| 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) |

Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1356
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 13:49:10 -
[151] - Quote
Yeah, the speed is criminal too. 951 m/s for firbs with 4 FCU. That was what I'd actually hoped was bugged, but no, offlining them made them slower still.
A freakin' hyperion would outrun them. |

Lugh Crow-Slave
1766
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 14:05:59 -
[152] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Yeah, the speed is criminal too. 951 m/s for firbs with 4 FCU. That was what I'd actually hoped was bugged, but no, offlining them made them slower still.
A freakin' hyperion would outrun them.
The FSU stacking penalize speed and ccp will not day if this is a bug or intended
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1356
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 14:59:16 -
[153] - Quote
Its kind of an issue when the webbing fighters can't keep up with a target they have webbed and moreover the fact you need to pull drones to re-arm them.
I've bitched about it repeatedly in slack, the speed is a non issue if we didnt need to pull to reload and webbing drones could actually sit on a webbed target without burning a cooldown. |

Lugh Crow-Slave
1766
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 15:15:09 -
[154] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Its kind of an issue when the webbing fighters can't keep up with a target they have webbed and moreover the fact you need to pull drones to re-arm them.
I've bitched about it repeatedly in slack, the speed is a non issue if we didnt need to pull to reload and webbing drones could actually sit on a webbed target without burning a cooldown.
I covered the fact their vaunted "long range" is a nonsense too, but I was literally the only voice. No-one gave a crap. At least I tried. The argument is with the range comes trade offs, which is not wihout merit, it does need a drawback: except the drawbacks are currently so severe it is completely unusable.
Drop at 0 or GTFO. More likely, don't drop at all and warp to anom....
Not to mention one of the drawbacks is LACK OF RANGE It's like they want to pretend they have all this range bit not give them a weapon system that can utilise it And the Ewar fighters are just bad all around
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Barune Darkor
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 15:40:49 -
[155] - Quote
Havent seen this mentioned yet. What about the cost of fighters now that we need twice as many if them as before? Are their material costs going to be reduced?
Lights and heavys will carry over but what about bpos for the new fighter classes prior to the changes? |

Lugh Crow-Slave
1767
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 15:54:30 -
[156] - Quote
Barune Darkor wrote:Havent seen this mentioned yet. What about the cost of fighters now that we need twice as many if them as before? Are their material costs going to be reduced?
Lights and heavys will carry over but what about bpos for the new fighter classes prior to the changes?
The lights cost about 3 mil each with 0/0 for t1
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Gary Webb
The Walking Deads Limited Expectations
5
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 17:57:18 -
[157] - Quote
Please add a hotkey for all fighters to attack one target. if there is, i couldnt find it/it isnt working on SISI. Secondly, i really hope there is an icon that will indiciate which squadron is attacking what target. Again, on sisi it wasnt there which made things very confusing. Lastly, the cooldown cycles for the fighter modules is just bad all around. please remove it. or make it shorter or give us back the ability to rep fighters. I can understand the cooldown on the rocket volleys but the MWD?!? that needs to go. Anyone else in agreement with me here? |

Lugh Crow-Slave
1768
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 18:05:19 -
[158] - Quote
Gary Webb wrote:Please add a hotkey for all fighters to attack one target. if there is, i couldnt find it/it isnt working on SISI. Secondly, i really hope there is an icon that will indiciate which squadron is attacking what target. Again, on sisi it wasnt there which made things very confusing. Lastly, the cooldown cycles for the fighter modules is just bad all around. please remove it. or make it shorter or give us back the ability to rep fighters. I can understand the cooldown on the rocket volleys but the MWD?!? that needs to go. Anyone else in agreement with me here?
Try f1
There is a red line and a number fir the group
Mobility is already an issue and the missile salvos don't have a cool down just a cycle time like any mod
And the cool down is just to long on the fighters but it does not need to be eliminated
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
2006
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 18:20:59 -
[159] - Quote
Why the variation in fighter hangar size between carriers? It feels like it penalizes / buffs ships without any relation to their tank or stats.
How do you justify the fact that shield carriers get relatively low total shield values compared to armor tanked carriers, despite having no option to fit shield-slave sets? This capital and supercapital rebalance was the opportunity to change the meta, but I guess we'll keep seeing only armor due to the absurd amount of EHP lost if using shields.
(Not the mention the remote rep values that even more heavily favor armor wrecking balls)
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - Ex-BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|

Anhenka
Infinite Point Violence of Action.
1617
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 18:32:58 -
[160] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Why the variation in fighter hangar size between carriers? It feels like it penalizes / buffs ships without any relation to their tank or stats.
How do you justify the fact that shield carriers get relatively low total shield values compared to armor tanked carriers, despite having no option to fit shield-slave sets? This capital and supercapital rebalance was the opportunity to change the meta, but I guess we'll keep seeing only armor due to the absurd amount of EHP lost if using shields.
(Not the mention the remote rep values that even more heavily favor armor wrecking balls)
Last I heard shield supercaps were better in almost every way. Higher EHP, able to fit an entire rack of primary tank without sacrificing damage mods, more mobile. Even with a full slave set in a Aeon still has less EHP than a Wyvern, and a much lower burst tank, if both are using 2 drone damage amps. Without Slaves they only have around 2/3 the EHP of one.
Did this change in the upcoming patch so that armor and shield caps and supers have roughly the same EHP without implants? Or are you just spouting nonsense? |

Lugh Crow-Slave
1768
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 18:41:04 -
[161] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Altrue wrote:Why the variation in fighter hangar size between carriers? It feels like it penalizes / buffs ships without any relation to their tank or stats.
How do you justify the fact that shield carriers get relatively low total shield values compared to armor tanked carriers, despite having no option to fit shield-slave sets? This capital and supercapital rebalance was the opportunity to change the meta, but I guess we'll keep seeing only armor due to the absurd amount of EHP lost if using shields.
(Not the mention the remote rep values that even more heavily favor armor wrecking balls) Last I heard shield supercaps were better in almost every way. Higher EHP, able to fit an entire rack of primary tank without sacrificing damage mods, more mobile. Even with a full slave set in a Aeon still has less EHP than a Wyvern, and a much lower burst tank, if both are using 2 drone damage amps. Without Slaves they only have around 2/3 the EHP of one. Did this change in the upcoming patch so that armor and shield caps and supers have roughly the same EHP without implants? Or are you just spouting nonsense?
He is right about the rr though and is even worse when you look at the fax none can fit very well without a load of fitting more or rigs and the shield ones got it the worst
Also carriers can't have a burst tank at all the local reps ate balanced around siege mods making them lack luster outside of siege.
But even if they did tank better the utter lack of space on a chimera is unacceptable
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Anhenka
Infinite Point Violence of Action.
1617
|
Posted - 2016.04.02 19:36:27 -
[162] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Anhenka wrote:Altrue wrote:Why the variation in fighter hangar size between carriers? It feels like it penalizes / buffs ships without any relation to their tank or stats.
How do you justify the fact that shield carriers get relatively low total shield values compared to armor tanked carriers, despite having no option to fit shield-slave sets? This capital and supercapital rebalance was the opportunity to change the meta, but I guess we'll keep seeing only armor due to the absurd amount of EHP lost if using shields.
(Not the mention the remote rep values that even more heavily favor armor wrecking balls) Last I heard shield supercaps were better in almost every way. Higher EHP, able to fit an entire rack of primary tank without sacrificing damage mods, more mobile. Even with a full slave set in a Aeon still has less EHP than a Wyvern, and a much lower burst tank, if both are using 2 drone damage amps. Without Slaves they only have around 2/3 the EHP of one. Did this change in the upcoming patch so that armor and shield caps and supers have roughly the same EHP without implants? Or are you just spouting nonsense? He is right about the rr though and is even worse when you look at the fax none can fit very well without a load of fitting more or rigs and the shield ones got it the worst Also carriers can't have a burst tank at all the local reps ate balanced around siege mods making them lack luster outside of siege. But even if they did tank better the utter lack of space on a chimera is unacceptable
When I mean burst tank I mean the increase in resistance by overloading active tanking mods. Since shield tanking uses more active resist mods and tends to have higher resists but lower buffer, overloading active tanking mods on a shield super tends to result in a greater increase in the resistance profile compared to the increase in armor armor supers. And the associated level of sustained tank per incoming friendly rep. On a typical tanky supercarrier fit, overloading everything bumps a Wyvern to 55ish from 28ish, while an aeon goes from 28ish to 45ish.
In general, shield caps and supercaps have a higher resist profile than armor, relying less on a heavy slave bonus buffer. This amplifies the effects of incoming reps per incoming point of repair.
If the shield remote reps are not as good overall as the armor reps, it's probably intended. If they were just as easy to fit and run on shield carriers as the armor versions are on armor carriers while shield still had no reliance on expensive implants, upfront RR effects, and generally higher resist profiles, shield caps and scaps would be better than armor in just about every situation. |

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF Violence of Action.
55
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 03:46:42 -
[163] - Quote
Ok, after some testing I found the source of a significant number of fighter balance issues. It seems that even though skills say they affect fighters, most don't work properly yet. For example, Light Fighters and Support Fighters only give 5% total bonuses to speed/durability despite saying 5% per level. Also Drone Durability, Drone Interfacing, Drone Navigation, and probably Drone Sharpshooting have no effect at all on fighters. That means once the skills actually have their advertised effects, fighters will have roughly 50% more damage and speed, and 25% more durability at max skills. |

Side1Bu2Rnz9
Trojan Legion Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 06:29:48 -
[164] - Quote
So, carriers are essentially going to die (both figuratively and literally) in current future fleet meta. Dreads will outgun them (both in terms of fitting guns and having a crap ton more dps) in in both subcap and capital engagements. Carriers are also now not only stripped of a role but also nerfed to **** when compared to dreads. CCP congrats on creating Dreads Online...
Time to unsub my carriers pilots or some how get them into supers or faxes... no use now (based on the stats listed) for even undocking these piece of sh**s.
Completely disappointed yet again in CCP... |

Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 07:11:17 -
[165] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Ok, after some testing I found the source of a significant number of fighter balance issues. It seems that even though skills say they affect fighters, most don't work properly yet. For example, Light Fighters and Support Fighters only give 5% total bonuses to speed/durability despite saying 5% per level. Also Drone Durability, Drone Interfacing, Drone Navigation, and probably Drone Sharpshooting have no effect at all on fighters. That means once the skills actually have their advertised effects, fighters will have roughly 50% more damage and speed, and 25% more durability at max skills.
Thanks for pointing that out.
On Tranq none of these skills say anything about affecting fighters, so this was specifically added for the capital rework. The most important skill that is missing is probably Drone Interfacing, which should give a 50% damage increase. Did you specifically test if this skills is affecting fighters? According do my calculations it isnt, but I never tested it. When all these bugs are fixed, fighter stats my be actually decent.
As a side not: The FSU bug seems to be fixed, it now actually decreases the time between shots. |

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF Violence of Action.
57
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 07:14:52 -
[166] - Quote
Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote:So, carriers are essentially going to die (both figuratively and literally) in current future fleet meta. Dreads will outgun them (both in terms of fitting guns  and having a crap ton more dps) in in both subcap and capital engagements. Carriers are also now not only stripped of a role but also nerfed to **** when compared to dreads. CCP congrats on creating Dreads Online... Time to unsub my carriers pilots or some how get them into supers or faxes... no use now (based on the stats listed) for even undocking these piece of sh**s. Completely disappointed yet again in CCP... That might be a bit hasty. First of all, dreads don't really outgun carriers by that much against subcaps. On paper, once they get the skill bonuses fixed carriers will have 4000-5000 DPS when fully DPS fit. They're also better at hitting frigates and destroyers, as well as anything that gets super close. The fact that they can receive remote repairs also allows them to survive longer than dreads in larger engagements. That said, they do seem to be sort of lacking in certain ways, but CCP needs to fix the skill bonuses so we can see the true stats before figuring out how to use or balance them. |

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF Violence of Action.
57
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 07:16:48 -
[167] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Ok, after some testing I found the source of a significant number of fighter balance issues. It seems that even though skills say they affect fighters, most don't work properly yet. For example, Light Fighters and Support Fighters only give 5% total bonuses to speed/durability despite saying 5% per level. Also Drone Durability, Drone Interfacing, Drone Navigation, and probably Drone Sharpshooting have no effect at all on fighters. That means once the skills actually have their advertised effects, fighters will have roughly 50% more damage and speed, and 25% more durability at max skills. Thanks for pointing that out. On Tranq none of these skills say anything about affecting fighters, so this was specifically added for the capital rework. The most important skill that is missing is probably Drone Interfacing, which should give a 50% damage increase. Did you specifically test if this skills is affecting fighters? According do my calculations it isnt, but I never tested it. When all these bugs are fixed, fighter stats my be actually decent. As a side not: The FSU bug seems to be fixed, it now actually decreases the time between shots. I've tested the effects of every skill except Heavy Fighters and Drone Sharpshooting, and the only one that works right is the 5% per level from Fighters. Everything else is broken at the moment.
On Tranquility none of the skills need to say anything because fighters are drones in every way, so there's no reason to doubt the effects. On SiSi fighters are something completely different but related, so it's important to explain how the skills affect them. |

Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 07:22:21 -
[168] - Quote
quick test abouit the affecting skills:
Shooting a pos, my firbolgs do 2830 per hit (one full squadron. Pocos have 0 resistance (I think).
115*1.25*1.25*9*1.749690125=2829.57699902
115 is the base damage. The first 1.25 is from light fighters. The second 1.25 is from Thanny. The 9 is from 9 fighters per squadron. The 1.749690125 is from 3 DDA II fittet.
Confirms that Drone Interfacing is not working. |

Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 07:56:02 -
[169] - Quote
Another bug (or maybe poor testserver performance):
When using fighters against rats, I suddenly got the message "slow down, you cant do that yet, you have to wait 25 seconds". Not sure if exactly this text, but similar. So I could not command my drones for about 25 seconds, every command just led to this window with the timer going down. Effectively, my carrier was completely shut down for about half a minute. That really should not happen once this goes on tranq.
edit: just testet it again: its 35 seconds, and this can be reproduced by spamming an ability. Thats really bad if happens. The problem is that with the current mechanic there is a good reason to spam an ability: Rocket salvo deactivates if you are out of range, so for most dps you need to spam it while the fighter approaches. |

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF Violence of Action.
58
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 07:56:47 -
[170] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:The first 1.25 is from light fighters. Actually that's the base Fighters skill. Light Fighters gives a speed bonus that seems to be currently glitched at 5% total regardless of level. |

Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 08:08:51 -
[171] - Quote
thanks, fixed it. |

Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 08:23:40 -
[172] - Quote
I just noticed my calculation had a mistake, and since my numbers perfectly match with the resuls from the testserver, ccp seems to have made the same mistake:
I forgot to include the stacking penalty from drone damage amplifiers. Increasing the number of DDA from 3 to 4 boosts damage from 2830 to 3410 (20.5% increase). Adding a fifth increases the damage to 4109 (20.5% increase). DDA do not have a stacking penalty on carriers anymore. Not sure about subcaps. Bug?
|

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF Violence of Action.
58
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 09:58:04 -
[173] - Quote
So can someone explain what's up with carriers being able to lock 14 targets or 16 with a Networked Sensor Array active? Is there a new skill coming to allow locking more targets or are they going to ignore the skill limit? |

Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 11:39:06 -
[174] - Quote
One more bug: just had a fighter stop responding.
It was stuck at "returning", while not moving and the missile swarm symbol blinking. any other move or attack command was ignored.
Not sure what caused this, the fighter was in the middle of the asteroid of a serpentis haven. Maybe it was because the missile command was given while an enemy exploded? |

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF Violence of Action.
60
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 11:51:19 -
[175] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:One more bug: just had a fighter stop responding.
It was stuck at "returning", while not moving and the missile swarm symbol blinking. any other move or attack command was ignored.
Not sure what caused this, the fighter was in the middle of the asteroid of a serpentis haven. Maybe it was because the missile command was given while an enemy exploded? Yep, there's definitely something like that. It happened to me a couple times where I had 3 squadrons use missiles on a target and one or two of them would get stuck. I reported the bug, but it seems kind of weird and hard to reproduce. |

Lugh Crow-Slave
1771
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 12:07:31 -
[176] - Quote
Well if the low speed and dps is do to a lack of skills applying the only issue u still see is the uselessness of ewar fighters and the disparity in the fighter hanger size (I also think they are a bit small overall)
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Gary Webb
The Walking Deads Limited Expectations
6
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 19:08:15 -
[177] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Try f1 There is a red line and a number fir the group Mobility is already an issue and the missile salvos don't have a cool down just a cycle time like any mod And the cool down is just to long on the fighters but it does not need to be eliminated Thank you, i'll try it out on SISi tonight
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
1771
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 19:13:16 -
[178] - Quote
Gary Webb wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Try f1 There is a red line and a number fir the group Mobility is already an issue and the missile salvos don't have a cool down just a cycle time like any mod And the cool down is just to long on the fighters but it does not need to be eliminated Thank you, i'll try it out on SISi tonight
Forgot to mention you need to make sure the fighters you ate commanding are selected (in the fighter ui) them f1-f3 will activate the corresponding ability
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Gary Webb
The Walking Deads Limited Expectations
7
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 19:58:04 -
[179] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Gary Webb wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Try f1 There is a red line and a number fir the group Mobility is already an issue and the missile salvos don't have a cool down just a cycle time like any mod And the cool down is just to long on the fighters but it does not need to be eliminated Thank you, i'll try it out on SISi tonight Forgot to mention you need to make sure the fighters you ate commanding are selected (in the fighter ui) them f1-f3 will activate the corresponding ability Is there still no icon to indicate which squadron is attacking which target? This whole system is a bit of a cluster &%($... We will adapt but I really hope CCP listens and makes the requested changes.
The resoning behing the cooldown is something I just dont understand. Interceptors and other ships dont need to have their MWD cool down, so why the fighters? They cant keep up with anything otherwise so it is hilariously easy to speed tank a carrier now and we have no light drones to send after them. I guys I would like an explaination for the resoning from ccp or if anyone has a link if its already been discussed?
The cost of fighters seriously needs to be addressed otherwise, breaking carriers out is almost never going to happen outside of large scale ops. I dont understand why we cant rep up squadrons. they can be targeted as a whole by enemies but they cant recieve remote reps? Can be damaged as a whole but not repaired.... See my point?
or maybe give us the option to recall the squadron, put out a new one and right click-> repair. taking that squad out of the fight for x amount of time without forcing us to spend inordinate amount of isk on new fighters?? thoughts?
|

M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled The Initiative.
805
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 22:04:25 -
[180] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:
A new skill is being introduced called 'Light Fighters', this provides a 5% velocity bonus per level and is required for the operation of light fighters.
A new skill is being introduced called 'Support Fighters', this provides a 5% hitpoint bonus per level and is required for the operation of support fighters.
The fighters skill now provides a 5% damage bonus per level and is required for the operation of all fighters.
[/list]
All of these changes are on Sisi, and we'd appreciate you jumping on and helping to test them! [/list]
So I got onto Sisi, fit up a carrier, bought the new fighters... and realized they all require Fighters 5, Light Fighters/Support Fighters 5 to use.
Will all fighters require the Fighters and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters just to use in the first place on TQ?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
| |
|
| 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 |