|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
43
   |
Posted - 2011.10.10 17:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Personally as a carrier owner I'd prefer to see the fighter nerf applied specifically on SCs and not on all carriers. But I might be a bit biased  |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
45
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 19:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
steave435 wrote:
You don't understand how tracking works, sig is just a multiplier to tracking. This change cuts the fighters tracking down to one third of what it used to be.
That's pretty stupid and unintuitive by the way. While CCP is on it, they should do something about that as well |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
103
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 19:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bratwurst0r wrote:
- Carriers: now here it gets hairy. thy can't kill caps as it is (intended), now they have a hard time with subcaps too (fighters?). Give them fighter boni, but better yet, don't nerf fighters
I agree with this. What exactly are the carriers supposed to do? They are too weak to fight other caps and too blunt to fight subcaps. Are they reduced to pure logistics ships or what? |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
46
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 19:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:
If you want to kill things in a capital ship, that's what dreadnaughts, supercaps, and titans are for.
Not if you want to kill subcaps. Carriers are obviously too weak to attack other capital ships, but they can defend a capital fleet against subcaps, something no other capital can do. But not any more... |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
46
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I'm a bit unfamiliar with scan res: Could a painted+webbed battleship be hit by a fighter with the new resolution?
You're actually better off not webbing them at all as their speed is your friend, as long as it's not higher than your fighters speed. The optimal is if they keep the exact same speed as the fighters. |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
46
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
If we look at fighters from the perspective of fighters instead of carriers, we could ask ourselves; what use will they have now?
* For ships that can use FBs they are worse in every way (can't hit smaller ships, makes less damage than FBs against larger ships), so they aren't going to be used there.
* For ships that can't use FBs (i.e. carriers) they are also useless because they can't hit the smaller targets that the carrier itself might survive, and they don't make a dent in larger targets, which the carrier will die against anyway.
So what are they supposed to be used for? Ratting carriers with dual TPs? |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
47
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:A base of 27% vs battleships sounds about right to me. Have a Hyena or Rapier fly with you and and it should be back up near full damage. Fun fact: the best result in such a situation would not be to TP the battleship, but to web the fightersGǪ  Anile8er wrote:This wouldn't be the first time a Dev from CCP, who clearly doesnt play EVE, has supported the use of target painters as a main stay fit on capital ships. GǪthe difference being that last time, it was supposed to be used against ships that couldn't be painted GÇö in this case, they can. So no, it's not quite the same thing.
I don't know what is most ridiculous; the fighter nerf or our ways to undo it :p |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
48
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 22:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Usurpine wrote:CCP you do it the wrong way.
If you have 3 kids, one has 4 chocolades, one has 6 and one has 7 chocolades and you need to rebalance this situation its a good way to give everyone 10 chocolades (upgrade to 10). Everybody will have same amount of chocolates and everyone will be very happy.
And next time you give them an additional 5 chocolates ending up in 15, and then 20 and then 30 and then all of a sudden you have 3 very fat kids with diabetes that can't even get out of their beds. How is that good? |
Daedalus II
Helios Research
Combat Mining and Logistics
103
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 08:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Tippia wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Because an artificial limitation is being imposed on 3 ship types (dreads, supercarriers, titans) that now require them to have support because they can't launch a single 5 drone flight of light drones in their own defense, yet no other ship type needs fall under this hoakey limitation being put into place. So in other words, things changeGǪ Or, more accurately, things only change if you're doing it wrong GÇö ships that were envisioned as fleet ships now become fleet ships (which is no more of an artificial limitation than freighters having no offence or defence whatsoever). They're having their role defined more clearly. This rather sounds like a good thing. . So why is every other offensive capital ship being forced into the "Fleet Ship" profile except the carrier? Shouldn't we remove its regular drones as well and require it to be fielded with support? After all if you're changing the role of offensive capitals, change them all, don't leave one in its broken state. They are broken right, thats why we're changing them?
Yes but those three ship types can more or less defend themselves against other capital ships. A carrier can not. Where they require a support fleet against sub-cabs, carriers require a support fleet against supercaps. Dreads are the arguable exception, but personally I don't see why they can't keep at least a small drone bay. |
|
|
| |
|