Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
thormadragon
FireStar Inc Evictus.
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 06:12:57 -
[121] - Quote
While trying out the free supers, i noticed they can dock also in a Fortizar large citadel... Definitely a bug? |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
241
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 09:46:45 -
[122] - Quote
I forgot my fighters outside while docking. Now I can't reconnect to them, can't scoop them anywhere and can't launch support fighters because apparently I've reached the limit on active support squads. What do?
Also still dunno how to homeworld fighters around. |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
423
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 14:54:25 -
[123] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote: Known Issues/Bugs (In extremely rough order of badness)
- Carriers and Supercarriers still have drone bays
Are FAXes supposed to have drone bays? I'm not sure if "carriers" here includes FAXes.
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
242
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 16:20:34 -
[124] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote: Are FAXes supposed to have drone bays? I'm not sure if "carriers" here includes FAXes.
Faxes are supposed to have drone bays and even are supposed to be able to use logi drones in triage. |
Faren Shalni
Noble Sentiments Second Empire.
164
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 17:24:28 -
[125] - Quote
sooo the FAX slot layouts are not the same as the devblogs.....intentional, a mistake or have i missed something?
(such as 3 mids on the apostle)
So Much Space
|
NextDarkKnight
Mental Disorders Inc. Guardians of the Asylum
48
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 19:19:17 -
[126] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:NextDarkKnight wrote:Eli Stan wrote:NextDarkKnight wrote:Couple question,
Regular carriers will still be able to field drones just we are limited to 8 now?
There will be no more drones at all on carriers. "Carriers and Supercarriers still have drone bays" is listed as a known issue/bug by CCP Lebowski. 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 the near infinite waves of sub cap aplication was not versatility it was op
Sound like a drone bay size problem or a problem with a FC engaging the wrong targets.
Does that logic apply to super carriers? It's kind of OP for super caps because them bombers really kill the regular carriers almost instantly. So I guess we still have the same problem your describing.
Honestly removing the drone bay and with current fighter prices there would be a low reason to field a carrier for NPC wormhole activity. I honestly would rather keep the drone bay on the regular carriers if it means the chance of finding some one rating in a wormhole solo with one but hey thats just me. |
Thalesia
System lords Collective
8
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 21:53:10 -
[127] - Quote
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.
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 damage potential of a supercarrier relative to a normal carrier cataclysmicly down.
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.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
423
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 23:05:31 -
[128] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Eli Stan wrote: Are FAXes supposed to have drone bays? I'm not sure if "carriers" here includes FAXes.
Faxes are supposed to have drone bays and even are supposed to be able to use logi drones in triage.
You know, I'm surprised CCP didn't create a fourth type of fighter, the Logistics Fighter, that only FAX can use. Instead of a FAX deploying 5 heavy logi drones with a 200% rep bonus, give them a single fighter bay and make Logi Fighter squads five strong, with small, medium and large Logi Fighters available.
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
65
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 23:58:00 -
[129] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote: You know, I'm surprised CCP didn't create a fourth type of fighter, the Logistics Fighter, that only FAX can use. Instead of a FAX deploying 5 heavy logi drones with a 200% rep bonus, give them a single fighter bay and make Logi Fighter squads five strong, with small, medium and large Logi Fighters available.
I like it. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1719
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 00:10:53 -
[130] - Quote
Why would i fly any carrier not a Than it gets the most DPS and can has the largest fighter bay
and then why would i ever fly a chimera if i need tank the archon tanks better has more fighter space
and its the same with the FAX the archon has the best tank and cap by a mile unless the cap boosters are really powerful there will be no point using anything else
just saying right now we are going back gal being the end all for fighters and amarr being the end all for triage
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1719
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 00:29:16 -
[131] - Quote
Thalesia wrote: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.
i see no issue with a supper carrier not being able to do massive amounts of damage to sub caps when compaired to a carrier they still blow carriers out of the water when it comes to attacking capitals
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Thalesia
System lords Collective
8
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 00:39:51 -
[132] - Quote
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. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1719
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 00:43:48 -
[133] - Quote
Thalesia wrote: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.
remember you also have the burst e-war utility over standard carriers as well and cost should never be a balancing factor as 1 isk is worth more to x than it is to y
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1719
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 01:19:34 -
[134] - Quote
Also carriers look dumb coming out of the large hangers have them come out of the sub cap hangers they fit in them perfectly and it doesn't look so silly
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
39
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 04:19:59 -
[135] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Also carriers look dumb coming out of the large hangers have them come out of the sub cap hangers they fit in them perfectly and it doesn't look so silly I'm not sure if they've gotten around to resizing capitals yet, but carriers need to be much bigger. When a Machariel is nearly the size of a carrier yet the carrier can haul 2 of them, there's a problem. |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
66
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 04:25:58 -
[136] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: I'm not sure if they've gotten around to resizing capitals yet, but carriers need to be much bigger. When a Machariel is nearly the size of a carrier yet the carrier can haul 2 of them, there's a problem.
FAXs are bigger than supers as well. Supers need a pretty hefty size increase. Hope they do it for this expansion. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1720
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 04:55:36 -
[137] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: I'm not sure if they've gotten around to resizing capitals yet, but carriers need to be much bigger. When a Machariel is nearly the size of a carrier yet the carrier can haul 2 of them, there's a problem.
FAXs are bigger than supers as well. Supers need a pretty hefty size increase. Hope they do it for this expansion.
Ideally carriers will be put just under the size of dreads and supers put just under the size of titans
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Thoor Achasse
La Luna Negro inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 05:56:48 -
[138] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Why would i fly any carrier not a Than it gets the most DPS and can has the largest fighter bay and then why would i ever fly a chimera if i need tank the archon tanks better has more fighter space and its the same with the FAX the archon has the best tank and cap by a mile unless the cap boosters are really powerful there will be no point using anything else just saying right now we are going back gal being the end all for fighters and amarr being the end all for triage maybe if the amarr and caldari fighters also got a per level resist bonus to compensate for the smaller drone bays? still not sure this would be enough but maybe
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 |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1720
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 06:19:35 -
[139] - Quote
Thoor Achasse wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Why would i fly any carrier not a Than it gets the most DPS and can has the largest fighter bay and then why would i ever fly a chimera if i need tank the archon tanks better has more fighter space and its the same with the FAX the archon has the best tank and cap by a mile unless the cap boosters are really powerful there will be no point using anything else just saying right now we are going back gal being the end all for fighters and amarr being the end all for triage maybe if the amarr and caldari fighters also got a per level resist bonus to compensate for the smaller drone bays? still not sure this would be enough but maybe 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
No today it was 2.5 dmg and velocity for minm 2.5 damage and hit points for gal just 4% tank resists for amarr and caldari
The caldari now has an anemic capacity of sub 70k fighter storage while minm and galleries are over 80 these numbers are with fighter hanger skill maxed it a has changed since carrier bonuses were first altered
To be honest the dps isn't even the main issue is the limited fighter capacity that will make the biggest difference
Hell the two carriers with the largest fighter bays also are the two with fighter survivability bonuses
EDIT
They all also get 5%optimal to racial Ewar fighters
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1337
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 08:25:12 -
[140] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote: Known Issues/Bugs (In extremely rough order of badness)
- NPCs do not currently aggress fighters. - Fighter ability buttons will stop animating if the fighter hud is moved. - Left click does not give go-to-point movement commands when clicking on a bracket in space. - Some rare issues where the fighter hud and launch deck will not not update or can duplicate buttons when fighters are killed with aoe weapons. - Active fighter modules are deactivated when selected while using F1 to active other squadrons modules - Unable to select or drag a fighter squadron from the fighter type section of the squadron gauge. - Safety level restriction feedback is not given by fighter buttons. - Saved fittings do not include fighters. - Carriers and Supercarriers still have drone bays - Cannot shift click to select multiple fighter squadrons (Ctrl click works) - The fighter navigation UI still draws vertical lines when the tactical overlay is disabled. - Double click squad move commands result in ship moving. - Number of fighter tubes and fighter restrictions attributes not visible in show info windows of ships. - Detach fighter hud button is misaligned. - Squadron gauge for fighter squadron in space is green if ship is boarded with fighters launched + launch deck icons are overlapped.
Your feedback and suggestions are welcome in this thread, and please submit a bug report in game for any issues you find that are not listed above (F12 -> Report Bug).
Thanks and happy testing!
Could I please request that when you get 5 minutes, the OP(s) are updated as these are fixed so we know what we are working with?
Appreciated. |
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
67
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 09:42:17 -
[141] - Quote
Round 2 feedback:
Projected Bursts using the radial targeting is not good, and I can't tell if they're actually doing anything when I finally get it to 'fire'. I think it would be best if we got a targeting sphere (like a warp disruption bubble) that we could move around to the spot we wanted. Then we click to activate and anything within that sphere suffers the effects until the ships within it move out of the sphere or the duration ends (which should be a long duration to make these weapons worthwhile). Also, 20% on the sensor damp doesn't seem worth it. Even with the nyx bonus, I'd probably use something else.
Heavies are using radial targeting for their MJDs. This is really hard to use, and often times doesn't even fire. When it does, the results are often seeing the heavies go way off from where I wanted them. I think they need a different special ability tbh.
Weapon targeting projection burst should affect missiles too. Or maybe give us one specifically for that?
Networked sensor array - I like the 50% to sensor strengths but the rest of the module doesn't make sense. Supers can insta-lock onto max 14 targets at the moment. So 900% to scan resolution and +2 additional targets doesn't do anything. And it cancels out our burst projectors. I like the idea of a Fighter vs Projector choice, but it needs to make a bit more sense.
Fighter Hanger capacity - Needs to be 135k for Amarr, Caldari, and Min, 150k for nyx. Reasoning: We have 2 types of heavies, 2 types of lights, and a selection of support for each race, and then different damage types to consider on top of that. Given that you need X amount for a full fighter squad, plus a few extra to replace losses, 100k isn't nearly enough room. Since we're limited on number of squadrons, and the situations we run into will require waiting for deployed squads to slowboat back to us, giving us a reasonable bay size increase shouldn't be unbalaned.
Would like to know the thinking for the 7.5% damage bonuses instead of 10%. That damage bonus is what made Nyx's appealing given it's much less tanky than the other races, who have more tank slots and hull resistance bonuses. 12.5% damage bonus is weak when compared to the significantly higher HPs of the tanky ships.
5% to fighter durability is ok, I guess, but doesn't seem sexy compared to 5% velocity.
Supers should be able to field more lights than regular carriers. I don't like these limits in the first place because they don't add to game play. Just let the players decide how many of their launch tubes to fill with what type of fighter, and balance the fighters around that idea.
The 400% bonus to Plates/Extenders puts these in a great spot, in line with plates of other ship sizes. Good change.
Not sure the gang links belong on supers. Don't think they will see a lot (or any) useage. titans seem like the more logical choice.
I tried out a leviathan (titan level 4)- it's at 900DPS with lvl 5 capital guns. Couldn't fit a siege module on it. This doesn't seem right. I think titans should equal 1 or 1.5 seiged dreads worth of damage.
Wall of text done, hope this helps some. |
Luscius Uta
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
204
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 09:54:24 -
[142] - Quote
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.
Workarounds are not bugfixes.
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
68
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 10:07:53 -
[143] - Quote
Need to change the Masteries for caps too. Supers need Remote Armor, Shield, and Cap removed. Fighter and Burst Projector skills should be added. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1722
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 10:09:59 -
[144] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote: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.
I can get them all full easily of the gal/minm and only with miner sacrifice on the amarr caldari did need some fitting mods however.
Also the carriers stats have not been reballances to accommodate the new changes (like how their thp has not been lowered) so CPU and PG may be changing
Not to mention the compact rr mods ate not even seeded yet
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
243
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 10:41:45 -
[145] - Quote
Okay, homeworlding fighters is in, and it has a problem. A big problem A camera problem.
Well, okay, it's actually a sympthom of a bigger problem - the general control problem.
Currently fighter movement commands are issued in two steps - first you choose azimuth, then you choose elevation. This means that if the desired waypoint is off-plane, you HAVE to properly determine azimuth before you can visually identify elevation, otherwise you have to redo the sequence from scratch.
This means that a proper identification of azimuth is crucial, and it's best done switching to "top" view (placing the camera to look perpendicularly to the, ehhhm, universal New Eden ecliptic plane).
Here lies the problem - you can't rotate your camera when issuing fighter movement commands, because both things are done with LMB, and fighter movement mode prevents the use of LMB for camera rotation. So you are stuck with whatever viewport you have chosen before entering the fighter movement mode for the whole duration. USing top view from the starts will prevent you from correctly determining elevation. Using any other view from the start will prevent you from determining azimuth.
There are 2 possible solutions: 1) The bad one. Use some other button to separate command steps. This will allow for camera rotation. 2) The good one. Do not atomize the movement mode. Make it possible to freely change both azimuth and elevation at any point during the fighter movement mode, so you could fine-tune the destination in steps.
Okay, actually, do both. |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
68
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 11:21:08 -
[146] - Quote
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: 2 Plates / Capital Shield extenders, 2 EANM / Invulns, 3 active hardeners. 2x PDU, DCU, DDU in the lows for the wyvern.
Clearly, the Nyx would be an inferior choice of super given current hull bonuses. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1722
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 11:46:18 -
[147] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote: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.
What about the respective fighter bay sizes?
Also has the hp rebalance happened yet? If not these numbers are useless
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Luscius Uta
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
204
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 12:12:09 -
[148] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Luscius Uta wrote: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. I can get them all full easily of the gal/minm and only with miner sacrifice on the amarr caldari did need some fitting mods however. Also the carriers stats have not been reballances to accommodate the new changes (like how their thp has not been lowered) so CPU and PG may be changing Not to mention the compact rr mods ate not even seeded yet
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.
Workarounds are not bugfixes.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1722
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 12:25:08 -
[149] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Luscius Uta wrote: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. I can get them all full easily of the gal/minm and only with miner sacrifice on the amarr caldari did need some fitting mods however. Also the carriers stats have not been reballances to accommodate the new changes (like how their thp has not been lowered) so CPU and PG may be changing Not to mention the compact rr mods ate not even seeded yet 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.
also it looks like the apostle is meant to use buffer to survive triage and cycle out to get RR rather than rep itself. while the gal one is built to be self sustainable
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1339
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 14:54:50 -
[150] - Quote
Can you please bump the lock range cap up passed 300km? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |