requiring family to protect you 24/7. Right now they've got a thick skin and can hit big things freakishly hard. They can serve a purpose. Take that away from them and you go back to the days where they were never seen in the wild outside of a POS somewhere. I don't think anyone is contemplating returning them to Pre-Dominion stats. Even if they knock the damage down to what it is now on Sisi (about the same as a siege dread) you still have a ship that hits as hard as a dread, without having to siege, with a far superior tank, and e-war immunity. Not the "I Win" button that SCs are now, but far from as useless as the Pre-Dominion Mom. Their numbers grew 40% in a quarter. They're being flown more and more instead of** dreads and carriers, instead of being the monsters in a mostly dread and carrier fleet. No, they're not hard to make money in. They are grinding Sanctums all over Eve as we speak. Yes, they can't dock, but just about everyone that I know who flys one has an alt to sit in it. I have two. Something is needed to restore some balance and get people interested in flying dreads again. I do prefer buffing dreads to nerfing SCs. Looks like the current thinking reflected on Sisi is that nerfing SCs is the way to go. They could well change their minds before changes hit TQ, or they could maybe, I don't know, allow dreads to be repped in siege and take away the FBs abilty to hit structures, returning Dreads to their former place as the premier siege weapons, and allowing SCs to assume the role of providing anti-cap-ship support and logistics to the Dreads. That's probably how it should have been to start with. Whatever they do, some balancing is needed. I'm glad that they see it too.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.11.24 09:41:00 - [45] Gotta have a giggle at people using/abusing the most horribly broken ship-type in game bar none, as they cry when their iWin is reduced to be on par with alternatives. Personally more in favour of much more drastic applications of nerf-bat spammage when it comes to supers so for me you are getting off easy. Quote: This does mean their damage output now varies like a turret does rather than be constant like old missiles (they can wreck or lightly hit now for example). The damage is comparable but we have been more stringent on bombers being more focused on being a threat to capital ships rather than melting regular sub-capital ship classes. Fighter Bombers will be much less effective against sub-capital class ships now and in this scenario you should switch to using fighters. If they are doing poor damage to capitals then its a simple matter of tweaking tracking/sig.res. of the F-bombers weapons .. Not the end of the world and in fact the whole reason for CCP to have such a thing as a test server, balancing prior to deployment .. who'd have thought
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.24 10:10:00 - [46] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Gotta have a giggle at people using/abusing the most horribly broken ship-type in game bar none, as they cry when their iWin is reduced to be on par with alternatives. Personally more in favour of much more drastic applications of nerf-bat spammage when it comes to supers so for me you are getting off easy. Quote: This does mean their damage output now varies like a turret does rather than be constant like old missiles (they can wreck or lightly hit now for example). The damage is comparable but we have been more stringent on bombers being more focused on being a threat to capital ships rather than melting regular sub-capital ship classes. Fighter Bombers will be much less effective against sub-capital class ships now and in this scenario you should switch to using fighters. If they are doing poor damage to capitals then its a simple matter of tweaking tracking/sig.res. of the F-bombers weapons .. Not the end of the world and in fact the whole reason for CCP to have such a thing as a test server, balancing prior to deployment .. who'd have thought Maybe you don't read more than the OP in a thread. They undid that change. You can find proof here
Nuts Nougat SniggWaffe GoonSwarm	Posted - 2010.11.24 15:12:00 - [47] Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 24/11/2010 15:14:30 If the damage you're getting from FB is not constant and your target isn't moving then that's turret mechanics. Which probably means it's still work in progress. Calm down people. Edit: Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Maybe you don't read more than the OP in a thread. They undid that change. You can find proof here That's a very old post for sisi forums. Things get thrown around daily, it could be an old build of fbs currently or sisi, or they've decided to move back to turrets to tweak them further. ---
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.24 15:23:00 - [48] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 24/11/2010 15:14:30 If the damage you're getting from FB is not constant and your target isn't moving then that's turret mechanics. Which probably means it's still work in progress. Calm down people. Edit: Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Maybe you don't read more than the OP in a thread. They undid that change. You can find proof here That's a very old post for sisi forums. Things get thrown around daily, it could be an old build of fbs currently or sisi, or they've decided to move back to turrets to tweak them further. Except that isnt from the SISI forums
Aaron Mirrorsaver 1st Cavalry Division	Posted - 2010.11.24 18:02:00 - [49] i dont think speculation is worth it at this point. wait for actual results. I do know they said in order to reduce lag, they'll be making missiles 'fake' and not an actual object created and tracked by the server, but the data will be tracked in the background, and a graphic will be rendered to give us the visual result. i also think they said something about making the bomb fire like on a turret based mount...i think they are just tweaking it for damage against sub caps. who would use em against sub caps anyway, they travel slow, unless the sub cap fleet is at point blank range. ccp usually breaks something else when trying to fix something. the damage is inline with the ship. the only alternative i see if you nerf damage is to scale the build cost back drastically. ------ * Your signature is inappropriate and is therefore locked for CCP impersonation. Please file a petition when you have an appropriate signature.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.11.24 18:18:00 - [50] As a confirmation, the damage is still missile based and you should be seeing almost no change in damage against capital ships from what is on Tranquility. However sub-capital class ships will only receive a small portion of the damage they do currently. If you are doing ~1800 damage per bomber to 75% resists as reported earlier then this is well inline with expectations since that equates to ~7200 raw damage. The maximum is 7500 per bomber if using the nyx at max skills and 6000 in other supercarriers. This is no different from what is on Tranquility currently (7500 raw damage per bomber using a nyx with max skills). However, if you are getting significantly different results from this, then it would be good to know. Provide your fighter bomber skill level, supercarrier type, supercarrier skill level, target you were fighting and their resistance if possible.

Tish Magev NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.24 19:20:00 - [51] I have the MAXIMUM possible dps from a perfect skilled Nyx using 20 fighter bombers to be 10,000 on TQ as it stands. On Sisi, I was getting hit for 300/400 Max by fighter bombers whilst in my Aeon. That seems low, but meh the resists are high.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.11.24 21:18:00 - [52] If I get chance, I'll try some tests out myself later. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.11.24 21:38:00 - [53] Originally by: Fuujin Edited by: Fuujin on 24/11/2010 08:34:31 If you're dumb enough to try and engage in a capital battle without a support fleet, don't bother whining about getting hurt by drones. By your argument vanilla carriers should slaughter subcaps. Huh? What are you traing to say? Vanilla carriers are pretty good against sub caps. And a support fleet wont do anything against normal drones which is clearly what i said in that post, since any (super) carrier will have loads of spare drones.
Kilgarth	Posted - 2010.11.24 22:46:00 - [54] Edited by: Kilgarth on 24/11/2010 22:49:23 Yesterday, I had a alliance mate shoot my rev with his Aeon. The character has Fighter bombers 5, Carrier 5, etc.. The resistances on my Rev are as follows: EM - 75% Thermal - 68% Kinetic - 63% Explosive - 60% The Aeon's FB's hit me for between 1500 and 2000 damage. Just the other day, I had a Wyvern shooting my rev with the same resistances but it was hitting me for between 3500 and 5000 damage per bomber with the same skills (fighter bombers 5, and carrier 5)... So my guess is that the new change to fighter bombers probably messed up the damage to every ship a bit.. Perhaps it needs to be looked into? The damage they are doing is almost exactly half of what they used to be. Maybe the fighter bombers are not properly calculating the bonus from teh skill? There is not much more than can be the cause.. The only thing I have noticed is that on the FB's on SiSi, they show the damage that they do down at the bottom (3000), whereas the FB's on TQ do not show how much damage they do, only the damage modifier.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.11.25 00:12:00 - [55] Edited by: Mag''s on 25/11/2010 00:13:18 OK fitted out a thanny with 6 reinforced bulkhead II as I wanted to get some idea as to 0% resist hits. Skills at 5/5 in a Nyx with a Tyrfing, got the following numbers. Shield hit with explosive resist at 50%:- 23:58:24 Combat Tyrfing belonging to Mag's hits you, doing 3750.0 damage. Armour hit with explosive resist at 10%:- 00:00:26 Combat Tyrfing belonging to Mag's hits you, doing 6750.0 damage. Hull hit with explosive resist at 0%:- 00:01:28 Combat Tyrfing belonging to Mag's hits you, doing 7500.0 damage. Seems all is well. The only gripe I have is the effects, why the hell has it gone from one torp graphic, to showing 4 torps flying then such a pathetic explosion? Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.25 01:33:00 - [56] can someone get the damage currently on TQ as compraing sisi to how quickly carriers go down on TQ something not right a carrier went down much quicker than it does now on sisi. As it is now on sisi is much slower than on tq
Jhoria Englside	Posted - 2010.11.25 03:18:00 - [57] Originally by: Bobbeh Edited by: Bobbeh on 23/11/2010 22:20:39 ah i c i thought they were turreting them in mechanic only, but still letting them fire "missles" After a long discussion with a close friend about SC's and his opinion their need to be nerfed. I compared some stats dps wise ofcourse 1 sieged Naglfar all level 5's 2.2k dps @ 1.3-1.5 bil in cost 1 Hel 8k dps @ 9-11 bil at cost (t2 fit) Approximately 4 to 1 ratio in dps and dreads to sc and a 6.66 to 1 cost ratio dreads to super carriers 1 Nidhoggur all level 5 1k dps approx @ 500-600 mil 1 Hel all level 5 8k dps @ 9-11 (t2 fit) Approx 8 to 1 ratio in dps and a 16.66 to 1 cost ratio. So why does the dps need to be nerfed? Should not a ship that costs 6 times more than a dread be at least 3 times better dps wise. Or a ship that cost 16.66 times as much as a carrier be at least 8 times as effective dps wise? We arent factoring in the fact that dreads and carriers can cover their costs through insurance, and therefore they are far more isk efficient tools to use if isk is an issue. If anything, a nerf to super carriers should be their ability to RR, make it so they rr but only when in a certain mode, at which point they cant move or use drones and they can remote rep but not local rep. this would force them to work with conventional cap fleets and not just be fleets of super carriers. Why do they get used right now? More dps than a dread with more health than a dread. so maybe the fix is give sieged dreads more damage vs super caps? but then why use super carriers at all? As i remember they are supposed to be an anti capital asset, so their dps is their backbone, their health is what allows them to fight dread fleets without getting alpha'd. derp derp ccp has long ago stated they dont balance based on price. derp Originally by: CCP Zym Look at the thread, now look down, now look at the thread again. That's right it's now locked for spam. Now look at your spaceship, now back at me, that's right I'm on a Phobos
Khefron GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.25 04:59:00 - [58] Edited by: Khefron on 25/11/2010 04:59:53 If you were to keep the explosion radius on Fighter Bombers the same, but reduce the explosion velocity to roughly 30, that would have the desired effect on moving sub capitals. As it stands now, the increased explosion radius is causing carriers and some dreadnaughts (as well as certain structures) to enjoy a sig radius tank against fighterbombers.
Pervigilo Alea	Posted - 2010.11.25 05:01:00 - [59] Originally by: Khefron Edited by: Khefron on 25/11/2010 04:59:53 ...increased explosion radius is causing carriers and some dreadnaughts (as well as certain structures) to enjoy a sig radius tank against fighterbombers. ^ this
Dave Tehsulei NibbleTek Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.11.25 05:58:00 - [60] Explosion velocity is allowing some amount of speed tanking for carriers. There also seems to be a problem with fighter bombers getting into range. They will not fire until they get under 10km. After testing it several times some fb seem to get stuck at 11-12km and take an extremely long time to close the remaining distance.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.