EVE Search - Sticky:[Citadels] Carriers

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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 796	Posted - 2016.05.16 12:57:22 - [811] - 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?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2548	Posted - 2016.05.16 13:32:41 - [812] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 796	Posted - 2016.05.16 14:02:08 - [813] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2548	Posted - 2016.05.16 14:27:43 - [814] - Quote lol the problem was they didn't do it as soon as possible it took way to long Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 963	Posted - 2016.05.17 01:04:28 - [815] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: like i said even in WH a lot of the time you are better off with a dread just because you do not need logi and your HAW are far more reliable and consistent while having the same DPS and not needing a reload i was just trying to point out small areas that carriers can still be used and ways we have found to make use of their re-load time. i feel if they gave them more e-war options even if it was just with the support fighters and not local based carriers would have a place that dreads couldn't fill themselves. even with out that the current support fighters are a joke even if i could launch them w/o giving up DPS no way i would have them take valuable space in my fighter bay. EDIT; wait maybe carriers will not be as bad as we think what if they have been pre-nerfed to allow for the new guitarists drone set? Ahh yes, nerfing a complete class of ships then introduce a very limited availability implant set that will cost more than the benefits it will add. Sounds about right......... OR CCP could continue along its current path - Buy 6 plex and get an implant as a bonus, buy 12 and get 2 of the set as a bonus.. As for reloading a full bay of fighters using a timer - Should carriers survive long enough for this to be necessary or even possible? Around a billion isk for a full bay of fighters (unless your using throw away T1's, then its only around 600 mil) - That needs to be replaced mid fight? How fukin broken are carriers...... Point the carrier - Kill all its fighters - Rinse and repeat - What a great meta... Far better than padding your killboard with split guns in a fight - Just kill light fighters - They die easily and generate all the killmails you could ask for. More Ewar options only works if carriers have an additional dedicated Ewar launch tube... My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 798	Posted - 2016.05.17 04:03:35 - [816] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2553	Posted - 2016.05.17 05:03:52 - [817] - Quote not really a fan of dot it doesn't work well in eve Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 799	Posted - 2016.05.17 07:22:03 - [818] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2563	Posted - 2016.05.18 21:35:09 - [819] - Quote but they are now less capable of killing sub caps then b4. with a support fleet i used to be able to track sub caps in my nag just fine and i had more dps doing it. with carriers i used to be able to apply more damage to any sized target and have nearly unlimited drones. capitals are now better for the adv joe to use against sub caps but are far less useful in the hands of some one who knows what they are doing( normally i would be all for a change like this only issue is carriers where they can now only be effective against sub caps) Citadel worm hole tax
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 167	Posted - 2016.05.19 03:36:18 - [820] - Quote The carriers are in desperate need of new models to go with their new redesign. They must be amongst the oldest models still in the game, and they are physically tiny also compared to the new FAX's. Would someone in the art department perhaps comment on whether that is in the pipeline for any time soon?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2568	Posted - 2016.05.19 03:39:27 - [821] - Quote the carriers look fine just way to small Citadel worm hole tax
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 167	Posted - 2016.05.19 06:20:41 - [822] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the carriers look fine just way to small I think pretty much everyone would agree the Thanatos looks like garbage. CCP have at least made it clear that a resize is coming, I don't foresee that happening without new models.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2568	Posted - 2016.05.19 07:05:01 - [823] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 167	Posted - 2016.05.19 07:56:07 - [824] - 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 Nyx most definitely. But the thanny is like the assault on your senses that you must endure before you get the payoff that is the Nyx. If they could redesign it to look much more like it's bigger brother, it would make a whole lot of people happy. As it stands, it is like the Aeon of regular carriers, an order of magnitude more ugly than the others.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2568	Posted - 2016.05.19 08:04:46 - [825] - Quote lol i think you just have n issue with asymmetry. but symmetry is just boring Citadel worm hole tax
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 591	Posted - 2016.05.19 08:32:22 - [826] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: lol i think you just have n issue with asymmetry. but symmetry is just boring I agree. But, like all style choices, it can be done well, or it can be done...poorly, and have similar results to someone choosing to open the ark in an Indiana Jones movie (so maybe a small model of the Aeon is actually what was in the Ark all along. Now we know). I mean, can you look at an Aeon without feeling like your face is melting off? It's hideous beyond compare. But, the Omen-series is beautiful and graceful. Heck, I liked the old Blackbird model (back when Blackbirds were cool and didn't look like overgrown Gecko drones). The old Condor model was perfectly okay, though I would argue it was nothing spectacular either. Thorax is another fine example. Heck, the Thorax series of cruiser is dang-near iconic for EvE nowadays. In fact most of the Gallente lineup is asym, and most of them look fantastic. It's just a fine line between, doing something, and, doing something right. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 799	Posted - 2016.05.19 10:26:02 - [827] - 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.
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 169	Posted - 2016.05.19 15:34:38 - [828] - Quote Rather odd that we have only seen a concept for the chimera, the carrier of the four that is least in need of a new model.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2589	Posted - 2016.05.21 10:32:13 - [829] - Quote be cool if they made the thanny look similar to the domi as that would be unconventional for a carrier (looking more like a dread) but something taking queues from the algos would be good too Citadel worm hole tax
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 170	Posted - 2016.05.28 15:14:52 - [830] - Quote The Chimera desperately needs it's fighter hangar size increased.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2670	Posted - 2016.05.28 16:01:35 - [831] - Quote i have been saying that for a while. glad more ppl are realizing it. the tank on the chimera means nothing as its fighters will be dead long b4 it is Citadel worm hole tax
Minibren Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 2	Posted - 2016.05.28 22:35:13 - [832] - Quote The damage application of the new fighters is way too high especially for the burst damage. The special ability has an explosion radius of 100 meters compared with 240 for the normal attack. If the explosion radius on the special ability was increased to somewhere around the normal attack this would make much more sense and mean ships wouldn't get one shot as much by a single carrier. IMO a large proportion of the problem however is that transversal makes no difference to the damage application and its basically just being hit by missiles. The fighters also move way too fast. The burst damage could also be reduced by halving the cycle time, halving the damage and doubling the ammo.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2673	Posted - 2016.05.29 01:03:54 - [833] - Quote .... if you are getting alphad by fighters toy screwed up. Or the carrier had support. A cruiser should have way more than 43kehp (max alpha of a faction fit nid) anything else should be small an fast enough to avoid most of the damage. Fighters are rather slow except for a20s burst that has a cool down of one minute. Carriers are meant to counter logistics if they have a support fleet and that is just what they do with timing their missile barrage. But something else has to be shooting the target as well or tackling and painting or if it's small. And ffs being ecm do that and you can ignore the carrier 1 carriers are op if you try to fight them with fits and tactics used against pre citadel carriers 2 carriers are underpowered if you try to fit and fly then lo like pre citadel 3 carriers are pretty good if you play to their new strengths but are easy to counter if you know what you are doing. 4 overall just bring a dread it's better. Adapt or die Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 978	Posted - 2016.05.29 06:05:13 - [834] - Quote Minibren wrote: The damage application of the new fighters is way too high especially for the burst damage. The special ability has an explosion radius of 100 meters compared with 240 for the normal attack. If the explosion radius on the special ability was increased to somewhere around the normal attack this would make much more sense and mean ships wouldn't get one shot as much by a single carrier. IMO a large proportion of the problem however is that transversal makes no difference to the damage application and its basically just being hit by missiles. The fighters also move way too fast. The burst damage could also be reduced by halving the cycle time, halving the damage and doubling the ammo. So how much further should carriers be nerfed so a few subcaps can easily kill them? Problem your describing is - You want to be able to kill a new carrier using old tactics and ships. Carriers aren't the problem here - It is what your using to fight them. A single carrier is no threat to a prepared subcap gang. Just look at the kilboards and see how many die each day.. Problem your describing is - You want to be able to kill a new carrier using old tactics and ships. Burst damage is very limited now - 8 volleys over 160 seconds is not OP - Again, it is what you are flying and how you fly it that is the problem, not the ability of the carrier. A little hint for fighting carriers - Kill the fighters first, carriers have a very limited supply..... Oh and for the real newies - Use logi, carrier alpha is not all that good compared to logi reps. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2680	Posted - 2016.05.29 06:11:25 - [835] - Quote Quote: Burst damage is very limited now - 8 volleys over 160 seconds is not OP don't forget that is then followed by another 53s to refuel them. Citadel worm hole tax
Milostiev Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 9	Posted - 2016.05.29 13:16:01 - [836] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Minibren wrote: The damage application of the new fighters is way too high especially for the burst damage. The special ability has an explosion radius of 100 meters compared with 240 for the normal attack. If the explosion radius on the special ability was increased to somewhere around the normal attack this would make much more sense and mean ships wouldn't get one shot as much by a single carrier. IMO a large proportion of the problem however is that transversal makes no difference to the damage application and its basically just being hit by missiles. The fighters also move way too fast. The burst damage could also be reduced by halving the cycle time, halving the damage and doubling the ammo. So how much further should carriers be nerfed so a few subcaps can easily kill them? Problem your describing is - You want to be able to kill a new carrier using old tactics and ships. Carriers aren't the problem here - It is what your using to fight them. A single carrier is no threat to a prepared subcap gang. Just look at the kilboards and see how many die each day.. Problem your describing is - You want to be able to kill a new carrier using old tactics and ships. Burst damage is very limited now - 8 volleys over 160 seconds is not OP - Again, it is what you are flying and how you fly it that is the problem, not the ability of the carrier. A little hint for fighting carriers - Kill the fighters first, carriers have a very limited supply..... Oh and for the real newies - Use logi, carrier alpha is not all that good compared to logi reps. Don't know about him, but i personally want to go through a gate, or undock from a station, without being instalocked and instapopped by a ship, thousands of km's away .... while i am in a bloody frig. I have been on both sides of this situation, i've been the one who used the carrier to do this, and also the one who got popped this way. The application aside (it is a problem), the bigger problem is the NSA, it is a horribly broken module. To survive the initial volley from a regular carrier you now need 24k ehp at least, and that's not counting the gun dps.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2683	Posted - 2016.05.29 13:30:22 - [837] - Quote you uhh.... you do understand that the carrier AND the fighters have to lock before they can do anything right? also if you need at least 24k ehp to survive why do so many frigs and cruisers survive the alpha with less? Citadel worm hole tax
Minibren Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 2	Posted - 2016.05.29 16:26:26 - [838] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: you uhh.... you do understand that the carrier AND the fighters have to lock before they can do anything right? also if you need at least 24k ehp to survive why do so many frigs and cruisers survive the alpha with less? A carrier can lock any target in less than a few seconds with the new networked sensor array. We had an AB buffer fit phantasm going at 2.5km/s and he still got two shot going at this speed with an ab. Surely the AB should mitigate a good amount of the damage. I one shot a frigate with over 10k ehp on the station with my carrier too. Why should my fighters apply so much volley to a frigate. I never said I don't know how to kill the new carriers, as can be seen here https://zkillboard.com/kill/54293533/
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1414	Posted - 2016.05.29 17:42:20 - [839] - Quote And pray tell what the NSA does for the fighters lock time?
Minibren Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 2	Posted - 2016.05.29 21:23:38 - [840] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: And pray tell what the NSA does for the fighters lock time? Fighters have almost the same scan res as a carrier with an NSA turned on.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,19s, ref 20251112/1741
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.