EVE Search - so new fb damage

Check My IP Information

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)
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 02:16:00 - [1] is the current status on sisi correct for fb's doing drasticly reduced damage to carriers??
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 08:15:00 - [2] I was hitting carriers for 4k a shot. This is less than current?
Vidar Kentoran Minmatar Eighty Joule Brewery	Posted - 2010.11.23 08:40:00 - [3] reduced damage against subcaps, huh
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 09:29:00 - [4] Originally by: Vidar Kentoran reduced damage against subcaps, huh Almost as if a dev blog was posted days ago that stated that was the intention...almost. Furthermore Quote: (2:58:30 AM) Vidar Kentoran: Yeah I mean I guess understanding game mechanics better than the people talking in this channel makes me dumb. That's pretty much how that works. My bad. (2:58:33 AM) Vidar Kentoran: carry on (2:59:09 AM) Devilish Ledoux: guys guys guys. Vidar Kentoran is just SO **ING WELL-INFORMED that our primitive forebrains percieve him to be a drooling ****
Vidar Kentoran Minmatar Eighty Joule Brewery	Posted - 2010.11.23 09:31:00 - [5] Oddly enough, a carrier isn't a subcap.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 09:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Vidar Kentoran Oddly enough, a carrier isn't a subcap. Yes, and so I was only responding to your off topic remark which, in fact, did not involve a carrier. Christ you're dumb
Jirai Grepher Gallente Amok. Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 09:59:00 - [7] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Christ you're dumb mlyp
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 11:38:00 - [8] aww goons :) but in my archon with only 2 EANM was getting hit for 1.8k per bomber for a fb 4 aeon
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 11:40:00 - [9] Originally by: Rose Nuke aww goons :) but in my archon with only 2 EANM was getting hit for 1.8k per bomber for a fb 4 aeon The other guy is also a goon, he is just too proud to wear his alliance tag. 1.8k from which FB? Also they seem to hit for a range of damages, not just one, even if it's the same damage type. So was that the high end or norm?
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 11:47:00 - [10] that was cyclops mainly but all pretty similar if remember correctly was last night was looking at it. 1.8k was about average to high not very many above. had minimal velocity etc aswell

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 11:57:00 - [11] Originally by: Rose Nuke that was cyclops mainly but all pretty similar if remember correctly was last night was looking at it. 1.8k was about average to high not very many above. had minimal velocity etc aswell What is your thermal resist? Also each FB does a different damage type. Cyclops is thermal.
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:04:00 - [12] 75% but as said all bombers were doing damage around the 1.8k mark (EM 81, THERM 75, KIN 71, EXPLO 70) so all fairly even
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:08:00 - [13] Originally by: Rose Nuke 75% but as said all bombers were doing damage around the 1.8k mark (EM 81, THERM 75, KIN 71, EXPLO 70) so all fairly even Then that's a huge damage nerf
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:13:00 - [14] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Originally by: Rose Nuke 75% but as said all bombers were doing damage around the 1.8k mark (EM 81, THERM 75, KIN 71, EXPLO 70) so all fairly even Then that's a huge damage nerf would appear so. be intresting to see the damage they do on a sc or titan as stats wise they till maintain the base 3k damage. maybe the increase in explosion radius to 2250 (current tq is 1750) but then with a carriers sig at around 2920 (archon) would have thought have little impact and there was minimal velocity involved
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:15:00 - [15] I was doing about 1.2-1.5k to an officer fit levi
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:18:00 - [16] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I was doing about 1.2-1.5k to an officer fit levi so time to break out the dread fleet again. i can understand the damage reduction against carriers/dreads but that much lost against titan?
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:20:00 - [17] Originally by: Rose Nuke Originally by: EdFromHumanResources I was doing about 1.2-1.5k to an officer fit levi so time to break out the dread fleet again. i can understand the damage reduction against carriers/dreads but that much lost against titan? That all depends if whats on sisi is whats going live. I have asked in at least five threads with no response
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:26:00 - [18] 12:22:22 Combat Tyrfing belonging to xxxxxxx hits you, doing 1902.0 damage. 12:22:31 Combat Cyclops belonging to xxxxxxx hits you, doing 858.5 damage. 12:22:42 Combat Malleus belonging to xxxxxxx hits you, doing 1188.8 damage. 12:22:59 Combat Mantis belonging to xxxxxxx hits you, doing 990.6 damage. that fighter bomber 4 all were mostly around these numbers
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:31:00 - [19] That's much less than a sieged dread who also have a lower cycle time
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:34:00 - [20] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources That's much less than a sieged dread who also have a lower cycle time siege timer still 600 on sisi but yes very low damage

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 12:55:00 - [21] Originally by: Rose Nuke Originally by: EdFromHumanResources That's much less than a sieged dread who also have a lower cycle time siege timer still 600 on sisi but yes very low damage I mean the cycle time on their guns
Rose Nuke State War Academy	Posted - 2010.11.23 13:00:00 - [22] ROF are the same on tq as on sisi 14.35 on both for 1000 rails, 13.5 on both for duel giga beam
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind	Posted - 2010.11.23 16:56:00 - [23] Originally by: Rose Nuke ROF are the same on tq as on sisi 14.35 on both for 1000 rails, 13.5 on both for duel giga beam hes talking about the rof of dread guns vs the rof of fighterbombers. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.11.23 19:50:00 - [24] So basically they are making SC's a massive hp block of useless dps...... wow sounds fun, back to the pos they go. From what i understood, there wasnt a planned nerf to SC damage vs Caps, just a nerf for SC damage vs Sub cap. I'd be curious to know if the carriers were moving at full speed when the damage was being noted and posted here. or where they being webbed down and all. As turret damage calculations vs missle damage calculations are done differently. But all in all this disturbs me greatly as it will make sc's relatively useless again, and by useless i mean expensive pos ornaments.
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.11.23 20:15:00 - [25] Can Someone do me a favour and test something. Take an armor tanking super out and fit the midslots with drone omni's in the mids, and posst here if the damage changes, as im convinced its a tweaking problem with the turret mechanics and tracking, as i've been informed that hitting an mwd on a carrier reduces the damage they take even though their sig radius is massive. The reduction of damage due to increase of speed in turret damage is most likely linked to tracking, and that would make me think that they havent tweaked the tracking for fbs vs caps, or havent found a way to tweak it so that they arent effective against bs but are against carriers/dreads.
Crias Taylor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 20:20:00 - [26] FB are not getting turretized. I also don't think the mods work on fighters and fighter bombers. It is also proably being tweaked too.
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.11.23 20:24:00 - [27] ah i c i thought they were turreting them in mechanic only, but still letting them fire "missles"
Fuujin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.23 22:45:00 - [28] 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.
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.11.23 23:50:00 - [29] I completely agree Fuujin As Super cap fleets are not sustainable, in the short term. If you wipe one its not like a dread fleet where you can have the majority replaced withing 24 hours, let alone a week. Supercarriers are good for what they are needed to do they just need to be ineffective against sub caps. IMO the best way to do that would be to make it so that fb's were very signature rate sensitive below a certain size. So FB's could hit and kill carriers but a signature of a bs would be very hard to kill with FB's. I mean even now noone would drop a super cap fleet into a fleet of 200+ dreads. its just suicide they would be 26.4mil damage per minute, the equivalent dps of 50 super carriers assuming they are all not nyx's and all the dreads do 2.2k dps. the difference being 400 bil for 200 dreads (being generous with 2 bil fit and all) and assuming they are all not t2 fit and spent 5 bil on fittings and 9.5 on the hull 725bil for 50 super carriers + 14 bil in fighterbombers (not including spares) anyways my point just is that super carriers have their place, which is vs capitals. They should have carriers supporting them aswell as support, to keep them in the fight and their fighterbombers in space. They should not replace the dread fleet they should be an addition to the dread fleet. so nerf their damage against support but leave their damage v capitals the way it is.
Cpt Tunguska	Posted - 2010.11.24 00:42:00 - [30] Dreads do much more dmg than 2000 dps lol. More like 7k-8k dps for close range (f.e. Blaster-Moros) and 4-5k dps with long range weapons. Tbh...even today fighter bombers are no smart choice versus subcaps. With fighters you do alot more dmg to BS than fighter bombers do. Just check it. Fighters hit BS harder and also cycle faster than bombers. Thats why I really dont understand the point of this nerf. CCP dont even know their own game. An 18b isk ship needs to do more dps than a 1.5b Dreadnought, otherwise it makes no sense to field the expensive ship. An Aeon, for example, does 8k dps with 20 Bombers and maxed sills. Lets say a long range Moros does like 5k dps with faction stuff...an Aeon does just 3k more dps and same dps like a close range one. If you really nerf the Aeons dmg output....the difference will be even worse. Theres no point to use supercarriers anymore, if Dreads do nearly same dps or even more (close range versions). This nerf is stupid.

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.

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.25 06:08:00 - [61] Originally by: Dave Tehsulei 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. If we could get back the feature of Fighter Bombers firing before being inside orbit range that would be amazing. Half the awe of fighter bombers was them rushing in while firing missiles. No one picturing a bomber in a sci fi setting has them getting close enough to hug the ship THEN firing as they slowly orbit. They fire as they approach. Fighter bombers used to engage the moment you told them to attack and the missiles started hitting at 58km. Maybe finding a middile ground such as 20-30km but still moving into the orbit range.
Xynosura	Posted - 2010.11.25 06:10:00 - [62] Originally by: Dave Tehsulei Explosion velocity is allowing some amount of speed tanking for carriers. 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. This is confirmed, the same mechanic applies when you try to set a ship to approach a target with MWD on and it would slow down just outside the default range and "slowboat" in range. With the FBs (sisi nerf) set to not fire the torps until it's within a specific figure (>10-7.5km?) it sits there waiting for it to finish it's regulated approach run before firing the torps while the target keeps getting bumped further out of range or so. Incredibly annoying.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.25 06:13:00 - [63] Welp lets hope these get looked at and fixed so we dont hae to spend a few months with shelved supercarriers :(
Vidar Kentoran Minmatar Eighty Joule Brewery	Posted - 2010.11.25 07:05:00 - [64] Instead of increasing the explosion radius and/or decreasing the explosion velocity used in the formula for Fighter Bomber damage, you should just increase the damage reduction factor so that damage is lost to sig/speed faster. Maybe with a moderate increase in explosion velocity to prevent any capital speed tanking improvements.
Rivqua Caldari Omega Wing Snatch Victory	Posted - 2010.11.25 11:26:00 - [65] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Welp lets hope these get looked at and fixed so we dont hae to spend a few months with shelved supercarriers :( It's not like there is a lack of SC damage potential. And as it's not a nerf to any specific SC but all, it seems like a non issue. And I am sure they will do just as much damage to IHUBS as before. _________________ --- Snatch Victory - Rivqua - Omega Wing ---
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.25 11:59:00 - [66] Originally by: Rivqua Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Welp lets hope these get looked at and fixed so we dont hae to spend a few months with shelved supercarriers :( It's not like there is a lack of SC damage potential. And as it's not a nerf to any specific SC but all, it seems like a non issue. And I am sure they will do just as much damage to IHUBS as before. This may come as a shock to you but some of us actually shoot ships with our supercaps

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.11.25 12:38:00 - [67] FYI - tests have shown the damage is as expected and no different from tranquility against capital ships whether they are moving or not. If you still believe your damage has changed, by all means post more details and submit bug reports.

Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.11.25 12:57:00 - [68] Edited by: Mag''s on 25/11/2010 13:01:10 Originally by: CCP Chronotis FYI - tests have shown the damage is as expected and no different from tranquility against capital ships whether they are moving or not. If you still believe your damage has changed, by all means post more details and submit bug reports. I ran the same tests in TQ this morning, as I did last night in the sisi test on page 2. Ran the 73 ms test on sisi and TQ got the same results. Fbs hitting for 7499.8 damage. One thing I can confirm is FB's are getting stuck at the 12 to 10Km mark. Quite a few time I had bombers seemingly idling for 1 to 2 minutes. I have a feeling the drop in DPS is due to this, rather than anything else as they don't fire until inside 10Km. 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 13:30:00 - [69] Originally by: Mag's Edited by: Mag''s on 25/11/2010 13:01:10 Originally by: CCP Chronotis FYI - tests have shown the damage is as expected and no different from tranquility against capital ships whether they are moving or not. If you still believe your damage has changed, by all means post more details and submit bug reports. I ran the same tests in TQ this morning, as I did last night in the sisi test on page 2. Ran the 73 ms test on sisi and TQ got the same results. Fbs hitting for 7499.8 damage. One thing I can confirm is FB's are getting stuck at the 12 to 10Km mark. Quite a few time I had bombers seemingly idling for 1 to 2 minutes. I have a feeling the drop in DPS is due to this, rather than anything else as they don't fire until inside 10Km. Have experienced the bombers getting stuck at range and also had some not even firing when told to
Vidar Kentoran Minmatar Eighty Joule Brewery	Posted - 2010.11.25 19:13:00 - [70] Originally by: CCP Chronotis FYI - tests have shown the damage is as expected and no different from tranquility against capital ships whether they are moving or not. If you still believe your damage has changed, by all means post more details and submit bug reports. The main issue is with the flight behaviour of fighter bombers when they arrive at the target I believe. It's worth noting that falling behind due to extremely slow orbit speed vs mwd speed and getting stuck outside of their range is an issue that afflicts fighters too (dragonflies are especially prone to it). It seems to me that fighters/fighter bombers need to be able to fire from a significantly further distance than their orbit distance so that they don't end up stuck with strange behaviour when they fall out of range while using orbit velocity.

EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.27 01:40:00 - [71] So did you dudes take a look at the engagement range or we just going to have to wait for the 30th and pray?
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.11.27 10:56:00 - [72] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources So did you dudes take a look at the engagement range or we just going to have to wait for the 30th and pray? My guess is wait..... 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.
Tish Magev NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.29 13:12:00 - [73] Bump CCP can you confirm or deny that there is an issue with FBs getting stuck out of their firing range and thus not shooting at all? You took the time to confirm there was no issue with damage to capitals from fighters. It would be nice to know that you are at least aware of it, testing it and/or trying to fix it. Cheers

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.11.30 08:44:00 - [74] Originally by: EdFromHumanResources So did you dudes take a look at the engagement range or we just going to have to wait for the 30th and pray? We discovered a few issues with new bombers that manifest slightly differently. The first one is that they will sometimes give up attacking their target. The fix for this behaviour will go out as soon as possible but you may need to remind your drones to attack if you see them go idle when not supposed to until the fix is deployed. The second is the drones getting to their attack ranges, currently they will be released and they will burn their MWDs for a few seconds and then go back to slowly approaching the target which will be an issue the further away you are from the target. This means that your initial damage will be changed from TQ as your drones will take longer to get into effective range whereas on TQ they will start being effective once within about 60km after 15 seconds or so, after the patch, they will need to wait till they are within attack range which means a delay in damage being applied which is the distinct difference you will notice after today. Both these have been tweaked but the changes wont go live today, the fighter bombers will burn their MWDs for longer (and therefore get into range faster) and begin causing damage at more than 10km so should not see them cutting their MWDs out too soon and not getting into attack range for a time like mentioned.

Tish Magev NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.11.30 09:25:00 - [75] Thanks for the response, so they could be a 'bit' broken to start with but they'll get fixed with a patch soon(ish), that's fine so long as we know. cheers.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.11.30 09:37:00 - [76] Originally by: Tish Magev Thanks for the response, so they could be a 'bit' broken to start with but they'll get fixed with a patch soon(ish), that's fine so long as we know. cheers. Indeed, the most annoying part will be them giving up the will to attack something occasionally, that is being fixed. The other behaviours will take longer to fix which modifies their approach to targets so it will take longer to start dealing damage in the meantime. In our investigation, we uncovered this was occurring for non-combat drones occasionally as well and had the same root cause so there are benefits from this showing up here beyond the bomber changes.

Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.11.30 09:43:00 - [77] Wouldn't a good fix be to allow them to start engaging at 15Km? That distance is a quarter of what it used to be and doesn't sound OP. It just seems logical to allow them to start firing, before they hit their orbit range. 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.
Nvee	Posted - 2010.11.30 11:32:00 - [78] i've got a totally crazy idea...now hear me out..this will sound just nuts the first time you read it..but i'm hoping it will grow on you.. don't deploy the initial change until you fix the issues..Whoah. slow down there crazy person..i know i know. Your putting a change that no one asked for into the game when you already know it doesn't work the way its meant to. Usually it wouldn't be a problem...but CCP and " we'll fix it soon"... you know
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.30 13:32:00 - [79] Originally by: Mag's Wouldn't a good fix be to allow them to start engaging at 15Km? That distance is a quarter of what it used to be and doesn't sound OP. It just seems logical to allow them to start firing, before they hit their orbit range. I fully support this idea. Why can't we simply raise the limit of their initial attack range? NPC's start attacking outside of their orbit range and yet still settle into their orbit range so why not use their idiotic AI for FB? Originally by: Nvee i've got a totally crazy idea...now hear me out..this will sound just nuts the first time you read it..but i'm hoping it will grow on you.. don't deploy the initial change until you fix the issues..Whoah. slow down there crazy person..i know i know. Your putting a change that no one asked for into the game when you already know it doesn't work the way its meant to. Usually it wouldn't be a problem...but CCP and " we'll fix it soon"... you know Ya I really don't have much faith in "We will fix this soon" Soon can be years with you people.
Fuujin GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.30 16:55:00 - [80] It only took them 2 years to stretch the chimera model to fill its hitbox. I'm sure such a small clerical error will be resolved by christmas. 2011.

Kimiya Alhena Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2010.11.30 20:15:00 - [81] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: EdFromHumanResources So did you dudes take a look at the engagement range or we just going to have to wait for the 30th and pray? We discovered a few issues with new bombers that manifest slightly differently. The first one is that they will sometimes give up attacking their target. The fix for this behaviour will go out as soon as possible but you may need to remind your drones to attack if you see them go idle when not supposed to until the fix is deployed. The second is the drones getting to their attack ranges, currently they will be released and they will burn their MWDs for a few seconds and then go back to slowly approaching the target which will be an issue the further away you are from the target. This means that your initial damage will be changed from TQ as your drones will take longer to get into effective range whereas on TQ they will start being effective once within about 60km after 15 seconds or so, after the patch, they will need to wait till they are within attack range which means a delay in damage being applied which is the distinct difference you will notice after today. Both these have been tweaked but the changes wont go live today, the fighter bombers will burn their MWDs for longer (and therefore get into range faster) and begin causing damage at more than 10km so should not see them cutting their MWDs out too soon and not getting into attack range for a time like mentioned. Have you also fixed these bugs for Fighters, since they're affected roughly the same way Fighterbombers are?
Lascano Traumark Shadow Elite H Y E N A	Posted - 2010.11.30 23:31:00 - [82] Originally by: Nvee i've got a totally crazy idea...now hear me out..this will sound just nuts the first time you read it..but i'm hoping it will grow on you.. don't deploy the initial change until you fix the issues..Whoah. slow down there crazy person..i know i know. Your putting a change that no one asked for into the game when you already know it doesn't work the way its meant to. Usually it wouldn't be a problem...but CCP and " we'll fix it soon"... you know This I'm sorry CCP ... but you look like noobs right now
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.12.02 07:20:00 - [83] Did that mini update/fix change the engage distance for FB's or was it for something else? 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.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.12.02 15:44:00 - [84] Originally by: Mag's Did that mini update/fix change the engage distance for FB's or was it for something else? That is penciled for next tuesday which tweaks these things. We already deployed the main fix which caused the fighter bombers to give up attacking occasionally. The next set of changes will tweak their approach times and engagement distances so should be a little less pause when hovering just outside their engagement range.

Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.12.02 21:43:00 - [85] Thank you for the reply Chronotis. 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.
Headerman Minmatar Metanoia. Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.12.03 06:17:00 - [86] Edited by: Headerman on 03/12/2010 06:18:02 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Mag's Did that mini update/fix change the engage distance for FB's or was it for something else? That is penciled for next tuesday which tweaks these things. We already deployed the main fix which caused the fighter bombers to give up attacking occasionally. The next set of changes will tweak their approach times and engagement distances so should be a little less pause when hovering just outside their engagement range. Hiya, Unrelated to SCs, but still a bug (have to fill out a bug report)... Any BS viewed with the ingame 3D ship viewer describes the BS as being 500 meters long. It says that for all BSs. Will check all ships tonight to see if any others are bugged in the same manner. (This is showing in TQ btw)


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.