Is the construction cost of fighters going to come down to reflect the decrease in size and ehp? I wouldnt mind it as it is if the damage stayed this high, but you guys already said no to that..

If carriers are supposed to be still useable for ratting, then we need one of the following

1. Much more ehp on fighters.
2. Much lower costs on fighters
3. An even greater damage increase on fighters
4. A reliable way to keep aggro off fighters.


Its not possible to test them vs npc right know, but looking at their stats and shooting them with an alt, shows that fighters die very quickly.

With the current mechanic I would assume that the only way to keep all fighters alive, is to immediately call them back if one is attacked. Which is quite difficult since they die so fast and there is no clear warning when one is attacked. Also this would be a huge dps loss since this means to call back the whole squadron.

And loosing a few fighters per anomaly makes the whole thing pointless if the anomalie is only worth ~30 mil while each fighter already costs 3 mil.

If they are supposed to be used like ammo, meaning you are supposed to loose and replace them all the time (which seems to be the purpose, consindering the size of the fighter bay, their ehp and the "reloading" mechanic), then either the costs needs to be also on the level of ammo, so the fighter need to be much cheaper, or they need to be much stronger, to make up for the loss by being able to clear anos faster.
The latter would probably mean they are completely overpowered in pvp.
Lets say you loose only 5 fighter per ano, with the current costs (about 3 mil from the blueprint) thats about half the bounty of a heaven, so you need to be able to do twice as many heavens as before, and since warping also costs time, the kill speed (and thus the damage) needs to be increased by about a factor of 2.5. This is probably too much damage for pvp.

Otherwise its not possible to use them as ammo so we need a way to keep them alive. Either much more ehp or a way to keep aggro off them. If the ehp increase is only so much that we can call them back in time, then we still need a significant damage increase, to make up for the 33% damage loss while recalling.


My prefered solution would be to make them much cheaper. This has the advantages of being easier to balance, since they dont get actually stronger, it makes the ratting more active since you have to send out new fighters, and creates a new good with constant demand for industrialists.

is singularity going to be put back online yet orr....

He has a point (even if accidental) about lifespan, cost, volume and overall practicality. Especially when we consider their hilarious crappy speeds and how easy they will be to pop.

And I'm meaning just from a PvP perspective, not really thinking about anoms given there are new NPC capitals coming, presumably as recompense for the loss of afk ratting.

You need a target lock and the second they leave the launch bay, they show a gun and or prop mod icon which you can click, depending on the fighters.

Click the lower gun icon and they are on their merry way.


One thing, the anti-capital fighters seem a tad weak and the subcapital fighters are too strong and the anti fighter fighters seem okay-ish.

Yeah I know, I need to do some testing tomorrow but the posted numbers suggest they're going to be far too easy to defang.

It's their (lack of) speed, mainly, and the inability to launch replacements without pulling an entire unit.

1km/s (maybe 1.3) is just so awful. A minute and a half just to recall from 100km is insane. I mean people think the RLML reload is bad... sure they have MWD but if they don't save that for getting on targets, even battleships will outrun them.

It's worth raising the question: do drone speed mods work on them?

Otherwise, think of it this way: you keep your **slow** anti-fighter fighters with you (since they only get a 190% speed buff with evasive manoeuvres), whilst using your offensive light fighters (light bombers) (fast[ish]) to hunt enemy subs. If you see enemy anti-fighter fighters you recall and trigger the MWD.

Or at least that's how it might work in a carrier vs carrier thing. I really have no idea how half of this stuff's going to work.

Well, idunno. ATM triage 4-1 chimera isvery much fittable. Even with T1 modules. Granted you need a couple of PDSes, but they are benefical to the cause anyway. Minokawa OTOH requires both RCU and Co-proc (and a PDS) to fit. It's 5-1though, but it's not like you have any oher meaningful choice for FAX highs.

Okay, there's definitely a scale problem with the FAXes. At first I thought it's some in-hangar bug, but then I unocked into a Wyvern. And I think I could definitely scoop it into cargo hold. Based on our relative sizes.

.
- Double click squad move commands result in ship moving.

you cant buy skill point injectors if you don't have the 5bill to buy them with. unless by some miracles reason I missed something hear.

Hi,

I'm missing visual feedback what my fighters are doing.

They shoot somebody? The guns will cycle but I don't get a UI feedback who they shoot
You try to tackle somebody? No UI feedback
You try to jam somebody with your fighters? No UI feedback and you will never know if it was successful

If would be perfect if fighters would give you the same visiual feedback as drones and the different E-War modules when you use them so you see which ships your fighters are currently attacking, pointing and jamming.

- Fighters squadrons will have status text displaying important information (Range, speed, current action etc)

I take it back, fighters are crazy hard to drop. That shield recharge daaaaamn.

Ed: I'm not sure the damage of the normal, light fighters (firbs/templars etc) is what I'd call "super overpowered" to be honest.

I though that was only for Super Carriers.

That's a shame for the carrier because it's nice to have some versatility that doesn't cost you a ton of isk to field.

I can understand the super carriers but not the regular carriers. Shame

I would like to suggest the following changes:

Background:
Currently the damage potential of fighters if all criteria is met (webs,fitting,paints) of a supercarrier is 6600 (maxxed out nyx) and a thanatos can pull 3600.

Currently on sisi a thanatos can pull something like 4k ish roughly with it's three groups, and a supercarrier can pull roughly 4.3k ish.

Problem:
The problem is that supercarriers and carriers can launch the same amount of light fighters with small differences in ship damage bonus's, this brings the subcapital damage potential of a supercarrier way down relative to a normal carrier.

Solution to the problem:
Increase light fighter damage by a flat 33%

Decrease allowed light fighter groups to 2 on normal carriers. and keep the 3 on supercarriers.

this will put the balance of power back in it's place and will also promote the new racial carrier bonus's that apply to support fighters and give people an incentive to use them more.

Hm this is true, but then again a super carrier costs 20 times more, is 20 times more likely to be hunted.
I feel like a supercarrier should have the potential of doing more to incentevise people to use them more on risky business.

then again I see your points, a 33% dmg increase would lead to a super 1 shotting most battleships with the rocket salvo. kinda feels appropriate for supers to be able to doomsday battleships tho seeing as titans can doomsday capitals? I dunno.

FAXs are bigger than supers as well. Supers need a pretty hefty size increase. Hope they do it for this expansion.

where did the thany got the most dps ? the bonus dmg from fighters got removed , all carries does the same DPS now , racial carrier skill gives +10% FIghter dmg. the bonus got updated yesterday

Do FAXes really need 6 high slots? You cannot fit them all reliably with remote assistance modules without sacrificing local tank which was not the case with current triage carriers. I would prefer one of their high slots moved to either a mid or low.
They also need a decrease in scale as you currently cannot see the entirety of their hull in station hangar.

Math on Ship bonuses in reference to the 7.5% nyx damage bonus:

HP on Wyvern: 16,579,501 million EHP.
HP on Nyx: 9,800,311

That's a -69%- increase from the Nyx to the Wyvern. Plus, the Wyvern used a low to add a drone damage unit, counteracting the nyx 12.5% damage bonus on the hull and even overtaking it in damage. If the nyx wanted to add a damage unit of its own to keep pace, it lost an additional 2 million HP by taking off an EANM.

The fits were as close to mirror as I could get: 2 Plates / Capital Shield extenders, 2 EANM / Invulns, 3 active hardeners. 2x PDU, DCU, DDU in the lows for the wyvern. Wyvern has an additional mid slot to use for ASB/MWD/Cap Booster.

The Nyx needs its 10% damage bonus back.

Admittedly I tried only with Apostle since it's the only one I can fly, and noticed it doesn't have enough PG to fit 4+1 remote modules and 2 local reppers. Though I suppose that CCP is mimicking logistics cruisers who typically need an ACR rig to be fit properly.

Can you please bump the lock range cap up passed 300km?

Also Thanatoses since they lose half the damage bonus, which was just barely enough to choose them over Archons or Chimeras in some cases. Also with Nidhoggurs getting the same damage bonus as well as significantly better ship and fighter speeds, there's no real reason to use a Thanatos unless you're expecting your fighters to get shot just a little but not a lot.

It seems like it would be better to have only the Thanatos and Nyx get damage bonuses (and significantly larger bonuses like 30% to make it a viable alternative to a 25% tank bonus) and give the Nidhoggur and Hel the speed/agility/sig radius bonuses Minmatar are famous for.

I hope CCP actually makes the Niddy and Hel usable instead of keeping them as the black sheep they have been for years.

Saying that someone may find them useful doesn't cut it, and just because nearly everyone has trained something else doesn't mean they shouldn't have their time in the sun.

The LIF is for POS repping now.

Indeed. It really feels like if support fighters are to get any use the carriers either need a dedicated launch tube for them or they need to be absurdly powerful to the point they'd be considered OP. Sacrificing 1/3 of the DPS is just far too high of a price for what they do.

Unless they get a huge bonus to their type of support fighter and one of them proves to be very overpowered, that won't determine what carrier gets used or which ones people will train. The slot layout and other hull bonuses are far more important. For example, if you're in an armor fleet and want to live, you're going to pick an Archon regardless of other bonuses. Same for Chimera in a shield fleet. If you don't care about survival, you'll pick the Nidhoggur for that extra speed//range and damage.

Having a bigger bonus to the racial support fighters wouldn't be enough to significantly sway that decision unless it's very powerful, which I only see happening for the neut or ECM fighters, and those two carriers will be overused already.

The only balanced way I can see of making the racial support fighter bonus a big enough to influence the carrier choice would be if they unlocked a special fourth ability only usable by that carrier. That would probably only give the Archon and Chimera an even bigger advantage though since neuts and ECM seem more abusable than point or web.

Fair enough, but in what situations would it be worth dropping a squad of lights to use a support squad? The only thing I can think of is if you really need webs because somebody messed up the fit and/or fleet composition.

The short burst web and scram are interesting ideas. The scram probably wouldn't be fair though since it could be used to cancel an MJD every time.

Other suggestion:

Increase fighter refuel/rearm time to 20 seconds. The near instant refuel/reload/relaunch is bad when I can recall my fighters, then deploy them and fire special abilities on a close range target without delay. Think Battle of Midway. Ties in with Ammo management from issue number 1.

One thing, I was wondering if it would be possible to increase the docking range of the Wyvern for the squadrons it launches, if possible?

When I recall squadrons, the Wyvern I'm in actually gets bumped by the squadrons as they're being recalled

To be fair, one of the 12x skills only applies to supers. Still a ridiculously long train though.

Eeeeh. 40km sig resolution and insane radials feel kinda weird.

I understand the underlying math, but IMHO it would be better to do this in more familiar units - that is, scale down the resolution to 400m and adjust the radial accordingly for antisubcapital guns.

It would both reflect the intended use for the antisubcap guns and put the stats in a familiar context where they can be easily compared to other antisubcap-capable weapons without resorting to a calculator or decimal shifts.

This statement is factually wrong.
The only part in the turret damage calculation where direct comparsion is used is the range calculation part. The tracking part is purely multiplicative.
Your way of thinking is correct for themissile application, but turrets are much more straightforward.
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/w/images/8/86/TurretHitChance1.png
The formula was out there on the official wiki until it burned down, and it de-facto has (Turret Resolution)/(Turet Tracking) in it without any specific thresold checks.

Perhaps my sentence structure was confusing, but the formula example and the following explanation was for turret damage.
Missile damage logic was only mentioned as the example of damage calculation involving stat thresholds.

Negative.
Let's talk extreme examples, because they are good showcases.

Let's take a Naglfar with capital arty. It's tracking is 0.00224 rad/s.
Let's take a target doing 100m/s.
At what range does this target have more angular velocity than the turret tracking?

Well, we know that w = v/r by definition of angular velocity. Where w is angular velocity in radians per second, v is tangental velocity in m/s and r is distance to target in meters.

Therefore r = v/w. With our numbers the threshold range is 100/0.00224 = 44643m.

Okay, les't fire up pyfa, load up our naglfar (2414 deeps with 3 gyros), open the DPS graph generator and put it up against a target doing 100m/s at 90 degree angle. Now, if we take a taget with 5K signature then sure at 45km the numbers will be close (around 2180 deeps. Not full deeps, but close). But if we take a taget with 100m signature, the damage is, well, zero. Well, pyfa puts it at 1e-92 order of magnitude at the 44-45 range bracket.

The outcome should have been pretty obviuos from the hit chance formula tbh. Again, it does not have thresholds in regards to tracking. It de facto only has a product of effective sig ratio (as in sig to turret resolution) and effective angular velocity ratio (as in angular to tracking). It's pretty obvious if you rearrange the fractions a bit that the turret stats are represented by (Turret Sig resoluton)/(Turret Tracking) without any further threshold checks, and you can proportionally change them without affecting the hit chance.

Could you please clarify if that is on purpose?

No that is not ok. You cant just post random numbers and then claim its ok. I just explained why its not ok, and just posting some dps numbers does not refute any of that.

care to explain why it is ok if caps loose the ability to rat? Just because you dont like to do this?

There are many people that like to do so, and invested a lot of skillpoints and isk specifically for ratting in capitals. Taking that away just because you dont care about it, is awful.

Hey I have a great idea, lets reduce titan hp to 1/1/1 with zero resists. I dont have one, so if they are not useable afterwards thats ok.

I guess that "Remote Repair Impedance" that siege and triage have as bonus don't work as planed.
I've tested in Sisi. And I've confirmed that siegeDN and triageCV receive not only cap transfer(Is it included in remote assistance?),but also remote repair.
I wonder if that "Remote Assistance Impedance" don't work too.

That being true, active reps have historically been underpowered and should be much better than they are now. Capitals are mostly going to be fighting against other capitals and heavily damaging citadels. They need to have some survivability on the capital battlefield. Reliant on FAX'S yes, but there should still be a viable choice between active reps and buffer tank. Right now that choice does not exist.

I believe when I worked the numbers my cap armor rep ll only did 800dps worth of repair (skills might improve that some). But that won't even tank a single dreadnaught.

My moros got wtfbbq'd the other day. Even with siege and an ancillary rep, each cycle did barely a sliver of repair and wound up doing nothing to prolong the ships destruction. That's why buffer is the only choice, active reps are useless.

Reps should repair a good chunk of damage but at the cost of high cap drain to prevent perma repping.

It kind of feels like the changes are being designed around supercarriers while the only concern with normal carriers is that they don't compete with supers at all (like this Reddit comment). If there's concern about normal carriers getting too close to supers with their light fighter bonuses, keep in mind that supers can use heavy fighters, two squadrons of support fighters, burst projectors, and have extra warp core strength, while normal carriers are losing a lot of their current utility in favor of a pure DPS role.

I have a few question I'd like to raise here, not sure if they've been asked before but I'll fire away.

1. [DELETED]

2. Is the new Chimera model likely to come with this update? I'd love to see my new updated Chimera in space!

3. Is there a way in place to repair fighters/squadrons while they're in space? Will RR work on them?

4. From referring to the r/evecapitalfocusgroup sub, is there any advance on the numbers for the generic carriers? Nid's speed bonus on fighters feels a tad underwhelming, personally anyway.


Thanks for taking the time to read and answer these (if anyone does!)

JM.

A short test to get more reliable numbers:

Templar II with an all V Thannatos with 5 FSU II and 5 DDA II is roughly 1445 dps (only main weapon). Tested against a target with ~450k ehp, so the error should be pretty low.

Thats quite sad damage, considering that a tranq thanny with 5 DDA and 5 DCU and all V is about 3214 damage.

The secondary weapon does roughly the same dps as the primary (damage per hit ~2x, and reload time also 2x), so assuming you would constantly spam the missiles, and would magically not need to reload, then you would still be only at ~2900 dps, which is still 10% below tranq values.

This is just too low.
Carriers got quite a nerf with the removal of the drone bay and more importantly with the removal of their logistic abilities. And dps was never the reason to bring a carrier anyway. They need more dps if they are supposed to be useful.

I feel like a roll carriers could fill is the one of the utility capital and allow them to field 3 flights of support fighters

There already exist ewar ships that compared to carriers are very cheap, easy to skill, fast and agile.

So to make up for the drawbacks, carriers would have to be much more power in that role than the ewar ships.

While that would give carriers at least a role they can fulfill, I think that there are too many drawbacks:

-Difficult to balance since this would bring a whole new level of ewar to eve. And ewar already is quite strong, not sure how much fun fleets are against capital-damps and capital-ecm, and how to balance them. at least this would need extensive testing.

-There already are specialized ships for that niche, they should keep this as their own role.

-many players have skilled carriers because they want the dps (most for pve reasons), changing their role from dps to ewar would mean their ships and skills are now useless to them.

T2 triage in its current form on the test server is missing the 'Capacitor need reduction for remote assistance modules -20%' bonus.
Is that intended or a bug?

Test server Triage stats

TQ Triage stats

what is HAW supposed to be? These anti-subcap capital guns?
In that case I dont like the idea. Its too complicated, messes too much with existing roles, and has no advantage to the simpler solution. Just increase fighter damage and remove the stacking penalty from FSU. Then carriers are fine.

your calculations are WAY off, I got 3660 on a maxxed out thanny with 4 normal dda's with firbolgs (highest dps drone) easily 4k with faction lows.

and the use of a dread as a anti capital weapon is not what i'm contesting, i'm contesting the subcap version as not being competative, and why should I do that in a dread and not just undock a carrier instead, it's not like the dread can swap to capital weapon mid fight?

1. None of the Minmatar Carrier Skills seem to apply to mods fitted to the Lif.

2. It appears the Lif will be wholly underwhelming even with the cap booster charge bonus in place.


The issue still seems to stem from a couple things:

1. With sub-capitals, there are actual uses for non-tank slots.

2. An apostle can fit 2 Cap Armor Repairers while still attaining high resistances. To achieve the same rep amount a Lif needs to fit a shield boost amplifier.

2a. If the capacitor booster amount bonus is used, the Lif needs to fit a capacitor booster, removing yet another tank slot.

2c. If a Ninazu uses the capacitor booster amount bonus, it does not use up a tank slot.

3. Apostle/Minokava receive capacitor amount bonuses, while at the same time receiving a repair amount bonus.

3a. Lif/Ninazu receive the capacitor boost amount bonus, while receiving a cycle time bonus. The cap use is a lot increased if compared to the amarr/caldari counterparts. The cap boost amount bonus does not appear to make up for it at all. In fact, a single remote shield transfer uses the same cap in about 3 seconds that the booster can provide in 12 seconds.

This seems to make the gallente, and especially the minmatar FAX, pretty much useless.

I don't agree, a dread that equips sub capital weaponry is comitted to that rule for the duration of combat. i'm saying that a carrier is superior in this aspect, and if you have access to all the skillpoints and isk needed, I will take a carrier for that role, if a dread is the only ship you have skills and isk for i understand ur reasoning more.

why is a carrier superior? it has no tracking component , orbit a dread at 500 and it's useless even with the new subcap weapons, barring a stasis webifier and a huge sig radius. (except for the phoenix)

obviusly it has less hp, but for a scenario like hit n run, or black ops, I see a carrier being WAY more effective as tank is less of a criteria. and it can push same if not more dps as a subcap dread.

your mentality on this is that a dread should be happy they can shoot subcaps at all?

the reason I wanted more out of this is because I do small gang pvp with 2-5 players w alts, so we don't have the luxury of putting X number of people in bloated and sub optimal ships.

I was hoping for a higher reward from fitting subcap guns and being sieged for 5 minutes than 4k ish dps.

and nids will be far superior to black ops for my fleet sieze bracket, 4k dps per carrier is vastly superior to any black ops ship, nevermind the far superior tank etc, i'm not saying nerf carriers, i'm saying buff sub cap dreads, take away the need for sieging while doing sub cap weapons.

or add the ability to carry 2 sets of weapons, and a ability to swap between them like a svipul with a significant cooldown (let's say 5 minutes)

also it's worth keeping in mind that they are REMOVING a dreads ability to fuckblap subcaps and giving them about the same a current carrier can deliver with full application bonus's applied. I personally would like a bigger return on the removal of a game feature which was cruical to small pvp groups like mine in dealing with being heavily outnumbered.

Dreads will never be used in a small subcap gang, their whole mechanic is simply not made for that.
As all capitals they are very slow, and siege is very situational. Siege is a huge drawback for small subcaps fight, but great for big fights where you commit to the grid, and probably would want to have siege for the defense bonus alone.
Trying to balance the damage so that they are viable in small subcaps fights, would mean that they need ridicilous dps, making them completely overpowered in big fights where the drawbacks of siege is reduced.

So there is no point in comparing them to carrier or anything else for smaller subcaps fight... they never will be good there, and are not supposed to be good there.

Now in bigger fights, its ok when they are viable against subcaps (which they are with the new guns, the damage is nice), but still should not be top choice to bring them against subcaps. Because they already excel at shooting bigger stuff. If they also become the best choice to shoot subcaps, why bring anything else at all?
If i remember correctly there was a time when dreads were extremely good against caps and subcaps, and it was nerfed for a good reason.
The role as big gun in cap fights already works on tranq, the option to switch to subcaps guns is just a bonus.



Another thing about fighters:
They are not really balanced among each other. The stats seem to be identical in every way except speed and damage per hit. Firbolg for example has 16% more damage than Templar, while Templar is 16% faster. Not only makes this the Firbolg superior, since you are usually going to prefer the damage, it also means we will probably have a similar situation as we had before the drone changes: Either use Gallente Drones for the damage, or Minmatar Drones for the speed (but the speed bonus is probably too small to consider this, so just use Gallente for everything), but nothing in between. Unless you really want to shoot with a specific damage type.
If you want to keep this large difference in damage, then the weaker drones need some bonus to application.

Are you implying they will change? Because I would like to know them in advance, so I can decide should I postpone my remap or not.

@Rong Guy: I am quoting my own post about sub cap dreads:



Also you are probably underestimating the dps. I've seen a screenshot with quad 800: >4800 dps. probably with imps, and maybe heat... but thats still a lot.

Sure, but how well does that apply? Torpedoes aren't exactly known for doing full damage.

When will the new changes to wh escalations go online on sisi/? need to start testing this soon!!!

also did any one look at the capital reppers? For the same amount of time shield reppers rep close to 40% more hp thn the armor reppers.

Seriously, wtf is happening with dreads? They some developer attention, not just "here are some new guns and an extra high and some new mods... enjoy!"

Can we at least get a dedicated thread of the upcoming features section?!

It seems like none of the drone skills except Fighters actually have their advertised effects on fighters. Once that's fixed fighters will have roughly 50% more damage and speed, and 25% more durability at max skills.

And since somone would probably say they're not intended to affect fighters, they actually say in the descriptions that they affect fighters.

This is awesome. It works on all ships. I'm playing around with it and it's just awesome!! So much fun!

IMO it's pretty hard to see the thin vertical line. This screenshot is in front of an almost black background. May adding a brighter spot (second picture) on the horizontal pane can help.

so all new capital PvE content is capital NPC ships in Nullsec and capital spawns for WH, which where announced by CCP Fozzie on o7 Show episode 15???

Or more info will come???

CCP Fozzie said that NPC capitals will spawn only in nullsec

So, about the Rorqs 40% bonus to Captial Remote Shield Booster range per level...and the changes to cap reps...what do?

Right now if you stuff a carrier full of fighters it will cost around 480 mil. People just don't do it because they don't expect to lose many/any fighters. In a lot of situations the new fighters wouldn't get destroyed either, so people will probably go out without a full hangar.

Fighter Squads seem weak and npc's wreck them. That's going to take carriers out of the PVE part of the game. Dropping billions of ISK on fighters just to have NPCs chew halfway through your squads before they can return to bay. NPCs seem to prefer targeting the fighters over your carrier... I dunno seems worse to me. I like the Idea, just not the execution.

I am aware of that, and i think the difference is too big. Afterall on a carrier 90tf will also fit you ~3 drone mods. The difference should be reduced to ~30tf.

For illustration the following gains could be made between T2 and faction per mod, depending on item:

Armor rep local:
18-23 tf lower
18.75-25k mw lower
380-980 gj/activation lower
980-1920 rep amount higher

Armor rep remote:
10-12 tf lower
22.5-30k mw lower
150-550 gj/activation lower
-35-105 rep amount lower/higher
1300 m base falloff+optimal higher

Shield boost local:
70-90 tf lower
11.25-15k mw lower
380-980 gj/activation lower
760-1360 boost amount higher

Shield boost remote:
30-35 tf lower
15-20k mw lower
140-740 gj/activation lower
-50-150 boost amount lower/higher
1300 m base falloff+optimal higher

The range & rep or boost amount looks ok for the price increase, but the fitting and activation costs look pretty big. More so on the CPU where 30 tf reduction can fit a drone dmg aug on a carrier. Power is not so much of an issue i would say, since that is balanced for capitals. The CPU doesnt change all that much, and while i am sure relatively this fits in with other mods, because the numbers are so big the final result is somewhat overwhelming. Other new capital mods show a similar picture in fitting reduction with faction. If you use a few capital mods you can easily free up 100-200 tf cpu with faction mods (depending on armor or shield fit).

And the shield carriers i would say. Armor seems to be in a pretty good place right now. Allthough that is mostly for PVE, i have no idea how they will work out for PVP. Shame. Supers seem better in every way.

I have yet to work out a fit for the shield carrier that works ok and lets me fill out all the slots and add such things as prop mods, tank, and dmg mods. A networked sensor array, 3 FSU, 3 drone mods, T2 shield ex and booster is all the cpu is mostly gone. That leaves 36 cpu for the last low, high and 4 mids for the nid, and 194 for the chim and extra mid with my skils.

If you swop the booster and shield ex for a plate and armor rep the archon has 266 cpu left, and the thanny 392.

Not that you would actually use it like that, but still, i think it illustrates the issue. If you think 3 FSU is too many, then a 50k MWD will take up 25tf more cpu.



Capital neuts are worse for fitting then FSU, so fitting a rack of those hurts more. A networked sensor array and 4 FSU is probably the easiest to fit. Or you would leave 2 slots empty.

Reload time is quite high, yes. One could say, you lose more damage from calling them back, reload and watch them travel back to their target than just letting them on the field using their normal attack. At least if the target is not absolutely closerange.

However, the worst part about fighters currently is: Once tackled, you lose an entire squad in seconds. They need *at least* 3 or 4 times the buffer they have now and a useful resistance profile. Their small signature and their basespeed do not protect them enough, once webs are on the field.

I tested a well-fitted Thanatos in a C5 Sleeper Site and I was not able to kill even the first wave, the Sleeper switch their damage to the fighters after like 5 seconds and they totally wreck the squads, most times before you can call them back. My entire fighter bay was empty afer a few minutes and the carrier basically worthless. These fightersquads will die even faster (a lot!) vs. T2/T3 cruiser gangs with tackle and medium guns.

CCP focused so much on balancing capitale remote reps under TRIAGE that they missed completly that they are WORSE than simple Large remote reps OUT OF triage!


Capital Remote Armor Repairer II__ Tech II __1-á950 GJ__18,00 km __12.00 s __875 HP
Large Remote Armor Repairer II __ Tech II ____365 GJ__14,40 km ___6.00 s __512 HP

Wtf if this?
Just boost the amout of repair it Capital remote reps to be better then Large and lower the TRIAGE rep bonus for cap modules

Do capital neuts have undocumented reduced effectiveness on ships with signature radius below 8000 m? If not, what their signature radius attribute means? And if yes, it'll mean people will still fit heavy neuts to get rid of stuff like HICs.

I mean there's nothing in the module description that implies what the purpose of new signature radius attribute is. Not sure if someone explained it in forum posts previously though, but I haven't read every forum post ever.

Because it's a new stat that wasn't associated with this type of module, and why is there no signature radius factor for heavy and medium neuts as well? Doesn't seem only incomprehensive but inconsistent as well.

So what stops me from spider tanking with large remote rep modules?

Gùï When you recall fighters, they keep shooting their target, prolonging your aggression timer! They should immediately stop shooting when recalled, like drones.

What good is that? They are out of their missile range after 3 seconds anyway and hit for 0 damage, but still prolonging your timer?

As Lugh Crow-Slave mentioned it's a lot easier to stop your fighters from shooting than to keep them shooting if they stop when you don't want them to. For that reason I have to disagree with your idea to stop shooting when recalling them.

Stacking penalties on FSUs are nasty, but the way stacking penalties work I don't think they can remove the penalties for one type of module. They could make them stack separately from Drone Navigation Computers just like Damage Controls are separate from normal tank modules, but I don't think the code would support multiple modules of the same type not stacking if they affect stacking-penalized attributes. Speaking of which, I'm 99% sure their shield bonuses are not stacking-penalized, so they still increase fighter suvivability exponentially as you add more.

Good points though and I agree with everything except not shooting while recalling.

Yeah I tested it again, 272M for a Core Stronghold + 300M for the Drifter.

The anomaly took 25min to finish, the Drifter took 35min to kill -_-

Didn't salvage.

Ah, so the new movement interface replaces the old approach command and is unified for both ships and fighters?
Neat.

Or maybe not. Approach-Keeep At Range combo is quite useful for kiting ships with tracking issues (esp frigates because less time for mouseclicking stuff), so losing a quick approach (old-style) shortcut is kinda sad.

It's easier to single click the approach button than doubleclick a moving frigate in this case.

Still absolutely nada about FAXes. So I guess we'll get them "as is" and then we can hope they will be ballanced 2 years down the line? ;)

I'm not sure that is right topic for this question but...

In what pos structure we can make new t1 and t2 fighters? Cause dron assebly array on SiSi hasn't any information about fighters and Small Ship Assembly Array has standart info from TQ ("A mobile assembly facility where smaller ships such as Fighter and Fighter Bomber Drones...")

The new Doomsday weapons are terrible hard to aim with.

Its kinda confusing UI and the fact that you cant rotate the Camera while aiming, to check your target angle (espeacially the Reaper DDs) make it pure luck to hit or miss.

My first couple tries yesterday resulted in much laughter with my Corpies, when the Reaper DD fired off in the complete opposite direction or miss by 90-¦.

Maybe have something like keeping the clicking the module button to draw the line, while beeing able to rotate and move the camera without loosing the red preview line and clicking the module againt to confirm firing in the currently displayed vector.

And that's what they indeed did!