EVE Search - Sticky:[Citadels] Carriers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:[Citadels] Carriers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 753	Posted - 2016.04.06 01:49:05 - [1] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so did ccp think carriers did to much damage the fighter DPS just got nerfed or am i missing something?? Heavy fighters at least can really crank out the deeps. Several thousand damage per hit. Are they as good as current fighters? No not really if you want to talk about ratting or whatever but they're quite effective in pvp where they can smush subcaps quite quickly. Do not expect to see these fighters being especially well balanced for a good year or two though. Many might not know this but one of the focus group members outright quit the team on the basis of the removal of afk carrier ratting, citing it as an essential component of EVE pve because pve is so horribly bad and that it isn't a problem because going afk carries its own risks and darwins law kicks in eventually. Apparently the new fighter mechanics turn money making back in to a second job and was deemed unacceptable. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 758	Posted - 2016.04.12 04:08:07 - [2] - Quote The thanatos is great for rapidly killing cruisee sized targets. Just use 2x tp and a drone tracking computer + drone nav. They can be scary good against subcaps amd push 1mil ehp with t2 modules without using ehp rigs. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 769	Posted - 2016.05.06 04:23:21 - [3] - Quote I think that no matter what course of action is taken someones butt gets hurt. I like the new carriers. I have little interest in flying the FAX Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 769	Posted - 2016.05.06 13:45:28 - [4] - Quote I can shoot subcaps with a carrier. The same isn't as easily done in a dread. I also enjoy the idea that carriers will now be a lower priority target when on field in a mixed capital deployment. Also, finally, use a carrier for what its designed to do - alpha enemy subcap logi, kill HIC/DIC etc.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.06 18:22:32 - [5] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: The only logi a carrier might alpha is some hilarious snowflake piece of trash fit. Don't buy into the "carrier alphas all the things zomg nerf" spiel some people are sperging, it's utterly false. Multiple carriers....maybe, if you have like....12-24 of them. My thanatos can alpha for 27k raw damage. I don't think I've ever encountered a logi cruiser that can survive 324,000 raw alpha as you suggest. Infact apart from t2 cruisers and above, most vessels would be having a hard time surviving 2x missile volleys, when accounting for the 1600 or so DPS they're eating over the 8 second reload. A fully dps fit thanatos can whack something for 37000+ in one volley while doing a good 2100dps natively. So I disagree with what you've said and I hope you have something to back up your claim. Quote: I really think most of the people complaining about getting alpha'd ended up in a non-consensual carrier fight with active tanked solo/small gang cruiser fits. When engaging a buffer tanked cruiser with separate logi, a carrier is a lot less scary. They still have decent DPS, but not overwhelming. Well this is one of those times when having a mixed fleet composition can really swing things for a small wing of players. Having a single carrier on field which could potentially wreck the face of who ever is primary (or secondary for that matter) would easily cause problems for people. People forget logi reps aren't instant, if the carrier pilot gets told to start killing things named Z -> A while the main group guns down a different primary then you're in trouble unless you definitely have the extra reps to hold out.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.06 18:45:42 - [6] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 37k alpha if perfect application and max DPS fit and none of them have been killed. good thing my guardian tanks well over 100k and my friendly reps cycle much faster than the fighters volley. oh yeah also forgot you are not doing any dps because my lone griffin has perma jammed all of your fighters and two of your friends fighters And I'm totally deploying carriers in situations where a griffin would be surviving long enough to keep my fighters jammed while you chew through the 900k EHP of my carrier that is getting reps as well. Mhmm.. see now this is just inane. I don't care if your logi can tank 100k buffer, good on you, you've got bigger problems in the other 30 people in my fleet shooting you as well. Flying caps unsupported is dumb and has always been dumb and trying to pretend you'd ever be in a situation like that with/against me is banal.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.06 18:58:01 - [7] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 37k alpha if perfect application and max DPS fit and none of them have been killed. good thing my guardian tanks well over 100k and my friendly reps cycle much faster than the fighters volley. oh yeah also forgot you are not doing any dps because my lone griffin has perma jammed all of your fighters and two of your friends fighters And I'm totally deploying carriers in situations where a griffin would be surviving long enough to keep my fighters jammed while you chew through the 900k EHP of my carrier that is getting reps as well. Mhmm.. see now this is just inane. I don't care if your logi can tank 100k buffer, good on you, you've got bigger problems in the other 30 people in my fleet shooting you as well. Flying caps unsupported is dumb and has always been dumb and trying to pretend you'd ever be in a situation like that with/against me is banal. Ok, and if there are 30 other people in your fleet, they should be able to handle any fleet smaller than the point where they enemy fleet can swat carriers' fighters like flies. In such situations they could just shoot the fighters and probably still come out isk positive even if they don't kill many of you. If my fighters were getting primaried then they're doing their job. Play the objective.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.07 11:12:04 - [8] - Quote Fighters have marginally better application than torps and cruise, respectively
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.07 14:13:38 - [9] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Fighters have marginally better application than torps and cruise, respectively Yes, which is why alpha logi is fking preposterous. Happy? It wasn't even linked. 4 DDA, 4 FSU, 2 omni TEN damage and application mods. Still barely scratching it - look at the hits, that fit has over 8600 raw armor HP. ed: linked the missiles hit for 320ish. Ok so please post the fit of the logi that was being shot.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.12 06:18:17 - [10] - Quote I thought the new carriers were supposed to be based off mechanics borrowed whole sale from games like wows and steel ocean. If you've used carriers in either of those games then you should know exactly what you're looking at these days. Optimal targets for carriers as I see them - bc and t1 battleships. Cruisers if youre triple tc +tp fit, definitely don't recommend trying to take on other caputal ships. Follows a similar pattern in wows. Broadly there are destroyers lightcruisers heavycruisers battlecruisers and then dreadnoughts. Ships like north carolina definitely being a dreadnought if you're in carrier and in range prepare to die.

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.12 09:54:04 - [11] - Quote Yeah.. but that's just EVE isn't it. Much of the time you win the battle before you undock.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.13 06:18:43 - [12] - Quote This thread is now grossly over long. Any sample fits to share that are functional?
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:12:39 - [13] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: It's remarkable how all the people crying bring only anecdotes, not a single piece of tangible evidence open to peer review or critique. Funny that. Even without that just looking at the raw numbers of 39k alpha with all V skills on a Thany or nid with 4 DDAs is less than the total ehp of most buffer tanked sub caps that would be at risk of taking the full amount. The dps of a carrier is in the ball park of 3k and that's if you don't factor in reload or lost fighters this is not a lot of dps to be coming from a capital ship. The old blap dreads were magnitudes more effective than these carriers. The distance was people knew the capabilities and weaknesses of them woth carriers people are still trying to fight them like pre-citadel And still use them like pre-citadel also. Carriers are for mixed fleets. Their role is to support the ships around them. Just look at their bonuses. I don't understand why people think its so hard. I'd undock my carrier every day if I had a squad of 10 people to fly it with. I literally don't even care about align times or warp speed.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:40:02 - [14] - Quote The slower my warp the harder my murderboner is when I land.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 777	Posted - 2016.05.13 17:59:05 - [15] - Quote [Thanatos, Goliath v5] Damage Control II 25000mm Steel Plates II 25000mm Steel Plates II Centus B-Type Armor Explosive Hardener Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Remote Sensor Dampener II Remote Sensor Dampener II Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Imperial Navy Heavy Energy Neutralizer Imperial Navy Heavy Energy Neutralizer Capital Anti-Kinetic Pump I Capital Anti-Thermal Pump I Capital Drone Durability Enhancer I
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 778	Posted - 2016.05.14 04:14:08 - [16] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: [Thanatos, Goliath v5] Damage Control II 25000mm Steel Plates II 25000mm Steel Plates II Centus B-Type Armor Explosive Hardener Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Remote Sensor Dampener II Remote Sensor Dampener II Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Imperial Navy Heavy Energy Neutralizer Imperial Navy Heavy Energy Neutralizer Capital Anti-Kinetic Pump I Capital Anti-Thermal Pump I Capital Drone Durability Enhancer I Why oh why do you have sensor dampeners and no Networked Sensor Array? Also, by the time you have 3 tracking links, you should really have some DDAs. It's a fit developed from use on SISI. No NSA because it ultimately wasn't paying off vs the loss of EWAR. Feel free to swap the DCU for a DDA though the added damage isn't really that significant. It would purely be personal preference whether to top out the tank or go for a bit extra damage. The damps are for pulling things in, the neuts are the trap. Worked a real treat at least on SISI.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 778	Posted - 2016.05.14 05:58:01 - [17] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Feel you would just be better off having another ship damp that way you could use done navs and a nsa the navs would also let you engage father out [Thanatos, Goliath v6 fleet] Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier 25000mm Steel Plates II 25000mm Steel Plates II Centus B-Type Armor Explosive Hardener Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Centum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Drone Navigation Computer II Drone Navigation Computer II Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Networked Sensor Array Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Capital Anti-Kinetic Pump I Capital Anti-Thermal Pump I Capital Drone Durability Enhancer I Federation Navy Warfare Mindlink
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 779	Posted - 2016.05.14 07:28:45 - [18] - Quote 1.3 mil EHP. Adds +31.5% scram/webrange and +23.6% armour resists. Note no slaves implants.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 779	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:25:54 - [19] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: back onto carriers alphaing all sub caps [Maller, Brick] Energized Armor Layering Membrane II Energized Armor Layering Membrane II -snip- Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II very cheep does not give up to much for tank and will survive the alpha of a 4 Dread guristas DDA thanny How much of that is due to sig radius interactions? See, people sometimes forget that fighters used to be subjectively better when they can land a wrecking hit for 2000 damage, multiply by 15 fighters.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 779	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:31:53 - [20] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: [Thanatos, cheap shield] Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II -snibbidty snib- Networked Sensor Array Heavy Energy Neutralizer I Capital Core Defense Field Extender I Capital Drone Durability Enhancer I Capital Drone Speed Augmentor I there you go cheaper(particularly since you get far more dps with t1s than the armor gets with t2 fighters) tanks more and does more DPS you can use warfare links if you wish but i find that role better left to a t3 or command ship You see, this is the same kind of problem people who fit caldari vessels run in to. What if, for the sake of discussion, you acknowledge that people might not necessarily make a 1.7m ehp ship the primary? What if we acknowledge that - by the time the fleet gets around to killing you, you're going to die no matter if you have 500k ehp or 50mil ehp? This is why despite being a guy who flies shield ships 99.5% of the time I still know that when the chips are down damage application and versatility is the realms of armour and hence armour doctrines are still widely used in game. Perhaps not at the supercap level? I don't know. But regular carriers are much closer to battleships now, I suspect they'd have been given even lower EHP if CCP could have internally rationalised it against the skill system. As I said earlier they aped the idea of our current carriers from other games.. in those games carriers are the 2nd fastest things on the field. They have big hp but literally no armour at all.

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 783	Posted - 2016.05.15 05:31:53 - [21] - Quote I really don't ever expect to see carriers used in massive fights ever again. Maybe only as super defanging anti-fighter ships but otherwise no they really don't have any place in an environment where the question of their fighter hp pool or raw tank is going to be tested. At least now they can fight while catching reps if that's your thing.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 783	Posted - 2016.05.15 06:44:50 - [22] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: not true we have been in fights where we have needed to restock fighters twice in a fight that lasted just over an hour. while unless you have a FAX on feild carrier tanks don't last long. while they will probably see almost no use in large capital fights there are still plenty of areas where large fights happen that involve very few capitals i feel this is where carriers are intended to be used. What kind of fights are these? Slippery pete vs rattlesnake fights? Machariels? Nightmare fleets?
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 786	Posted - 2016.05.16 04:01:48 - [23] - Quote Imagine the drama if geckos become actual fighter drones. Yeah I can't imagine the gurista capital being a bonused carrier. It will be some tardy phoenix variant that noone will ever use.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 787	Posted - 2016.05.16 06:47:42 - [24] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: oh i meant the guitarists implant set that is supposed to affect drones and fighters not the capital i'm worried the faction capitals will be as rare as the supers so i don't think i'll ever wind up dealing with them. it would be nice if the dread/carriers were just rare enough to make them worth about 5-8b so they could bridge the gap between cap and supper cap though :/ The only thing I care about is where they will come from.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 788	Posted - 2016.05.16 07:08:55 - [25] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: from what i understand killing the rats the bpcs are for just with a low drop rate Oh its nice to see LP stores remaining stagnant again. Sure. What ever.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 789	Posted - 2016.05.16 08:22:35 - [26] - Quote LP stores provide a reason to do FW and live in npc null. I'm going to articulate to you in my next post some of the reasons why they should improve LP stores.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 794	Posted - 2016.05.16 11:17:09 - [27] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: LP stores provide a reason to do FW and live in npc null. I'm going to articulate to you in my next post some of the reasons why they should improve LP stores. Such a project has threatened to turn in to a massive multi-post endeavor. Not worth doing unless the devs will read it though. I despise wasting time.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 796	Posted - 2016.05.16 12:47:13 - [28] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Wouldn't waist it then devs generally stop reading threads I've actually had to tweet fozzie to ask him where the rest of the module rebalance is for frigates destroyers cruisers battlecruisers battleships because the only comprehensive rebalance we've seen thus far is capitals. Frigates were redone in 2011 or so, it's been roughly 5 years and they still can't address things like frigate modules?
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 796	Posted - 2016.05.16 12:57:22 - [29] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: To be fair that's when the rebalancing started and they ate just now getting to capitals. As for modules after how fozzie did with the cap and shield recharge modules (tweaked some numbers ignored feed back and left the balance almost identical hell with the capacitor mods he exaggerated issues) I have lost faith in them when it comes to player feedback Ytterbium did a fine job of completely cocking up shield boosters. Armour reppers are also still terrible. There is so much work to be done they should have worked on it when they were originally redoing the class size by size. Frigate->small weapons at the same time cruiser-> medium weapons same time it feels so arseaboutface to only now retouch the modules and potentially break every single fit in the game. For what? Twice a decade just completely screw with the meta?
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 796	Posted - 2016.05.16 14:02:08 - [30] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ccp has to have some of the worst ADD out of all the companies I have interacted with. They will talk up and start an idea just to get half way done with it (if we're lucky) then move on to something else and bounce around trying to patch up other half implemented ideas. Remember districts? Those things that made it into a couple constellations as a test and were supposed to tie in with dust and be all through eve? Because ccp doesn't I think in their defense severing development of DUST as soon as possible was the best course of action. They're crazy but not stupid in CCP - writing was on the wall that PS3 was on the way out.

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 798	Posted - 2016.05.17 04:03:35 - [31] - Quote Clearly you didn't play wows... just thank the gods that ships weren't given automated point defense. Something I do lament though is the lack of DOT attacks from dive bombers.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 799	Posted - 2016.05.17 07:22:03 - [32] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: not really a fan of dot it doesn't work well in eve There is maybe a place for in eve for bombers and fighterbombers to have DOTs. It would help in emasculate the effects of repairs on supers and titans. Especially important that now you get things like HAW dreads and HAW titans as these are somewhat capable of killing off subcaps.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 799	Posted - 2016.05.19 10:26:02 - [33] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i agree the than looks like crap but most ppl i ask for their fav looking ships they tell me thany and nyx so long as they dont go with the redesign they showed a few years ago. it looked great for a logi but does not fit the new goliath tank the chimera has now Nyx is definitely great, the thanatos could use a facelift.

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,09s, ref 20250717/0754
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.