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 [?]

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)

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 419	Posted - 2016.03.31 10:54:55 - [1] - Quote Hi M8s, We're making huge changes to capitals with the Citadels expansion. Most of these changes are on Sisi now and we'd love you to get on there and help us with testing! Notes: All combat capitals have reduced base Shields/Armor/Hull. There are now capital armor plates and capital shield extenders that you should use to increase the buffer of your capital ship. Carriers can no longer fit a Triage module. Carriers with a triage module fitted during the deployment of the Citadels expansion will be converted into Force Auxiliaries. Carriers no longer have a drone bay, instead they have a fighter bay and use the new fighter mechanics. There is a new module called a Networked Sensor Array. This increases the Sensor Strength, Targeting Range, and Scan Resolution at the expense of disabling the use of any offensive EWar (Warp Scramblers/Disruptors, Target Painters, ECM, Stasis effects, Sensor Dampeners, etc). Drone Control Units have been converted to Fighter Support Units. These now give a general buff to fighter damage and survivability. All other drone modules (excluding Drone Link Augmentors) also provide bonuses to Fighter squadrons (check show info on those modules for details) Advanced Drone Interfacing has been renamed to Fighter Hangar Management and now provides a bonus to the size of your fighter hanger. Generic drone skills (Drone Durability, Drone Navigation, etc) also provide bonuses to fighters (check show info on those skills for details). The Fighter Bomber skill has been converted to 'Heavy Fighters', and now gives a 5% damage bonus to heavy fighters per level. 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. All of these changes are on Sisi, and we'd appreciate you jumping on and helping to test them! The current stats we're looking at for carriers is as follows: Archon Amarr Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 4% bonus to armor resistances 5% bonus to Cenobite Neutralization optimal range 1% bonus to Armored Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness Role Bonus: Can fit Networked Sensor Array Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously Can launch Light and Support Fighters Can lock at extended ranges Stats (before skills): Slot layout: 5H, 4M, 7L; Fittings: 775,000 PWG, 625 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 48600 / 76400 / 76300 Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 25 / 20 Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 58000 / 4450s / 13.03 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 80 / 0.04 / 1,250,000,000 / 69.31s Fighter Hanger (bay / launch tubes / light / support / heavy): 60,000, 3, 3, 1, 0 (New!) Fleet Hanger (bay): 10,000 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 3,950km / 70 / 14 Sensor strength: 72 Signature radius: 9920 Chimera Caldari Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 4% bonus to shield resistances 5% bonus to Scarab Jamming optimal range 1% bonus to Siege Warfare and Information Warfare Links effectiveness Role Bonus: Can fit Networked Sensor Array Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously Can launch Light and Support Fighters Can lock at extended ranges Stats (before skills): Slot layout: 5H, 7M, 4L; Fittings: 450,000 PWG, 825 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 69500 / 55500 / 69400 Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 25 / 20 Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 50000 / 3840s / 13.02 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 75 / 0.043 / 1,220,000,000 / 72.73s Fighter Hanger (bay / launch tubes / light / support / heavy): 55,000, 3, 3, 1, 0 (New!) Fleet Hanger (bay): 10,000 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 4,620km / 60 / 14 Sensor strength: 80 Signature radius: 10065 Thanatos Gallente Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 2.5% bonus to Fighter damage and hitpoints 5% bonus to Siren warp disruption range 1% bonus to Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness Role Bonus: Can fit Networked Sensor Array Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously Can launch Light and Support Fighters Can lock at extended ranges Stats (before skills): Slot layout: 5H, 5M, 6L; Fittings: 700,000 PWG, 725 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 55500 / 69500 / 83500 Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 25 / 20 Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 55000 / 4200s / 13.09 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 80 / 0.04 / 1,190,000,000 / 65.99s Fighter Hanger (bay / launch tubes / light / support / heavy): 70,000, 3, 3, 1, 0 (New!) Fleet Hanger (bay): 10,000 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 3,670km / 65 / 14 Sensor strength: 76 Signature radius: 9960 Nidhoggur Minmatar Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 2.5% bonus to Fighter damage and velocity 5% bonus to Dromi Stasis Webification range 1% bonus to Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare Links effectiveness Role Bonus: Can fit Networked Sensor Array Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously Can launch Light and Support Fighters Can lock at extended ranges Stats (before skills): Slot layout: 5H, 6M, 5L; Fittings: 605,000 PWG, 700 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 66000 / 66000 / 62500 Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 3... Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 419	Posted - 2016.03.31 11:28:03 - [2] - Quote Q&A Q) Do the EHP changes to capitals include Freighters & Jump Freighters? A) Nope :) Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Bluemelon ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 104	Posted - 2016.03.31 11:32:53 - [3] - Quote ok For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread
Boson Dubstep Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Psychotic Tendencies. 10	Posted - 2016.03.31 11:33:38 - [4] - Quote Have you considered reducing the price of supers as a component of these changes?
Airi Cho Dark-Rising 142	Posted - 2016.03.31 11:35:31 - [5] - Quote shouldnt the info bonus be on the thanatos?
Mimiko Severovski Zero Fun Allowed 36	Posted - 2016.03.31 11:49:51 - [6] - Quote How do you justify the 10% damage bonus on nid and thanny, compared to the 20% resist bonus on archon and chimera ? Especially with the ehp nerf the carriers are getting. How do you see anyone serious using 'dps carriers' instead of the tanky ones for any sort of fleet combat?
Francisco Vazquez Garcia Aliastra Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.03.31 11:51:27 - [7] - Quote Why are all resistance profiles the same?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1343	Posted - 2016.03.31 11:59:46 - [8] - Quote As other pointed out (a lot) there is going to be zero point to the non-resist bonused carriers outside of PvE. The support fighter bonuses are distinctly "meh" as well, doubly so when one considers these things can only launch one wing of them at a time. Also for more meaningful feedback, you still need to post the finalised fighter numbers, their skill requirements, build cost, and volume.
Grookshank Jump Drive Appreciation Society 77	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:00:08 - [9] - Quote Can we expect that the SP for the skill "Armor Resistance Phasing" will be carried over to the new "Resistance Phasing" skill, that is currently on SISI? Are the skill requirements for the modules on SISI those that will be in the release?
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 710	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:02:27 - [10] - Quote Francisco Vazquez Garcia wrote: Why are all resistance profiles the same? Standard T1 ship resist profile

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1343	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:07:06 - [11] - Quote SMA sizes missing from OP
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 139	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:07:50 - [12] - Quote T1 resist profiles have racial elements. They're not all the same. See: Augoror (50/35/25/20) vs Thorax (50/35/35/10)
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 139	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:11:02 - [13] - Quote @CCP Larrikin, any chance of seeing a fit with these stats? AND When is the 'Homeworld' interface going to be ready to use? That's going to be one of the deciding factors of how these'll play. If it's introduced already and I haven't figured out how to trigger it, could you make a video? <3
H3llHound Hogyoku Goonswarm Federation 87	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:12:10 - [14] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: SMA sizes missing from OP They are unchanged at 1M m3
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 139	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:14:35 - [15] - Quote And right now SiSi isn't working :(. Edit: I take it back, was just a bug with the interface.
Anthar Thebess 1479	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:19:34 - [16] - Quote Mimiko Severovski wrote: What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%) Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more. This. Huge ehp bonus for chimera and archon. Much smalled dps bonus on thanny. Why do you choose to use thanny if you can do more damage in archon by surviving much longer. Simple test: Put against each other thanny and archon fitted in the same way, both pilot have same skills. Check what carrier will win. Hint: Archon The bigger number of carriers, the bigger advantage of huge EHP buff against minor DPS increase. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 139	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:24:23 - [17] - Quote @Anthar, The velocity bonus means those fighters will fly faster and thus apply DPS more quickly. AND it means you will be able to defang and enemy carrier quickly too.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1343	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:32:31 - [18] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: @Anthar, The velocity bonus means those fighters will fly slightly less hilariously slowly and might even catch a battlecruiser without resorting to a cooldown You made a typo, I fixed it.
DaeHan Minhyok Reaper's Angels 50	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:34:51 - [19] - Quote Is there info somewhere on what will be happening with the new fighter skills and SP already in fighters/fighter bombers? The OP makes it seem like those w/ fighters V atm will need to train light fighters before they can use any fighters with a carrier? i.e. "Can launch light and support fighters" Thx

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 421	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:37:36 - [20] - Quote Francisco Vazquez Garcia wrote: Why are all resistance profiles the same? Fixed :) Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin



CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 421	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:43:55 - [21] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: @CCP Larrikin, any chance of seeing a fit with these stats? Your best bet is to jump on to Sisi :) Rob Kaichin wrote: When is the 'Homeworld' interface going to be ready to use? That's going to be one of the deciding factors of how these'll play. If it's introduced already and I haven't figured out how to trigger it, could you make a video? <3 Its on Sisi now :) We're going to do a Flight Acadamy video for it soon. For now, the simple instructions are > Launch a fighter squadron Select a fighter squadron on the fighter UI (if you don't see it look for the little triangular button bottom left of your modules). Hit M DaeHan Minhyok wrote: Is there info somewhere on what will be happening with the new fighter skills and SP already in fighters/fighter bombers? The OP makes it seem like those w/ fighters V atm will need to train light fighters before they can use any fighters with a carrier? i.e. "Can launch light and support fighters" Thx This is correct, you'll need to train Light Fighters to 1 before you can use Light Fighters. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Irregessa Obfuscation and Reflections 134	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:44:27 - [22] - Quote Why max locked targets of 14? The most targets a pilot can do is 12 with Advanced Target Management 5. The modules that increase max targets are to increase the electronics of the ship, not the pilot skill.
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 420	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:45:08 - [23] - Quote Dear CCP Larrikin, Congrats, the Archon is now the only Armor Carrier. For shield carriers, it is now: Chim >>> Nid > Thanatos. At least for PvP. Why? The Archon can get the Thanny's tank using only 5 slots, if the Thanny uses all 6. This leaves the Archon with either 2 DDAs, which will be significantly stronger than the measly 12.5% the Thanny gets as skillbonus, or it simply fits more tank. A lot more.
Vulfen Snuff Box Snuffed Out 186	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:46:43 - [24] - Quote Can you confirm do DDAs stack with the Fighter Support Units? Also what's with these huge figures of sig radius? Cutting their EHP but boosting it by about 300%
Lexiana Del'Amore Nouvelle Rouvenor Spaceship Bebop 184	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:47:54 - [25] - Quote RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 420	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:50:55 - [26] - Quote Proposal: Change Nid/Than bonus to a significant damage and/or hp bonus of Interceptor Fighter Squads. Gives them the niche of anti fighter platforms. And give them.equal slots as their tanky counterparts please!
Combat Wombatz Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 24	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:54:15 - [27] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: This is correct, you'll need to train Light Fighters to 1 before you can use Light Fighters. So we're going to need to get back to hisec to purchase the book before being able to use the stuff we can already fly? I thought that was something that you guys specifically always tried to avoid? I don't mind the training time too much as long as there's an additional benefit to it, but I do mind two days of jump cloning and the added expense to continue flying something we already use. What about people living in carriers built in W-space, for example? Maybe look into injecting the skill at rank 0 for people who have fighters trained?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1343	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:59:00 - [28] - Quote @Syrias Bizniz: I agree. There was a nice idea floated before I liked around the idea of accepting that the fleet carriers are archon/chimmy and that it would be essentially impossible to try and shoehorn the nig/thanny into that role. So instead make them bonused in such a way as they are viable skirmishers. For example bonuses to astronautic rigging, agility and so forth. Try to land the balance somewhere around the point people would want to run around in these for fun. It would add more content opportunities, give them a genuinely unique role and allow a lot of interesting possibilities to open up. Sure the arguement can be made that no-one wants to roam in even battleships, but then....carriers are much more weight on the field than that, plus cool factor. Also the fringe benefit of these would be nicer as suitcases as gating them would be much less painful. Alas though, they stuck with the dumpster for these two hulls
DaeHan Minhyok Reaper's Angels 50	Posted - 2016.03.31 12:59:57 - [29] - Quote DaeHan Minhyok wrote: Is there info somewhere on what will be happening with the new fighter skills and SP already in fighters/fighter bombers? The OP makes it seem like those w/ fighters V atm will need to train light fighters before they can use any fighters with a carrier? i.e. "Can launch light and support fighters" Thx This is correct, you'll need to train Light Fighters to 1 before you can use Light Fighters.[/quote] Can the 4 carriers only use light/support fighters? If so, would this not be an issue of "I could use X before the release, but not after"? I've missed a lot of the carrier discussion up to this point, so if this information is somewhere else, my apologies. And Thanks again
Irregessa Obfuscation and Reflections 134	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:01:28 - [30] - Quote Combat Wombatz wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: This is correct, you'll need to train Light Fighters to 1 before you can use Light Fighters. So we're going to need to get back to hisec to purchase the book before being able to use the stuff we can already fly? I thought that was something that you guys specifically always tried to avoid? I don't mind the training time too much as long as there's an additional benefit to it, but I do mind two days of jump cloning and the added expense to continue flying something we already use. What about people living in carriers built in W-space, for example? Maybe look into injecting the skill at rank 0 for people who have fighters trained? The books have been available on TQ since the beginning of the month. Why haven't you been training it already?

Scotsman Howard S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two 88	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:03:29 - [31] - Quote Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come I assume you are referring to PVP, and in that case, I would agree. However, my initial reaction is that the Nid will be the BEST Carrier to PVE in. Reasoning: You basically have to launch a support squadron since you can only launch two combat squadrons. The webbing bonus on the nig is better than the warp disruption on the Thanny in this respect. It may come down to the fits though. The Nid has the extra mid, so you could fit an extra drone nav comp on it but if you shield tank it, it could mean an extra low compared to an armored Thanny. Time and EFT will tell.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1343	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:06:52 - [32] - Quote You can launch 3 combat squadrons last I checked.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 421	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:08:56 - [33] - Quote Vulfen wrote: Can you confirm do DDAs stack with the Fighter Support Units? They would if they effected the same stat. DDAs effect damage while FSU's effect rate of fire. Vulfen wrote: Also what's with these huge figures of sig radius? Cutting their EHP but boosting it by about 300% Allows better balance for XL Weapons :) Combat Wombatz wrote: So we're going to need to get back to hisec to purchase the book before being able to use the stuff we can already fly? I thought that was something that you guys specifically always tried to avoid? Yes. The books have been seeded on Sisi for a month now though...so you have plenty of time :) Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Amantus Snuff Box Snuffed Out 351	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:14:55 - [34] - Quote Please re-think the Thanatos - the Archon outmatches it in both tank and DPS. Thanny has 6 lows and 12.5% damage bonus. Archon has 7 lows and a resist bonus. So an Archon with a 6-slot tank and 1 DDA tanks more due to the resist, and deals more DPS because the DDA bonus is 20.5%
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 420	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:17:32 - [35] - Quote List of bonuses that are more interesting than 2.5% dmg/level: 5% dmg/lvl 7.5(10)% interceptor squadron damage bonus/lvl 5(7.5, 10)% interceptor squadron speed 5(10, 15)% reduced capacitor need for mwd/lvl 5% speed/lvl 10% shield boost amount/lvl 10% reduced capacitor need for capital armor repairers/lvl If you got ideas, expand it!
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1345	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:20:23 - [36] - Quote >More ammo capacity for Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg, Einherji to reduce the amount of reloads required
Scotsman Howard S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two 88	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:25:27 - [37] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: You can launch 3 combat squadrons last I checked. A carrier can launch 3 squadrons, but when I tried, you cannot launch 3 DPS squadrons. You can only launch 2 and then the third can only be a support squadron. I do not know if the one type of squadron that is designed just for other drones/fighters is considered a combat squadron, but when I was on, I could not launch 3 of the dps focused fighters. Sorry I am at work and do not remember the exact terminology here. I will do my best below. There are 3 types of light fighters for carriers - DPS fighters for attacking ships - Interceptor fighters designed to attack other fighters and drones. These do junk damage to subcaps. - Support fighters - These are your E-War fighters. Based on my testing, I was unable to launch 3 DPS squadrons. I did not try to launch 2 DPS and 1 interceptor squadron as I do not know if interceptors are considered support or not.
Xavindo Sirober Fusion Enterprises Ltd Phoenix Company Alliance 46	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:30:34 - [38] - Quote @CCP Larrikin Any changes you can share for the rorqual regarding the mining bonus and the new excavation drone? On bandwith etc? Any unkown changes at all are appreciated :-)
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2389	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:34:30 - [39] - Quote Combat Wombatz wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: This is correct, you'll need to train Light Fighters to 1 before you can use Light Fighters. So we're going to need to get back to hisec to purchase the book before being able to use the stuff we can already fly? I thought that was something that you guys specifically always tried to avoid? I don't mind the training time too much as long as there's an additional benefit to it, but I do mind two days of jump cloning and the added expense to continue flying something we already use. What about people living in carriers built in W-space, for example? Maybe look into injecting the skill at rank 0 for people who have fighters trained? Low sec school stations? There are plenty of them all over the place. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Anthar Thebess 1479	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:39:59 - [40] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Rob Kaichin wrote: @Anthar, The velocity bonus means those fighters will fly slightly less hilariously slowly and might even catch a battlecruiser without resorting to a cooldown You made a typo, I fixed it. Where thanny have a bonus to drone speed? Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!

Icarus Narcissus Pathway to the Next 20	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:40:08 - [41] - Quote Other Bonuses that would be nice: Capital Armor Repairer Amount per Level Agility per Level That said, it is evident in the Force Auxiliary ships that when it comes to Gallente vs Amarr and Minmatar vs Caldari, the former seems to be more focused on small groups, while the latter seems to be more focused on larger groups. I think what we should be able to do is look at these ships and say "That [Thanatos/Nidhoggur] would make an excellent single carrier support for my small/medium [armor/shield] gang." No, it may not be the old role, but it would be significantly better than looking at them (especially the Thanatos) and saying "why would I ever fly these again?". ----Game mechanic discussion ends here, small lore rant below, proceed at own risk---- Throughout the lore we see numerous examples of the Gallente being the leaders in drone/fighter technology. Why are they suddenly by far the worst when it comes to capital drone/fighter warfare? Yes, the Amarr have recently begun work with Drone technology as seen in the Arbitrator, Prophecy, and Armageddon retrofitting in the past few years. No, they do not have over a hundred years of drone technology research dedicated to being able to defend the crews of their warships when under heavy electronic warfare assault. If nothing else, we need to be able to look at the Thanatos and say "yes, that is something that would come out of a culture that stands at the pinnacle of this type of weapons technology".

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 421	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:40:48 - [42] - Quote Scotsman Howard wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: You can launch 3 combat squadrons last I checked. A carrier can launch 3 squadrons, but when I tried, you cannot launch 3 DPS squadrons. You can only launch 2 and then the third can only be a support squadron. I do not know if the one type of squadron that is designed just for other drones/fighters is considered a combat squadron, but when I was on, I could not launch 3 of the dps focused fighters. Sorry I am at work and do not remember the exact terminology here. I will do my best below. There are 3 types of light fighters for carriers - DPS fighters for attacking ships - Interceptor fighters designed to attack other fighters and drones. These do junk damage to subcaps. - Support fighters - These are your E-War fighters. Based on my testing, I was unable to launch 3 DPS squadrons. I did not try to launch 2 DPS and 1 interceptor squadron as I do not know if interceptors are considered support or not. Hi Scotsman, There are 3 classes of fighters, Light, Support and Heavy. Inside the Light Fighter class, there are two roles, General (Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg & Einherji) and Space Superiority or Interceptor (Equite, Locust, Satyr & Gram). A comparable example with ships would be the Class Cruiser, and Roles Logistics (Osprey), EWar (Blackbird) & Damage (Moa/Caracal). Carriers can launch up to a maximum of 3 Light squadrons (regardless of role) and 1 support squadron. I hope that explain things a little better :) Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 139	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:42:50 - [43] - Quote 7km/s ain't slow, nor is a passive 2km/s.
Lexiana Del'Amore Nouvelle Rouvenor Spaceship Bebop 185	Posted - 2016.03.31 13:45:41 - [44] - Quote Scotsman Howard wrote: Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come I assume you are referring to PVP, and in that case, I would agree. However, my initial reaction is that the Nid will be the BEST Carrier to PVE in. Reasoning: You basically have to launch a support squadron since you can only launch two combat squadrons. The webbing bonus on the nig is better than the warp disruption on the Thanny in this respect. It may come down to the fits though. The Nid has the extra mid, so you could fit an extra drone nav comp on it but if you shield tank it, it could mean an extra low compared to an armored Thanny. Time and EFT will tell. yes i was referring towards PvP... not that they got used much before either in all honesty
DeathForMeh Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 6	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:04:59 - [45] - Quote @CCP Larrikin Fighter Support Units bonus to ROF is extending the rate of fire cycle rather than reducing it which make it a penalty currently. Also will there be a way of seeing the final stats for fighters after the fit/skills applies in the future?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1346	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:06:16 - [46] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: 7km/s ain't slow, nor is a passive 2km/s. 2km/s will take a bit of getting to from a 1km/s base.
Praal Bearded BattleBears I N F A M O U S 39	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:13:36 - [47] - Quote As others pointed out already, please don't relegate the Thanny / Nidd to even more PvP irrelevancy than they already suffer with those hull bonuses. Ideally nix the resist bonuses completely (and adjust base HP/resists) since those are so important in PvP that they can't really be balanced in desirability with something else. Or give all carriers a resist bonus but of different types (ex. 5%/lvl EM/TH armor, 5%/lvl TH/KI armor, etc) so that different carriers can be effective against different comps (and reversely best countered with different comps).

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 421	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:14:04 - [48] - Quote DeathForMeh wrote: @CCP Larrikin Fighter Support Units bonus to ROF is extending the rate of fire cycle rather than reducing it which make it a penalty currently. Also will there be a way of seeing the final stats for fighters after the fit/skills applies in the future? Oh good catch, I'll check that out. Thankyou! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1607	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:17:45 - [49] - Quote Just as everyone said when you released the info the focus group, the Nid and Thanny are headed towards trash tier. And you ignored all of the feedback, even from the focus group you made to give you said feedback. Seriously disappointing You can get more Tank, and more DPS, at the same time out of an Archon than you can a Thanny. Not impressed, CCP.
Kinizsi FREE GATES FREE GATES COALITION 9	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:19:00 - [50] - Quote Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come Actually..... the Nidi becomes the best ratting Carrier. And LIF becomes the best Force Aux because the cycle time bonus on it's remote reps and tank and cap booster bonuses.

Anthar Thebess 1480	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:21:20 - [51] - Quote CCP think about making thanny and niddy more pvp oriented ships. You are making them worst in new meta than they are in current capital meta. Kinizsi wrote: Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come Actually..... the Nidi becomes the best ratting Carrier. And LIF becomes the best Force Aux because the cycle time bonus on it's remote reps and tank and cap booster bonuses. What about people who want to do PVP not PVE? My assumption is that CCP don't want to make 2 carriers viable only in PVE - but i can be wrong. We are also talking about carriers, not FAX. Chimera and archon get huge bonus compared to one that have thanny and niddy. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 139	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:26:37 - [52] - Quote I just want to say, isn't it great that all these people have come from the future to tell us how these changes will go down... /s I think, in PvP, considering the magnitude of these changes, it's going to be very hard to predict how they'll go down.
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 420	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:39:54 - [53] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: I just want to say, isn't it great that all these people have come from the future to tell us how these changes will go down... /s I think, in PvP, considering the magnitude of these changes, it's going to be very hard to predict how they'll go down. Unless the nid and than can miraculosly outrun heavy fighters, they're gonna be **. The nid maaaaaaybe not so much like the than, but still, pretty **. Especially since the 50gn devours what, 400cap/s?
Icarus Narcissus Pathway to the Next 21	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:42:37 - [54] - Quote Just did some super basic napkin math. A pilot with Amarr Carrier I will have a better tank and better DPS than a person with Gallente Carrier V if that is the only skill that's different between the two pilots. This assumes that the Archon Pilot put the same 6 modules in their first six lows, and a T2 Drone Damage Amplifier in their empty low. Benefits an Archon pilot with Amarr Carrier I would have over a Thanatos Pilot with Gallente Carrier V: 4% more base EM Resistance 4% more base Thermal Resistance 14% more base Explosive Resistance 10.5% more Fighter Damage 75,000 more base Powergrid (~10%) 6,900 more base Armor (~10%) 3,000 more Capacitor Capacity (~5%) 280km more lock range (not sure how relevant this is at this range, but ~7.5%) 5 more base scan resolution (~7.5%) 40m smaller signature radius (less than 1%) 5% bonus to Cenobite Neutralization optimal range Benefits a Thanatos Pilot with Gallente Carrier V would have over an Archon pilot with Amarr Carrier I 1 more mid slot 6% more Kinetic Resistance 12.5% more Fighter HP 100 more base CPU (~16%) 6,900 more base Shield (~14%) 7,200 more base Hull (~10%) 0.06 more capacitor per second (less than 1%) 5% faster base align time 10,000m3 larger fighter hangar bay (~15%) 50m3 larger cargo hold (~5%) 4 more base sensor strength (~5%) 25% bonus to Siren warp disruption range I bolded (and starred) the bonuses I think will be more relevant.
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1607	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:45:59 - [55] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: I just want to say, isn't it great that all these people have come from the future to tell us how these changes will go down... /s I think, in PvP, considering the magnitude of these changes, it's going to be very hard to predict how they'll go down. Not really. These changes were announced on the focus group threads a while ago, and they have been on the TEST server for a good while. And since no changes have been made since then, the results of testing then are still valid. And it's exactly what your first impression would be. That a 20% resist bonus is far more powerful in PvP than a 12.5% damage/fighter health bonus. You can literally remove one tank mod from an Archon and put a damage mod in instead, and have higher buffer, higher resist, higher EHP, higher DPS, more capacitor, faster capacitor recharge than a Thanatos. Literally the only thing that the Thanatos is better at is a 12.5% difference in fighter EHP (MEEEEEEHHH) and an ever so slightly faster align time. Seriously. They ignored what every single person in their original feedback threads told them and threw this out anyway.
Kinizsi FREE GATES FREE GATES COALITION 9	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:46:01 - [56] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: CCP think about making thanny and niddy more pvp oriented ships. You are making them worst in new meta than they are in current capital meta. Kinizsi wrote: Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come Actually..... the Nidi becomes the best ratting Carrier. And LIF becomes the best Force Aux because the cycle time bonus on it's remote reps and tank and cap booster bonuses. What about people who want to do PVP not PVE? My assumption is that CCP don't want to make 2 carriers viable only in PVE - but i can be wrong. We are also talking about carriers, not FAX. Chimera and archon get huge bonus compared to one that have thanny and niddy. Actually nothing changed For PVP you allways used Archon and Chimera, after the patch you'll be using the same two again. Thanny and Nidi were only good for to die faster, cause you were 100% primary in any capital engagement because your weak tank.....EHP what only matters in capital fights, noone really cares the damage, and that won't change......live longer, die later, give more time for your fleet.
Lair Osen 114	Posted - 2016.03.31 14:50:44 - [57] - Quote What's up with the resists. They're all the same, no racial variation? And the Nid has an extra 10% armour EM Resist to 60%. is that a typo?
Icarus Narcissus Pathway to the Next 22	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:01:06 - [58] - Quote Lair Osen wrote: What's up with the resists. They're all the same, no racial variation? And the Nid has an extra 10% armour EM Resist to 60%. is that a typo? Archon: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 25 / 20 Chimera: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 45 / 25 / 10 Thanatos: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 35 / 10 Nidhoggur: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 60 / 35 / 25 / 10 The shields are not racially varied currently in the top post. The armors are racially varied as a 50/35/25/10 with an additional +10% to the enemy faction's primary damage.
Malakai Asamov Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion 38	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:01:20 - [59] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Mimiko Severovski wrote: What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%) Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more. This. Huge ehp bonus for chimera and archon. Much smalled dps bonus on thanny. Why do you choose to use thanny if you can do more damage in archon by surviving much longer. Simple test: Put against each other thanny and archon fitted in the same way, both pilot have same skills. Check what carrier will win. Hint: Archon The bigger number of carriers, the bigger advantage of huge EHP buff against minor DPS increase. unless the thanatos kills all the archons fighters.....?
Michael Oskold Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies. 17	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:02:31 - [60] - Quote ive played with a bunch of these on the test server so far. im diggin the attention required. i think the thannys bonus is a bit lackluster in comparison to the rest. You shouldnt be afraid to make it the dps machine that it was meant to be. I would drop the hp bonus and buff the damage. I think the nid will see a fair bit of use in small gang and ratting because of the blessed speed bonus so im excited :3 also 2k+ nids are a thing on the test server B) (as well as nano archons :D)

interSTELLA555 KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:15:27 - [61] - Quote Can you explain wtf the Siren Warp Disruptor Cenobite Neutralizer and all of those modules actually are? I haven't been on SiSi if they are their and I understand SiSi is quite buggy. Can you explain?
Icarus Narcissus Pathway to the Next 22	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:22:02 - [62] - Quote interSTELLA555 wrote: Can you explain wtf the Siren Warp Disruptor Cenobite Neutralizer and all of those modules actually are? I haven't been on SiSi if they are their and I understand SiSi is quite buggy. Can you explain? These are explained in another post further back, but basically they are new EWAR Fighters. Siren is the Warp Disruptor Support Fighter Cenobite is the Energy Neutralizer Support Fighter Scarab is the ECM Support Fighter Dromi is the Stasis Webifier Support Fighter There is another new set of anti-fighter fighters as well that you may see mentioned in the thread.
Icarus Narcissus Pathway to the Next 22	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:23:05 - [63] - Quote Double post please delete.
Silenar Ad Perpetuam Memoriam Heideran VII Nihilists Social Club 2	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:36:37 - [64] - Quote Same issue as the super level, albeit not as bad. 12.5% damage is not as strong as 20% resists. EANM II is 20% all resists (25% with 4 skills maxed), DDA II is 20.5% damage bonus. Both take a low slot, comparable CPU (DDA2 actually uses less), and are passive modules. How did damage suddenly become so much more valuable on carriers? Change damage bonus to 4%/level as well. Also while you're making adjustments, please consider adjusting the building materials for the Thanatos so that it's not consistently more expensive than the others to build, by a decent margin.
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 421	Posted - 2016.03.31 15:37:25 - [65] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: List of bonuses that are more interesting than 2.5% dmg/level: 5% dmg/lvl 7.5(10)% interceptor squadron damage bonus/lvl 5(7.5, 10)% interceptor squadron speed 5(10, 15)% reduced capacitor need for mwd/lvl 5% speed/lvl 10% shield boost amount/lvl 10% reduced capacitor need for capital armor repairers/lvl If you got ideas, expand it! -10% mass per level and -5(7.5 or whatever is mathematically necessary) velocity per level // idea: Reduce mass to make them align significantly better, nerf speed in the same turn to reduce the effects it has on the thrust of the 50GN MWD. Results: Fast aligning carriers that get slightly more speed out of their MWDs than the archon/chim.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 34	Posted - 2016.03.31 16:17:29 - [66] - Quote So the fighter damage is still as low as it was before, and there still is this huge imbalance between fighters, meaning firbolgs are the best and everything else is crap if you do not rely on a certain damage type. Look at Navigation Computer vs Damage Amplfier for example. 30% velocity Bonus and 20.5 % damage increase for the TII variant. And usually you fit more DDA than navs. So why should it be fair if for example Firbolgs do 22% more damage then Einhejri and Einherji are 22% faster? Or that Firbolgs have 16% more damage than Templar, and Templar are 16% faster? Damage is more valueable, you should cut the difference in damage in half. And as already mentioned in the last thread, fighters do significantly less damage than on tranq. Now carriers lost the support ability and also get a dps nerf? That still doesnt make much sense.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17570	Posted - 2016.03.31 16:21:01 - [67] - Quote Combat Wombatz wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: This is correct, you'll need to train Light Fighters to 1 before you can use Light Fighters. So we're going to need to get back to hisec to purchase the book before being able to use the stuff we can already fly? I thought that was something that you guys specifically always tried to avoid? I don't mind the training time too much as long as there's an additional benefit to it, but I do mind two days of jump cloning and the added expense to continue flying something we already use. What about people living in carriers built in W-space, for example? Maybe look into injecting the skill at rank 0 for people who have fighters trained? You can buy the skills now "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 16:26:11 - [68] - Quote Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: Scotsman Howard wrote: Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come I assume you are referring to PVP, and in that case, I would agree. However, my initial reaction is that the Nid will be the BEST Carrier to PVE in. Reasoning: You basically have to launch a support squadron since you can only launch two combat squadrons. The webbing bonus on the nig is better than the warp disruption on the Thanny in this respect. It may come down to the fits though. The Nid has the extra mid, so you could fit an extra drone nav comp on it but if you shield tank it, it could mean an extra low compared to an armored Thanny. Time and EFT will tell. yes i was referring towards PvP... not that they got used much before either in all honesty the nid has become an amazing tackle capital and you wont understand just how valuable that speed bnonuse to fighters is untill you see how limited fighter range really is also why can you only launch two combat squads all carriers can launch 3 Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 16:28:40 - [69] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: So the fighter damage is still as low as it was before, and there still is this huge imbalance between fighters, meaning firbolgs are the best and everything else is crap if you do not rely on a certain damage type. Look at Navigation Computer vs Damage Amplfier for example. 30% velocity Bonus and 20.5 % damage increase for the TII variant. And usually you fit more DDA than navs. So why should it be fair if for example Firbolgs do 22% more damage then Einhejri and Einherji are 22% faster? Or that Firbolgs have 16% more damage than Templar, and Templar are 16% faster? Damage is more valueable, you should cut the difference in damage in half. And as already mentioned in the last thread, fighters do significantly less damage than on tranq. Now carriers lost the support ability and also get a dps nerf? That still doesnt make much sense. dont forget they are also outdone by HAW as well Citadel worm hole tax
Creecher Virpio Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore 5	Posted - 2016.03.31 16:35:48 - [70] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Archon Amarr Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 5% bonus to Cenobite Neutralization optimal range Chimera Caldari Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 5% bonus to Scarab Jamming optimal range [/list] Thanatos Gallente Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 5% bonus to Siren warp disruption range Nidhoggur [i]Minmatar Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 5% bonus to Dromi Stasis Webification range why would you give a bonus to range and not a bonus to strength? unless this takes you out of smartbomb range, which im pretty sure none of these orbit in smart bomb range to begin with, this bonus is worthless? the only worthwhile one is MAYBE the point range from the thannatos. 25% extra range on jams or webs or neuts really means nothing. a bonus to strength would actually give you a reason to fly these particular support fighters with their racial carrier, as it stands now, this range bonus does nothing to encourage you to use your races support fighter.

Quesa Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 87	Posted - 2016.03.31 16:36:02 - [71] - Quote Hey Larrikin, love you long time. I honestly think that carriers and dreads were in a really good place when it came to HP. Offsetting the HP for the inclusion of plates and shield extenders was never really needed. The addition of the plates and extenders would have worked out just fine as you would have to sacrifice one aspect (resistance/attack power) to gain more HP, which seemed like a good trade. With the change you propose, the ship will be less useful (in terms of ability to tank/soak damage) thus less useful as the fleet sizes increase.
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 423	Posted - 2016.03.31 16:38:50 - [72] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: Scotsman Howard wrote: Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come I assume you are referring to PVP, and in that case, I would agree. However, my initial reaction is that the Nid will be the BEST Carrier to PVE in. Reasoning: You basically have to launch a support squadron since you can only launch two combat squadrons. The webbing bonus on the nig is better than the warp disruption on the Thanny in this respect. It may come down to the fits though. The Nid has the extra mid, so you could fit an extra drone nav comp on it but if you shield tank it, it could mean an extra low compared to an armored Thanny. Time and EFT will tell. yes i was referring towards PvP... not that they got used much before either in all honesty the nid has become an amazing tackle capital and you wont understand just how valuable that speed bnonuse to fighters is untill you see how limited fighter range really is also why can you only launch two combat squads all carriers can launch 3 I don't think that 3 fighters will withstand a lot of pressure.
FT Cold FUITA Dead Terrorists 57	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:04:35 - [73] - Quote Do the skill requirements for various cap modules and fighters on sisi reflect what they're going to be on tranq?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:16:21 - [74] - Quote Mimiko Severovski wrote: What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%) Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more. Take a second to look at stats past bonuses before giving your 2 cents The nid and the than have much larger done bays and can each get well over 1mill ehp These ships are no longer built to contend in capital fights so the extra tank on the archon and chimera don't mean much as they don't need to tank capital dps and you can kill all of their fighters b4 you kill them. That 2.5 damage bonus is also a 2.5speed/tank making your fighters much harder to kill As it is Archons ate almost useless and chimera ate not much better when it comes to filling the anti sub cap role (Tbh they all suck) but at least the than and nid have a chance to get some semblance of dps Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:18:23 - [75] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: Scotsman Howard wrote: Lexiana Del'Amore wrote: RIP thanny/Nid... no reason to ever fly them once these changes come I assume you are referring to PVP, and in that case, I would agree. However, my initial reaction is that the Nid will be the BEST Carrier to PVE in. Reasoning: You basically have to launch a support squadron since you can only launch two combat squadrons. The webbing bonus on the nig is better than the warp disruption on the Thanny in this respect. It may come down to the fits though. The Nid has the extra mid, so you could fit an extra drone nav comp on it but if you shield tank it, it could mean an extra low compared to an armored Thanny. Time and EFT will tell. yes i was referring towards PvP... not that they got used much before either in all honesty the nid has become an amazing tackle capital and you wont understand just how valuable that speed bnonuse to fighters is untill you see how limited fighter range really is also why can you only launch two combat squads all carriers can launch 3 I don't think that 3 fighters will withstand a lot of pressure. What do you mean Citadel worm hole tax
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 423	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:22:02 - [76] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: What do you mean I mean that i don't think that some small **** with 15k EHP will last long if it's far away from the safety of a hangar. Your tackle squadrons will get shot down in no-time.
Circumstantial Evidence 269	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:35:04 - [77] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Combat Wombatz wrote: So we're going to need to get back to hisec to purchase the book before being able to use the stuff we can already fly? I thought that was something that you guys specifically always tried to avoid? Yes. The books have been seeded on Sisi for a month now though...so you have plenty of time :) It seems to me much simpler to use the existing Fighters skill for Light Fighters. Support Fighters is a new type deserving of a new skill. Fighter-Bombers will be renamed to Heavy Fighters, cool. I think another precedent for the idea of using as many existing skills that make sense in the new scheme, was the removal of a dedicated FAX skill.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:36:21 - [78] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: What do you mean I mean that i don't think that some small **** with 15k EHP will last long if it's far away from the safety of a hangar. Your tackle squadrons will get shot down in no-time. O.o go try it the web drones are only out there long enough for the 2km/s nid to get there and swap them out for combat fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:38:19 - [79] - Quote Creecher Virpio wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Archon Amarr Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 5% bonus to Cenobite Neutralization optimal range Chimera Caldari Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 5% bonus to Scarab Jamming optimal range [/list] Thanatos Gallente Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 5% bonus to Siren warp disruption range Nidhoggur [i]Minmatar Carrier Bonus (per skill level): 5% bonus to Dromi Stasis Webification range why would you give a bonus to range and not a bonus to strength? unless this takes you out of smartbomb range, which im pretty sure none of these orbit in smart bomb range to begin with, this bonus is worthless? the only worthwhile one is MAYBE the point range from the thannatos. 25% extra range on jams or webs or neuts really means nothing. a bonus to strength would actually give you a reason to fly these particular support fighters with their racial carrier, as it stands now, this range bonus does nothing to encourage you to use your races support fighter. lol a lot of ppl seem to think the point drones are worth anything your in a capital your support fleet should have plenty of long points not a single E-war drone is worth the hanger space and giving up 1/3 of your DPS except in a select few cases. in short all the e-war fighters are about as useful as the e-war drones Citadel worm hole tax
Icarus Narcissus Pathway to the Next 25	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:43:07 - [80] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: lol a lot of ppl seem to think the point drones are worth anything your in a capital your support fleet should have plenty of long points not a single E-war drone is worth the hanger space and giving up 1/3 of your DPS except in a select few cases. in short all the e-war fighters are about as useful as the e-war drones Except you have 2 dedicated DPS fighter tubes and 1 dedicated support fighter tube. You can't use 3 DPS wings at the same time.

Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:48:15 - [81] - Quote Icarus Narcissus wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: lol a lot of ppl seem to think the point drones are worth anything your in a capital your support fleet should have plenty of long points not a single E-war drone is worth the hanger space and giving up 1/3 of your DPS except in a select few cases. in short all the e-war fighters are about as useful as the e-war drones Except you have 2 dedicated DPS fighter tubes and 1 dedicated support fighter tube. You can't use 3 DPS wings at the same time. WRONG i dont know why ppl have this idea you have 3 tubes you have 3 able to use light fighters you have one able to use support fighters you can have 3 combat fighters out OR 2 combat one support Citadel worm hole tax
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 427	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:50:40 - [82] - Quote Icarus Narcissus wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: lol a lot of ppl seem to think the point drones are worth anything your in a capital your support fleet should have plenty of long points not a single E-war drone is worth the hanger space and giving up 1/3 of your DPS except in a select few cases. in short all the e-war fighters are about as useful as the e-war drones Except you have 2 dedicated DPS fighter tubes and 1 dedicated support fighter tube. You can't use 3 DPS wings at the same time. This has been debunked already. You can use 3 DPS Squadrons at the same time. On the Nid: Yeah, no, you're not going to go 2km/s anymore. The "old", as in: the current, Nidhoggur gets up to 1800m/s hot with HG snakes and double Nano pre links. It's basespeed is getting nerfed significantly, this alone will cut 300m/s. It's mass is getting increased significantly, this will put it down by probably another 100m/s or so. So, with skirmish links, you'll probably go 1700 or so HOT, and we all know how fast heated propmods burn out, especially if you have to cycle it three times in a row just to actually get to topspeed...
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 17:52:53 - [83] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: Icarus Narcissus wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: lol a lot of ppl seem to think the point drones are worth anything your in a capital your support fleet should have plenty of long points not a single E-war drone is worth the hanger space and giving up 1/3 of your DPS except in a select few cases. in short all the e-war fighters are about as useful as the e-war drones Except you have 2 dedicated DPS fighter tubes and 1 dedicated support fighter tube. You can't use 3 DPS wings at the same time. This has been debunked already. You can use 3 DPS Squadrons at the same time. On the Nid: Yeah, no, you're not going to go 2km/s anymore. The "old", as in: the current, Nidhoggur gets up to 1800m/s hot with HG snakes and double Nano pre links. It's basespeed is getting nerfed significantly, this alone will cut 300m/s. It's mass is getting increased significantly, this will put it down by probably another 100m/s or so. So, with skirmish links, you'll probably go 1700 or so HOT, and we all know how fast heated propmods burn out, especially if you have to cycle it three times in a row just to actually get to topspeed... this is with no implants or links you can get 2km/s now on sisi Remember there is now a capital MWD i have spent the last week trying to see what i can do to break carriers dreads and FAX EDIT: this is also with no speed mods in the lows Citadel worm hole tax
Stein Backstabber Black Omega Security The OSS 36	Posted - 2016.03.31 18:01:31 - [84] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Mimiko Severovski wrote: What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%) Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more. Take a second to look at stats past bonuses before giving your 2 cents The nid and the than have much larger done bays and can each get well over 1mill ehp These ships are no longer built to contend in capital fights so the extra tank on the archon and chimera don't mean much as they don't need to tank capital dps and you can kill all of their fighters b4 you kill them. That 2.5 damage bonus is also a 2.5speed/tank making your fighters much harder to kill As it is Archons ate almost useless and chimera ate not much better when it comes to filling the anti sub cap role (Tbh they all suck) but at least the than and nid have a chance to get some semblance of dps Unless the math I've seen is wrong, the archon will both outdamage AND outtank a thanny/nid. Ed: Without EFT/fitting window on sisi working, it is hard to confirm.
Icarus Narcissus Pathway to the Next 25	Posted - 2016.03.31 18:02:09 - [85] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: This has been debunked already. You can use 3 DPS Squadrons at the same time. Good to know thanks. I have had quite a bit of trouble finding time to get on Sisi. As I think is evident by my earlier post, I believe the current bonuses are not ideal. If anything this makes the case even worse as 10% of thee fighter wings is even more of a discrepancy than 10% of two.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 18:03:34 - [86] - Quote Stein Backstabber wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Mimiko Severovski wrote: What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%) Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more. Take a second to look at stats past bonuses before giving your 2 cents The nid and the than have much larger done bays and can each get well over 1mill ehp These ships are no longer built to contend in capital fights so the extra tank on the archon and chimera don't mean much as they don't need to tank capital dps and you can kill all of their fighters b4 you kill them. That 2.5 damage bonus is also a 2.5speed/tank making your fighters much harder to kill As it is Archons ate almost useless and chimera ate not much better when it comes to filling the anti sub cap role (Tbh they all suck) but at least the than and nid have a chance to get some semblance of dps Unless the math I've seen is wrong, the archon will both outdamage AND outtank a thanny/nid. how the than and nid don't need to use their lows for tank as they both get a strong shield tank even if you do armor tank the thanny rather than shield you now have a much faster more cap stable and longer range fighter platform than the archon Citadel worm hole tax
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1160	Posted - 2016.03.31 18:54:39 - [87] - Quote I like the fact that you're taking away literally every reason there is to fly a carrier for those that can afford supercarriers. There's nothing distinctive or better about carriers in this patch except that they're somewhat cheaper and proportionally crappier and oh here's a bonus to ewar effects on fighters that will get within range anyway and make the bonus pointless.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 18:57:51 - [88] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: I like the fact that you're taking away literally every reason there is to fly a carrier for those that can afford supercarriers. There's nothing distinctive or better about carriers in this patch except that they're somewhat cheaper and proportionally crappier and oh here's a bonus to ewar effects on fighters that will get within range anyway and make the bonus pointless. lol have you seen that dreads work even better with HAW and require months less in training time Citadel worm hole tax

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 424	Posted - 2016.03.31 19:32:36 - [89] - Quote Hey Mates, We've tweaked the bonuses & stats a little. We've upped the damage bonus of the Thanatos and Nidhoggur up to 5% per level, and brought the amount of shield/armor a little closer together between the Archon/Thanatos & Chimera/Nidhoggur. Let us know what you think :) Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

SWJesus Paradox Collective Project.Mayhem. 3	Posted - 2016.03.31 19:34:40 - [90] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: Dear CCP Larrikin, .. The Archon can get the Thanny's tank using only 5 slots, if the Thanny uses all 6. This leaves the Archon with either 2 DDAs, which will be significantly stronger than the measly 12.5% the Thanny gets as skillbonus, or it simply fits more tank. A lot more. THIS, the resi bonuses are plain out ********.. They dont scale at all with the dmg boni of the other races, also specially considering that Chim/arch have mroe slots for theyr racial tank to start with.. how can ccp not do simple math and overpower two races ??

Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 19:35:54 - [91] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Mates, We've tweaked the bonuses & stats a little. We've upped the damage bonus of the Thanatos and Nidhoggur up to 5% per level, and brought the amount of shield/armor a little closer together between the Archon/Thanatos & Chimera/Nidhoggur. Let us know what you think :) if thats the case can the chimera and archon have comparable drone bays with the nid and thanny? Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1750	Posted - 2016.03.31 19:42:15 - [92] - Quote SWJesus wrote: Syrias Bizniz wrote: Dear CCP Larrikin, .. The Archon can get the Thanny's tank using only 5 slots, if the Thanny uses all 6. This leaves the Archon with either 2 DDAs, which will be significantly stronger than the measly 12.5% the Thanny gets as skillbonus, or it simply fits more tank. A lot more. THIS, the resi bonuses are plain out ********.. They dont scale at all with the dmg boni of the other races, also specially considering that Chim/arch have mroe slots for theyr racial tank to start with.. how can ccp not do simple math and overpower two races ?? i love how everyone thinks the chimera and archon are going to be overpowered after using them on sisi the extra tank meant nothing because you could just kill all their fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2016.03.31 20:28:29 - [93] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Mates, We've tweaked the bonuses & stats a little. We've upped the damage bonus of the Thanatos and Nidhoggur up to 5% per level, and brought the amount of shield/armor a little closer together between the Archon/Thanatos & Chimera/Nidhoggur. Let us know what you think :) I like it, that should make the different carriers more balanced among each other. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i love how everyone thinks the chimera and archon are going to be overpowered after using them on sisi the extra tank meant nothing because you could just kill all their fighters If that is the case (I didnt test this that much), than that would be a seperate problem of balancing survivability of fighters. The balancing of the races among each other should not be based on such a different problem.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1755	Posted - 2016.03.31 20:32:40 - [94] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Mates, We've tweaked the bonuses & stats a little. We've upped the damage bonus of the Thanatos and Nidhoggur up to 5% per level, and brought the amount of shield/armor a little closer together between the Archon/Thanatos & Chimera/Nidhoggur. Let us know what you think :) I like it, that should make the different carriers more balanced among each other. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i love how everyone thinks the chimera and archon are going to be overpowered after using them on sisi the extra tank meant nothing because you could just kill all their fighters If that is the case (I didnt test this that much), than that would be a seperate problem of balancing survivability of fighters. The balancing of the races among each other should not be based on such a different problem. but its not a different problem its all suitability chimera and archon can survive better under capital fire but than and nid can last better against smaller guns Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 36	Posted - 2016.03.31 20:53:19 - [95] - Quote I do not think there is much of a difference in the survivability against small guns. I cant login right now to check the numbers, but I think the Thanatos with the largest bay can fit 87 fighters, so the chimera with the smallest one should fit 68. Additionally both have 27 already in the tubes. So in total its 114 vs 95. If the extra tank does not matter because you can just kill the fighters, then carriers in general have the problem that they cant do **** because you can just kill the fighters. In that case the few more fighters wont make a real difference. Thats what I mean with seperate problem. The 2.5% shield/speed bonus per level wont make much of a difference either.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 54	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:01:36 - [96] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Mates, We've tweaked the bonuses & stats a little. We've upped the damage bonus of the Thanatos and Nidhoggur up to 5% per level, and brought the amount of shield/armor a little closer together between the Archon/Thanatos & Chimera/Nidhoggur. Let us know what you think :) It's definitely a step in the right direction. The Nidhoggur seems like a reasonable option now for its speed bonus. The Thanatos still seems a bit underwhelming though. 12.5% more fighter durability can't get close to competing with 12.5% speed for most uses. If someone is going to kill your fighters, they'll do it regardless of a little extra durability, while the speed bonus can easily mean the difference between fighters keeping up with their target or the target outrunning them. It's also a range bonus or can mean choosing higher damage but slower fighters. I propose buffing the Thanatos a little more with a 6% or maybe even 7% damage bonus to give it back the Gallente drone damage niche, and 5% fighter durability so it actually makes a noticeable difference. With the current bonuses though, there's really no incentive to train a carrier skill to 5 for the normal hulls. Currently they get an extra drone which is effectively a 10-20% damage bonus per level and might justify training a 14x skill to 5. With that bonus removed for the Archon and Chimera, and drastically reduced for the Thanatos and Nidhoggur, you'd be a fool to spend over 40 days training level 5 unless you need it for another ship like a super. And if you have a super there are few reasons to use a carrier instead since they're worse in every way except cost and docking.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1756	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:05:02 - [97] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: I do not think there is much of a difference in the survivability against small guns. I cant login right now to check the numbers, but I think the Thanatos with the largest bay can fit 87 fighters, so the chimera with the smallest one should fit 68. Additionally both have 27 already in the tubes. So in total its 114 vs 95. If the extra tank does not matter because you can just kill the fighters, then carriers in general have the problem that they cant do **** because you can just kill the fighters. In that case the few more fighters wont make a real difference. Thats what I mean with seperate problem. The 2.5% shield/speed bonus per level wont make much of a difference either. except along with the larger bay the minm and gal ones are harder to kill the speed one makes the largest diferance Citadel worm hole tax
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 432	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:24:45 - [98] - Quote The change to 5% dmg is good. No need to fear carriers stepping into Super's terrain anyways. While the skillbonuses of the Nid / Thanatos now get the same damage than Aeon / Wyvern, the latter can field 5 squadrons at once and - which is way more important - can field heavy fighters. Nidhoggur should be a viable choice now compared to the Chimera, on the Thanatos I'm not sure yet. So, right now with the added damage, it looks like this: Shield: Chimera, the tanky one, Nidhoggur, the DPS one. A good tradeoff in my opinion. Armor: Archon, the... better one, sadly. I'll explain why. Carriers main use will be: DPS. After stripping them from their logistics role, all they can do is apply pressure with their fighter squadrons. While on shield setups, the midslots are used for tanking and the lowslots are used for damage, on armor the lowslots get used for both, tanking AND damage. Thus, the armor carrier that has the most "effective lowslots" is the better one. In case of the Archon, it has 7 lowslots and 1 "imaginary" or "effective" lowslot through it's hullbonus: 20% resistance on Carrier V, which is very close to an EANM - thus the "effective" lowslot. The Thanatos has 6 lowslots and 1 effective lowslot in form of it's Fighter Damage Bonus, being slightly above a T2 DDA. My suggestion would be now: Take away one Highslot from the Thanatos and add it as an additional lowslot, bringing it to 8 effective lowslots aswell and thus on par with the Archon. If fitting for maximum tank, the Archon would still win and be the tanky choice, as it's having one effective lowslot that is not stacking penalized and will thus reach higher overall resistances. If fitting for maximum dps, it's the other way round, the Thanatos now has the advantage because one of it's effective lowslots is not stacking penalized. When fitting for a balance between dps and tank, they'd come out roughly equal. They would be differenciated through their High- and Midslot layout though, with the Archon having more "offensive" options - a utility high is usually used for modules like Nos, Neut, Smartbomb, Fighter Support Unit, etc. etc.. The Thanatos would be more versatile however, being able to fit an additional Drone Nav Comp for example, or go for a light shield tank with a maximum dps / mobility setup. Overall, the move of one high to one low on the Thanatos will put it in line with the Archon and making it NOT the worse choice every time. It would make it an interesting choice instead. Maybe this could also be adapted to the Nyx and resolve the issues with that one. What do you guys think?
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 432	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:31:47 - [99] - Quote Also, @Lugh Crow-Slave, i see that you often mention how the Nid/Thanny would be the better carriers as they would simply kill off the Archon/Chims fighters and thus win. First of all, this would only be true in a 1v1 carrier dogfight. Second, it will not always boil down to this. There are so many variables, ranging from highslot modules to fighter layout (How many interceptors do you carry, how many support fighters, how many light fighters - An Archon with a full rack of interceptor fighters would wipe out any Thanatos' mixed fighterbay with ease), that you simply can't claim this point to be the truth. There's also a thing called micromanagement, which you can see already when 2 droneboats fight each other. Usually, the droneboat that has it's drones close to itself - and in scoop range - is at an advantage, as taking drones (or: fighters) out of the combat that are being shot is a lot more easy that way. Now add in other ships aswell, such as 2 rifters on one carrier's side and suddenly the whole outcome of the fight would be different. You couldn't imagine this now, 2 rifters helping a carrier making it suddenly beat another carrier, that simply isn't really possible right now. On April 27th, it is.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1162	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:32:35 - [100] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: No need to fear carriers stepping into Super's terrain anyways. No, the opposite is my concern. There's no reason to use carriers as these stats are aside from them being cheaper.

Lugh Crow-Slave 1756	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:33:44 - [101] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: The change to 5% dmg is good. No need to fear carriers stepping into Super's terrain anyways. While the skillbonuses of the Nid / Thanatos now get the same damage than Aeon / Wyvern, the latter can field 5 squadrons at once and - which is way more important - can field heavy fighters. Nidhoggur should be a viable choice now compared to the Chimera, on the Thanatos I'm not sure yet. So, right now with the added damage, it looks like this: Shield: Chimera, the tanky one, Nidhoggur, the DPS one. A good tradeoff in my opinion. Armor: Archon, the... better one, sadly. I'll explain why. Carriers main use will be: DPS. After stripping them from their logistics role, all they can do is apply pressure with their fighter squadrons. While on shield setups, the midslots are used for tanking and the lowslots are used for damage, on armor the lowslots get used for both, tanking AND damage. Thus, the armor carrier that has the most "effective lowslots" is the better one. In case of the Archon, it has 7 lowslots and 1 "imaginary" or "effective" lowslot through it's hullbonus: 20% resistance on Carrier V, which is very close to an EANM - thus the "effective" lowslot. The Thanatos has 6 lowslots and 1 effective lowslot in form of it's Fighter Damage Bonus, being slightly above a T2 DDA. My suggestion would be now: Take away one Highslot from the Thanatos and add it as an additional lowslot, bringing it to 8 effective lowslots aswell and thus on par with the Archon. If fitting for maximum tank, the Archon would still win and be the tanky choice, as it's having one effective lowslot that is not stacking penalized and will thus reach higher overall resistances. If fitting for maximum dps, it's the other way round, the Thanatos now has the advantage because one of it's effective lowslots is not stacking penalized. When fitting for a balance between dps and tank, they'd come out roughly equal. They would be differenciated through their High- and Midslot layout though, with the Archon having more "offensive" options - a utility high is usually used for modules like Nos, Neut, Smartbomb, Fighter Support Unit, etc. etc.. The Thanatos would be more versatile however, being able to fit an additional Drone Nav Comp for example, or go for a light shield tank with a maximum dps / mobility setup. Overall, the move of one high to one low on the Thanatos will put it in line with the Archon and making it NOT the worse choice every time. It would make it an interesting choice instead. Maybe this could also be adapted to the Nyx and resolve the issues with that one. What do you guys think? to be honest i find the than gets more than enough tank using shields but if you really want 2 armor 2 shield i suppose this is an option :/ Citadel worm hole tax
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1162	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:34:27 - [102] - Quote My proposal to fix this is very simple: Don't allow supers to use support fighters. They'll get their superweapons instead. Carriers will be the only platform to use support fighters.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1756	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:37:15 - [103] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: Also, @Lugh Crow-Slave, i see that you often mention how the Nid/Thanny would be the better carriers as they would simply kill off the Archon/Chims fighters and thus win. First of all, this would only be true in a 1v1 carrier dogfight. Second, it will not always boil down to this. There are so many variables, ranging from highslot modules to fighter layout (How many interceptors do you carry, how many support fighters, how many light fighters - An Archon with a full rack of interceptor fighters would wipe out any Thanatos' mixed fighterbay with ease), that you simply can't claim this point to be the truth. There's also a thing called micromanagement, which you can see already when 2 droneboats fight each other. Usually, the droneboat that has it's drones close to itself - and in scoop range - is at an advantage, as taking drones (or: fighters) out of the combat that are being shot is a lot more easy that way. Now add in other ships aswell, such as 2 rifters on one carrier's side and suddenly the whole outcome of the fight would be different. You couldn't imagine this now, 2 rifters helping a carrier making it suddenly beat another carrier, that simply isn't really possible right now. On April 27th, it is. i dont mean in a carrier on carrier fight im talking a small group of desi able to make very quick work of fighters if it comes to that the only way carriers can hurt each other is by killing fighters they will not do enough dps to kill each other Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1757	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:38:03 - [104] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: My proposal to fix this is very simple: Don't allow supers to use support fighters. They'll get their superweapons instead. Carriers will be the only platform to use support fighters. YEAH \o/ hear that guys carriers get usless fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 434	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:48:18 - [105] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: to be honest i find the than gets more than enough tank using shields but if you really want 2 armor 2 shield i suppose this is an option :/ 5 midslots make for a good tank in your eyes? One goes for the propmod, without that you might aswell selfdestruct. Now, if you fitted an MWD, you'll probably want a capbattery aswell, or maybe a capbooster. So, from your 5 slots, 2 are gone. Now you can fit a CSE and 2 Invuls, wow, what a tank... It's one weak ass tank.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 38	Posted - 2016.03.31 21:55:58 - [106] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: My proposal to fix this is very simple: Don't allow supers to use support fighters. They'll get their superweapons instead. Carriers will be the only platform to use support fighters. support fighters are mostly useless, so there still would be no reason to use normal carriers. I would suggest to dissallow light attack fighters on supers instead, while increasing the light fighters effectiveness against subcaps (just generally too low at the moment) and decreasing the effeciveness of heavy fighters against subcaps Supercaps would still be very good against large subcaps, as heavy fighters do insane damage to subcaps, but the anit-subcap focus would be more on the carrier. To the slotlayout problem: I think the main problem just is that right now you want to fit either tank or dda. You dont want scram, web, painter, or any of that stuff on a carrier, thats what the rest of the fleet is for. You want dps with your fighters. And here lowslots are just better, because you can fit dda. In midslots there are only navcomps, where you cant use too many (and they compete with FSU with the penalty anyway), and tracking links. Which are super weak right now (assuming its not a bug that they work at all). In my test they gave a 5% damage increase against small and fast targets... thats really bad comparing it with DDA, and also tracking enhancer for the low slots have the same effect but BETTER. Around 7% in my test. Carriers jus need something good for midslots, than the problem is solved. On Tranq this was no problem, as tracking links had a real effect.. maybe just make them useful for carriers again?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1757	Posted - 2016.03.31 22:00:50 - [107] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: to be honest i find the than gets more than enough tank using shields but if you really want 2 armor 2 shield i suppose this is an option :/ 5 midslots make for a good tank in your eyes? One goes for the propmod, without that you might aswell selfdestruct. Now, if you fitted an MWD, you'll probably want a capbattery aswell, or maybe a capbooster. So, from your 5 slots, 2 are gone. Now you can fit a CSE and 2 Invuls, wow, what a tank... It's one weak ass tank. why do you need the prop mod? remove that and you no longer need the cap booster giving you enough mids to fit a 1.2mill ehp tank more than enough yo handle sub caps Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1757	Posted - 2016.03.31 22:03:38 - [108] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: My proposal to fix this is very simple: Don't allow supers to use support fighters. They'll get their superweapons instead. Carriers will be the only platform to use support fighters. support fighters are mostly useless, so there still would be no reason to use normal carriers. I would suggest to dissallow light attack fighters on supers instead, while increasing the light fighters effectiveness against subcaps (just generally too low at the moment) and decreasing the effeciveness of heavy fighters against subcaps Supercaps would still be very good against large subcaps, as heavy fighters do insane damage to subcaps, but the anit-subcap focus would be more on the carrier. To the slotlayout problem: I think the main problem just is that right now you want to fit either tank or dda. You dont want scram, web, painter, or any of that stuff on a carrier, thats what the rest of the fleet is for. You want dps with your fighters. And here lowslots are just better, because you can fit dda. In midslots there are only navcomps, where you cant use too many (and they compete with FSU with the penalty anyway), and tracking links. Which are super weak right now (assuming its not a bug that they work at all). In my test they gave a 5% damage increase against small and fast targets... thats really bad comparing it with DDA, and also tracking enhancer for the low slots have the same effect but BETTER. Around 7% in my test. Carriers jus need something good for midslots, than the problem is solved. On Tranq this was no problem, as tracking links had a real effect.. maybe just make them useful for carriers again? a fighter mid that adds to the effect of E-war? fits with e-war being in the mids and god knows the e-war fighters need something Citadel worm hole tax
Zenafar 0	Posted - 2016.03.31 22:36:24 - [109] - Quote I'm not sure but i didn't notice that FSU reduce ROF below 5 sec. In fact i think FSU extending cycle right now. Used Firbolgs. So we lose DPS with each FSU. Maybe I'm wrong
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2016.03.31 22:43:12 - [110] - Quote No, you are right, the bug is already known.

Lugh Crow-Slave 1758	Posted - 2016.03.31 22:48:04 - [111] - Quote Zenafar wrote: I'm not sure but i didn't notice that FSU reduce ROF below 5 sec. In fact i think FSU extending cycle right now. Used Firbolgs. So we lose DPS with each FSU. Maybe I'm wrong I cant even tell if they are supposed to have a stacking penalty its not listed in the item description and only 1/2 the stats stack it seems also 6% seems a bit low to also have a stacking penalty Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1758	Posted - 2016.03.31 22:50:00 - [112] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: No, you are right, the bug is already known. O.o i wonder if this is why they feel SO weak i mean the numbers show they are but they do feel a lot worse than the should Citadel worm hole tax
Circumstantial Evidence 271	Posted - 2016.03.31 23:53:24 - [113] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: My proposal to fix this is very simple: Don't allow supers to use support fighters. They'll get their superweapons instead. Carriers will be the only platform to use support fighters. I like this, give carriers a unique role - an option, not a requirement since they'd still be able to use damage fighters. Some may consider support fighters useless, up until the point they complain to the FC about this or that effect coming from them ;)
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 54	Posted - 2016.04.01 00:05:19 - [114] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: My proposal to fix this is very simple: Don't allow supers to use support fighters. They'll get their superweapons instead. Carriers will be the only platform to use support fighters. I like this, give carriers a unique role - an option, not a requirement since they'd still be able to use damage fighters. Some may consider support fighters useless, up until the point they complain to the FC about this or that effect coming from them ;) It would be an interesting idea. Carriers do seem to lack a role they're good at, but the role of using support fighters seems a bit... weak. I'd prefer if carriers would be the definitive anti-subcap capital, but supers have them beat by far.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1762	Posted - 2016.04.01 00:22:56 - [115] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: My proposal to fix this is very simple: Don't allow supers to use support fighters. They'll get their superweapons instead. Carriers will be the only platform to use support fighters. I like this, give carriers a unique role - an option, not a requirement since they'd still be able to use damage fighters. Some may consider support fighters useless, up until the point they complain to the FC about this or that effect coming from them ;) It would be an interesting idea. Carriers do seem to lack a role they're good at, but the role of using support fighters seems a bit... weak. I'd prefer if carriers would be the definitive anti-subcap capital, but supers have them beat by far. So do dreads And no the Ewar fighters are useless they are weaker or just as strong as standard counterparts don't gain buffs from fleet boosts and take away 1/3 your dps Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1762	Posted - 2016.04.01 00:25:16 - [116] - Quote Also ccp please tell me the sensor strength on these is place holder they are weaker than light drones and can be permanently jammed by a t1 frig and o don't mean one flight I mean all 3 Citadel worm hole tax
Soleil Fournier Ultimatum. The Bastion 80	Posted - 2016.04.01 00:55:53 - [117] - Quote Carriers do lack a defined role. They get bonuses to support fighters but are only allowed to launch one wing of them. Doesn't really stand out.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 55	Posted - 2016.04.01 01:14:30 - [118] - Quote Soleil Fournier wrote: Carriers do lack a defined role. They get bonuses to support fighters but are only allowed to launch one wing of them. Doesn't really stand out. Not to mention it's a mostly useless bonus and you have to sacrifice 1/3 of your DPS to use that one wing.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1763	Posted - 2016.04.01 01:14:59 - [119] - Quote Soleil Fournier wrote: Carriers do lack a defined role. They get bonuses to support fighters but are only allowed to launch one wing of them. Doesn't really stand out. no they have a defined role an anti sub cap platform that's all they can do problem is so many other things do it better for less SP either they need more range or more DPS Citadel worm hole tax
KT King School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.04.01 02:02:59 - [120] - Quote I very much want to try the new carrier mechanics, but every time I undock a carrier on Sisi and launch fighters that's as far as I can get. The default hotkey "F" does nothing for fighters now. No special window opens up. I cannot find anyway to give my fighters commands or otherwise interact with them. They sit in space and get agro, but that's about it. It's really frustrating.... Is there something I need to enable or a window I can toggle that I'm somehow not seeing in the menu?

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 55	Posted - 2016.04.01 02:19:51 - [121] - Quote KT King wrote: I very much want to try the new carrier mechanics, but every time I undock a carrier on Sisi and launch fighters that's as far as I can get. The default hotkey "F" does nothing for fighters now. No special window opens up. I cannot find anyway to give my fighters commands or otherwise interact with them. They sit in space and get agro, but that's about it. It's really frustrating.... Is there something I need to enable or a window I can toggle that I'm somehow not seeing in the menu? There should be a button kind of between your capacitor and module icons that switches control to fighters. You can also drag that somewhere to detach the fighter control and see your modules at the same time.
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1615	Posted - 2016.04.01 03:11:45 - [122] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: KT King wrote: I very much want to try the new carrier mechanics, but every time I undock a carrier on Sisi and launch fighters that's as far as I can get. The default hotkey "F" does nothing for fighters now. No special window opens up. I cannot find anyway to give my fighters commands or otherwise interact with them. They sit in space and get agro, but that's about it. It's really frustrating.... Is there something I need to enable or a window I can toggle that I'm somehow not seeing in the menu? There should be a button kind of between your capacitor and module icons that switches control to fighters. You can also drag that somewhere to detach the fighter control and see your modules at the same time. There is, but it might not be working. Saw it in the RocketX carrier mechanic video.
KT King School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.04.01 04:01:02 - [123] - Quote Found the button, thank you - seems like a bad place to have it since it was 50% covered by a low slot item I had.....
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 42	Posted - 2016.04.01 08:24:26 - [124] - Quote So the tracking links now officially help fighters against smaller targets since they have a bonus on explosion radius and explosion velocity. Thats good. Tracking links are -3% / 3%, tracking enhancers are -5% / 5%. Thats not so good. 1. Why are tracking enhancers so much better without any downside? They even have lower fitting requirements and dont need cap (not that this matters much). This only increases the lowslot-imbalance of carriers further. 2. why are the values so extremely low? All similar modules have much higher values. For example missile guidance computer has 8.25 velocity bonus and -8.25% radius bonu, and additionally a flight time bonus and a missile velocity bonus, and can be scripted. Guidance enhancer only have 6%, but also affect missile velocity, explosion radius, explosion velocity and explosion radius. Tracking enhancers/computers also have values between 7.5% and 20%.
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 2173	Posted - 2016.04.01 10:00:33 - [125] - Quote Where is the thread for dreads? They need some serious work from what is see on sisi. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Trinkets friend Empty Vessels 3024	Posted - 2016.04.01 10:41:48 - [126] - Quote So, I heard you wanted to warp out, like a minute ago? Those align times, bro. No. Just no. You don't even need to tackle these things, once they hit grid, they're stuck for the length of a battle. ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1356	Posted - 2016.04.01 10:46:44 - [127] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: So, I heard you wanted to warp out, like a minute ago? Those align times, bro. No. Just no. You don't even need to tackle these things, once they hit grid, they're stuck for the length of a battle. Remember that's at 0 skills. Thanny today at all 0s is 73.4s They're actually improving them. For reference unfit today at all V is is 27.9 Ed: If I add a 'Basic' Nanofibre Internal Structure to said thanny today the without skills align is 65.9 (may be rounding). With skills that's 25. Although the mass is up so maybe not quite that simple.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1763	Posted - 2016.04.01 13:37:01 - [128] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: So the tracking links now officially help fighters against smaller targets since they have a bonus on explosion radius and explosion velocity. Thats good. Tracking links are -3% / 3%, tracking enhancers are -5% / 5%. Thats not so good. 1. Why are tracking enhancers so much better without any downside? They even have lower fitting requirements and dont need cap (not that this matters much). This only increases the lowslot-imbalance of carriers further. 2. why are the values so extremely low? All similar modules have much higher values. For example missile guidance computer has 8.25 velocity bonus and -8.25% radius bonu, and additionally a flight time bonus and a missile velocity bonus, and can be scripted. Guidance enhancer only have 6%, but also affect missile velocity, explosion radius, explosion velocity and explosion radius. Tracking enhancers/computers also have values between 7.5% and 20%. maybe when the script effects it it will be more than 100%? but yeah idk why ccp wants to make these things anti sub cap but at the same time not give them the tools to do it as well as other options or maybe ccp got them backwards? Citadel worm hole tax
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 437	Posted - 2016.04.01 14:44:18 - [129] - Quote There's 2 answers for the Enhancer being better than the comp. Answer 1, the likely one: They **** it up, and it's supposed to be the other way round. Answer 2, the good one: It's intended. They compete with DDAs for slots, and as such the DDA will often be the better choice, as it gives 20.5% dps, which is 20.5% better dps even to targets that are sigtanking like a boss. Tracking enhancers would only start being good when shooting frigs, sooo... the enhancer would never get fit, except for shield gank ratting carriers maybe (Thanatos). This way, depending on some math n ** and different targets, the Enhancer probably has the chance of giving better benefits than a DDA, but only on small, relatively fast targets, while the DDA would be the better choice for shooting sitting ducks. I wish for answer 2, as that would show that CCP did some math and was aware of this situation. I fear it is answer 1, and they are not aware of the situation, and tracking enhancers will never get fit to carriers after they "correct" it. PS: I can't do the math right now whether or not 5%/5% ODTE would outperform a DDA in some cases. If someone wants to do it to prove or disprove it, please do so.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1763	Posted - 2016.04.01 15:50:19 - [130] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: There's 2 answers for the Enhancer being better than the comp. Answer 1, the likely one: They **** it up, and it's supposed to be the other way round. Answer 2, the good one: It's intended. They compete with DDAs for slots, and as such the DDA will often be the better choice, as it gives 20.5% dps, which is 20.5% better dps even to targets that are sigtanking like a boss. Tracking enhancers would only start being good when shooting frigs, sooo... the enhancer would never get fit, except for shield gank ratting carriers maybe (Thanatos). This way, depending on some math n ** and different targets, the Enhancer probably has the chance of giving better benefits than a DDA, but only on small, relatively fast targets, while the DDA would be the better choice for shooting sitting ducks. I wish for answer 2, as that would show that CCP did some math and was aware of this situation. I fear it is answer 1, and they are not aware of the situation, and tracking enhancers will never get fit to carriers after they "correct" it. PS: I can't do the math right now whether or not 5%/5% ODTE would outperform a DDA in some cases. If someone wants to do it to prove or disprove it, please do so. with that logic why isn't it the same for all low slot tracking enhancers? oh yeah so that armor tank can have an advantage in application where shield has advantage in raw dps Citadel worm hole tax

Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2016.04.01 17:14:09 - [131] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: PS: I can't do the math right now whether or not 5%/5% ODTE would outperform a DDA in some cases. If someone wants to do it to prove or disprove it, please do so. Short answer: no it cannot. That would require a drf roughly four times larger than a citadel torpedo, and that is pretty unlikely. We do not know the drf, but guessing I would place it around 3-4, which gives a maximum damage increase of about 7%-8%. Which is consistent with my tests that showed roughly the same number. For the 3%/-3% of the computers, this results in 5% damage increase, which is also what I measured.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1763	Posted - 2016.04.01 17:43:36 - [132] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Syrias Bizniz wrote: PS: I can't do the math right now whether or not 5%/5% ODTE would outperform a DDA in some cases. If someone wants to do it to prove or disprove it, please do so. Short answer: no it cannot. That would require a drf roughly four times larger than a citadel torpedo, and that is pretty unlikely. We do not know the drf, but guessing I would place it around 3-4, which gives a maximum damage increase of about 7%-8%. Which is consistent with my tests that showed roughly the same number. For the 3%/-3% of the computers, this results in 5% damage increase, which is also what I measured. A DDA is ALWAYS much better. Also a second DDA is always much better. A third DDA is still better, even though not by much. Only the forth DDA might perform worse against small and fast targets, due to stacking penalty. (the forth DDA is still better than one tracking comp). like i said since all the meta mods are the same atm i think these are just placeholder numbers Citadel worm hole tax
Flyinghotpocket Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 569	Posted - 2016.04.01 19:56:18 - [133] - Quote looks good. 2 tank carriers. 2 dps carriers. nice nice Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Lugh Crow-Slave 1763	Posted - 2016.04.01 20:02:00 - [134] - Quote Flyinghotpocket wrote: looks good. 2 tank carriers. 2 dps carriers. nice nice Lol look deaper and two me when you would use any carriers over something else Citadel worm hole tax
Flyinghotpocket Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 569	Posted - 2016.04.01 20:06:58 - [135] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Flyinghotpocket wrote: looks good. 2 tank carriers. 2 dps carriers. nice nice Lol look deaper and two me when you would use any carriers over something else wat? Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Lugh Crow-Slave 1764	Posted - 2016.04.01 20:36:33 - [136] - Quote Flyinghotpocket wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Flyinghotpocket wrote: looks good. 2 tank carriers. 2 dps carriers. nice nice Lol look deaper and two me when you would use any carriers over something else wat? right now the only thing carriers can do is kill sub caps but there are other things that do that job better for less sp Citadel worm hole tax
Shakira Akira Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2016.04.01 21:09:12 - [137] - Quote So let me get this right.. I currently have fighters to 5 and fighter bombers to 4. I can use the current fighters. (templars. einherji etc) Once the changes come in. I will have the new heavy fighters skill to 4, keep my fighters skill to 5.. but in order to be able to use templars and einherj I will have to go and train the new "light fighter" skill.
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1616	Posted - 2016.04.01 22:21:12 - [138] - Quote Shakira Akira wrote: So let me get this right.. I currently have fighters to 5 and fighter bombers to 4. I can use the current fighters. (templars. einherji etc) Once the changes come in. I will have the new heavy fighters skill to 4, keep my fighters skill to 5.. but in order to be able to use templars and einherj I will have to go and train the new "light fighter" skill. Wrong. Fighter Bombers -> Heavy Fighters. Basically the same, same drones. Fighters -> Fighters. Basically the same, same drones. Light fighters -> New. Skill for using light interceptor fighters for hitting small targets and other fighters. Support fighters -> New. Skill for using support fighters, like the webbing, scramming, or Ewar fighters.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 45	Posted - 2016.04.01 22:36:35 - [139] - Quote No, you are wrong and Shakira is right. You need the light figter skill to use the old fighters, not only for the light interceptor fighters. So if you could use templar before, then you have to train an additional skill to still be able to use it. But to be honest I do not really care about that. I just want carriers to be useful, if I have to train one additional skill for that, so be it.
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 437	Posted - 2016.04.01 22:45:26 - [140] - Quote Yes, you'll need the new skill. Buy it now, inject it, train it to 3 or 4. Voila, on release you're ready.

Lugh Crow-Slave 1765	Posted - 2016.04.01 23:33:21 - [141] - Quote maybe give carriers 4 fighter squads and let them have 3 lights and 2 support? they would still have anemic DPS but at least they could play more of a support role and E-war fighters will see more use Citadel worm hole tax
Shalashaska Adam Partial Safety 129	Posted - 2016.04.02 03:06:43 - [142] - Quote When are we going to see the thread for dreads?
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 46	Posted - 2016.04.02 07:38:18 - [143] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: maybe give carriers 4 fighter squads and let them have 3 lights and 2 support? they would still have anemic DPS but at least they could play more of a support role and E-war fighters will see more use Thats a good idea, something like that is probably the only way to make ewar fighter useful. Loosing 1/3 of the dps is simply not worth some ewar, when there are cheaper specialized ships that can do the job better. You also wouldnt remove 2 guns from a Machariel to fit a dampener or something like that. So giving the ability to launch support fighters that do not compete with damage, is probably the only way.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1766	Posted - 2016.04.02 11:12:43 - [144] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: maybe give carriers 4 fighter squads and let them have 3 lights and 2 support? they would still have anemic DPS but at least they could play more of a support role and E-war fighters will see more use Thats a good idea, something like that is probably the only way to make ewar fighter useful. Loosing 1/3 of the dps is simply not worth some ewar, when there are cheaper specialized ships that can do the job better. You also wouldnt remove 2 guns from a Machariel to fit a dampener or something like that. So giving the ability to launch support fighters that do not compete with damage, is probably the only way. aye and at the same time if you do want to drop 1/3 of your DPS to double your E-war utility you still have that option Citadel worm hole tax
Shakira Akira Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2016.04.02 12:54:35 - [145] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: Yes, you'll need the new skill. Buy it now, inject it, train it to 3 or 4. Voila, on release you're ready. Yeah, seems like the only thing to do.. still sucks having to fork out another 100mil and 12 days just to be able to use the same thing I could use before.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1766	Posted - 2016.04.02 13:02:49 - [146] - Quote Shakira Akira wrote: Syrias Bizniz wrote: Yes, you'll need the new skill. Buy it now, inject it, train it to 3 or 4. Voila, on release you're ready. Yeah, seems like the only thing to do.. still sucks having to fork out another 100mil and 12 days just to be able to use the same thing I could use before. Not as bad as the mess with making carriers and FAX the same skill just to avoid a few ppl getting an sp boost (something that's not really all that big a deal now that ppl are buying their way to max sp) Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1356	Posted - 2016.04.02 13:14:27 - [147] - Quote So I'm in a thanatos with 4 FSUs. I can't even keep WEB drones on a cerberus MWDing because they're so slow. They last until the MWD wears off, then it outruns them webbed. Again with the fighter speed guys, come on. Generic feedback: Also please make fighters load into tubes instantly when docked. Fighter voloume is terrible. I mean, the thanny hanger at max is 87.5k m3. That's 500 wasted for a start..... but moreover that's 87 drones, or slightly over 3 flights of DPS drones (3 flights would be 81k m3). That's quite honestly not even close to good enough. Fighter EHP is questionable anyway, but exceptionally poor coupled with the volume.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1766	Posted - 2016.04.02 13:24:23 - [148] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: So I'm in a thanatos with 4 FSUs. I can't even keep WEB drones on a cerberus MWDing because they're so slow. They last until the MWD wears off, then it outruns them webbed. Again with the fighter speed guys, come on. Generic feedback: Also please make fighters load into tubes instantly when docked. Fighter voloume is terrible. I mean, the thanny hanger at max is 87.5k m3. That's 500 wasted for a start..... but moreover that's 87 drones, or slightly over 3 flights of DPS drones (3 flights would be 81k m3). That's quite honestly not even close to good enough. Fighter EHP is questionable anyway, but exceptionally poor coupled with the volume. Lol you think the Thanny has it bad look at the Chimera Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1356	Posted - 2016.04.02 13:30:08 - [149] - Quote I only mentioned the thanny as that was what I was in at the time and has the biggest bay :) The damage is really crappy too, needs more ammo in the heavy rocket salvo. Like 2-3 times as much tbh and omfg make it auto repeat toggleable. ed: unless the FCU are still buggy?
Lugh Crow-Slave 1766	Posted - 2016.04.02 13:38:08 - [150] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: I only mentioned the thanny as that was what I was in at the time and has the biggest bay :) The damage is really crappy too, needs more ammo in the heavy rocket salvo. Like 2-3 times as much tbh and omfg make it auto repeat toggleable. ed: unless the FCU are still buggy? They are they still increase cycle time Not reduce it 10 shots is fine they just don't do enough alpha The reason they don't auto repay is because they ate supposed to be this big punch when you need a burst of alpha similar to the heavy torpedo Salvo. Problem is fighters don't do any dps even when they use it and they are hardly worth the effort to launch them if you don't use it Citadel worm hole tax

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 shs. 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 shs. 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). 1151.251.2591.749690125=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: Gary Webb 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: Gary Webb 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: Gary Webb 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.

Gosch Ti Corescape Inc. Blades of Grass 1	Posted - 2016.04.03 22:16:41 - [181] - Quote Can we please get shortcuts for the fighter tubes? Selecting everything with the mouse all the time leads to even more clicking. And it would add a great deal of comfort just pressing 1-5 to select them as the abilities are bound to the f-keys already
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 61	Posted - 2016.04.03 22:34:57 - [182] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: 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? Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1. I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable.
M1k3y Koontz Respawn Disabled The Initiative. 805	Posted - 2016.04.03 22:40:53 - [183] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 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? Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1. I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable. Welp, that fixes it. Thank you. I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days) How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1772	Posted - 2016.04.04 01:03:14 - [184] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 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? Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1. I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable. Welp, that fixes it. Thank you. I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days) another issue is there is not skill to get the extra little bit out of your fighters once you get the T2 :/ Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 61	Posted - 2016.04.04 01:33:34 - [185] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days) Yeah, there's definitely something up with the training times. Carriers take significantly longer to train than dreads, and require an extra remap for maximum efficiency. For dreads, the hulls and weapons are both Perception/Willpower skills, while carriers have higher multipliers on both and the hulls are Perception/Willpower while the weapons are Memory/Perception. I know the fighter skills only need to be trained once and apply to every race, whereas turrets are race-specific and the Phoenix has a completely different set of support skill, but having fighter skills take so long on an odd remap is a bit of a pain. It also affects players working on their first carrier a lot more than those going for all 4. On the bright side (for those who haven't trained the skills yet) it seems like the "adequate" level of skills for carriers is going down a little. Instead of the Fighters skill giving 20% more damage per level and the hull giving 10%-20% per level (15.5%-26% per level for Thanatos), the Fighters skill only gives 5% per level and the hulls 0% or 5%, so there's a lot less need to have them at 5. Of course that also significantly devalues the training investment of pilots who already have the skills at 5...
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1164	Posted - 2016.04.04 01:44:38 - [186] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: 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 shs. 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. Are they better than supers at doing any of these things? No. They're useless.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 61	Posted - 2016.04.04 02:16:50 - [187] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: 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 shs. 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. Are they better than supers at doing any of these things? No. They're useless. Are dreads better than titans at doing any of these things? No. They're useless. Seriously though, it does seem a little annoying how supers can do everything a carrier can but better and a titan can do everything a dread can but better.
Oxide Ammar 240	Posted - 2016.04.04 04:54:07 - [188] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 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? Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1. I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable. From the look of it it looks like money grab skill (Injectors), adding some imaginary skill that needs you to lvl 5 to use T2 is absurd. Following the same logic on TQ any T2 ship/modules requires you to train basic skills to lvl 5 and the skill to use this T2 ship can be used at lvl 1 but if you wanna master it you need to level it to 5. So by same analogy it should be T1 fighters at level 1, T2 fighters at level 1 fo light fighters skills but make its requirement level 5 fighters which most of us have, same like when it goes to T2 cruise missile/ T2 hybrid guns....etc. It amaze me that no one complained about this from that start and it looks like they are going to release the patch as it is on SiSi. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1165	Posted - 2016.04.04 07:24:49 - [189] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: 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 shs. 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. Are they better than supers at doing any of these things? No. They're useless. Are dreads better than titans at doing any of these things? No. They're useless. Seriously though, it does seem a little annoying how supers can do everything a carrier can but better and a titan can do everything a dread can but better. CCP seems to have a very selective imagination. Enough to radically change how capitals work, but not enough to differentiate them from each other.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 9	Posted - 2016.04.04 08:23:21 - [190] - Quote Forum ate my first post... so here is a new one with hopefully the same points This is probably the biggest issue at the moment: 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. However i also found: Nid fit room seems a bit wierd, less CPU and power then the Thanny, while Minmatar aims for shield now mostly. It needs more CPU. Overall Thanny and Nid appear to be secondary choise due to EHP and fit (Archon is more tank & more dmg atm) Allign times seem sluggish compared to live Fighters could be really expensive if you start losing lots of them. Related to that is long range travel time, if you are away from the fight which seems to be the new idea the ~1100 m/s is slow. This will also mean that without mwd they will not capture much. No sheet DPS Using support fighters loses you too much dps. They should have thier own tube Flavor difference on dmg per fighter and differences between carrier look a little willy nilly. Overall applied DPS possibly the same, not managed to test. Market faction mods dont properly split out. Drone dmg augs have no stacking penalty?

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 61	Posted - 2016.04.04 08:35:14 - [191] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Forum ate my first post... so here is a new one with hopefully the same points This is probably the biggest issue at the moment: 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. However i also found: Nid fit room seems a bit wierd, less CPU and power then the Thanny, while Minmatar aims for shield now mostly. It needs more CPU. Overall Thanny and Nid appear to be secondary choise due to EHP and fit (Archon is more tank & more dmg atm) Allign times seem sluggish compared to live Fighters could be really expensive if you start losing lots of them. Related to that is long range travel time, if you are away from the fight which seems to be the new idea the ~1100 m/s is slow. This will also mean that without mwd they will not capture much. No sheet DPS Using support fighters loses you too much dps. They should have thier own tube Flavor difference on dmg per fighter and differences between carrier look a little willy nilly. Overall applied DPS possibly the same, not managed to test. Market faction mods dont properly split out. Drone dmg augs have no stacking penalty? The fighter price shouldn't be too bad. When the patch hits, each fighter will become 6 light fighters and each fighter bomber will become 4 heavy fighters. 1100 speed isn't quite right. They'll have about 50% more speed when skills apply properly. Still a bit on the slow side, but a lot better. The differences in fighter damage and speed are supposed to mirror normal drones for each faction. Faction mods need to be in the main market category or they wouldn't be seeded on SiSi. Agreed on the rest of the points.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 881	Posted - 2016.04.04 09:13:04 - [192] - Quote Oxide Ammar wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 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? Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1. I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable. From the look of it it looks like money grab skill (Injectors), adding some imaginary skill that needs you to lvl 5 to use T2 is absurd. Following the same logic on TQ any T2 ship/modules requires you to train basic skills to lvl 5 and the skill to use this T2 ship can be used at lvl 1 but if you wanna master it you need to level it to 5. So by same analogy it should be T1 fighters at level 1, T2 fighters at level 1 fo light fighters skills but make its requirement level 5 fighters which most of us have, same like when it goes to T2 cruise missile/ T2 hybrid guns....etc. It amaze me that no one complained about this from that start and it looks like they are going to release the patch as it is on SiSi. 3 rank 12 skills to lvl 5 to use new fighters? Someone in the dev teams doesn't want people flying carriers. Skills should be; Drone interfacing 5 + Fighters 1 = all T1 fighters Fighters 5 + Light Fighters 1 = T2 Light Fighters Fighters 5 + Support Fighters 1 = T2 Support Fighters 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.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 9	Posted - 2016.04.04 09:59:30 - [193] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: The fighter price shouldn't be too bad. When the patch hits, each fighter will become 6 light fighters and each fighter bomber will become 4 heavy fighters. 1100 speed isn't quite right. They'll have about 50% more speed when skills apply properly. Still a bit on the slow side, but a lot better. The differences in fighter damage and speed are supposed to mirror normal drones for each faction. Faction mods need to be in the main market category or they wouldn't be seeded on SiSi. Agreed on the rest of the points. Initial purchase maybe, but keep in mind that counter fighters disable the drives to slow them down of fighters so if your away from your squadrons by any reasonable distance your stuffed for that squad. So thats 9 of them lost i would assume. Speed is still problematic, since most player ships will be about to outrun em. Perhaps the counter fighters should be quicker and do reduced dmg to smaller hulls. Again could be they do, did not test that. Good point on the faction mods. Didnt think about that.
Mena en Distel University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.04 10:02:21 - [194] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Welp, that fixes it. Thank you. I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days) Oh whats about siege V hah?
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 9	Posted - 2016.04.04 12:23:17 - [195] - Quote Mena en Distel wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Welp, that fixes it. Thank you. I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days) Oh whats about siege V hah? Just T2 fighters doesnt cover the carrier either, you will also need the drone support skills (once they work), and you could include the hull etc.. But yes, quick skill plan shows that both routes will be ~equal time from a mostly fresh char. Having to train for 60 days for skills i now have at 5 is a bit sour though.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 10	Posted - 2016.04.04 15:19:09 - [196] - Quote So some further testing shooting with and at my own squadrons, before skill bug fix. If you try to MWD a srambled squadron it gives a full screen pop up. This should be a notice in log and/or the fight squad should show a 'debuff' below its status. Trying to activate weapons on the squadron when that squadron is targeted returns a error saying the solar system it was target at is no longer present. Fighter squardons yield a kill main. This kill mail will have 1 fighter worth of HP noted. Nifty, but bad for ISK war Also for fighter v fighter combat: Space superiority fighters (SSF) work well against frigs and destroyers, showing 222 dmg v 262 for light fighters. Both have no problem hitting. Not seen a single miss in the limited testing i did. SSF move ~300 m/s faster, and slower under evasive maneuvers (~3500) SSF kill 1 fighter per volley (at 2441 dmg/hit, 3 sec cycle time), and can murder a whole squad with barely a dent on thier own squad, shield did not drop below 95%. This means that in some 30 seconds you will lose 20-30 mil worth of fighters. Longer engagement this could become pretty costly. Looking at the drone bay CCP anticipates a decent loss rate. I would say the current health pool is far to small, or the dps is way to high for the SSF. Anywhere over 40 km (60-70 if speed is fixed) from the carrier you will lose the full light fighter squadron without the carrier being able to do anything. SSF v SSF squadron will whipe out eachother. Even when 4-6 fighters are down they will still 1 shot on the other squadron. This means the first carrier to click evasive maneuvers wins that fight, but still will lose probably half the sqaudron (dmg reduction is 60%). Edit: Stack of 10 and stack of 8 dont combine automaticly to load one full squadron, you have to 'stack all' first,
m'Kor RONA Corporation Nerfed Alliance Go Away 1	Posted - 2016.04.04 15:53:54 - [197] - Quote Is there any chance of looking at jump ranges for carriers? Possibly a "jump range extender" module that increases your max jump range (with JDC5) to 8 or 10 LY, but makes you unable to refit in space, or launch fighters/enable offensive modules for 30 minutes (or some other arbitrary amount)?
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2372	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:04:06 - [198] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: 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 shs. 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. Are they better than supers at doing any of these things? No. They're useless. Are dreads better than titans at doing any of these things? No. They're useless. Seriously though, it does seem a little annoying how supers can do everything a carrier can but better and a titan can do everything a dread can but better. And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1773	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:18:57 - [199] - Quote so i just did the math 8 mill for one t1 light fighter ? thats 216 mill just for 3 flights at 10% ME its still 194mill wtf and you have 3 flights of T2 at 513 mill Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1773	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:20:09 - [200] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital. with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig no each class should have a role that it does better than any other and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different titans will still have uses over dreads w/o being better with HAW and supercarriers will still have uses over carriers even if they are not better with light fighters Citadel worm hole tax

Lugh Crow-Slave 1773	Posted - 2016.04.04 16:22:36 - [201] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital. with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig no each class should have a role that it does better than any other and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different Citadel worm hole tax
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2372	Posted - 2016.04.04 17:23:44 - [202] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital. with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig no each class should have a role that it does better than any other and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different I'm not sure how you expand on that logic to the point of absurdity, but whatever floats your boat. I never suggested that T2 should be 100% better than T1. If you want to cut grass with a katana, you can, but you can do the job better and cheaper with a scythe. I don't really find it necessary to spell out all the substantial differences between Titans and Dreadnoughts. If you want to use your Titans just like Dreadnoughts, go right ahead. Cut grass with a katana... You'll find that the Dreadnought does the job better for a lower price. Additionally, the Titan is clearly more specialized in other ways. For day to day use, however, the Dreadnought is essentially a perfect ship. And for day to day use, a Titan is essentially useless (mostly for meta game reasons). The differences between Carriers and Supercarriers are less substantial, but that depends a lot on the strength of the new utility modules available to Super Carriers. Still the differences are much more akin to a Vexor versus an Ishtar. Given the choice, I'll use an Ishtar most of the time. Supercarriers are basically T2 Carriers. I don't plan on using Carriers very much after the patch - I'm planning to convert them all to Fleet Auxiliaries. For everything else, I have an Aeon... CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1361	Posted - 2016.04.04 18:00:11 - [203] - Quote How much easier are these going to be to probe with the new hilarious sigs?
Zenafar 0	Posted - 2016.04.04 18:01:48 - [204] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so i just did the math 3 mill for one t1 light fighter ? thats 89 3 flights and you have 3 flights of T2 at 189 mill so a thanny needs to hold 609mill (if it goes all light fighters) thats over half the cost of the hull Yep. Still too expensive. + % from the market :) It's not a big problem for PvE i suppose, but u'll lose lot's of isk in PvP even if u didn't die :)
Lugh Crow-Slave 1773	Posted - 2016.04.04 18:04:17 - [205] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital. with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig no each class should have a role that it does better than any other and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different I'm not sure how you expand on that logic to the point of absurdity, but whatever floats your boat. I never suggested that T2 should be 100% better than T1. If you want to cut grass with a katana, you can, but you can do the job better and cheaper with a scythe. I don't really find it necessary to spell out all the substantial differences between Titans and Dreadnoughts. If you want to use your Titans just like Dreadnoughts, go right ahead. Cut grass with a katana... You'll find that the Dreadnought does the job better for a lower price. Additionally, the Titan is clearly more specialized in other ways. For day to day use, however, the Dreadnought is essentially a perfect ship. And for day to day use, a Titan is essentially useless (mostly for meta game reasons). The differences between Carriers and Supercarriers are less substantial, but that depends a lot on the strength of the new utility modules available to Super Carriers. Still the differences are much more akin to a Vexor versus an Ishtar. Given the choice, I'll use an Ishtar most of the time. Supercarriers are basically T2 Carriers. I don't plan on using Carriers very much after the patch - I'm planning to convert them all to Fleet Auxiliaries. For everything else, I have an Aeon... i wasn't saying that they should not be better i was saying that if cost is not an issue there should be a reason to use the other ones dreads are not so bad as carriers are where there is no reason to bring in a thanny if you can bring a nyx but the real issue with that is it seems that carriers are being gimped to make sure that they dont get to close to supers when using lights or support fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 883	Posted - 2016.04.04 19:12:05 - [206] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: And a Titan is just as disposable as a Dreadnought too, right? That's why they get used so often? The useless ship here is not the Capital, it's the Supercapital. with that logic T2 should be 100% better than t1 and battle ships should be better in every way to a frig no each class should have a role that it does better than any other and each ship in that class should do it in a way that is different I'm not sure how you expand on that logic to the point of absurdity, but whatever floats your boat. I never suggested that T2 should be 100% better than T1. If you want to cut grass with a katana, you can, but you can do the job better and cheaper with a scythe. I don't really find it necessary to spell out all the substantial differences between Titans and Dreadnoughts. If you want to use your Titans just like Dreadnoughts, go right ahead. Cut grass with a katana... You'll find that the Dreadnought does the job better for a lower price. Additionally, the Titan is clearly more specialized in other ways. For day to day use, however, the Dreadnought is essentially a perfect ship. And for day to day use, a Titan is essentially useless (mostly for meta game reasons). The differences between Carriers and Supercarriers are less substantial, but that depends a lot on the strength of the new utility modules available to Super Carriers. Still the differences are much more akin to a Vexor versus an Ishtar. Given the choice, I'll use an Ishtar most of the time. Supercarriers are basically T2 Carriers. I don't plan on using Carriers very much after the patch - I'm planning to convert them all to Fleet Auxiliaries. For everything else, I have an Aeon... The hardest part about this discussion is not having working models to test. What is on SISI is not close to what is expected end up on TQ. Devs are doing themselves and the game a great dis-service by adding broken and incomplete mechanics to the test server. You can't test something that doesn't work as intended from the start. Basic fittings can't be tested because modules just aren't on SISI, mechanics can't be tested because they just aren't applied, many modules that are available just don't work and so on. Then we have devs expecting relevant feedback based on these same conditions. FT, sadly most people I have spoken to that have tested the "new" carriers on SISI agree with you (as do I) - Carriers will hold a very low place of use on TQ because they just don't do anything very well. New fighters and mechanics leave a lot to be desired, they are either not working as devs intended or the plan is to leave carriers with no real place on the battlefield. 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.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 52	Posted - 2016.04.04 19:14:13 - [207] - Quote T2 ships are usually more specialized variants of the T1 ships. There are also T2 ships that could generally be considered better, for example there is hardly a reason to use a cruiser, if you could get a heavy assault cruiser for the same price. Or a frigate if you could also use an assault frigate. But this usually comes from a huge increase in price (a vexor is ~10mio, an ishtar 170mio, so about a factor 17), a much higher skill requirement, for a moderate performance increase. An ishtar has roughly 2x the ehp of a vexor, and maybe 25% damage more (depending on how you fit of course. Now the only thing of carrier vs supercarrier, that is comparable to ishtar vs vexor is the price. A carrier is maybe 1.2 billion, a supercarrier about 20 (not sure of the exact price), so 20/1.2=16.7, about the same factor. But both have the same skill requirements, and the supercarrier is just much much better at everything. A chimera has 68.000 shield, a wyvern has 500.000. A Wyvern has a 400% bonus to shield extenders. A wyvern has strong resistances to electronic warfare. The wyvern has 20% damage bonus. It can launch 3 heavy fighters, where each long range heavy squadron is about as strong as all 2-3 light squadrons from the chimera. Additionally it can also launch 2 light squads. And it can launch anti capital fighters which probably do an order of magntiude more damage than the light fighters (I didnt really test them). This is completely out of proportion to the usually T2 bonus. Supercarrier should not be so much better at everything.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 885	Posted - 2016.04.05 00:27:52 - [208] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: T2 ships are usually more specialized variants of the T1 ships. There are also T2 ships that could generally be considered better, for example there is hardly a reason to use a cruiser, if you could get a heavy assault cruiser for the same price. Or a frigate if you could also use an assault frigate. But this usually comes from a huge increase in price (a vexor is ~10mio, an ishtar 170mio, so about a factor 17), a much higher skill requirement, for a moderate performance increase. An ishtar has roughly 2x the ehp of a vexor, and maybe 25% damage more (depending on how you fit of course. Now the only thing of carrier vs supercarrier, that is comparable to ishtar vs vexor is the price. A carrier is maybe 1.2 billion, a supercarrier about 20 (not sure of the exact price), so 20/1.2=16.7, about the same factor. But both have the same skill requirements, and the supercarrier is just much much better at everything. A chimera has 68.000 shield, a wyvern has 500.000. A Wyvern has a 400% bonus to shield extenders. A wyvern has strong resistances to electronic warfare. The wyvern has 20% damage bonus. It can launch 3 heavy fighters, where each long range heavy squadron is about as strong as all 2-3 light squadrons from the chimera. Additionally it can also launch 2 light squads. And it can launch anti capital fighters which probably do an order of magntiude more damage than the light fighters (I didnt really test them). This is completely out of proportion to the usually T2 bonus. Supercarrier should not be so much better at everything. It always has been - Supers have had Bombers for ever, that hit like battlecruisers compared to T1 cruisers from carriers. This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. They are meant to be a focal point or main force of a battle, where a carrier is like the meat shield. The whole discussion here should not be about how powerful supers are, it should be about how under powered new carriers are. CCP was on the right track removing slowcats but went too far and have made carriers sub standard with nothing to offer in a capital fight. First thing that needs to be looked at is the imbalance between the LIF and the Ninazu. These are both the same class of logi, one being shield the other armor. Yet the Armor Ninazu which has far lower fitting requirements for its role has more CPU and power grid than the LIF which being shield requires far more fitting room due to higher CPU and PG requirements for anything shield. To fit the two for the same logistics and defensive capabilities, the LIF requires 2 CPU upgrades where the Ninazu has 300 CPU left over with no fitting upgrades required. NB; Haven't checked the other 2 Fax as I don't and have no intention of flying them. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 61	Posted - 2016.04.05 00:36:25 - [209] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. Ok, if a normal carrier costs about 1.5 bil, please show me a 300 bil super besides a super-blinged Revenant.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 885	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:13:36 - [210] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. Ok, if a normal carrier costs about 1.5-2 bil, please show me a 300-400 bil super besides a very shiny Revenant. My bad, was supposed to be 20 times not 200 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 1779	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:41:27 - [211] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. Ok, if a normal carrier costs about 1.5-2 bil, please show me a 300-400 bil super besides a very shiny Revenant. My bad, was supposed to be 20 times not 200 and besides that carriers have always been better at hitting sub caps than suppers as they could use sub cap drones so not only are carriers now being forced into nothing but an anti sub cap role suppers are getting the tools to do that better i have no issue with carriers not getting bombers so long as carriers can do the anti sub cap role or on par with HAW and supers if not that then let them be better with E-war fighters (can start by making these useful) there is already enough of a reason to use supers over a carrier but currently there is very little reason to use a carrier over a dread or a T3 cruiser Citadel worm hole tax
Side1Bu2Rnz9 Trojan Legion Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2016.04.05 02:50:46 - [212] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 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? Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1. I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable. Welp, that fixes it. Thank you. I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days) If you look at the capital focus group logs. https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/capitals/2016-03-31/#17:16:52 Larrik states that he agrees T2 fighters should only require lvl 5 Fighter and lvl 4 light/support/heavy fighter skill.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1781	Posted - 2016.04.05 04:20:22 - [213] - Quote Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: 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? Either that was a while back when the requirements were incorrect or you bought the T2 versions. T1 fighters require Fighters 1 and Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 1. Yes, all the fighters will require the new skills on TQ but not to 5 for T1. I really hope they rethink the requirements for T2 though. Having to train two 12x skills to 5 seems excessive. It seems like something more like Fighters 5, Light/Support/Heavy Fighters 4, and racial Drone Specialization 1 would be more reasonable. Welp, that fixes it. Thank you. I have Fighters, Light Fighters, and Support Fighters to 4 right now. If I wanted to get the T2 versions I would have to put in 3 months (96 days)? That does seem steep, especially when T2 capital guns will only take 1 7x skill (<30 days) If you look at the capital focus group logs. https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/capitals/2016-03-31/#17:16:52 Larrik states that he agrees T2 fighters should only require lvl 5 Fighter and lvl 4 light/support/heavy fighter skill. Bit he had since stated on the greed back thread on the test server that they now have the accurate skill requirements And they are 5/5 :/ Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 54	Posted - 2016.04.05 06:54:29 - [214] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: It always has been - Supers have had Bombers for ever, that hit like battlecruisers compared to T1 cruisers from carriers. This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. They are meant to be a focal point or main force of a battle, where a carrier is like the meat shield. The whole discussion here should not be about how powerful supers are, it should be about how under powered new carriers are. But the old bonus were not strictly better. Supercaps were a lot better against caps, because of the high damage of bombers, and thats ok. But carriers could use normal drones, and also fit triage module. That gave them uses that super caps didnt have. Now this is gone, and supers are just better at everything. Also while carriers are very underpowered right now, we should not forget that fixing the bugs alone will mean a 50% damage increase, 20% fighter hp increase and 20% fighter speed increase. Thats a lot. So before the discussion about carriers being underpowered can go on, ccp needs to fix the bugs.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 62	Posted - 2016.04.05 07:29:03 - [215] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: It always has been - Supers have had Bombers for ever, that hit like battlecruisers compared to T1 cruisers from carriers. This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. They are meant to be a focal point or main force of a battle, where a carrier is like the meat shield. The whole discussion here should not be about how powerful supers are, it should be about how under powered new carriers are. But the old bonus were not strictly better. Supercaps were a lot better against caps, because of the high damage of bombers, and thats ok. But carriers could use normal drones, and also fit triage module. That gave them uses that super caps didnt have. Now this is gone, and supers are just better at everything. Also while carriers are very underpowered right now, we should not forget that fixing the bugs alone will mean a 50% damage increase, 20% fighter hp increase and 20% fighter speed increase. Thats a lot. So before the discussion about carriers being underpowered can go on, ccp needs to fix the bugs. But when the skills apply properly it will affect supers just as much as normal carriers. It should definitely help the carrier/dread balance, but not the carrier/super balance. On the other hand, titans are becoming basically stronger dreads that don't need to siege, so the same lack of purpose affects that side too.
Zenafar 1	Posted - 2016.04.05 08:06:18 - [216] - Quote without triage carriers are useless. So they need to be more powerfull now. Speaking of Scarrier/Carrier balance - maybe role bonus + Light fighter dmg for carriers? So carriers will be stronger against subcaps. Just thinking.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1783	Posted - 2016.04.05 08:31:44 - [217] - Quote Zenafar wrote: without triage carriers are useless. So they need to be more powerfull now. Speaking of Scarrier/Carrier balance - maybe role bonus + Light fighter dmg for carriers? So carriers will be stronger against subcaps. Just thinking. Assuming The missing skills will help the damage is think it would be better to give them e-war fighter bonuses (the crappy range ones don't count) and/or a speed bonus to the fighters (with a higher bonus still on the nid) I also still like the idea of giving them an extra launch bay and second support fighter squad As well if a support fighters bonus is given idk if it should be racial or general (worried about one carrier being to strong with its racial e-war) but at the same time more individually is not a bad thing Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 885	Posted - 2016.04.05 09:07:07 - [218] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: It always has been - Supers have had Bombers for ever, that hit like battlecruisers compared to T1 cruisers from carriers. This is not new, the supers have much better bonuses because they are a much more valuable target that costs 200 times what a carrier does to field. They are meant to be a focal point or main force of a battle, where a carrier is like the meat shield. The whole discussion here should not be about how powerful supers are, it should be about how under powered new carriers are. But the old bonus were not strictly better. Supercaps were a lot better against caps, because of the high damage of bombers, and thats ok. But carriers could use normal drones, and also fit triage module. That gave them uses that super caps didnt have. Now this is gone, and supers are just better at everything. Also while carriers are very underpowered right now, we should not forget that fixing the bugs alone will mean a 50% damage increase, 20% fighter hp increase and 20% fighter speed increase. Thats a lot. So before the discussion about carriers being underpowered can go on, ccp needs to fix the bugs. Pretty sure I mentioned in an earlier post - CCP is not going about any of this in a very professional way. What is on SISI is far from what is expected on TQ and we are running out of time to test any of it before it goes live. By under powered I was including the carrier itself which is possibly more important than the dps from the anti subcap fighters they will use. But again, your right, half the modules required to realistically test the new carriers and Fax's are not available on sisi or just bugged. What strictly made Supers better was their ability to tank as well as they did combined with massive DPS from Bombers and the fact you needed a Hic to stop one just warping off or jumping out. 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1362	Posted - 2016.04.05 09:36:47 - [219] - Quote To be fair they have a always said it was released waaaaaay earlier than would normally be so we can get a feel for mechanics etc. Patience on our side is fair. Just remember to bug reports weird stuff.
Circumstantial Evidence 274	Posted - 2016.04.05 16:17:06 - [220] - Quote The devs are working hard to get all the modules and mechanics working. Anything related to how much better this is from that - is a game balance question. Those get fixed in quick patches following the expansion. I've no doubt that on day 1 some module or mechanic will be underpowered and another OP. It's been a long time since CCP has made SO MANY changes to the game at once. Lots of new combinations to try out. Very exciting.

Gevlin Fink Operations The Volition Cult 281	Posted - 2016.04.05 17:51:07 - [221] - Quote Would be interesting to have fighters with an entosis link - to sorta mirror the drones used in Valkyrie . Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 3006	Posted - 2016.04.05 19:27:50 - [222] - Quote What about dropping the damage bonus on the thanny and simply adding a fourth fighter tube?
HandelsPharmi Pharmi on CharBazaar 1798	Posted - 2016.04.05 22:32:28 - [223] - Quote Will Etosis Links cylcle 5 times longer (as mentioned in the Titan thread) or will there be no penalty?
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 887	Posted - 2016.04.05 23:16:55 - [224] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: The devs are working hard to get all the modules and mechanics working. Anything related to how much better this is from that - is a game balance question. Those get fixed in quick patches following the expansion. I've no doubt that on day 1 some module or mechanic will be underpowered and another OP. It's been a long time since CCP has made SO MANY changes to the game at once. Lots of new combinations to try out. Very exciting. The real problem here is - Stuff isn't working AT ALL not that it is OP or under powered. Modules we are supposed to be testing aren't available or just don't work when fitted. Morrigan LeSante; Yes, yes they did but do please tell me how we are supposed to test mechanics with modules that either aren't there or just don't work, when skills aren't applied and especially - When you can't get ant input from devs. Submitting bug reports or tickets - It takes them 3 to 4 WEEKS to acknowledge a ticket - Why bother. Also, I don't think it is a bug when shield modules use up to triple the cpu of armor mods yet shield ships have less cpu - That's just poor game design. The capital game has always been about armor superiority, why look at that now just because it would be the perfect time to address it. Trying to fit some of these new ships leaves me feeling a bit disgusted because fitting requirements have been increased substantially but the PG and CPU has not changed to encompass the extra needed. - Or is it some of these new ships were designed with a certain meta in mind and screw anything else.Yet it is way too late to be trying to get any answers or input from Devs on these things - They seem to be too busy preparing for fanfest to worry about responding to issues posed by players. 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 887	Posted - 2016.04.05 23:32:07 - [225] - Quote HandelsPharmi wrote: Will Etosis Links cylcle 5 times longer (as mentioned in the Titan thread) or will there be no penalty? Reading the descriptions, nothing changes as far as capitals / supers and entosis links - The penalty stays as is. Gevlin; I agree, entosis fighters could be interesting but with the drawback that those are the only fighters the entosising ship can launch. While entosis fighters are deployed all other launch tubes are locked. 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 1785	Posted - 2016.04.06 01:41:54 - [226] - Quote so did ccp think carriers did to much damage the fighter DPS just got nerfed or am i missing something?? Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 753	Posted - 2016.04.06 01:49:05 - [227] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1785	Posted - 2016.04.06 01:50:37 - [228] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. ... carriers cant use heavy fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 62	Posted - 2016.04.06 02:03:33 - [229] - 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?? oh its to compensate for the damage skill applying :/ Yep, carriers went from decent on paper and crap in reality to crap on paper and crap in reality.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2016.04.06 06:44:42 - [230] - Quote Carriers can do some decent dps, because the drone damage amplifiers still do not have a stacking penalty. Since it is still not fixed, and CCP is ignoring all complaints about carriers having not enough damage, maybe this is on purpose to allow carriers decent dps, if you are willing to sacrifice tank.

Lugh Crow-Slave 1787	Posted - 2016.04.06 06:50:30 - [231] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Carriers can do some decent dps, because the drone damage amplifiers still do not have a stacking penalty. Since it is still not fixed, and CCP is ignoring all complaints about carriers having not enough damage, maybe this is on purpose to allow carriers decent dps, if you are willing to sacrifice tank. Except It's only the archon that needs to of this is the case For their role the thanny and nid get more than enough tank from shields Of this is how ccp is planning to give carriers more dps the Chimera and archon will be good for nothing other than over tanked space bricks Citadel worm hole tax
Anthar Thebess 1488	Posted - 2016.04.06 09:07:03 - [232] - Quote Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 63	Posted - 2016.04.06 09:17:04 - [233] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Exactly. There's a reason T3 fleets are so popular, and the reason isn't that they have amazing DPS.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1787	Posted - 2016.04.06 09:55:37 - [234] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Exactly. There's a reason T3 fleets are so popular, and the reason isn't that they have amazing DPS. But dreads with HAW fill that role better And T3 fill it even better than that Is not about will they have a use is about how many other things will out preform them if what ever use they have Citadel worm hole tax
Anthar Thebess 1488	Posted - 2016.04.06 10:00:29 - [235] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Exactly. There's a reason T3 fleets are so popular, and the reason isn't that they have amazing DPS. But dreads with HAW fill that role better And T3 fill it even better than that Is not about will they have a use is about how many other things will out preform them if what ever use they have Fighters can project fighters to frew thousand kilometers, dreads cannot shoot so far. More EHP, better resist profile give you more time when something go wrong. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Zenafar 3	Posted - 2016.04.06 10:20:08 - [236] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Exactly. There's a reason T3 fleets are so popular, and the reason isn't that they have amazing DPS. But dreads with HAW fill that role better And T3 fill it even better than that Is not about will they have a use is about how many other things will out preform them if what ever use they have Fighters can project fighters to frew thousand kilometers, dreads cannot shoot so far. More EHP, better resist profile give you more time when something go wrong. Dreads must be close to each other to project your damage to enemy, carriers can be spread on the grid 200km away from each other. yeah and feed enemy with cheap fighters edit: But i'ts good that carriers have big fighter bay so they can launch another group of fighters and after 5 mins (or so) fighters will finally reach enemy and feed them more
Lugh Crow-Slave 1787	Posted - 2016.04.06 10:40:37 - [237] - Quote Zenafar wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Exactly. There's a reason T3 fleets are so popular, and the reason isn't that they have amazing DPS. But dreads with HAW fill that role better And T3 fill it even better than that Is not about will they have a use is about how many other things will out preform them if what ever use they have Fighters can project fighters to frew thousand kilometers, dreads cannot shoot so far. More EHP, better resist profile give you more time when something go wrong. Dreads must be close to each other to project your damage to enemy, carriers can be spread on the grid 200km away from each other. yeah and feed enemy with cheap fighters edit: But i'ts good that carriers have big fighter bay so they can launch another group of fighters and after 5 mins (or so) fighters will finally reach enemy and feed them more Lol yeah just because you have the lock range doesn't mean you have the effective range The range of a nid is generously 100km and when that may sound like a lot is not 100km from your ship but your fighter so of your enemy is on two sides of you you have to cut that in half. Anyway my original comment was the unballanced nature of leaving DDA woth no stacking penalty of that status the case even without the hull bonuse one the thany and nid the Chimera and archon will be dwarfed and unable to stay competitive Citadel worm hole tax
Zenafar 3	Posted - 2016.04.06 11:02:47 - [238] - Quote Yep. I thought ccp will fix Drone interfacing and add stacking for DDA, so it's + and - dps. And then we'll see what carriers can do. But something went wrong :)
Lugh Crow-Slave 1787	Posted - 2016.04.06 11:16:10 - [239] - Quote Zenafar wrote: Yep. I thought ccp will fix Drone interfacing and add stacking for DDA, so it's + and - dps. And then we'll see what carriers can do. But something went wrong :) Yeah they fixed done interfacing then lowered total fighter damage Odds ate they will add the penalty and all hope of carriers doing damage dies Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1374	Posted - 2016.04.06 13:25:06 - [240] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Exactly. There's a reason T3 fleets are so popular, and the reason isn't that they have amazing DPS. But dreads with HAW fill that role better And T3 fill it even better than that Is not about will they have a use is about how many other things will out preform them if what ever use they have Fighters can project fighters to frew thousand kilometers, dreads cannot shoot so far. More EHP, better resist profile give you more time when something go wrong. Dreads must be close to each other to project your damage to enemy, carriers can be spread on the grid 200km away from each other. No one and I mean no one is going to use carriers at extreme range. The fighters speed prevents it being remotely viable as well as the fact on grid probing is STILL not nerfed. Drop them point blank is all that will happen.

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 888	Posted - 2016.04.06 13:52:11 - [241] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Exactly. There's a reason T3 fleets are so popular, and the reason isn't that they have amazing DPS. But dreads with HAW fill that role better And T3 fill it even better than that Is not about will they have a use is about how many other things will out preform them if what ever use they have Fighters can project fighters to frew thousand kilometers, dreads cannot shoot so far. More EHP, better resist profile give you more time when something go wrong. Dreads must be close to each other to project your damage to enemy, carriers can be spread on the grid 200km away from each other. Your not serious are you? Projecting damage a few thousand K away LOL. These things can't warp and can only use their MWD for 20 seconds at a time with a 90 second cooldown - Just how long do you think it will take to move them, even a few thousand K ? I would imagine whatever you sent them that far to engage would either be gone or ready to kill them as they came into their range - Which likely is a lot more than the 8K range of your anti subcap fighters. Sorry more ehp and better resists? Where did you see this - All carriers have had their EHP almost halved and as for resists, if you want any buffer at all your not getting any. Except on Devs favorite, the Archon. It seems to be the only carrier you can fit a half decent buffer tank with resists. Carriers sitting spread out across a grid will have no logi and will need to prey they don't get called primary by anything bigger than a T1 cruiser. Please get on SISI and play with the changes before assuming all is good and carriers aren't more than over sized ishtars with severe fitting issues and limited damage application. 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.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 3008	Posted - 2016.04.06 13:55:44 - [242] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Bricks, scale well. The more bricks you have the more things you can do, and stuff is more resistant to external force. Exactly. There's a reason T3 fleets are so popular, and the reason isn't that they have amazing DPS. But dreads with HAW fill that role better And T3 fill it even better than that Is not about will they have a use is about how many other things will out preform them if what ever use they have Fighters can project fighters to frew thousand kilometers, dreads cannot shoot so far. More EHP, better resist profile give you more time when something go wrong. Dreads must be close to each other to project your damage to enemy, carriers can be spread on the grid 200km away from each other. No one and I mean no one is going to use carriers at extreme range. The fighters speed prevents it being remotely viable as well as the fact on grid probing is STILL not nerfed. Drop them point blank is all that will happen. You can pre-position fighters where you want them and burn away at the same time. Sure, probably won't see peopl 1000km away, but 100+ is neither impossible not unrealistic. It merely requires you have someone hold the target in place. Even at ~100 it's not too problematic if your target is stuck in siege or triage. Also, with citadels as big as they are having someone land on the wrong side and get stuck from the citadel points is possible.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 11	Posted - 2016.04.06 14:01:30 - [243] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Your not serious are you? Projecting damage a few thousand K away LOL. These things can't warp and can only use their MWD for 20 seconds at a time with a 90 second cooldown - Just how long do you think it will take to move them, even a few thousand K ? I would imagine whatever you sent them that far to engage would either be gone or ready to kill them as they came into their range - Which likely is a lot more than the 8K range of your anti subcap fighters. Sorry more ehp and better resists? Where did you see this - All carriers have had their EHP almost halved and as for resists, if you want any buffer at all your not getting any. Except on Devs favorite, the Archon. It seems to be the only carrier you can fit a half decent buffer tank with resists. Carriers sitting spread out across a grid will have no logi and will need to prey they don't get called primary by anything bigger than a T1 cruiser. Please get on SISI and play with the changes before assuming all is good and carriers aren't more than over sized ishtars with severe fitting issues and limited damage application. This pretty much is true. You will have to lob these point blank, also to optimize your dps. Keep in mind that some abilities have limited charges and for heavy fighter to trundle 1000 km at 500m/s both way for a reload is just not going to happen. If you add Tidi to that you will be sat there waiting for a very very long time.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2016.04.06 17:34:19 - [244] - Quote The general problems with carriers is, that there are features that sound good on paper, but just do not work at all due to the implementation. For example being able to command fighters from thousands of kilometers away sounds nice. But ist just does not work because the fighters would take forever to get to the target, the fighters would do bad damage because they cant reload, and also the carrier is probably unsafer then if he were on grid, since he is easy to scan down with 10km signature and cant be helped from his own logis, while not having any serious defence for himself anymore. I also like the idea of having several abilities to use. The "burst" attack with low ammunition is a good idea in principal. But it does not work at all because carrier damage is crap unless this ability is spammed, and because it can be spammed. So this just makes the following playstyle mandatory: stay relatively close to your drones, spam the rocket salvo, use mwd to reload whenever its empty. Thats not really an intersting way to use this, more an annoyance. But its the only useful way, because its the most effective. And without it the damage is just too bad. That you just increased the time for refueling is only a nerf to carrier dps and changes nothing about this. Seriously, stop nerfing carrier damage, it already is too low. If you want to make this used as a "burst on demand" instead of "simple dps addition that has to be spammed", then greatly increase the dps of the main ability so that the dps of that ability is already useful, and then strongly decrease the dps and fire rate from the third ability. Also I noticed that fighters have now resistances... thats nice, but I think the profiles got mixed up. Templar has kin and expl, while einherji has em and therm for example. Shouldnt it be the other way? Also just as a reminder: The balance between the fighters is still bad. x% more speed does NOT equal x% more damage. If you compare einherji with firbolgs, its like the firbolgs get a free drone damage amplifier II, while the einherji get 2/3 of a drone navigation computer. thats niot balanced.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1791	Posted - 2016.04.06 18:50:39 - [245] - Quote Rowells wrote: You can pre-position fighters where you want them and burn away at the same time. Sure, probably won't see peopl 1000km away, but 100+ is neither impossible not unrealistic. It merely requires you have someone hold the target in place. Even at ~100 it's not too problematic if your target is stuck in siege or triage. except carriers are not built to deal damage to capitals so your target is not going to be in siege or triage fighters are also very easy to kill so they are not going to last long if you "pre-position" and then fly away and once they are dead your going to have to send more out it also leaves you vulnerable as the fighters now need to fly back to you or fly 100km to the other side of you should more targets show up Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1791	Posted - 2016.04.06 18:56:37 - [246] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Also I noticed that fighters have now resistances... thats nice, but I think the profiles got mixed up. Templar has kin and expl, while einherji has em and therm for example. Shouldnt it be the other way? no its just like with T2 ships amarr fight the minmatar so they have resistances to counter them (kin expl) while the minmatar fight the amarr so have resistances set to counter them {em them) you have resist that match your enemies weapons not your allies Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1374	Posted - 2016.04.06 19:35:03 - [247] - Quote Too many quotes, had to snip Rowells wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: No one and I mean no one is going to use carriers at extreme range. The fighters speed prevents it being remotely viable as well as the fact on grid probing is STILL not nerfed. Drop them point blank is all that will happen. You can pre-position fighters where you want them and burn away at the same time. Sure, probably won't see peopl 1000km away, but 100+ is neither impossible not unrealistic. It merely requires you have someone hold the target in place. Even at ~100 it's not too problematic if your target is stuck in siege or triage. Also, with citadels as big as they are having someone land on the wrong side and get stuck from the citadel points is possible. Reload says hello. The problem is the flight time of the fighters, it is hilariously slow. You're talking minutes, MINUTES to traverse a few hundred km (before tidi too hah). You'll be lucky if the dread is still in siege the time they arrive and it sure as hell won't be when you pull for reload and travel BACK.
Zenafar 4	Posted - 2016.04.06 19:49:07 - [248] - Quote Btw is there any list of fixes for sisi?? like patch notes for TQ. So we can see what we can test.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 65	Posted - 2016.04.06 22:09:29 - [249] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Too many quotes, had to snip Rowells wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: No one and I mean no one is going to use carriers at extreme range. The fighters speed prevents it being remotely viable as well as the fact on grid probing is STILL not nerfed. Drop them point blank is all that will happen. You can pre-position fighters where you want them and burn away at the same time. Sure, probably won't see peopl 1000km away, but 100+ is neither impossible not unrealistic. It merely requires you have someone hold the target in place. Even at ~100 it's not too problematic if your target is stuck in siege or triage. Also, with citadels as big as they are having someone land on the wrong side and get stuck from the citadel points is possible. Reload says hello. The problem is the flight time of the fighters, it is hilariously slow. You're talking minutes, MINUTES to traverse a few hundred km (before tidi too hah). You'll be lucky if the dread is still in siege the time they arrive and it sure as hell won't be when you pull for reload and travel BACK. There's also the issue that fighters collide with citadels. So if you send them to something on the opposite side, you need to make sure they go around properly and don't get stuck.
Zekias Ouroboros Limited 0	Posted - 2016.04.06 22:31:50 - [250] - Quote If carriers no longer have drones will they be able to engage an online POS with fighters?

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 65	Posted - 2016.04.06 22:35:47 - [251] - Quote I think the carrier balance issues are because of two things: 1. Balancing both light and heavy fighters based on supers. 2. Unwillingness to give carriers equal or greater bonuses compared to supers. The fact that supers can use 2 heavies at the same time as their 3 lights complicates matters. That's a huge advantage that significantly affects balance concerns, but normal carriers don't have that ability. They're stuck with their 3 lights, and without damage and possibly speed bonuses rivaling or surpassing supers, they can't do their job.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1792	Posted - 2016.04.06 23:06:39 - [252] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: I think the carrier balance issues are because of three things: 1. Balancing both light and heavy fighters based on supers. 2. Unwillingness to give carriers equal or greater bonuses compared to supers. 3. A desire to keep carriers at similar damage potential to what they have now. The fact that supers can use 2 heavies at the same time as their 3 lights complicates matters. That's a huge advantage that significantly affects balance concerns, but normal carriers don't have that ability. They're stuck with their 3 lights, and without damage and possibly speed bonuses rivaling or surpassing supers, they can't do their job. It seems like someone wants to keep carriers around their current fighter damage potential, but how often are fighters actually used? Not often in PvP because they're not viable, and only a portion of the time for PvE. A lot of that is because of how fighters work and their cost, but the changes don't seem to be addressing that enough to make them attractive. It seems like dreads, supers, and titans are receiving quite a bit of versatility and potential utility roles while carriers are losing theirs and being left with a narrow focus on something they're not even good at. Unless they get more general damage output, they're not going to be a viable option in most situations due to the drawbacks of fighter speed and the ability to kill them. and again if CCP does not want to give them more damage then give them more seed so they really can use their range or let them use a second support fighter with bonus to their effectiveness and give them 4 total tubes. this will mean dreads can still do more DPS so can supers but carriers will either have a support or range advantage Citadel worm hole tax
Gary Webb The Walking Deads Limited Expectations 8	Posted - 2016.04.07 06:28:49 - [253] - Quote @CCPLarrakin can we get a list of regular drone modules that will no longer affect fighters (if any?)
Gary Webb The Walking Deads Limited Expectations 8	Posted - 2016.04.07 06:44:57 - [254] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so i just did the math 3 mill for one t1 light fighter ? thats 89 3 flights and you have 3 flights of T2 at 189 mill so a thanny needs to hold 609mill (if it goes all light fighters) thats over half the cost of the hull How has ccp still not given us a statement on this yet? Carriers will be so prohibitively expensive they will never be used. So all these carriers/fighters will flood the market and sit at stupid high prices. I'm probably wrong, but hey. I'm feeling a bit pissed off that i stand to wind up in possession of like 10 bil worth of hulls and fighters that will be ultimately useless

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 437	Posted - 2016.04.07 07:06:32 - [255] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Submitting bug reports or tickets - It takes them 3 to 4 WEEKS to acknowledge a ticket - Why bother. Hi there. I want to clarify this point :) Support Tickets and Bug Reports are two very different things. Please don't confuse the two. Please lodge bug reports (especially on Sisi)! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 437	Posted - 2016.04.07 07:24:40 - [256] - Quote Gary Webb wrote: @CCPLarrakin can we get a list of regular drone modules that will no longer affect fighters (if any?) The only drone module that doesn't effect Fighters is the Drone Link Augmentor. I think the description of all the modules has been changed to indicate that they also effect fighters. If you see one we've missed please bug report it! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 12	Posted - 2016.04.07 08:24:41 - [257] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Gary Webb wrote: @CCPLarrakin can we get a list of regular drone modules that will no longer affect fighters (if any?) The only drone module that doesn't effect Fighters is the Drone Link Augmentor. I think the description of all the modules has been changed to indicate that they also effect fighters. If you see one we've missed please bug report it! Hi Larrikin, Any word on why the Nid has less CPU then the thanny? The list of CPU output both between the carriers and the difference from carrier to super ready a bit off. Archon to Aeon is +100 tf Thanny to nyx is +75 tf Chim to Wyvern is +150 tf but the Nid to Hel is +250 tf. ~Seke
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 890	Posted - 2016.04.07 09:29:06 - [258] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Submitting bug reports or tickets - It takes them 3 to 4 WEEKS to acknowledge a ticket - Why bother. Hi there. I want to clarify this point :) Support Tickets and Bug Reports are two very different things. Please don't confuse the two. Please lodge bug reports (especially on Sisi)! Problem is with the mess that is currently SISI - What exactly is a bug. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 67	Posted - 2016.04.07 10:43:47 - [259] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Submitting bug reports or tickets - It takes them 3 to 4 WEEKS to acknowledge a ticket - Why bother. Hi there. I want to clarify this point :) Support Tickets and Bug Reports are two very different things. Please don't confuse the two. Please lodge bug reports (especially on Sisi)! Problem is with the mess that is currently SISI - What exactly is a bug. That is an excellent question, but if in doubt send a bug report. It's much better for someone to spend a minute reading a report and determine it's not a bug than to let actual bugs slip through.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 60	Posted - 2016.04.07 11:19:27 - [260] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Gary Webb wrote: @CCPLarrakin can we get a list of regular drone modules that will no longer affect fighters (if any?) The only drone module that doesn't effect Fighters is the Drone Link Augmentor. I think the description of all the modules has been changed to indicate that they also effect fighters. If you see one we've missed please bug report it! Could we have the same information for stacking penalties please? Which modules are supposed to have stacking penalties? The ones that have are not identical with the ones that have them in the description. So how is it supposed to be?

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1376	Posted - 2016.04.07 13:27:41 - [261] - Quote Gary Webb wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so i just did the math 3 mill for one t1 light fighter ? thats 89 3 flights and you have 3 flights of T2 at 189 mill so a thanny needs to hold 609mill (if it goes all light fighters) thats over half the cost of the hull How has ccp still not given us a statement on this yet? Carriers will be so prohibitively expensive they will never be used. So all these carriers/fighters will flood the market and sit at stupid high prices. I'm probably wrong, but hey. I'm feeling a bit pissed off that i stand to wind up in possession of like 10 bil worth of hulls and fighters that will be ultimately useless Fighter cost, volume etc are all wrong on sisi atm. Generic PSA: Slack is a really good place for quick questions btw, the guys hanging out there are typically right up to date.
Anthar Thebess 1488	Posted - 2016.04.07 13:29:06 - [262] - Quote I hope that current fighters will be split. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 437	Posted - 2016.04.07 13:42:09 - [263] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Gary Webb wrote: @CCPLarrakin can we get a list of regular drone modules that will no longer affect fighters (if any?) The only drone module that doesn't effect Fighters is the Drone Link Augmentor. I think the description of all the modules has been changed to indicate that they also effect fighters. If you see one we've missed please bug report it! Could we have the same information for stacking penalties please? Which modules are supposed to have stacking penalties? The ones that have are not identical with the ones that have them in the description. So how is it supposed to be? Good call. We'll add the stacking penalty warning to the description of fighter support units. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Generic PSA: Slack is a really good place for quick questions btw, the guys hanging out there are typically right up to date. +1 for this. There has been some fantastic discussions regarding capitals, fighters and carriers in the #capitals channel on tweetfleet. I often answer questions there :) Anthar Thebess wrote: I hope that current fighters will be split. Current fighters will be split by 6 (and become light fighters). Current fighter-bombers will be split by 4 (and become heavy fighters). Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 62	Posted - 2016.04.07 15:57:16 - [264] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Gary Webb wrote: @CCPLarrakin can we get a list of regular drone modules that will no longer affect fighters (if any?) The only drone module that doesn't effect Fighters is the Drone Link Augmentor. I think the description of all the modules has been changed to indicate that they also effect fighters. If you see one we've missed please bug report it! Could we have the same information for stacking penalties please? Which modules are supposed to have stacking penalties? The ones that have are not identical with the ones that have them in the description. So how is it supposed to be? Good call. We'll add the stacking penalty warning to the description of fighter support units. Thanks, but I am not just talking about the FSU. We also have: DDA: tooltip: stacking penalty testserver: no stacking penalty supposed to be: ??? Tracking Link: tooltip: stacking penalty testserver: no stacking penalty (as of ~week ago, didnt test today) supposed to be: ??? Tracking enhancer: tooltip: stacking penalty testserver: no stacking penalty (as of ~week ago, didnt test today) supposed to be: ??? Drone navigation Comp tooltip: no stacking penalty testserver: stacking penalty supposed to be: ??? Also I just noticed you finally increased ability 1 damage, and ability 3 burst, while also incraesing ability 3 cd. Great, thats a step in the right direction! But the fighters are still very unbalanced among the races. Could you please comment on that? Are the Gallente fighters simply supposed to be better than the rest, while minmatar are the worst, with caldarin second best and amarr third? Or do you really think that a speed bonus equals a damage bonus of the same percentage? Because it really does not. Thats why nav comps have a much higher bonus than damage amplifiers, and damage amplifiers are still fitted much more frequently than nav comps.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1794	Posted - 2016.04.07 18:44:54 - [265] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: But the fighters are still very unbalanced among the races. Could you please comment on that? Are the Gallente fighters simply supposed to be better than the rest, while minmatar are the worst, with caldarin second best and amarr third? Or do you really think that a speed bonus equals a damage bonus of the same percentage? Because it really does not. Thats why nav comps have a much higher bonus than damage amplifiers, and damage amplifiers are still fitted much more frequently than nav comps. to be honest the speed i have found is much better than the DPS when my guys get test fleets together also for the ability 3 it feels really close to what it should be but needs just a bit more damage also if DDA are still not stacking then the damage these do in general is still to low if stacking is working i think you all are very close as far as the class balance goes but interclass still needs work Citadel worm hole tax
DharkenGray Silversides Limited 0	Posted - 2016.04.07 18:57:07 - [266] - Quote Participated in mass test in a Thanatos. Constantly having to click on the special attack buttons of each squadron is not much fun.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 437	Posted - 2016.04.07 19:08:57 - [267] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Thanks, but I am not just talking about the FSU. We also have: DDA: tooltip: stacking penalty testserver: no stacking penalty supposed to be: ??? Tracking Link: tooltip: stacking penalty testserver: no stacking penalty (as of ~week ago, didnt test today) supposed to be: ??? Tracking enhancer: tooltip: stacking penalty testserver: no stacking penalty (as of ~week ago, didnt test today) supposed to be: ??? Drone navigation Comp tooltip: no stacking penalty testserver: stacking penalty supposed to be: ??? Ah ok. This is a bug. If the Description of the item mentions a stacking penalty then it should have one. Please lodge a bug report :) Marranar Amatin wrote: But the fighters are still very unbalanced among the races. Could you please comment on that? Fighters maintain drone differences. Amarr/Minmatar are faster but do less damage, while Gallente/Caldari are slower and do more damage. Mobility of fighters (like drones) is such a huge part of their gameplay (and getting into range to apply that damage) that we do think the speed bonus equals the damage bonus. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Lugh Crow-Slave 1794	Posted - 2016.04.07 19:13:12 - [268] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: But the fighters are still very unbalanced among the races. Could you please comment on that? Fighters maintain drone differences. Amarr/Minmatar are faster but do less damage, while Gallente/Caldari are slower and do more damage. Mobility of fighters (like drones) is such a huge part of their gameplay (and getting into range to apply that damage) that we do think the speed bonus equals the damage bonus. but they do not maintain their range or tracking also can we please hear something on why the sensor power of fighters is so low? i mean is it intended that a griffin can jam down a carrier and a half 100% of the time using multies? Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1794	Posted - 2016.04.07 19:14:37 - [269] - Quote DharkenGray wrote: Participated in mass test in a Thanatos. Constantly having to click on the special attack buttons of each squadron is not much fun. the ability needs to be stronger with an even higher cool down i think the idea is you dont want to be firing volly after volly Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 63	Posted - 2016.04.07 19:40:07 - [270] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: But the fighters are still very unbalanced among the races. Could you please comment on that? Fighters maintain drone differences. Amarr/Minmatar are faster but do less damage, while Gallente/Caldari are slower and do more damage. Mobility of fighters (like drones) is such a huge part of their gameplay (and getting into range to apply that damage) that we do think the speed bonus equals the damage bonus. Ok thanks for the answer. But I really dont think speed and damage is equal for drones, and this is reflected basically everywhere in existing modules. I dont see why fighter should be such a huge exception. Quick check in Jita: Drone Nav comps are sold roughly 200.000 per day. Drone Damage amplifiers are about 800.000. Most Drone fittings use damage amplifiers, but hardly ever navcomps. Even though the nav comps give a 50% bigger increase. Damage is clearly more valued as a stat. Or maybe look at Hobgoblin and Warrior for another comparison. Hobgoblin is ~23% more damage (similar to firbolg vs einherji), but Warrior is 50% faster and also has 50% better tracking. My prediction for the future if the stats stay this way: In pve players will use the drone with the best damage types, so players that have to use einherji/templar are simply out of luck. In pvp it will be mostly Firbolgs, and sometimes Einherji, but not much in between. Just like in old times where no one used Amarr or Caldari Drones. I really dont mind the fighters being different, I also think they should maintain their differences, but it should not be that one type is simply better. Maybe lower the difference in damage a bit, and/or increase the speed difference, or also give the faster drones a smaller explosion radius.

Circumstantial Evidence 276	Posted - 2016.04.07 20:26:24 - [271] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: DharkenGray wrote: Participated in mass test in a Thanatos. Constantly having to click on the special attack buttons of each squadron is not much fun. the ability needs to be stronger with an even higher cool down i think the idea is you dont want to be firing volly after volly It's asking a lot of players to mash all these buttons in the new manual-everything world, per each squad, and manage their ship, and other situational awareness. CCP please give us auto-repeat option for special attacks. I noticed the standard attack doesn't stop when squads are recalled; you actually have to turn it off separately from a recall command, if you're attempting to de-aggress.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 891	Posted - 2016.04.07 23:32:13 - [272] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Gary Webb wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so i just did the math 3 mill for one t1 light fighter ? thats 89 3 flights and you have 3 flights of T2 at 189 mill so a thanny needs to hold 609mill (if it goes all light fighters) thats over half the cost of the hull How has ccp still not given us a statement on this yet? Carriers will be so prohibitively expensive they will never be used. So all these carriers/fighters will flood the market and sit at stupid high prices. I'm probably wrong, but hey. I'm feeling a bit pissed off that i stand to wind up in possession of like 10 bil worth of hulls and fighters that will be ultimately useless Fighter cost, volume etc are all wrong on sisi atm. Generic PSA: Slack is a really good place for quick questions btw, the guys hanging out there are typically right up to date. Really? So CCP is handing out correct information to slack users only? Sorry sweety but the guys on slack are guessing, just like the rest of us - NO-ONE knows - CCP don't know themselves yet. It is all - this is what is expected, this is what we think but it isn't working yet so it is all best guesses. Quote: CCP Larrikin wrote that we do think the speed bonus equals the damage bonus. Sorry but with the use cases as spelled out in old blogs - It doesn't or it might. The less than 200m/s speed difference between the fastest fighter and the slowest, is there a difference. It is a little hard to tell as skills, ship bonuses and module effects aren't applied yet on SISI, so any guess is a good one. Right now on SISI you can't interact with fighters other than to launch and recall them. Overview is broken, again. There are 5 keepstars and 3 or 4 other Citadels on grid but only one shows up on the overview. The one I undocked and warped away from. Switching tabs back and forth usually clears this bug but even it isn't working. Which by the way is broken (or is it) at login, when you get to the login screen docked in a Citadel, it says you are undocked. You log in appear to be in space and need to click several buttons to see if you are or aren't docked. Not a problem really on a test server but if this goes live like this, it will be very worrying if you need to try and remember if you actually docked or not before logging off last night. There is a lot of work to be done before even a slight idea of how the new fighter mechanics (or any of the new mechanics for that matter) can be assessed. NB; The reattach fighters to HUD button needs to be moved well away from recall fighters button. It makes a horrible mess when you in a hurry hit the wrong one. It is great getting early access to changes (if you can call a couple of weeks early) but not much help if they don't or only partially work. And of course things can be tweaked on TQ because testing changes is so much better on a live server isn't it. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 67	Posted - 2016.04.07 23:46:06 - [273] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: The less than 200m/s speed difference between the fastest fighter and the slowest, is there a difference. It is a little hard to tell as skills, ship bonuses and module effects aren't applied yet on SISI, so any guess is a good one. 200m/s is quite significant when you're talking about numbers in the 780-970 range. Fighters are so slow that I can imagine quite a few situations where Einherjar/Templars are the only option because of their speed. The MWD is handy to get them in range of a target, but if the target manages to pull out of range again, damage means nothing. Skills, ship bonuses, and module effects all work. There are some issues with certain modules not having stacking penalties like they should, but the effects work. The only thing that might not apply yet are the drone speed/durability/range rigs, but with the heavy CPU penalties I doubt many people would use them.
MR Spleen Instant Annihilation I N G L O R I O U S 49	Posted - 2016.04.08 01:48:02 - [274] - Quote Asked if anyone had a fit for the LIF on SISI and this reply summed up my opinion 'Crazy KSK > lif is bad trainf for the cal one' so glad I'm not the only one that thinks so just wish I'd never trained Minmatar carriers. Personally I'm seriously considering just self destructing my carrier before patch. Here's my comment from capital thread about them so far. Quote: As for the carriers and supers I am converting my carrier into a facs and cancelling my order for a hel as the new user interface is horrible and fighters are horrendously weak in terms of hp, although the dps from heavy bombers is immense. why not just let us continue with the old drone system its way better! Btw I'm not saying the FACS are good there not really as these also have huge powergrid and cpu issues for example in order to fit a Lif (Minmatar FACS) to be a descent logi boat it required me fitting 2x reactor control units and 2 cpu's just to fit the ship which will tank 1 dread with ease but 2 would be too much in-spite of getting highest resists I could with capital shield booster and cap injector while having max skills. It can also be 1 shot off the field by any titan even though the conventional DD has had its damage reduced to a maximum of 1.5mil hp. NOT GOOD.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 891	Posted - 2016.04.08 02:03:02 - [275] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: The less than 200m/s speed difference between the fastest fighter and the slowest, is there a difference. It is a little hard to tell as skills, ship bonuses and module effects aren't applied yet on SISI, so any guess is a good one. 200m/s is quite significant when you're talking about numbers in the 780-970 range. Fighters are so slow that I can imagine quite a few situations where Einherjar/Templars are the only option because of their speed. The MWD is handy to get them in range of a target, but if the target manages to pull out of range again, damage means nothing. Skills, ship bonuses, and module effects all work. There are some issues with certain modules not having stacking penalties like they should, but the effects work. The only thing that might not apply yet are the drone speed/durability/range rigs, but with the heavy CPU penalties I doubt many people would use them. Launch a couple of squads of firbolgs and einherji (fastest and slowest) to a target 70K away - Both arrive together. Launch those same fighters at a target 100K away they land less than 5 seconds apart. There is not enough difference in speed to say damage over speed is enough of a difference. Firbolgs are best option fullstop. Want to make speed vs dps count, give einherji and templars mwd effect 595% velocity bonus as opposed to the same bonus as the others. This would differentiate them enough so that speed vs dps is there, without making them op. Skills, ship bonuses, etc working on SISI now - Only shows there is not enough difference in fighter speed to make a difference. Speaking of drone rigs - Related question. 1, Why is it capital shield booster uses 4 times the cpu as armor, yet armor carriers have more cpu than shield. 2, Why do local armor reps have such a stupidly long cycle time in a changing meta that could use to local reps. And for the love of Bob, please seed deadspace and faction modules to SISI so we can at least fit a ship as we intend to use it. With a fittings being so tight having access to ore than T2 modules is pretty important.. 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.
Circumstantial Evidence 277	Posted - 2016.04.08 02:12:56 - [276] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: -------------- Right now on SISI you can't interact with fighters other than to launch and recall them. 1) lock target 2) make sure locked target is selected 3) Activate a function button over a deployed fighter squad, such as Attack or MWD. Then fighters will move to the selected target. Here's to hoping that shortcut keys like "F" will eventually work on squads, like it does for regular drones.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 64	Posted - 2016.04.08 07:09:12 - [277] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: The less than 200m/s speed difference between the fastest fighter and the slowest, is there a difference. It is a little hard to tell as skills, ship bonuses and module effects aren't applied yet on SISI, so any guess is a good one. 200m/s is quite significant when you're talking about numbers in the 780-970 range. Fighters are so slow that I can imagine quite a few situations where Einherjar/Templars are the only option because of their speed. The MWD is handy to get them in range of a target, but if the target manages to pull out of range again, damage means nothing. No. With FSU and a nav comp, all fighters go significantly above 1000 m/s. If you need an additional 20% speed increase just to keep up with the target, you are not going to do any damage anyway, because of the explosion speed. The situations in which you use carriers against targets which you cant catch without that speed increase will be very very rare. Usually the faster fighters will arrive just a little faster at the target. But they will spend much more time shooting the target than flying to the target, so the dps increase is much better. Also: Do you remember the discussion about the slot layout here? Low slots being more valueable then midslots etc. No one said midslots are more valueable because of nav comps. Even when navcomps actually give a relatively larger bonus. If you had the option to fit a free DDA without stecking penalty, or a free navcomp without stacking penalty, but only 2/3 effect, which one would you choose? Because that is quite exactly the difference between einherji and firbolgs.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 12	Posted - 2016.04.08 07:27:27 - [278] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Speaking of drone rigs - Related question. 1, Why is it capital shield booster uses 4 times the cpu as armor, yet armor carriers have more cpu than shield. 2, Why do local armor reps have such a stupidly long cycle time in a changing meta that could use to local reps. And for the love of Bob, please seed deadspace and faction modules to SISI so we can at least fit a ship as we intend to use it. With a fittings being so tight having access to ore than T2 modules is pretty important.. I dont think shield carriers is the problem, it seems to be mostly the nid that is CPU starved. And while i agree deadspace mods would be nice, a T2 fit should work also (or at least a mostly T2 fit) without having to use a faction cap mods just to be able to fit. I have made a post on the capital thread on the test server feedback forum showing that for a normal cap fit you could gain 200 tf of cpu with faction mods, which on under 1000 tf total seems a bit excessive.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 12	Posted - 2016.04.08 07:40:33 - [279] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: The less than 200m/s speed difference between the fastest fighter and the slowest, is there a difference. It is a little hard to tell as skills, ship bonuses and module effects aren't applied yet on SISI, so any guess is a good one. 200m/s is quite significant when you're talking about numbers in the 780-970 range. Fighters are so slow that I can imagine quite a few situations where Einherjar/Templars are the only option because of their speed. The MWD is handy to get them in range of a target, but if the target manages to pull out of range again, damage means nothing. No. With FSU and a nav comp, all fighters go significantly above 1000 m/s. If you need an additional 20% speed increase just to keep up with the target, you are not going to do any damage anyway, because of the explosion speed. The situations in which you use carriers against targets which you cant catch without that speed increase will be very very rare. Usually the faster fighters will arrive just a little faster at the target. But they will spend much more time shooting the target than flying to the target, so the dps increase is much better. Also: Do you remember the discussion about the slot layout here? Low slots being more valueable then midslots etc. No one said midslots are more valueable because of nav comps. Even when navcomps actually give a relatively larger bonus. If you had the option to fit a free DDA without stecking penalty, or a free navcomp without stacking penalty, but only 2/3 effect, which one would you choose? Because that is quite exactly the difference between einherji and firbolgs. I have seen 1100 m/s ish for the gal light fighter, and the heavy moving at 700 m/s ish. Agreed though that this might make it difficult to apply dps in pvp. However i dont think a capital should really work all that well without support. I dont think slot layout is the problem, its the compound of the loss of a slot in the tank rack (low or mid depending on tank type) combined with the effectiveness of those slots. The dmg bonus is not enough to overcome the 2 slot effective difference. If the Archon and Thanny had the same slot layout it would work, but relatively the mid slot is less useful for either dps or tank there. For the shield carrier it is probably the other way arround.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1376	Posted - 2016.04.08 10:06:13 - [280] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Gary Webb wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: so i just did the math 3 mill for one t1 light fighter ? thats 89 3 flights and you have 3 flights of T2 at 189 mill so a thanny needs to hold 609mill (if it goes all light fighters) thats over half the cost of the hull How has ccp still not given us a statement on this yet? Carriers will be so prohibitively expensive they will never be used. So all these carriers/fighters will flood the market and sit at stupid high prices. I'm probably wrong, but hey. I'm feeling a bit pissed off that i stand to wind up in possession of like 10 bil worth of hulls and fighters that will be ultimately useless Fighter cost, volume etc are all wrong on sisi atm. Generic PSA: Slack is a really good place for quick questions btw, the guys hanging out there are typically right up to date. Really? So CCP is handing out correct information to slack users only? Sorry sweety but the guys on slack are guessing, just like the rest of us - NO-ONE knows - CCP don't know themselves yet. It is all - this is what is expected, this is what we think but it isn't working yet so it is all best guesses. Where is it guesses they say, where dev confirm it, they also say. You don't need to believe me, I've told you what to do; whether or not you take the advice is up to you.

Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 13	Posted - 2016.04.08 10:23:32 - [281] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Speaking of drone rigs - Related question. 1, Why is it capital shield booster uses 4 times the cpu as armor, yet armor carriers have more cpu than shield. 2, Why do local armor reps have such a stupidly long cycle time in a changing meta that could use to local reps. And for the love of Bob, please seed deadspace and faction modules to SISI so we can at least fit a ship as we intend to use it. With a fittings being so tight having access to ore than T2 modules is pretty important.. I dont think shield carriers is the problem, it seems to be mostly the nid that is CPU starved. And while i agree deadspace mods would be nice, a T2 fit should work also (or at least a mostly T2 fit) without having to use a faction cap mods just to be able to fit. I have made a post on the capital thread on the test server feedback forum showing that for a normal cap fit you could gain 200 tf of cpu with faction mods, which on under 1000 tf total seems a bit excessive. Ok, some further fitting testing i have to take back this. While the earlier point about the nid still stands as completely lacking in cpu, the new mods seem to lean towards cpu more. I think fitting and slots need to be reviewed in more detail now that the role of the carrier is changing. On the archon i have no problem fitting, but the chimera also is a bit of a puzzle. On the other side, if the chimera (and nid) get more CPU they are able to fit additional dmg mods since the tank doesnt compete for the same slots.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 892	Posted - 2016.04.08 12:13:28 - [282] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Speaking of drone rigs - Related question. 1, Why is it capital shield booster uses 4 times the cpu as armor, yet armor carriers have more cpu than shield. 2, Why do local armor reps have such a stupidly long cycle time in a changing meta that could use to local reps. And for the love of Bob, please seed deadspace and faction modules to SISI so we can at least fit a ship as we intend to use it. With a fittings being so tight having access to ore than T2 modules is pretty important.. I dont think shield carriers is the problem, it seems to be mostly the nid that is CPU starved. And while i agree deadspace mods would be nice, a T2 fit should work also (or at least a mostly T2 fit) without having to use a faction cap mods just to be able to fit. I have made a post on the capital thread on the test server feedback forum showing that for a normal cap fit you could gain 200 tf of cpu with faction mods, which on under 1000 tf total seems a bit excessive. Maybe but with faction mods you also have an inferior tank so there is a pretty big trade off. Deadspace requires higher fitting but with added benefit of making your chances of survival a little better. I can save over 150 CPU on a battleship with 750 CPU (just 125 less cpu than a niddy, which has much higher cpu requirements) using faction mods (more if I faction damage mods as well), allowing me to fit neutrons instead of electrons but with 25K less ehp over deadspace mods - Should that be classed as excessive as well, or is it only certain ships can't spend the extra isk for a slight advantage - The 200 cpu you may save fitting faction mods comes at a cost (in both isk and ehp); what makes it excessive? NB; you can't put a "mostly" T2 fit on a niddy without cpu upgrades. If you need to drop 50% of the fit to meta and still need a cpu upgrade so as to not have empty slots - there is not enough cpu. -- - -- - -- - -- Bottom line is - Capital meta has always been armor and with the perfect opportunity to bring shield doctrines up to par with armor, Devs decided it wasn't worth it. With the planned removal of POS's, chimeras and nidhoggurs will soon have no role at all. Thankfully you can still armor fit the Nag, so at least 2 possibly 3 of 4 dreads will get used. Phoenix will once again slip into uselessness and be laughed out of fleets, already they are up against it in larger fleets as no-one brings shield triage. With the fitting restrictions of everything shield, well who wants to field ships that need as many fitting upgrades as they do useful modules. Pity the Hell and Rag - The best of the supers (personal preference), left with less than adequate support. Oh and the levi and wyvern, must not forget them. 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 892	Posted - 2016.04.08 12:17:33 - [283] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: -------------- Right now on SISI you can't interact with fighters other than to launch and recall them. 1) lock target 2) make sure locked target is selected 3) Activate a function button over a deployed fighter squad, such as Attack or MWD. Then fighters will move to the selected target. Here's to hoping that shortcut keys like "F" will eventually work on squads, like it does for regular drones. Yeah I was referring to a new ability - The one where you can place fighters at spots around a grid without targets. You know the one Devs have been telling us is so game changing. 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.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 437	Posted - 2016.04.08 14:28:50 - [284] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: -------------- Right now on SISI you can't interact with fighters other than to launch and recall them. 1) lock target 2) make sure locked target is selected 3) Activate a function button over a deployed fighter squad, such as Attack or MWD. Then fighters will move to the selected target. Here's to hoping that shortcut keys like "F" will eventually work on squads, like it does for regular drones. Yeah I was referring to a new ability - The one where you can place fighters at spots around a grid without targets. You know the one Devs have been telling us is so game changing. Once you have a fighter squadron selected, try Q :) You can also tell your fighters to orbit targets, keep at range, approach (all basic ship commands) with the standard rightclick menu, if you have them selected on the fighter HUD. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 \| https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 1166	Posted - 2016.04.08 14:38:43 - [285] - Quote CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock).
Lugh Crow-Slave 1798	Posted - 2016.04.08 17:34:07 - [286] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock). this please suggestions in thread - make carriers better against subs than supers (like they are now on tq) - make carriers have faster drones than supers - give carriers an advantage to using E-war drones -possible with just a power bonus or with giving carriers an extra tube and support fighter slot after the mass test another idea came to me don't let supers use space superiority fighters and make these smaller this would mean to effectively counter a super you need a carrier even if you do none of these the interceptor fighters do need to be smaller it makes no seance that such a niche fighter takes up so much space. ideally one flight would be less than the attack fighters but at the very least make them take the same space as attack fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Circumstantial Evidence 277	Posted - 2016.04.08 17:50:03 - [287] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Once you have a fighter squadron selected, try Q :) You can also tell your fighters to orbit targets, keep at range, approach (all basic ship commands) with the standard rightclick menu, if you have them selected on the fighter HUD. Awesome. I saw orbit/approach etc on right-click menus but assumed that would move my ship, so I didn't try it. Bug: Fighters health shown in fighter bay does not always match HUD fighters health.
Circumstantial Evidence 277	Posted - 2016.04.08 17:57:19 - [288] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock). Carriers are much less expensive than supercarriers. They will cause damage for as long as they live in a battle, much like BC's can help a BS fleet, even though they are volleyed off the field in a battleship face-off. Let the guy bring a Drake, if that's all he can bring ;) That said, I liked your idea of giving carriers a unique support role, by dis-allowing support fighters on supercarriers.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1798	Posted - 2016.04.08 18:04:52 - [289] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock). Carriers are much less expensive than supercarriers. They will cause damage for as long as they live in a battle, much like BC's can help a BS fleet, even though they are volleyed off the field in a battleship face-off. Let the guy bring a Drake, if that's all he can bring ;) That said, I liked your idea of giving carriers a unique support role, by dis-allowing support fighters on supercarriers. but battle cruisers can do things BBs cant like better application on small ships and command links there needs to be a reason to use every ship in the game independant of its cost Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 64	Posted - 2016.04.08 20:48:45 - [290] - Quote All ships are supposed to be useful, and "more expensive" is not supposed to mean "strictly better". Sure, a BS can tank more than a BC, and also hit harder, but the BC has better application, and is more agile. While the BS can be considered more powerful in a broade sense, and also more expensive, there are many situations in which a BC is prefered. In small-mid scale pvp, you usually prefer BC over BS, and the reason is not the price. So which ship to choose is not only based on the what you want to spend, but more importantly on what you want to do with it. The only exception are faction ships and certain T2 ships. And I will just quote myself on that topic: Marranar Amatin wrote: There are also T2 ships that could generally be considered better, for example there is hardly a reason to use a cruiser, if you could get a heavy assault cruiser for the same price. Or a frigate if you could also use an assault frigate. But this usually comes from a huge increase in price (a vexor is ~10mio, an ishtar 170mio, so about a factor 17), a much higher skill requirement, for a moderate performance increase. An ishtar has roughly 2x the ehp of a vexor, and maybe 25% damage more (depending on how you fit of course. Now the only thing of carrier vs supercarrier, that is comparable to ishtar vs vexor is the price. A carrier is maybe 1.2 billion, a supercarrier about 20 (not sure of the exact price), so 20/1.2=16.7, about the same factor. But both have the same skill requirements, and the supercarrier is just much much better at everything. A chimera has 68.000 shield, a wyvern has 500.000. A Wyvern has a 400% bonus to shield extenders. A wyvern has strong resistances to electronic warfare. The wyvern has 20% damage bonus. It can launch 3 heavy fighters, where each long range heavy squadron is about as strong as all 2-3 light squadrons from the chimera. Additionally it can also launch 2 light squads. And it can launch anti capital fighters which probably do an order of magntiude more damage than the light fighters (I didnt really test them). This is completely out of proportion to the usually T2 bonus. Supercarrier should not be so much better at everything.

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 67	Posted - 2016.04.08 21:22:13 - [291] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: -------------- Right now on SISI you can't interact with fighters other than to launch and recall them. 1) lock target 2) make sure locked target is selected 3) Activate a function button over a deployed fighter squad, such as Attack or MWD. Then fighters will move to the selected target. Here's to hoping that shortcut keys like "F" will eventually work on squads, like it does for regular drones. Yeah I was referring to a new ability - The one where you can place fighters at spots around a grid without targets. You know the one Devs have been telling us is so game changing. Once you have a fighter squadron selected, try Q :) You can also tell your fighters to orbit targets, keep at range, approach (all basic ship commands) with the standard rightclick menu, if you have them selected on the fighter HUD. So what is Q supposed to do? I unbound whatever it was before to set the new M ability to Q and now neither of them do anything.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 65	Posted - 2016.04.08 21:23:38 - [292] - Quote Q is what M did before.
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1644	Posted - 2016.04.08 21:34:30 - [293] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Q is what M did before. What did M do before?
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 65	Posted - 2016.04.08 21:37:52 - [294] - Quote sending fighters to a certain point in space.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1800	Posted - 2016.04.08 21:54:50 - [295] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: sending fighters to a certain point in space. however it can now be used to control any ship in game Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 895	Posted - 2016.04.08 21:54:56 - [296] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: sending fighters to a certain point in space. When did it change and why? Better still, when will there be an up to date blog with accurate information regarding Fighters. 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.
cBOLTSON Caldari Provisions Caldari State 156	Posted - 2016.04.09 14:20:56 - [297] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock). Wait a second what? I knew about the first two proposals but Carriers are losing their ability to dock?? What the hell. The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......
Lugh Crow-Slave 1836	Posted - 2016.04.09 14:24:06 - [298] - Quote cBOLTSON wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock). Wait a second what? I knew about the first two proposals but Carriers are losing their ability to dock?? What the hell. No was talking about how supers can now dock so carriers no longer have that advantage over them Citadel worm hole tax
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2451	Posted - 2016.04.09 15:01:03 - [299] - Quote cBOLTSON wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock). Wait a second what? I knew about the first two proposals but Carriers are losing their ability to dock?? What the hell. No, Supercarriers are gaining the ability to dock. Which means that Carriers are losing one unique advantage they had vis-a-vis Supercarriers. The argument is, now that you can dock a Supercarrier, why bother to fly a Carrier? CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1836	Posted - 2016.04.09 15:26:34 - [300] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: cBOLTSON wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: CCP would you mind addressing our concerns re. the role of carriers in this upcoming expansion? Some of us feel that there's no reason to use them over supercarriers now that they're losing three of their main advantages (ability to use normal drones, ability to triage, and ability to dock). Wait a second what? I knew about the first two proposals but Carriers are losing their ability to dock?? What the hell. No, Supercarriers are gaining the ability to dock. Which means that Carriers are losing one unique advantage they had vis-a-vis Supercarriers. The argument is, now that you can dock a Supercarrier, why bother to fly a Carrier? Well that's an extremely abridged version of the argument Citadel worm hole tax

Josef Kennet Zima Corp Infinity Space. 23	Posted - 2016.04.09 15:36:26 - [301] - Quote Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters? Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter Same with their movement ability Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool. Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities. I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them. So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 69	Posted - 2016.04.09 17:53:14 - [302] - Quote So its time for something positive: I did another round of tests with the newest iteration, both against pvp targets and pve targets, and I am starting to feel a lot more happy about these changes, even though some concerns remain. The good stuff: -most of the bugs concerning modules, skils etc. seem to be fixed. There is a new bug (already reported) that stops any bounties from appearing in my wallet, but I guess that is not really related to the carriers. -flying a carrier is more fun with the fighters having more options. -the kill speed in pve is decent now. Its more difficult than before (which is not a bad thing), since you have to pay more attention to managing the different skills, and using them at the right time is important for the killspeed, but since its rewarded with decent killspeed, thats fine. -I think there is a use in pvp now. The damage against large targets is still mediocre, considering how it was on tranq, and what kind of damage the other capitals can do. What is good now, is application and burst (this is also the reason why the carrier is not useless in pve anymore, even though the dps is not great. The small stuff goes down a lot faster, this makes up for the big stuff taking longer). Using several tracking links the third ability can hurt a lot, even on ceptors, and using the fighter-mwd (and a few nav comps) the carrier can hit basically everything within ~100km within a short time. I can imagine some uses in mid to large scale fleets. Now the remaining concers: -balance among fighters still bad. but I must admit that problem is not huge. at least in pvp there is nothing that forces us to use the bad fighters, since every carrier can use all types and there are no special skill requirements. it probably will be a few weeks of firbolgs all around, then this will show up in the statistics and ccp can fix them. Fixing them would be easy... lower the difference in damage, increase the bonus speed, give the weaker ones bonus in application in etc. just look at how the races are handled for drones. -supercarriers still overshadow carrier in every way except price. My suggestion to fix this: give carriers a 400% bonus in explosion velocity and reduce the explosion velocity of all light fighters by an equivalent amount. This changes nothing to carriers, but is a big nerf to application of super carriers. I think super carriers need this nerf anyway. They have incredible damage against large targets, and also incredible damage against small targets, down until ceptor size. Thats just silly. A large enough group of supers would not need any support ships of any kind, since it can counter literally everything that is thrown at them. From the largest ships to the smallest ships.
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1651	Posted - 2016.04.09 18:07:39 - [303] - Quote Josef Kennet wrote: Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters? Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter Same with their movement ability Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool. Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities. I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them. So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key. Echoing this. I currently use fighters a lot in PvE, splitting fighters between various targets. The incoming system is interesting, but I'd really like to be able to say assign attack commands for specific fighter squadrons to different keys without needed to manually switch focus between different fighter squads. An entire carrier worth of DPS is overkill in a carrier for one target in PvE, being able to F1, F2, F3 (or other assigned keys) to tell squads 1, 2, and 3 to each attack the selected enemy target would be excellent.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 898	Posted - 2016.04.09 23:06:19 - [304] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Josef Kennet wrote: Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters? Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter Same with their movement ability Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool. Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities. I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them. So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key. Echoing this. I currently use fighters a lot in PvE, splitting fighters between various targets. The incoming system is interesting, but I'd really like to be able to say assign attack commands for specific fighter squadrons to different keys without needed to manually switch focus between different fighter squads. An entire carrier worth of DPS is overkill in a carrier for one target in PvE, being able to F1, F2, F3 (or other assigned keys) to tell squads 1, 2, and 3 to each attack the selected enemy target would be excellent. How do you send different groups of fighter at targets now? Would it be, select target, select fighters, send fighters? The whole idea behind new fighter mechanics is to get players involved - Not provide more hotkeys to mash. The Eve player base has to be one of the laziest of any online game. 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.
Charlemeign Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture 35	Posted - 2016.04.09 23:14:31 - [305] - Quote @CCP Larrikin I keep hearing conflicting news about what level of 'x fighters' (x being heavy/light/support) T2 Fighters will require. Can you please address whether lvl 4 or 5 or will be needed for T2 Fighters?
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1651	Posted - 2016.04.09 23:16:15 - [306] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Anhenka wrote: Josef Kennet wrote: Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters? Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter Same with their movement ability Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool. Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities. I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them. So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key. Echoing this. I currently use fighters a lot in PvE, splitting fighters between various targets. The incoming system is interesting, but I'd really like to be able to say assign attack commands for specific fighter squadrons to different keys without needed to manually switch focus between different fighter squads. An entire carrier worth of DPS is overkill in a carrier for one target in PvE, being able to F1, F2, F3 (or other assigned keys) to tell squads 1, 2, and 3 to each attack the selected enemy target would be excellent. How do you send different groups of fighter at targets now? Would it be, select target, select fighters, send fighters? The whole idea behind new fighter mechanics is to get players involved - Not provide more hotkeys to mash. The Eve player base has to be one of the laziest of any online game. I split all my fighters into two drone groups, then use F to tell all to attack one target, then manually tell the second group to attack a different target. It's a bit clunky but it works. As for your objection to the proposal, you don't seem to have an actual reason for the objection. You can already split and group guns into whatever arrangement of groupings and hotkeys keys you want. Extending that system of grouping and hotkeys to the drone UI has been something people have been asking about for years, but has been set aside for a long time due to issues with legacy code. Do you have an actual reason for objecting to it, or does customization of controls and a responsive UI somehow offend you?
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 898	Posted - 2016.04.09 23:30:44 - [307] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: So its time for something positive: I did another round of tests with the newest iteration, both against pvp targets and pve targets, and I am starting to feel a lot more happy about these changes, even though some concerns remain. The good stuff: -most of the bugs concerning modules, skils etc. seem to be fixed. There is a new bug (already reported) that stops any bounties from appearing in my wallet, but I guess that is not really related to the carriers. -flying a carrier is more fun with the fighters having more options. -the kill speed in pve is decent now. Its more difficult than before (which is not a bad thing), since you have to pay more attention to managing the different skills, and using them at the right time is important for the killspeed, but since its rewarded with decent killspeed, thats fine. -I think there is a use in pvp now. The damage against large targets is still mediocre, considering how it was on tranq, and what kind of damage the other capitals can do. What is good now, is application and burst (this is also the reason why the carrier is not useless in pve anymore, even though the dps is not great. The small stuff goes down a lot faster, this makes up for the big stuff taking longer). Using several tracking links the third ability can hurt a lot, even on ceptors, and using the fighter-mwd (and a few nav comps) the carrier can hit basically everything within ~100km within a short time. I can imagine some uses in mid to large scale fleets. Now the remaining concers: -balance among fighters still bad. but I must admit that problem is not huge. at least in pvp there is nothing that forces us to use the bad fighters, since every carrier can use all types and there are no special skill requirements. it probably will be a few weeks of firbolgs all around, then this will show up in the statistics and ccp can fix them. Fixing them would be easy... lower the difference in damage, increase the bonus speed, give the weaker ones bonus in application in etc. just look at how the races are handled for drones. -supercarriers still overshadow carrier in every way except price. My suggestion to fix this: give carriers a 400% bonus in explosion velocity and reduce the explosion velocity of all light fighters by an equivalent amount. This changes nothing to carriers, but is a big nerf to application of super carriers. I think super carriers need this nerf anyway. They have incredible damage against large targets, and also incredible damage against small targets, down until ceptor size. Thats just silly. A large enough group of supers would not need any support ships of any kind, since it can counter literally everything that is thrown at them. From the largest ships to the smallest ships. Agreed (mostly) Armor carriers are in a reasonable place, being able to use mids for fighter enhancements, which actually makes them useful for PVE, less so in PVP. Sadly though this is not reflected over to shield carriers, 3 cpu upgrades to fit a 50/50 T2 - meta fit, that has way less utility then either of the armor carriers. All carriers need CPU and PG balanced Prior to this going live. They need 1 more launch tube and 10K more space in fighter bays, or support fighters need to be the same size as the others. One flight (3 support fighters) is 9K m3 of a relatively small holding bay and as you can only use 1 flight at a time it is a shame it has to be at the expense of being able to apply any real damage to larger ships. If a new carrier is incapable of defending itself from and even killing a battleship, then what use are they? Capital warfare should be about capital ships being able to kill each other - Not one whole class dedicated to killing subcaps but being killed by any other capital with no chance to defend itself. Especially when you have super carriers capable of volleying carriers off the field. If the plan is to reduce carrier use by making them barely useful - Your on the right track. 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1378	Posted - 2016.04.10 00:58:06 - [308] - Quote Charlemeign wrote: @CCP Larrikin I keep hearing conflicting news about what level of 'x fighters' (x being heavy/light/support) T2 Fighters will require. Can you please address whether lvl 4 or 5 or will be needed for T2 Fighters? Last I heard Fighters V, light/support IV
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 71	Posted - 2016.04.10 01:11:16 - [309] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Charlemeign wrote: @CCP Larrikin I keep hearing conflicting news about what level of 'x fighters' (x being heavy/light/support) T2 Fighters will require. Can you please address whether lvl 4 or 5 or will be needed for T2 Fighters? Last I heard Fighters V, light/support IV Ahh sweet. I just checked on SiSi and that's what they're currently at. I'm glad they didn't stay with the 5/5 that would've taken way too long to train.
Charlemeign Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture 35	Posted - 2016.04.10 05:10:41 - [310] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Charlemeign wrote: @CCP Larrikin I keep hearing conflicting news about what level of 'x fighters' (x being heavy/light/support) T2 Fighters will require. Can you please address whether lvl 4 or 5 or will be needed for T2 Fighters? Last I heard Fighters V, light/support IV Ahh sweet. I just checked on SiSi and that's what they're currently at. I'm glad they didn't stay with the 5/5 that would've taken way too long to train. Awesome

Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.10 07:07:11 - [311] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Agreed (mostly) Armor carriers are in a reasonable place, being able to use mids for fighter enhancements, which actually makes them useful for PVE, less so in PVP. Sadly though this is not reflected over to shield carriers, 3 cpu upgrades to fit a 50/50 T2 - meta fit, that has way less utility then either of the armor carriers. All carriers need CPU and PG balanced Prior to this going live. They need 1 more launch tube and 10K more space in fighter bays, or support fighters need to be the same size as the others. One flight (3 support fighters) is 9K m3 of a relatively small holding bay and as you can only use 1 flight at a time it is a shame it has to be at the expense of being able to apply any real damage to larger ships. If a new carrier is incapable of defending itself from and even killing a battleship, then what use are they? Capital warfare should be about capital ships being able to kill each other - Not one whole class dedicated to killing subcaps but being killed by any other capital with no chance to defend itself. Especially when you have super carriers capable of volleying carriers off the field. If the plan is to reduce carrier use by making them barely useful - Your on the right track. Actually, as pointed out in the other thread, shield carriers work perfectly if you fit just buffer. The archon (armor) thanny and nid (shiled) are able to fit a ~1.6-1.8 mil buffer. The chimi might actually be OP buffer fit at just north of 3 mil buffer. However if you want active tank you will not be able to stick it on a shield carrier due to cpu limitations. As such i think now the problem is not with the carriers, but with the requirements for the mods. Agree on the support fighters, as long as the space superiority fighters can kill em this quick, they need to be smaller. And they are not all that great to start with, as you lose 33% of your dps if you launch a tube of those. Carriers need a defined role, and supers need to not be able to kill them quite so quickly..
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.10 07:10:05 - [312] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Anhenka wrote: Josef Kennet wrote: Is it possibly to assign different keys for different fighters? Like F1 - first fighter attack, F2 - second fighter etc Alt+F1 - Second ability for first fighter Ctrl+F1 - Third ability for first fighter Same with their movement ability Its important because it seems that carriers and suppers will use different groups of fighters on different targets (light\support, light\support\heavy,light\heavy, support\heavy). Reselecting needed fighters each time is not cool. Also some "grouping" will needed, maybe if i can set same key for different fighters (actyally launch tubes 1-5), or abilities. I see it somthing like this: in options we have hotkeys for each tube and each ability (5*3 hotkeys for abilities and maybe 5 for movement) AND i can set same key for them. So if i press that key it will activate all abilities that is connected to this key. Echoing this. I currently use fighters a lot in PvE, splitting fighters between various targets. The incoming system is interesting, but I'd really like to be able to say assign attack commands for specific fighter squadrons to different keys without needed to manually switch focus between different fighter squads. An entire carrier worth of DPS is overkill in a carrier for one target in PvE, being able to F1, F2, F3 (or other assigned keys) to tell squads 1, 2, and 3 to each attack the selected enemy target would be excellent. How do you send different groups of fighter at targets now? Would it be, select target, select fighters, send fighters? The whole idea behind new fighter mechanics is to get players involved - Not provide more hotkeys to mash. The Eve player base has to be one of the laziest of any online game. I split all my fighters into two drone groups, then use F to tell all to attack one target, then manually tell the second group to attack a different target. It's a bit clunky but it works. As for your objection to the proposal, you don't seem to have an actual reason for the objection. You can already split and group guns into whatever arrangement of groupings and hotkeys keys you want. Extending that system of grouping and hotkeys to the drone UI has been something people have been asking about for years, but has been set aside for a long time due to issues with legacy code. Do you have an actual reason for objecting to it, or does customization of controls and a responsive UI somehow offend you? At the moment F1 gives the order to all fighters squadrons with a blue ring, so if you want to split them you have to click the fighter group, the target, F1, the next fighter group, the next target, F1, etc. Or select all fighters and F1 to get all of them to attack one target. Being able to rebind squadrons to Crtl + F1 / F2 etc sounds like a good idea to take some of the clunkyness out of that.
Oxide Ammar 251	Posted - 2016.04.10 07:25:17 - [313] - Quote Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.10 07:45:23 - [314] - Quote Oxide Ammar wrote: Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest. Active fit modules are probably too cpu hungry, a buffer works well on the chimi, and as a shield buffer it is probably a little too strong at the moment as it gets almost 33% more buffer then any other carrier. It cannot fit a active tank though, and the nid is even more bothersome for active tank.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 71	Posted - 2016.04.10 08:18:05 - [315] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Oxide Ammar wrote: Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest. Active fit modules are probably too cpu hungry, a buffer works well on the chimi, and as a shield buffer it is probably a little too strong at the moment as it gets almost 33% more buffer then any other carrier. It cannot fit a active tank though, and the nid is even more bothersome for active tank. I just had a thought about the Nid. Everyone complains that it in particular doesn't have enough CPU. Could it be because it still has the CPU/PG from when it had the 5/5/6 slot layout that favored armor?
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.10 08:25:22 - [316] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sekeris wrote: Oxide Ammar wrote: Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest. Active fit modules are probably too cpu hungry, a buffer works well on the chimi, and as a shield buffer it is probably a little too strong at the moment as it gets almost 33% more buffer then any other carrier. It cannot fit a active tank though, and the nid is even more bothersome for active tank. I just had a thought about the Nid. Everyone complains that it in particular doesn't have enough CPU. Could it be because it still has the CPU/PG from when it had the 5/5/6 slot layout that favored armor? Possibly, it has the same CPU/PG as on live now. Which is the biggest gap between carrier > super for cpu.
Atum' Ra Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx 97	Posted - 2016.04.10 09:43:02 - [317] - Quote When you fix fighters bug on sisi? They do not warp over the target now.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 71	Posted - 2016.04.10 09:51:52 - [318] - Quote Atum' Ra wrote: When you fix fighters bug on sisi? They do not warp over the target now. Not a bug. Fighters will only warp to follow you if you warp off grid. You might actually have to recall them too.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 71	Posted - 2016.04.10 10:04:04 - [319] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: I just had a thought about the Nid. Everyone complains that it in particular doesn't have enough CPU. Could it be because it still has the CPU/PG from when it had the 5/5/6 slot layout that favored armor? Possibly, it has the same CPU/PG as on live now. Which is the biggest gap between carrier > super for cpu. Well if that's the case, they didn't take into account the change in slot layout. On TQ the Nidhoggur has CPU/PG designed for the 5/5/6 slot layout while the Hel has a 6/7/5 layout. That means the Nid->Hel CPU gap is huge and PG gap is tiny. I'm going to bug report this and hopefully it'll be fixed.
Atum' Ra Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx 97	Posted - 2016.04.10 10:19:26 - [320] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Atum' Ra wrote: When you fix fighters bug on sisi? They do not warp over the target now. Not a bug. Fighters will only warp to follow you if you warp off grid. You might actually have to recall them too. It is the most powerful nerf of carriers... eve nerf of skynet was not so devastating. RIP Pls rename the game from EVE online to Frigates online.

Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 70	Posted - 2016.04.10 10:22:27 - [321] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Agreed (mostly) Armor carriers are in a reasonable place, being able to use mids for fighter enhancements, which actually makes them useful for PVE, less so in PVP. Sadly though this is not reflected over to shield carriers, 3 cpu upgrades to fit a 50/50 T2 - meta fit, that has way less utility then either of the armor carriers. That is incorrect, for several reasons. If you only look at the single modules, low slots are much better then mid slots, even for application. This is very easy to calculate: A DDA is 20.5% more damage against ANY target. A tracking link is at optimal conditions (small and fast targets) a 14.9% damage increase. Clearly a 20.5% damage increase against everything is always better than a 14.9% damage increase against some targets. I am ignoring the range bonus here, because it does not really matter for fighters. Let me repeat that again, because its really not intuitive: DDA will result in better damage against small targets than tracking link. Now lets include stacking penaltys 1. DDA: 20.5% 2. DDA: 17.8% 3. DDA: 11.7% 4. DDA: 5.8% 5. DDA: 2.2% As you can see even the second DDA is strictly better than a tracking link. Even the third one could be considered better (or maybe equal) as it gives a slightly lower damage increase, but against everything, not only against small and fast targets. Now to the downside of lowslots: There is only one useful modules, while midslots got two. Tracking enhancers are basically worthless, as they exactly the same thing as tracking links, just worse. They only give a 10.3 % damage increase against small targets, so that is even worse then the third DDA. Considering that you probably already have at least on tracking link when you start fitting tracking enhancers, you have to include the stacking penalty, so its actually only a 8.9% damage increase, which brings them roughly on par with the FORTH DDA. Midslots on the other han have two modules that could be considered useful, which is tracking links and nav comps. Basically it comes down to this: If you do not have to fit tank (in pve where one tank item is enough), the low number of lowslots is not a disadvantage because there is only one useful module, and that you have to use midslots for tank is also not a problem, since you only need one for this. I would assume the Archon is actually the worst pve ship for this reason. If you have to fit tank (pvp) it is also not much of a problem that you cannot fit many application modules in midslots (for shield carriers), because in low numbers, the low slots are strictly better anyway. I think the slot layout is actually quite balanced, from my estimation (and including the hull bonus) its probably something like this: pvp: archon>chimera>thanatos>Nid while in pve I would expect Nid>Thanatos>chimera>archon. But I do not think that the differences are huge. I ignored the CPU here... in pve it is irrelevant because you do not need the high cpu modules, and I was simply too lazy to include them in the pvp. Maybe some carrier need more cpu... I cant really comment on that.
Terrorfrodo Renegade Hobbits for Mordor 719	Posted - 2016.04.10 11:57:43 - [322] - Quote I wonder what exactly the role of the 'new' carriers is supposed to be? Clearly not remote-repping as they cannot triage anymore. Also not as a fleet booster as the 1% bonus to links is far weaker than on T3 or Command Ships. So I assumed it's mostly as a damage dealer... but today I went on Sisi and realized that we can only use the light fighters. Their description states that they are meant to combat other fighters and drones and dont do much damage to full-sized ships, and my tests seemed to confirm that. Three full squadrons took forever to kill the rats in some low-level low sec site I randomly warped into. I dont have the stats but it felt like they did maybe 200-300 dps max. Then there is the support fighters but they dont seem to be very powerful either. All in all I dont see that my carrier does anything better or even same good as any smaller and much cheaper ship. Now I wonder if I should put the triage module back into my TQ Archon to make a FAUX out of it on patch day. But maybe I'm just missing the point here and carriers are totally awesome? .
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 70	Posted - 2016.04.10 12:02:51 - [323] - Quote Terrorfrodo: there are two kinds of light fighters. you probably tried the anti-fighter fighter, you should try the normal ones. templar, firbolg, einherji, dragonfly. They can do real damage. Its not great, but it has a nice burst and can also hit smaller targets., so the role is probably dps against anything between bs and frig size.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1378	Posted - 2016.04.10 12:12:02 - [324] - Quote Atum' Ra wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Atum' Ra wrote: When you fix fighters bug on sisi? They do not warp over the target now. Not a bug. Fighters will only warp to follow you if you warp off grid. You might actually have to recall them too. It is the most powerful nerf of carriers... eve nerf of skynet was not so devastating. RIP Pls rename the game from EVE online to Frigates online. Apparently you've not tested it. Light fighters killed my alts ares moving at 47xx m/s with a DCU, MSE and Invuln in 9 seconds. GG
Lugh Crow-Slave 1839	Posted - 2016.04.10 12:29:27 - [325] - Quote Current ranking of carriers Nid>Thannatos>chimera>archon And the gap between thany and chimera is huge I should not be able to lay out from better to worse ships in the same class The only advantage chimera and archon have over the other two is tank but by the time you need that much you should be in a super You have two anti subcap ships with tank built to survive capitals Citadel worm hole tax
Terrorfrodo Renegade Hobbits for Mordor 719	Posted - 2016.04.10 12:29:30 - [326] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Terrorfrodo: there are two kinds of light fighters. you probably tried the anti-fighter fighter, you should try the normal ones. templar, firbolg, einherji, dragonfly. They can do real damage. Its not great, but it has a nice burst and can also hit smaller targets., so the role is probably dps against anything between bs and frig size. Ah, thanks. I checked the stats of several of them but apparently I missed the real ones. .
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 70	Posted - 2016.04.10 12:38:31 - [327] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Current ranking of carriers Nid>Thannatos>chimera>archon I still think thats only true for pve, and basically the other way around in pvp. More tank is always better in pvp, and in my opinion more valueable than damage. Look at the old carriers, it was archon all around, and chimera when you wanted shield. Nid was never used, and Thannatos nearly never. edit: the t1 should also be seeded... at least they were the last few days. maybe check another system?
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.10 12:58:28 - [328] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Current ranking of carriers Nid>Thannatos>chimera>archon I still think thats only true for pve, and basically the other way around in pvp. More tank is always better in pvp, and in my opinion more valueable than damage. Look at the old carriers, it was archon all around, and chimera when you wanted shield. Nid was never used, and Thannatos nearly never. edit: the t1 should also be seeded... at least they were the last few days. maybe check another system? Chimera looks to be able to get the most brick and still field 3 dmg mods. Also, there is skill injectors in the redeem Q that should be enough to train for T2 if you are resonably skilled already. Number seems to vary, but 8-24 i have seen over the various test server runs.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1840	Posted - 2016.04.10 13:18:44 - [329] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Current ranking of carriers Nid>Thannatos>chimera>archon I still think thats only true for pve, and basically the other way around in pvp. More tank is always better in pvp, and in my opinion more valueable than damage. Look at the old carriers, it was archon all around, and chimera when you wanted shield. Nid was never used, and Thannatos nearly never. edit: the t1 should also be seeded... at least they were the last few days. maybe check another system? I was talking for pvp you don't need 3 mill ehp to deal with sub caps. Currently when it comes to fighter/drone carriers you use thanatos on TQ not the Chimera or archon Archon and chimera are used most because as logistics you need that tank and capacitor especially if you ate in triage or in a fight where alpha is a risk neither of these scenarios fit what carriers will be doing. They ate not the best choice for a fight where you at risk of 1m alpha and they no longer fill a triage role. Not to mention the archon and especially the Chimera get there huge tanks from mostly buffer not resist so when logi is involved in fleet the extra tank will become even less noticeable. Unless again you are using them in a situation with high alpha Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 1840	Posted - 2016.04.10 13:19:39 - [330] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Current ranking of carriers Nid>Thannatos>chimera>archon I still think thats only true for pve, and basically the other way around in pvp. More tank is always better in pvp, and in my opinion more valueable than damage. Look at the old carriers, it was archon all around, and chimera when you wanted shield. Nid was never used, and Thannatos nearly never. edit: the t1 should also be seeded... at least they were the last few days. maybe check another system? Chimera looks to be able to get the most brick and still field 3 dmg mods. Also, there is skill injectors in the redeem Q that should be enough to train for T2 if you are resonably skilled already. Number seems to vary, but 8-24 i have seen over the various test server runs. Chimera runs out of cpu at best if you only use 2 FSU woth max tank you can only get 2 DDA Citadel worm hole tax

Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.10 13:35:22 - [331] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Chimera runs out of cpu at best if you only use 2 FSU woth max tank you can only get 2 DDA I think my fit was NSArray, 3 FSU, 2 invul, 2 amps (EM/Therm), 3 extenders, DC2, 3 Dmg amps, 3 shield extender rigs. All T2. That gave 2 hours of cap, 3 mil ehp in EVE. I cant seem to log in to confirm atm though.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1841	Posted - 2016.04.10 13:44:21 - [332] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Chimera runs out of cpu at best if you only use 2 FSU woth max tank you can only get 2 DDA I think my fit was NSArray, 3 FSU, 2 invul, 2 amps (EM/Therm), 3 extenders, DC2, 3 Dmg amps, 3 shield extender rigs. All T2. That gave 2 hours of cap, 3 mil ehp in EVE. I cant seem to log in to confirm atm though. Ah you are not using a flex giving you less tank and using much less cpu Citadel worm hole tax
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.10 13:58:53 - [333] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sekeris wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Chimera runs out of cpu at best if you only use 2 FSU woth max tank you can only get 2 DDA I think my fit was NSArray, 3 FSU, 2 invul, 2 amps (EM/Therm), 3 extenders, DC2, 3 Dmg amps, 3 shield extender rigs. All T2. That gave 2 hours of cap, 3 mil ehp in EVE. I cant seem to log in to confirm atm though. Ah you are not using a flex giving you less tank and using much less cpu You know what, i never even thought to try and cram that in, neither on the armor ships. Good point, will try that later on.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1843	Posted - 2016.04.10 14:13:06 - [334] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sekeris wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Chimera runs out of cpu at best if you only use 2 FSU woth max tank you can only get 2 DDA I think my fit was NSArray, 3 FSU, 2 invul, 2 amps (EM/Therm), 3 extenders, DC2, 3 Dmg amps, 3 shield extender rigs. All T2. That gave 2 hours of cap, 3 mil ehp in EVE. I cant seem to log in to confirm atm though. Ah you are not using a flex giving you less tank and using much less cpu You know what, i never even thought to try and cram that in, neither on the armor ships. Good point, will try that later on. But to be honest this very well could be do to the capitals cpu and PG not actually being balanced yet as they can't really do that till all the new mods are added and have their fitting requirements set (This may be why FAX are so hard to fit atm) Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2016.04.10 14:35:02 - [335] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: I was talking for pvp you don't need 3 mill ehp to deal with sub caps. More hp is also good against subcaps. And you are not going to use carriers only against subcaps. You will apply your dps only against subcaps because it sucks against caps, that is true. But that does not mean that there wont be any other caps on the field. If you escalate a fight to carriers, there is a significant chance that it will be escalated further. You are probably refering to the problem that supercaps overshadow carrier, so you assume that once it escalates, carriers are useless anyway. Is this correct? I am still hoping that this will change, and carriers are actually supposed to be useful in cap fights. Just not against caps, but as anti-subcap support.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1844	Posted - 2016.04.10 14:41:49 - [336] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: I was talking for pvp you don't need 3 mill ehp to deal with sub caps. More hp is also good against subcaps. And you are not going to use carriers only against subcaps. You will apply your dps only against subcaps because it sucks against caps, that is true. But that does not mean that there wont be any other caps on the field. If you escalate a fight to carriers, there is a significant chance that it will be escalated further. You are probably refering to the problem that supercaps overshadow carrier, so you assume that once it escalates, carriers are useless anyway. Is this correct? I am still hoping that this will change, and carriers are actually supposed to be useful in cap fights. Just not against caps, but as anti-subcap support. In that situation you are better off dropping dreads add they tank even better than carriers but can still use haw and if you ate worried about escalation then you ate probably counting on it lasting more than 5 min. Also do to the lower sp needed you will probably have access to more dread pilots. This is without factoring in super carriers but yes that is the hands down best option Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2016.04.10 14:51:12 - [337] - Quote Carrier now are better against smaller subcaps than dreads, you might still want a few carrier on the field. The dps of HAW is better, but carriers actually do have a range and application advantage now. The only big problem that I see is that supercarriers can do everything better.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1847	Posted - 2016.04.10 15:03:35 - [338] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Carrier now are better against smaller subcaps than dreads, you might still want a few carrier on the field. The dps of HAW is better, but carriers actually do have a range and application advantage now. The only big problem that I see is that supercarriers can do everything better. You just said tank is better than damage :p Also dreadsaid do still get higher dps with a proper support fleet (of you are using a cap without this you already screwed up) also carriers only have slightly better range now and only in one direction where a dread had a 40-80 sphere you have 60-110 from where your fighter currently is but never more than 60-110 from your carrier as you need to reload them. Also the reloading drops a carriers DPS substantially. (I have separated this as I hope it is just do to place holder numbers but 4 fighter squads can be permanently jammed by a Griffen so that's a huge advantage to dreads) As I have said b4 when only lookin at carriers the Chimera and archon work problem is by the time you get to a point where they shine something else will be ding their job better. Now Ways to fix this (even came up with a new one) Disable superiority fighters on supers Give carriers another tube and another support fighter slot Give carriers a bonuse to the power of e-war fighters (non-racial) One I really like Give carriers a bonus to local ewar (t1 racial ie damps to gal paints to minm) make this both strength and range per level. Having capital tanked ewar would be a reason to have these in a capital fight while keeping them differentiated from supers aoe e-war. It would also give a reason to use carrier mids balancing out the disadvantage armor tanked carriers have Now I'm not saying all of these or just one of these. They ate just things that can be mixed and matched to get better balance Citadel worm hole tax
Iam Widdershins Puppies and Christmas 904	Posted - 2016.04.10 22:01:56 - [339] - Quote Cool thread. So, here's my biggest point of confusion: carriers after the changes will have a maximum of 14 locked targets. Currently, skills can only support 12 targets (2 base, 5 from Target Management, and 5 more from Advanced Target Management). These set a hard cap on how many targets that pilot can lock simultaneously in ANY ship, on top of the ship's own limitation (which can only be increased by fitting auto-targeting modules in high slots or signal amplifiers in low slots). How is this going to work? Is there a new skill coming? Will the current skills be modified? Does sitting in a carrier magically make you smarter by 2 targets? Is there a new form of player ewar that will reduce max locked targets? Is it a typo? I'm dying to know! Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 72	Posted - 2016.04.10 23:38:20 - [340] - Quote Iam Widdershins wrote: Cool thread. So, here's my biggest point of confusion: carriers after the changes will have a maximum of 14 locked targets. Currently, skills can only support 12 targets (2 base, 5 from Target Management, and 5 more from Advanced Target Management). These set a hard cap on how many targets that pilot can lock simultaneously in ANY ship, on top of the ship's own limitation (which can only be increased by fitting auto-targeting modules in high slots or signal amplifiers in low slots). How is this going to work? Is there a new skill coming? Will the current skills be modified? Does sitting in a carrier magically make you smarter by 2 targets? Is there a new form of player ewar that will reduce max locked targets? Is it a typo? I'm dying to know! Yes, it is confusing. With a Networked Sensor Array they can actually lock 16 targets. It would be nice to find out what's going on here.

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 898	Posted - 2016.04.11 01:28:58 - [341] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Agreed (mostly) Armor carriers are in a reasonable place, being able to use mids for fighter enhancements, which actually makes them useful for PVE, less so in PVP. Sadly though this is not reflected over to shield carriers, 3 cpu upgrades to fit a 50/50 T2 - meta fit, that has way less utility then either of the armor carriers. All carriers need CPU and PG balanced Prior to this going live. They need 1 more launch tube and 10K more space in fighter bays, or support fighters need to be the same size as the others. One flight (3 support fighters) is 9K m3 of a relatively small holding bay and as you can only use 1 flight at a time it is a shame it has to be at the expense of being able to apply any real damage to larger ships. If a new carrier is incapable of defending itself from and even killing a battleship, then what use are they? Capital warfare should be about capital ships being able to kill each other - Not one whole class dedicated to killing subcaps but being killed by any other capital with no chance to defend itself. Especially when you have super carriers capable of volleying carriers off the field. If the plan is to reduce carrier use by making them barely useful - Your on the right track. Actually, as pointed out in the other thread, shield carriers work perfectly if you fit just buffer. The archon (armor) thanny and nid (shiled) are able to fit a ~1.6-1.8 mil buffer. The chimi might actually be OP buffer fit at just north of 3 mil buffer. However if you want active tank you will not be able to stick it on a shield carrier due to cpu limitations. As such i think now the problem is not with the carriers, but with the requirements for the mods. Agree on the support fighters, as long as the space superiority fighters can kill em this quick, they need to be smaller. And they are not all that great to start with, as you lose 33% of your dps if you launch a tube of those. Carriers need a defined role, and supers need to not be able to kill them quite so quickly.. Show me any fit that has over 1 mil EHP on new carriers please - My fitting skills must be pretty bad because I can't get anything close to that. Oops, my bad - You can fit a 1.5 mil buffer tank on a niddy - 3 X T2 Shield Extenders, 2 X T2 invul, DCU and 3 T1 extender rigs. Only problem with it is, you need to have a fax close to you field or die really fast - 3 Squads of Heavy Fighters (not even maximum flights) will volley you off the field with their torp ability. Reality is, using a buffer fit on any carrier requires a FAX, limitations with FAX should see 1 Fax per 2 carriers and hope the FAX doesn't get called primary. Sekeris; Do you have an alt that can fly a FAX so you can field a Buffer Fit carrier? And honestly - Isn't everyone over being pussies hiding in a blob. Carriers are meant to be anti subcap platforms - How much use do you think they will be if everyone has to sit on top of each other to get reps. Everyone fitting buffer - doesn't that pretty much defeat the whole purpose of these changes. Has CCP failed before they are released? If the best option is to fit buffer and sit on logi, that is what everyone will do which is real shame as carriers (all carriers) need a role and that role shouldn't be as fodder for dreads and supers. You more than anyone else in this thread have proven CCP need to take a long hard look at carriers before this release goes live. Many thanks.. Buffer is for pussies too afraid to actually risk anything in a fight. And that is exactly what everyone will use. -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Probably intended although I don't know why - If you abandon fighters, you can't reconnect to them. Your only options are to scoop them (reconnect to lost drones doesn't work, it just says no drones matching frequency). So my thinking on these new mechanics was, you would be able to position fighters on a grid but not leave yourself defenseless by being able to abandon and reconnect as required. If your only option to get fighters back is to scoop them - Placing them around a grid is somewhat pointless. *Carriers need a dedicated launch tube for support fighters and a much larger hangar if they are to be able to deal any dps for more than a few minutes. NB; Sekeris - You might want to look at the limitations of the new Fax's before going head long into how good buffer fits could be. With a maximum of 2 remote reps per (3 if logi doesn't mind capping out fast) - Plus the fact logi is always in short supply (who constantly wants to go into fights and not get on killmails) - There will be a lot of buffer fit carriers not getting reps. With a basic active tanked Niddy (half the fit being Meta to avoid using more than 2 CPU upgrades) I was able to kill 2 flights of Mantis Heavy Fighters before losing all my anti drone fighters and eventually getting popped. Whole fight took less than 3 minutes. These changes were meant to bring versatility to carriers and create something new - If nothing changes because sitting in a blob still works best - Why is this being done at all. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 72	Posted - 2016.04.11 01:42:39 - [342] - Quote You say the only way to recover fighters is to scoop them. Are you aware that if you warp off grid and recall them they'll warp to you?
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 898	Posted - 2016.04.11 01:49:30 - [343] - Quote Quick questions for CCP Larrikin - In an upside down world, where a friendly Hic pilot has caught a NYX out alone. 1; How many carriers would be needed to kill it? Presuming you can field nothing but buffer Carriers and the Nyx can't get help in less than 20 minutes (being the time you have to kill it). 2; How many carriers, presuming no FAX available, would the NYX kill before going down? PS; I know it is more than 3 - We have tried. 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 898	Posted - 2016.04.11 01:50:18 - [344] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: You say the only way to recover fighters is to scoop them. Are you aware that if you warp off grid and recall them they'll warp to you? Sorry - New Fighters have no warp ability. PLEASE read the blogs. And seriously if you need to warp off grid to recover fighters - Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of fighters around a grid? 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 73	Posted - 2016.04.11 02:19:04 - [345] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Quick questions for CCP Larrikin - In an upside down world, where a friendly Hic pilot has caught a NYX out alone. 1; How many carriers would be needed to kill it? Presuming you can field nothing but buffer Carriers and the Nyx can't get help in less than 20 minutes (being the time you have to kill it). 2; How many carriers, presuming no FAX available, would the NYX kill before going down? PS; I know it is more than 3 - We have tried. Well that's not the brightest thing to try. That's like using T1 frigates with no logi to take on a RLML Caracal. Not only are the ships you're using not designed to engage the target you're engaging, it is designed to kill the ships you're using. In addition, carriers are supposed to be fleet ships now, so not having logi is just crippling your side. If you want to kill capitals, use dreads, titans, or supers. Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: You say the only way to recover fighters is to scoop them. Are you aware that if you warp off grid and recall them they'll warp to you? Sorry - New Fighters have no warp ability. PLEASE read the blogs. And seriously if you need to warp off grid to recover fighters - Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of fighters around a grid? Fighters do not warp with the one exception of following you off grid. While I wish there would be a faster way to recall them from long distances on grid, there isn't.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 898	Posted - 2016.04.11 02:36:51 - [346] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Quick questions for CCP Larrikin - In an upside down world, where a friendly Hic pilot has caught a NYX out alone. 1; How many carriers would be needed to kill it? Presuming you can field nothing but buffer Carriers and the Nyx can't get help in less than 20 minutes (being the time you have to kill it). 2; How many carriers, presuming no FAX available, would the NYX kill before going down? PS; I know it is more than 3 - We have tried. Well that's not the brightest thing to try. That's like using T1 frigates with no logi to take on a RLML Caracal. Not only are the ships you're using not designed to engage the target you're engaging, it is designed to kill the ships you're using. In addition, carriers are supposed to be fleet ships now, so not having logi is just crippling your side. If you want to kill capitals, use dreads, titans, or supers. Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: You say the only way to recover fighters is to scoop them. Are you aware that if you warp off grid and recall them they'll warp to you? Sorry - New Fighters have no warp ability. PLEASE read the blogs. And seriously if you need to warp off grid to recover fighters - Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of fighters around a grid? Fighters do not warp with the one exception of following you off grid. While I wish there would be a faster way to recall them from long distances on grid, there isn't. Yeah I've done the 5 T1 frigates vs a caracal - he killed 2 before going down. The question wasn't about ideal situations - It was about how much more powerful is a Nyx compared to a Carrier. Mainly because right now, with what is on SISI, I would say a Nyx is an Abaddon and a carrier a T1 frigate when is comes to comparing. So far these changes seem to be about - Dreads and Titans staying much the same, Supers getting sooo much better and carriers left to scramble through shite looking for something to make them usable. Regarding the warping, originally new fighters were to have no warp capability, seems devs changed their mind so you can at least try to recover your fighters (if they aren't scrammed by support fighters) if you've lost or going to lose the fight and are running away. Carriers need ONE ability/bonus to make them worth using - So far there isn't one. For Devs; If the desired meta is Archons and Fax, please just say so and stop hiding behind the pretext of carriers being balanced - they aren't. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 73	Posted - 2016.04.11 03:03:46 - [347] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: For Devs; If the desired meta is Archons and Fax, please just say so and stop hiding behind the pretext of carriers being balanced - they aren't. There is no pretext of carriers being balanced. They've spend most of this time getting the mechanics working. While it's important to have some amount of balance to test the mechanics, a lot of the balancing has to come after everything is working.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1870	Posted - 2016.04.11 03:19:42 - [348] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: For Devs; If the desired meta is Archons and Fax, please just say so and stop hiding behind the pretext of carriers being balanced - they aren't. There is no pretext of carriers being balanced. They've spend most of this time getting the mechanics working. While it's important to have some amount of balance to test the mechanics, a lot of the balancing has to come after everything is working. not to mention the archon is probably the worst of the carriers atm now another concern i have is the 6 second per charge reload for fighters thats 48 seconds if you use them all are we just missing some way sees fighters as extremely powerful or something Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.11 07:58:04 - [349] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: For Devs; If the desired meta is Archons and Fax, please just say so and stop hiding behind the pretext of carriers being balanced - they aren't. There is no pretext of carriers being balanced. They've spend most of this time getting the mechanics working. While it's important to have some amount of balance to test the mechanics, a lot of the balancing has to come after everything is working. Problem with that is; When the new capitals are released there will only be one really viable option so that is what doctrines will be built on. From there on out it won't matter what Devs do, it will be too late, unless we can go in with something to make other carriers stand out as being new and different. Looking at Archon - Thanatos, Chimera - Nidhoggur as paired for doctrine uses. The idea being, having options to sitting in a blob on Logi (in triage) to survive. Archon and Apostle are in a pretty good place (tank like there is no tomorrow), Thanatos and Lif need a role (idea below) If the Minmatar carrier and Fax have a defined role (outlined below), it may encourage players to look at the Caldari carrier and Fax in a different light. -- - -- - -- - -- Ideas :- All carriers get one dedicated support fighter launch tube + 27K dedicated support fighter bay (allowing 3 flights, 1 loaded 2 in reserve) All fleet hangars increase in size to 30K/m (20K for dreads to allow for carrying spare set of guns/launchers), at least make them able to fit something other than a few capital cap charges. Nidhoggur / Thanatos role bonus's 200% bonus to AB speed 30% reduction to shield booster, armor repairer cpu needs. Add lock range to Networked sensor array. 4587.5 lock range as a role bonus is just a bit of overkill and a waste of a role bonus, you want a long range lock ability you pay for it with capacitor. Then the role bonus can be given to something meaningful, as suggested. Lif role bonuses 200% bonus to AB speed 30% reduction to shield boosters, armor repairers and remote shield booster, remote armor repair CPU requirements. 50% bonus to Minmatar, Gallente Carrier ship bonuses, while not in Siege. Possibly a new triage module - that gives 50% of triage bonuses without the mobility drawbacks. Uses double the stront of standard triage modules (400 for T2 before skills), has a 5 minute cycle time with a 5 minute cool down before reactivation. This would allow Minmatar and Gallente Carriers and their respective Fax's to become more mobile on a grid, while still leaving a place for the current triage with its increased repping bonuses. It also has the drawback of only being used for only 5 minutes of every 10 - So leaving those relying on it more vulnerable for 5 minutes at a time. 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.
Anthar Thebess 1495	Posted - 2016.04.11 08:16:44 - [350] - Quote Archon and Chimera are still way to good compared to thanny and niddy. I don't count any more that you will make thanny and niddy also good for fleet combat, or better for solo combat than amarr, or caldari carriers. Consider then making them unique. (i will burn in hell for this) Make thanny dps much bigger, or increase application. Make thanny the ultimate PVE boat Niddy, reduce EHP even more, remove additional fighter bonuses, increase fleet hangar a bit, reduce align speed, and offer 7.5 LY jump range and farigue reduction at lvl 5 skills This way you will make all 4 carriers unique and give them a role. Archon - armor king, fleet ship Chimera - shield princess , fleet ship Thanny - dps king, tormentor of the rats, and home defense fleets "i win/whelp button" Niddy - logistics king, desired by many to move ships, and equipment all around the eve, useless in combat, but this is not his role. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!

Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.11 14:27:29 - [351] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Show me any fit that has over 1 mil EHP on new carriers please - My fitting skills must be pretty bad because I can't get anything close to that. Oops, my bad - You can fit a 1.5 mil buffer tank on a niddy - 3 X T2 Shield Extenders, 2 X T2 invul, DCU and 3 T1 extender rigs. Only problem with it is, you need to have a fax close to you field or die really fast - 3 Squads of Heavy Fighters (not even maximum flights) will volley you off the field with their torp ability. Reality is, using a buffer fit on any carrier requires a FAX, limitations with FAX should see 1 Fax per 2 carriers and hope the FAX doesn't get called primary. Sekeris; Do you have an alt that can fly a FAX so you can field a Buffer Fit carrier? And honestly - Isn't everyone over being pussies hiding in a blob. Carriers are meant to be anti subcap platforms - How much use do you think they will be if everyone has to sit on top of each other to get reps. Everyone fitting buffer - doesn't that pretty much defeat the whole purpose of these changes. Has CCP failed before they are released? If the best option is to fit buffer and sit on logi, that is what everyone will do which is real shame as carriers (all carriers) need a role and that role shouldn't be as fodder for dreads and supers. You more than anyone else in this thread have proven CCP need to take a long hard look at carriers before this release goes live. Many thanks.. Buffer is for pussies too afraid to actually risk anything in a fight. And that is exactly what everyone will use. -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Probably intended although I don't know why - If you abandon fighters, you can't reconnect to them. Your only options are to scoop them (reconnect to lost drones doesn't work, it just says no drones matching frequency). So my thinking on these new mechanics was, you would be able to position fighters on a grid but not leave yourself defenseless by being able to abandon and reconnect as required. If your only option to get fighters back is to scoop them - Placing them around a grid is somewhat pointless. Carriers need a dedicated launch tube for support fighters and a much larger hangar if they are to be able to deal any dps for more than a few minutes. NB; Sekeris - You might want to look at the limitations of the new Fax's before going head long into how good buffer fits could be. With a maximum of 2 remote reps per (3 if logi doesn't mind capping out fast) - Plus the fact logi is always in short supply (who constantly wants to go into fights and not get on killmails) - There will be a lot of buffer fit carriers not getting reps. With a basic active tanked Niddy (half the fit being Meta to avoid using more than 2 CPU upgrades) I was able to kill 2 flights of Mantis Heavy Fighters before losing all my anti drone fighters and eventually getting popped. Whole fight took less than 3 minutes. These changes were meant to bring versatility to carriers and create something new - If nothing changes because sitting in a blob still works best - Why is this being done at all. Ok, i never ment to come across as thinking buffer is the be all, end all of fitting. The point i was trying to make is that carriers at the moment are only* able to fit a buffer and have a fit that remotely works. Otherwise the fits are not possible. I am in a position to use multiple cap capable alts, but that should not be required (and in PVP multiboxing will not end well for me!). I also seen that FAX are pretty terrible to fit, and almost impossible to fit to a degree that will also let them survive a doomsday. Heck, even a max buffer carrier will only barely take a hit from those. In short, a lot of balancing still needs to happen on carriers, supers, fighters, bombers and possibly dreads and titans, and i hope they can manage before the launch deadline (and fanfest). At the moment the long range lock is a nice gimic, but it wont 'save' carriers, or make them useful for anything other than ratting.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 74	Posted - 2016.04.11 22:47:38 - [352] - Quote The lock range won't even help for ratting since you need to be closer than you do now for flight time to be reasonable.
Lugh Crow-Slave 1881	Posted - 2016.04.12 01:40:01 - [353] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Archon and Chimera are still way to good compared to thanny and niddy. I don't count any more that you will make thanny and niddy also good for fleet combat, or better for solo combat than amarr, or caldari carriers. Consider then making them unique. (i will burn in hell for this) Make thanny dps much bigger, or increase application. Make thanny the ultimate PVE boat Niddy, reduce EHP even more, remove additional fighter bonuses, increase fleet hangar a bit, reduce align speed, and offer 7.5 LY jump range and farigue reduction at lvl 5 skills This way you will make all 4 carriers unique and give them a role. Archon - armor king, fleet ship Chimera - shield princess , fleet ship Thanny - dps king, tormentor of the rats, and home defense fleets "i win/whelp button" Niddy - logistics king, desired by many to move ships, and equipment all around the eve, useless in combat, but this is not his role. have you actualy tried using these in a fight yet? Archon and Chimera are trash where the thanny and nid can actually be used archon cant get any semblance of dps and the chimera runs out of fighters long b4 its tank is threatened the only point when archon and chimera become more useful than the nid/than is in fights where the DPS is high generally do to other capitals on the field and in these situations using a super or a dread with HAW is far more effective Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.12 01:46:31 - [354] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Show me any fit that has over 1 mil EHP on new carriers please - My fitting skills must be pretty bad because I can't get anything close to that. Oops, my bad - You can fit a 1.5 mil buffer tank on a niddy - 3 X T2 Shield Extenders, 2 X T2 invul, DCU and 3 T1 extender rigs. Only problem with it is, you need to have a fax close to you field or die really fast - 3 Squads of Heavy Fighters (not even maximum flights) will volley you off the field with their torp ability. Reality is, using a buffer fit on any carrier requires a FAX, limitations with FAX should see 1 Fax per 2 carriers and hope the FAX doesn't get called primary. Sekeris; Do you have an alt that can fly a FAX so you can field a Buffer Fit carrier? And honestly - Isn't everyone over being pussies hiding in a blob. Carriers are meant to be anti subcap platforms - How much use do you think they will be if everyone has to sit on top of each other to get reps. Everyone fitting buffer - doesn't that pretty much defeat the whole purpose of these changes. Has CCP failed before they are released? If the best option is to fit buffer and sit on logi, that is what everyone will do which is real shame as carriers (all carriers) need a role and that role shouldn't be as fodder for dreads and supers. You more than anyone else in this thread have proven CCP need to take a long hard look at carriers before this release goes live. Many thanks.. Buffer is for pussies too afraid to actually risk anything in a fight. And that is exactly what everyone will use. -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Probably intended although I don't know why - If you abandon fighters, you can't reconnect to them. Your only options are to scoop them (reconnect to lost drones doesn't work, it just says no drones matching frequency). So my thinking on these new mechanics was, you would be able to position fighters on a grid but not leave yourself defenseless by being able to abandon and reconnect as required. If your only option to get fighters back is to scoop them - Placing them around a grid is somewhat pointless. Carriers need a dedicated launch tube for support fighters and a much larger hangar if they are to be able to deal any dps for more than a few minutes. NB; Sekeris - You might want to look at the limitations of the new Fax's before going head long into how good buffer fits could be. With a maximum of 2 remote reps per (3 if logi doesn't mind capping out fast) - Plus the fact logi is always in short supply (who constantly wants to go into fights and not get on killmails) - There will be a lot of buffer fit carriers not getting reps. With a basic active tanked Niddy (half the fit being Meta to avoid using more than 2 CPU upgrades) I was able to kill 2 flights of Mantis Heavy Fighters before losing all my anti drone fighters and eventually getting popped. Whole fight took less than 3 minutes. These changes were meant to bring versatility to carriers and create something new - If nothing changes because sitting in a blob still works best - Why is this being done at all. Ok, i never ment to come across as thinking buffer is the be all, end all of fitting. The point i was trying to make is that carriers at the moment are only* able to fit a buffer and have a fit that remotely works. Otherwise the fits are not possible. I am in a position to use multiple cap capable alts, but that should not be required (and in PVP multiboxing will not end well for me!). I also seen that FAX are pretty terrible to fit, and almost impossible to fit to a degree that will also let them survive a doomsday. Heck, even a max buffer carrier will only barely take a hit from those. In short, a lot of balancing still needs to happen on carriers, supers, fighters, bombers and possibly dreads and titans, and i hope they can manage before the launch deadline (and fanfest). At the moment the long range lock is a nice gimic, but it wont 'save' carriers, or make them useful for anything other than ratting. Hmm interesting concept - Long lock range and ratting, you don't even need to have a carrier in the anom. Warp in drop fighters then just align to the next anom, pos or station, you can't get out of range so align with AB on therefore reducing risk of being caught by an even larger factor. Someone warps to the anom and all that is on grid is a few light fighters And a carrier 3,000 or 4,000 K away. It may take a bit longer to finish each anom but reduces the risk of being caught doing it by so much it could be worth it. As for balancing - I doubt very much if Devs even see a need for it, let alone look at it before Fanfest or next year for that matter. The rest of this year will be spent bug hunting and preparing the next half finished release to come to TQ. The Devs have "balanced" Fax's and Carriers to what they expect from them - For example, the Minokawa has 593,750 PG yet a T2 remote shield booster uses 107,500 PG, the new ancillary booster 97,500 PG + Triage Module 105,000, that's over half of the available PG for 3 modules relating specifically to that ships role, (not much of a logi if it can only fit 2 remote reps). Of course you can drop to compact meta remote booster module, making reps far less effective but freeing up a little PG - Not sure how the fit would look though or perform as the meta modules along with the new faction ones aren't yet available on SISI. I do understand your thinking regarding Buffer fits - My concern is that if carriers are released in their current guise, Archons and Apostles will be all we see, as no carrier is especially good at anything, less DPS for a good tank is a pretty decent trade off. N+1 continues to rule capital engagements - Nothing changes.. It won't matter that one carrier has a better damage bonus, if it can't survive long enough to take advantage of it. 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 1882	Posted - 2016.04.12 02:21:03 - [355] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: I do understand your thinking regarding Buffer fits - My concern is that if carriers are released in their current guise, Archons and Apostles will be all we see, as no carrier is especially good at anything, less DPS for a good tank is a pretty decent trade off. N+1 continues to rule capital engagements - Nothing changes.. It won't matter that one carrier has a better damage bonus, if it can't survive long enough to take advantage of it. but carriers are not built for capital engagements if it escalates to that they are mostly useless they have less tank than a dread with HAW (and less dps when in a fleet) and they are just worse than a super. but when it comes to supporting a sub cap fight (what the carriers are now built for) the thanny and the nid are far better Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.12 02:55:31 - [356] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: I do understand your thinking regarding Buffer fits - My concern is that if carriers are released in their current guise, Archons and Apostles will be all we see, as no carrier is especially good at anything, less DPS for a good tank is a pretty decent trade off. N+1 continues to rule capital engagements - Nothing changes.. It won't matter that one carrier has a better damage bonus, if it can't survive long enough to take advantage of it. but carriers are not built for capital engagements if it escalates to that they are mostly useless they have less tank than a dread with HAW (and less dps when in a fleet) and they are just worse than a super. but when it comes to supporting a sub cap fight (what the carriers are now built for) the thanny and the nid are far better I agree - So we may as well just delete all carriers and be done with it. As per my ideas a few posts back, I want ti try and see carriers have a roll. Give the Thany and Niddy a reason to be fielded. Honestly though, if you are right and carriers are indeed not intended for capital fights, why are they even still in the game. Any group fielding carriers against subcaps is going to find themselves at the mercy of any dreads the subcap group drops in. So what really are carriers meant to be for? I'd like to hear from CCP Larrikin regarding Devs thoughts on the role of Carriers in the coming meta. Probably won't though because Devs are taking a lets wait and see approach, as they have no clear vision for carriers. Just lots of micro management crap (with 2 over sized UI's to deal with) leading to less than desirable damage and application. What started out with good intentions, removing the ability for invulnerable remote repping Archon fleets, has degenerated into carriers with no real role on a capital battlefield. The over riding presumption being, carriers will be an anti subcap platform with no role or defense against other capitals is somewhat demeaning to every carrier pilot who has wasted his or her time training carrier skills. The "opportunities" team was able to find 5 mins to "waste" answering concerns of players in regard to something that is not going to have anywhere near the impact on TQ these changes will bring. Is team "game of broken carriers" so up against it they can't address some of the player concerns? 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 Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 758	Posted - 2016.04.12 04:08:07 - [357] - 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.12 11:01:13 - [358] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. 1.5 mil buffer with decent skills. Thing is how do you intend to use it? Solo, small gang, fleet, with Fax, without Fax. All play a part in how long until you die because you know, the chances of you coming across 2 or 3 cruisers you admittedly could kill quite easily, is far less likely than you coming across a mid sized gang with Ewar, neuts and a lot more dps than your buffer Thany can tank for too long. Try fitting it with an active tank, you know the type a solo Thany pilot would use to go hunting cruisers. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 86	Posted - 2016.04.12 11:16:16 - [359] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. 1.5 mil buffer with decent skills. Thing is how do you intend to use it? Solo, small gang, fleet, with Fax, without Fax. All play a part in how long until you die because you know, the chances of you coming across 2 or 3 cruisers you admittedly could kill quite easily, is far less likely than you coming across a mid sized gang with Ewar, neuts and a lot more dps than your buffer Thany can tank for too long. Try fitting it with an active tank, you know the type a solo Thany pilot would use to go hunting cruisers. How about not solo? There are situations where one side will have a decent fleet with logi and be fighting a cruiser fleet. Maybe they need some help and have a cyno ready. You jump into a subcap fleet fight not as an unsupported carrier, but as some extra DPS to turn the tide of battle. Now in that situation the other fleet would likely just tear up your fighters and/or ignore you till they've killed the logi and/or drop dreads and/or run away. But still, there are uses for a buffer-tanked carrier outside of a fight between capital fleets.
Gaius Clabbacus Sister Beneficia's Home of Harmless Miners 6	Posted - 2016.04.12 11:43:19 - [360] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. 1.5 mil buffer with decent skills. Thing is how do you intend to use it? Solo, small gang, fleet, with Fax, without Fax. All play a part in how long until you die because you know, the chances of you coming across 2 or 3 cruisers you admittedly could kill quite easily, is far less likely than you coming across a mid sized gang with Ewar, neuts and a lot more dps than your buffer Thany can tank for too long. Try fitting it with an active tank, you know the type a solo Thany pilot would use to go hunting cruisers. Most of the solo carrier hotdrops I have seen are Thannies fitted with Damage Control & Bulkheads. It really takes a lot of cycles of the armor rep to match the EHP provided by a buffer tank. Not expecting that to change in the new system.

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.12 12:03:39 - [361] - Quote Gaius Clabbacus wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. 1.5 mil buffer with decent skills. Thing is how do you intend to use it? Solo, small gang, fleet, with Fax, without Fax. All play a part in how long until you die because you know, the chances of you coming across 2 or 3 cruisers you admittedly could kill quite easily, is far less likely than you coming across a mid sized gang with Ewar, neuts and a lot more dps than your buffer Thany can tank for too long. Try fitting it with an active tank, you know the type a solo Thany pilot would use to go hunting cruisers. Most of the solo carrier hotdrops I have seen are Thannies fitted with Damage Control & Bulkheads. It really takes a lot of cycles of the armor rep to match the EHP provided by a buffer tank. Not expecting that to change in the new system. Yes this is true and that meta is now all but dead, not unlike all the Thanatos's used for it. It relied on a cheap throw away Thany with usually T1 drones and no fighters. Can't do that anymore, carriers can't use subcapital drones and throwing away 300 or 400 mil in light fighters each time, will surely make players think twice before undocking a suicide thany. Unless the design goal is to drop carriers that are guaranteed to die, armor reps need to be viable to use, all carriers need enough CPU and PG to fit a decent tank + a selection of the new high PG / CPU capital modules which will make up the new meta. For me using any ship is about winning fights and surviving, not going out with the intention of surviving x amount of time. Sure there will still be some who choose the current style of suicide hot dropping but should it be the only way to use carriers? So maybe instead of pointing out how easy it is to fit out a suicide thany you could offer suggestions as to how they might be balanced to have a role in capital warfare. Repping vs Buffer = armor reps are in a bad place - Set your expectations low and Devs will happily comply. 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.
Aeon Veritas Easily.Offended The Bastion 22	Posted - 2016.04.12 12:18:14 - [362] - Quote Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals?
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.12 12:27:46 - [363] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. 1.5 mil buffer with decent skills. Thing is how do you intend to use it? Solo, small gang, fleet, with Fax, without Fax. All play a part in how long until you die because you know, the chances of you coming across 2 or 3 cruisers you admittedly could kill quite easily, is far less likely than you coming across a mid sized gang with Ewar, neuts and a lot more dps than your buffer Thany can tank for too long. Try fitting it with an active tank, you know the type a solo Thany pilot would use to go hunting cruisers. How about not solo? There are situations where one side will have a decent fleet with logi and be fighting a cruiser fleet. Maybe they need some help and have a cyno ready. You jump into a subcap fleet fight not as an unsupported carrier, but as some extra DPS to turn the tide of battle. Now in that situation the other fleet would likely just tear up your fighters and/or ignore you till they've killed the logi and/or drop dreads and/or run away. But still, there are uses for a buffer-tanked carrier outside of a fight between capital fleets. That is pretty much what happens now - Drop Archons with triage. Difference is, if the other side escalates to Dreads, the carriers can currently defend themselves long enough for you to get your dreads or supers on grid. New meta, if carriers are unable to defend themselves against dreads, they are far less likely to get used without the N+1 factor. Dreads will Always be the best option. N+1 sucks more than remote repping Archon blobs, yet seems to be Devs design focus for capitals. But where is the carriers (a capital ship) role in capital fights - So far it seems all they can do is die, that I don't think can be classified as a "role" for ships that cost 2 bil +. 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.12 12:29:59 - [364] - Quote Aeon Veritas wrote: Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals? Entosis drawback is exactly the same as it is now. 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.
Aeon Veritas Easily.Offended The Bastion 22	Posted - 2016.04.12 13:50:16 - [365] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Aeon Veritas wrote: Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals? Entosis drawback is exactly the same as it is now. Ah, thanks. This is just not listed as role bonus, therefore my question. Another question: do we have any infos about the E-war modules listed in the skill bonis? I couldn't find them in the respective tiericide topics...
Gaius Clabbacus Sister Beneficia's Home of Harmless Miners 6	Posted - 2016.04.12 14:34:28 - [366] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Unless the design goal is to drop carriers that are guaranteed to die, armor reps need to be viable to use, all carriers need enough CPU and PG to fit a decent tank + a selection of the new high PG / CPU capital modules which will make up the new meta. For me using any ship is about winning fights and surviving, not going out with the intention of surviving x amount of time. Sure there will still be some who choose the current style of suicide hot dropping but should it be the only way to use carriers? So maybe instead of pointing out how easy it is to fit out a suicide thany you could offer suggestions as to how they might be balanced to have a role in capital warfare. Repping vs Buffer = armor reps are in a bad place - Set your expectations low and Devs will happily comply. Well yeah, I think one of the design goals is no solopwnmobiles, so a limited tank on a DPS carrier makes sense. Currently the unique selling point would be that you don't have to commit to a triage/siege cycle when you drop one (or more) so there is a more opportunity to see how the battle evolves. Tactical positioning will be important in larger battles as I expect dreads to be superior in close range slugging matches. Only time will tell if that ecological niche is big enough for the carrier to thrive.
Silk75 Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 26	Posted - 2016.04.12 19:39:59 - [367] - Quote Aeon Veritas wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Aeon Veritas wrote: Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals? Entosis drawback is exactly the same as it is now. Ah, thanks. This is just not listed as role bonus, therefore my question. Another question: do we have any infos about the E-war modules listed in the skill bonis? I couldn't find them in the respective tiericide topics... The cenobite/scarab/etc are Support Fighters that do EWAR.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.12 21:29:16 - [368] - Quote Aeon Veritas wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Aeon Veritas wrote: Sorry if I missed that bit of information somewhere, but is there no longer the 5x penalty to Entosis Link cycle time for capitals? Entosis drawback is exactly the same as it is now. Ah, thanks. This is just not listed as role bonus, therefore my question. Another question: do we have any infos about the E-war modules listed in the skill bonis? I couldn't find them in the respective tiericide topics... For Carriers? They aren't modules, they are Support fighters. And my opinion is, they are way under powered, extremely too slow and can be destroyed way to easily. They won't see a great deal of use on carriers 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 1918	Posted - 2016.04.12 21:54:24 - [369] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: I do understand your thinking regarding Buffer fits - My concern is that if carriers are released in their current guise, Archons and Apostles will be all we see, as no carrier is especially good at anything, less DPS for a good tank is a pretty decent trade off. N+1 continues to rule capital engagements - Nothing changes.. It won't matter that one carrier has a better damage bonus, if it can't survive long enough to take advantage of it. but carriers are not built for capital engagements if it escalates to that they are mostly useless they have less tank than a dread with HAW (and less dps when in a fleet) and they are just worse than a super. but when it comes to supporting a sub cap fight (what the carriers are now built for) the thanny and the nid are far better I agree - So we may as well just delete all carriers and be done with it. As per my ideas a few posts back, I want ti try and see carriers have a roll. Give the Thany and Niddy a reason to be fielded. Honestly though, if you are right and carriers are indeed not intended for capital fights, why are they even still in the game. Any group fielding carriers against subcaps is going to find themselves at the mercy of any dreads the subcap group drops in. So what really are carriers meant to be for? I'd like to hear from CCP Larrikin regarding Devs thoughts on the role of Carriers in the coming meta. Probably won't though because Devs are taking a lets wait and see approach, as they have no clear vision for carriers. Just lots of micro management crap (with 2 over sized UI's to deal with) leading to less than desirable damage and application. What started out with good intentions, removing the ability for invulnerable remote repping Archon fleets, has degenerated into carriers with no real role on a capital battlefield. The over riding presumption being, carriers will be an anti subcap platform with no role or defense against other capitals is somewhat demeaning to every carrier pilot who has wasted his or her time training carrier skills. The "opportunities" team was able to find 5 mins to "waste" answering concerns of players in regard to something that is not going to have anywhere near the impact on TQ these changes will bring. Is team "game of broken carriers" so up against it they can't address some of the player concerns? because using carriers like this is a way to cause escalation you have a sub cap fight so you drop a carrier the other side can now match your carrier or bring in dreads that you can then either match or escalate further. or you can use the high dps carriers and try to finish the fight b4 they can get caps in to back them up. this is why i think carriers need bonuses that go beyond killing sub caps either with local or fighter e-war so that after the escolation there is still a point to have them on field Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 899	Posted - 2016.04.12 22:37:41 - [370] - Quote Gaius Clabbacus wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Unless the design goal is to drop carriers that are guaranteed to die, armor reps need to be viable to use, all carriers need enough CPU and PG to fit a decent tank + a selection of the new high PG / CPU capital modules which will make up the new meta. For me using any ship is about winning fights and surviving, not going out with the intention of surviving x amount of time. Sure there will still be some who choose the current style of suicide hot dropping but should it be the only way to use carriers? So maybe instead of pointing out how easy it is to fit out a suicide thany you could offer suggestions as to how they might be balanced to have a role in capital warfare. Repping vs Buffer = armor reps are in a bad place - Set your expectations low and Devs will happily comply. Well yeah, I think one of the design goals is no solopwnmobiles, so a limited tank on a DPS carrier makes sense. Currently the unique selling point would be that you don't have to commit to a triage/siege cycle when you drop one (or more) so there is a more opportunity to see how the battle evolves. Tactical positioning will be important in larger battles as I expect dreads to be superior in close range slugging matches. Only time will tell if that ecological niche is big enough for the carrier to thrive. By saying "a limited tank" on a DPS (limited to bonuses only), you mean one where you need 2 or more fitting upgrades or leave empty fitting slots - Right? So not only a limited tank but an inferior one from the start because even with fitting upgrades you still need to use a lot of meta modules. Or you can choose the other way and use a lot of the new faction modules, turning your carrier into a nice expensive lossmail. If that is intended then there really is no hope for carriers after this change. I can't wait to see Fax's volleyed off the field by dreads because they just don't have the PG or CPU to put decent fittings on them. Unfortunately we are likely to see few Fax's in the average capital/subcap fight - They just don't have a role, unless they are used to rep subcaps, sitting "at range" of them. LOL so much for strategy and tactics. See, right now the only carrier class ship that could be used as a solo PWN mobile - Is a Super (that isn't changing, in fact they will be a lot better at it) Carriers have never been solo pwn mobiles - They have ALWAYS been used in a support role and die quite easily to any small gang if caught alone somewhere - This too isn't changing, except that now carriers will be completely defenseless against every other capital ship too. Nag with a couple of tracking computers and Haws - Will hit out to around 120K with barrage (maybe more) and while the DPS is a little on the low side - It will chew through a carriers defenses quicker than the carrier can load fresh tubes of light fighters, which won't hurt a dread at all. In large battles, the best tactical position for carriers, will be docked in the closest station. Or plonked right next to a few squads of Fax's, which is funnily enough pretty much how carriers work now except they can rep each other. Static capital battlefields due to the new logi needing to be in triage to be the slightest bit effective - So much room there for tactical and strategic positioning, right? This is a whole new era of capital fighting - Oh wait, no it isn't - It is exactly what we have now, just with extra ships (Fax's) needed and carriers made all but redundant. As I said earlier - Devs best intentions have turned into one big nerf and made a complete class of capitals all but redundant. 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.

Aeon Veritas Easily.Offended The Bastion 22	Posted - 2016.04.13 09:42:21 - [371] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Nag with a couple of tracking computers and Haws - Will hit out to around 120K with barrage (maybe more) and while the DPS is a little on the low side - It will chew through a carriers defenses quicker than the carrier can load fresh tubes of light fighters, which won't hurt a dread at all. As I said earlier - Devs best intentions have turned into one big nerf and made a complete class of capitals all but redundant. Well, I had so far no possibility to join in on Sisi to check the values, so my suggestion is to be treated with caution... But to give carriers the ability to deffend themself against other capitals it could be a possible to give them the ability to control one flight of heavy fighters. This would give carriers roughly 1/3 of the damage potential of a super, which I think is too much... Still I think it should be considered because they could be put in the right place with a role bonus like "30 % reduction to Heavy Fighter hitpoints and damage". The height of this reduction and if both or just damage should be affected is of course up to debate to find the sweet spot of not-OP but viable.
Oxide Ammar 255	Posted - 2016.04.13 10:36:33 - [372] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sekeris wrote: Oxide Ammar wrote: Why the hell carriers are CPU hungry ? especially shield carriers like Chimera, the moment you fit it reasonable normal fit you start having CPU issues and you have to make wacky changes and plug unneeded implants just to have normal fit like rest. Active fit modules are probably too cpu hungry, a buffer works well on the chimi, and as a shield buffer it is probably a little too strong at the moment as it gets almost 33% more buffer then any other carrier. It cannot fit a active tank though, and the nid is even more bothersome for active tank. I just had a thought about the Nid. Everyone complains that it in particular doesn't have enough CPU. Could it be because it still has the CPU/PG from when it had the 5/5/6 slot layout that favored armor? Possibly, it has the same CPU/PG as on live now. Which is the biggest gap between carrier > super for cpu. Seriously CCP, Nid needs to be fixed (CPU). I'm quoting this again so they might look into it. Nid can't use active tank or dual CSE without sacrificing so much in its fit. 3 FSU II 1 Adaptive 2 x Hardners 2 x CSE II 1 MWD 3 x DDA II DC 1 PDS II You have 2 sacrifice 2 hi slot empty to make this work, even if you dropped MWD it doesn't work. If you replaced the 2 CSE with amp and capital booster dosn't fit either even if you dropped MWD for something like Omni tracking link. This is all under condition of with full set of Geno Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 91	Posted - 2016.04.13 10:48:56 - [373] - Quote I'm sure the Nid will have its CPU/PG adjusted. It still has the old numbers from before the slot layout changed, so it's quite low on CPU and has a little too much power grid. I bug reported it and it and it seems like they acknowledged the report. They're probably planning to check the CPU/PG numbers for all the ships and change any that need it at the same time.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 901	Posted - 2016.04.13 11:49:40 - [374] - Quote Aeon Veritas wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Nag with a couple of tracking computers and Haws - Will hit out to around 120K with barrage (maybe more) and while the DPS is a little on the low side - It will chew through a carriers defenses quicker than the carrier can load fresh tubes of light fighters, which won't hurt a dread at all. As I said earlier - Devs best intentions have turned into one big nerf and made a complete class of capitals all but redundant. Well, I had so far no possibility to join in on Sisi to check the values, so my suggestion is to be treated with caution... But to give carriers the ability to deffend themself against other capitals it could be a possible to give them the ability to control one flight of heavy fighters. This would give carriers roughly 1/3 of the damage potential of a super, which I think is too much... Still I think it should be considered because they could be put in the right place with a role bonus like "30 % reduction to Heavy Fighter hitpoints and damage". The height of this reduction and if both or just damage should be affected is of course up to debate to find the sweet spot of not-OP but viable. A much easier fix would be to give Carriers a dedicated Support Fighter launch tube and storage bay (no carrier currntly has a fighter bay large enough for a sustained fight), allowing them to fully utilize existing tubes for Light Fighters and the ability to carry 2 or 3 extra flights of what will be, all but disposable Light Fighters.. In coordinated attacks Carriers could apply sufficient damage to Dreads other Carriers and possibly even Supers or Titans, though you will need quite a few carriers to pull this off due to how easily they can be destroyed by Dreads, Supers and Titans. Devs really need to look at the new Fax's and Triage mechanics - Designing a completely new meta for capital warfare which will rely on static blobs on a battlefield (even for just 5 minutes at a time) is really poor (and quite lazy) design. Which in the long run will add nothing new to any fight involving capitals - The only difference being instead of self repping Archons in a bubble ball, it will be Archons with Apostles. 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.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1152	Posted - 2016.04.13 12:04:39 - [375] - Quote Just out of curiosity, since carriers have been rebalanced now and all rebalanced tech 1 ships got their price tags doubled, will carriers also cost 2x base price now? Seems only fair that capital ships should get the same "rebalance" treatment as subcapitals. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 73	Posted - 2016.04.13 16:05:20 - [376] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Just out of curiosity, since carriers have been rebalanced now and all rebalanced tech 1 ships got their price tags doubled, will carriers also cost 2x base price now? Seems only fair that capital ships should get the same "rebalance" treatment as subcapitals. I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance. A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that. When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 902	Posted - 2016.04.13 18:39:19 - [377] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: elitatwo wrote: Just out of curiosity, since carriers have been rebalanced now and all rebalanced tech 1 ships got their price tags doubled, will carriers also cost 2x base price now? Seems only fair that capital ships should get the same "rebalance" treatment as subcapitals. I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance. A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that. When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low. Looking at what we will be getting with carriers, I'd suggest they should have their price halved 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.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1152	Posted - 2016.04.13 21:36:24 - [378] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: ...I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance. A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that. When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low. And I can have you permanently removed from planet Earth if you insult me again. Anyhow, when I look back at the battleship rebalance that is what actually happened. Battleships got worse than ever before and because they are worse they got their price tags doubled. Makes sense, doesn't it? Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 902	Posted - 2016.04.13 22:18:50 - [379] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: ...I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance. A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that. When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low. And I can have you permanently removed from planet Earth if you insult me again. Anyhow, when I look back at the battleship rebalance that is what actually happened. Battleships got worse than ever before and because they are worse they got their price tags doubled. Makes sense, doesn't it? I think your just a little unbalanced and have forgotten the reasons behind the mineral increases for subcaps. But just because other ships were balanced to take CCP's changes to reprocessing and minerals etc into consideration, doesn't mean capitals should be treated the same way. You could never reprocess a capital hull and make a profit - Which is why subcaps had the mineral consumption increased. It had nothing to do with balancing their usefulness on a battlefield, it was about the profit in reprocessing them. 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.
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1658	Posted - 2016.04.13 22:37:03 - [380] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: elitatwo wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: ...I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance. A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that. When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low. And I can have you permanently removed from planet Earth if you insult me again. Anyhow, when I look back at the battleship rebalance that is what actually happened. Battleships got worse than ever before and because they are worse they got their price tags doubled. Makes sense, doesn't it? I think your just a little unbalanced and have forgotten the reasons behind the mineral increases for subcaps. But just because other ships were balanced to take CCP's changes to reprocessing and minerals etc into consideration, doesn't mean capitals should be treated the same way. You could never reprocess a capital hull and make a profit - Which is why subcaps had the mineral consumption increased. It had nothing to do with balancing their usefulness on a battlefield, it was about the profit in reprocessing them. Eh... both wrong. Elitatwo is wrong because battleships were substantially buffed at the time that the mineral costs increased as a result of Battleship tieracide. Battleships used to be sorted into multiple tiers, with the lower tier BS hulls being both substantially worse, and far cheaper to construct. CCP buffed tier 1 and 2 hulls to match the power of tier 3 hulls, and then increased the mineral requirements to match. I dunno where you got the "Battleships got worse than ever before" bit from. Ocker, you are wrong here because that was not the reason they increased the mineral consumption. Battleship tieracide and the changes to mineral consumption were a result of the early 2013 BS tieracide passes. The "Extra Materials" system was added in from there until the Crius patch of 2014 which added in the base 50% refine rate to all ships and modules. While the two are connected, the first reprocessing changes followed the BS tieracide and not the other way around. And yes, you could reprocess a capital for profit indirectly. It was fairly common to buy carriers, jump them out, reproc them into their capital components, and then use those components to build Supers in areas without the industrial base to support production otherwise.

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 904	Posted - 2016.04.13 23:14:41 - [381] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: elitatwo wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: ...I think you are note quite getting the point of a rebalance. A rebalance does not mean to change everything equally... you could actually say it means the opposite of that. When the price of T1 ships doubled, then probably because it was too low before. So carrier prices should only be inreased if their price is too low, not because T1 shops got that treatment. And looking at their current status and price, then I am quite sure that it is not too low. And I can have you permanently removed from planet Earth if you insult me again. Anyhow, when I look back at the battleship rebalance that is what actually happened. Battleships got worse than ever before and because they are worse they got their price tags doubled. Makes sense, doesn't it? I think your just a little unbalanced and have forgotten the reasons behind the mineral increases for subcaps. But just because other ships were balanced to take CCP's changes to reprocessing and minerals etc into consideration, doesn't mean capitals should be treated the same way. You could never reprocess a capital hull and make a profit - Which is why subcaps had the mineral consumption increased. It had nothing to do with balancing their usefulness on a battlefield, it was about the profit in reprocessing them. Eh... both wrong. Elitatwo is wrong because battleships were substantially buffed at the time that the mineral costs increased as a result of Battleship tieracide. Battleships used to be sorted into multiple tiers, with the lower tier BS hulls being both substantially worse, and far cheaper to construct. CCP buffed tier 1 and 2 hulls to match the power of tier 3 hulls, and then increased the mineral requirements to match. I dunno where you got the "Battleships got worse than ever before" bit from. Ocker, you are wrong here because that was not the reason they increased the mineral consumption. Battleship tieracide and the changes to mineral consumption were a result of the early 2013 BS tieracide passes. The "Extra Materials" system was added in from there until the Crius patch of 2014 which added in the base 50% refine rate to all ships and modules. While the two are connected, the first reprocessing changes followed the BS tieracide and not the other way around. And yes, you could reprocess a capital for profit indirectly. It was fairly common to buy carriers, jump them out, reproc them into their capital components, and then use those components to build Supers in areas without the industrial base to support production otherwise. Yes, my bad I had forgotten the order of the battleship changes. And yes carriers were often reprocessed but not for isk profit (like so many subcaps were), it was for convenience, like the freighter loads of 425 mm railguns shipped to nulsec. NB; While the history lesson is interesting, it is not addressing the issues with the coming changes - Carriers need to be looked at and it would be really nice to hear some feedback from a Dev. 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.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 1153	Posted - 2016.04.14 07:12:43 - [382] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Eh... both wrong. Elitatwo is wrong because battleships were substantially buffed at the time that the mineral costs increased as a result of Battleship tieracide. Battleships used to be sorted into multiple tiers, with the lower tier BS hulls being both substantially worse, and far cheaper to construct. CCP buffed tier 1 and 2 hulls to match the power of tier 3 hulls, and then increased the mineral requirements to match. I dunno where you got the "Battleships got worse than ever before" bit from. Ocker, you are wrong here because that was not the reason they increased the mineral consumption. Battleship tieracide and the changes to mineral consumption were a result of the early 2013 BS tieracide passes. The "Extra Materials" system was added in from there until the Crius patch of 2014 which added in the base 50% refine rate to all ships and modules. While the two are connected, the first reprocessing changes followed the BS tieracide and not the other way around. And yes, you could reprocess a capital for profit indirectly. It was fairly common to buy carriers, jump them out, reproc them into their capital components, and then use those components to build Supers in areas without the industrial base to support production otherwise. I wouldn't say wrong but incomplete. Remember battleships were not the only ships getting buffs at the time, well some battleships did, not all of them. Now if we leave pirate ships out of the battleship debacle, since they are fine, they way we travel got a nerf at the wrong time too. And when you speak of buffs, who is your understanding of a buff when you take a boat like the almighty Abbadon into dangerous space with your scary blood raider skin and get pinned by a jet-sky and then pondered by a minmatar destroyer or two all the while you are waiting until your armor finally runs out and you see the error of your ways and never fly one again? Anyhow, my question was about the pricetag of carriers, I was just making an observation about the recent past. The past year have laid the stone for future reference, so while carrier and other capitals getting better, so should their pricetag. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 95	Posted - 2016.04.14 07:39:27 - [383] - Quote elitatwo wrote: carrier ... getting better hahaha, funny.
The Sinister Eve Minions The-Company 101	Posted - 2016.04.14 12:44:34 - [384] - Quote OK so now carrier have no triage so there wont be good at logi roll right. Now they are useful for what? Can someone please tell me what can a SOLO carrier kill? because with fighters alone YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KILL **** !
Anthar Thebess 1497	Posted - 2016.04.14 13:41:01 - [385] - Quote The Sinister wrote: OK so now carrier have no triage so there wont be good at logi roll right. Now they are useful for what? Can someone please tell me what can a SOLO carrier kill? because with fighters alone YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KILL **** ! Rats. Rats my friend. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
The Sinister Eve Minions The-Company 102	Posted - 2016.04.14 13:49:52 - [386] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: The Sinister wrote: OK so now carrier have no triage so there wont be good at logi roll right. Now they are useful for what? Can someone please tell me what can a SOLO carrier kill? because with fighters alone YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KILL **** ! Rats. Rats my friend. OOOOhhhh I see! Never thought of that! Thnx mate... New Ratting Carriers why didn't they say that from the beginning
Anthar Thebess 1497	Posted - 2016.04.14 13:52:54 - [387] - Quote I know that this is sad, they made carriers so.... flat in terms of solo pvp game play - that it will be no longer possible. But people can abuse it - if they have time, and pos on the lowsec station. They can just deploy fighters sitting on the edge of the shields and harass every thing that will be docking or undocking. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
Krevnos Back Door Burglars The Otherworld 142	Posted - 2016.04.14 15:38:11 - [388] - Quote The Sinister wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: The Sinister wrote: OK so now carrier have no triage so there wont be good at logi roll right. Now they are useful for what? Can someone please tell me what can a SOLO carrier kill? because with fighters alone YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KILL **** ! Rats. Rats my friend. OOOOhhhh I see! Never thought of that! Thnx mate... New Ratting Carriers why didn't they say that from the beginning Actually I'm here to spoil the party on that one. Your fighters will be targeted by rats and ECM won't stop it. Because the fighters are so slow, they'll melt before they even get home. On the bright side, the size of carriers makes them excellent for placing at the edge of bubbles to de-cloak incoming ships.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.14 20:38:29 - [389] - Quote Looks like they made some updates recently. Nid picked up 75 cpu, but lost 105k power. Good step in the right direction, brining it to ~980 cpu and 625k power with skills.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 74	Posted - 2016.04.14 21:19:43 - [390] - Quote you guys are too pessimistic. Carrier were super broken a few weeks ago, but they really got better. I tested ratting few fays ago and it was fine. Damage was lower than before, but application better, that evened out. Fighters targeted by rats was not a big problem since they are fast, have good regeneration, got a little more hp, and usually are not targeted anyways (only did one haven though; if you actually tested it too and got worse results please report, but only recent tests). In pvp they are great for killing smaller stuff. You have lower damage, but better burst and application. Many small ships can be simply alphaed with a rocket salvo. Even a little bigger ones can be quickly killed. You just have to get used to the fact that carriers are crap against big and tanky targets now. Because then neither the burst nor the application are useful. My main problem with carrier is still that supers are so much better at everything, taking the role of carriers away.

Donedy Snuff Box Snuffed Out 196	Posted - 2016.04.15 00:22:46 - [391] - Quote edit : wrong topic
Side1Bu2Rnz9 Trojan Legion Goonswarm Federation 5	Posted - 2016.04.15 03:17:18 - [392] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: My main problem with carrier is still that supers are so much better at everything, taking the role of carriers away. Well that's always been the case and it should be... you show me a carrier that's worth 20 bill Isk for the hull and I'll agree with you that a carrier should be compare able to a super carrier. I'm not saying I don't disagree with you but supers have their downsides verse the carrier... size, align time, cost.... it's a risk verse reward difference. Carriers are a lot easier to replace than a super is.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 99	Posted - 2016.04.15 03:46:04 - [393] - Quote Side1Bu2Rnz9 wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: My main problem with carrier is still that supers are so much better at everything, taking the role of carriers away. Well that's always been the case and it should be... you show me a carrier that's worth 20 bill Isk for the hull and I'll agree with you that a carrier should be compare able to a super carrier. I'm not saying I don't disagree with you but supers have their downsides verse the carrier... size, align time, cost.... it's a risk verse reward difference. Carriers are a lot easier to replace than a super is. That has most certainly not always been the case. Carriers can currently do triage and use subcap drones while supers can't. That gives them a different role; not necessarily equal or better, but different. They're losing both abilities, thus having their entire remaining role filled by supers. And since supers have stronger bonuses and the ability to launch more squadrons, they do everything a carrier does but better. As for the downsides, 20% longer align time isn't going to mean very much when you're in a fleet and have 25 warp core strength. I'm not sure how being bigger is supposed to be a significant disadvantage either. We're not saying that carriers should be comparable to supers. We're saying carriers should have some role they fill better than supers so price and docking concerns aren't the only reasons to use one. Keep in mind we're not talking about a T1 hull vs a T2 or faction hull. We're talking about different classes of ships where one went from being different and better at some things to being roughly the same and better at everything. Nowhere else in Eve do you find an entire class of ships that are strictly better than another class, except for possibly T3Ds and assault frigates, which people have been complaining about for ages. It feels like carriers are supposed to be used against subcaps, but when supers can use exactly the same fighters with better bonuses and more tubes for other stuff, why bother?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2139	Posted - 2016.04.15 18:47:05 - [394] - Quote The Sinister wrote: OK so now carrier have no triage so there wont be good at logi roll right. Now they are useful for what? Can someone please tell me what can a SOLO carrier kill? because with fighters alone YOU WONT BE ABLE TO KILL **** ! .... its a capital its not supposed to kill anything alone Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2139	Posted - 2016.04.15 18:52:13 - [395] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: you guys are too pessimistic. Carrier were super broken a few weeks ago, but they really got better. I tested ratting few fays ago and it was fine. Damage was lower than before, but application better, that evened out. Fighters targeted by rats was not a big problem since they are fast, have good regeneration, got a little more hp, and usually are not targeted anyways (only did one haven though; if you actually tested it too and got worse results please report, but only recent tests). In pvp they are great for killing smaller stuff. You have lower damage, but better burst and application. Many small ships can be simply alphaed with a rocket salvo. Even a little bigger ones can be quickly killed. You just have to get used to the fact that carriers are crap against big and tanky targets now. Because then neither the burst nor the application are useful. My main problem with carrier is still that supers are so much better at everything, taking the role of carriers away. their application has stayed the same neither exp rad or vel has been tweeked since these came out the only ships fighters kill faster than a supported dread are faster than the fighters themselves. in pvp we have found it very easy with a small destroyer group to spread out and kill fighters they may get one of us but by the time they are thinking of flying to the next guy most are dead and they have to go back to the carrier. the reload time has now actually brought their range lower than that of a dread so have they gotten better? yeah a little bit but they are far from being viable even if you don't count the super carrier issue i'm still in support of giving them an extra support fighter and a bonus to local e-war make them an e-war capital at that point them having this low dps makes seance as its not their main role. if ccp does want their main role to be anti sub cap then they need to do it as good or better than dreads Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2016.04.15 20:30:34 - [396] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: their application has stayed the same neither exp rad or vel has been tweeked since these came out It has changed indirectly through tracking comps.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2141	Posted - 2016.04.15 22:52:06 - [397] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: their application has stayed the same neither exp rad or vel has been tweeked since these came out It has changed indirectly through tracking comps. O.o those worked for me since week one Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2144	Posted - 2016.04.16 06:03:12 - [398] - Quote one way to give carriers the range they need is let them on grid warp they still need a fleet member/bm and its done just by selecting the fighter group and warping Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2016.04.16 07:00:00 - [399] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: their application has stayed the same neither exp rad or vel has been tweeked since these came out It has changed indirectly through tracking comps. O.o those worked for me since week one They started with a laughable 3% on explosion velocity and radius. Not its 8.5% on the T2 variant.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2144	Posted - 2016.04.16 08:00:16 - [400] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: their application has stayed the same neither exp rad or vel has been tweeked since these came out It has changed indirectly through tracking comps. O.o those worked for me since week one They started with a laughable 3% on explosion velocity and radius. Not its 8.5% on the T2 variant. well either way like i said they have gotten better but even with out theses by the time they are appling more damage than a supported HAW the target they are shooting at is outrunning the fighters. This is even if you don't take into account the 48 second reload and the flight time Citadel worm hole tax

Lugh Crow-Slave 2149	Posted - 2016.04.16 09:58:28 - [401] - Quote E-war fighters Cenobite look good a bit stronger than a heavy neut and it seems FSU help them to be useful if FSU is not suposed to work then cycle time on both needs to drop a little Dromi make the t1 20 per fighter putting them at 60% with a max flight and t2 at 23.33-25% so either just under 70 or at 75 with a full flight scarab also seem to be effected by FSU so if cycle time is supposed to be their selling point make them each 4 but have the T2 at 15 second cycle again if FSU is not suposed to affect them then T1 needs to be 4 points and t2 needs to be 5.2 Siren these are hardly ever going to be used against a sub cap if your fighters can catch what your trying to point so can your fleets dedicated tackle so instead up the WDS 2 for the T1 3 for the t2 this puts them a little better than the heavy scrams (they would still never be used on anything other than a super as these would only be needed to tackle large ships and carriers are not built to survive that) these will not make the fighters worth losing 1/3 of your DPS but it may at least make people think about giving up some hanger space for them. Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2149	Posted - 2016.04.16 10:10:58 - [402] - Quote Another idea make a Support fighter unit to go along with the SFU this would let us build a support based carrier however for this to work carriers would need 2 support fighter tubes Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 905	Posted - 2016.04.16 22:55:13 - [403] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: you guys are too pessimistic. Carrier were super broken a few weeks ago, but they really got better. I tested ratting few fays ago and it was fine. Damage was lower than before, but application better, that evened out. Fighters targeted by rats was not a big problem since they are fast, have good regeneration, got a little more hp, and usually are not targeted anyways (only did one haven though; if you actually tested it too and got worse results please report, but only recent tests). In pvp they are great for killing smaller stuff. You have lower damage, but better burst and application. Many small ships can be simply alphaed with a rocket salvo. Even a little bigger ones can be quickly killed. You just have to get used to the fact that carriers are crap against big and tanky targets now. Because then neither the burst nor the application are useful. My main problem with carrier is still that supers are so much better at everything, taking the role of carriers away. Sorry but they aren't good at killing small stuff, 3 flights of T2 fighters couldn't kill a Cerberus, or anything else I threw them at. Sure drone skills applied to fighters make a difference, a lone cerb can no longer kill a flight of fighters, in fact it couldn't even kill 1 of a squad before needing to warp out in armor (after being attacked by 3 flights of fighters for 2.5 minutes, using everything the fighters could dish out). Surprising how few times the new fighters hit an MWDing HAC for anything close to reasonable damage, you'd be better off bringing a Snake and using heavies or a Gecko. 1 Gecko (with heavy rapid support) put the cerb into armor far quicker than 3 flights of T2 Light Fighters (Firbolgs, none of the others did enough damage at all) did and is just as immune (comparatively) to the Cerbs DPS from rapid lights. Cerbs superior range was all that saved it from the Rattlesnake. So now not only is fighter damage so anemic a single carrier is incapable of killing a lone HAC (unless it just sits still waiting for the fighters), in a fleet situation carriers are going to be pretty useless - Requiring at least 2 carriers attacking each cruiser on the field, that's if they are stupid enough not to bring logi. A fleet with half decent logi will be nice and immune to carrier DPS - Unless you turn back to the ever trusted N+1, turning all of this into a farce. As for ratting - Ok if your prepared to take the risk and spend the time (Ishtar is faster and requires far less micro management) - Go for it. Neither Haven or Sanctum are a threat to a carrier as in chance to kill it, anoms will take you around 2 to 3 times longer to run than currently and if you get caught by a roaming subcap fleet, be sure you have a defense fleet on standby. Preferably in the same system or your just going to die as you would today but with less chance of defending yourself long enough for friends to arrive and save your stupid ass. Rats attacking fighters - Twice while doing havens the rats attacked fighters, this can be avoided by recalling them at the end of each wave and waiting until your carrier has full aggro before relaunching them. Time consuming but better than throwing isk away letting rats kill off half a squad. Carriers need a defined role - Not just gimmick light fighters that require more squads than a single carrier can field to be effective (against a T2 cruiser). N+1 will still be the meta for fights, except now they will be static fights due to lack of effective mobile logistics. Any thoughts of dynamic, tactical, strategic or emergent game play have been denied by design. Devs have done a half decent job of ensuring - Nothing changes in capital warfare, except the usefulness of carriers. Good intentions with no imagination = CCP design ethos. 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 2172	Posted - 2016.04.16 23:08:10 - [404] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: [quote=Marranar Amatin] Carriers need a defined role - Not just gimmick light fighters that require more squads than a single carrier can field to be effective (against a T2 cruiser). N+1 will still be the meta for fights, except now they will be static fights due to lack of effective mobile logistics. Any thoughts of dynamic, tactical, strategic or emergent game play have been denied by design. Devs have done a half decent job of ensuring - Nothing changes in capital warfare, except the usefulness of carriers. Good intentions with no imagination = CCP design ethos. They have one they are just not good at that role This is what I would do. Take the rapid missile launcher idea of high burst and long reload Basically the 48 second reload would be fine if the missile Salvo did enough damage to to cause a buffer battleships alarms to start wailing. Have the turret abulity stay where it is. It can chase off frigs and destroyers but do little more than harass anything bigger. Then Make sure they have enough speed to keep up with small ships as well. So give carriers a damage bonus to the Salvo ideally as a role bonus. This will also give them a clear role over supers and dreads. They are better and sub cap killing than supers (just like now on tq) and they ate a heavy alpha based system where dreads are constant dps EDIT you know what if they ate given the alpha then they don't even need the speed that can be compensated for with tackle in you're support fleet Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 906	Posted - 2016.04.17 00:23:42 - [405] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: [quote=Marranar Amatin] Carriers need a defined role - Not just gimmick light fighters that require more squads than a single carrier can field to be effective (against a T2 cruiser). N+1 will still be the meta for fights, except now they will be static fights due to lack of effective mobile logistics. Any thoughts of dynamic, tactical, strategic or emergent game play have been denied by design. Devs have done a half decent job of ensuring - Nothing changes in capital warfare, except the usefulness of carriers. Good intentions with no imagination = CCP design ethos. They have one they are just not good at that role This is what I would do. Take the rapid missile launcher idea of high burst and long reload Basically the 48 second reload would be fine if the missile Salvo did enough damage to to cause a buffer battleships alarms to start wailing. Have the turret abulity stay where it is. It can chase off frigs and destroyers but do little more than harass anything bigger. Then Make sure they have enough speed to keep up with small ships as well. So give carriers a damage bonus to the Salvo ideally as a role bonus. This will also give them a clear role over supers and dreads. They are better and sub cap killing than supers (just like now on tq) and they ate a heavy alpha based system where dreads are constant dps EDIT you know what if they are given the alpha then they don't even need the speed that can be compensated for with tackle in you're support fleet And even better, if you have a decent support fleet you can leave carriers at home and just use Dreads. 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.
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2016.04.17 09:43:38 - [406] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Sorry but they aren't good at killing small stuff, 3 flights of T2 fighters couldn't kill a Cerberus, or anything else I threw them at. Could you give me the fitting of the ships that you tried please? I want to test that myself. So far I had very good results against smaller ships, but maybe they were fitted wrong... Sgt Ocker wrote: As for ratting - Ok if your prepared to take the risk and spend the time (Ishtar is faster and requires far less micro management) - Go for it. Neither Haven or Sanctum are a threat to a carrier as in chance to kill it, anoms will take you around 2 to 3 times longer to run than currently Then you are doing it wrong, I am actually a little faster than before. An Ishtar can never compete with that, not even close. Its still ~10 minutes for a haven.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2182	Posted - 2016.04.17 11:03:25 - [407] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Sorry but they aren't good at killing small stuff, 3 flights of T2 fighters couldn't kill a Cerberus, or anything else I threw them at. Could you give me the fitting of the ships that you tried please? I want to test that myself. So far I had very good results against smaller ships, but maybe they were fitted wrong... I would assume it was a standard MWD fit he would get in a couple of hits b4 his fighter ran out of their MWD and became unable to keep you with the cerb. and once again even though carriers have gotten a bit better the still don't come close to the effectiveness or reliability of HAW and have actualy lost a lot of dps now that they have to spend the better part of a minute reloading. CCP is getting closer to a worth while class but they are not there yet Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 910	Posted - 2016.04.17 11:54:07 - [408] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Sorry but they aren't good at killing small stuff, 3 flights of T2 fighters couldn't kill a Cerberus, or anything else I threw them at. Could you give me the fitting of the ships that you tried please? I want to test that myself. So far I had very good results against smaller ships, but maybe they were fitted wrong... Sgt Ocker wrote: As for ratting - Ok if your prepared to take the risk and spend the time (Ishtar is faster and requires far less micro management) - Go for it. Neither Haven or Sanctum are a threat to a carrier as in chance to kill it, anoms will take you around 2 to 3 times longer to run than currently Then you are doing it wrong, I am actually a little faster than before. An Ishtar can never compete with that, not even close. Its still ~10 minutes for a haven. I used common every day fits. Mach, Cerb, Raptor, Tengu nothing special, the fits used were the same fits I use on TQ for PVP, with the exception of the Tengu which is PVE fit (to run shipyards). Raptor was more for fun, orbiting a squad of fighters at 10K doing 8K m/s, just watching the fighters trying to get in range made it interesting. I also used a Rattlesnake but it was a little hard to judge - Half the squad of fighters was dead before getting in range. What space are you doing these havens in? Guristas space is pretty easy (nothing new there), sansha not so much, bloods were a pain. What fitting and carrier are you using? I used a Thany with reasonable active tank, as I would if there was a risk of getting hotdropped and i needed to survive long enough for help to arrive. 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 2184	Posted - 2016.04.17 12:00:38 - [409] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Sorry but they aren't good at killing small stuff, 3 flights of T2 fighters couldn't kill a Cerberus, or anything else I threw them at. Could you give me the fitting of the ships that you tried please? I want to test that myself. So far I had very good results against smaller ships, but maybe they were fitted wrong... Sgt Ocker wrote: As for ratting - Ok if your prepared to take the risk and spend the time (Ishtar is faster and requires far less micro management) - Go for it. Neither Haven or Sanctum are a threat to a carrier as in chance to kill it, anoms will take you around 2 to 3 times longer to run than currently Then you are doing it wrong, I am actually a little faster than before. An Ishtar can never compete with that, not even close. Its still ~10 minutes for a haven. I used common every day fits. Mach, Cerb, Raptor, Tengu nothing special, the fits used were the same fits I use on TQ for PVP, with the exception of the Tengu which is PVE fit (to run shipyards). Raptor was more for fun, orbiting a squad of fighters at 10K doing 8K m/s, just watching the fighters trying to get in range made it interesting. I also used a Rattlesnake but it was a little hard to judge - Half the squad of fighters was dead before getting in range. What space are you doing these havens in? Guristas space is pretty easy (nothing new there), sansha not so much, bloods were a pain. What fitting and carrier are you using? I used a Thany with reasonable active tank, as I would if there was a risk of getting hotdropped and i needed to survive long enough for help to arrive. What is your active fit I have had to buffer all of mine because the reps all seem to low and slow outside of siege Citadel worm hole tax
Marranar Amatin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2016.04.17 13:11:08 - [410] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: I used common every day fits. Mach, Cerb, Raptor, Tengu nothing special, the fits used were the same fits I use on TQ for PVP, with the exception of the Tengu which is PVE fit (to run shipyards). Raptor was more for fun, orbiting a squad of fighters at 10K doing 8K m/s, just watching the fighters trying to get in range made it interesting. I also used a Rattlesnake but it was a little hard to judge - Half the squad of fighters was dead before getting in range. I will try to do a few tests with compareable ships. Or maybe I can just meet you on sisi and try to shoot the same ones? Sgt Ocker wrote: What space are you doing these havens in? Guristas space is pretty easy (nothing new there), sansha not so much, bloods were a pain. What fitting and carrier are you using? I used a Thany with reasonable active tank, as I would if there was a risk of getting hotdropped and i needed to survive long enough for help to arrive. I tried serpentis and blood raider. Serpentis obviously was a little better, because you can use dragonfly there, which are just much better than the crappy templar that you have to use in blood raider space. (seriously, fix the fighter balance already, you should not be able to sort figters from best to worst that easy) Carrier was a Thanny with 2 low slots and the rig slots for tank, and the rest for damage: 4x DDA, 3x tracking link, 2x drone nav comp, 4x FSU, 1x networked sensor array. Obviously you are not going to tank a hotrop for a serious time, but my pve thanny on tranq cant do that either. No pve fit is meant to tank a hotdrop for a long time, that risk is the price to pay for good ticks, and I think thats fair. High risk, high reward.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2186	Posted - 2016.04.17 13:18:20 - [411] - Quote Marranar Amatin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: I used common every day fits. Mach, Cerb, Raptor, Tengu nothing special, the fits used were the same fits I use on TQ for PVP, with the exception of the Tengu which is PVE fit (to run shipyards). Raptor was more for fun, orbiting a squad of fighters at 10K doing 8K m/s, just watching the fighters trying to get in range made it interesting. I also used a Rattlesnake but it was a little hard to judge - Half the squad of fighters was dead before getting in range. I will try to do a few tests with compareable ships. Or maybe I can just meet you on sisi and try to shoot the same ones? Sgt Ocker wrote: What space are you doing these havens in? Guristas space is pretty easy (nothing new there), sansha not so much, bloods were a pain. What fitting and carrier are you using? I used a Thany with reasonable active tank, as I would if there was a risk of getting hotdropped and i needed to survive long enough for help to arrive. I tried serpentis and blood raider. Serpentis obviously was a little better, because you can use dragonfly there, which are just much better than the crappy templar that you have to use in blood raider space. (seriously, fix the fighter balance already, you should not be able to sort figters from best to worst that easy) Carrier was a Thanny with 2 low slots and the rig slots for tank, and the rest for damage: 4x DDA, 3x tracking link, 2x drone nav comp, 4x FSU, 1x networked sensor array. Obviously you are not going to tank a hotrop for a serious time, but my pve thanny on tranq cant do that either. No pve fit is meant to tank a hotdrop for a long time, that risk is the price to pay for good ticks, and I think thats fair. High risk, high reward. To be honest I don't think the done balance is that bad when it comes to pvp at least not sure about pve. The amarr and minmatar are hands down the best and the gallente have there uses the only one that falls short is the dragon fly because it's just a lower dps fitblog give it it's racial range and it will also have a place. Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 106	Posted - 2016.04.17 14:11:09 - [412] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: I also used a Rattlesnake but it was a little hard to judge - Half the squad of fighters was dead before getting in range. How did that happen? I tried carrier vs rattlesnake and the carrier tore the snake a new one. A Gecko couldn't hit the fighters and light drones and/or missiles (that character has pretty bad missile skills though) didn't do nearly enough damage to kill half a squad of fighters before they get in range. You might kill 1 fighter, but nowhere near half the squad.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2186	Posted - 2016.04.17 14:16:16 - [413] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: I also used a Rattlesnake but it was a little hard to judge - Half the squad of fighters was dead before getting in range. How did that happen? I tried carrier vs rattlesnake and the carrier tore the snake a new one. A Gecko couldn't hit the fighters and light drones and/or missiles (that character has pretty bad missile skills though) didn't do nearly enough damage to kill half a squad of fighters before they get in range. You might kill 1 fighter, but nowhere near half the squad. O.o you must of been struggling pretty hard our carrier pilot was having issues getting a flight of fighters in range of a Gila with out them being torn a new one. And a vni using geckos works wonders as well while at the same time the Geckos tank the sorority fighters better than the superiority fighters tank the geckos Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 106	Posted - 2016.04.17 14:26:44 - [414] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: I also used a Rattlesnake but it was a little hard to judge - Half the squad of fighters was dead before getting in range. How did that happen? I tried carrier vs rattlesnake and the carrier tore the snake a new one. A Gecko couldn't hit the fighters and light drones and/or missiles (that character has pretty bad missile skills though) didn't do nearly enough damage to kill half a squad of fighters before they get in range. You might kill 1 fighter, but nowhere near half the squad. O.o you must of been struggling pretty hard our carrier pilot was having issues getting a flight of fighters in range of a Gila with out them being torn a new one. And a vni using geckos works wonders as well while at the same time the Geckos tank the sorority fighters better than the superiority fighters tank the geckos Well a Gila is much different than a Rattlesnake. Faster and much better tracking drones would reasonably cause issues for fighters. As for a VNI with Geckos, just don't see it happening. I guess I need to test some more, but when I tried that the Geckos had major trouble tracking the fighters.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2187	Posted - 2016.04.17 15:17:58 - [415] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: I also used a Rattlesnake but it was a little hard to judge - Half the squad of fighters was dead before getting in range. How did that happen? I tried carrier vs rattlesnake and the carrier tore the snake a new one. A Gecko couldn't hit the fighters and light drones and/or missiles (that character has pretty bad missile skills though) didn't do nearly enough damage to kill half a squad of fighters before they get in range. You might kill 1 fighter, but nowhere near half the squad. O.o you must of been struggling pretty hard our carrier pilot was having issues getting a flight of fighters in range of a Gila with out them being torn a new one. And a vni using geckos works wonders as well while at the same time the Geckos tank the sorority fighters better than the superiority fighters tank the geckos Well a Gila is much different than a Rattlesnake. Faster and much better tracking drones would reasonably cause issues for fighters. As for a VNI with Geckos, just don't see it happening. I guess I need to test some more, but when I tried that the Geckos had major trouble tracking the fighters. Nah just fly away and when a squad gets close turn on your Web. You will both pull away reducing damage and your geckos damage shoots up. Citadel worm hole tax
Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 24	Posted - 2016.04.17 22:15:44 - [416] - Quote Why shouldn't it be possible to move fighters in and out of the fighter bay while tethered? It's bad enough that (it seems) you can't swap them out when your bay is full
Lugh Crow-Slave 2198	Posted - 2016.04.17 22:25:42 - [417] - Quote Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Why shouldn't it be possible to move fighters in and out of the fighter bay while tethered? It's bad enough that (it seems) you can't swap them out when your bay is full Because no ship can refit in space And no you can't swap them out when full either to prevent people from carrying more than they should Citadel worm hole tax
Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 24	Posted - 2016.04.18 00:14:20 - [418] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Why shouldn't it be possible to move fighters in and out of the fighter bay while tethered? It's bad enough that (it seems) you can't swap them out when your bay is full Because no ship can refit in space With mobile depots they can, but depots do not work for fighters--just checked. That puts carriers at a disadvantage. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: And no you can't swap them out when full either to prevent people from carrying more than they should If how much they should carry is balanced to be the bay's capacity minus enough space to swap fighters, then the capacity needs to be lowered and proper swapping implemented. The current version is poorly implemented, because it's currently possible to just abandon fighters then scoop them into the fighter bay, making it annoying either way.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2200	Posted - 2016.04.18 00:54:45 - [419] - Quote Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Why shouldn't it be possible to move fighters in and out of the fighter bay while tethered? It's bad enough that (it seems) you can't swap them out when your bay is full Because no ship can refit in space Quote: With mobile depots they can, but depots do not work for fighters--just checked. That puts carriers at a disadvantage. ok this is new they were working yesterday (and while tethered) i could even take fighters out of other ppls fleet bays to do it Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: And no you can't swap them out when full either to prevent people from carrying more than they should If how much they should carry is balanced to be the bay's capacity minus enough space to swap fighters, then the capacity needs to be lowered and proper swapping implemented. The current version is poorly implemented, because it's currently possible to just abandon fighters then scoop them into the fighter bay once the new ones are loaded into the tube, making it annoying either way. i would agree with this as well for some reason my brain didn't even think of that. Citadel worm hole tax
Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 25	Posted - 2016.04.18 01:26:30 - [420] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ok this is new they were working yesterday (and while tethered) i could even take fighters out of other ppls fleet bays to do it EDIT: i just now went onto sisi you can put fighters into the bay when using a mobile depot Huh, it wasn't working for me. I'll check later but if it was working at some point I'm sure it'll work when it goes live.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2200	Posted - 2016.04.18 01:36:01 - [421] - Quote Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ok this is new they were working yesterday (and while tethered) i could even take fighters out of other ppls fleet bays to do it EDIT: i just now went onto sisi you can put fighters into the bay when using a mobile depot Huh, it wasn't working for me. I'll check later but if it was working at some point I'm sure it'll work when it goes live. aye seems the fighter "q" command is also broken also noticed fighters now orbit the carrier and the drone return hotkey now works looks like they are really geting the mechanics down even if it is two steps forward one bug back :p just hope they get them down in time to finish the balance issues Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 910	Posted - 2016.04.18 03:07:12 - [422] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Why shouldn't it be possible to move fighters in and out of the fighter bay while tethered? It's bad enough that (it seems) you can't swap them out when your bay is full Because no ship can refit in space And no you can't swap them out when full either to prevent people from carrying more than they should Sorry but the ONLY way to load or unload new fighters is to be in space - Docked or Tethered to a Citadel, you can't move fighters to or from launch tubes. Bay size is one pretty encouraging reason to not use support fighters - At 3k/m each, that is a lot of space that could go to something else. That aside - You will need 12K/m of space in your fighter hangar if using anti drone fighters, 9Km if just using support or fighters capable of hitting other ships. Seems there are still more reasons not to use a carrier over a subcap or dread. -- - -- - -- - -- Anti-drone fighters - With a total of 72 HP damage difference between fastest and slowest - There is no reason to use anything other than Gram II's, unless your going for a specific damage type. Equite II's may be useful at 55m/s slower than the Gram II and potentially 24 more HP damage per volley. Locust II's don't have much going for them being Kinetic and 165m/s slower than the Gram II, Satyr II could be useful if your target is right on top of you and does less than 1Km/s. It seems a shame Devs didn't bother to make the different faction types different enough to make a difference. Hopefully they are not at release stats yet and some thought may yet be put into making them unique. Maybe the Gram could get its Tackle attribute changed to target painting, the Satyr changed to scram for stopping heavy fighters just MJDing out of range, leaving the other 2 with the web bonus. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 106	Posted - 2016.04.18 03:27:10 - [423] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Why shouldn't it be possible to move fighters in and out of the fighter bay while tethered? It's bad enough that (it seems) you can't swap them out when your bay is full Because no ship can refit in space And no you can't swap them out when full either to prevent people from carrying more than they should Sorry but the ONLY way to load or unload new fighters is to be in space - Docked or Tethered to a Citadel, you can't move fighters to or from launch tubes. Bay size is one pretty encouraging reason to not use support fighters - At 3k/m each, that is a lot of space that could go to something else. That aside - You will need 12K/m of space in your fighter hangar if using anti drone fighters, 9Km if just using support or fighters capable of hitting other ships. Seems there are still more reasons not to use a carrier over a subcap or dread. -- - -- - -- - -- Anti-drone fighters - With a total of 72 HP damage difference between fastest and slowest - There is no reason to use anything other than Gram II's, unless your going for a specific damage type. Equite II's may be useful at 55m/s slower than the Gram II and potentially 24 more HP damage per volley. Locust II's don't have much going for them being Kinetic and 165m/s slower than the Gram II, Satyr II could be useful if your target is right on top of you and does less than 1Km/s. It seems a shame Devs didn't bother to make the different faction types different enough to make a difference. Hopefully they are not at release stats yet and some thought may yet be put into making them unique. Maybe the Gram could get its Tackle attribute changed to target painting, the Satyr changed to scram for stopping heavy fighters just MJDing out of range, leaving the other 2 with the web bonus. I'm not sure, but I believe the tackle ability prevents heavy fighter MJDs, considering it already acts like a scram and stops MWDs.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2200	Posted - 2016.04.18 07:27:32 - [424] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: I'm not sure, but I believe the tackle ability prevents heavy fighter MJDs, considering it already acts like a scram and stops MWDs. it does tested this during one of the mass tests Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 910	Posted - 2016.04.18 10:30:55 - [425] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Why shouldn't it be possible to move fighters in and out of the fighter bay while tethered? It's bad enough that (it seems) you can't swap them out when your bay is full Because no ship can refit in space And no you can't swap them out when full either to prevent people from carrying more than they should Sorry but the ONLY way to load or unload new fighters is to be in space - Docked or Tethered to a Citadel, you can't move fighters to or from launch tubes. Bay size is one pretty encouraging reason to not use support fighters - At 3k/m each, that is a lot of space that could go to something else. That aside - You will need 12K/m of space in your fighter hangar if using anti drone fighters, 9Km if just using support or fighters capable of hitting other ships. Seems there are still more reasons not to use a carrier over a subcap or dread. -- - -- - -- - -- Anti-drone fighters - With a total of 72 HP damage difference between fastest and slowest - There is no reason to use anything other than Gram II's, unless your going for a specific damage type. Equite II's may be useful at 55m/s slower than the Gram II and potentially 24 more HP damage per volley. Locust II's don't have much going for them being Kinetic and 165m/s slower than the Gram II, Satyr II could be useful if your target is right on top of you and does less than 1Km/s. It seems a shame Devs didn't bother to make the different faction types different enough to make a difference. Hopefully they are not at release stats yet and some thought may yet be put into making them unique. Maybe the Gram could get its Tackle attribute changed to target painting, the Satyr changed to scram for stopping heavy fighters just MJDing out of range, leaving the other 2 with the web bonus. I'm not sure, but I believe the tackle ability prevents heavy fighter MJDs, considering it already acts like a scram and stops MWDs. You may be right but so far I've only noticed it slow other fighters down and they are still able to activate their MWD attribute. All 4 of the anti fighter/drone fighters have the same ability, -6% to velocity per fighter. MWD's still work although at a slowed pace on normal fighters, I don't know about MJD for heavies as my testing buddy hasn't been on for a few days. 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 910	Posted - 2016.04.18 10:41:01 - [426] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: I'm not sure, but I believe the tackle ability prevents heavy fighter MJDs, considering it already acts like a scram and stops MWDs. it does tested this during one of the mass tests So the tackle ability, -6% to velocity per fighter, on anti fighters acts as a scram? 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 106	Posted - 2016.04.18 11:18:42 - [427] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: I'm not sure, but I believe the tackle ability prevents heavy fighter MJDs, considering it already acts like a scram and stops MWDs. it does tested this during one of the mass tests So the tackle ability, -6% to velocity per fighter, on anti fighters acts as a scram? Yes. Did you perhaps use it against superiority fighters and see them still activate their ability? They have afterburners instead of MWD/MJD so it would be reasonable if they still work.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2205	Posted - 2016.04.18 21:45:42 - [428] - Quote I think it would be better if we made carriers have larger fighter hangers but made it take longer to reload fighters this would prevent them from having to sit on their hands half way though a moderately long fight Citadel worm hole tax
Gary Webb The Walking Deads Limited Expectations 9	Posted - 2016.04.18 22:29:27 - [429] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ok this is new they were working yesterday (and while tethered) i could even take fighters out of other ppls fleet bays to do it EDIT: i just now went onto sisi you can put fighters into the bay when using a mobile depot Huh, it wasn't working for me. I'll check later but if it was working at some point I'm sure it'll work when it goes live. aye seems the fighter "q" command is also broken also noticed fighters now orbit the carrier and the drone return hotkey now works looks like they are really geting the mechanics down even if it is two steps forward one bug back :p just hope they get them down in time to finish the balance issues does this meed there is now a hot key for fighters to attack again? will test tonight
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 107	Posted - 2016.04.18 22:46:37 - [430] - Quote Gary Webb wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ok this is new they were working yesterday (and while tethered) i could even take fighters out of other ppls fleet bays to do it EDIT: i just now went onto sisi you can put fighters into the bay when using a mobile depot Huh, it wasn't working for me. I'll check later but if it was working at some point I'm sure it'll work when it goes live. aye seems the fighter "q" command is also broken also noticed fighters now orbit the carrier and the drone return hotkey now works looks like they are really geting the mechanics down even if it is two steps forward one bug back :p just hope they get them down in time to finish the balance issues does this meed there is now a hot key for fighters to attack again? will test tonight F1?

Lugh Crow-Slave 2209	Posted - 2016.04.18 22:47:35 - [431] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Gary Webb wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Narku Bourgeoisie Tonisilitis wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ok this is new they were working yesterday (and while tethered) i could even take fighters out of other ppls fleet bays to do it EDIT: i just now went onto sisi you can put fighters into the bay when using a mobile depot Huh, it wasn't working for me. I'll check later but if it was working at some point I'm sure it'll work when it goes live. aye seems the fighter "q" command is also broken also noticed fighters now orbit the carrier and the drone return hotkey now works looks like they are really geting the mechanics down even if it is two steps forward one bug back :p just hope they get them down in time to finish the balance issues does this meed there is now a hot key for fighters to attack again? will test tonight F1? thats what i keep telling people Citadel worm hole tax
Zenafar 4	Posted - 2016.04.18 23:27:52 - [432] - Quote And "Q" is working fine. Also Shift + R, Shift + Alt + R now working aswell. Can't understand why many ppl have problems with ratting, wrong fighters perhaps. Some ppl still don't know that there are 2 types of light fighters. Also I tried to kill Domi and Gila today, with simple but pretty tanky fit. Domi destroyed within 30 sec and Gila was on armor after 1 shot and 1 rocket salvo (it's 1 sec). Gila with mwd and 1 nano can't run away from fighters. I used Thanatos with 1 DDA 4 FSU 2 DNC and 1 OTL with tracking script. It was just stupid test but carrier isn't worthless
Lugh Crow-Slave 2211	Posted - 2016.04.18 23:32:32 - [433] - Quote Zenafar wrote: And "Q" is working fine. Also Shift + R, Shift + Alt + R now working aswell. Can't understand why many ppl have problems with ratting, wrong fighters perhaps. Some ppl still don't know that there are 2 types of light fighters. Also I tried to kill Domi and Gila today, with simple but pretty tanky fit. Domi destroyed within 30 sec and Gila was on armor after 1 shot and 1 rocket salvo (it's 1 sec). Gila with mwd and 1 nano can't run away from fighters. I used Thanatos with 1 DDA 4 FSU 2 DNC and 1 OTL with tracking script. It was just stupid test but carrier isn't worthless kill a dromi with what? also q is still not working for me the overlay comes up but that is it and it's not that carriers are worthless its that they are worth less than dreads with HAW still the fact that you got a gila into 1/2 armor after one salvo is surprising how close were you when you launched fighters and how many died b4 they made it? Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 910	Posted - 2016.04.19 01:30:28 - [434] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Zenafar wrote: And "Q" is working fine. Also Shift + R, Shift + Alt + R now working aswell. Can't understand why many ppl have problems with ratting, wrong fighters perhaps. Some ppl still don't know that there are 2 types of light fighters. Also I tried to kill Domi and Gila today, with simple but pretty tanky fit. Domi destroyed within 30 sec and Gila was on armor after 1 shot and 1 rocket salvo (it's 1 sec). Gila with mwd and 1 nano can't run away from fighters. I used Thanatos with 1 DDA 4 FSU 2 DNC and 1 OTL with tracking script. It was just stupid test but carrier isn't worthless kill a dromi with what? also q is still not working for me the overlay comes up but that is it and it's not that carriers are worthless its that they are worth less than dreads with HAW still the fact that you got a gila into 1/2 armor after one salvo is surprising how close were you when you launched fighters and how many died b4 they made it? At zero without the Gila fighting back, 1 rocket salvo (from 3 squads of light fighters) will put it into armor. At anything over 30K the Gila if used right will have killed half of your first squad of fighters before they get in range - With logi, the Gila is in no fear of getting killed. Even an XLASB will out rep rocket salvos long enough to kill off enough fighters to reduce their damage and chances of killing you (in a 1 v 1 scenario). All the Gila needs to do is keep you pointed long enough for dreads to arrive and pop the carrier. PS; You don't need to kill a complete squad of light fighters - Just 3 or 4 from each squad reduces their damage enough to be manageable. Hint; don't kill them all - Force the carrier pilot to recall the squad or abandon them and reload tubes. Gila has no need to run away from fighters, it just has to not land at zero on a carrier and know how to use its DPS - That pair of hammerheads chew through light fighter squads pretty efficiently. Not easily mind you, just well enough to reduce incoming DPS to a decent level. -- - -- - -- - -- Also when testing, it is easy to set up a ship to die to light fighters if it is 1 on 1 but in a fleet where your 3 squads of fighters will get called primary - Be ready to recall whats left of the squads often. Light fighters will be a nice distraction for enemy subcaps while their dreads volley carriers off the field. -- - -- - -- - -- Miss 'Assassination' Cayman - I don't know what happened in my previous tests but the velocity ability is pretty effective. Bombers are like ducks in a shooting gallery once hit with it. 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 2211	Posted - 2016.04.19 01:36:22 - [435] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman - I don't know what happened in my previous tests but the velocity ability is pretty effective. Bombers are like ducks in a shooting gallery once hit with it. the superiority fighters seem to be the only ones they got right they do one thing but they do it well and at the same time they can still be shut down and handled by an organized fleet keeping them from being op Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2212	Posted - 2016.04.19 01:47:54 - [436] - Quote i'm starting to wonder if the disadvantages are making them to hard to balance the line between op and u.p. is very very thin this combined with the fact that ccp is trying to make one capital only work on sub caps and at the same time giving the rest an option to chose Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 107	Posted - 2016.04.19 03:16:55 - [437] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i'm starting to wonder if the disadvantages are making them to hard to balance the line between op and u.p. is very very thin this combined with the fact that ccp is trying to make one capital only work on sub caps and at the same time giving the rest an option to chose another thing is fighters are not cheap by any means making HAW even more attractive Yeah, balancing carriers and light fighters is ridiculously hard. First of all you have to deal with supers using light fighters, so you can't make the fighters themselves too strong and have to figure out what goes in the base stats and what goes in carrier bonuses. Then there's the matter of balancing their DPS so they don't beat dreads at sustained damage over time, while still making their damage viable despite time spent moving to the target and the ability to kill fighters. Then there's a whole mess with range/speed/DPS/application to balance how well they do against small ships vs big ships. I don't envy whoever has to figure out the balance, but I also don't think they're getting it right.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2217	Posted - 2016.04.19 03:20:32 - [438] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: I don't envy whoever has to figure out the balance, but I also don't think they're getting it right. i'll give them this much they are going in the right direction it feels i'm just not sure it's fast enough. i wish we could get some feed back from them so we could be more help right now we are going off what we think they are trying to do as far as we know they want them to be titan killers Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 107	Posted - 2016.04.19 03:26:10 - [439] - Quote I think light fighters need better speed for moving between targets while still having questionable ability to keep up with targets once engaged. It seems like giving them back the ability to warp around on grid might need to be considered. Now that they have to be within the carrier's lock range to initiate the attack or use missiles, and can't automatically follow targets, a lot of the concerns about warping fighters would be non-issues. Without that, a speed increase, or shorter MWD cooldown, fighters aren't going to have any meaningful range in actual fights.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2217	Posted - 2016.04.19 04:04:57 - [440] - Quote That point about them now being 3 targets not 15 is huge because it means you only need to catch one target to lock down 1/3 the dps Just reiterating the idea of them having differant drawbacks adds to the gameplay but ccp needs to be able to balance these cons with appropriate pros. The new game play with these is amazing and I can't wait to use them on tq but if they ate not a valid choice do to ballance all this will be pointless Citadel worm hole tax

Oxide Ammar 256	Posted - 2016.04.19 06:44:07 - [441] - Quote I don't know if this got brought up early but it looks like they are reducing base material needed for all caps, So if carriers look like sub-bar state right now against sub-caps they might introduce Tech II carriers to overcome its downsides ? I don't know... Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2218	Posted - 2016.04.19 07:27:17 - [442] - Quote Oxide Ammar wrote: I don't know if this got brought up early but it looks like they are reducing base material needed for all caps, So if carriers look like sub-bar state right now against sub-caps they might introduce Tech II carriers to overcome its downsides ? I don't know... ... reading this they raised the price of carriers or they are the same. Either way what this means is the argument brought up earlier (I think in this thread) that fighters made up the rest of the carriers cost is now invalid So carriers cost more to feild (by a lot) Are less flexible Have less dps Have drastically less dpm Have destroy-able damage Have a higher hull train time Have a higher weapon system train time What do they get? Pretend to have more range Can leave in under 5 min (assuming the enemy decided they didn't feel like tackling you) So ccp can you please tell me why a player would choose a carrier over a dread? Citadel worm hole tax
Sepheir Sepheron The Congregation No Handlebars. 44	Posted - 2016.04.19 08:06:17 - [443] - Quote Carriers just feel straight up nerfed. I don't get why they are becoming more expensive an less durable.
Steelgunner Shadowreaper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 1	Posted - 2016.04.19 21:39:05 - [444] - Quote Hello i represent a corporation of 6, half of whom are forum banned and cant post their views so this report will include their thoughts as well as my own. I actually had a big all in one post typed up but it looks like im going to have to post chunks of it in the different/correct topics. so here goes. Carriers, Super carriers, and citadels all need +1 launch tube. Carriers also need +1 support fighter slots. this will give the options to run a more DPS based or support based load-out. such as 3/1 or 2/2. ect Super carriers and citadels do not need any new slots, only and an increase in total launch tubes by +1. Capital changes: Im posting here because it didnt seem to have a place to be posted. Phoenix Missiles need their explosion velocity doubled or you will see their weapons perma kited by supers and normal capitals with AB/MWD. Phoenix missile explosion radius is WAY TO LARGE, i know you think dunk phoenix were bad for the game but the fact of the matter is they were rarer unicorns than officer spawns and did not warrant this Nerf. As it stands i can not kill a battle ship with 2tp on it. sitting still using capital torpedoes. any other gun dread hits for full damage as long as it can track the target.. this is a huge imbalance. we get that you want people to use the new high angle weapons, and now that the DPS has been fixed to the 3.5-5k dps range depending on fit/ammo/overheat. they will get used. it will likely still be extremely hard to break marauders tanks even with 5k dps. but we will find a way to make it work somehow. The Phoenix also badly needs 300 more raw CPU. it has MASSIVE cpu problems. even with 500m in cpu implants + a cpu rig and Cpu low it has issues fitting t2 and even meta stuff.. i cant speak for the other dreads but the phoenix has been beat into the ground with this update.. Standard Capital ships are too easy to alpha, doesn't matter if its a doomsday or bombers, they badly need their original 3 HPs back to what they use to be before the nerf. this will give them some buffer and let their active tank come into play. bombers damage needs to be what it is now, if not get a slight buff, because in bomber vs super warfare they leave MUCH to be desired.. the problem rests with how easy it is to alpha capitals because of the massive HP reductions. so please fix the problem at the source. a 50% increase in each of the 3 stats might be enough to offset this, but ied prefer seeing carriers dreads and faxes get their 3 HP bars doubled and reset to what they were before this update, as their was never a problem in the past. New Capital modules require WAY TO MUCH cap, and offer little to no benefit. Please remove a 0 the cap requirements from all of the following capital modules. Armor/shield Shift hardener, Networked sensor array, All of the projectors like warp, ecm, web ect ect (also needs the range and duration increased. duration's need to be much higher.) as for the shield and armor rep mods, they are fine. the prop mods need a 50% reduction. again they require WAYYYYYYYY to much cap required. i dont have a specific number on what to dial them back to, but halving it per cycle would be a good start, then start tuning from there.. With under 2 weeks to go. i have no idea how you are going to fix all this stuff. but good luck. Personally i wouldn't mind the update getting delayed another month so more stuff can be fixed. its simply not even close to being (close to being) ready. Thank you for reading, i hope to see these changes implimented to improve the game. PS: Honestly i know its not 'super constructive' but it needs to be said, so take it for what its worth CCP. the majority of the corp hates 99% of this update and would prefer things to stay as they are, rather than whats being pushed down the pipe on the test server, for various reasons that have already been mentioned by other concerned cap pilots. Thought that might be useful to include. 0/
Krevnos Back Door Burglars The Otherworld 143	Posted - 2016.04.20 10:11:31 - [445] - Quote With the patch release just around the corner, it seems unlikely that any meaningful change will be introduced at this late stage. I don't foresee carriers falling into a place where they are both playable and useful for many years (now occupying a place next to the Rorqual). I'm calling it now: time to extract! There are plenty of alternative ships out there, including dreads, which require less investment, function well and result in less enlightenment of my family with the new words I utter while fighting with the interface.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2239	Posted - 2016.04.20 10:47:20 - [446] - Quote Krevnos wrote: With the patch release just around the corner, it seems unlikely that any meaningful change will be introduced at this late stage. I don't foresee carriers falling into a place where they are both playable and useful for many years (now occupying a place next to the Rorqual). I'm calling it now: time to extract! There are plenty of alternative ships out there, including dreads, which require less investment, function well and result in less enlightenment of my family with the new words I utter while fighting with the interface. It's why I have generally switched my suggestions from more complex ones to the simple give them t1 ewar bonuses because at this point it's the best we can hope for:/ Ccplease don't kill the carriers when you are about to give them this new gameplay. And considering the plans for the Rorqual they won't be next to them but rather taking their lonely place Citadel worm hole tax
Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 3	Posted - 2016.04.20 11:11:58 - [447] - Quote Kinda makes me sad the way they have implemented features and haven't really smoothed out the edges for carriers. I do think that another tube would be beneficial for e-war, I have had trouble on sisi for my fighters keeping up with targets which I think needs to addressed. So far I have been disappointed, mostly due to the fact I spent the last 2 months training for a carrier :P, I do think that the buffer tank on the archon is decent for my uses, I have tried making a rep fit but it seems kinda slow on the cycles but I haven't really tested the ancillary armor reps. I do live in wormhole so I don't have to worry about supers only issue is if they escalate to dreads I'm toast, I've gone toe to toe with a dread and man they hurt, which is to be expected. I think the only things that need to addressed is throwing on a dedicated support drone tube so you don't lose 1/3 of your dps, fix fighter speed to make them able to apply their dps, and maybe tweak dps a bit. At the end of the day unless you give carriers a role to fill, they are basically useless, you are better off using dreads especially if the engagement is gonna be drawn out, CCP has a week left hopefully they can ease our pain and have carriers fixed :P
Lugh Crow-Slave 2239	Posted - 2016.04.20 11:15:25 - [448] - Quote Kirito Kid wrote: Kinda makes me sad the way they have implemented features and haven't really smoothed out the edges for carriers. I do think that another tube would be beneficial for e-war, I have had trouble on sisi for my fighters keeping up with targets which I think needs to addressed. So far I have been disappointed, mostly due to the fact I spent the last 2 months training for a carrier :P, I do think that the buffer tank on the archon is decent for my uses, I have tried making a rep fit but it seems kinda slow on the cycles but I haven't really tested the ancillary armor reps. I do live in wormhole so I don't have to worry about supers only issue is if they escalate to dreads I'm toast, I've gone toe to toe with a dread and man they hurt, which is to be expected. I think the only things that need to addressed is throwing on a dedicated support drone tube so you don't lose 1/3 of your dps, fix fighter speed to make them able to apply their dps, and maybe tweak dps a bit. At the end of the day unless you give carriers a role to fill, they are basically useless, you are better off using dreads especially if the engagement is gonna be drawn out, CCP has a week left hopefully they can ease our pain and have carriers fixed :P If all you do is add an extra rube for a support drone nothing will really be fixed as the support fighters aren't worth the fighter bay space Citadel worm hole tax
Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 4	Posted - 2016.04.20 11:45:30 - [449] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Kirito Kid wrote: Kinda makes me sad the way they have implemented features and haven't really smoothed out the edges for carriers. I do think that another tube would be beneficial for e-war, I have had trouble on sisi for my fighters keeping up with targets which I think needs to addressed. So far I have been disappointed, mostly due to the fact I spent the last 2 months training for a carrier :P, I do think that the buffer tank on the archon is decent for my uses, I have tried making a rep fit but it seems kinda slow on the cycles but I haven't really tested the ancillary armor reps. I do live in wormhole so I don't have to worry about supers only issue is if they escalate to dreads I'm toast, I've gone toe to toe with a dread and man they hurt, which is to be expected. I think the only things that need to addressed is throwing on a dedicated support drone tube so you don't lose 1/3 of your dps, fix fighter speed to make them able to apply their dps, and maybe tweak dps a bit. At the end of the day unless you give carriers a role to fill, they are basically useless, you are better off using dreads especially if the engagement is gonna be drawn out, CCP has a week left hopefully they can ease our pain and have carriers fixed :P If all you do is add an extra rube for a support drone nothing will really be fixed as the support fighters aren't worth the fighter bay space As of right now I dont think there is much that they can do before the release in 7 days if I'm correct, I mean theoretically they could do a big update to sisi a few days before the update but with fanfest around the corner its looking less and less that carriers will not be polished in time, I mean adding another tube would be a band-aid but the issue I have been having is my support drones not keeping up with anything, so speed of fighters in general would be a big push towards making ewar fighters possible, If my dromi drones cant keep up to web stuff than whats the point of using them when you are sacrificing 1/3 of your dps same with the disruptor drones , haven't really used other drones, I tried testing the jamming drones and from what I have seen they can't jam for ****. Another thing that needs to be addressed is the drone bay which I totally forgot, either it needs to get bigger or fighters need to get smaller, your basically putting your dps out there to be diminished as soon as they die which is a no no for extended fights where if you cant kill the target fast enough due to dps dying your dead especially if your in a buffer tank.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2240	Posted - 2016.04.20 12:12:41 - [450] - Quote Kirito Kid wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Kirito Kid wrote: Kinda makes me sad the way they have implemented features and haven't really smoothed out the edges for carriers. I do think that another tube would be beneficial for e-war, I have had trouble on sisi for my fighters keeping up with targets which I think needs to addressed. So far I have been disappointed, mostly due to the fact I spent the last 2 months training for a carrier :P, I do think that the buffer tank on the archon is decent for my uses, I have tried making a rep fit but it seems kinda slow on the cycles but I haven't really tested the ancillary armor reps. I do live in wormhole so I don't have to worry about supers only issue is if they escalate to dreads I'm toast, I've gone toe to toe with a dread and man they hurt, which is to be expected. I think the only things that need to addressed is throwing on a dedicated support drone tube so you don't lose 1/3 of your dps, fix fighter speed to make them able to apply their dps, and maybe tweak dps a bit. At the end of the day unless you give carriers a role to fill, they are basically useless, you are better off using dreads especially if the engagement is gonna be drawn out, CCP has a week left hopefully they can ease our pain and have carriers fixed :P If all you do is add an extra rube for a support drone nothing will really be fixed as the support fighters aren't worth the fighter bay space As of right now I dont think there is much that they can do before the release in 7 days if I'm correct, I mean theoretically they could do a big update to sisi a few days before the update but with fanfest around the corner its looking less and less that carriers will not be polished in time, I mean adding another tube would be a band-aid but the issue I have been having is my support drones not keeping up with anything, so speed of fighters in general would be a big push towards making ewar fighters possible, If my dromi drones cant keep up to web stuff than whats the point of using them when you are sacrificing 1/3 of your dps same with the disruptor drones , haven't really used other drones, I tried testing the jamming drones and from what I have seen they can't jam for ****. Another thing that needs to be addressed is the drone bay which I totally forgot, either it needs to get bigger or fighters need to get smaller, your basically putting your dps out there to be diminished as soon as they die which is a no no for extended fights where if you cant kill the target fast enough due to dps dying your dead especially if your in a buffer tank. To be honest adding e-war bonus would be less drastic than adding another tube as that make carriers the only things that can use all their fighter types at once(not saying it makes them strong at all but its drastic mechanically) but swapping their useless fleet boost bonuses for an e-war one should be easy and help them out a bit more Citadel worm hole tax

Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 4	Posted - 2016.04.20 12:20:50 - [451] - Quote Quote: To be honest adding e-war bonus would be less drastic than adding another tube as that make carriers the only things that can use all their fighter types at once(not saying it makes them strong at all but its drastic mechanically) but swapping their useless fleet boost bonuses for an e-war one should be easy and help them out a bit more I completely agree, I have no clue why there is even a fleet bonus on a carrier. Maybe it was a weird place holder they had because they couldn't think up something. ATM though its looking more and more grim for the fate of carriers, I mean I am completely new to using carriers so I could be wrong with the whole change, just my opinion since I haven't seen many wormholers post about their thoughts.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2241	Posted - 2016.04.20 13:04:06 - [452] - Quote Kirito Kid wrote: Quote: To be honest adding e-war bonus would be less drastic than adding another tube as that make carriers the only things that can use all their fighter types at once(not saying it makes them strong at all but its drastic mechanically) but swapping their useless fleet boost bonuses for an e-war one should be easy and help them out a bit more I completely agree, I have no clue why there is even a fleet bonus on a carrier. Maybe it was a weird place holder they had because they couldn't think up something. ATM though its looking more and more grim for the fate of carriers, I mean I am completely new to using carriers so I could be wrong with the whole change, just my opinion since I haven't seen many wormholers post about their thoughts. I'm WH and i tend to live in low class ones so i don't even need to worry about hostile capitals and i still can't see a reason to use a carrier over HAW as for the link bonus its a hold over(and actually a buff) currently on TQ carriers can fit links but they don't except in niche cases its almost always better to have a T3 or a command BC this wont change with a 1 % bonus hell if CCP doesn't want them to be e-war then give them a 4% bonus to the links. they are to big to hid off grid like a t3 or a bc meaning yes they would have stronger links but they would have to fight. is it the best way to fix them? not even close but it gives them at least some reason to see use Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 910	Posted - 2016.04.20 13:06:02 - [453] - Quote Kirito Kid wrote: Quote: To be honest adding e-war bonus would be less drastic than adding another tube as that make carriers the only things that can use all their fighter types at once(not saying it makes them strong at all but its drastic mechanically) but swapping their useless fleet boost bonuses for an e-war one should be easy and help them out a bit more I completely agree, I have no clue why there is even a fleet bonus on a carrier. Maybe it was a weird place holder they had because they couldn't think up something. ATM though its looking more and more grim for the fate of carriers, I mean I am completely new to using carriers so I could be wrong with the whole change, just my opinion since I haven't seen many wormholers post about their thoughts. Wormholers won't be using carriers - It will be Dreads and Fax's for escalations - Dreads and Fax's for attacking Citadels - Carriers no longer have a place in wormhole warfare, unless all your facing is subcaps. In which case your better off bringing Haw fit dreads and subcap support. As for other space, Carriers will make nice killmails for Dreads and Supers, while not being very effective at anything in the process. Adding an Ewar bonus to Carriers achieves nothing - Your still giving up 1/3rd of your Dps to field 3 easily destroyed, slow as a wet week fighters. As for the ECM support fighters - 9 of them (3 carriers worth) will jam a Guardian pretty reliably, as long as he isn't ECCM fit. With ECCM, jamming the Guardian was very hit and miss with 3 squads of ECM fighters. The whole idea with Carriers is to make them vulnerable and disposable (like light tackle in a subcap fleet, only much more expensive) - Don't expect anything to change too much, Devs have achieved their design goal. Devs working on carriers have the right idea not posting here - If they did, they would be obliged to admit (or just tell more lies), carriers are to become a thing of the past - By design. I don't know why they post feedback threads when it is not wanted and the simplest questions go unanswered. "We are reading your feedback" - Is little comfort when all suggestions fall on deaf ears. Oh yes, the Niddy got a pittance more CPU - AND lost enough PG to make fitting options worse than previously (now you need both a CPU and PG upgrade for a basic meta fit). Devs at their best - Up one attribute then nerf another so you end up with no real benefit from what they increased (they call it balance, I call it not helping an already bad situation) 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 2242	Posted - 2016.04.20 13:14:35 - [454] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: [ Adding an Ewar bonus to Carriers achieves nothing - Your still giving up 1/3rd of your Dps to field 3 easily destroyed, slow as a wet week fighters. like i said adding a t1 ewar bonus so not to the drones but to local e-war turning them into capital e-war so archon 7.5 to TD Chimera 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range and falloff 25% bonus to ECM Burst range thanatos 7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness 7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener optimal range and falloff nid 7.5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness basically they become e-war with moderate burst dps but capital tank Citadel worm hole tax
Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 6	Posted - 2016.04.20 13:17:40 - [455] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: [ Adding an Ewar bonus to Carriers achieves nothing - Your still giving up 1/3rd of your Dps to field 3 easily destroyed, slow as a wet week fighters. like i said adding a t1 ewar bonus so not to the drones but to local e-war turning them into capital e-war so archon 7.5 to TD Chimera 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range and falloff 25% bonus to ECM Burst range thanatos 7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness 7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener optimal range and falloff nid 7.5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness basically they become e-war with moderate burst dps but capital tank I like this idea to be fair, sounds like a decent thing to add onto the carriers capabilities. Quote: Wormholers won't be using carriers - It will be Dreads and Fax's for escalations - Dreads and Fax's for attacking Citadels - Carriers no longer have a place in wormhole warfare, unless all your facing is subcaps. In which case your better off bringing Haw fit dreads and subcap support. I am trying to make it work, I mean I trained for 2 months to get into, so I will find a place for it to work with our fleets.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2243	Posted - 2016.04.20 13:24:08 - [456] - Quote not like its that far out and it would build onto the progression into super carriers who have their own bonuses for remote burst e-war. Citadel worm hole tax
Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 6	Posted - 2016.04.20 13:30:03 - [457] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: not like its that far out and it would build onto the progression into super carriers who have their own bonuses for remote burst e-war. I see that as a logical step forward, only issue I see is the ships that use mid-slots will have trouble deciding between tank or e-war but at the end of the it gives the players more flexibility in their fittings, which I think can work out it would be a lot better than that Fleet bonus.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2244	Posted - 2016.04.20 14:19:02 - [458] - Quote Kirito Kid wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: not like its that far out and it would build onto the progression into super carriers who have their own bonuses for remote burst e-war. I see that as a logical step forward, only issue I see is the ships that use mid-slots will have trouble deciding between tank or e-war but at the end of the it gives the players more flexibility in their fittings, which I think can work out it would be a lot better than that Fleet bonus. it's the same with all e-war ships ald like you said it would be up to them to decide how much tank to give up Citadel worm hole tax
Umino Iruka Ultramar Independent Contracting 11	Posted - 2016.04.20 16:53:20 - [459] - Quote I don't even know where to begin... Who came up with these idiotic changes anyway? 40km signature resolution on all dread guns??? A super carrier can now speed tank a dread WITHOUT a prop mod.... Amarr and Caldari carriers are missing a bonus? Those fighter E-war bonuses are completely useless anyway - Nidhoggur's stupid 2.5% bonus to fighter speed is actually better than all of the fighter E-war bonuses from all the carriers combined (even though 2.5% bonus to anything is just bullshit). Are you trying to tell us training carrier skills to L5 is useless now? Because if you are, it's working nicely - x12 carrier skill for 5% more range on the E-war fighters? Seriously? Not to mention you can only launch one support squadron... T2 E-war fighters have 10km range. so yes, let us train an x12 skill for 500m more range!!! It's not enough that we got 2 more idiotic x12 skills to grind, we should definitely have less benefits from carrier L5 skills as well.... But fear NOT!!! Amarr and Caldari carriers are actually MISSING a bonus, yes! The 2 carriers where you actually accepted the fact that 2.5% doesn't really mean anything.... And, of course, carrier dps values are misteriously absent from the test server...even though everyone feels it's complete and utter **** now... Really great job everyone at destroying the carriers completely!!!
Bio Necrosis Redstone Advanced Tecnologies Zaibatsu Mercantile 0	Posted - 2016.04.20 18:12:42 - [460] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Combat Wombatz wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: This is correct, you'll need to train Light Fighters to 1 before you can use Light Fighters. So we're going to need to get back to hisec to purchase the book before being able to use the stuff we can already fly? I thought that was something that you guys specifically always tried to avoid? I don't mind the training time too much as long as there's an additional benefit to it, but I do mind two days of jump cloning and the added expense to continue flying something we already use. What about people living in carriers built in W-space, for example? Maybe look into injecting the skill at rank 0 for people who have fighters trained? Low sec school stations? There are plenty of them all over the place. Yes and what about those who like me train Figther lvl 5 already and cant use them anymore? and you say ... " oh yeah btw you need to train something else to use what u already can use and i just change the name so it looks diferent and justify me"

Krevnos Back Door Burglars The Otherworld 146	Posted - 2016.04.20 18:29:56 - [461] - Quote I think the real question you need to be asking is why would you want to use them anymore?
Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 7	Posted - 2016.04.20 18:53:10 - [462] - Quote Krevnos wrote: I think the real question you need to be asking is why would you want to use them anymore? Exactly what everyone wants answered, why use a carrier over a dread, they are both in the same class of ships ie Capitals, but the dread has more of a role and is more effective at killing subcaps with its HAW. If they were to give carriers a role that they are well at or multiple roles that they can be used for that would be great but atm we haven't seen much progress or change.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 911	Posted - 2016.04.20 19:42:12 - [463] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: [ Adding an Ewar bonus to Carriers achieves nothing - Your still giving up 1/3rd of your Dps to field 3 easily destroyed, slow as a wet week fighters. like i said adding a t1 ewar bonus so not to the drones but to local e-war turning them into capital e-war so archon 7.5 to TD Chimera 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range and falloff 25% bonus to ECM Burst range thanatos 7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness 7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener optimal range and falloff nid 7.5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness basically they become e-war with moderate burst dps but capital tank Why would you want to do such a horrible thing to carriers? For a start 2 of the 4 carriers would be unable to use their "bonus to ewar" - Mid slots on shield carriers are needed for shield not rubbish Gimmick bonus's. When considering things like hull bonuses you need to take support ships into consideration too - Devs can't do it so it is up to players to not suggest silly things Devs might think are good. Reason no carrier can have an ewar hull bonus - Fax's suck unless in triage and even then they won't rep as much as a triage archon does now. So if your happy to see your carrier killed by a few assault cruisers while your deciding which one to jam, good for you but please don't risk forcing it on those who want carriers to be useful on a battlefield. I can see it now - Capital remote sensor dampener - 100,000 pg 65 cpu. Do you really want to give up 1/5th of your PG for an ewar module? You can be as sure as, Bob lives, Devs won't give ewar bonuses without also giving the "benefit" (benefit = huge drawback) of capital ewar modules. Carriers are about fighters (see that devs, carriers need fighters) - Don't risk screwing them worse than Devs already have by suggesting silly things. Sorry if this is a bit harsh - But Devs have screwed carriers enough, please don't add to their demise with silly suggestions. Get on SISI and try to fit out carriers with what is available, you'll find it is just one compromise after another. 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.
Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 8	Posted - 2016.04.20 19:59:43 - [464] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: [ Adding an Ewar bonus to Carriers achieves nothing - Your still giving up 1/3rd of your Dps to field 3 easily destroyed, slow as a wet week fighters. like i said adding a t1 ewar bonus so not to the drones but to local e-war turning them into capital e-war so archon 7.5 to TD Chimera 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range and falloff 25% bonus to ECM Burst range thanatos 7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness 7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener optimal range and falloff nid 7.5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness basically they become e-war with moderate burst dps but capital tank Why would you want to do such a horrible thing to carriers? For a start 2 of the 4 carriers would be unable to use their "bonus to ewar" - Mid slots on shield carriers are needed for shield not rubbish Gimmick bonus's. When considering things like hull bonuses you need to take support ships into consideration too - Devs can't do it so it is up to players to not suggest silly things Devs might think are good. Reason no carrier can have an ewar hull bonus - Fax's suck unless in triage and even then they won't rep as much as a triage archon does now. So if your happy to see your carrier killed by a few assault cruisers while your deciding which one to jam, good for you but please don't risk forcing it on those who want carriers to be useful on a battlefield. I can see it now - Capital remote sensor dampener - 100,000 pg 65 cpu. Do you really want to give up 1/5th of your PG for an ewar module? You can be as sure as, Bob lives, Devs won't give ewar bonuses without also giving the "benefit" (benefit = huge drawback) of capital ewar modules. Carriers are about fighters (see that devs, carriers need fighters) - Don't risk screwing them worse than Devs already have by suggesting silly things. Sorry if this is a bit harsh - But Devs have screwed carriers enough, please don't add to their demise with silly suggestions. Get on SISI and try to fit out carriers with what is available, you'll find it is just one compromise after another. Its just a suggestion, not like it will come to fruition, they have a week left to fix carriers. I am new to piloting carriers but from what I have seen on test server they need to be tweaked more, give them more of a role to fulfill instead of being cannon fodder till you get more capitals like dreads on the field
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 911	Posted - 2016.04.20 21:12:41 - [465] - Quote Kirito Kid wrote: Krevnos wrote: I think the real question you need to be asking is why would you want to use them anymore? Exactly what everyone wants answered, why use a carrier over a dread, they are both in the same class of ships ie Capitals, but the dread has more of a role and is more effective at killing subcaps with its HAW. If they were to give carriers a role that they are well at or multiple roles that they can be used for that would be great but atm we haven't seen much progress or change. Yeah about Haw's - Interesting concept, until you are Haw fit and Dreads that aren't land on grid - Then you die a nice slow death with no way to refit to defend yourself - Devs thought that one out nicely, suicide Dreads are nearly as bad as Carriers. Devs like adding new things (which is good) but really just don't think their usefulness through very well. Dreads and Carriers both got PG and CPU nerfed, yet Every new Capital module has high CPU and PG requirements. Try fitting a triple extender buffer fit (recommended for buffer tanking) on a shield carrier 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 2249	Posted - 2016.04.20 21:44:29 - [466] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Kirito Kid wrote: Krevnos wrote: I think the real question you need to be asking is why would you want to use them anymore? Exactly what everyone wants answered, why use a carrier over a dread, they are both in the same class of ships ie Capitals, but the dread has more of a role and is more effective at killing subcaps with its HAW. If they were to give carriers a role that they are well at or multiple roles that they can be used for that would be great but atm we haven't seen much progress or change. Yeah about Haw's - Interesting concept, until you are Haw fit and Dreads that aren't land on grid - Then you die a nice slow death with no way to refit to defend yourself - Devs thought that one out nicely, suicide Dreads are nearly as bad as Carriers. Devs like adding new things (which is good) but really just don't think their usefulness through very well. Dreads and Carriers both got PG and CPU nerfed, yet Every new Capital module has high CPU and PG requirements. Try fitting a triple extender buffer fit (recommended for buffer tanking) on a shield carrier the HAW are not that bad and the risk/reward is there its the same as today if you fit a blap dread you tend to be screwed if a standard fit cynos into feils for the e-war there is no need to add capital e-war mods in order to do that and the only carrier that can't get a decent armor tank is the chimera who gets enough shield tank that it can give up a mid or two. again i don't think this is the best way to fix them but it's better than they are now and i worry if ccp puts them onto tq as is then they will not be fixed for years. as for the tripple extender fit a chimera pulls that off easy along with a DCU 3 DDA 3 FSU a heavy nuet and a NSA its the FAX that have fitting issues with PG and CPU carriers are fine unless you want to fit the new mwd/ab but thats becaues those are way to expencive Citadel worm hole tax
Alexis Nightwish 432	Posted - 2016.04.20 22:41:15 - [467] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Francisco Vazquez Garcia wrote: Why are all resistance profiles the same? Fixed :) No, the shield resistances are still the same on every ship: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Lugh Crow-Slave 2251	Posted - 2016.04.20 22:44:45 - [468] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Francisco Vazquez Garcia wrote: Why are all resistance profiles the same? Fixed :) No, the shield resistances are still the same on every ship: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 40 / 50 i think they were talking about the fighters the carriers are all t1 so the resists should be 0/20/40/50 Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 915	Posted - 2016.04.21 00:33:09 - [469] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Kirito Kid wrote: Krevnos wrote: I think the real question you need to be asking is why would you want to use them anymore? Exactly what everyone wants answered, why use a carrier over a dread, they are both in the same class of ships ie Capitals, but the dread has more of a role and is more effective at killing subcaps with its HAW. If they were to give carriers a role that they are well at or multiple roles that they can be used for that would be great but atm we haven't seen much progress or change. Yeah about Haw's - Interesting concept, until you are Haw fit and Dreads that aren't land on grid - Then you die a nice slow death with no way to refit to defend yourself - Devs thought that one out nicely, suicide Dreads are nearly as bad as Carriers. Devs like adding new things (which is good) but really just don't think their usefulness through very well. Dreads and Carriers both got PG and CPU nerfed, yet Every new Capital module has high CPU and PG requirements. Try fitting a triple extender buffer fit (recommended for buffer tanking) on a shield carrier the HAW are not that bad and the risk/reward is there its the same as today if you fit a blap dread you tend to be screwed if a standard fit cynos into feils for the e-war there is no need to add capital e-war mods in order to do that and the only carrier that can't get a decent armor tank is the chimera who gets enough shield tank that it can give up a mid or two. again i don't think this is the best way to fix them but it's better than they are now and i worry if ccp puts them onto tq as is then they will not be fixed for years. as for the tripple extender fit a chimera pulls that off easy along with a DCU 3 DDA 3 FSU a heavy nuet and a NSA its the FAX that have fitting issues with PG and CPU carriers are fine unless you want to fit the new mwd/ab but thats becaues those are way to expencive So I think we are on crossed paths here - You seem to be talking about A dread fit with Haws, where I am looking at possibly squads of them in a fight. So your not just losing 1 blap dread who should not have been alone to start with - Your going to lose a fleet of them AND none have the capability to fight back, they literally just sit and wait their turn to die. Of course there is the rare occasion where a bunch of Haw fit Dreads may kill a Dread that is fit to fight capitals but I wouldn't be betting on the survival of my dread on that outcome. There was no capital shield extenders or neuts or many other new capital modules either - But if Devs were to give carriers hull bonuses to Ewar, you can be sure Capital sized mods would be right there at the same time. Simple fact is - Devs do not want carriers to be good at anything, except to have the ability to create lossmails for their owners. That one they will surpass every other ship in Eve. Triple extender Chimera - My apologies, I hadn't played around with the Chimera in a while, when I 1st tried you couldn't fit it. Now all you need do is drop the DSU's to the best meta so you have enough CPU. 2.5 million EHP is nothing to be sneezed at - As long as you've got Fax's (one won't rep enough to keep you alive long) close by. Shame about the shield doctrines really - They would have a lot to offer, 1 if done right, 2 the Archon wasn't just better at everything than the Chimera. You right, Fax's are in terrible shape - But I've given up on those (as it seems have Devs) It is a shame Devs are unable to think outside the box and couldn't make capital warfare something other than - Get as close to the Fax's in fleet and stay put till you die or win. Emergent game play, strategy, tactics - Yep capital fights will have it all - Land on grid (emergent) anchor up, bubble up (strategy) kill stuff till you die (tactic).... CCP has designed a whole new meta for capitals - That requires exactly the same things it did before. More in fleet and on grid is the only reliable offense. Supers will be great except - They will never get used unless you know you have the enemy outnumbered by at least 2 or 3 to 1. 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 2253	Posted - 2016.04.21 00:42:13 - [470] - Quote not really sure you should ever have a large group of HAW dreads even now on TQ that is still not a good idea and the largest fleets of blap dreads you see are in WH where they still die honorably if you enemy brings dreads fit to kill dreads. only diferance now is its very very hard to refit to something that can defend against that. and ccp hasn't changed the meta into something with the same game play they have drastically reduced it by nerfing the hell out of combat refitting. and idk if they have given up as they were making progress and listening in the beginning i think they have just prioritized fan fest over this who know maybe they think they can get them fixed in a week :/ Citadel worm hole tax

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 916	Posted - 2016.04.21 01:00:46 - [471] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: not really sure you should ever have a large group of HAW dreads even now on TQ that is still not a good idea and the largest fleets of blap dreads you see are in WH where they still die honorably if you enemy brings dreads fit to kill dreads. only diferance now is its very very hard to refit to something that can defend against that. and ccp hasn't changed the meta into something with the same game play they have drastically reduced it by nerfing the hell out of combat refitting. and idk if they have given up as they were making progress and listening in the beginning i think they have just prioritized fan fest over this who know maybe they think they can get them fixed in a week :/ Now all that is needed to refit a blap dread is tank, a mobile depot, a friendly carrier or nestor and refit. In a week it would require a whole different set of guns AND tank mods. Only problem is - You can't carry a spare set of guns so no matter what happened with refitting, your screwed. *Except for the Naglfar, it is capable of carrying 2 guns to refit. Combat refitting aside - The existing meta is, everyone as close together as possible - Nothing changing there, in fact it will be more crucial than ever before. Yes Fanfest is the priority, so any real "fixes" will likely come a few months from now, if not longer. CCP like the "wait and see how this plays out", then we will make slight adjustments if needed. Fax's - Don't really have a decent starting point for the "wait and see" period, which renders all the other changes pretty mute. To do a capital upgrade like this, it has to incorporate more than just micro management and nerfed EHP. It requires a whole new thinking on how capitals could and should be used. I always admired game developers as being extremely smart, creative, out of the box thinking people - Why is CCP being the exception to this rule with capitals? There are so many possibilities, so many opportunities - All wasted. 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.
Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 14	Posted - 2016.04.21 01:05:54 - [472] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: not really sure you should ever have a large group of HAW dreads even now on TQ that is still not a good idea and the largest fleets of blap dreads you see are in WH where they still die honorably if you enemy brings dreads fit to kill dreads. only diferance now is its very very hard to refit to something that can defend against that. and ccp hasn't changed the meta into something with the same game play they have drastically reduced it by nerfing the hell out of combat refitting. and idk if they have given up as they were making progress and listening in the beginning i think they have just prioritized fan fest over this who know maybe they think they can get them fixed in a week :/ Jeez its starting to look more and more grim when it comes to the update. Its gonna be a squeeze for them to address all these issues.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2254	Posted - 2016.04.21 01:19:51 - [473] - Quote Kirito Kid wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: not really sure you should ever have a large group of HAW dreads even now on TQ that is still not a good idea and the largest fleets of blap dreads you see are in WH where they still die honorably if you enemy brings dreads fit to kill dreads. only diferance now is its very very hard to refit to something that can defend against that. and ccp hasn't changed the meta into something with the same game play they have drastically reduced it by nerfing the hell out of combat refitting. and idk if they have given up as they were making progress and listening in the beginning i think they have just prioritized fan fest over this who know maybe they think they can get them fixed in a week :/ Jeez its starting to look more and more grim when it comes to the update. Its gonna be a squeeze for them to address all these issues. untill release i'm still going to have faith but once the 27th hits it will be lost we all know how long it takes ccp to come back to ships after a pass Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2256	Posted - 2016.04.21 06:29:21 - [474] - Quote wow maybe sgt was right about ccp not wanting carriers to be a thing anymore i just looked at the artwork of the citadel fight ccp is using as their offline image on twitch every type of capital is represented in it other than standard carriers.... Citadel worm hole tax
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3190	Posted - 2016.04.21 09:59:31 - [475] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: wow maybe sgt was right about ccp not wanting carriers to be a thing anymore i just looked at the artwork of the citadel fight ccp is using as their offline image on twitch every type of capital is represented in it other than standard carriers.... Random question for you. Mainly relating to the static blob meta. What if they removed the stationary penalty from Siege & Triage? (& Bastion to match as a result also but irrelevant to caps) So they are about being local tank rather than remote tank, but don't lock you into a single place. They would have to be vulnerable to webs & tackle if that was the case obviously, but since CCP now have the ability to vary resistances to different things like that, they could actually do that. I know it doesn't solve the carrier problem still, but it solves the stationary blob at least. Which means Carriers can be mobile with FAX escorting them.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2257	Posted - 2016.04.21 10:17:25 - [476] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: wow maybe sgt was right about ccp not wanting carriers to be a thing anymore i just looked at the artwork of the citadel fight ccp is using as their offline image on twitch every type of capital is represented in it other than standard carriers.... Random question for you. Mainly relating to the static blob meta. What if they removed the stationary penalty from Siege & Triage? (& Bastion to match as a result also but irrelevant to caps) So they are about being local tank rather than remote tank, but don't lock you into a single place. They would have to be vulnerable to webs & tackle if that was the case obviously, but since CCP now have the ability to vary resistances to different things like that, they could actually do that. I know it doesn't solve the carrier problem still, but it solves the stationary blob at least. Which means Carriers can be mobile with FAX escorting them. hmm it is an interesting idea and while i myself would not be opposed however coming from a time back when cycles were still 10 minutes and missing the value that added i'm not sure that game play would be good. what i mean is mostly stemming from dreads and triage you were given amazing power but became very vulnerable losing this would defiantly be a lose. I do recognize this as a feeling i have from b4 even some of the strongest groups in eve could support large super fleets or even large fleets of standard capitals. carriers still can be mobile FAX do have a decent range and we have already experimented with carriers being suported by sub cap logistics(it worked rather well but had little benefit do to the carriers short comings) then the ABs and MWDs worked very well and made us think it could work if only carriers were ironed out. Now they have changed ABs and MWDs to a point that they are not worth it for mobility and it would appear their intent is purely sig tanking. EDIT that was mostly a long winded way of saying it would change the game play but i don't think it would be in a positive way at best it would be a lateral move one thing that could help is if CCP increased minimum warp range and raised the cap on lock ranges this could add a use for long range guns and change capital fights in some areas (probably only for a short time untill we the players found the best way to break or utilize the mechanic) Citadel worm hole tax
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3191	Posted - 2016.04.21 10:20:47 - [477] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: EDIT that was mostly a long winded way of saying it would change the game play but i don't think it would be in a positive way at best it would be a lateral move Cheers, was an interesting thought brought on by the comments about stationary meta. I think increasing the warp range has to occur with carriers the way they are. And isn't the lock range cap going away, or are they just giving carriers & citadels a special exception to that.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2257	Posted - 2016.04.21 10:33:10 - [478] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: EDIT that was mostly a long winded way of saying it would change the game play but i don't think it would be in a positive way at best it would be a lateral move Cheers, was an interesting thought brought on by the comments about stationary meta. I think increasing the warp range has to occur with carriers the way they are. And isn't the lock range cap going away, or are they just giving carriers & citadels a special exception to that. well atm on sisi carriers and cits are the only ones :/ with carriers the way they are warp range changing would be irrelevant as their effective range is not beyond 150km you're already pushing a carriers limits at 80km some fits may be able to get 100km Citadel worm hole tax
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3192	Posted - 2016.04.21 10:45:12 - [479] - Quote Hmmm, What if fighters could short warp on the battlefield only? Avoids them being too fast when chasing something, they warp to 100 from their target then fly the rest of the way or something like that. While we are on mobility ideas. The fighter speed seems ok once they are inside that range belt for chasing things, but getting across the battlefield seems the issue? Then they can also warp back to the carrier at the same range for recall, so not instant recall, but not wait 10 minutes either. Interdiction immune to get through bubbles could be a possible. Makes interceptors and the like really matter for locking down fighters to kill them to prevent warp. Might be restating an idea mentioned in the thread but didn't think I'd seen it yet.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2257	Posted - 2016.04.21 11:03:50 - [480] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Hmmm, What if fighters could short warp on the battlefield only? Avoids them being too fast when chasing something, they warp to 100 from their target then fly the rest of the way or something like that. While we are on mobility ideas. The fighter speed seems ok once they are inside that range belt for chasing things, but getting across the battlefield seems the issue? Then they can also warp back to the carrier at the same range for recall, so not instant recall, but not wait 10 minutes either. Interdiction immune to get through bubbles could be a possible. Makes interceptors and the like really matter for locking down fighters to kill them to prevent warp. Might be restating an idea mentioned in the thread but didn't think I'd seen it yet. i brought up the idea of them being able to be warped just like ships so long as the target is on grid (meaning you would need a BM fleet mate or another warp-able object) it would be done the same way as giving commands to fighters is now (using r-click menue or selected items so long as you were controlling a fighter group) fighter speed is also bad even when they reach their target there are a lot of cruisers and most frigs that out run the fighters once their MWD hits cool down Citadel worm hole tax

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3194	Posted - 2016.04.21 11:14:05 - [481] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: fighter speed is also bad even when they reach their target there are a lot of cruisers and most frigs that out run the fighters once their MWD hits cool down Yea, but that's not a bad thing if that's by design that carriers have trouble engaging frigs & fast cruisers. If they needed a warpable BM that'd be even more balanced, I was just thinking warp to target like a super MJD warp really. No friendly needed.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2257	Posted - 2016.04.21 11:23:11 - [482] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: fighter speed is also bad even when they reach their target there are a lot of cruisers and most frigs that out run the fighters once their MWD hits cool down Yea, but that's not a bad thing if that's by design that carriers have trouble engaging frigs & fast cruisers. If they needed a warpable BM that'd be even more balanced, I was just thinking warp to target like a super MJD warp really. No friendly needed. problem if that is by design is that HAW are better against everything bigger than cruisers and are just about as good against cruisers Citadel worm hole tax
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3194	Posted - 2016.04.21 11:28:50 - [483] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: problem if that is by design is that HAW are better against everything bigger than cruisers and are just about as good against cruisers If the carriers can project from a far safer range, that's not so much an issue though. It's really only an issue when carriers have such a short effective range because of the fighter travel time.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2258	Posted - 2016.04.21 11:36:51 - [484] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: problem if that is by design is that HAW are better against everything bigger than cruisers and are just about as good against cruisers If the carriers can project from a far safer range, that's not so much an issue though. It's really only an issue when carriers have such a short effective range because of the fighter travel time. aye for the most part i have given suggestions to help in one area or another never intended for all of them to be used lol so yes if they could warp it would be fine. it was more of an as is it's an issue Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2258	Posted - 2016.04.21 11:51:56 - [485] - Quote it would also be nice if when you warped (and your fighters are on return and orbit) they warped along side your carrier this would add greatly to the feel of being a carrier pilot and i can't see how it has a negative impact Citadel worm hole tax
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3194	Posted - 2016.04.21 11:55:25 - [486] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: it would also be nice if when you warped (and your fighters are on return and orbit) they warped along side your carrier this would add greatly to the feel of being a carrier pilot and i can't see how it has a negative impact Server calculations, bumps. Otherwise as a cosmetic would be nice, but I can see negatives on that.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2258	Posted - 2016.04.21 12:02:39 - [487] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: , bumps on this... fighters should not bump this causes so many issues when trying to dock your fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Crazy KSK Tsunami Cartel 109	Posted - 2016.04.21 23:21:07 - [488] - Quote the thanatos has a significantly weaker tank compared to all other carriers and does not get compensated adequately for it does have a larger fighter bay but I don't think that is enough increase its base armor hp and consider changing its fighter hp bonus to damage also consider increasing the nidhoggurs fighter speed bonus to 5% to set it further appart since it also has more then a million ehp less tank then the chimera does support fighters are only a t1&t2 mod with very large range and not worth using(except for siren) over a fighter that does damage the carrier bonuses towards them also seem just useless and should be changed to strength bonuses PS: where is the FAX thread? Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2262	Posted - 2016.04.21 23:35:56 - [489] - Quote Crazy KSK wrote: the thanatos has a significantly weaker tank compared to all other carriers and does not get compensated adequately for it does have a larger fighter bay but I don't think that is enough increase its base armor hp and consider changing its fighter hp bonus to damage also consider increasing the nidhoggurs fighter speed bonus to 5% to set it further appart since it also has more then a million ehp less tank then the chimera does support fighters are only a t1&t2 mod with very large range and not worth using(except for siren) over a fighter that does damage the carrier bonuses towards them also seem just useless and should be changed to strength bonuses PS: where is the FAX thread? why would you ever use the siren? you should have tackle in your fleet the than has plenty of tank (a little over 2M shield tank) and the fighter bay is a huge difference with the chimera you will see it run out of fighters long b4 it dies. the nids speed bonus is also plenty and is probably the strongest bonus any of the carriers gets. but none of this matters if carriers never get used Citadel worm hole tax
Gary Webb The Walking Deads Limited Expectations 9	Posted - 2016.04.22 00:34:54 - [490] - Quote I take it CCP still hasnt commented on the price of fighters as we still cant rep them?? i looked through this thread but couldnt find any response from Larrakin. Have I missed it or has it not happened?

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 108	Posted - 2016.04.22 00:48:08 - [491] - Quote Gary Webb wrote: I take it CCP still hasnt commented on the price of fighters as we still cant rep them?? i looked through this thread but couldnt find any response from Larrakin. Have I missed it or has it not happened? They'll cost 1/6 what they do now for light fighters and 1/4 for heavies. When the patch hits all existing fighters and production jobs will turn into 6 or 4. Just don't try to buy fighters on patch day because it will probably cancel all sell orders and jack up the price for a while before people relist them.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2263	Posted - 2016.04.22 01:09:02 - [492] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Gary Webb wrote: I take it CCP still hasnt commented on the price of fighters as we still cant rep them?? i looked through this thread but couldnt find any response from Larrakin. Have I missed it or has it not happened? They'll cost 1/6 what they do now for light fighters and 1/4 for heavies. When the patch hits all existing fighters and production jobs will turn into 6 or 4. Just don't try to buy fighters on patch day because it will probably cancel all sell orders and jack up the price for a while before people relist them. and they are still way to expensive considering dreads and FAX will cost just as much as a carrier hull Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 919	Posted - 2016.04.22 07:53:38 - [493] - Quote Oxide Ammar wrote: I don't know if this got brought up early but it looks like they are reducing base material needed for all caps, So if carriers look like sub-bar state right now against sub-caps they might introduce Tech II carriers to overcome its downsides ? I don't know... Funny, if this is true, a carrier will cost MORE to build than it now does. Adding roughly 600 mil to the build cost of a carrier. Dreads needed to come down in price with the EHP nerfs and the disposable nature of HAW fit Dreads. Carriers with their lack of any useful role, very limited DPS application and reliance on FAX's, need to cost a little less than what they do now, not 50% more. Faxes, CCP is digging deep here for ways to remove isk from the game - They will not be worth the same as a Dread, and should possibly be half the price of a carrier - They are by design, DISPOSABLE, they will be the primary target in any engagement (as any logi is) and if they cost as much as a dread to build, then twice as much to fit out - Only the largest richest groups will ever use them, ensuring their continued domination in capital warfare. (why is it CCP has seen over the last so many years how bad large ever growing groups are to the game, yet design things so it requires large groups to use them efficiently) I won't pay 1.5 bil for a fax but will certainly be getting all my carriers transformed on patch day - That is just too much profit to not take advantage of it. 1.5 to build should see sale price of around 1.7, 1.8 (with cheap T1 rigs) - Yeah I'll take that and just keep my now more affordable Dreads. Carriers won't have a role after Fanfest - No point designing a T2 version of an all but useless class of ship, unless it has abilities around 200% better than the T1 version (or the abilities of a Super).. Fax's, will only ever be fielded with Super and Titans, Dreads don't need them and carriers will see little use. Balance Fax's so you can fit them out to survive more than 5 minutes and be useful in a fleet - A Fax should be able to use 5 Remote reps AND have a useful local tank while still being able to maintain cap. Best fit I've been able to come up with so far for a Ninazu; 3 Energized Adaptive Nano's, 1 Explosive, 1 DCU, 1 Concord Armor Repairer - 79, 73, 73, 75 resists 1 T2 Capital Cap battery, 2 T2 Cap boosters, T2 AB, sebo (last 2 because there really isn't anything else to put there.) 3 Capital Enduring Remote Reps, T2 Triage, 2 empty highslots 2 T1 Capital Trimark's, T2 Capital ACR 3 remote reps running in triage - Cap is dry in 1 minute 49 seconds - Without cap boosters. The new triage rep bonus is to cycle time, so really chews cap up. With cap boosters I was at 50% cap (and still dropping) at half triage cycle, so around 5 mins cap with 2 capital cap boosters and 3 remote reps cycling. Not sure how that is intended to turn out (from a development side) but having limited use, limited life span Capital Logistics - Can't be good for the game. Fax's won't be able to tank more than 2 maybe 3 dreads, without compromising their Logistics ability to the point they may as well not be on the field. Whoever thought up the 70% reduction to cycle time for remote armor reps - 1; has never flown logi so doesn't know any better, 2; has followed CCP's plan to make capital ships disposable. I'd like to think it is 1 but know I'm wrong - This is a deliberate nerf to capital logistics. Of course they have to realize, the outcome will be, they don't get used, which simply means every capital fight will be one blob of dreads vs another. It really is a shame devs put up these feedback threads, then totally ignore them by not keeping them up to date. 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.
Aeon Veritas Easily.Offended The Bastion 26	Posted - 2016.04.22 10:47:45 - [494] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: why would you ever use the siren? you should have tackle in your fleet This is so much right. It would be more usefully if the Siren would be a sensor dampener.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 109	Posted - 2016.04.22 11:49:55 - [495] - Quote Aeon Veritas wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: why would you ever use the siren? you should have tackle in your fleet This is so much right. It would be more usefully if the Siren would be a sensor dampener. But again, who would give up 1/3 of their DPS for damps? I could see it happening for a point in a few situations, but really the only support fighters that are likely to be worth the space are the neut ones, and just barely.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2264	Posted - 2016.04.22 11:51:50 - [496] - Quote i would settle for 4% to the links and just turn them into command vessels Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 920	Posted - 2016.04.22 13:12:11 - [497] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Gary Webb wrote: I take it CCP still hasnt commented on the price of fighters as we still cant rep them?? i looked through this thread but couldnt find any response from Larrakin. Have I missed it or has it not happened? They'll cost 1/6 what they do now for light fighters and 1/4 for heavies. When the patch hits all existing fighters and production jobs will turn into 6 or 4. Just don't try to buy fighters on patch day because it will probably cancel all sell orders and jack up the price for a while before people relist them. So each of my 20 mil isk fighters is going to be transformed into 6 worthless T1 light fighters? One current Firbolg equals six light T1 Firbolg fighters. (I presume; can't see Devs turning them into something useful) That works out at around 3.5 mil per T1 light fighter - So around 7 to 10 mil per T2 light fighter or between 56 to 90 mil isk per squad for disposable, un-repairable light fighters. These may or may not be useful, depending on whether Fax's get sorted out or not and if players are willing to pay 50% more for a very limited use carrier. Including the already known drawbacks with carriers + light fighters - Long reload (refueling time), limited damage application, easily destroyed and now cost of light fighters. Risk (isk outlay) vs Reward (ability and usefulness) - Carriers fall a long way short on any potential reward. T1 light fighters should cost no more than T2 sentry drones with T2 being double that, so under 3 mil for T2 Light Fighters or 27 mil per squad - Times that by 3 it is still a considerable isk outlay for something that is likely to be single use. 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 920	Posted - 2016.04.22 13:14:41 - [498] - Quote Aeon Veritas wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: why would you ever use the siren? you should have tackle in your fleet This is so much right. It would be more usefully if the Siren would be a sensor dampener. A Celestis would do a much better job, survive longer and not require a carrier losing 1/3rd of its dps. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 109	Posted - 2016.04.22 13:17:06 - [499] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Gary Webb wrote: I take it CCP still hasnt commented on the price of fighters as we still cant rep them?? i looked through this thread but couldnt find any response from Larrakin. Have I missed it or has it not happened? They'll cost 1/6 what they do now for light fighters and 1/4 for heavies. When the patch hits all existing fighters and production jobs will turn into 6 or 4. Just don't try to buy fighters on patch day because it will probably cancel all sell orders and jack up the price for a while before people relist them. So each of my 20 mil isk fighters is going to be transformed into 6 worthless T1 light fighters? One current Firbolg equals six light T1 Firbolg fighters. (I presume; can't see Devs turning them into something useful) That works out at around 3.5 mil per T1 light fighter - So around 7 to 10 mil per T2 light fighter or between 56 to 90 mil isk per squad for disposable, un-repairable light fighters. These may or may not be useful, depending on whether Fax's get sorted out or not and if players are willing to pay 50% more for a very limited use carrier. Including the already known drawbacks with carriers + light fighters - Long reload (refueling time), limited damage application, easily destroyed and now cost of light fighters. Risk (isk outlay) vs Reward (ability and usefulness) - Carriers fall a long way short on any potential reward. T1 light fighters should cost no more than T2 sentry drones with T2 being double that, so under 3 mil for T2 Light Fighters or 27 mil per squad - Times that by 3 it is still a considerable isk outlay for something that is likely to be single use. Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit. I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2264	Posted - 2016.04.22 13:25:26 - [500] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Gary Webb wrote: I take it CCP still hasnt commented on the price of fighters as we still cant rep them?? i looked through this thread but couldnt find any response from Larrakin. Have I missed it or has it not happened? They'll cost 1/6 what they do now for light fighters and 1/4 for heavies. When the patch hits all existing fighters and production jobs will turn into 6 or 4. Just don't try to buy fighters on patch day because it will probably cancel all sell orders and jack up the price for a while before people relist them. So each of my 20 mil isk fighters is going to be transformed into 6 worthless T1 light fighters? One current Firbolg equals six light T1 Firbolg fighters. (I presume; can't see Devs turning them into something useful) That works out at around 3.5 mil per T1 light fighter - So around 7 to 10 mil per T2 light fighter or between 56 to 90 mil isk per squad for disposable, un-repairable light fighters. These may or may not be useful, depending on whether Fax's get sorted out or not and if players are willing to pay 50% more for a very limited use carrier. Including the already known drawbacks with carriers + light fighters - Long reload (refueling time), limited damage application, easily destroyed and now cost of light fighters. Risk (isk outlay) vs Reward (ability and usefulness) - Carriers fall a long way short on any potential reward. T1 light fighters should cost no more than T2 sentry drones with T2 being double that, so under 3 mil for T2 Light Fighters or 27 mil per squad - Times that by 3 it is still a considerable isk outlay for something that is likely to be single use. Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit. I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others. Dragonfly I Dragonfly II remember you need to add the cost of the t1 to the t2 cost to get the full t2 cost these are also ME0 Citadel worm hole tax

Aeon Veritas Easily.Offended The Bastion 26	Posted - 2016.04.22 13:51:23 - [501] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Aeon Veritas wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: why would you ever use the siren? you should have tackle in your fleet This is so much right. It would be more usefully if the Siren would be a sensor dampener. A Celestis would do a much better job, survive longer and not require a carrier losing 1/3rd of its dps. If you want to go that way... There are many ships who are more suitable for tackle purposes... Sgt Ocker wrote: ... , un-repairable light fighters. ... Hornestly, I don't know what you want to repair. They have 100 hull-HP, no armor and the biggest chunk of their HP on the shield. But as far as i could observe they basicly just die if they are out of shield. The shield is restored after having them scoped and redeployed. For me they were even repacked when i removed them from the launch tube.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2264	Posted - 2016.04.22 13:58:49 - [502] - Quote Aeon Veritas wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Aeon Veritas wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: why would you ever use the siren? you should have tackle in your fleet This is so much right. It would be more usefully if the Siren would be a sensor dampener. A Celestis would do a much better job, survive longer and not require a carrier losing 1/3rd of its dps. If you want to go that way... There are many ships who are more suitable for tackle purposes... thats the point the support fighters have no use the only decent ones are the neuts but even they are not worth 1/3 your dps Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 920	Posted - 2016.04.22 14:00:29 - [503] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Gary Webb wrote: I take it CCP still hasnt commented on the price of fighters as we still cant rep them?? i looked through this thread but couldnt find any response from Larrakin. Have I missed it or has it not happened? They'll cost 1/6 what they do now for light fighters and 1/4 for heavies. When the patch hits all existing fighters and production jobs will turn into 6 or 4. Just don't try to buy fighters on patch day because it will probably cancel all sell orders and jack up the price for a while before people relist them. So each of my 20 mil isk fighters is going to be transformed into 6 worthless T1 light fighters? One current Firbolg equals six light T1 Firbolg fighters. (I presume; can't see Devs turning them into something useful) That works out at around 3.5 mil per T1 light fighter - So around 7 to 10 mil per T2 light fighter or between 56 to 90 mil isk per squad for disposable, un-repairable light fighters. These may or may not be useful, depending on whether Fax's get sorted out or not and if players are willing to pay 50% more for a very limited use carrier. Including the already known drawbacks with carriers + light fighters - Long reload (refueling time), limited damage application, easily destroyed and now cost of light fighters. Risk (isk outlay) vs Reward (ability and usefulness) - Carriers fall a long way short on any potential reward. T1 light fighters should cost no more than T2 sentry drones with T2 being double that, so under 3 mil for T2 Light Fighters or 27 mil per squad - Times that by 3 it is still a considerable isk outlay for something that is likely to be single use. Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit. I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others. This quote Quote: Using 8 Million isk as a quick estimator we find Carriers BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil Dread BASE 1.4-1.5 Bil F Aux BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil From This Reddit post would indicate Carriers will be around 1.3 to 1.4 bil build cost. That is just a bit more than 8% of the current build cost of a Thany at around 900 mil - It is actually adding 400 to 500 mil to the build cost or around 50%. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 109	Posted - 2016.04.22 14:24:51 - [504] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit. I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others. This quote Quote: Using 8 Million isk as a quick estimator we find Carriers BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil Dread BASE 1.4-1.5 Bil F Aux BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil From This Reddit post would indicate Carriers will be around 1.3 to 1.4 bil build cost. That is just a bit more than 8% of the current build cost of a Thany at around 900 mil - It is actually adding 400 to 500 mil to the build cost or around 50%. Ok, let's just say I did an Evepraisal of the materials required now vs the materials required on SiSi as of 3 days ago. For ME 0 it gave the current cost as 1.42 bil and the new cost as 1.52 bil. Now that's with Jita mineral prices and ME 0, so it's a bit on the high side but the ratio is the same. Also where are you getting the materials to build a Thanny for 900 mil? I've never seen a build price estimate below 1.28 or one on firesale cheaper than 1.05 bil.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2264	Posted - 2016.04.22 14:30:37 - [505] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Also where are you getting the materials to build a Thanny for 900 mil? I've never seen a build price estimate below 1.28 or one on firesale cheaper than 1.05 bil. using buy orders i have managed to build them for around 850 but your other point stands the price is not going up anyplace close to what he is stating that said it is unnecessary to raise the carriers cost at all if they are losing usability not to mention their "drones" are also geetting more expensive Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2265	Posted - 2016.04.22 21:36:40 - [506] - Quote so today fozzie said that the superiority fighters should be about as strong as a group of warriors when used against anything not a drone yet currently they have on adv less than half the DPS of warriors. or is the damage reduction not 90% anymore Citadel worm hole tax
Zenafar 4	Posted - 2016.04.22 22:11:36 - [507] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: also an idea that may greatly help fighters. give them a sig amount per fighter so say the locust II would be 3 per fighter or a dragonfly II would be 4.44 per fighter this would mean as fighters died they would be harder to kill That's good. It won't solve carrier problems but this is really good idea
Lugh Crow-Slave 2266	Posted - 2016.04.22 22:49:32 - [508] - Quote just got back from testing superiority fighters they actualy do a good deal of DPS on cruiser and below and may be something that gives carriers a role that dreads don't. they nuke frigs and wreck desi (t3d be warned) they also do more dps to cruisers than attack fighters do w/o the HM salvo Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 920	Posted - 2016.04.23 01:03:43 - [509] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit. I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others. This quote Quote: Using 8 Million isk as a quick estimator we find Carriers BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil Dread BASE 1.4-1.5 Bil F Aux BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil From This Reddit post would indicate Carriers will be around 1.3 to 1.4 bil build cost. That is just a bit more than 8% of the current build cost of a Thany at around 900 mil - It is actually adding 400 to 500 mil to the build cost or around 50%. Ok, let's just say I did an Evepraisal of the materials required now vs the materials required on SiSi as of 3 days ago. For ME 0 it gave the current cost as 1.42 bil and the new cost as 1.52 bil. Now that's with Jita mineral prices and ME 0, so it's a bit on the high side but the ratio is the same. Also where are you getting the materials to build a Thanny for 900 mil? I've never seen a build price estimate below 1.28 or one on firesale cheaper than 1.05 bil. Sorry your right, I was comparing an ME 9 BPO on TQ with an ME 0 on SISI. It is somewhat odd how they are doing this - At ME 0 on both servers a Thanatos will have 50% less armor but requires 6 more armor plates. Overall there will be 4 extra parts required to build a Thanatos but of course the nice juggling act Devs did with components (makes no sense as far as attributes the ship has) means it is going to cost substantially more to build. With an end result of, less EHP, less effective DPS and application, disposable DPS, far less chance of surviving even a moderate sized fight involving capitals AND worst of all, its 100% reliance on Triage Fax's to even be deployed. Build costs being equal - Forget carriers just bring dreads Can we get even a cursory "yeah we can't answer your questions" from a dev on this team? Surely 2 mins wouldn't be too hard to swing for a "This is how it is" response..... 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 2267	Posted - 2016.04.23 01:12:48 - [510] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Agreed. I know they wanted us to use them more like ammo, but not even titans pay nearly that much for ammo unless they use doomsdays quite a bit. I think you're a little off on the price increase for hulls though. I haven't done the math for all races, but a Thanatos would only cost about 8% more, so probably more like 20% for the others. This quote Quote: Using 8 Million isk as a quick estimator we find Carriers BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil Dread BASE 1.4-1.5 Bil F Aux BASE 1.3-1.4 Bil From This Reddit post would indicate Carriers will be around 1.3 to 1.4 bil build cost. That is just a bit more than 8% of the current build cost of a Thany at around 900 mil - It is actually adding 400 to 500 mil to the build cost or around 50%. Ok, let's just say I did an Evepraisal of the materials required now vs the materials required on SiSi as of 3 days ago. For ME 0 it gave the current cost as 1.42 bil and the new cost as 1.52 bil. Now that's with Jita mineral prices and ME 0, so it's a bit on the high side but the ratio is the same. Also where are you getting the materials to build a Thanny for 900 mil? I've never seen a build price estimate below 1.28 or one on firesale cheaper than 1.05 bil. Sorry your right, I was comparing an ME 9 BPO on TQ with an ME 0 on SISI. It is somewhat odd how they are doing this - At ME 0 on both servers a Thanatos will have 50% less armor but requires 6 more armor plates. Overall there will be 4 extra parts required to build a Thanatos but of course the nice juggling act Devs did with components (makes no sense as far as attributes the ship has) means it is going to cost substantially more to build. With an end result of, less EHP, less effective DPS and application, disposable DPS, far less chance of surviving even a moderate sized fight involving capitals AND worst of all, its 100% reliance on Triage Fax's to even be deployed. Build costs being equal - Forget carriers just bring dreads Can we get even a cursory "yeah we can't answer your questions" from a dev on this team? Surely 2 mins wouldn't be too hard to swing for a "This is how it is" response..... it does bug me with how much fighters will cost that carriers and dreads are going to cost the same :/ however i think capitals are actually getting cheaper right now the 2% bonus on CSAA do little to nothing for most capitals but in the fall the industry building will probably have more than 2% so it may be carriers are staying about the same price or cheaper it's just they are balancing them for the new structures coming out in the fall. also they do not "need" Fax a decent guardian wing can hold them up and these things are not meant to be in capital fights so i don't think them not being able to survive in one is a bad thing. the problem is they are not good enough in a sub cap fight to be worth the cost of replacing fighters Citadel worm hole tax

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 920	Posted - 2016.04.23 04:42:04 - [511] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: it does bug me with how much fighters will cost that carriers and dreads are going to cost the same :/ however i think capitals are actually getting cheaper right now the 2% bonus on CSAA do little to nothing for most capitals but in the fall the industry building will probably have more than 2% so it may be carriers are staying about the same price or cheaper it's just they are balancing them for the new structures coming out in the fall. also they do not "need" Fax a decent guardian wing can hold them up and these things are not meant to be in capital fights so i don't think them not being able to survive in one is a bad thing. the problem is they are not good enough in a sub cap fight to be worth the cost of replacing fighters A capital ship - Any Capital ship, that can't be useful and competitive in a capital ship fight isn't worth fielding. They have actually balanced Carriers out of the new structure meta - So it matters little that nulsec Citadels get a manufacturing bonus. All they will be building is Dreads if Citadel shoots are the goal. As for Fax's - Ok, Guardians will do a better job but isn't that in itself just really poor design? Add to that, Guardians means Armor is all that will ever be used - 2 complete lines of Capitals left out in the cold, right where they have been for years now. A 2 billion isk + carrier, with disposable fighters (@ around 250 mil per flight - 3 squads) that may or may not be able to kill a 500 mil isk battleship - Really isn't worth fielding. R-isk vs Reward - Carriers suck - By Design -- - -- - -- - -- Devs can't respond in this thread - They know carriers are bad and don't want to admit their plan all along was to make them next to useless. How about we just drop the pretense and simply remove carriers - It will save A LOT of negative feedback over time. Although, Devs are great at ignoring customers and just doing their own thing - So negative feedback probably won't be an issue, they just continue to ignore paying customers. How few subs is enough to keep the servers up? 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.
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 16	Posted - 2016.04.23 06:29:44 - [512] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: It really is a shame devs put up these feedback threads, then totally ignore them by not keeping them up to date. Or even bothering to respond to simple questions. This bothers me most of all, OP is still out of date, non of our problems questions and concerns have ever been adressed and the last dev post in this thread is over 2 weeks ago.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2268	Posted - 2016.04.23 10:58:25 - [513] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: it does bug me with how much fighters will cost that carriers and dreads are going to cost the same :/ however i think capitals are actually getting cheaper right now the 2% bonus on CSAA do little to nothing for most capitals but in the fall the industry building will probably have more than 2% so it may be carriers are staying about the same price or cheaper it's just they are balancing them for the new structures coming out in the fall. also they do not "need" Fax a decent guardian wing can hold them up and these things are not meant to be in capital fights so i don't think them not being able to survive in one is a bad thing. the problem is they are not good enough in a sub cap fight to be worth the cost of replacing fighters A capital ship - Any Capital ship, that can't be useful and competitive in a capital ship fight isn't worth fielding. They have actually balanced Carriers out of the new structure meta - So it matters little that nulsec Citadels get a manufacturing bonus. All they will be building is Dreads if Citadel shoots are the goal. As for Fax's - Ok, Guardians will do a better job but isn't that in itself just really poor design? Add to that, Guardians means Armor is all that will ever be used - 2 complete lines of Capitals left out in the cold, right where they have been for years now. A 2 billion isk + carrier, with disposable fighters (@ around 250 mil per flight - 3 squads) that may or may not be able to kill a 500 mil isk battleship - Really isn't worth fielding. R-isk vs Reward - Carriers suck - By Design -- - -- - -- - -- Devs can't respond in this thread - They know carriers are bad and don't want to admit their plan all along was to make them next to useless. How about we just drop the pretense and simply remove carriers - It will save A LOT of negative feedback over time. Although, Devs are great at ignoring customers and just doing their own thing - So negative feedback probably won't be an issue, they just continue to ignore paying customers. How few subs is enough to keep the servers up? nothing says capitals need to be good against capitals basilicas work when you need shields rather than guardians nothing says they need to be good against citadels however a single carrier can eat a citadels fighters (depending on fit they can be over 1/2 it's dps) ccps idea isn't bad they are just executing it poorly Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 922	Posted - 2016.04.23 15:12:56 - [514] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: it does bug me with how much fighters will cost that carriers and dreads are going to cost the same :/ however i think capitals are actually getting cheaper right now the 2% bonus on CSAA do little to nothing for most capitals but in the fall the industry building will probably have more than 2% so it may be carriers are staying about the same price or cheaper it's just they are balancing them for the new structures coming out in the fall. also they do not "need" Fax a decent guardian wing can hold them up and these things are not meant to be in capital fights so i don't think them not being able to survive in one is a bad thing. the problem is they are not good enough in a sub cap fight to be worth the cost of replacing fighters A capital ship - Any Capital ship, that can't be useful and competitive in a capital ship fight isn't worth fielding. They have actually balanced Carriers out of the new structure meta - So it matters little that nulsec Citadels get a manufacturing bonus. All they will be building is Dreads if Citadel shoots are the goal. As for Fax's - Ok, Guardians will do a better job but isn't that in itself just really poor design? Add to that, Guardians means Armor is all that will ever be used - 2 complete lines of Capitals left out in the cold, right where they have been for years now. A 2 billion isk + carrier, with disposable fighters (@ around 250 mil per flight - 3 squads) that may or may not be able to kill a 500 mil isk battleship - Really isn't worth fielding. R-isk vs Reward - Carriers suck - By Design -- - -- - -- - -- Devs can't respond in this thread - They know carriers are bad and don't want to admit their plan all along was to make them next to useless. How about we just drop the pretense and simply remove carriers - It will save A LOT of negative feedback over time. Although, Devs are great at ignoring customers and just doing their own thing - So negative feedback probably won't be an issue, they just continue to ignore paying customers. How few subs is enough to keep the servers up? nothing says capitals need to be good against capitals basilisk work when you need shields rather than guardians nothing says they need to be good against citadels however a single carrier can eat a citadels fighters (depending on fit they can be over 1/2 it's dps) ccps idea isn't bad they are just executing it poorly Seriously? Carriers are going from a jack of all trades useful ship to a niche "it might work" ship and you seem to be saying this is ok? I agree the execution of this whole thing is bad. Half finished, untested projects being released onto TQ have always been bad and this one is no better. Problem is, once this goes live it could be years before Devs even look at it again as the next stage of this project will be all consuming - Carriers, Fax's and relevant mechanics need to be as close to right as possible before being released. Right now, carriers are very underwhelming (for those who have spent the time maxing out skills for them) and Fax's are basically not usable, especially with the changes to triage bonuses. Why release a new line of ships that is by design not able to effectively carry out its role. there was nothing wrong with how triage works currently, self repping Archons out of triage were the problem. So why break Triage so badly, if not deliberately when introducing a ship class with that specific role? Devs have gone out of their way to make ALL capital ships so much more vulnerable - The only likely result being, only large groups will ever use them. Fax's if not fixed to be effective could lead Eve right back to the days of game destroying ever growing alliances and coalitions. N+1 is just so good for Eve - Look how well it has gone so far. The larger groups are allowed to grow, the less content there will be - This current war is the greatest show case for how bad large coalitions and alliances are. It has taken countless groups combining (into a giant coalition) and a bunch of overall pretty boring engagements in the effort to break up the CFC and now we have so many blues there is just no content. Personally, I would like the option on patch day to have all my carrier related skills turned into unallocated SP - The time and SP I have wasted training these ships needs to be taken into consideration and players should have the choice of either risking all that time and SP on whether Devs "might" eventually get it right or not. Increased build costs, disposable overpriced light fighters, lack of any worthwhile role; my guess is, it will be a very long time before carriers are in a good place again, if ever. Remote repping Archons were game breaking and needed fixing - Unfortunately Devs got carried away and removed everything a carrier was good for and replaced it with - well nothing really except a lot of crappy micromanagement, a large section of screen space taken up by the new over sized fighter management interfaces, disposable DPS, limited target choice, limited use fighters, etc, etc. And this is being called "good" only by Devs, who haven't bothered responding to anything in the forums regarding how bad this all looks for the future of Carriers AND the new Fax's. 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 2269	Posted - 2016.04.23 16:08:38 - [515] - Quote Your rants seem to be based more on "it don't want change" then any actual issues tough you do bring up the main ones. Fax now don't even have enough cap to run without working against nuets and the new cap boosters are worthless even on the gal/minm fax. There is nothing wrong with giving a jack of all trades ships a specific role but they need to make sure they are not severely out preformed in that role by cheaper and less skill intensive ships. So the idea of a dedicated anti sub cap carrier is not a bad thing but in its current state it can't fulfill that role properly. I have also given up in support fighters being any better than ewar drones Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2269	Posted - 2016.04.23 17:09:14 - [516] - Quote So assuming they keep the damage and reload as is I think giving them on grid warp drives (again need valid targets just like a ship so you can't just have them warp onto an enemy fleet i.e book mark or fleet member) Can even give them a low warp speed of 50-100km/s depending on the fighter and its race. To be honest with this I would even accept the reload to go up from 48s to 60s Sure they would have low dps but they would have the ability to make use of that range they boast. Would also mean if you did put a carrier way back behind your lines it could make it very vulnerable Citadel worm hole tax
Gary Webb The Walking Deads Limited Expectations 9	Posted - 2016.04.23 19:59:24 - [517] - Quote Since there is no Dread thread im just gonna respond here to something i saw a couple pages back. Dreads fit with HAW's are going to die insanely quickly to capital fit dreads. there should be something like a mode switch where both sets of guns can be equipped and the mode can be switched as we can no longer refit in combat. put a timer on it or something so we are not just waiting to die to a blob of subs or a blap dread. What happened to everyhting allegedly having a counter? what do you guys think? as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit. I really love the idea that ccp is trying to present us with more opportunities to use caps in PVP and PVE but PVP i think they have gone in a seriously bad direction and PVE has been all over the place. I'm just lost as to what they thought they were "fixing" with all these changes to carriers in paticular. I mean i understand they are trying to prevent people botting with carriers but that means nerfing and overcomplicating for legitimate players. DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1668	Posted - 2016.04.23 20:12:17 - [518] - Quote Gary Webb wrote: Since there is no Dread thread im just gonna respond here to something i saw a couple pages back. Dreads fit with HAW's are going to die insanely quickly to capital fit dreads. there should be something like a mode switch where both sets of guns can be equipped and the mode can be switched as we can no longer refit in combat. put a timer on it or something so we are not just waiting to die to a blob of subs or a blap dread. What happened to everyhting allegedly having a counter? what do you guys think? as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit. I really love the idea that ccp is trying to present us with more opportunities to use caps in PVP and PVE but PVP i think they have gone in a seriously bad direction and PVE has been all over the place. I'm just lost as to what they thought they were "fixing" with all these changes to carriers in paticular. I mean i understand they are trying to prevent people botting with carriers but that means nerfing and overcomplicating for legitimate players. DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT Anti capital fit dreads should counter anti-subcap fit dreads with ease. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And the counter to anti-capital fit dreads is A: Subcaps, B: Other anti cap Dreads, C: Titans and Supers. You know, basically everything that isn't a carrier. You are really bad at understanding this whole counter thing. And by the way, angrily yelling at the devs for doing what you think is a poor job and not actually including any way you think they should be changed just makes you look like an idiot.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2272	Posted - 2016.04.23 20:19:55 - [519] - Quote Gary Webb wrote: as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit. DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT Carriers don't need drones their superiority fighters eat frigs and desi and the attack fighters are OK against cruisers. The problem with carriers isn't that they are not good it's that they are more expensive more limited and have a higher sp requirement than other ships that do the same thing. It's why I said range (and sensor strength)is all they really need now Citadel worm hole tax
Gary Webb The Walking Deads Limited Expectations 10	Posted - 2016.04.23 21:57:38 - [520] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Gary Webb wrote: as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit. DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT Carriers don't need drones their superiority fighters eat frigs and desi and the attack fighters are OK against cruisers. The problem with carriers isn't that they are not good it's that they are more expensive more limited and have a higher sp requirement than other ships that do the same thing. It's why I said range (and sensor strength)is all they really need now thanks for the constuctive reply. I didnt intednt the caps to be "yelling". just to underscore it as being the most important point of the post. I didnt not mean to imply I thought the problem was that carriers arent good, I was trying to say that the functionality of a ship I put a lot of time training into can no longer fill a role as well as it used to/it could be filled easier by another ship. I will grant you that the superiority fighters ae not something i have spend much time testing and I will admit that it my own problem. I will hop on sisi tonight and spend some serious time with them. and as for the counters, maybe im just a poor and have a hard time accepting that if i fit my ship to go after sub caps i will be helpless to anything larger and watch my 2.5 billion go boom. but thats just me. just cuz we can afford it doesnt meen we have to like it

Gary Webb The Walking Deads Limited Expectations 10	Posted - 2016.04.23 22:02:48 - [521] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Gary Webb wrote: Since there is no Dread thread im just gonna respond here to something i saw a couple pages back. Dreads fit with HAW's are going to die insanely quickly to capital fit dreads. there should be something like a mode switch where both sets of guns can be equipped and the mode can be switched as we can no longer refit in combat. put a timer on it or something so we are not just waiting to die to a blob of subs or a blap dread. What happened to everyhting allegedly having a counter? what do you guys think? as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit. I really love the idea that ccp is trying to present us with more opportunities to use caps in PVP and PVE but PVP i think they have gone in a seriously bad direction and PVE has been all over the place. I'm just lost as to what they thought they were "fixing" with all these changes to carriers in paticular. I mean i understand they are trying to prevent people botting with carriers but that means nerfing and overcomplicating for legitimate players. DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT Anti capital fit dreads should counter anti-subcap fit dreads with ease. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And the counter to anti-capital fit dreads is A: Subcaps, B: Other anti cap Dreads, C: Titans and Supers. You know, basically everything that isn't a carrier. You are really bad at understanding this whole counter thing. And by the way, angrily yelling at the devs for doing what you think is a poor job and not actually including any way you think they should be changed just makes you look like an idiot. and failing to realize that there is an entire thread of proposed changes that havent been responded to and taking the time to talk tough and wave your internet pee pee just makes you look like an a hole. Its perfectly reasonable to desire some sort of response to 25 pages of discussion, at least to acknowledge that it has been read
Lugh Crow-Slave 2273	Posted - 2016.04.23 22:03:28 - [522] - Quote As for the counter thing it's the same for all the other guns that shoot below their class. If you come up against a cruiser and toy have a rlml the fight is not going to go in your favor same thing of you come up against a battleship abs you have RHML. Then as for them not being as good as they were that is to be expected they were very very overpowered in large numbers. Also dreads are no longer going to be 2.5 they ate being brought down to about carrier price Citadel worm hole tax
Kirito Kid Void Corsairs Inc. Void.. 16	Posted - 2016.04.23 23:09:20 - [523] - Quote I feel like they hopefully have something up their sleeve, maybe something big they aren't telling us about, I would say give it time, and pray that it gets fixed.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2275	Posted - 2016.04.23 23:13:20 - [524] - Quote Kirito Kid wrote: I feel like they hopefully have something up their sleeve, maybe something big they aren't telling us about, I would say give it time, and pray that it gets fixed. I'm more hopeful that by Monday they will have read over our suggestions and get something done b4 Wednesday we probably won't get any of the god ones like the on grid warping or drastic changes to the Ewar fighters do to the time they would take to implement.but ccp better not be hiding something they should have learned by now not to surprise us just b4 a launch Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 923	Posted - 2016.04.23 23:16:28 - [525] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Your rants seem to be based more on "it don't want change" then any actual issues tough you do bring up the main ones. Fax now don't even have enough cap to run without working against nuets and the new cap boosters are worthless even on the gal/minm fax. There is nothing wrong with giving a jack of all trades ships a specific role but they need to make sure they are not severely out preformed in that role by cheaper and less skill intensive ships. So the idea of a dedicated anti sub cap carrier is not a bad thing but in its current state it can't fulfill that role properly. I have also given up in support fighters being any better than ewar drones I've been bringing up those issues for weeks. Yeah they have become rants; I want this change, I've spent over 100 hours on SISI with my characters trying to make these changes work for me and maybe others who play the same way as me. I've spent HOURS responding in threads - Saying what you just said above (even including fits I used etc), leaving myself wondering if anyone actually reads the stuff others write or simply skim it and respond as if they did. The most frustrating and annoying thing; The lack of ANY sort of input from Devs is just so fukin annoying. This whole "reveal at Fanfest", is just crap - Like this, that simply shows a screenshot of an Erebus that is supposed to represent some new faction titan. NB; Faction carriers might go some way to explaining why current ones are so bad - They need development room for the more expensive factions ones. As for "giving up on support fighters" - That is EXACTLY what CCP wants, if you don't care why should they bother putting in the effort to make them useful. Your helping CCP do lazy ineffective work and get away with it. 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 924	Posted - 2016.04.23 23:27:05 - [526] - Quote Gary Webb wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Gary Webb wrote: as for carriers, i am still extremely disappointed. not a word from CCP Larakin. all the isk I have invested in my fighters is going down the drain. I took a chance and trained for the t2 light fighters but it doesnt look like im ever going to get to/want to use them. the lack of regular drones on cariers gives them a stupidly small engagement profile and even then they do dog **** for damage against anything large enough for it to track and hit. DEVS PLEASE ADDRESS OUR FEEDBACK- EVEN A LITTLE BIT Carriers don't need drones their superiority fighters eat frigs and desi and the attack fighters are OK against cruisers. The problem with carriers isn't that they are not good it's that they are more expensive more limited and have a higher sp requirement than other ships that do the same thing. It's why I said range (and sensor strength)is all they really need now thanks for the constuctive reply. I didnt intednt the caps to be "yelling". just to underscore it as being the most important point of the post. I didnt not mean to imply I thought the problem was that carriers arent good, I was trying to say that the functionality of a ship I put a lot of time training into can no longer fill a role as well as it used to/it could be filled easier by another ship. I will grant you that the superiority fighters ae not something i have spend much time testing and I will admit that it my own problem. I will hop on sisi tonight and spend some serious time with them. and as for the counters, maybe im just a poor and have a hard time accepting that if i fit my ship to go after sub caps i will be helpless to anything larger and watch my 2.5 billion go boom. but thats just me. just cuz we can afford it doesnt meen we have to like it As long as you keep your "superiority fighters" nice and close to your carrier (for quick easy recall) they may be somewhat effective. Personally I would not put a carrier on a grid that has real capitals (dreads, supers, titans) there, your just gonna die pointlessly. Unless of course your in the biggest of the 2 blobs, then you'll die as fodder, just for the killmails, not because your an actual threat during the fight. 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 2275	Posted - 2016.04.23 23:33:07 - [527] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Your rants seem to be based more on "it don't want change" then any actual issues tough you do bring up the main ones. Fax now don't even have enough cap to run without working against nuets and the new cap boosters are worthless even on the gal/minm fax. There is nothing wrong with giving a jack of all trades ships a specific role but they need to make sure they are not severely out preformed in that role by cheaper and less skill intensive ships. So the idea of a dedicated anti sub cap carrier is not a bad thing but in its current state it can't fulfill that role properly. I have also given up in support fighters being any better than ewar drones I've been bringing up those issues for weeks. Yeah they have become rants; I want this change, I've spent over 100 hours on SISI with my characters trying to make these changes work for me and maybe others who play the same way as me. I've spent HOURS responding in threads - Saying what you just said above (even including fits I used etc), leaving myself wondering if anyone actually reads the stuff others write or simply skim it and respond as if they did. The most frustrating and annoying thing; The lack of ANY sort of input from Devs is just so fukin annoying. This whole "reveal at Fanfest", is just crap - Like this, that simply shows a screenshot of an Erebus that is supposed to represent some new faction titan. NB; Faction carriers might go some way to explaining why current ones are so bad - They need development room for the more expensive factions ones. As for "giving up on support fighters" - That is EXACTLY what CCP wants, if you don't care why should they bother putting in the effort to make them useful. Your helping CCP do lazy ineffective work and get away with it. Oh I know exactly what you mean I have been doing similar things on sisi even dragging my alliance mates into it to help test abdominal what makes it worse is ccp is absent from their forums but they are all over reddit Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 926	Posted - 2016.04.24 01:47:44 - [528] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Your rants seem to be based more on "it don't want change" then any actual issues tough you do bring up the main ones. Fax now don't even have enough cap to run without working against nuets and the new cap boosters are worthless even on the gal/minm fax. There is nothing wrong with giving a jack of all trades ships a specific role but they need to make sure they are not severely out preformed in that role by cheaper and less skill intensive ships. So the idea of a dedicated anti sub cap carrier is not a bad thing but in its current state it can't fulfill that role properly. I have also given up in support fighters being any better than ewar drones I've been bringing up those issues for weeks. Yeah they have become rants; I want this change, I've spent over 100 hours on SISI with my characters trying to make these changes work for me and maybe others who play the same way as me. I've spent HOURS responding in threads - Saying what you just said above (even including fits I used etc), leaving myself wondering if anyone actually reads the stuff others write or simply skim it and respond as if they did. The most frustrating and annoying thing; The lack of ANY sort of input from Devs is just so fukin annoying. This whole "reveal at Fanfest", is just crap - Like this, that simply shows a screenshot of an Erebus that is supposed to represent some new faction titan. NB; Faction carriers might go some way to explaining why current ones are so bad - They need development room for the more expensive factions ones. As for "giving up on support fighters" - That is EXACTLY what CCP wants, if you don't care why should they bother putting in the effort to make them useful. Your helping CCP do lazy ineffective work and get away with it. Oh I know exactly what you mean I have been doing similar things on sisi even dragging my alliance mates into it to help test abdominal what makes it worse is ccp is absent from their forums but they are all over reddit I stopped responding on Reddit once I realized such a large % of posters there don't actually play eve anymore but still love to throw their 2 cents worth in. I did however find a fit for the Ninazu that can sustain cap with 3 remote reps running . 1 Capital T2 cap battery (to help reduce effectiveness of incoming neuts and give that bit more cap) 1 T2 and 2 Capital F-RX cap boosters (with navy charges) 5 capacitor power relays 1 T2 capital ancillary current router with 2 trimarks Ehp (is dismal) poor resists + concord booster (which even in triage, with no resists won't help much) gives 552,813 EHP. You can it seems combat refit the Fax's, as you don't get timers for repping (even if your rep target has a timer). I'm fairly sure this is a bug as Devs have stated you would not be able to combat refit. If it is actually the case that Fax's can readily refit as required (having to wait one minute for a timer sees you die fast) - They all of a sudden become pretty useful (even taking into account the hulls will cost 50% than they should), as you can be fit for giving reps (all cap), then refit to defense when you get called primary (not a minute or so later). 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 2280	Posted - 2016.04.24 01:49:32 - [529] - Quote Wait fighters can't be MJDed .... that has to be a bug right Citadel worm hole tax
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1671	Posted - 2016.04.24 02:08:43 - [530] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Wait fighters can't be MJDed .... that has to be a bug right Dunno why not. You can MJD bombs and ships (and drones I think). No real real reason why not on the MJD for fighter squads.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2280	Posted - 2016.04.24 02:11:16 - [531] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Wait fighters can't be MJDed .... that has to be a bug right Dunno why not. You can MJD bombs and ships (and drones I think). No real real reason why not on the MJD for fighter squads. yeah drones work i bug reported i can't see why not and i can already see some one MJDing my target away from my fighters -.- Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 926	Posted - 2016.04.24 02:32:29 - [532] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Anhenka wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Wait fighters can't be MJDed .... that has to be a bug right Dunno why not. You can MJD bombs and ships (and drones I think). No real real reason why not on the MJD for fighter squads. yeah drones work i bug reported i can't see why not and i can already see some one MJDing my target away from my fighters -.- Do your fighters follow the MJD'd target the 100 K or do you need to re-select it as a target. If they just chase down the target, using their mwd, it is not really a problem as most can cover 100K fairly quickly but if you have to re-initiate what was the active target, it is bad. Not necessarily a bug, just poor fighter mechanics. 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.
Anhenka Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1671	Posted - 2016.04.24 02:36:09 - [533] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Anhenka wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Wait fighters can't be MJDed .... that has to be a bug right Dunno why not. You can MJD bombs and ships (and drones I think). No real real reason why not on the MJD for fighter squads. yeah drones work i bug reported i can't see why not and i can already see some one MJDing my target away from my fighters -.- Do your fighters follow the MJD'd target the 100 K or do you need to re-select it as a target. If they just chase down the target, using their mwd, it is not really a problem as most can cover 100K fairly quickly but if you have to re-initiate what was the active target, it is bad. Not necessarily a bug, just poor fighter mechanics. I think he meant MJFG, the command destroyer mod. It's not jumping the fighters, which means if someone jumped the area including your fighters and the target being attacked, they wont be jumped too. If they did get jumped by the MJFG like normal drones, bombs, ships, missiles, they would be able to continue attacking the target. That would be the optimal gameplay mechanic.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 926	Posted - 2016.04.24 02:50:06 - [534] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Anhenka wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Wait fighters can't be MJDed .... that has to be a bug right Dunno why not. You can MJD bombs and ships (and drones I think). No real real reason why not on the MJD for fighter squads. yeah drones work i bug reported i can't see why not and i can already see some one MJDing my target away from my fighters -.- Do your fighters follow the MJD'd target the 100 K or do you need to re-select it as a target. If they just chase down the target, using their mwd, it is not really a problem as most can cover 100K fairly quickly but if you have to re-initiate what was the active target, it is bad. Not necessarily a bug, just poor fighter mechanics. I think he meant MJFG, the command destroyer mod. It's not jumping the fighters, which means if someone jumped the area including your fighters and the target being attacked, they wont be jumped too. If they did get jumped by the MJFG like normal drones, bombs, ships, missiles, they would be able to continue attacking the target. That would be the optimal gameplay mechanic. Yeah I did guess that which is why I asked if the fighters automatically chased down the moved target. Not being able to MJFG squads of fighters I believe is intentional but if they chase down a target that has been jumped 100K away it is not so bad. If you have to start from scratch by re-sending fighters manually, it is just another somewhat broken mechanic for carriers to deal with. Fighters should always pursue any target that is on grid, regardless of whether it moves 100K away or 1000. They have that target locked and engaged so should be able to follow it. No warping for fighters would mean if the target warps 1,000k away, you just recall fighters and find a new target as it would take way too long to reach them. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 109	Posted - 2016.04.24 05:14:08 - [535] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Yeah I did guess that which is why I asked if the fighters automatically chased down the moved target. Not being able to MJFG squads of fighters I believe is intentional but if they chase down a target that has been jumped 100K away it is not so bad. If you have to start from scratch by re-sending fighters manually, it is just another somewhat broken mechanic for carriers to deal with. Fighters should always pursue any target that is on grid, regardless of whether it moves 100K away or 1000. They have that target locked and engaged so should be able to follow it. No warping for fighters would mean if the target warps 1,000k away, you just recall fighters and find a new target as it would take way too long to reach them. They do continue to follow targets that MJD but depending on their distance from the destination they'll probably stop shooting. Even so, if someone moves 100km I'd probably want to switch targets rather than waiting for fighters to burn out there. As for someone warping 1000km away, that will definitely break the fighters' pursuit since they can't orbit or shoot something in warp and they can't warp themselves after it.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3200	Posted - 2016.04.24 06:59:53 - [536] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: As for the counter thing it's the same for all the other guns that shoot below their class. If you come up against a cruiser and toy have a rlml the fight is not going to go in your favor same thing of you come up against a battleship abs you have RHML. Then as for them not being as good as they were that is to be expected they were very very overpowered in large numbers. Also dreads are no longer going to be 2.5 they ate being brought down to about carrier price Well, that's not really true with RLML because HM can't apply correctly to Cruisers even before links & afterburners & boosters come into the equation. But that's a problem with HM being bad, rather than RLML being OP. And the principle of undersized guns not fighting the same class well holds true in every other example I can think of. Fighters won't follow a target that actually blip warps on grid, because warp breaks locks, or did last time I bothered to test. However if fighters also would warp on grid to chase a target (like a fancy MJD) that would be awesome, land them at a fixed range from their target which isn't quite in weapons range and you still allow people to run away, or lock them and shoot them before they attack, but you allow carriers to actually project to their lock ranges properly, rather than having shorter ranges than dread HAW's. It's the same issue Heavy Drones have always had, made a hundred times worse.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2280	Posted - 2016.04.24 07:19:21 - [537] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Fighters won't follow a target that actually blip warps on grid, because warp breaks locks, or did last time I bothered to test. However if fighters also would warp on grid to chase a target (like a fancy MJD) that would be awesome, land them at a fixed range from their target which isn't quite in weapons range and you still allow people to run away, or lock them and shoot them before they attack, but you allow carriers to actually project to their lock ranges properly, rather than having shorter ranges than dread HAW's. It's the same issue Heavy Drones have always had, made a hundred times worse. no like i posted earlier it would be far more ballanced and provide better game play if you had to warp fighters yourself and they could not just warp to enemies. make it so they need to warp to things like BM or fleet mates and ofc only to things on grid Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF Violence of Action. 109	Posted - 2016.04.24 08:00:21 - [538] - Quote So after flying a Nyx for a while I have to ask: Are the long range heavy fighters supposed to track like lights and hit like a truck from 45km? With a set of Termites I was doing obscene things to small ships that made light fighters seem useless by comparison.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2280	Posted - 2016.04.24 08:06:09 - [539] - Quote I would also like to know why the dragonfly does not have racial range and why none of the superiority fighters have racial range. earlier in this thread it seemed important to ccp to keep racial drone attributes Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2280	Posted - 2016.04.24 08:07:56 - [540] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: So after flying a Nyx for a while I have to ask: Are the long range heavy fighters supposed to track like lights and hit like a truck from 45km? With a set of Termites I was doing obscene things to small ships that made light fighters seem useless by comparison. They still do this O.o i had not looked at them since the first few days and thought those tracking numbers were place holders Citadel worm hole tax

Lyron-Baktos Snuff Box Snuffed Out 490	Posted - 2016.04.24 23:00:55 - [541] - Quote Are Fax's coming out this week? If so, where is the thread talking about it? When are the dread changes going in effect?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2284	Posted - 2016.04.24 23:04:44 - [542] - Quote Lyron-Baktos wrote: Are Fax's coming out this week? If so, where is the thread talking about it? When are the dread changes going in effect? Both are this week Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 926	Posted - 2016.04.24 23:55:51 - [543] - Quote So I decided to try a Ninazu using its new found Warfare links bonus and set it up with Armor links (seemed logical as it is supposed to be an armor logi boat). My advice - Don't do it. 1.8 second cycle time on remote reps is ok, until you try to keep capacitor up to them. With all 5's, you'll need 2 capital cap boosters perma running (have 36% cap after one triage cycle and use 36 cap charges to get back to at least 80%) With less than perfect skills (remote reps at 4, everything else 5) you will be using 3 cap boosters and still be close to no cap at the end of one triage cycle (low cap alarm screaming at you). T2 capital remote reps do 4,813 per cycle each (in triage), so around 9,600 HP every +-2 s, a T2 Auto cannon fit Nag using Hail hits for around 22K HP every 3.2 seconds - Your going to need 3 fax's to keep reps up to one carrier that is being shot by ONE dread. Interesting point (probably a bug) I let the nag drop siege, re-initiated it and didn't lose lock on the carrier. Devs have done a wonderful job at breaking the OP status of self repping carriers (which is a good thing), sadly they broke triage carriers (new fax's) at the same time. You'll now need all 5's in skills, +5 cap and shield or armor implants and a darn big lucky streak to survive any fight in one of these. As for applying logistics to even a small gang, bring as many fax's as you can muster - They won't last long and can't rep a great deal individually so more will always be better. N+1 is still the number one rule for any capital fight, so make sure you have plenty of blues and a reliable batfone network. 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.
Lyron-Baktos Snuff Box Snuffed Out 490	Posted - 2016.04.25 00:12:23 - [544] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Lyron-Baktos wrote: Are Fax's coming out this week? If so, where is the thread talking about it? When are the dread changes going in effect? Both are this week no threads discussing them?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2284	Posted - 2016.04.25 00:39:04 - [545] - Quote Lyron-Baktos wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Lyron-Baktos wrote: Are Fax's coming out this week? If so, where is the thread talking about it? When are the dread changes going in effect? Both are this week no threads discussing them? There is on reddit. ... because ccp can't be bothered with their own forum Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2284	Posted - 2016.04.25 00:43:48 - [546] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: So I decided to try a Ninazu using its new found Warfare links bonus and set it up with Armor links (seemed logical as it is supposed to be an armor logi boat). My advice - Don't do it. 1.8 second cycle time on remote reps is ok, until you try to keep capacitor up to them. With all 5's, you'll need 2 capital cap boosters perma running (have 36% cap after one triage cycle and use 36 cap charges to get back to at least 80%) With less than perfect skills (remote reps at 4, everything else 5) you will be using 3 cap boosters and still be close to no cap at the end of one triage cycle (low cap alarm screaming at you). T2 capital remote reps do 4,813 per cycle each (in triage), so around 9,600 HP every +-2 s, a T2 Auto cannon fit Nag using Hail hits for around 22K HP every 3.2 seconds - Your going to need 3 fax's to keep reps up to one carrier that is being shot by ONE dread. Interesting point (probably a bug) I let the nag drop siege, re-initiated it and didn't lose lock on the carrier. Devs have done a wonderful job at breaking the OP status of self repping carriers (which is a good thing), sadly they broke triage carriers (new fax's) at the same time. You'll now need all 5's in skills, +5 cap and shield or armor implants and a darn big lucky streak to survive any fight in one of these. As for applying logistics to even a small gang, bring as many fax's as you can muster - They won't last long and can't rep a great deal individually so more will always be better. N+1 is still the number one rule for any capital fight, so make sure you have plenty of blues and a reliable batfone network. Not sure you understand logistics based on your comparison with nag dps.remember a nag has to deal with resists rr does not Also there is a link meant to be used with the cycle time reduction one that reduces capacitor cost The fax are bad but not quite as bad as your making them seem. They would be fixed significantly if there were larger cap charges they could use Citadel worm hole tax
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.25 03:52:23 - [547] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: So I decided to try a Ninazu using its new found Warfare links bonus and set it up with Armor links (seemed logical as it is supposed to be an armor logi boat). My advice - Don't do it. 1.8 second cycle time on remote reps is ok, until you try to keep capacitor up to them. With all 5's, you'll need 2 capital cap boosters perma running (have 36% cap after one triage cycle and use 36 cap charges to get back to at least 80%) With less than perfect skills (remote reps at 4, everything else 5) you will be using 3 cap boosters and still be close to no cap at the end of one triage cycle (low cap alarm screaming at you). T2 capital remote reps do 4,813 per cycle each (in triage), so around 9,600 HP every +-2 s, a T2 Auto cannon fit Nag using Hail hits for around 22K HP every 3.2 seconds - Your going to need 3 fax's to keep reps up to one carrier that is being shot by ONE dread. Interesting point (probably a bug) I let the nag drop siege, re-initiated it and didn't lose lock on the carrier. Devs have done a wonderful job at breaking the OP status of self repping carriers (which is a good thing), sadly they broke triage carriers (new fax's) at the same time. You'll now need all 5's in skills, +5 cap and shield or armor implants and a darn big lucky streak to survive any fight in one of these. As for applying logistics to even a small gang, bring as many fax's as you can muster - They won't last long and can't rep a great deal individually so more will always be better. N+1 is still the number one rule for any capital fight, so make sure you have plenty of blues and a reliable batfone network. CCP nerfed the hell out of the remote rep amount. Caps are MEANT to be big and powerful and hard to kill, its an effing CAPITAL SHIP for a reason. However the FAX kinda redeem that with the Apostle and the Minakawa both having the Nidhoggers old repair AMOUNT bonus. So you should do your testing with the AMOUNT bonus instead of the cycle bonus, should make things better. Still, sad to see supers and carriers nerfed into the ground again in terms of there repair abilities and tanking.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2285	Posted - 2016.04.25 04:01:20 - [548] - Quote well the minakawa and apostle may have the same role bonus but they can not fit as many reps as the nid currently can as well the reps are not as strong to start with. (and i swear even at lvl 5 they have either less cap or the reps cost more cap) carriers repair ability has been nerffed but their tank is about the only thing that got buffed. they can get much higher buffer tanks than currently on TQ and can always revive RR. the tank is about the only thing balanced when it comes to carriers. their tank was not nerfed it was just changed Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF 110	Posted - 2016.04.25 04:08:22 - [549] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: well the minakawa and apostle may have the same role bonus but they can not fit as many reps as the nid currently can as well the reps are not as strong to start with. (and i swear even at lvl 5 they have either less cap or the reps cost more cap) carriers repair ability has been nerffed but their tank is about the only thing that got buffed. they can get much higher buffer tanks than currently on TQ and can always revive RR. the tank is about the only thing balanced when it comes to carriers. their tank was not nerfed it was just changed Their resistances effectively got nerfed though since they need slots for plates or shield extenders that would previously have been hardeners.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2285	Posted - 2016.04.25 04:11:58 - [550] - Quote double Citadel worm hole tax

Lugh Crow-Slave 2285	Posted - 2016.04.25 04:13:07 - [551] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: well the minakawa and apostle may have the same role bonus but they can not fit as many reps as the nid currently can as well the reps are not as strong to start with. (and i swear even at lvl 5 they have either less cap or the reps cost more cap) carriers repair ability has been nerffed but their tank is about the only thing that got buffed. they can get much higher buffer tanks than currently on TQ and can always revive RR. the tank is about the only thing balanced when it comes to carriers. their tank was not nerfed it was just changed Their resistances effectively got nerfed though since they need slots for plates or shield extenders that would previously have been hardeners. yes but they can still get over 80 and the chimera and archon can get over 90 so they still take to RR very well their EHP and THP can both be higher than they are now on tq Citadel worm hole tax
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.25 05:00:30 - [552] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: well the minakawa and apostle may have the same role bonus but they can not fit as many reps as the nid currently can as well the reps are not as strong to start with. (and i swear even at lvl 5 they have either less cap or the reps cost more cap) carriers repair ability has been nerffed but their tank is about the only thing that got buffed. they can get much higher buffer tanks than currently on TQ and can always revive RR. the tank is about the only thing balanced when it comes to carriers. their tank was not nerfed it was just changed RIIIGHT, like I wan't to put plates on a ship that already crawls into warp and has PG issues to begin with. Thus limiting the ability to even put the cap MWD on, WHICH BTW has a longer cycle time then a normal MWD because heaven forbid caps should be able to get into warp in less then 10 seconds. Face it, cap EHP got nerfed because they put in those plates and extenders that no one really wants to use because there resists were already **** poor low to start with. I mean really, CCP needs to stop fixing what ain't broken. Caps are "End game" ships (if there was an end game to EvE) there the big toys we like to play with in the sandbox.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 926	Posted - 2016.04.25 05:04:05 - [553] - Quote John Hand wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: So I decided to try a Ninazu using its new found Warfare links bonus and set it up with Armor links (seemed logical as it is supposed to be an armor logi boat). My advice - Don't do it. 1.8 second cycle time on remote reps is ok, until you try to keep capacitor up to them. With all 5's, you'll need 2 capital cap boosters perma running (have 36% cap after one triage cycle and use 36 cap charges to get back to at least 80%) With less than perfect skills (remote reps at 4, everything else 5) you will be using 3 cap boosters and still be close to no cap at the end of one triage cycle (low cap alarm screaming at you). T2 capital remote reps do 4,813 per cycle each (in triage), so around 9,600 HP every +-2 s, a T2 Auto cannon fit Nag using Hail hits for around 22K HP every 3.2 seconds - Your going to need 3 fax's to keep reps up to one carrier that is being shot by ONE dread. Interesting point (probably a bug) I let the nag drop siege, re-initiated it and didn't lose lock on the carrier. Devs have done a wonderful job at breaking the OP status of self repping carriers (which is a good thing), sadly they broke triage carriers (new fax's) at the same time. You'll now need all 5's in skills, +5 cap and shield or armor implants and a darn big lucky streak to survive any fight in one of these. As for applying logistics to even a small gang, bring as many fax's as you can muster - They won't last long and can't rep a great deal individually so more will always be better. N+1 is still the number one rule for any capital fight, so make sure you have plenty of blues and a reliable batfone network. CCP nerfed the hell out of the remote rep amount. Caps are MEANT to be big and powerful and hard to kill, its an effing CAPITAL SHIP for a reason. However the FAX kinda redeem that with the Apostle and the Minakawa both having the Nidhoggers old repair AMOUNT bonus. So you should do your testing with the AMOUNT bonus instead of the cycle bonus, should make things better. Still, sad to see supers and carriers nerfed into the ground again in terms of there repair abilities and tanking. ok, I don't have all 5's for the Apostle as I do for the Ninazu but with all applicable skills to 4 (T1 triage module) the apostle with T2 remote reps, 5,250 every 2.4 seconds (will be faster cycle time with T2 triage so more cap used) X 3 reps, with links - 1 T2 Cap battery, 1 X T2 capital cap booster it caps out at just on half triage cycle. You still need the T2 ancillary current router to fit 2 more meta capital cap boosters which will JUST allow a full triage cycle to complete as your cap runs dry using 3 reps. Pray you don't get any aggro, you can't run your local rep without turning off all remote reps. A smart FC will split DPS between a primary target and any Fax's on grid (only takes 1 Dread to bother a Fax enough he needs to rep = less reps on the primary) 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman CK-0FF 111	Posted - 2016.04.25 06:03:31 - [554] - Quote I really wonder if they intend faxes to be used with Avatar boosts or something.
Anthar Thebess 1498	Posted - 2016.04.25 07:45:22 - [555] - Quote Every one is excited that dreads are getting cheaper. Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.25 07:49:56 - [556] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: ok, I don't have all 5's for the Apostle as I do for the Ninazu but with all applicable skills to 4 (T1 triage module) the apostle with T2 remote reps, 5,250 every 2.4 seconds (will be faster cycle time with T2 triage so more cap used) X 3 reps, with links - 1 T2 Cap battery, 1 X T2 capital cap booster it caps out at just on half triage cycle. You still need the T2 ancillary current router to fit 2 more meta capital cap boosters which will JUST allow a full triage cycle to complete as your cap runs dry using 3 reps. Pray you don't get any aggro, you can't run your local rep without turning off all remote reps. A smart FC will split DPS between a primary target and any Fax's on grid (only takes 1 Dread to bother a Fax enough he needs to rep = less reps on the primary) 5.250 for the Apostle vs 4813 for the Ninazu, it really isn't much of a bonus when both cap out so fast as to only be relatively useful for one triage cycle. Admittedly the Apostle is far better on cap in that it can run 3 reps for one cycle where as the Ninazu can only run 2. Maybe don't run triage? You know, maybe run the Pantheon layout instead with some normal carriers in the mix? Personally I have always found Triage to be a death sentence in combat, its fine if your doing a tower save, but in combat your just asking to die. Having been in fleets where you are LOOKING for a carrier to go triage so you can focus his ass down because now he cannot get any reps from his friends, it usually means your dead. This is even more compounded by the fact that CCP just did nerf cap reps, means that triage is even more deadly to you. Is this the end of combat Triage? Maybe, some people will still try it, and lose there ship accordingly. Only time will tell if the FAX are good/bad/meh.
Aeon Veritas Easily.Offended The Bastion 26	Posted - 2016.04.25 08:10:18 - [557] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: I would also like to know why the dragonfly does not have racial range and why none of the superiority fighters have racial range. earlier in this thread it seemed important to ccp to keep racial drone attributes I don't think the superiority fighters should have the racial range distinction. I belive they souldn't even have a distiction in the damage amount they deal. Because they use missiles and for all other waepons the only distinction within a missile-type is the damage type dealed. As a little immersion eye-candy they should introduce new models for superiority and support fighters. Because even though the original idea was to have the same fighter equipped with different weapons for different purposes, this is now obsolete. The reason for this is the different squadron size of those fighters and the resulting adjustment of the volume per fighter to arcive a something similar volume per squadron "for ballance reasons"...
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 96	Posted - 2016.04.25 08:52:12 - [558] - Quote Quoted from: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/reworking-capital-ships-skills-modules-and-refitting/ Quote: You will only require the Fighters skill to use Light, Support and Heavy Fighters. Is this true ? or must I train light fighters level 1 to be able to use light fighters ? Because currently i can use them on TQ i have fighters level 4.
John Hand 15	Posted - 2016.04.25 09:12:14 - [559] - Quote PAPULA wrote: Quoted from: https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/reworking-capital-ships-skills-modules-and-refitting/ Quote: You will only require the Fighters skill to use Light, Support and Heavy Fighters. Is this true ? or must I train light fighters level 1 to be able to use light fighters ? Because currently i can use them on TQ i have fighters level 4. You will need to get the Light Fighter Skill to use them, but only need level 1 to use them, and only need level 1 of fighters to use the skill. The same applies to both the new Heavy Fighter skill (upgraded from Fighter Bombers) and the New Support Fighter Skill. To use T2 variations you will need Fighters 5 and either Light/Support/Heavy Fighter skill to level 4 to use the T2 appropriate fighter.
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 96	Posted - 2016.04.25 11:26:51 - [560] - Quote This is stupid, but the blog says we only need: Quote: You will only require the Fighters skill to use Light, Support and Heavy Fighters. That's why i am confused.

Aeon Veritas Easily.Offended The Bastion 27	Posted - 2016.04.25 12:08:55 - [561] - Quote PAPULA wrote: This is stupid, but the blog says we only need: Quote: You will only require the Fighters skill to use Light, Support and Heavy Fighters. That's why i am confused. yeah, the dev-blog is from feb, the OP is from march and says this. CCP Larrikin wrote: Notes: ... Generic drone skills (Drone Durability, Drone Navigation, etc) also provide bonuses to fighters (check show info on those skills for details). The Fighter Bomber skill has been converted to 'Heavy Fighters', and now gives a 5% damage bonus to heavy fighters per level. 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.
PAPULA Black Aces I N F A M O U S 96	Posted - 2016.04.25 12:23:51 - [562] - Quote Oh ok, then they should remove this statement from February blog. Now i have to get 100mil for the skill so i can use same item i was using before.
Kirito Kid D4RK M00N The Bastion 16	Posted - 2016.04.25 12:40:13 - [563] - Quote Nothing new with the patch notes it seems :(
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 926	Posted - 2016.04.25 13:37:19 - [564] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: So I decided to try a Ninazu using its new found Warfare links bonus and set it up with Armor links (seemed logical as it is supposed to be an armor logi boat). My advice - Don't do it. 1.8 second cycle time on remote reps is ok, until you try to keep capacitor up to them. With all 5's, you'll need 2 capital cap boosters perma running (have 36% cap after one triage cycle and use 36 cap charges to get back to at least 80%) With less than perfect skills (remote reps at 4, everything else 5) you will be using 3 cap boosters and still be close to no cap at the end of one triage cycle (low cap alarm screaming at you). T2 capital remote reps do 4,813 per cycle each (in triage), so around 9,600 HP every +-2 s, a T2 Auto cannon fit Nag using Hail hits for around 22K HP every 3.2 seconds - Your going to need 3 fax's to keep reps up to one carrier that is being shot by ONE dread. Interesting point (probably a bug) I let the nag drop siege, re-initiated it and didn't lose lock on the carrier. Devs have done a wonderful job at breaking the OP status of self repping carriers (which is a good thing), sadly they broke triage carriers (new fax's) at the same time. You'll now need all 5's in skills, +5 cap and shield or armor implants and a darn big lucky streak to survive any fight in one of these. As for applying logistics to even a small gang, bring as many fax's as you can muster - They won't last long and can't rep a great deal individually so more will always be better. N+1 is still the number one rule for any capital fight, so make sure you have plenty of blues and a reliable batfone network. Not sure you understand logistics based on your comparison with nag dps.remember a nag has to deal with resists rr does not Also there is a link meant to be used with the cycle time reduction one that reduces capacitor cost The fax are bad but not quite as bad as your making them seem. They would be fixed significantly if there were larger cap charges they could use Edit: Not saying this in a way to make your input seem unwanted just trying to make sure good feed back that isn't bogged down with misconceptions (you know since ccp doesn't seem to want to clear things up) What link? Is it something new as there is no link to reduce cap use aside from the armor links which I was using for the tests. Just to be clear though - the cycle time reduction I have been referring to is a Triage trait, which is different to the warfare link. Triage module gives a 70% cycle time reduction to remote reps - It gives no bonus to remote cap transfer, which is a somewhat useless bonus for those Fax's to have as they don't have enough cap to share it with anyone.. And out of triage, they'll just die so won't get cap either. My comparison was made using a nag to shoot a carrier that was being repped by a new logistics capital.. A Ninazu was unable to rep enough to save a Thany from a lone nag. The buffer fit carrier died helplessly in under 5 minutes (Fax ran out of cap with the Thany at 10% armor). NB; Larger cap charges? You already need to fill your cargo hold and 3/4 of your fleet hangar with cap charges just for ONE triage cycle. Issue is not only the cap charges but the volume of them - Higher value cap charges = Higher volume, which the fax's and carriers just don't have to carry them. CCP have gone out of their way to make Fax's and Carriers as difficult to manage and use as they possibly could. They took some really good ideas and just broke them. What could have been some very positive changes, has turned into Devs finding new ways to punish players with game mechanics and inefficient modules. Can't really say I am surprised though - It is easier to come up with this sort of thing that it is to use imagination and add an aspect of fun to game play. On a happy note - If this is how it is to be, there are 3 more accounts can go inactive as I will no longer need them. 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.
Desimus Maximus Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 218	Posted - 2016.04.25 13:45:33 - [565] - Quote @CCP Larrikin is there a video on how to target with the new aoe bomb targeting for Heavy fighter squads explaining how to hit things or are they just broken atm ?
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Caldari Provisions Caldari State 112	Posted - 2016.04.25 16:15:16 - [566] - Quote Desimus Maximus wrote: @CCP Larrikin is there a video on how to target with the new aoe bomb targeting for Heavy fighter squads explaining how to hit things or are they just broken atm ? It's not too hard except that the bombs have a certain range that can be hard to determine. I normally have the fighters orbit/keep range 30km from something near their target and use the ability then. It's still not the most accurate thing.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2290	Posted - 2016.04.25 16:24:07 - [567] - Quote John Hand wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: ok, I don't have all 5's for the Apostle as I do for the Ninazu but with all applicable skills to 4 (T1 triage module) the apostle with T2 remote reps, 5,250 every 2.4 seconds (will be faster cycle time with T2 triage so more cap used) X 3 reps, with links - 1 T2 Cap battery, 1 X T2 capital cap booster it caps out at just on half triage cycle. You still need the T2 ancillary current router to fit 2 more meta capital cap boosters which will JUST allow a full triage cycle to complete as your cap runs dry using 3 reps. Pray you don't get any aggro, you can't run your local rep without turning off all remote reps. A smart FC will split DPS between a primary target and any Fax's on grid (only takes 1 Dread to bother a Fax enough he needs to rep = less reps on the primary) 5.250 for the Apostle vs 4813 for the Ninazu, it really isn't much of a bonus when both cap out so fast as to only be relatively useful for one triage cycle. Admittedly the Apostle is far better on cap in that it can run 3 reps for one cycle where as the Ninazu can only run 2. Maybe don't run triage? You know, maybe run the Pantheon layout instead with some normal carriers in the mix? Personally I have always found Triage to be a death sentence in combat, its fine if your doing a tower save, but in combat your just asking to die. Having been in fleets where you are LOOKING for a carrier to go triage so you can focus his ass down because now he cannot get any reps from his friends, it usually means your dead. This is even more compounded by the fact that CCP just did nerf cap reps, means that triage is even more deadly to you. Is this the end of combat Triage? Maybe, some people will still try it, and lose there ship accordingly. Only time will tell if the FAX are good/bad/meh. you know they removed this tactic right? capital reps now only work in triage outside of triage they are weaker than large reps so if this change is the death of triage it's simple the death of capital logistics Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2290	Posted - 2016.04.25 16:38:59 - [568] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: So I decided to try a Ninazu using its new found Warfare links bonus and set it up with Armor links (seemed logical as it is supposed to be an armor logi boat). My advice - Don't do it. 1.8 second cycle time on remote reps is ok, until you try to keep capacitor up to them. With all 5's, you'll need 2 capital cap boosters perma running (have 36% cap after one triage cycle and use 36 cap charges to get back to at least 80%) With less than perfect skills (remote reps at 4, everything else 5) you will be using 3 cap boosters and still be close to no cap at the end of one triage cycle (low cap alarm screaming at you). T2 capital remote reps do 4,813 per cycle each (in triage), so around 9,600 HP every +-2 s, a T2 Auto cannon fit Nag using Hail hits for around 22K HP every 3.2 seconds - Your going to need 3 fax's to keep reps up to one carrier that is being shot by ONE dread. Interesting point (probably a bug) I let the nag drop siege, re-initiated it and didn't lose lock on the carrier. Devs have done a wonderful job at breaking the OP status of self repping carriers (which is a good thing), sadly they broke triage carriers (new fax's) at the same time. You'll now need all 5's in skills, +5 cap and shield or armor implants and a darn big lucky streak to survive any fight in one of these. As for applying logistics to even a small gang, bring as many fax's as you can muster - They won't last long and can't rep a great deal individually so more will always be better. N+1 is still the number one rule for any capital fight, so make sure you have plenty of blues and a reliable batfone network. Not sure you understand logistics based on your comparison with nag dps.remember a nag has to deal with resists rr does not Also there is a link meant to be used with the cycle time reduction one that reduces capacitor cost The fax are bad but not quite as bad as your making them seem. They would be fixed significantly if there were larger cap charges they could use Edit: Not saying this in a way to make your input seem unwanted just trying to make sure good feed back that isn't bogged down with misconceptions (you know since ccp doesn't seem to want to clear things up) What link? Is it something new as there is no link to reduce cap use aside from the armor links which I was using for the tests. Just to be clear though - the cycle time reduction I have been referring to is a Triage trait, which is different to the warfare link. Triage module gives a 70% cycle time reduction to remote reps - It gives no bonus to remote cap transfer, which is a somewhat useless bonus for those Fax's to have as they don't have enough cap to share it with anyone.. And out of triage, they'll just die so won't get cap either. My comparison was made using a nag to shoot a carrier that was being repped by a new logistics capital.. A Ninazu was unable to rep enough to save a Thany from a lone nag. The buffer fit carrier died helplessly in under 5 minutes (Fax ran out of cap with the Thany at 10% armor). NB; Larger cap charges? You already need to fill your cargo hold and 3/4 of your fleet hangar with cap charges just for ONE triage cycle. Issue is not only the cap charges but the volume of them - Higher value cap charges = Higher volume, which the fax's and carriers just don't have to carry them. CCP have gone out of their way to make Fax's and Carriers as difficult to manage and use as they possibly could. They took some really good ideas and just broke them. What could have been some very positive changes, has turned into Devs finding new ways to punish players with game mechanics and inefficient modules. Can't really say I am surprised though - It is easier to come up with this sort of thing that it is to use imagination and add an aspect of fun to game play. On a happy note - If this is how it is to be, there are 3 more accounts can go inactive as I will no longer need them. the gal/minm FAX are for reping sub caps not capitals thats why they have a cycle time bonus and much less buffer Citadel worm hole tax
DONEYE lightning Sons of Thunder Still ThunderKings Alliance 0	Posted - 2016.04.25 17:20:21 - [569] - Quote Mimiko Severovski wrote: What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%) Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more. because its the damge output is going up like 200%? lol mabe not 200% but enough to insta kill battlecruisers cruisers and destroyers lol
Lugh Crow-Slave 2291	Posted - 2016.04.25 17:23:04 - [570] - Quote DONEYE lightning wrote: Mimiko Severovski wrote: What was the reasoning for lowering the thanatos dps bonus (from 5 to 2.5%) Why not up the dps to 4% per level same as the resist bonus on archon and chimera, then you wouldnt have to choose between 20% more resists or 150-300 dps more. because its the damge output is going up like 200%? lol mabe not 200% but enough to insta kill battlecruisers cruisers and destroyers lol it's still 5% also thanny is only getting a bit more dps than on tq but it it losing a **** load of dpm Citadel worm hole tax

Neera Saldana Tritanium Express 6	Posted - 2016.04.25 20:56:57 - [571] - Quote Flying a carrier feels.. off. You cant see fighter HP without mouseover. Controlling them with module cycles is weird when you have 3+ of them out and the cycles keep being off from each other. The switching between fighter can ship control isnt obvious enough, there needs to be some big text telling you youre not controlling you ship anymore. Lost fighters dont reload automatically when recalled. Having the same icon different kinds of fighters is weird, make something new for the ewar ones or something. Put the role icon as well as the type icon on fighters in fighter bay. Allow fighters to be moved out of bay in space, if you fill tubes and fighter bay you cant switch fighters anymore!
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Caldari Provisions Caldari State 112	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:13:37 - [572] - Quote Neera Saldana wrote: Allow fighters to be moved out of bay in space, if you fill tubes and fighter bay you cant switch fighters anymore! You can launch a squadron, abandon them, load another, and scoop the abandoned squadron back to the bay. I'm honestly quite surprised they didn't make squadrons in the tubes still take space in the bay. It would really simplify things if the carrier could hold exactly a certain amount of fighters instead of a certain amount plus up to 5 squadrons.
Sepheir Sepheron The Congregation No Handlebars. 48	Posted - 2016.04.26 00:52:31 - [573] - Quote Chimera eats **** once again. That severely gimped fighter Bay is just hilariously bad. But don't worry it has lock range lololol
Lugh Crow-Slave 2294	Posted - 2016.04.26 01:27:03 - [574] - Quote lol i'm not the only one who sees the issue with the chimeras bay \o/ Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 926	Posted - 2016.04.26 03:41:16 - [575] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Neera Saldana wrote: Allow fighters to be moved out of bay in space, if you fill tubes and fighter bay you cant switch fighters anymore! You can launch a squadron, abandon them, load another, and scoop the abandoned squadron back to the bay. I'm honestly quite surprised they didn't make squadrons in the tubes still take space in the bay. It would really simplify things if the carrier could hold exactly a certain amount of fighters instead of a certain amount plus up to 5 squadrons. It's all about micromanagement - Devs Want the confusion and messing about due to really quite silly un-intuitive over sized fighter interfaces. Having to leave a certain amount of your fighter bay empty makes no sense in game play but an enormous amount of sense when it comes to "micromanaging" (taking a lot longer to do anything with) your fighters. If it is streamlined and player friendly, Devs have not succeeded in their primary goal of making player involvement and micromanagement "a thing" for carriers and supers. What i find really annoying (on a 32" monitor) is losing nearly 1/4 of my screen to the fighter bay and Hud. Having to have your fighter bay open as well as the fighter control hud, is not good design as far as screen space goes. But then this is CCP Devs we are talking about here - Everything has to be bigger (according to the Citadel team at fanfest) and it seems this doesn't stop at structures - It also includes how much space on your monitor is taken up with interface windows. I often wonder if designing things for eve in a way to make it as difficult as possible for players, leaves Devs feeling good about their achievements. I'm sure designing things to be more difficult and less effective must bother at least some of the more professional developers that work for CCP. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Caldari Provisions Caldari State 113	Posted - 2016.04.26 07:51:32 - [576] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: What i find really annoying (on a 32" monitor) is losing nearly 1/4 of my screen to the fighter bay and Hud. Having to have your fighter bay open as well as the fighter control hud, is not good design as far as screen space goes. The physical size of your monitor isn't really relevant. If you want to talk about screen space, it's the resolution that matters. Why do you have to have your fighter bay open? You can do pretty much anything you need with the right click menu of the fighter/tube icons on the main fighter HUD. The only exception I can think of is merging stacks of fighters after returning incomplete squadrons.
Thercon Jair Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 15	Posted - 2016.04.26 09:25:57 - [577] - Quote Well, guess we'll get FAXes as is. No discussion or feedback going on about them, eh? (I hear there's some only on reddit, but I am unable to locate said threads.Focus group only?) Also: is the Capital Ancillary Shield Booster final? Because if it is, it's going to be the "de facto" standard for FAXes. It boosts nearly twice as much as the T2 Capital Shield Booster, uses less cap than the T2 when not used with charges, and even uses considerably less fitting resources.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2296	Posted - 2016.04.26 09:29:06 - [578] - Quote Thercon Jair wrote: Well, guess we'll get FAXes as is. No discussion or feedback going on about them, eh? (I hear there's some only on reddit, but I am unable to locate said threads.Focus group only?) Also: is the Capital Ancillary Shield Booster final? Because if it is, it's going to be the "de facto" standard for FAXes. It boosts nearly twice as much as the T2 Capital Shield Booster, uses less cap than the T2 when not used with charges, and even uses considerably less fitting resources. Being The optimist I am I think think ccp has pre-nerfed fax and carriers to make sure they are not op and will tweak numbers after getting more data. Citadel worm hole tax
Zockhandra Jewish Zeppelin Mafia 30	Posted - 2016.04.26 13:37:11 - [579] - Quote Thats great and all.....How do the fighter changes effect the current blueprints? will material costs change, will they produce several fighters per run instead of one? Theres been no information on that front, frankly its quite concerning especially considering the large isk investment needed for ships of this size... On a more related note, those fighters are waaaaay too powerful now.. Light and heavy fighters are capable of one hitting a fairly tanky stealth bomber, which was equipped with high-grade halos and an afterburner....That's just not fair at all. It almost feels like youve tried interbreeding gheckos and fighters.....and youve somehow made something that isnt better....Its disgustingly effective. Carriers now have the potential to slaughter dozens of ships without much concern for fighters (thanks to the insanely small fighter size and stupid big bays) without worrying too much about fighter squads....I thought the theme of EVE Online was that bigger Does NOT necessarily mean better.. Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you. Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned, across from the bubble and into your hull.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2305	Posted - 2016.04.26 13:41:41 - [580] - Quote Zockhandra wrote: Thats great and all.....How do the fighter changes effect the current blueprints? will material costs change, will they produce several fighters per run instead of one? Theres been no information on that front, frankly its quite concerning especially considering the large isk investment needed for ships of this size... one fighter per run about 2hrs for a light attack fighter less mats to build one fighter but one flight will cost more than one fighter does now all this info is on sisi Citadel worm hole tax

Zockhandra Jewish Zeppelin Mafia 30	Posted - 2016.04.26 13:43:58 - [581] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Zockhandra wrote: Thats great and all.....How do the fighter changes effect the current blueprints? will material costs change, will they produce several fighters per run instead of one? Theres been no information on that front, frankly its quite concerning especially considering the large isk investment needed for ships of this size... one fighter per run about 2hrs for a light attack fighter less mats to build one fighter but one flight will cost more than one fighter does now all this info is on sisi So we lose the materials that weve put into fighters allready? Sounds like a completely fair change Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you. Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned, across from the bubble and into your hull.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2305	Posted - 2016.04.26 13:53:46 - [582] - Quote Zockhandra wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Zockhandra wrote: Thats great and all.....How do the fighter changes effect the current blueprints? will material costs change, will they produce several fighters per run instead of one? Theres been no information on that front, frankly its quite concerning especially considering the large isk investment needed for ships of this size... one fighter per run about 2hrs for a light attack fighter less mats to build one fighter but one flight will cost more than one fighter does now all this info is on sisi So we lose the materials that weve put into fighters allready? Sounds like a completely fair change if you are building some now i would cancel it all the ones already built will be split into an amount that reflects their build cost iirc light fighters turn into 4 Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 117	Posted - 2016.04.26 13:55:22 - [583] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Zockhandra wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Zockhandra wrote: Thats great and all.....How do the fighter changes effect the current blueprints? will material costs change, will they produce several fighters per run instead of one? Theres been no information on that front, frankly its quite concerning especially considering the large isk investment needed for ships of this size... one fighter per run about 2hrs for a light attack fighter less mats to build one fighter but one flight will cost more than one fighter does now all this info is on sisi So we lose the materials that weve put into fighters allready? Sounds like a completely fair change if you are building some now i would cancel it all the ones already built will be split into an amount that reflects their build cost iirc light fighters turn into 4 I distinctly remember something saying all existing fighters and production jobs would be converted. Did that change?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2312	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:34:57 - [584] - Quote no clue i just handn't seen that Citadel worm hole tax
Zenafar 6	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:55:30 - [585] - Quote Fighters & Drones Existing Fighters are being multiplied by 6 (Their size & construction costs are reducing by a similar amount). Existing Fighter-Bombers are being multiplied by 4 (Their size & construction costs are reducing by a similar amount). Fighters will be moved into the new Fighter Bays of their respective ships. Fighter manufacturing jobs will have their outputs multiplied appropriately.
Amber Solaire Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 49	Posted - 2016.04.26 23:16:57 - [586] - Quote Hm, well done What happens to any triage modules left over after this patch? Also, what about the BPOs owned? Triage modules won`t be any use to anyone after the patch, but I have not seen anything about compensation... (Is this an intentional omission by CCP? )
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 927	Posted - 2016.04.26 23:28:45 - [587] - Quote Amber Solaire wrote: Hm, well done What happens to any triage modules left over after this patch? Also, what about the BPOs owned? Triage modules won`t be any use to anyone after the patch, but I have not seen anything about compensation... (Is this an intentional omission by CCP? ) Fax's use triage modules (or are at least pretty useless without them) BPO's will be modified to show the new triage attributes but aside from that nothing changes. 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 2314	Posted - 2016.04.26 23:31:09 - [588] - Quote point still stands triage will be useless after this patch :p no no after i got pyfa running they don't seem to bad just have a useless high for some reason Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 927	Posted - 2016.04.27 00:19:09 - [589] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: point still stands triage will be useless after this patch :p no no after i got pyfa running they don't seem to bad just have a useless high for some reason Could I ask what fitting you came up with? 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 2315	Posted - 2016.04.27 01:38:56 - [590] - Quote nothing cheap looking back at ir >.> Citadel worm hole tax

Caldari 5 D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Affirmative. 437	Posted - 2016.04.27 04:08:46 - [591] - Quote From the Patch Notes "All drones in a Carrier's drone bay will be moved to the owner's home station." Does this mean that if my Med Clone is currently set to a different station to the one that Carrier is currently Docked in, the drones will be magic'd to the other station? Instead of station that the carrier is currently docked in?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2317	Posted - 2016.04.27 04:28:00 - [592] - Quote Yep Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 117	Posted - 2016.04.27 08:34:33 - [593] - Quote Caldari 5 wrote: From the Patch Notes "All drones in a Carrier's drone bay will be moved to the owner's home station." Does this mean that if my Med Clone is currently set to a different station to the one that Carrier is currently Docked in, the drones will be magic'd to the other station? Instead of station that the carrier is currently docked in? Yes indeed, so if you want the drones there, I recommend you do one of 3 things: 1. Set that as your home. 2. Take the drones out yourself. 3. Temporarily put the carrier in a contract so it's considered unowned and the drones get stuffed in the cargo.
Ron Seer Phantom Squad The Blood Covenant 2	Posted - 2016.04.27 17:39:07 - [594] - Quote So one of the main reasons for the carrier change was to nerf the slowcat fleet and remote repping carriers and turn a capital fleet into being no more invulnerble than what a fax can tank. I totally get the nerf to carrier capital repping and range but you actually nerfed it so much now that a large t1 remote shield booster is better (in all stats) than a capital module. large = 8 sec cycle 492 gj cost and 520 shield boost capital 16 sec cycle 2400 gj cost and 960 shield boost or converted its 984 gj vs 2400 gj every 16 sec and 1040 vs 960 shield boost. The capital module does get a little enstra range thougth. but I "think" the capital module should have been 8 sec cycle also. (also triage module for fax gives 75% reduction in cycle, should be 50% then).
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 928	Posted - 2016.04.27 21:00:03 - [595] - Quote Ron Seer wrote: So one of the main reasons for the carrier change was to nerf the slowcat fleet and remote repping carriers and turn a capital fleet into being no more invulnerble than what a fax can tank. I totally get the nerf to carrier capital repping and range but you actually nerfed it so much now that a large t1 remote shield booster is better (in all stats) than a capital module. large = 8 sec cycle 492 gj cost and 520 shield boost capital 16 sec cycle 2400 gj cost and 960 shield boost or converted its 984 gj vs 2400 gj every 16 sec and 1040 vs 960 shield boost. The capital module does get a little enstra range thougth. but I "think" the capital module should have been 8 sec cycle also. (also triage module for fax gives 75% reduction in cycle, should be 50% then). If they changed it, you would have enough cap for a full triage cycle (with capital cap boosters).. That is not what they want. Faxes are designed to sit in a blob and be disposable. 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 2334	Posted - 2016.04.27 22:34:38 - [596] - Quote Ron Seer wrote: So one of the main reasons for the carrier change was to nerf the slowcat fleet and remote repping carriers and turn a capital fleet into being no more invulnerble than what a fax can tank. I totally get the nerf to carrier capital repping and range but you actually nerfed it so much now that a large t1 remote shield booster is better (in all stats) than a capital module. large = 8 sec cycle 492 gj cost and 520 shield boost capital 16 sec cycle 2400 gj cost and 960 shield boost or converted its 984 gj vs 2400 gj every 16 sec and 1040 vs 960 shield boost. The capital module does get a little enstra range thougth. but I "think" the capital module should have been 8 sec cycle also. (also triage module for fax gives 75% reduction in cycle, should be 50% then). they did not want any repping outside triage think of them as logi dreads now Citadel worm hole tax
Ele Rebellion Yugoimport SDPR 64	Posted - 2016.04.28 00:26:24 - [597] - Quote So. without sentries. how do carriers hit a control tower?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2336	Posted - 2016.04.28 00:36:06 - [598] - Quote Ele Rebellion wrote: So. without sentries. how do carriers hit a control tower? they don't carriers are anti sub cap not anti structure or anti capital Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 119	Posted - 2016.04.28 00:36:11 - [599] - Quote Ele Rebellion wrote: So. without sentries. how do carriers hit a control tower? Normal carriers fit a bunch of tracking links and have the fighters manually orbit just outside the force field. Supers use long range heavy fighters.
Starrakatt Run and Gun Mercenary Corps FETID 459	Posted - 2016.04.28 00:46:10 - [600] - Quote And it is a temporary thing anyway, Towers (and force fields) are going to be phased out within a year... Sneaky bastard.

Anhenka Black Omega Security The OSS 1674	Posted - 2016.04.28 00:56:36 - [601] - Quote Ele Rebellion wrote: So. without sentries. how do carriers hit a control tower? They don't But they can hit Citadels just fine, and POS's are going to be slowly phased out anyway. Why would you bash a tower in carriers anyway?
Cymril Starfury Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate 2	Posted - 2016.04.28 00:57:59 - [602] - Quote Disregard, I figured it out.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2336	Posted - 2016.04.28 01:02:24 - [603] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Ele Rebellion wrote: So. without sentries. how do carriers hit a control tower? They don't But they can hit Citadels just fine, and POS's are going to be slowly phased out anyway. Why would you bash a tower in carriers anyway? why would you bash a tower Citadel worm hole tax
Anhenka Black Omega Security The OSS 1675	Posted - 2016.04.28 01:07:29 - [604] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Anhenka wrote: Ele Rebellion wrote: So. without sentries. how do carriers hit a control tower? They don't But they can hit Citadels just fine, and POS's are going to be slowly phased out anyway. Why would you bash a tower in carriers anyway? why would you bash a tower Start a fight? Dank goo isk? Someone has a staging tower where you don't want it? Irrational hate of semi-spherical force bubbles?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2336	Posted - 2016.04.28 01:15:23 - [605] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Anhenka wrote: Ele Rebellion wrote: So. without sentries. how do carriers hit a control tower? They don't But they can hit Citadels just fine, and POS's are going to be slowly phased out anyway. Why would you bash a tower in carriers anyway? why would you bash a tower Start a fight? Dank goo isk? Someone has a staging tower where you don't want it? Irrational hate of semi-spherical force bubbles? sorry meant wh ywould you use a carrier to bash a citadel Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 928	Posted - 2016.04.28 02:35:21 - [606] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Anhenka wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Anhenka wrote: Ele Rebellion wrote: So. without sentries. how do carriers hit a control tower? They don't But they can hit Citadels just fine, and POS's are going to be slowly phased out anyway. Why would you bash a tower in carriers anyway? why would you bash a tower Start a fight? Dank goo isk? Someone has a staging tower where you don't want it? Irrational hate of semi-spherical force bubbles? sorry meant wh ywould you use a carrier to bash a citadel Truth be told - You wouldn't, carriers aren't designed to engage any structure bigger than a mobile depot. Dreads are the go to capital if you want to do anything really. Better tank, better dps and application, same price as a carrier but with everything a carrier doesn't do going for it. Even keeping a carrier as a suitcase was taken away, so there is no need or role for carriers now. I stupidly forgot to put the triage mod on one of my carriers so now have 2 useless limps of pixels in one hangar. 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 2339	Posted - 2016.04.28 03:27:06 - [607] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Truth be told - You wouldn't, carriers aren't designed to engage any structure bigger than a mobile depot. Dreads are the go to capital if you want to do anything really. Better tank, better dps and application, same price as a carrier but with everything a carrier doesn't do going for it. Even keeping a carrier as a suitcase was taken away, so there is no need or role for carriers now. I stupidly forgot to put the triage mod on one of my carriers so now have 2 useless limps of pixels in one hangar. actually when you count fighters dreads are cheaper EDIT: i still think the easiest way to help them is let fighters warp on grid. this isn't the best way but it would give them range over dreads so they would at least have that use Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 929	Posted - 2016.04.28 07:59:16 - [608] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Truth be told - You wouldn't, carriers aren't designed to engage any structure bigger than a mobile depot. Dreads are the go to capital if you want to do anything really. Better tank, better dps and application, same price as a carrier but with everything a carrier doesn't do going for it. Even keeping a carrier as a suitcase was taken away, so there is no need or role for carriers now. I stupidly forgot to put the triage mod on one of my carriers so now have 2 useless limps of pixels in one hangar. actually when you count fighters dreads are cheaper EDIT: i still think the easiest way to help them is let fighters warp on grid. this isn't the best way but it would give them range over dreads so they would at least have that use Except, light fighters can't warp unless it is to return to their fighter bay. And really, I don't know many pilots who might still fly carriers and want to just let a few hundred mil worth of fighters die. If the fighters are too far away from your carrier (more than 30 or 40K) they will just die before you can recall them, that starts to add up to a lot of isk at around 80 mil per squad. I'm not sure though how having light fighters shooting a Citadel would be of any use, they can't do any damage to it. Carriers are done; They are now too expensive at the same price as Dreads, with far less ability and on grid use compared to Dreads. Really if this is what Devs see as "good, interesting game play" they really should just remove carriers and be done with it. There is nothing fun, interesting or good about having to sit stock still next to a fax and watch your fighters/isk die pointlessly. The only bad thing about Carriers was their ability to remote rep on the move - Well Devs fixed that and made them so they just can't move once on grid but also can't do much else either. Bonus offer for subscribing - Seriously Men's and Womens mirelle upwell executive coat and glasses - This is a game of fukin Pirates, Thieves and Scammers and you want to dress them like fukin office workers. Don't know who designs accessories for CCP but for fuks sake - Sack them and find someone with a little imagination that can design for the game. 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 929	Posted - 2016.04.28 08:01:53 - [609] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Truth be told - You wouldn't, carriers aren't designed to engage any structure bigger than a mobile depot. Dreads are the go to capital if you want to do anything really. Better tank, better dps and application, same price as a carrier but with everything a carrier doesn't do going for it. Even keeping a carrier as a suitcase was taken away, so there is no need or role for carriers now. I stupidly forgot to put the triage mod on one of my carriers so now have 2 useless limps of pixels in one hangar. actually when you count fighters dreads are cheaper EDIT: i still think the easiest way to help them is let fighters warp on grid. this isn't the best way but it would give them range over dreads so they would at least have that use Except, light fighters can't warp unless it is to return to their fighter bay. And really, I don't know many pilots who might still fly carriers and want to just let a few hundred mil worth of fighters die. If the fighters are too far away from your carrier (more than 30 or 40K) they will just die before you can recall them, that starts to add up to a lot of isk at around 80 mil per squad. I'm not sure though how having light fighters shooting a Citadel would be of any use, they can't do any damage to it. Carriers are done; They are now too expensive at the same price as Dreads, with far less ability and on grid use compared to Dreads. Really if this is what Devs see as "good, interesting game play" they really should just remove carriers and be done with it. There is nothing fun, interesting or good about having to sit stock still next to a fax and watch your fighters/isk die pointlessly. The only bad thing about Carriers was their ability to remote rep on the move - Well Devs fixed that and made them so they just can't move once on grid but also can't do much else either. Bonus offer for subscribing - Seriously Men's and Womens mirelle upwell executive coat and glasses - This is a game of fukin Pirates, Thieves and Scammers and you want to dress them like fukin office workers. Don't know who designs accessories for CCP but for fuks sake - Sack them and find someone with a little imagination that can design for the game. 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 2342	Posted - 2016.04.28 10:05:30 - [610] - Quote that is why i said give them the abuility to warp. this would actualy reward the carrier for being farther from its fleet as it would let its fighters warp back to it and then warp back into the fight if they needed. Adding you carriers position to the micro managing of this role.it would also just by this design spread fleets out and reward having small fast ships that can provide warp points. basically it would still have many of the same issues but they would become the longest range ship in the game to make up for it. Citadel worm hole tax

Fateforsaken Run and Gun Mercenary Corps FETID 9	Posted - 2016.04.28 14:29:33 - [611] - Quote I didn't see if this was covered, by why do carriers have such a small cargo bay? Capital cap charges are 128m3 so any carrier will have a limit of under 10 without using the fleet bay. Meanwhile dreadnoughts got a cargo bay increase to over 2000. How am I suppose to XL ASB shield boost my carrier with such limitations?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2348	Posted - 2016.04.28 14:34:57 - [612] - Quote Fateforsaken wrote: I didn't see if this was covered, by why do carriers have such a small cargo bay? Capital cap charges are 128m3 so any carrier will have a limit of under 10 without using the fleet bay. Meanwhile dreadnoughts got a cargo bay increase to over 2000. How am I suppose to XL ASB shield boost my carrier with such limitations? wait so when ccp said they didn't want to make one a suitcase over the other what they meant was turn dreads into the suitcase? what was it ccp did a chimera call you a mean name as a kid? Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 930	Posted - 2016.04.28 23:10:41 - [613] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: that is why i said give them the abuility to warp. this would actualy reward the carrier for being farther from its fleet as it would let its fighters warp back to it and then warp back into the fight if they needed. Adding you carriers position to the micro managing of this role.it would also just by this design spread fleets out and reward having small fast ships that can provide warp points. basically it would still have many of the same issues but they would become the longest range ship in the game to make up for it. That just might give carriers a purpose - Not sure that was ever part of Devs agenda. 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.
sworphy GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2016.04.29 11:48:46 - [614] - Quote 100 million isk for a skill so I can use my fighters again, you havin a laugh CCP?
Sepheir Sepheron The Congregation No Handlebars. 51	Posted - 2016.05.01 12:30:48 - [615] - Quote Caldari Support fighters are a joke. 1.5 omni strength for ecm with only 3 fighters per squadron. Did you know that heavy ECM drones have a strength of 2? On top of that the Chimera gets a bonus to ECM optimal as if the strength wasn't insulting enough.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2368	Posted - 2016.05.01 12:34:14 - [616] - Quote Sepheir Sepheron wrote: Caldari Support fighters are a joke. 1.5 omni strength for ecm with only 3 fighters per squadron. Did you know that heavy ECM drones have a strength of 2? On top of that the Chimera gets a bonus to ECM optimal as if the strength wasn't insulting enough. This is only the surface of the support drone issue Citadel worm hole tax
Oxide Ammar 257	Posted - 2016.05.02 07:36:08 - [617] - Quote They need to boost CPU of Chimera and Nidhoggur because both can't go active tanking without going faction/officer fit. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 930	Posted - 2016.05.02 11:47:40 - [618] - Quote Oxide Ammar wrote: They need to boost CPU of Chimera and Nidhoggur because both can't go active tanking without going faction/officer fit. Niddy got a CPU boost (25 extra CPU) - At a cost of 110K PG. Another CPU increase would see it with too little PG (Devs feel trade off's are the only way to balance) - Don't ask for something that may gimp it more.. Honestly the slight increase in cost for faction or even deadspace (tank mods) is worth it. You may end up with a half decent tank. T2 is too hard to fit, Meta is hardly worth fitting - Faction at least you may survive a few minutes longer. 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 2377	Posted - 2016.05.02 14:35:33 - [619] - Quote Oxide Ammar wrote: They need to boost CPU of Chimera and Nidhoggur because both can't go active tanking without going faction/officer fit. i dont think any of the carriers are meant to active tank Citadel worm hole tax
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 18	Posted - 2016.05.02 15:47:08 - [620] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sepheir Sepheron wrote: Caldari Support fighters are a joke. 1.5 omni strength for ecm with only 3 fighters per squadron. Did you know that heavy ECM drones have a strength of 2? On top of that the Chimera gets a bonus to ECM optimal as if the strength wasn't insulting enough. This is only the surface of the support drone issue Its perfectly functional to jam other fighters, who seem to have a sensor str of 4-8 for a full squad. Both probably need adjusting, as so many more bits of this patch do. At the moment your better off jamming the fighters then the carrier (who will be somewhere arround 150ish)

Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 18	Posted - 2016.05.02 15:49:51 - [621] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Oxide Ammar wrote: They need to boost CPU of Chimera and Nidhoggur because both can't go active tanking without going faction/officer fit. i dont think any of the carriers are meant to active tank Agreed, they seem to be pushed to FAX support, but FAX are a bit too flimsy still to properly do this role.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2377	Posted - 2016.05.02 15:57:06 - [622] - Quote lol flimsy or not they don't have the cap/cpu/pg to do the role Citadel worm hole tax
Sekeris Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 18	Posted - 2016.05.02 18:18:08 - [623] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: lol flimsy or not they don't have the cap/cpu/pg to do the role Also, lets not forget about cap, even with a pretty cap heavy build you can only run a single RR cap stable, and can potentially run your cap dry in a minute or so.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 932	Posted - 2016.05.02 23:06:19 - [624] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sepheir Sepheron wrote: Caldari Support fighters are a joke. 1.5 omni strength for ecm with only 3 fighters per squadron. Did you know that heavy ECM drones have a strength of 2? On top of that the Chimera gets a bonus to ECM optimal as if the strength wasn't insulting enough. This is only the surface of the support drone issue Its perfectly functional to jam other fighters, who seem to have a sensor str of 4-8 for a full squad. Both probably need adjusting, as so many more bits of this patch do. At the moment your better off jamming the fighters then the carrier (who will be somewhere arround 150ish) T2 Light Fighters have a sensor strength of 7 points, per fighter - That's 56 sensor strength per squad, before skills are applied. 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 126	Posted - 2016.05.02 23:54:13 - [625] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Niddy got a CPU boost (25 extra CPU) - At a cost of 110K PG. Another CPU increase would see it with too little PG (Devs feel trade off's are the only way to balance) - Don't ask for something that may gimp it more.. Honestly the slight increase in cost for faction or even deadspace (tank mods) is worth it. You may end up with a half decent tank. T2 is too hard to fit, Meta is hardly worth fitting - Faction at least you may survive a few minutes longer. The Nid actually got 75 more CPU and lost 105k PG. It previously had 700 CPU and 605k PG; now it has 775 and 500k. Sgt Ocker wrote: Sekeris wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sepheir Sepheron wrote: Caldari Support fighters are a joke. 1.5 omni strength for ecm with only 3 fighters per squadron. Did you know that heavy ECM drones have a strength of 2? On top of that the Chimera gets a bonus to ECM optimal as if the strength wasn't insulting enough. This is only the surface of the support drone issue Its perfectly functional to jam other fighters, who seem to have a sensor str of 4-8 for a full squad. Both probably need adjusting, as so many more bits of this patch do. At the moment your better off jamming the fighters then the carrier (who will be somewhere arround 150ish) T2 Light Fighters have a sensor strength of 7 points, per fighter - That's 56 sensor strength per squad, before skills are applied. First of all, not everyone will use T2s given their high cost and skill requirements, so a lot of people will have 5 strength. It's also total, not per fighter, and unaffected by skills. That means every squadron of fighters has 5-8 sensor strength and no more.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2382	Posted - 2016.05.03 00:07:54 - [626] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Sekeris wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sepheir Sepheron wrote: Caldari Support fighters are a joke. 1.5 omni strength for ecm with only 3 fighters per squadron. Did you know that heavy ECM drones have a strength of 2? On top of that the Chimera gets a bonus to ECM optimal as if the strength wasn't insulting enough. This is only the surface of the support drone issue Its perfectly functional to jam other fighters, who seem to have a sensor str of 4-8 for a full squad. Both probably need adjusting, as so many more bits of this patch do. At the moment your better off jamming the fighters then the carrier (who will be somewhere arround 150ish) T2 Light Fighters have a sensor strength of 7 points, per fighter - That's 56 sensor strength per squad, before skills are applied. First of all, not everyone will use T2s given their high cost and skill requirements, so a lot of people will have 5 strength. It's also total, not per fighter, and unaffected by skills. That means every squadron of fighters has 5-8 sensor strength and no more. aye and it is either buggy or confusing as hell basically you can perma jam any squad with no issue at all (using any ecm ship) however it does not break any locks the fighters had before being jammed. so they can't swap targets but they will keep shooting the target they had b4 the jam. also if the ECM fighters were meant to just jam other fighters as sepheir suggested that makes them one of the most useless things ever. why would i use ECM fighters to sorta jam a squad when i could use superiority fighters to just blow them out of the sky Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 126	Posted - 2016.05.03 00:13:22 - [627] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: basically you can perma jam any squad with no issue at all (using any ecm ship) however it does not break any locks the fighters had before being jammed. so they can't swap targets but they will keep shooting the target they had b4 the jam. Have you tested that recently? The patch notes for the 28th say "Fighters will now correctly shut down their targeted abilities when successfully jammed by ECM effects."
Lugh Crow-Slave 2382	Posted - 2016.05.03 00:21:57 - [628] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: basically you can perma jam any squad with no issue at all (using any ecm ship) however it does not break any locks the fighters had before being jammed. so they can't swap targets but they will keep shooting the target they had b4 the jam. Have you tested that recently? The patch notes for the 28th say "Fighters will now correctly shut down their targeted abilities when successfully jammed by ECM effects." oh great...... so now carriers really have no chance and are 100% useless so long as as much as one Griffin is on grid (hell just a few ecm drones is going to be a huge threat) now that pyfa is working i can see dps for these just over 4k(with faction ddas) for chimera/archon and just over 6k for nid/than(again faction DDA) making them on paper just under/over haw. untill you factor in destroy-able fighters, flight time, reload time ect. I would also like to know why well over 1/2 the DPS of fighters is in the main guns i thought these were supposed to be able to do moderate dps with main guns but use the missiles when really needed. again CCP please tell us where the hell do you see these gimped capitals fitting into the meta? Citadel worm hole tax
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 589	Posted - 2016.05.03 00:34:14 - [629] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Also, lets not forget about cap, even with a pretty cap heavy build you can only run a single RR cap stable, and can potentially run your cap dry in a minute or so. Given how much people complained on the forums about "unbreakable walls of logI", I can't help but think this might be intentional. Reliance on cap boosters will mean that capital reps on field will have a finite duration. If...IF this is intentional, it's certainly an interesting way to address it. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 126	Posted - 2016.05.03 00:39:19 - [630] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: basically you can perma jam any squad with no issue at all (using any ecm ship) however it does not break any locks the fighters had before being jammed. so they can't swap targets but they will keep shooting the target they had b4 the jam. Have you tested that recently? The patch notes for the 28th say "Fighters will now correctly shut down their targeted abilities when successfully jammed by ECM effects." oh great...... so now carriers really have no chance and are 100% useless so long as as much as one Griffin is on grid (hell just a few ecm drones is going to be a huge threat) now that pyfa is working i can see dps for these just over 4k(with faction ddas) for chimera/archon and just over 6k for nid/than(again faction DDA) making them on paper just under/over haw. untill you factor in destroy-able fighters, flight time, reload time ect. I would also like to know why well over 1/2 the DPS of fighters is in the main guns i thought these were supposed to be able to do moderate dps with main guns but use the missiles when really needed. again CCP please tell us where the hell do you see these gimped capitals fitting into the meta? I hate to say it, but at the moment pyfa is bugged and doesn't consider stacking penalties on DDAs or FSUs...

Lugh Crow-Slave 2382	Posted - 2016.05.03 00:39:53 - [631] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Sekeris wrote: Also, lets not forget about cap, even with a pretty cap heavy build you can only run a single RR cap stable, and can potentially run your cap dry in a minute or so. Given how much people complained on the forums about "unbreakable walls of logI", I can't help but think this might be intentional. Reliance on cap boosters will mean that capital reps on field will have a finite duration. If...IF this is intentional, it's certainly an interesting way to address it. problem is those boosters are useless even on the minm gal fax if there were larger charges to go along with the small ones things would probably be okay. and those unbreakable walls were do to none triage logi and large numbers not base stats where things functioned just fine in triage and in small fleets Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2383	Posted - 2016.05.03 00:58:13 - [632] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: basically you can perma jam any squad with no issue at all (using any ecm ship) however it does not break any locks the fighters had before being jammed. so they can't swap targets but they will keep shooting the target they had b4 the jam. Have you tested that recently? The patch notes for the 28th say "Fighters will now correctly shut down their targeted abilities when successfully jammed by ECM effects." oh great...... so now carriers really have no chance and are 100% useless so long as as much as one Griffin is on grid (hell just a few ecm drones is going to be a huge threat) now that pyfa is working i can see dps for these just over 4k(with faction ddas) for chimera/archon and just over 6k for nid/than(again faction DDA) making them on paper just under/over haw. untill you factor in destroy-able fighters, flight time, reload time ect. I would also like to know why well over 1/2 the DPS of fighters is in the main guns i thought these were supposed to be able to do moderate dps with main guns but use the missiles when really needed. again CCP please tell us where the hell do you see these gimped capitals fitting into the meta? I hate to say it, but at the moment pyfa is bugged and doesn't consider stacking penalties on DDAs or FSUs... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA screw where you think these are meant to go into the meta ccp who do you expect to buy these Citadel worm hole tax
Teddy KGB Crushing Power of Gallente Galaxy Spiritus 13	Posted - 2016.05.03 03:25:18 - [633] - Quote have no time to read all thread.. am i the only one who think that carriers are too cheap? with the base cost of 800kk we will meet cap roaming and camps every gate.. lol
Sepheir Sepheron The Congregation No Handlebars. 52	Posted - 2016.05.03 03:36:23 - [634] - Quote Sekeris wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sepheir Sepheron wrote: Caldari Support fighters are a joke. 1.5 omni strength for ecm with only 3 fighters per squadron. Did you know that heavy ECM drones have a strength of 2? On top of that the Chimera gets a bonus to ECM optimal as if the strength wasn't insulting enough. This is only the surface of the support drone issue Its perfectly functional to jam other fighters, who seem to have a sensor str of 4-8 for a full squad. Both probably need adjusting, as so many more bits of this patch do. At the moment your better off jamming the fighters then the carrier (who will be somewhere arround 150ish) Or you could launch superiority fighters and just blow the other squad up with a less vulnerable and faster squad..
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 127	Posted - 2016.05.03 04:22:26 - [635] - Quote Teddy KGB wrote: have no time to read all thread.. am i the only one who think that carriers are too cheap? with the base cost of 800kk we will meet cap roaming and camps every gate.. lol Where are you getting that idea? Carriers are a fair bit more expensive than before, about 1.3b-1.4b to build.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2386	Posted - 2016.05.03 05:33:18 - [636] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Teddy KGB wrote: have no time to read all thread.. am i the only one who think that carriers are too cheap? with the base cost of 800kk we will meet cap roaming and camps every gate.. lol Where are you getting that idea? Carriers are a fair bit more expensive than before, about 1.3b-1.4b to build. Even if they are just 800m a full bay of a chimera is 670 mil assuming you don't pie pre load anything into the bays if you do that it can be another 270 mil But let's ignore that too there are far more effective things that cost less than 800 mil after fitting so no you will not see many fleets of these Citadel worm hole tax
Oxide Ammar 258	Posted - 2016.05.03 09:20:45 - [637] - Quote Can someone explain to me the benefit of scriptable shield hardeners especially to carriers with their tight CPU/PG, they requires more CPU/PG and they suck more than normal ones. Am I missing a point here or what ? Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2390	Posted - 2016.05.03 09:40:14 - [638] - Quote Oxide Ammar wrote: Can someone explain to me the benefit of scriptable shield hardeners especially to carriers with their tight CPU/PG, they requires more CPU/PG and they suck more than normal ones. Am I missing a point here or what ? They are better than faction/t2 hardeners (however they cycle to slow to reliably overheat) they let you pick your resistance (much more useful on the armor when paired with a reactive hardener than on shields) however I still just use deadspace as they are better and easier to fit. Citadel worm hole tax
Oxide Ammar 258	Posted - 2016.05.03 09:52:46 - [639] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Oxide Ammar wrote: Can someone explain to me the benefit of scriptable shield hardeners especially to carriers with their tight CPU/PG, they requires more CPU/PG and they suck more than normal ones. Am I missing a point here or what ? They are better than faction/t2 hardeners (however they cycle to slow to reliably overheat) they let you pick your resistance (much more useful on the armor when paired with a reactive hardener than on shields) however I still just use deadspace as they are better and easier to fit. Exactly what I'm thinking, deadspace hardeners (Pith X which is much better) around 30 mill except EM one which isn't that costly either. I think I'm gonna skip scriptable hardeners totally. Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2391	Posted - 2016.05.03 10:00:45 - [640] - Quote Oxide Ammar wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Oxide Ammar wrote: Can someone explain to me the benefit of scriptable shield hardeners especially to carriers with their tight CPU/PG, they requires more CPU/PG and they suck more than normal ones. Am I missing a point here or what ? They are better than faction/t2 hardeners (however they cycle to slow to reliably overheat) they let you pick your resistance (much more useful on the armor when paired with a reactive hardener than on shields) however I still just use deadspace as they are better and easier to fit. Exactly what I'm thinking, deadspace hardeners (Pith X which is much better) around 30 mill except EM one which isn't that costly either. I think I'm gonna skip scriptable hardeners totally. They were mostly just ccp saying "I know combat refitting was a fun interesting mechanic this makes up for it right? " but they may see some limited use Citadel worm hole tax

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2805	Posted - 2016.05.03 15:30:23 - [641] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Sekeris wrote: Also, lets not forget about cap, even with a pretty cap heavy build you can only run a single RR cap stable, and can potentially run your cap dry in a minute or so. Given how much people complained on the forums about "unbreakable walls of logI", I can't help but think this might be intentional. Reliance on cap boosters will mean that capital reps on field will have a finite duration. If...IF this is intentional, it's certainly an interesting way to address it. You'll probably see 2 "mode" for reps going. "Balls to the wall" when you have cap booster on hand and require hard reps and a more throttled down tempo when stuff are under control so you can stop using the cap booster and save charges. Now if this will effectively work is to be seen but I think the losing side of any battle will end up in a downward helix of things going from bad to worse when hard reps don't hold and you burn out of cap booster charges thus sealing your fate.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2394	Posted - 2016.05.03 15:33:33 - [642] - Quote just wish i had a larger choice in charge sizes like sub caps do Citadel worm hole tax
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2806	Posted - 2016.05.03 20:24:33 - [643] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: just wish i had a larger choice in charge sizes like sub caps do troll You have 1 more options than every other ship in the game. /troll
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 936	Posted - 2016.05.03 23:55:51 - [644] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: just wish i had a larger choice in charge sizes like sub caps do Actually. You have 2 realistic choices - Spend 1 million isk + for Navy charges, so you can be a useful logi for a few seconds longer. Or you can buy the cheaper but far larger charges and be less useful. A lot like Light Fighters, you can buy affordable T1 fighters or spend half what your hull costs buying 3 flights of T2 . All 3 items are disposable so it comes down to - How much time you are prepared to pve or how many plex your willing to buy for disposable items. This is all about a new isk sink - Apparently all those who fly capital ships are rich and belong to large wealthy groups who can afford to just throw isk away.. CCP seem to be under the misapprehension that everyone who plays Eve wants everything to be easily destructible. They are wrong - Pvp'r want fights, they want to blow stuff up and they want to win. So when everything is designed around N+1 it removes much of what was once good about Pvp in Eve. Citadel release had great potential, all of which was wasted on narrow minded developers. Such a shame...... Bottom line for capitals - Once a player has lost a couple due to them not being able to be satisfactorily repaired by dedicated logistics ships (which aren't designed to give adequate reps for a full triage cycle) and next to useless local reps (again by design, don't want a capital ship that is capable of surviving an attack by half a dozen T1 cruisers do we) - They will just stop using them. Two of my characters were dedicated logistics/triage pilots - They no longer have capital ships worthy of being called "Capital Class Logistics", I won't fly ships that by design are meant to die, due to not being capable of performing the role they are supposed to have been designed for. Fax's, with their current capabilities should cost half what they do, then they might be useful and live up to CCP's expectations of being disposable. At current cost with such limited abilities - Fax's just aren't worth it. For Triage - Reduce cycle time "bonus" (how it can be called a bonus is beyond me - it is in all honesty a drawback) by 50%, increase amount repaired per cycle by 25%, then you might have something worth fielding in a capital fleet. 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 2405	Posted - 2016.05.04 09:00:08 - [645] - Quote So any word on the isk reimbursement for the fax skill? I mean was that just forgotten about? Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2405	Posted - 2016.05.04 09:10:56 - [646] - Quote The cycle time is a huge bonus to those caps and is what will give them a place over the other fax in their role. I don't have the patience to explain it on my cell but ask a corp or alliance mate that focuses on logistics and he should be able to explain Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 937	Posted - 2016.05.04 13:18:38 - [647] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: The cycle time is a huge bonus to those caps and is what will give them a place over the other fax in their role. I don't have the patience to explain it on my cell but ask a corp or alliance mate that focuses on logistics and he should be able to explain What does confuse me about our is how there is no cap reducing per level as well. CCP keeps doing this only to add it a year or two later. Now I don't have a problem with these taking more cap as a trade off for faster reps but it always bugs me when a skill has any negative effect on a module Funny but it was after talking to corp and alliance mates that I posted. I have to presume your talking about the Apostle (because capitals is all about armor right) and at max skills with a full recharge fit it is cap stable with ONE remote rep running. Simply because in Triage they just consume so much cap, they are not really useful. If you want to fit capital cap boosters well then your not fitting more than 2 remote reps because you just don't have the power grid. You can't be talking about the Caldari Fax because with a capital cap booster and 2 remote reps in triage it has 4 mins 12 sec cap life (cap booster just can't keep up) with just one remote rep it has 22 mins of next to useless cap life as it can only rep 8594 hp every 4 seconds. You can however cap yourself out in a couple of minutes using 2 reps and provide 17188 reps to someone while preparing to lose your ship when it comes out of triage. PS; I've been flying logi / triage in one form another for close on 5 years - Although I must admit, I have never flown logi where you need 3 or more in a group because at least one of them at a time can't rep (remote or local) because he is waiting for his cap to recharge for half of his triage cycle. 4 or 5 Apostles may just keep an Archon (that has been called primary by a battleship gang) alive for 2 or 3 minutes; any longer and they will start to cap out, leaving the Archon to die. I would however be interested to see a fitting you believe would work as dedicated logi - 30 odd triage pilots I have spoken to have been unable to come up with anything half decent. NB; for purposes of "dedicated" and "decent" the Fax must be able to maintain cap for at least one full triage cycle running 2 remote 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 2408	Posted - 2016.05.04 13:41:47 - [648] - Quote O.o i dont think any of them are good i was talking about the cycle time bonuse on the gal/minm. was just saying that that bonus was not bad and that cycle time can be a very important factor with logi. not a fit i would use but it meats your standards [Minokawa, Triage] Reactor Control Unit II Co-Processor II Reactor Control Unit II Syndicate Damage Control Capital Shield Extender II Capital Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 3200 Capital Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 3200 Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Capital Ancillary Remote Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 3200 Capital Asymmetric Enduring Remote Shield Booster Capital Asymmetric Enduring Remote Shield Booster Capital Murky Compact Remote Shield Booster [Empty High slot] Triage Module II Capital Capacitor Control Circuit II Capital Capacitor Control Circuit II Capital Capacitor Control Circuit I 7m45s with two reps Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2408	Posted - 2016.05.04 13:47:51 - [649] - Quote [Minokawa, Triage] Capacitor Power Relay II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Syndicate Damage Control Capital Shield Extender II Dread Guristas Capital Shield Extender Capital Shield Extender II Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Capital Ancillary Remote Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 3200 Capital Asymmetric Enduring Remote Shield Booster Capital Asymmetric Enduring Remote Shield Booster Capital Murky Compact Remote Shield Booster [Empty High slot] Triage Module II Capital Capacitor Control Circuit II Capital Capacitor Control Circuit II Capital Capacitor Control Circuit I this is one i like much much more 4m 53s and i think it fits far more in line with the idea of the cal/amarr fax (no active rep) Disclaimer: although i like this one more it is not going to do well outside of the small gang wh stuff i do where dps doesn't normally exceed 25k Citadel worm hole tax
Alice Loreley Citadel Technologies Unit Bright Side of Death 165	Posted - 2016.05.04 15:30:45 - [650] - Quote It would be very desirable to look at the main geymdev of the CCP. Simple to look what of person he/she is. Two years ago, when I left game for the personal reasons, main gamedev was a guy from Blizzard, as far as I know. On community went snickers about space elves and other nonsense. But it is lyrics. Because the present demiurge has just outdone all previous. And to the greatest regret Eve, my big and undivided love, has fallen a victim of the layman. If to sort consistently, then all horror of a situation when the person without technical education undertakes science fiction is clear. First, capital logists. Let's approach from a position not of technical rationalism, but even simple everyday Common Sense (TM). You need to hammer a nail into a wall. What you for this purpose will take - the hammer or a microscope? The logic prompts that the hammer is ideally suited for clogging of nails. His design is rather simple, doesn't contain expensive materials and he besides is universal. It is possible not only to hammer with the hammer nails, but also, for example, to crack nuts. But instead of the hammer (which already is) some very clever person has suggested to put on the market microscopes for clogging of nails. Which at the same time can't carry out functions of microscopes, but value as microscopes.And every hammer now has his handle cut down in half. Secondly, support-faytery. Logic of the God level. Many years in game exist heavy support drones, the realizing absolutely identical functionality and comparable power at immeasurably smaller cost. Further - drones suddenly pilotless. That is from the point of view of common sense it is quite logical to entrust dangerous and ungrateful work to a piece of iron, but not to send to the meat grinder some valorous, let and cloned, the Valkyrie (TM). Besides, interestingly how far you will be sent by the sane soldier if you suggest him to advance to the attack without weapon? Thirdly, system of researches and system of processing. For some reason cut out such quite realistic thing as ME coefficient from system of researches (same with PE). Instead have added unclear 10%. Tell please - from what piece these 10% are? From what nut in a drone/ship/gun design? And something more than 10% is impossible? To the person with technical education it becomes sad and terrible. The terrible ten-percentage science fiction. Further - it is more. For an invent of drones for example unexpectedly Mechanical Engineering changes on Graviton Physics. Emm... sorry, and in what place there gravitons are present and what percent from all mechanical design of the drone they make? I know that you will tell. It simply game! Well, why then in Just Game 30% of waste when processing have appeared? Earlier they were meant too, but only waste from imperfection of skills was obviously reflected. That was quite logical and stimulated the newly appeared industrialist to swing skills, to save isk for implants and to gain desired 6.67 standing to the owner of station with refinery capacities. Now all trouble will give so insignificant gain that the incentive where vanishes. You will tell that mathematically there same. OK. And psychologically? For what reason to the person who has come to game to spend time and forces if a third part of his works INEVITABLY goes nowhere? And he will see this every time pressing Reprocess. Also the interesting picture turns out - the realism is at the roots cleaned in one place, and in another it is taken outside, but in absolutely grotesque form. The list can be continued, but is there a reason? Simply it is very-very curious to me to look in a face to present Head GameDev of Eve. Because there is a full and reasonable feeling that the person is not very clever. And not only from a technical aspect of business. With marketing the situation is not better. Just because lucid minds of are not visited yet by a simple thought - Audience of Dota, WoW yet and various Korean jerk-game WILL NOT play Eve. It is still too difficult for this contingent. You can simplify it even more. But you're not able to take a place for yourself in this segment of market. But you will lose your unique position, which fed you for many years. You have already practically lost her. Just look at your online numbers. PS I know you have a problem with popular carriers and unpopular dreadnoughts. You know why? Because few years ago you cut off dronebays from all capital ships except carriers. And now you're doing the same mistake one more time. PPS Translated from russian with all my madskillz. Why? Because the real CCP speaks english, not russian. If you wanna Lord to hear you, pray in the right language. :) EVE Online: Black Hole. Coming really soon. And... Oh, yeah, small secret - Drifters are Talocan.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2408	Posted - 2016.05.04 15:45:15 - [651] - Quote lol this lord don't listen no matter the language Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 769	Posted - 2016.05.06 04:23:21 - [652] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2445	Posted - 2016.05.06 08:48:32 - [653] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: I like the new carriers. what reason have you found to use them over a dread? Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 769	Posted - 2016.05.06 13:45:28 - [654] - 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1386	Posted - 2016.05.06 13:54:05 - [655] - Quote 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2448	Posted - 2016.05.06 16:03:13 - [656] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. you can still easily shoot sups with a dread and once all the subs are dead you can then refit to capital guns. and good luch alphaing any decent fit sub cap off the field bigger than a dessi Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 127	Posted - 2016.05.06 17:44:13 - [657] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. you can still easily shoot sups with a dread and once all the subs are dead you can then refit to capital guns. and good luch alphaing any decent fit sub cap off the field bigger than a dessi 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2449	Posted - 2016.05.06 17:54:00 - [658] - Quote they have decent DPS on paper untill you add in the 48s reload :/ but in those small fights i suppose they wouldn't last long enough to notice that. so are carriers just big blops now? used to drop on some small gang or miners that you probably could of handled on your own? Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.06 18:22:32 - [659] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2449	Posted - 2016.05.06 18:31:10 - [660] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.06 18:45:42 - [661] - 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.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 127	Posted - 2016.05.06 18:52:49 - [662] - Quote 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.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.06 18:58:01 - [663] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2451	Posted - 2016.05.06 19:41:12 - [664] - Quote again its not that carriers are useless it's that there is no reason to use them over other tools. your gang drops a carrier to deal with my sub cap fleet. great now my fleet drops a dread. i can now either clear off your subs faster than you can clear mine then deal with you or i can kill you then refit to deal with the sub caps. a dread does a carriers role better the only down side is it can't move for 5 min but a decent tackle will make sure the same is true for your carrier Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 127	Posted - 2016.05.06 23:48:04 - [665] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: again its not that carriers are useless it's that there is no reason to use them over other tools. your gang drops a carrier to deal with my sub cap fleet. great now my fleet drops a dread. i can now either clear off your subs faster than you can clear mine then deal with you or i can kill you then refit to deal with the sub caps. a dread does a carriers role better the only down side is it can't move for 5 min but a decent tackle will make sure the same is true for your carrier Actually there's another downside to dreads: If you're fighting a mobile fleet, they can either close in and possibly get under the dread's guns, or take the fight elsewhere and leave the dread sitting there. Against a battlecruiser/battleship fleet or for fighting over stationary objects like structures or nodes, a dread is definitely the better choice though.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2456	Posted - 2016.05.06 23:52:28 - [666] - Quote even then though if you are up against a mobile fleet a carrier is not going to do well keeping up nor are it's fighters. Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1388	Posted - 2016.05.07 09:14:25 - [667] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Go test it on sisi, I have but still no one believes me. 37k at 0 resists and a stationary target drops massively the second it moves or isn't shield BC signatures. I was taking hits for under 300 with like 8k raw armor. I posted the logs somewhere on here. Check my post history.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.07 11:12:04 - [668] - Quote Fighters have marginally better application than torps and cruise, respectively
Lugh Crow-Slave 2462	Posted - 2016.05.07 11:31:41 - [669] - Quote soo slightly better than the worst lol. i still think the only thing carriers need is to let their fighters warp on grid so they can take advantage of the range. at that point i think they would be viable in a fleet Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1388	Posted - 2016.05.07 12:12:06 - [670] - Quote 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.

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 770	Posted - 2016.05.07 14:13:38 - [671] - 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1389	Posted - 2016.05.07 14:36:42 - [672] - Quote It was this [Guardian, Guardian copy 1] Damage Control II 1600mm Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Armor Thermal Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II Alumel-Wired Enduring Sensor Booster 10MN Afterburner II Large Solace Scoped Remote Armor Repairer Large Solace Scoped Remote Armor Repairer Large Solace Scoped Remote Armor Repairer Large Solace Scoped Remote Armor Repairer Large 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Large 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter Medium Ancillary Current Router II Medium Ancillary Current Router II I know it doesn't fit, but it was sisi, so mods needed to be T2 and reppers offline. The real TQ one is actually tankier.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2462	Posted - 2016.05.07 15:07:13 - [673] - Quote Lol I was going to say that's a heretical fit Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1390	Posted - 2016.05.07 15:14:36 - [674] - Quote Yeah, you gotta play with the pieces you have on sisi though But I mean, the tank is pretty typical, if hobo.
Syrias Bizniz Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation 463	Posted - 2016.05.07 16:19:45 - [675] - Quote ITT: "On grid with my carrier are several ships that are really nasty and can **** me up, AND a Guardian, the most tanky and lowsig Logi out there. I should try to kill the Guardian."
Lugh Crow-Slave 2463	Posted - 2016.05.07 16:21:37 - [676] - Quote What if we made the MWD charge based rather than cool down with an appropriate reload once docked. Would add a lot more choice for a carrier pilot about how far to extend his fighters as well the more it was used the more dpm you give up for reload. Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2463	Posted - 2016.05.07 16:22:50 - [677] - Quote Syrias Bizniz wrote: ITT: "On grid with my carrier are several ships that are really nasty and can **** me up, AND a Guardian, the most tanky and lowsig Logi out there. I should try to kill the Guardian." Considering no well tanked ship will be killed by your alpha if you don't get rid of the Guardians you'll find your target back at full health in time for your second Salvo Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 944	Posted - 2016.05.07 23:18:43 - [678] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: What if we made the MWD charge based rather than cool down with an appropriate reload once docked. Would add a lot more choice for a carrier pilot about how far to extend his fighters as well the more it was used the more dpm you give up for reload. Not really, the biggest problem with projecting fighters further from your carrier is that they die so easily. Without the ability to warp, Light fighters are only viable within a reasonable recall range - Unless your prepared to spend hundreds of millions of isk and use it as ammo (once it is launched it is gone), which really isn't a viable approach when your fighters can make up more than half the cost of your ships fittings. What seems most interesting right now, is that the price of light and superiority fighters both T1 and T2, is going up not down. 198 mil for a squad of T1 Satyr's 444 mil for a squad of T2 Satyr's 40 mil for a squad of T1 Firbolg's 139 mil for a squad of T2 Firbolg's Even if those prices halve over time due to researched BPO's, they are still a disposable commodity required to field carriers. Are those sort of prices going to encourage players to use an all but disposable ship (without lots of - somewhat effective - Triage to try and keep them alive) or will they just see less and less use? Light Fighters are basically designed as "single use" modules - Their price should reflect this, even at 50% of current prices they are still to expensive to use in the way they have been designed. Argue all you like the effectiveness or not of light fighters vs guardians, the costs associated with fielding carriers needs to come down A LOT. CCP's presumption that all Eve players are rich and will willingly throw isk away, is wrong. 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 2467	Posted - 2016.05.08 00:18:57 - [679] - Quote The prices are fine if you are building them yourself (about 81 mill per t2 light flight) however do to them sharing parts with citadels the support fighters are expensive right now. I agree the on grid warp would be better in just trying to throw as many ideas out as I can Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 944	Posted - 2016.05.08 01:29:31 - [680] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: The prices are fine if you are building them yourself (about 81 mill per t2 light flight) however do to them sharing parts with citadels the support fighters are expensive right now. I agree the on grid warp would be better in just trying to throw as many ideas out as I can After playing around with a Super on TQ; A light fighter with a limited range MJD ability, 50KM jump with 90 second cooldown. With a zero spoolup time, would give them the ability to quickly move to engage a target. At more than 50 or 60K from the carrier, they just take too long to return so will often die before you can recall them - Is a decent trade off for the ability to engage quickly... Building them yourself may be an option but right now, I'm not up for the 30 odd days of training to do that. Capital ship construction - For light fighters. Really? 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.

Cambria Steele Furnace Thermodynamics 7	Posted - 2016.05.10 18:47:21 - [681] - Quote (Page 1) To preface my argrument, I believe change is a positive attribute for any game and especially one trying to continue to grow after so many successful years. This even takes into account that New Eden is a technologically advanced universe therefore it makes senser there would be scientific developments to fix ongoing problems (and no i do not think any comparisons between Real Life ships and Eve are useful nor relevant). And advocating for carrier changes technically would not be in the best interest of small scale pvp such is the play style I have chosen to pursue in Eve but I supported it anyways. I believe and have believed for some time carriers needed to be modified. Their role had become stale for years and were relegated to fancy healers with an unusable drone bay or a mediocre NPC ratting ship. They fortunately received a reprieve in the form of Drone Damage Amplifiers and became a more effective drone/fighter projection platform BUT at the expense of their own safety. Not only did their potential opponents also received this module, while it was effective at boosting damage output for all ships with drones and fighters (tracking was still the same), there was a sacrifice in for form of dedicating the carriers low module slots to damage instead of tank or utility module. The inclusion of the DDA into New Eden was widely seen as a good innovation and welcomed by the capuleseers. The change played directly into the risk/reward profile of Eve Online. Now comes the Citadel patch with many changes which includes additional changes to capitals. As stated earlier, I believe carriers needed additional changes and was open to the opportunities. Many thousands of us took to the Singularity to test out the new capital changes with baited anticipation of what was to come (the Doomsday changes alone would have been enough!!!! Titans needed love because all they were for years was an expensive bridging ship that could DD from time to time). Many tests were conducted and explosions were had by all. Capitals were fun again. Though after playing around for a while, it became obvious the landscape of capitals was going to change drastically. The Titans were beasts finally. Supers were OMG WHAT and RIP armor supers especially after the new shield Slave implants. Dreads seemed like the basic glass cannon but cool until tested versus citadels then the novelty wore off. Strictly an anti-capital ship but mainly carriers and gone were the gays of dread bombs to kill a titan and supers will be a struggle. HAW dreads seemed like a potentially fun addition AND THEN I undocked a regular carrier. HAW dreads became useless almost instantaneously. Why in the vast universe of New Eden would I EVER risk a few billion ISK to tracking error or range of a HAW Dread again? As testing on Singularity proved one logically would or should not. As the damage and projection stood on Singularity, it was hard to find someone who did not think the numbers would be modified before going live! They were just too amazing so it had to be a base from which the Devs and CCP worked down from. Then on the 27th of April the patch went LIVE and the carrier jumped into the Tranquility cyno to change the current meta drastically. Turns out the Singularity numbers were not a starting point but instead THE point on which we had to judge carriers. Within a day, the carrier transformed from a support ship in fleets to THE FLEET. A standard carrier has all but eliminated the role of standard dreadnoughts unless your fleet already owns the field and demoted it to the "Can I bring a Drake" class of ship. And HAW Dreads? Don't waste your isk brother for less damage, projection, tracking and mobility. So how did it change the game and why do I care? Well after fighting carriers in the wild of New Eden, there is no point not to use them over everything else and here is why it needs to get some review. Basic Review Needed but more fine tuning: -The base speed of fighter squadrons from carriers is drastically increased(2305m/s), alright we can deal with this. -The squadron can go over 13,000m/s and travel across 300km+ in one micro warp drive burst? This too can be dealt with but not with scrams because the cycle still operates at full capacity as if nothing happened. This should be reviewed as it is the only ship in the game where this is the case. -The standard weaponry on the fighter which needs to be reloaded? Standard but can adapt. It is a drone built for damage and based on out a capital ship, it needs to have the ability to do so. -The 'alpha' weaponry on the fighter. Those numbers are just eye watering amazing. The poor sucker who can't escape. Luckily there is only one or two shots before reload. Wait, nope, not true. NINE shots and on a relatively short fire cycle. - The base insurance payout on a carrier is remarkably high so fielding it is not that big of a risk for the best ship out there. The insurance tables are what they have been forever and we all know it's the worst managed insurance company ever. - Reload time while fighters in space and refueling back in the carrier. Once again manageable to a degree but needs consideration. As of now, there is no reason not to constantly fire all weapons and micro back to carrier. The empty fighters can go from hundreds of kilometers away from the carrier to fully refueled and back out on target again in under 45 seconds. This is a little extreme with the application and projection already available.
Cambria Steele Furnace Thermodynamics 7	Posted - 2016.05.10 18:48:33 - [682] - Quote (Page 2) FULL CONSIDERATION AND REVIEW NEEDED: - Fighter Tracking and damage application ability. Not even negotiable or manageable. This needs to be addressed. Everything in Eve Online uses tracking or some aspect of it in the calculations for damage application. Even the Doomsdays of Titans have tracking and signature restrains and these are AoE weapons again. There is currently ZERO need to use anything but the fighters. Support Fighters are not needed nor why would anyone want to use them? The Fighter does everything better.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1393	Posted - 2016.05.10 19:08:02 - [683] - Quote So many things are wrong with your "facts" I don't even know where to start.
Truian Furnace Thermodynamics 1	Posted - 2016.05.10 20:18:06 - [684] - Quote What a cop-out reply
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1393	Posted - 2016.05.10 20:57:24 - [685] - Quote Why spent time and energy on a long reply, when the post is full of garbage? Examples: >The empty fighters can go from hundreds of kilometers away from the carrier to fully refueled and back out on target again in under 45 seconds >Fighter Tracking and damage application ability. Not even negotiable or manageable. This needs to be addressed. Everything in Eve Online uses tracking or some aspect of it in the calculations for damage application. Even the Doomsdays of Titans have tracking and signature restrains and these are AoE weapons again >-The base speed of fighter squadrons from carriers is drastically increased(2305m/s) >Wait, nope, not true. NINE shots and on a relatively short fire cycle. Shitposts get "cop out replies"
Lugh Crow-Slave 2493	Posted - 2016.05.10 23:57:59 - [686] - Quote yeah im not sure if she even looked at a carrier let alone flew one you forgot the part about how carriers completely replaced the role of dreads in fleets. so now i know she has never used one of these against a capital or structure at the very least. again carriers right now are not bad they are just not the best at anything or good at everything giving them a very limited use of other cheaper and lower sp ships Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 130	Posted - 2016.05.11 07:28:56 - [687] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: yeah im not sure if she even looked at a carrier let alone flew one you forgot the part about how carriers completely replaced the role of dreads in fleets. so now i know she has never used one of these against a capital or structure at the very least. again carriers right now are not bad they are just not the best at anything or good at everything giving them a very limited use of other cheaper and lower sp ships To be fair, there are now some situations where carriers are very effective. Mainly as overkill in a micro gang setting. I've been having success and fun gate camping and picking on small numbers of cruisers and/or battleships, but there's no way I'd use a carrier in a fleet. To be viable in larger battles they need fighters with longer range and less ammo concerns, like sentry drones or the long range heavy fighters. The current fighters are very good for popping a few subcaps, but kind of terrible if the battle isn't over in 2-3 minutes or if there's enough spare DPS on the field to shoot the fighters. Even a lone ECM ship can cause huge problems, though that can be mitigated to some extent by pulling and relaunching the fighters, hoping to alpha it before the jammers finish cycling. Carriers have a use, but it's radically different than other capitals and they don't really have a place in the same fleet as the others.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2496	Posted - 2016.05.11 10:50:17 - [688] - Quote maybe a long range fighter (similar to the long range heavy fighter). It would have less tank (or fewer fighters) higher base speed longer range guns (about 15-20k for the volly) slightly more alpha but a longer cycle time (over all = or a bit less DPS than the close range) EDIT: as for mitigating ECM it really only works against frig/t2 ecm ships the rest are much to far out to be caught by the fighters in time :/ (hell all of them can get enough jam from 100km) Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 131	Posted - 2016.05.11 11:10:49 - [689] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: maybe a long range fighter (similar to the long range heavy fighter). It would have less tank (or fewer fighters) higher base speed longer range guns (about 15-20k for the volly) slightly more alpha but a longer cycle time (over all = or a bit less DPS than the close range) EDIT: as for mitigating ECM it really only works against frig/t2 ecm ships the rest are much to far out to be caught by the fighters in time :/ (hell all of them can get enough jam from 100km) Even at 100km it can be doable with a little extra fighter speed. If you pull the fighters immediately when the ECM cycle starts, that's 1 second to recall + 5 to refuel + 1 to launch + 1 to activate MWD and tell them to move, leaving 12-13 seconds for the fighters to engage before the ECM can be activated again. It's not unreasonable for fighters to cover 90km and fire their missiles in 12 seconds. Also keep in mind that multispectral ECM has less range and racial ECM of the wrong type isn't quite 100% effective on most ships.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1395	Posted - 2016.05.11 11:23:10 - [690] - Quote Refuelling isn't 5 secs.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2496	Posted - 2016.05.11 11:24:50 - [691] - Quote But now just by putting that ecm ship on grid you have limited the fighters range to about 10km any farther and it takes more time to bring them back and your fighters need to go over 110km as an ecm ship can mwd ~24km father in those 10 seconds it takes to mwd a fighter 100km. Not to mention just adding one other ecm pilot to leap frog with will shut your carrier down. Also I was using multi to get that range Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2496	Posted - 2016.05.11 11:26:17 - [692] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Refuelling isn't 5 secs. Yes it is. Refueling is 5 +(6xnumber of charges used) Citadel worm hole tax
Trespasser S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two 56	Posted - 2016.05.11 13:20:52 - [693] - Quote The biggest issue i have with carriers/fighters currently is: i think the fact i need to use the UI to do anything at all is just a bit to much micro, but allowing us to engage the basic attack by F would go a long way to fixing this. we were able to engage the basic attack from the fighters using F since fighters first came out years ago and you really need to put it back. i should only have to use that UI if i want to use the special attack or the MWD feature.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1396	Posted - 2016.05.11 17:17:07 - [694] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Refuelling isn't 5 secs. Yes it is. Refueling is 5 +(6xnumber of charges used) I mean reloading he missiles, it's a loooooooong time when you've fired them all
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 131	Posted - 2016.05.11 18:50:46 - [695] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Refuelling isn't 5 secs. Yes it is. Refueling is 5 +(6xnumber of charges used) I mean reloading he missiles, it's a loooooooong time when you've fired them all Well that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about baiting an ECM ship into jamming your fighters, then quickly returning and relaunching them in an attempt to hit the ECM ship before their jammers finish cycling.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2499	Posted - 2016.05.11 19:05:36 - [696] - Quote Trespasser wrote: The biggest issue i have with carriers/fighters currently is: i think the fact i need to use the UI to do anything at all is just a bit to much micro, but allowing us to engage the basic attack by F would go a long way to fixing this. we were able to engage the basic attack from the fighters using F since fighters first came out years ago and you really need to put it back. i should only have to use that UI if i want to use the special attack or the MWD feature. the point was to add more micro but is using f1 so much harder than f? Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1396	Posted - 2016.05.11 19:57:26 - [697] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Refuelling isn't 5 secs. Yes it is. Refueling is 5 +(6xnumber of charges used) I mean reloading he missiles, it's a loooooooong time when you've fired them all Well that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about baiting an ECM ship into jamming your fighters, then quickly returning and relaunching them in an attempt to hit the ECM ship before their jammers finish cycling. Yeah I misunderstood as I was in a hurry, my bad.
Anhenka Black Omega Security The OSS 1688	Posted - 2016.05.11 20:01:21 - [698] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Trespasser wrote: The biggest issue i have with carriers/fighters currently is: i think the fact i need to use the UI to do anything at all is just a bit to much micro, but allowing us to engage the basic attack by F would go a long way to fixing this. we were able to engage the basic attack from the fighters using F since fighters first came out years ago and you really need to put it back. i should only have to use that UI if i want to use the special attack or the MWD feature. the point was to add more micro but is using f1 so much harder than f? There's a difference between micro and meaningful micro. Being given tools to allow a greater degree of micromagement for precise control of something is generally good. Having five identical switches that all do the same thing for 5 identical objects, but not a single switch that does that thing for all five is just bad UI, especially since 90% of the time you want to use all 5 of them at the same time on the same target.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2499	Posted - 2016.05.11 20:30:48 - [699] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Trespasser wrote: The biggest issue i have with carriers/fighters currently is: i think the fact i need to use the UI to do anything at all is just a bit to much micro, but allowing us to engage the basic attack by F would go a long way to fixing this. we were able to engage the basic attack from the fighters using F since fighters first came out years ago and you really need to put it back. i should only have to use that UI if i want to use the special attack or the MWD feature. the point was to add more micro but is using f1 so much harder than f? There's a difference between micro and meaningful micro. Being given tools to allow a greater degree of micromagement for precise control of something is generally good. Having five identical switches that all do the same thing for 5 identical objects, but not a single switch that does that thing for all five is just bad UI, especially since 90% of the time you want to use all 5 of them at the same time on the same target. that one switch can be used to do one thing on one fighter or one on 5 fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 131	Posted - 2016.05.11 21:52:52 - [700] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Trespasser wrote: The biggest issue i have with carriers/fighters currently is: i think the fact i need to use the UI to do anything at all is just a bit to much micro, but allowing us to engage the basic attack by F would go a long way to fixing this. we were able to engage the basic attack from the fighters using F since fighters first came out years ago and you really need to put it back. i should only have to use that UI if i want to use the special attack or the MWD feature. the point was to add more micro but is using f1 so much harder than f? There's a difference between micro and meaningful micro. Being given tools to allow a greater degree of micromagement for precise control of something is generally good. Having five identical switches that all do the same thing for 5 identical objects, but not a single switch that does that thing for all five is just bad UI, especially since 90% of the time you want to use all 5 of them at the same time on the same target. Ok, first of all you never have 5 identical objects. Second, you choose any combination of them to receive commands, so you can very easily give the same command to all 5 at once, assuming you want lights/heavies/supports to all do the same thing.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2499	Posted - 2016.05.12 00:59:08 - [701] - Quote so i can confirm that these can't alpha logi so that is not a threat. a max dps chimera + max dps nid can not even get past 2/3 of a scimis shields Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.12 06:18:17 - [702] - 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 956	Posted - 2016.05.12 07:24:52 - [703] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Problem now for Carriers is, BC's and T1 Battleships aren't really used in PVP, it is usually Over powered T3 Dessies, Command Dessies, Mach's (which carriers are pretty useless at hitting) and Rattlesnakes, which will eat Carriers and their Light Fighters for breakfast. And the best counter for a small gang of carriers and support is dreads, which the carriers have no defense against. 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 776	Posted - 2016.05.12 09:54:04 - [704] - Quote Yeah.. but that's just EVE isn't it. Much of the time you win the battle before you undock.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 132	Posted - 2016.05.12 10:02:33 - [705] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Yeah.. but that's just EVE isn't it. Much of the time you win the battle before you undock. Unfortunately that often means whoever hasn't already won the battle doesn't undock.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2502	Posted - 2016.05.12 15:17:44 - [706] - Quote lol carriers are crap against buffer tanked BCs or BBs unless you have 3-4 carriers but once you are shooting BC/BB HAW are king anyway. as for command dessies carriers are good at killing these you just need to use the superiority fighters Citadel worm hole tax
Kayalia Noble Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:05:49 - [707] - Quote Since the Citadel update, I've gotten only two fights that haven't ended with carriers warping in on our small roaming gang and us being forced to leave else we get 1-shot by fighters that go 10km/s or more with the mwd ability that scramming doesn't shut off. I understand that people don't feel a carrier should be vulnerable to a small roaming gang of cruisers and battlecruisers, and that's fine, but when the answer to every roaming fleet that comes to your space is to bring a carrier, something is wrong. They lock faster than a ceptor, the fighters can't be outrun, and they apply near perfectly to anything subcap. Some arguments i'm seeing; "The fighters can be jammed. " Except that a carrier can lock a kitsune and have fighters 1-shot the kitsune even if he's 100km away before the kitsune can lock and jam the fighters. "Just don't engage if they bring a carrier and you're not setup for it!" That's fine, but every fight I've gotten has ended with carriers or supers warping or cynoing in, so are we just not supposed to fight any gang and stick to ganking ratters and running away, because they can warp in 1 ship and press a button to kill an entire roaming gang? "Just kill the fighters!" With what, the wrecks of our fleet that got 1-shot by 10km/s fighters with 35k alpha within 10 seconds of landing on grid? --- Basically, this change has effectively killed the small gang roaming playstyle. Everybody and their alts have carriers. They are cheap and insurable. You're roaming to their space, if they can completely counter your gang with 1 ship and 0 piloting skill, why would anyone bring anything else to fight you? I'm not saying carriers should be able to be killed by 5 guys in faction cruisers or perma held down by a linked interceptor, but when the answer to every roaming gang that comes to your area is a carrier, there's no point in roaming unless you're just looking to gank a ratter and run away. All of this isn't even getting into how ridiculous they are at gate camping. A carrier that can sit 5000km off a gate, aligned to a POS, instalock and 1-shot frigates and cruisers with drones already pre-positioned with 0 risk to himself is not okay or good gameplay. I 100% support that carriers and fighters needed a buff, but the current change has killed small gang roaming and made 0 risk gate camping more of a reality than it ever was before. Obviously some people like this change and think it's a good thing, others don't. I'm just giving my input from the perspective of a small gang roaming viewpoint.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1396	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:12:30 - [708] - Quote 1) Bring logi. 2) Carriers don't tackle any faster than a battle cruiser. 3) Please, PLEASE learn how these things actually work before complaining, once again we have a post which is full of inaccuracies and falsehoods.
Kayalia Noble Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:20:31 - [709] - Quote Logi doesn't work when your ship is legitimately 1-shot. A thanatos with an NSA alone locks at 813mm. A gnosis is the fastest locking BC I think, and has a scan res of 375mm while most have around 250mm. So yes, it does, a LOT faster. So if you want the falsehoods and inaccuracies to stop, maybe stop spreading them yourself.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1396	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:26:11 - [710] - Quote FC what is fighter scan res? FC what is sebo cane scan res?

Lugh Crow-Slave 2507	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:31:07 - [711] - Quote Kayalia Noble wrote: Logi doesn't work when your ship is legitimately 1-shot. A thanatos with an NSA alone locks at 813mm. A gnosis is the fastest locking BC I think, and has a scan res of 375mm while most have around 250mm. So yes, it does, a LOT faster. So if you want the falsehoods and inaccuracies to stop, maybe stop spreading them yourself. if you are getting one shot you need a better tank... also scrams do shut down the mwd but just like on a ship only after a cycle finishes and these things are still very vulnerable to ecm fighters are also easy to kill Citadel worm hole tax
Kayalia Noble Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:33:56 - [712] - Quote Oh sorry, you're right, a 3x sebo cane can lock faster, how silly of me. If we're doing that, a thanatos with an NSA and 2 sebos gets 2k scan res and locks faster now. We can make pointless arguments all day, it doesn't change anything. Obviously the answer to being one shot is have more tank, but when the only thing that isn't getting one shot are armor hacs and t3s, why don't we just remove every other ship from the game when the easy counter to them is just one carrier.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2507	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:36:28 - [713] - Quote Kayalia Noble wrote: Oh sorry, you're right, a 3x sebo cane can lock faster, how silly of me. If we're doing that, a thanatos with an NSA and 2 sebos gets 2k scan res and locks faster now. We can make pointless arguments all day, it doesn't change anything. Obviously the answer to being one shot is have more tank, but when the only thing that isn't getting one shot are armor hacs and t3s, why don't we just remove every other ship from the game when the easy counter to them is just one carrier. let's see t1 frigs don't get one shot t1 cruisers don't get one shot BBs don't get one shot T3ds don't get one shot BCs don't get one shot oh and this was all in a fight with 2 carriers syncing their alpha Citadel worm hole tax
Kayalia Noble Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:38:03 - [714] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Kayalia Noble wrote: Oh sorry, you're right, a 3x sebo cane can lock faster, how silly of me. If we're doing that, a thanatos with an NSA and 2 sebos gets 2k scan res and locks faster now. We can make pointless arguments all day, it doesn't change anything. Obviously the answer to being one shot is have more tank, but when the only thing that isn't getting one shot are armor hacs and t3s, why don't we just remove every other ship from the game when the easy counter to them is just one carrier. let's see t1 frigs don't get one shot t1 cruisers don't get one shot BBs don't get one shot T3ds don't get one shot BCs don't get one shot oh and this was all in a fight with 2 carriers syncing their alpha I have kills on most of these ships with a single carrier that say otherwise. And deaths that say otherwise as well. Either you're lying or doing something very wrong.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2507	Posted - 2016.05.12 22:40:38 - [715] - Quote Kayalia Noble wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Kayalia Noble wrote: Oh sorry, you're right, a 3x sebo cane can lock faster, how silly of me. If we're doing that, a thanatos with an NSA and 2 sebos gets 2k scan res and locks faster now. We can make pointless arguments all day, it doesn't change anything. Obviously the answer to being one shot is have more tank, but when the only thing that isn't getting one shot are armor hacs and t3s, why don't we just remove every other ship from the game when the easy counter to them is just one carrier. let's see t1 frigs don't get one shot t1 cruisers don't get one shot BBs don't get one shot T3ds don't get one shot BCs don't get one shot oh and this was all in a fight with 2 carriers syncing their alpha I have kills on most of these ships with a single carrier that say otherwise. And deaths that say otherwise as well. Either you're lying or doing something very wrong. only way you are alphaing these is they are tanked poorly they are flying poorly they are webbed and painted in witch case yes capitals with a support fleet are very effective Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 132	Posted - 2016.05.13 02:45:46 - [716] - Quote Kayalia Noble wrote: Since the Citadel update, I've gotten only two fights that haven't ended with carriers warping in on our small roaming gang and us being forced to leave else we get 1-shot by fighters that go 10km/s or more with the mwd ability that scramming doesn't shut off. I understand that people don't feel a carrier should be vulnerable to a small roaming gang of cruisers and battlecruisers, and that's fine, but when the answer to every roaming fleet that comes to your space is to bring a carrier, something is wrong. They lock faster than a ceptor, the fighters can't be outrun, and they apply near perfectly to anything subcap. Some arguments i'm seeing; "The fighters can be jammed. " Except that a carrier can lock a kitsune and have fighters 1-shot the kitsune even if he's 100km away before the kitsune can lock and jam the fighters. "Just don't engage if they bring a carrier and you're not setup for it!" That's fine, but every fight I've gotten has ended with carriers or supers warping or cynoing in, so are we just not supposed to fight any gang and stick to ganking ratters and running away, because they can warp in 1 ship and press a button to kill an entire roaming gang? "Just kill the fighters!" With what, the wrecks of our fleet that got 1-shot by 10km/s fighters with 35k alpha within 10 seconds of landing on grid? --- Basically, this change has effectively killed the small gang roaming playstyle. Everybody and their alts have carriers. They are cheap and insurable. You're roaming to their space, if they can completely counter your gang with 1 ship and 0 piloting skill, why would anyone bring anything else to fight you? I'm not saying carriers should be able to be killed by 5 guys in faction cruisers or perma held down by a linked interceptor, but when the answer to every roaming gang that comes to your area is a carrier, there's no point in roaming unless you're just looking to gank a ratter and run away. All of this isn't even getting into how ridiculous they are at gate camping. A carrier that can sit 5000km off a gate, aligned to a POS, instalock and 1-shot frigates and cruisers with drones already pre-positioned with 0 risk to himself is not okay or good gameplay. I 100% support that carriers and fighters needed a buff, but the current change has killed small gang roaming and made 0 risk gate camping more of a reality than it ever was before. Obviously some people like this change and think it's a good thing, others don't. I'm just giving my input from the perspective of a small gang roaming viewpoint. If I remember correctly, scramming fighters not shutting off the MWD is a known bug and will be fixed at some point. I'm not positive exactly what was said though, so I may be wrong. Carriers absolutely do not lock faster than an interceptor. Interceptors have around 1000 scan res while carriers with an NSA active have around 900 and have to wait a server tick to tell fighters to lock you, then wait for the fighters to lock. So unless you're talking about preventing cloaking or using neuts, carriers are vastly slower to lock than interceptors. Their lock time including fighters is much more comparable to a cruiser. They also have far from perfect damage application against subcaps. Sure, they do a ton of damage, but the main gun is abysmal against anything smaller than a battlecruiser, and the missiles don't apply anywhere near full damage below cruiser level (not that they need to). Now as for how to deal with carriers, that's a bit harder. If you bring active tanked cruisers or smaller, it's quite likely you will get killed in one missle volley. That's just the way things work, and if you ran into 3-4 Tornadoes and a web ship, the outcome would be very similar. That can limit your options somewhat in a small gang setting. I'm honestly not sure how a small gang is supposed to deal with a carrier. Carriers are basically the gods of small-scale engagements against subcaps while being crap for anything else. A lot of your complaint didn't seem to be so much about what carriers can do as how they're used. You may be running into carriers everywhere you go right now, but it won't take long before certain groups learn how people use carriers and start baiting them and killing the carriers. I mean if you look at my killboard, you can easily see I'm not afraid to use my carrier to oppress the little guys. I fully expect to eventually run into someone who has a cyno and drops the nasties on me, but so far it hasn't happened. When people do get set up to hunt carriers a bit more effectively, their use will drop back off as people become scared to use them again. They may be cheap relative to some other things, but they still cost around 450 mil for insurance, another 100-200 mil for even a low-end fit, and a bare minimum of 100 mil for fighters (more likely to be around 300-400 mil unless they expect to die).
Lugh Crow-Slave 2514	Posted - 2016.05.13 04:10:18 - [717] - Quote And if you can't bring dreads kite the carries with t3ds orthrus or interceptors. Fighters are incredibly easy to kill if you focus them. However igor the km kill the fights down only to 3-4 fights at this point the carrier will have to recall and wait the reload or keep them out despite them now doing very little dps Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 134	Posted - 2016.05.13 05:35:27 - [718] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: And if you can't bring dreads kite the carries with t3ds orthrus or interceptors. Fighters are incredibly easy to kill if you focus them. However igor the km kill the fights down only to 3-4 fights at this point the carrier will have to recall and wait the reload or keep them out despite them now doing very little dps Or just abandon them for later.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.13 06:18:43 - [719] - Quote This thread is now grossly over long. Any sample fits to share that are functional?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1401	Posted - 2016.05.13 07:16:53 - [720] - Quote Kayalia Noble wrote: Fighter scan res is 800 base on Einherji II, still 3x a normal battlecruiser that you say they can't lock faster than. Oh sorry, you're right, a 3x sebo cane can lock faster, how silly of me. If we're doing that, a thanatos with an NSA and 2 sebos gets 2k scan res and locks faster now. We can make pointless arguments all day, it doesn't change anything. Obviously the answer to being one shot is have more tank, but when the only thing that isn't getting one shot are armor hacs and t3s, why don't we just remove every other ship from the game when the easy counter to them is just one carrier. Once again, your ignorance of mechanics betrays you. A thanatos CANNOT tackle you at that scan res. Also you need to go research server ticks and how fast a carrier can then make the fighters even begin locking. tl;dr: Learn the goddamned mechanics.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2515	Posted - 2016.05.13 08:01:31 - [721] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: And if you can't bring dreads kite the carries with t3ds orthrus or interceptors. Fighters are incredibly easy to kill if you focus them. However igor the km kill the fights down only to 3-4 fights at this point the carrier will have to recall and wait the reload or keep them out despite them now doing very little dps Or just abandon them for later. Right now this is bugged just tried to do it in a fight last night you can abandon but not reconnect:/ Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 134	Posted - 2016.05.13 09:14:06 - [722] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: And if you can't bring dreads kite the carries with t3ds orthrus or interceptors. Fighters are incredibly easy to kill if you focus them. However igor the km kill the fights down only to 3-4 fights at this point the carrier will have to recall and wait the reload or keep them out despite them now doing very little dps Or just abandon them for later. Right now this is bugged just tried to do it in a fight last night you can abandon but not reconnect:/ True, you can't reconnect remotely. You can however load and launch another squadron to continue fighting then scoop the abandoned squadron once things calm down. Or you could even have the squadron(s) move next to your ship, abandon them, and scoop them immediately while loading the new squadron. In any case, abandoning a squadron could help alleviate the dilemma of continuing to attack with only part of a squadron or recalling and waiting for them to refuel before reloading the tube.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2515	Posted - 2016.05.13 09:44:55 - [723] - Quote Ah I see what you mean and yes that works and is one of the reasons you need to pull them off the carrier with kiting and why you don't want to kill to many (making abandonment the obvious choice) I was unaware however that you could scoop to fighter bay with a weapons timer. That had to be an oversight right? Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 135	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:16:49 - [724] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ah I see what you mean and yes that works and is one of the reasons you need to pull them off the carrier with kiting and why you don't want to kill to many (making abandonment the obvious choice) I was unaware however that you could scoop to fighter bay with a weapons timer. That had to be an oversight right? I'm honestly not sure I've ever tried it with a weapons timer. How would that be an oversight though? I mean you can pick up anything else with a timer and the most possible abuse I can see coming from it is putting your fighters at risk for a few seconds to reduce the ridiculous reload time a bit after running out of missiles.
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:28:55 - [725] - Quote Like always, and players that play this game +5 years can confirm this. CCP goes and makes changes to certain ships. Makes them very popular or even OP like fighters in this case. They gonna fix this but knowing CCP its gonna be within a month or 2 years. So abuse while you can. Its not an exploit. And you do not need to lie to community that its not broken. You do not need to lie to your self either. I did some carrier gate camping yesterday and it was disgusting. One shooting cruisers. Decloacking Cov ops with fighters and insta popping them. Atron tried to burn out of bubbles and moved maybe 2 km before he got volley'd. Its broken and anybody who says otherwise can suck **** by choice.
Lan Wang Knights of the Posing Meat FETID 2841	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:37:16 - [726] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: Like always, and players that play this game +5 years can confirm this. CCP goes and makes changes to certain ships. Makes them very popular or even OP like fighters in this case. They gonna fix this but knowing CCP its gonna be within a month or 2 years. So abuse while you can. Its not an exploit. And you do not need to lie to community that its not broken. You do not need to lie to your self either. I did some carrier gate camping yesterday and it was disgusting. One shooting cruisers. Decloacking Cov ops with fighters and insta popping them. Atron tried to burn out of bubbles and moved maybe 2 km before he got volley'd. Its broken and anybody who says otherwise can suck ** by choice. they are anti-subcap ships, did you think the cruiser you 1-shoted would just kite you and kill you? FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations \| lowsec pvp & piracy -** Join FETID Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1401	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:38:35 - [727] - Quote 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.
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:40:42 - [728] - Quote So if they anti sub cap ships they should alpha all sub caps? If Dreads are anti cap ships lets make then so they can alpha capital. Problem solved.
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:44:31 - [729] - Quote 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. Its funny how are f delusional and keep claiming that a broken thing is not broken. I guess i would be too if i found something that wont lose in anoms like you lose Ishtars. Kinda hard to imagine losing those 45 mil ticks?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2515	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:44:51 - [730] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: So if they anti sub cap ships they should alpha all sub caps? If Dreads are anti cap ships lets make then so they can alpha capital. Problem solved. ..... but they don't alpha all sub caps only large or tackled ones with low buffer Citadel worm hole tax

Lugh Crow-Slave 2515	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:46:31 - [731] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ah I see what you mean and yes that works and is one of the reasons you need to pull them off the carrier with kiting and why you don't want to kill to many (making abandonment the obvious choice) I was unaware however that you could scoop to fighter bay with a weapons timer. That had to be an oversight right? I'm honestly not sure I've ever tried it with a weapons timer. How would that be an oversight though? I mean you can pick up anything else with a timer and the most possible abuse I can see coming from it is putting your fighters at risk for a few seconds to reduce the ridiculous reload time a bit after running out of missiles. Because you can't add new fighters to your bay with a timer using this carriers can effectively share their fighter bay with one another Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2515	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:52:22 - [732] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax
Lan Wang Knights of the Posing Meat FETID 2843	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:52:23 - [733] - Quote Voodoch1ld 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. Its funny how are f delusional and keep claiming that a broken thing is not broken. I guess i would be too if i found something that wont lose in anoms like you lose Ishtars. Kinda hard to imagine losing those 45 mil ticks? you sound really mad about carriers being good and needing other capitals to kill them FETID now recruiting pvp pilots & corporations \| lowsec pvp & piracy - Join FETID Loyalist to Angel Cartel & Serpentis
Lugh Crow-Slave 2515	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:53:41 - [734] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: Voodoch1ld 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. Its funny how are f delusional and keep claiming that a broken thing is not broken. I guess i would be too if i found something that wont lose in anoms like you lose Ishtars. Kinda hard to imagine losing those 45 mil ticks? you sound really mad about carriers being good and needing other capitals to kill them But you don't even need other capitals look at my kb we lost two carriers to a sub cap fleet most smaller than BC Citadel worm hole tax
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:55:27 - [735] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Voodoch1ld wrote: So if they anti sub cap ships they should alpha all sub caps? If Dreads are anti cap ships lets make then so they can alpha capital. Problem solved. ..... but they don't alpha all sub caps only large or tackled ones with low buffer Mate, if you alpha stuff you do not need to tackle it FFS. In what sane mind is normal to you that a cruiser gets rekt without a chance to align yet alone warp out?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2516	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:59:01 - [736] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Voodoch1ld wrote: So if they anti sub cap ships they should alpha all sub caps? If Dreads are anti cap ships lets make then so they can alpha capital. Problem solved. ..... but they don't alpha all sub caps only large or tackled ones with low buffer Mate, if you alpha stuff you do not need to tackle it FFS. In what sane mind is normal to you that a cruiser gets rekt without a chance to align yet alone warp out? .... you did read the part where I said they don't alpha the ones that aren't tackled right? Citadel worm hole tax
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:59:10 - [737] - Quote Lan Wang wrote: Voodoch1ld 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. Its funny how are f delusional and keep claiming that a broken thing is not broken. I guess i would be too if i found something that wont lose in anoms like you lose Ishtars. Kinda hard to imagine losing those 45 mil ticks? you sound really mad about carriers being good and needing other capitals to kill them Im not mad. I abuse the **** out of it. I just do not go and lie how its working as it should be.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1403	Posted - 2016.05.13 10:59:25 - [738] - Quote Voodoch1ld 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. Its funny how are f delusional and keep claiming that a broken thing is not broken. I guess i would be too if i found something that wont lose in anoms like you lose Ishtars. Kinda hard to imagine losing those 45 mil ticks? Aw bless, it's been ages since someone killboard stalked me. Allow me to return the favour: Where are your carrier kills bro? No wait, I'll guess "an opsec alt". I've posted evidence in this very thread of carrier alpha, what you have posted are ill ill formed and unsupported whines. So I tell you what, princess, go get me some evidence and perhaps then we can talk. But I guarantee you can't do that without one or both ships being shitfit.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2516	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:04:59 - [739] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: Lan Wang wrote: Voodoch1ld 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. Its funny how are f delusional and keep claiming that a broken thing is not broken. I guess i would be too if i found something that wont lose in anoms like you lose Ishtars. Kinda hard to imagine losing those 45 mil ticks? you sound really mad about carriers being good and needing other capitals to kill them Im not mad. I abuse the **** out of it. I just do not go and lie how its working as it should be. A ship who's role is dedicated to killing sub caps is very efficient so long as it has support but is a floundering fish without support is not working as intended? I suppose my RHML widow is also op because it melts webbed and painted cruisers before reps can even think about landing Citadel worm hole tax
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:09:59 - [740] - Quote You need webs and painters to do that. For a carriers you do not need either one.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2516	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:11:55 - [741] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: You need webs and painters to do that. For a carriers you do not need either one. Yes you do to apply damage to anything smaller than a BC A cruiser going 500m/s is negating most of the carriers damage Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:12:39 - [742] - 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.
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:14:15 - [743] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Voodoch1ld wrote: You need webs and painters to do that. For a carriers you do not need either one. Yes you do to apply damage to anything smaller than a BC A cruiser going 500m/s is negating most of the carriers damage GL with that.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1403	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:16:01 - [744] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Voodoch1ld wrote: You need webs and painters to do that. For a carriers you do not need either one. Yes you do to apply damage to anything smaller than a BC A cruiser going 500m/s is negating most of the carriers damage GL with that. Apparently I need to relink it. Stop shitfitting. Stop dying.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2516	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:16:06 - [745] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Aye as I have said before they are good ships Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 957	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:22:03 - [746] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Ah I see what you mean and yes that works and is one of the reasons you need to pull them off the carrier with kiting and why you don't want to kill to many (making abandonment the obvious choice) I was unaware however that you could scoop to fighter bay with a weapons timer. That had to be an oversight right? Also abandoning light fighters is a sure way to lose whatever is left of the squadron quite quickly - No bonuses from the carrier, just sitting in space = Dead fighters..... But hey, its not my isk being thrown away - Abandon all you like, I just hope I'm there to collect the KM's 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.
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:35:01 - [747] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Aye as I have said before they are good ships so long as you have support But uhh I would go with a cyno you say the warp speed doesn't bother you but try that after a few 50au+ systems :p Thank you for your solution. Now lets all go fit over tanked guardians and go tackle with those, do solo etc. Thank you mate. You are our lord and savior!
Lugh Crow-Slave 2518	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:38:40 - [748] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Aye as I have said before they are good ships so long as you have support But uhh I would go with a cyno you say the warp speed doesn't bother you but try that after a few 50au+ systems :p Thank you for your solution. Now lets all go fit over tanked guardians and go tackle with those, do solo etc. Thank you mate. You are our lord and savior! ... it was a t2 tank iirc the largest reducing factor was sig and speed not the tank itself Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 776	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:40:02 - [749] - Quote The slower my warp the harder my murderboner is when I land.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1404	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:52:46 - [750] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Aye as I have said before they are good ships so long as you have support But uhh I would go with a cyno you say the warp speed doesn't bother you but try that after a few 50au+ systems :p Thank you for your solution. Now lets all go fit over tanked guardians and go tackle with those, do solo etc. Thank you mate. You are our lord and savior! Or bring a couple with you. Or learn how to fit at all and adapt to a changing meta. Or you could continue to bawl on the forums. Up to you.

Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 1	Posted - 2016.05.13 12:59:51 - [751] - Quote So yea lets continue like this. So we can kill solo and small gang aspect of EVE totally. Lets make it all about blobbing. Flying with falcons & logi. All about that gank baby.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2518	Posted - 2016.05.13 13:01:24 - [752] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: So yea lets continue like this. So we can kill solo and small gang aspect of EVE totally. Lets make it all about blobbing. Flying with falcons & logi. All about that gank baby. or just two griffins and engage 20km away.. Citadel worm hole tax
Kayalia Noble Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 13:06:02 - [753] - Quote ECM is fun and interesting gameplay. /s Maybe look at why something needs to be made to where it can't do anything in the first place before it's considered balanced.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1404	Posted - 2016.05.13 13:07:57 - [754] - Quote Voodoch1ld wrote: So yea lets continue like this. So we can kill solo and small gang aspect of EVE totally. Lets make it all about blobbing. Flying with falcons & logi. All about that gank baby. When the hell did bringing two or three logi become "blobbing"? Or just don't engage capitals if you're not prepared to step up your game? I mean, I realise that's an unreasonable burden what with their disgusting, interceptor like mobility and all . But oh...oh noes...the camps. FC what is a scout? The problem here isn't carriers the problem here is people like you wanting to engage a capital solo and being mad when it doesn't end well for you.
Kayalia Noble Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 13:14:12 - [755] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Voodoch1ld wrote: So yea lets continue like this. So we can kill solo and small gang aspect of EVE totally. Lets make it all about blobbing. Flying with falcons & logi. All about that gank baby. When the hell did bringing two or three logi become "blobbing"? Or just don't engage capitals if you're not prepared to step up your game? I mean, I realise that's an unreasonable burden what with their disgusting, interceptor like mobility and all . But oh...oh noes...the camps. FC what is a scout? The problem here isn't carriers the problem here is people like you wanting to engage a capital solo and being mad when it doesn't end well for you. "Just don't engage if they bring a carrier and you're not setup for it!" That's fine, but every fight I've gotten has ended with carriers or supers warping or cynoing in, so are we just not supposed to fight any gang and stick to ganking ratters and running away, because they can warp in 1 ship and press a button to kill an entire roaming gang? So once again, the counter to carriers online is just don't undock. Bringing 2-3 logi alone isn't blobbing, but you don't go out in 2-3 logi and nothing else, it's all the other stuff you bring with it when it becomes blobbing usually. Nobody is saying a carrier should be solod by a guy in a frigate. But a carrier shouldn't be the answer to, "oh look a roaming gang, let me undock my 1 ship and kill them all with F3 before they can even warp off gate!"
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1404	Posted - 2016.05.13 13:30:29 - [756] - Quote Kayalia Noble wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Voodoch1ld wrote: So yea lets continue like this. So we can kill solo and small gang aspect of EVE totally. Lets make it all about blobbing. Flying with falcons & logi. All about that gank baby. When the hell did bringing two or three logi become "blobbing"? Or just don't engage capitals if you're not prepared to step up your game? I mean, I realise that's an unreasonable burden what with their disgusting, interceptor like mobility and all . But oh...oh noes...the camps. FC what is a scout? The problem here isn't carriers the problem here is people like you wanting to engage a capital solo and being mad when it doesn't end well for you. "Just don't engage if they bring a carrier and you're not setup for it!" That's fine, but every fight I've gotten has ended with carriers or supers warping or cynoing in, so are we just not supposed to fight any gang and stick to ganking ratters and running away, because they can warp in 1 ship and press a button to kill an entire roaming gang? You need to set the hyperbole aside. " warp in 1 ship and press a button to kill an entire roaming gang" is obviously impossible and does nothing to address your issues. Maybe you need to get to know the hotdroppers in your area better? If people are dropping supers on your face it is rarely on a whim. Kayalia Noble wrote: Bringing 2-3 logi alone isn't blobbing, but you don't go out in 2-3 logi and nothing else, it's all the other stuff you bring with it when it becomes blobbing usually. Nobody is saying a carrier should be solod by a guy in a frigate. But a carrier shouldn't be the answer to, "oh look a roaming gang, let me undock my 1 ship and kill them all with F3 before they can even warp off gate!" A few logi, a few DPS ships. It's not exactly rocket science. There's no excuse for a carrier or super or even a group of them to wipe your gang. Why are you not watching for cynos going up and immediately egressing? If every last one of you is hard tackled you've already failed. Why are you not watching dscan? They are like freighters in warp. They're not "suddenly on grid, didn't have time to see that coming" fast. The thing is, I and others have tested proper fits and they are - for the most part - not possible to alpha with a carrier. I've not seen a decent example of something being popped outrageously yet and I've extensively tested their power over and over on a variety of fits on sisi to find a use for carriers. If you have multiple capitals on grid, well, you're going to have a bad time. I'll tell you right now what is punished hard are things relying on kiting and active tanks - those are absolutely hit very hard by carriers in the current meta but that's ok because there are still counters available. A lot of solo people are buttmad about this, because their one "go to" meta doesn't work for everything any more. Finally carriers set up to hit small things well and hard are hilariously soft targets for even a small HAC gang, never mind someone planting another capital on field or a blops drop. They make their fitting trades for this. My guardian test had [n]ten[/b] slots dedicated to damage and application to get those numbers and I still wouldn't call them noteworthy. At some point when you're fitting ten freakin' mods to a ship to do ONE thing, it's got some huge weaknesses elsewhere. I can't link them here but there are a lot of examples easily found on zkill of carriers dying to small gangs.
Kayalia Noble Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 13:43:21 - [757] - Quote Well why bother with exact numbers when you ignore them every other time I've posted them in response. They can warp in a ship, and each time they press rocket salvo that's a kill, it's not a far fetched hyperbole. We roam rather than join a fleet to shoot a POS after losing a ratting ishtar. We go to different regions every day. You learn who the hotdroppers are, but when a carrier is an easy counter to a fleet, everyone becomes the hotdropper. The problem is when nobody is undocking to fight except in a carrier or super against your subcaps because it's the easy way to win a fight with little to no risk to themselves. So once again your answer is if they bring a carrier just warp away. I get it. The issue is when people are doing NOTHING but bringing carriers, it completely kills small gang roaming content. It's not like we're getting shot at by a carrier once time and it's a major issue. It's every single time. You keep saying how t1 cruisers, frigates, etc, can't be volleyed by a single carrier, then you post about a max tank ab guardian not getting alphad and that's your defense. I've 1-shot tanked occators, t1 cruisers, frigates, decloaked cloaky ships and popped them before they could warp off gate all while sitting 1000km away aligned to a POS in complete safety. You say people are mad about their one go to meta being dead, but you're defending your new one go to meta, so why shouldn't we? I'm not arguing their ability at fighting other caps, that's a different issue. I've said all that needs to be said about the issue so I'm done for now, you can go on defending it and coming up with reasons why it's not in need of further balancing, I know you will. o/
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1404	Posted - 2016.05.13 14:05:12 - [758] - Quote >Well why bother with exact numbers when you ignore them every other time I've posted them in response. Where? What sample fits are being alphad? Carrier and target please. You keep making audacious claims with absolutely zero evidence or samples posted but we're to simply take you at your word? Yeah, I used a guardian because that was the topic at hand at that time. If you want to demonstrate that something isn't working as intended, you know where sisi it. It's easy to test and I'm not here to wipe your arse for you. Surely it's not so hard to find a good example of a tanky thing that was one shot that shouldn't have been? >You say people are mad about their one go to meta being dead, but you're defending your new one go to meta, so why shouldn't we? I'm not defending it, I'm saying you're wrong. There is a difference. And seriously, if you want to be a child and keep killboard stalking, at least have the good grace to do it with a character who has actually done the things you claim to have. Then we can easily see these feats you, or was it your alt, claim to have done and assess validly. But maybe you're not doing that, because that character doesn't exist. Lord knows your ignorance of basic mechanics tells me that is the most likely conclusion.
Voodoch1ld The Fork Clever Use of Neutral Toons 1	Posted - 2016.05.13 14:45:55 - [759] - Quote Love how you talk down to everyone <3 You honestly think we have tried out stuff on SISI? Played around with fits? Tried out what can get one shot and what cannot? Seriously dude think just a little before you assume everyone else is dumb and you are not.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1404	Posted - 2016.05.13 14:47:23 - [760] - Quote I'm not assuming anything. I'm just waiting to not be the only one to present actual evidence.

Zenafar 7	Posted - 2016.05.13 15:14:15 - [761] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Voodoch1ld wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Voodoch1ld wrote: You need webs and painters to do that. For a carriers you do not need either one. Yes you do to apply damage to anything smaller than a BC A cruiser going 500m/s is negating most of the carriers damage GL with that. Apparently I need to relink it. Stop shitfitting. Stop dying. Can u tell carrier fit pls?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1404	Posted - 2016.05.13 15:50:53 - [762] - Quote It was on P34
Zenafar 7	Posted - 2016.05.13 15:58:53 - [763] - Quote I c, ty omni with tracking script i hope?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1404	Posted - 2016.05.13 16:14:14 - [764] - Quote Naturally. Like I say, 10 mods for damage and application.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 777	Posted - 2016.05.13 17:59:05 - [765] - 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
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 136	Posted - 2016.05.13 19:20:08 - [766] - Quote 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?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2524	Posted - 2016.05.13 19:44:37 - [767] - 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. TBH i have found shield thannys to be best you have similar tank but better damage even with one OTL Citadel worm hole tax
Krovos Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 20:32:50 - [768] - Quote Let me first state my bias so that is clear and there can be no argument about that. I am an EVE player, I have been playing EVE for the better part of 10-years, 9/10 of those years has been spent in nullsec, roaming nullsec, and playing sort of a "terrorist" hit and run small (average fleet size of 15) man gang. I love this game, I fully support CCP in the world they have created, and have been providing content for myself and my friends for the majority of my time in this game under Mafia Redux, and now Furnace. I have flown subcapitals, and I have flown capitals. I will agree that capitals in their past state were lackluster, I found myself using them in W-Space for krabbing more often than I did PVP. However, my specialization is in subcap warfare; small-medium gang sized. Also let me state, we live in a C2-C5+NS WH. We decided to live in such a place because we like fresh roaming on a whim, and the ability to roll our static nullsec as we desire. We originated in Thera, but decided to move for :reasons: Within those many years of roaming carriers were not a common site. Over time that changed, however, and carriers began popping up in nullsec more often, albeit, mostly in anoms. It was never entirely easy for us to kill a carrier, we still had to be careful, watching out for sentries on our DPS ships, light drones on our interceptors, or fighters on our slower/less tanked ships, but we managed. Especially what became difficult was when multiple carriers became an equation, or if the carrier pilot was smart and fit a triage module. It always astonished me how so few of the carriers we killed pre-Citadel never fit a triage module. Such a simple module could have given many of these carriers precious extra time to ask for backup, and have our small gang removed. You know, back before Citadel, carriers actually needed a support gang to back them up. So Furnace in its short time (less than a year old), as a small gang corporation has killed probably over 100 carriers. I feel like we had a pretty good grasp on to how to handle them. As I have stated above, I undoubtedly think they needed some kind of rework, but the rework that we have presently is far too extreme. Combine that with some other changes to the game that CCP has made, the ability for corporations such as my own to work around this new meta has become exponentially more difficult, to the point of us not wanting to even roam anymore. That's a tough pill to swallow for a corporation and group of guys who have been roaming together for years. Since 4/27, more often than not, our roaming has ended in a carrier warping on our grid, or a carrier jumping the gate on us. Hell, we even got camped in by a HIC supported by 4-5 interceptors, and 2 carriers. An Orthrus was instantly killed, as well as a Cerb, and two interdictors. I say instantly, and I want that to be made clear, that that is not an exaggeration. What kind of game play is that for something to decloak, get instantly locked, and just die? I understand well that this kind of game play exists else where in the game. We have the insta-locking Svipuls in lowsec killing frigates and other things in the same fashion. However, that is subcap on subcap PVP, it can be dealt with, with little effort for those trying to dispatch the Svipuls. EVE is in a way about rock, paper, scissors. As a small gang, we often are "countered" by being a. Blobbed b. Superior fleet comp'd Both of which, we'd deal with. Being blobbed is something my friends and I have no problem dealing with, in fact we enjoy being out numbered, it's under those situations that we become better pilots. Same goes for when our enemy brings a direct counter to our fleet. Both situations were challenging, but they were fun and emergent game play for both groups involved. In this current meta, however, it seems that this is the new norm for my guys. 1. Roll our nullsec static until we find a region that we like 2. Form a fleet, for example a standard fleet of ours would consist of [Oracle x2, Keres, Rapier/Huginn, Navy Omen, Interceptor, Interdictor, Command Destroyer, and Links] 3. Roam around, likely get a few ganks on people ratting 4. Search for a fight, likely find a fight and begin fighting usually a fight that is in the enemies favor 5. Enemy realizes that they either are losing, not killing things as fast as they would like, or want to seal the deal and.... 6. Drop a carrier or several carriers, and begin instantly killing any of our usual roaming ships. Roam over. There has been occassions, where carriers have been used on us with absolutely no support gang of their own to speak of. This has been solo/duo carriers on a gate, just blapping anything that comes by. Since when did that become the new meta of EVE-Online? Since when did this game become Capitals-Online? I know that term, Capitals-Online has been thrown around before, but this is indeed the meta for which that meme rings especially true, as sad as it is.
Krovos Furnace Thermodynamics 0	Posted - 2016.05.13 20:34:01 - [769] - Quote We provide content for a lot of the smaller/medium sized alliances that you now see holding space thanks to FozzieSov (thank you for that, that patch was amazing and has improved the game, I humbly mean that). IGÇÖve had people that weGÇÖve fought against compliment us on our game style, they have personally thanked me for roaming in their space and for teaching them how to PvP better. While we didnGÇÖt directly teach them, these pilots became better at the game by playing against people who were at the time better than them. I realize how arrogant that comes across as, but it is true, and these adversaries of ours have become better from it. So before writing off this argument, note that there are people out there who benefit from our niche style of playing, however I am running off-topic and digress. If one of these proposed counters to fighting carriers is to roam in a full T3 armor gang with links, ABGÇÖs, and Guardians, then that is again a sign of how utterly broken carriers are. First of all, we arenGÇÖt interested in fighting carriers, we just want to fight subcaps, there are after all what seems like 100 or so subcaps in this game compared to the 16-20 or so capitals I can think of offhand. We roam in ships that look engage-able, for a reason, we want people to come out and fight us. We want people to dock up their ratting boats, or to come out from the station and form up and fight us, itGÇÖs what we enjoy. If weGÇÖre rolling around in this T3 gang either these groups wonGÇÖt want to bother with us because we GÇ£look too scaryGÇ¥ or they will automatically ship up to counter us, and camp us in with our slow moving high value fleet comp. The last proposed solution that has been talked about in this thread is to GÇ£well go and bring your own capitals then.GÇ¥ To that I say, we gladly would, however, for one we live in a wormhole to where mass is limited to under the threshold for that of a capital. And to that you will say, well then get out of a C2 wormhole. I would more than love to get out of a C2 wormhole, but you may recall a patch that happened around the last year in which CCP nerfed PLGÇÖs force projection through WHGÇÖs. We used to be one of those C5-5 corporations, probing massive chains and roaming through nullsec via our C5 highway. We dropped capitals frequently, at great risk moving them through WH chains, lighting a cyno in nullsec, and dropping our own Dreadnaughts, supported by our small gang on bigger sov holding alliances. So please, donGÇÖt tell me that myself or my corporation has the balls to use our own capitals. We very well would, and be excited too, but we lack that ability due to a playstyle of ours that was indirectly nerfed some time ago. I completely agree that a few cruiser sized vessels should not be able to kill a carrier. At the same time, they shouldnGÇÖt be instantly removed from the field from an unsupported carrier. What was great about capitals pre-Citadel is that they required some kind of support. They were slow high damage ships with poor tracking or damage application. They could kill our own damage ships, or at the very least force them off the field, but they could be tackled by us and for their defense could tank us for a meaningful amount of time. If fit properly, they could hold out until their own backup arrived, and force us off the field or even kill us. The capitals of today, however, have the capability of moving freely across space, unsupported, killing most of anything in their path until either they are blobbed or are counter-dropped. I think it speaks volumes when you have some of our most viewed streamers going out in carriers doing GÇ£solo carrier roams.GÇ¥ When has that ever been a good idea? Well since 4/27 itGÇÖs been possible, and not even possible but very much viable. I absolutely love EVE-Online; itGÇÖs been a part of my life for almost more time now than it has not. I wrote my senior thesis paper on this game and its culture and community. I have brought many friends, including my girlfriend into this game all of whom very much enjoy it. I have sitting next to my desk a fan-made Oracle portrait, displaying one of my favorite ships in the game and a staple to the Furnace history. However, I am saddened at the state of the game presently. A large portion of the ships that were once viable roaming options are not looking so viable anymore. More and more regions on my internal maps have become GÇ£no fly zonesGÇ¥ because of their tendency to use capitals against a small gang, one that on paper is much inferior compared to the numbers, and war chest of tools at their disposal. I want capitals to be fair and balanced for both parties involved, this game should not become Capitals-Online, this is EVE-Online. The little guys always had a fighting chance in this game, itGÇÖs what made it great. WeGÇÖve never had to conform to a major alliance / coalition if we wanted to PvP in nullsec. Sure weGÇÖve had to adapt, weGÇÖve had to adapt a lot, but weGÇÖve never had to change the way we want to play the game. With this current meta, itGÇÖs increasingly looking like the way we and many others outside of my corporation have played this game have to move on and conform to what weGÇÖve been fighting against for so long. And thatGÇÖs truly a shame. TLDR; CCP please have a good hard look at capitals, especially carriers and re-evaluate their effect on the game presently. When the solution to any size or composition of a gang is to GÇ£drop a carrier on itGÇ¥ (with or without support) something is unbalanced.
Brother Zahariel Furnace Thermodynamics 38	Posted - 2016.05.13 20:48:15 - [770] - Quote The man above is well educated and his post is valid and correct in all formats and uses. You can tell just how good it is by the fact he's wearing glasses which make him look smart.

Leviathan Tank V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA 5	Posted - 2016.05.13 20:54:11 - [771] - Quote yup carriers are op
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 137	Posted - 2016.05.13 21:34:37 - [772] - Quote Krovos, the thing about Eve is that it's all about numbers, counters, and counters to counters. While a group like yours may be countered by carriers, carriers themselves can be countered or blobbed. It takes time for people to figure out the counter to the current meta, which seems to be carriers. That then turns the meta into carriers for everything, and it takes a bit of time for people to figure out the counter to that. Carriers are very scary for small gangs like yours, but they're big, expensive, and slow ships that look good on the killboard. It's not hard for a group bigger or better prepared than yours to kill a carrier or two, and if carrier pilots keep doing what we're currently doing it won't take long before the gangs coming through start turning into bait and carriers start dying. Then the carriers will once again go from predator to prey and you won't run into them every roam. That said, I would like to see carriers rebalanced a bit. The way things currently are they're oppressive in small numbers against small numbers, but virtually useless in larger numbers against larger numbers. I think light fighters need significantly less missile alpha/DPS and MWD speed, and more main gun DPS, range, and base speed (basically like a faster version of the long range heavy fighters but with anti small stuff missiles instead of bombs). That way they could be of use in a prolonged battle against a significant fleet while not putting that lone cruiser in deep armor before it can get away or brutally hazing any small gang that has less than 8 missile volleys of EHP.
maCH'EttE Furnace Thermodynamics 206	Posted - 2016.05.13 23:05:02 - [773] - Quote Krovos wrote: We provide content for a lot of the smaller/medium sized alliances that you now see holding space thanks to FozzieSov (thank you for that, that patch was amazing and has improved the game, I humbly mean that). IGÇÖve had people that weGÇÖve fought against compliment us on our game style, they have personally thanked me for roaming in their space and for teaching them how to PvP better. While we didnGÇÖt directly teach them, these pilots became better at the game by playing against people who were at the time better than them. I realize how arrogant that comes across as, but it is true, and these adversaries of ours have become better from it. So before writing off this argument, note that there are people out there who benefit from our niche style of playing, however I am running off-topic and digress. If one of these proposed counters to fighting carriers is to roam in a full T3 armor gang with links, ABGÇÖs, and Guardians, then that is again a sign of how utterly broken carriers are. First of all, we arenGÇÖt interested in fighting carriers, we just want to fight subcaps, there are after all what seems like 100 or so subcaps in this game compared to the 16-20 or so capitals I can think of offhand. We roam in ships that look engage-able, for a reason, we want people to come out and fight us. We want people to dock up their ratting boats, or to come out from the station and form up and fight us, itGÇÖs what we enjoy. If weGÇÖre rolling around in this T3 gang either these groups wonGÇÖt want to bother with us because we GÇ£look too scaryGÇ¥ or they will automatically ship up to counter us, and camp us in with our slow moving high value fleet comp. The last proposed solution that has been talked about in this thread is to GÇ£well go and bring your own capitals then.GÇ¥ To that I say, we gladly would, however, for one we live in a wormhole to where mass is limited to under the threshold for that of a capital. And to that you will say, well then get out of a C2 wormhole. I would more than love to get out of a C2 wormhole, but you may recall a patch that happened around the last year in which CCP nerfed PLGÇÖs force projection through WHGÇÖs. We used to be one of those C5-5 corporations, probing massive chains and roaming through nullsec via our C5 highway. We dropped capitals frequently, at great risk moving them through WH chains, lighting a cyno in nullsec, and dropping our own Dreadnaughts, supported by our small gang on bigger sov holding alliances. So please, donGÇÖt tell me that myself or my corporation lacks the balls to use our own capitals. We very well would, and be excited too, but we lack that ability due to a playstyle of ours that was indirectly nerfed some time ago. I completely agree that a few cruiser sized vessels should not be able to kill a carrier. At the same time, they shouldnGÇÖt be instantly removed from the field from an unsupported carrier. What was great about capitals pre-Citadel is that they required some kind of support. They were slow high damage ships with poor tracking or damage application. They could kill our own damage ships, or at the very least force them off the field, but they could be tackled by us and for their defense could tank us for a meaningful amount of time. If fit properly, they could hold out until their own backup arrived, and force us off the field or even kill us. The capitals of today, however, have the capability of moving freely across space, unsupported, killing most of anything in their path until either they are blobbed or are counter-dropped. I think it speaks volumes when you have some of our most viewed streamers going out in carriers doing GÇ£solo carrier roams.GÇ¥ When has that ever been a good idea? Well since 4/27 itGÇÖs been possible, and not even possible but very much viable. I absolutely love EVE-Online; itGÇÖs been a part of my life for almost more time now than it has not. I wrote my senior thesis paper on this game and its culture and community. I have brought many friends, including my girlfriend into this game all of whom very much enjoy it. I have sitting next to my desk a fan-made Oracle portrait, displaying one of my favorite ships in the game and a staple to the Furnace history. However, I am saddened at the state of the game presently. A large portion of the ships that were once viable roaming options are not looking so viable anymore. More and more regions on my internal maps have become GÇ£no fly zonesGÇ¥ because of their tendency to use capitals against a small gang, one that on paper is much inferior compared to the numbers, and war chest of tools at their disposal. I want capitals to be fair and balanced for both parties involved, this game should not become Capitals-Online, this is EVE-Online. The little guys always had a fighting chance in this game, itGÇÖs what made it great. WeGÇÖve never had to conform to a major alliance / coalition if we wanted to PvP in nullsec. Sure weGÇÖve had to adapt, weGÇÖve had to adapt a lot, but weGÇÖve never had to change the way we want to play the game. With this current meta, itGÇÖs increasingly looking like the way we and many others outside of my corporation have played this game have to move on and conform to what weGÇÖve been fighting against for so long. And thatGÇÖs truly a shame. TLDR; CCP please have a good hard look at capitals, especially carriers and re-evaluate their effect on the game presently. When the solution to any size or composition of a gang is to GÇ£drop a carrier on itGÇ¥ (with or without support) something is unbalanced. Edit: My paragraph on ECM didn't copy over. But I am well aware that ECM works wonders on fighters. But is that really a valid solution to something? Preventing something from locking, therefore preventing it from doing anything outside of warping off is not a solution to carriers. ECM in itself is broken, and the day flying ECM becomes a requirement in this game is the day I retire. Modern day shakespear.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 778	Posted - 2016.05.14 04:14:08 - [774] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2531	Posted - 2016.05.14 05:13:22 - [775] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 778	Posted - 2016.05.14 05:58:01 - [776] - 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
Lugh Crow-Slave 2532	Posted - 2016.05.14 06:24:45 - [777] - Quote Lol never considered using these for boosts before or after the change but I suppose it works for small gangs What is the ehp so I can compare with my shield fit Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 779	Posted - 2016.05.14 07:28:45 - [778] - Quote 1.3 mil EHP. Adds +31.5% scram/webrange and +23.6% armour resists. Note no slaves implants.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2534	Posted - 2016.05.15 00:30:51 - [779] - Quote yeah still looks like the thanny is a shield tank w/o tank rigs implants or links and using C-types for adaptive it gets 1.47m ehp (1.77 if you add a DCU II) this also frees up your lows for DPS [1.63M just shield ehp 4.5kdps] Damage Control II Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier Omnidirectional Tracking Enhancer II Capital Shield Extender II Capital Shield Extender II Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Fighter Support Unit II Fighter Support Unit II Fighter Support Unit II Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Networked Sensor Array Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Capital Drone Durability Enhancer II Capital Core Defense Field Extender II Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 138	Posted - 2016.05.15 00:53:39 - [780] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: yeah still looks like the thanny is a shield tank w/o tank rigs implants or links and using C-types for adaptive it gets 1.47m ehp (1.77 if you add a DCU II) this also frees up your lows for DPS [1.63M just shield ehp 4.5kdps] Damage Control II Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Drone Damage Amplifier Omnidirectional Tracking Enhancer II Capital Shield Extender II Capital Shield Extender II Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Fighter Support Unit II Fighter Support Unit II Fighter Support Unit II Heavy Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer Networked Sensor Array Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Capital Drone Durability Enhancer II Capital Core Defense Field Extender II I can't help but notice your fit is far more expensive than the armor version you're comparing it to and doesn't give any bonus to other fleet members.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2535	Posted - 2016.05.15 01:42:57 - [781] - Quote [Thanatos, cheap shield] Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Damage Control I Co-Processor I Capital Shield Extender I Capital Shield Extender I Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I 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 Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2535	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:01:23 - [782] - Quote back onto carriers alphaing all sub caps [Maller, Brick] Energized Armor Layering Membrane II Energized Armor Layering Membrane II 1600mm Steel Plates II Mark I Compact Reactor Control Unit Heat Sink II Heat Sink II 10MN Afterburner II J5b Enduring Warp Scrambler Fleeting Compact Stasis Webifier Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Medium Trimark Armor Pump II 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 Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 779	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:25:54 - [783] - 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 - [784] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2535	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:34:52 - [785] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. If it perfectly applies you still live but toy would not last much longer lol Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2535	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:38:05 - [786] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Well that's what makes us differant when I'm flying a carrier I'm relying on my support fleet to assist my application not my own hull. The extra tank is not the important part even with less I would go woth shield on the thanny in order to utilize its dps. The fit you are using I can get more tank and dps out of a chimera and still have mids for utility. Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2535	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:39:31 - [787] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Even without fighters the older carriers were far more effective in many places thanks to sub cap drones Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 139	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:53:05 - [788] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: [Thanatos, cheap shield] Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Damage Control I Co-Processor I Capital Shield Extender I Capital Shield Extender I Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I 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 That's an interesting fit. I wonder how important the drone rigs are though. You could fit the modules a bit better with the extra CPU from dropping one of those rigs.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2537	Posted - 2016.05.15 02:56:23 - [789] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: [Thanatos, cheap shield] Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Damage Control I Co-Processor I Capital Shield Extender I Capital Shield Extender I Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pith X-Type EM Ward Field Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I 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 That's an interesting fit. I wonder how important the drone rigs are though. You could fit the modules a bit better with the extra CPU from dropping one of those rigs. only reason they are there was to make it similar to his fit i would go with full shield rigs Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2537	Posted - 2016.05.15 03:00:48 - [790] - Quote while we are on the topic of fits does anyone have an Archon fit? and a reason it is better than using any other carrier? Citadel worm hole tax

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 783	Posted - 2016.05.15 05:31:53 - [791] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.15 05:47:14 - [792] - Quote 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. Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 783	Posted - 2016.05.15 06:44:50 - [793] - 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?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2538	Posted - 2016.05.15 06:59:12 - [794] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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? WH i suppose large is relative i count large as anything over 150 tottal Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 961	Posted - 2016.05.15 11:38:36 - [795] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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? WH i suppose large is relative i count large as anything over 150 tottal I guess WH space is different, in known space 100,150 is a decent fight but lowsec in particular, where you can field carriers you can field dreads. Which leaves carriers in a somewhat awkward position. 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 2538	Posted - 2016.05.15 12:06:10 - [796] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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? WH i suppose large is relative i count large as anything over 150 tottal I guess WH space is different, in known space 100,150 is a decent fight but lowsec in particular, where you can field carriers you can field dreads. Which leaves carriers in a somewhat awkward position. as i stated a while back in this thread dreads put carriers in a very overshadowed position in most areas Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 961	Posted - 2016.05.16 01:09:37 - [797] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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? WH i suppose large is relative i count large as anything over 150 tottal I guess WH space is different, in known space 100,150 is a decent fight but lowsec in particular, where you can field carriers you can field dreads. Which leaves carriers in a somewhat awkward position. as i stated a while back in this thread dreads put carriers in a very overshadowed position in most areas even WH. but i am starting to see their uses. turns out being able to take reps is extremely powerful (who knew right?) in most cases it doesn't make up for the minute long reload but we have started using that time to bring more fighters into the carriers as they need to wait out a weapons timer anyway Again, that may well be useful in WH Space, if your carrier survives long enough to lose all its fighters. Personally I wouldn't be counting on waiting out a timer in preparation to throw away another billion isk in fighters. In any other part of space, it only takes a blink of an eye and your carriers are surrounded by dreads and or even more subs. In known space, the current role of carriers is to get in kill and get out before they can be hot dropped by - well, just about anything really. 3 carriers and a fax counter drop for a 15 man gate camp that has engaged a 10 man roam (carriers with gate camp have this won?) - Hics decloak, second cyno goes up, dreads land at optimal's, carriers dead (whoops). This actually happened 2 days ago, unfortunately the fax managed to survive long enough to jump out and dock up next door, he just de-agressed as soon as the dreads landed leaving his carrier buddies to their fate. Fax was at zero on the gate, carriers (around 20 off the gate) too far away to make it out While it was fun, the only real threat the dreads faced was an additional counter drop from a larger group while in siege, the carriers were utterly helpless and were disposed of as easily as a cerb fleet decimates T1 destroyers caught in bubbles. Having said that, carriers are ok at what they do, which unfortunately isn't much or very well. Light fighters are too disposable for the prices - They need to come down at least 50% in build costs. They are currently the most expensive "ammo" in the game.. Carriers themselves have no utility - They are restricted to fighting large subcaps (BC's and Battleships), without bringing enough support that you don't need carriers. Income with carriers - Your better of with just about anything other than a carrier. Lose one squad of fighters, you've lost any profit you may have made from the site and as most rats will attack light fighters (in my testing) this is quite possible. Add to this, npc capital spawns which carriers just die to, carriers are a last choice for ratting or lvl 5's. While carriers may well have a place in WH fleets, that same place is not really viable elsewhere unless you are the local sov holder in which case carriers can be pretty OP due to the limited mobility (jump ranges and fatigue) of anything that could potentially counter them. NB; I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to show the differences. Devs did a good job at keeping carriers viable in WH space, which was a goal but that usefulness doesn't work outside of a wormhole. 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 2539	Posted - 2016.05.16 01:35:05 - [798] - Quote 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. Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 786	Posted - 2016.05.16 04:01:48 - [799] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2540	Posted - 2016.05.16 04:12:35 - [800] - Quote 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 :/ Citadel worm hole tax

Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 787	Posted - 2016.05.16 06:47:42 - [801] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2541	Posted - 2016.05.16 07:00:23 - [802] - Quote from what i understand killing the rats the bpcs are for just with a low drop rate Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 788	Posted - 2016.05.16 07:08:55 - [803] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2541	Posted - 2016.05.16 07:12:09 - [804] - Quote lol did you expect anything else? i think CCP has been moving away from LP because most ppl agree its meh at best and limiting at worst. problem is ccp isn't replacing it with anything as far as i can see and i can't think of anything that would work if they did try :? Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 789	Posted - 2016.05.16 08:22:35 - [805] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2541	Posted - 2016.05.16 08:24:10 - [806] - Quote yes i know they do that they just do it in a crap way. thats why i said there was a problem in that ccp is not replacing them with anything as they seem to be moving away from them Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 794	Posted - 2016.05.16 11:17:09 - [807] - 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.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2548	Posted - 2016.05.16 11:49:50 - [808] - Quote Wouldn't waist it then devs generally stop reading threads Citadel worm hole tax
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 796	Posted - 2016.05.16 12:47:13 - [809] - 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?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2548	Posted - 2016.05.16 12:51:51 - [810] - Quote 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 Citadel worm hole tax

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.

Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 78	Posted - 2016.05.29 21:28:02 - [841] - Quote Basically, it goes like this - No capital ship has ever been able to kill smaller ships this easily. Pre-citadel, you could apply damage about 50% ish to a cruiser, of 2.2k (dps fit), about 1k dps. Now you can easily apply 75-80% of ~4k dps, say 3k dps for easy rounding. Note the first estimate is with a target painter, second is with no webs/tp. You should need additional support to apply damage fully to smaller ships. The DPS potential isn't the issue. The fact that a carrier can volley a 10MN AB confessor with no effort moving 50% max speed (~13k ehp) is an issue. It comes down to the carrier being a solowtfpwnmobile to literally every single ship. It allows some mongoloid to just trash everything and think that he's just really good at the game, and think that there's nothing wrong (i.e. most of the carrier fruitloops posting).
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1414	Posted - 2016.05.29 22:10:29 - [842] - Quote Minibren wrote: 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. Right. So the carrier locks. Then on the next tick, the fighters start locking. THEN the tick after they finish locking, they fire. If you can't get a frigate or nanotechnology cruiser out in that time, you're bad.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2688	Posted - 2016.05.30 00:06:43 - [843] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Basically, it goes like this - No capital ship has ever been able to kill smaller ships this easily. Pre-citadel, you could apply damage about 50% ish to a cruiser, of 2.2k (dps fit), about 1k dps. Now you can easily apply 75-80% of ~4k dps, say 3k dps for easy rounding. Note the first estimate is with a target painter, second is with no webs/tp. You should need additional support to apply damage fully to smaller ships. The DPS potential isn't the issue. The fact that a carrier can volley a 10MN AB confessor with no effort moving 50% max speed (~13k ehp) is an issue. It comes down to the carrier being a solowtfpwnmobile to literally every single ship. It allows some mongoloid to just trash everything and think that he's just really good at the game, and think that there's nothing wrong (i.e. most of the carrier fruitloops posting). No carrier is applying 75% damage even to a bake 2 cruiser without support. Just doing the basic math will show even with an omni you only apply about 60. Unless they have no prop mods or are using enough extenders to blow their sig nearly 40%. Carriers do need support to apply full damage. We couldn't even kill a logi cruiser with three salvos from two carriers without it. Citadel worm hole tax
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 78	Posted - 2016.05.30 02:16:36 - [844] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Basically, it goes like this - No capital ship has ever been able to kill smaller ships this easily. Pre-citadel, you could apply damage about 50% ish to a cruiser, of 2.2k (dps fit), about 1k dps. Now you can easily apply 75-80% of ~4k dps, say 3k dps for easy rounding. Note the first estimate is with a target painter, second is with no webs/tp. You should need additional support to apply damage fully to smaller ships. The DPS potential isn't the issue. The fact that a carrier can volley a 10MN AB confessor with no effort moving 50% max speed (~13k ehp) is an issue. It comes down to the carrier being a solowtfpwnmobile to literally every single ship. It allows some mongoloid to just trash everything and think that he's just really good at the game, and think that there's nothing wrong (i.e. most of the carrier fruitloops posting). No carrier is applying 75% damage even to a bake 2 cruiser without support. Just doing the basic math will show even with an omni you only apply about 60. Unless they have no prop mods or are using enough extenders to blow their sig nearly 40%. Carriers do need support to apply full damage. We couldn't even kill a logi cruiser with three salvos from two carriers without it. Besides pre citadel no capital ship was built to kill sub caps so that argument is moot. Even with that carriers used to be far more effective against sub caps than they ate now and have you forgotten about the Phoenix? That thing would eat sub caps and had no need of support to do it. Also again ccp put in a direct counter to carriers by giving fighters such low sensor strength And if you think application is the biggest threat then being weapon disruptors. Fighter lock speed to high? Bring damps. Stop looking at fighters as drones and start looking at them like ships. I'm not saying they are hard to counter. Their base application is too high. And a Guardian, btw, has a low sig, usually AB, and can have upwards of 100k ehp. So yes, it will take a lot to kill it. I'm saying that it should instablap dessies/frigs and cripple cruisers with single volleys. The blap phoenix was perfectly fine. You apply 30% damage to a cruiser. It was enough considering 100k volley. And lets do the basic math. Heavy rocket salvo is 100 radius. Most cruisers have 100 sig or over. The salvo is 60% of the dps. So 60% right off the top. The weapon has base 240 radius, so about 40% damage with 40% of the dps. This is 76% of the dps is applied to a cruiser. I ignore the velocity factor because it is overcome with 2x omni links or 1 web, easily supplied by a carrier. And weapon disrupting/jamming will not help you prevent the volley damage that will instablap your face because fighter recalling. Maybe you should learn more about PvP mechanics before commenting.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2690	Posted - 2016.05.30 02:39:36 - [845] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Basically, it goes like this - No capital ship has ever been able to kill smaller ships this easily. Pre-citadel, you could apply damage about 50% ish to a cruiser, of 2.2k (dps fit), about 1k dps. Now you can easily apply 75-80% of ~4k dps, say 3k dps for easy rounding. Note the first estimate is with a target painter, second is with no webs/tp. You should need additional support to apply damage fully to smaller ships. The DPS potential isn't the issue. The fact that a carrier can volley a 10MN AB confessor with no effort moving 50% max speed (~13k ehp) is an issue. It comes down to the carrier being a solowtfpwnmobile to literally every single ship. It allows some mongoloid to just trash everything and think that he's just really good at the game, and think that there's nothing wrong (i.e. most of the carrier fruitloops posting). No carrier is applying 75% damage even to a bake 2 cruiser without support. Just doing the basic math will show even with an omni you only apply about 60. Unless they have no prop mods or are using enough extenders to blow their sig nearly 40%. Carriers do need support to apply full damage. We couldn't even kill a logi cruiser with three salvos from two carriers without it. Besides pre citadel no capital ship was built to kill sub caps so that argument is moot. Even with that carriers used to be far more effective against sub caps than they ate now and have you forgotten about the Phoenix? That thing would eat sub caps and had no need of support to do it. Also again ccp put in a direct counter to carriers by giving fighters such low sensor strength And if you think application is the biggest threat then being weapon disruptors. Fighter lock speed to high? Bring damps. Stop looking at fighters as drones and start looking at them like ships. I'm not saying they are hard to counter. Their base application is too high. And a Guardian, btw, has a low sig, usually AB, and can have upwards of 100k ehp. So yes, it will take a lot to kill it. I'm saying that it should instablap dessies/frigs and cripple cruisers with single volleys. The blap phoenix was perfectly fine. You apply 30% damage to a cruiser. It was enough considering 100k volley. And lets do the basic math. Heavy rocket salvo is 100 radius. Most cruisers have 100 sig or over. The salvo is 60% of the dps. So 60% right off the top. The weapon has base 240 radius, so about 40% damage with 40% of the dps. This is 76% of the dps is applied to a cruiser. I ignore the velocity factor because it is overcome with 2x omni links or 1 web, easily supplied by a carrier. And weapon disrupting/jamming will not help you prevent the volley damage that will instablap your face because fighter recalling. Maybe you should learn more about PvP mechanics before commenting. Except unless you are sitting right on top of the carrier recalling isn't an issue for 1-2 griffins to keep it looked down. Toss in some damps and no way those fighters are continuing to lock. Same thing with avoiding a carriers web Fighters are also very easy to kill and will not one shot a frig unless it is holding still. The logistics that took 2 carriers over three volleys each was a cap fit t1 minmatar abs the only reason it eventually popped was because the dumb ass flew into a friendly ship and got bumped. Ignoring the vollosity in the calculation is just lazy as even with two omnis toy are still not doing full dps to an ab cruiser unless it is plate fit Carriers right now have less damage application and about the same dps they did before the change. Only difference is a chunk of that dps comes all at once meaning at any point if your logistics starts to fall behind your in trouble. I think the reason these things can be so devastating to cruiser gangs is intentional to break up that over saturated meta but even buffer cruisers with logi can shrug of the blow from the fighters. Can a carrier be killed by a small gang of sub caps anymore? Not easily no particularly if your in a group who refuses to fly anything bigger than a cruiser. But carriers are far from OP.broken in some situations maybe but I have yet to see a solution to the areas it is broken workout completely eliminating them from any use inv a fleet fight. I do understand the mechanics and I know you're smart enough to figure them out too if you would just break out of your little box Citadel worm hole tax
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 78	Posted - 2016.05.30 07:25:48 - [846] - Quote Are you mental? "Less application than before the change". Have you even flown a fighter carrier before AND after the change against subcaps? You can instablap sabres right now. You couldn't even touch anything below a cruiser before the change. The new fighters use missile calculation now, not tracking. I just broke down the damage calculation for you. If it took your 2 carriers 3 volleys, to kill a T1 cruiser, then you must have garbage skills/trash fits. It's like you play the forums more than you play the game. Ignoring the velocity to compensate for a single web/ 2 omnis is reasonable in any sense, considering explosion velocity is 160 m/s, base cruiser speeds are around 200-250 m/s. Easily compensated with one of the above My issue isn't with being able to kill them. Because I can and have. My issue is with the damage application. It's ridiculous. Two shots to a 10mn AB phantasm with 30k ehp going 2500 m/s. A blap phoenix that dual webs and dual TPs that wouldn't kill it that quickly (pre-citadel). Carriers should need support to be able to do most of it's damage potential. As of right now, it doesn't need any support to apply most damage to cruisers and ~40-50% to dessies. That is broken.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2693	Posted - 2016.05.30 07:48:02 - [847] - Quote My god your right silly me i was under the impretion the old carriers could use more than fighters must be my age. (memory is not what it used to be) it took two carriers 3 vollies because each one only got it down to about 30% shield where it was then quickly repped back up by logistics b4 the next salvo could come through yes the base speed of a cruiser is 200-250 good thing ABs exist then if you lost a phantasm going 2.5k either you didn't have logistics (in witch case yeah 3kdps will do that) or they were asleep at the wheel they do need support either from friendlies or brain dead targets orbiting at 6k with no prop mod. no way a fighter is applying 50% of its dps to an untackled desi. Citadel worm hole tax
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 82	Posted - 2016.05.30 08:28:50 - [848] - Quote Lets do some basic math again. Let's say your target is a thrasher, 56m base sig, 340 m/s base velocity. That's 56% application with 60% of the dps (missiles, 100m radius). Again, ignoring velocity in part due to a dual omnidirectional setup on a carrier. Now the turret attack will apply approximately 24% of it's damage (240m radius), which is 40% of dps. That comes to approximately 43% damage total applied. This is assuming the Thrasher is not AB fit (mwd sig bloom counters your velocity damage reduction), and the carrier has either 2 omnis or 1 60% web on the thrasher. Now say its a max dps fit carrier, 43% of 4k is about 1.7k dps, to a dessie with approx 6-8k ehp. One shot - dead. That is broken. Things get even more stupid should it be shield rigged/extender fit, or we're talking interdictors, which have 70 base sig (sabre).
Lugh Crow-Slave 2693	Posted - 2016.05.30 08:33:18 - [849] - Quote except if its MWD fit it can out run the fighters all you would need for that is a hic or a hyena... yes a solo carrier will rock a solo sub caps would but even a competent gang of 4-5 will have no issue against an unsupported carrier. what is nice is the same things needed to counter a carrier don't hinder a small gang doing its day to day thing. want to know what can take on even a med sized gang with no support now? a nag that thing is a nightmare for sub caps Citadel worm hole tax
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 83	Posted - 2016.05.30 09:04:06 - [850] - Quote Yeah, good luck outrunning 20k m/s fighters. Or the 2.1 km/sec base speed of Templar IIs with one navi computer on a carrier that's not an Archon. And no, you need a specific setup in gangs of under 8 or so to kill carriers, assuming you're not going to face tank them with 4 guardians, or face tank with a marauder. You would need to run a triple point hictor with a triple web rapier for 1 carrier, and be able to kite or kill fighters quickly (oracle support would work) to not die, in your example. This is not a common fleet setup, and goodbye your entire gang once a second carrier gets dropped. Again this digresses with the main issue - Carriers are broken in application to smaller targets (cruisers and below). And by Naglfars, I assume you mean Big Miker's new video. When flown by a competent pilot against incompetent players, yes, it is powerful. But if you watch there was plenty of things he could not track/kill. That and dreadnoughts in general will tank around 15-20k dps, and no one in their right mind would take a fight against one where they did not have overwhelming numbers, dps comparable to the tank with neuts, and/or overwhelming dps.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2693	Posted - 2016.05.30 09:08:29 - [851] - Quote or again just some ECM and don't sit on top of the carrier Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1416	Posted - 2016.05.30 09:15:46 - [852] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: 1 web, easily supplied by a carrier. Uh huh.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2693	Posted - 2016.05.30 09:20:42 - [853] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: 1 web, easily supplied by a carrier. Uh huh. now now to be fair this guy keeps sitting right on the carrier Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1417	Posted - 2016.05.30 09:25:05 - [854] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: 1 web, easily supplied by a carrier. Uh huh. now now to be fair this guy keeps sitting right on the carrier Doesn't matter unless you can shoehorn half a million capacitor onto the thing.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2693	Posted - 2016.05.30 09:34:32 - [855] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: 1 web, easily supplied by a carrier. Uh huh. now now to be fair this guy keeps sitting right on the carrier Doesn't matter unless you can shoehorn half a million capacitor onto the thing. well you should not be cycling your NSA more than you need. to make the e-war penalty actually matter the NSA cycle time may need to be upped Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2693	Posted - 2016.05.30 09:37:09 - [856] - Quote also you keep talking about how the omnis make up for the speed part but just one disruptor (unscripted un-bonused) would more than null two omnis..... i mean it man just bring some e-war Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 979	Posted - 2016.05.30 09:39:33 - [857] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Basically, it goes like this - No capital ship has ever been able to kill smaller ships this easily. Pre-citadel, you could apply damage about 50% ish to a cruiser, of 2.2k (dps fit), about 1k dps. Now you can easily apply 75-80% of ~4k dps, say 3k dps for easy rounding. Note the first estimate is with a target painter, second is with no webs/tp. You should need additional support to apply damage fully to smaller ships. The DPS potential isn't the issue. The fact that a carrier can volley a 10MN AB confessor with no effort moving 50% max speed (~13k ehp) is an issue. It comes down to the carrier being a solowtfpwnmobile to literally every single ship. It allows some mongoloid to just trash everything and think that he's just really good at the game, and think that there's nothing wrong (i.e. most of the carrier fruitloops posting). No carrier is applying 75% damage even to a bake 2 cruiser without support. Just doing the basic math will show even with an omni you only apply about 60. Unless they have no prop mods or are using enough extenders to blow their sig nearly 40%. Carriers do need support to apply full damage. We couldn't even kill a logi cruiser with three salvos from two carriers without it. Besides pre citadel no capital ship was built to kill sub caps so that argument is moot. Even with that carriers used to be far more effective against sub caps than they ate now and have you forgotten about the Phoenix? That thing would eat sub caps and had no need of support to do it. Also again ccp put in a direct counter to carriers by giving fighters such low sensor strength And if you think application is the biggest threat then being weapon disruptors. Fighter lock speed to high? Bring damps. Stop looking at fighters as drones and start looking at them like ships. I'm not saying they are hard to counter. Their base application is too high. And a Guardian, btw, has a low sig, usually AB, and can have upwards of 100k ehp. So yes, it will take a lot to kill it. I'm saying that it should instablap dessies/frigs and cripple cruisers with single volleys. The blap phoenix was perfectly fine. You apply 30% damage to a cruiser. It was enough considering 100k volley. And lets do the basic math. Heavy rocket salvo is 100 radius. Most cruisers have 100 sig or over. The salvo is 60% of the dps. So 60% right off the top. The weapon has base 240 radius, so about 40% damage with 40% of the dps. This is 76% of the dps is applied to a cruiser. I ignore the velocity factor because it is overcome with 2x omni links or 1 web, easily supplied by a carrier. And weapon disrupting/jamming will not help you prevent the volley damage that will instablap your face because fighter recalling. Maybe you should learn more about PvP mechanics before commenting. You intentionally leaving out much of the abilities of Light Fighters or just arguing for the sake of it? Yes the base weapon has an explosion radius of 240, it also has an explosion velocity of 120 m/s i If you can't outrun that by enough to minimize damage, your doing something wrong. Rocket salvo, again 100m explosion radius - 120m/s explosion velocity - all you need is to be doing 130m/s or more and you are reducing the alpha. Then to top this all off, light fighters can only apply any damage inside 10k, if your smart and fly your ship accordingly - Light Fighters would never hit you for enough damage to kill you. Always have Logi..... Carriers are far from OP and those who say they are, just haven't tried. You want easy capital kills vs a capital ship specifically designed to fight subcaps - Adapt, try new things, don't try to kill a carrier with just frigates and destroyers (i've seen it tried, was so funny I peed). The carrier was not doing so well (he says his T2 max skill fighters couldn't keep up with the fast orbiting frigs), until his support fleet landed at which time those frigs and dessies not quick enough to warp out, died horribly - 2 web lokies a lachesis and a scimi was all it took. 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.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 83	Posted - 2016.05.30 17:34:19 - [858] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Basically, it goes like this - No capital ship has ever been able to kill smaller ships this easily. Pre-citadel, you could apply damage about 50% ish to a cruiser, of 2.2k (dps fit), about 1k dps. Now you can easily apply 75-80% of ~4k dps, say 3k dps for easy rounding. Note the first estimate is with a target painter, second is with no webs/tp. You should need additional support to apply damage fully to smaller ships. The DPS potential isn't the issue. The fact that a carrier can volley a 10MN AB confessor with no effort moving 50% max speed (~13k ehp) is an issue. It comes down to the carrier being a solowtfpwnmobile to literally every single ship. It allows some mongoloid to just trash everything and think that he's just really good at the game, and think that there's nothing wrong (i.e. most of the carrier fruitloops posting). No carrier is applying 75% damage even to a bake 2 cruiser without support. Just doing the basic math will show even with an omni you only apply about 60. Unless they have no prop mods or are using enough extenders to blow their sig nearly 40%. Carriers do need support to apply full damage. We couldn't even kill a logi cruiser with three salvos from two carriers without it. Besides pre citadel no capital ship was built to kill sub caps so that argument is moot. Even with that carriers used to be far more effective against sub caps than they ate now and have you forgotten about the Phoenix? That thing would eat sub caps and had no need of support to do it. Also again ccp put in a direct counter to carriers by giving fighters such low sensor strength And if you think application is the biggest threat then being weapon disruptors. Fighter lock speed to high? Bring damps. Stop looking at fighters as drones and start looking at them like ships. I'm not saying they are hard to counter. Their base application is too high. And a Guardian, btw, has a low sig, usually AB, and can have upwards of 100k ehp. So yes, it will take a lot to kill it. I'm saying that it should instablap dessies/frigs and cripple cruisers with single volleys. The blap phoenix was perfectly fine. You apply 30% damage to a cruiser. It was enough considering 100k volley. And lets do the basic math. Heavy rocket salvo is 100 radius. Most cruisers have 100 sig or over. The salvo is 60% of the dps. So 60% right off the top. The weapon has base 240 radius, so about 40% damage with 40% of the dps. This is 76% of the dps is applied to a cruiser. I ignore the velocity factor because it is overcome with 2x omni links or 1 web, easily supplied by a carrier. And weapon disrupting/jamming will not help you prevent the volley damage that will instablap your face because fighter recalling. Maybe you should learn more about PvP mechanics before commenting. You intentionally leaving out much of the abilities of Light Fighters or just arguing for the sake of it? Yes the base weapon has an explosion radius of 240, it also has an explosion velocity of 120 m/s i If you can't outrun that by enough to minimize damage, your doing something wrong. Rocket salvo, again 100m explosion radius - 120m/s explosion velocity - all you need is to be doing 130m/s or more and you are reducing the alpha. Then to top this all off, light fighters can only apply any damage inside 10k, if your smart and fly your ship accordingly - Light Fighters would never hit you for enough damage to kill you. Always have Logi..... Carriers are far from OP and those who say they are, just haven't tried. You want easy capital kills vs a capital ship specifically designed to fight subcaps - Adapt, try new things, don't try to kill a carrier with just frigates and destroyers (i've seen it tried, was so funny I peed). The carrier was not doing so well (he says his T2 max skill fighters couldn't keep up with the fast orbiting frigs), until his support fleet landed at which time those frigs and dessies not quick enough to warp out, died horribly - 2 web lokies a lachesis and a scimi was all it took. Hey fruitloop. Let's use that math skill you didn't learn in whatever school you went to. Let's start with the Missile Damage equation, so I can show you why I ignore velocity. Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5)) ) Since the explosion stats of the heavy rocket salvo are similar to a heavy missile, lets use the damage reduction factor (drf) of 3. Now our target stats. A thrasher has a signature of 56. Under 1 60% web, the base velocity is 136 m/s. Our missile stats, as indicated above (no omnidirectionals), is 100m sig, and 120 m/s explosion velocity. For easy rounding, let's use 100 damage. Plug in the values (I used a helpful calculator, https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3as8d1/couldnt_find_a_missile_damage_calculator_that_let/ ), And the volley damage is 56. From 100. 56% Damage applied. Dang, that's just like velocity can be ignored. But wait, there's more! Plug in the same values, and dang, look at that. 23.33% for the turret attack (240m sig this time). This is literally the application that is in game, and would be in most situations should a carrier pilot know what they're doing. Also, for a cruiser moving at 250 m/s, 110 signature, the salvo applies 66.26% assuming no omnis or a web. Take into account 1 web, salvo applies 100%, and beam attack applies 46%. This is with ONE WEB. Damage applies 43% to a thrasher, and 76% to a cruiser, assuming BASE STATS ONLY. Are you people daft or something? That is broken when you are talking 4k dps. It becomes a solowtfpwnallmobile.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 83	Posted - 2016.05.30 17:37:52 - [859] - Quote And additional note with, for example, 2 omnidirectionals. You can expect both a 30% increase in explosion velocity, and a 30% reduction in radius. This makes the beam attack 168 radius, and velocity 156 m/s. This bumps the beam attack application, using the previous formula, to 56% from 46%, assuming new target velocity is 250m/s because no web. Now the Missile attack, with 2 omnis, will do 98.74% damage applied, instead of 100. So yes, I can ignore velocity of a cruiser or dessie if you are using either ONE web OR TWO omnidirectionals. Also, fighter base speed with 1 navi comp on T2 templars is 2.16k m/s. With MWD, it goes around 13k m/s, optimal range (beam attack) 11km + 12 km. Good luck avoiding that. By the time the web effectively slows the squad down you've been instablapped. And yes, I have done this and been on receiving end. Like I said before, learn game mechanics before posting.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 981	Posted - 2016.05.30 22:37:55 - [860] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Hey fruitloop. Let's use that math skill you didn't learn in whatever school you went to. Let's start with the Missile Damage equation, so I can show you why I ignore velocity. Damage = Base_Damage * MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1) , (Ev/Er * sig/vel)^(log(drf) / log(5.5)) ) Since the explosion stats of the heavy rocket salvo are similar to a heavy missile, lets use the damage reduction factor (drf) of 3. Now our target stats. A thrasher has a signature of 56. Under 1 60% web, the base velocity is 136 m/s. Our missile stats, as indicated above (no omnidirectionals), is 100m sig, and 120 m/s explosion velocity. For easy rounding, let's use 100 damage. Plug in the values (I used a helpful calculator, https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3as8d1/couldnt_find_a_missile_damage_calculator_that_let/ ), And the volley damage is 56. From 100. 56% Damage applied. Dang, that's just like velocity can be ignored. But wait, there's more! Plug in the same values, and dang, look at that. 23.33% for the turret attack (240m sig this time). This is literally the application that is in game, and would be in most situations should a carrier pilot know what they're doing. Also, for a cruiser moving at 250 m/s, 110 signature, the salvo applies 66.26% assuming no omnis or a web. Take into account 1 web, salvo applies 100%, and beam attack applies 46%. This is with ONE WEB. Damage applies 43% to a thrasher, and 76% to a cruiser, assuming BASE STATS ONLY. Are you people daft or something? That is broken when you are talking 4k dps. It becomes a solowtfpwnallmobile. I'm not going to dispute your numbers BUT will dispute their relevance here - They have absolutely nothing to do with the post I was responding to. While yes a carrier with support (as I stated in my response) will have the ability to alpha smaller stuff, if they don't take precautions, a lone carrier sitting "thousands of K's" off a station undock - DOESN'T I will add - A capital ship designed to kill small ships should be able to kill small ships with all but impunity - That is after all what they are designed for. If your poor T1 dessie gets alpha'd by a carrier and it is a problem for you, don't blame the carrier - It is doing exactly what it is designed for - Adapt or Die, this is Eve. Shite, my arty cane will alpha thrashers - Are they OP too, or just working as intended? And on top of all your stats you leave out the most rudimentary part of pvp - USE LOGI. Logi will save even a lowly thrasher but then that destroys your whole point - Doesn't it? I mean the carrier has to have support which is needed to kill his targets but his attackers shouldn't also need support to kill said carrier? Apply logi reps to your missile calculations, then come back and print the results, T1 logi will suffice but make your point meaningful - Otherwise it is just meaningless statistics and everyone knows - EFT doesn't = win. Better still, just post the numbers Without the web, which actually applies to the scenario of this discussion. I don't know of a lone carrier that from "several thousand K's can apply a web - Do you? Go back, read the post I was responding to - Then go ask mum to clean your soother because it just fell in the toilet (along with your not so relevant reply). And really - You need to resort to name calling? How immature... 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.

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 982	Posted - 2016.05.30 23:36:18 - [861] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: And additional note with, for example, 2 omnidirectionals. You can expect both a 30% increase in explosion velocity, and a 30% reduction in radius. This makes the beam attack 168 radius, and velocity 156 m/s. This bumps the beam attack application, using the previous formula, to 56% from 46%, assuming new target velocity is 250m/s because no web. Now the Missile attack, with 2 omnis, will do 98.74% damage applied, instead of 100. So yes, I can ignore velocity of a cruiser or dessie if you are using either ONE web OR TWO omnidirectionals. Also, fighter base speed with 1 navi comp on T2 templars is 2.16k m/s. With MWD, it goes around 13k m/s, optimal range (beam attack) 11km + 12 km. Good luck avoiding that. By the time the web effectively slows the squad down you've been instablapped. And yes, I have done this and been on receiving end. Like I said before, learn game mechanics before posting. This discussion has nothing to do with game mechanics as you are describing them (which I do understand and use) - Your limited scenario "best outcome" reply has nothing to do with the scenario the discussion is about. Try responding (and showing how OP fighters are) in the scenario being discussed - One lone carrier sitting thousands of K's off an undock, insta popping undocking frigates. FYI; One Griffin is capable of shutting down 3 squads of fighters, removing all their dps ability - Are they OP, or just performing their role? And honestly, pointing out that light fighters work as intended against their intended targets is like saying any ship capable of performing in its designed for role is OP - Simply because it is capable of carrying out its role. 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.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 85	Posted - 2016.05.31 02:20:56 - [862] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: And additional note with, for example, 2 omnidirectionals. You can expect both a 30% increase in explosion velocity, and a 30% reduction in radius. This makes the beam attack 168 radius, and velocity 156 m/s. This bumps the beam attack application, using the previous formula, to 56% from 46%, assuming new target velocity is 250m/s because no web. Now the Missile attack, with 2 omnis, will do 98.74% damage applied, instead of 100. So yes, I can ignore velocity of a cruiser or dessie if you are using either ONE web OR TWO omnidirectionals. Also, fighter base speed with 1 navi comp on T2 templars is 2.16k m/s. With MWD, it goes around 13k m/s, optimal range (beam attack) 11km + 12 km. Good luck avoiding that. By the time the web effectively slows the squad down you've been instablapped. And yes, I have done this and been on receiving end. Like I said before, learn game mechanics before posting. This discussion has nothing to do with game mechanics as you are describing them (which I do understand and use) - Your limited scenario "best outcome" reply has nothing to do with the scenario the discussion is about. Try responding (and showing how OP fighters are) in the scenario being discussed - One lone carrier sitting thousands of K's off an undock, insta popping undocking frigates. FYI; One Griffin is capable of shutting down 3 squads of fighters, removing all their dps ability - Are they OP, or just performing their role? And honestly, pointing out that light fighters work as intended against their intended targets is like saying any ship capable of performing in its designed for role is OP - Simply because it is capable of carrying out its role. First off, what scenario? I wasn't talking about that, I was talking in general. The application of fighters is my issue. It's way too good. And no, a single griffin would not be able to hold a carrier down. You know why? Because it cannot stop alpha strikes after a recall. And you know how I know this? Because, unlike you, I actually play this game, and fight against carriers - which you have no knowledge of. My issue is that you can warp a carrier into any gang without heavy logistics and volley through reps, have near perfect application on nearly every ship you encounter, and the ability to get the fighters there no problem. No capital ship HAS EVER been able to do this. None. And now you can. It doesn't belong in this game. Basically, if one carrier doesn't solve the issue, two will. You can only successfully coordinate one carrier disabling with a griffin - if they know what they're doing. Otherwise, you miss one squadron, and the EWAR ship gets volleyed in half a second. And this isn't "Adapt or Die" - like I'm the poor fruitcake dying to carriers all the time and too unintelligent to do anything about it. My killboard shows I can slaughter them no problem. Your killboard shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2714	Posted - 2016.05.31 03:23:31 - [863] - Quote No capital ship has ever had a pure anti sub cap role and where do you get off saying that two omnis give you a 30% bonus? a faction link doesn't even give you 24% and a griffen can protect from alpha so long as you are not parking your ship ontop of the carrier. oh yeah and if the carrier has no support you can just idk..... warp off the disruption drones are move slow are slow to lock and easily jammed. as for fighter aplication it is ripped apart by an arbitrator or by simply putting WDs on the ships in your fleet and spreading them out. their penalty is much stronger than the tracking links bonus. also just because some ons kb shows nothing means nothing not a lot of ppl use mains when on the forums hell i think you are one of the only ppl this toon has actually flown with. and if you can kill them no problem well then... what's the problem Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 982	Posted - 2016.05.31 06:38:10 - [864] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: And additional note with, for example, 2 omnidirectionals. You can expect both a 30% increase in explosion velocity, and a 30% reduction in radius. This makes the beam attack 168 radius, and velocity 156 m/s. This bumps the beam attack application, using the previous formula, to 56% from 46%, assuming new target velocity is 250m/s because no web. Now the Missile attack, with 2 omnis, will do 98.74% damage applied, instead of 100. So yes, I can ignore velocity of a cruiser or dessie if you are using either ONE web OR TWO omnidirectionals. Also, fighter base speed with 1 navi comp on T2 templars is 2.16k m/s. With MWD, it goes around 13k m/s, optimal range (beam attack) 11km + 12 km. Good luck avoiding that. By the time the web effectively slows the squad down you've been instablapped. And yes, I have done this and been on receiving end. Like I said before, learn game mechanics before posting. This discussion has nothing to do with game mechanics as you are describing them (which I do understand and use) - Your limited scenario "best outcome" reply has nothing to do with the scenario the discussion is about. Try responding (and showing how OP fighters are) in the scenario being discussed - One lone carrier sitting thousands of K's off an undock, insta popping undocking frigates. FYI; One Griffin is capable of shutting down 3 squads of fighters, removing all their dps ability - Are they OP, or just performing their role? And honestly, pointing out that light fighters work as intended against their intended targets is like saying any ship capable of performing in its designed for role is OP - Simply because it is capable of carrying out its role. First off, what scenario? I wasn't talking about that, I was talking in general. The application of fighters is my issue. It's way too good. And no, a single griffin would not be able to hold a carrier down. You know why? Because it cannot stop alpha strikes after a recall. And you know how I know this? Because, unlike you, I actually play this game, and fight against carriers - which you have no knowledge of. My issue is that you can warp a carrier into any gang without heavy logistics and volley through reps, have near perfect application on nearly every ship you encounter, and the ability to get the fighters there no problem. No capital ship HAS EVER been able to do this. None. And now you can. It doesn't belong in this game. Basically, if one carrier doesn't solve the issue, two will. You can only successfully coordinate one carrier disabling with a griffin - if they know what they're doing. Otherwise, you miss one squadron, and the EWAR ship gets volleyed in half a second. And this isn't "Adapt or Die" - like I'm the poor fruitcake dying to carriers all the time and too unintelligent to do anything about it. My killboard shows I can slaughter them no problem. Your killboard shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Ohh the "my killboard shows" line.. I so luv that one. Get a clue -Very Very few players actually post with their mains. >"My issue is" - Your one of "that" crowd who wants it all easy - Why should anyone going to fight a carrier have to require a decent fleet comp. > Most carrier fights I come across are; the carrier is there and gets engaged by a large or small blob - Expecting an easy kill vs a ship specifically designed to counter them. > Basically, if one carrier - Bring dreads (boy some people are slow) >Adapt or Die - Maybe not - But you are the one here crying about how OP they are. Which would seem to be quite unfounded looking at how many die each day. But hey, what would I know - Right? Seems your nothing but a cry baby "don't change eve" and for that, I feel sorry for you. NB; Sooo - You decided to high jack an ongoing discussion with your own (I don't like change) biases - Well done. 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 2717	Posted - 2016.05.31 06:41:52 - [865] - Quote I have a hard time beliving he is just one of the "change is bad" people. I have flow with him before and i'm pretty sure it's just that he comes from the small gang crowed and to them a carrier can seem very op when trying to fight it like a normal cap. Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 983	Posted - 2016.05.31 07:14:42 - [866] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: I have a hard time beliving he is just one of the "change is bad" people. I have flow with him before and i'm pretty sure it's just that he comes from the small gang crowed and to them a carrier can seem very op when trying to fight it like a normal cap. Everything I've heard about him tells me he isn't But his posting here indicates otherwise. Carriers were given a whole new role, I was very skeptical about this new role (as seen in early posts in this thread) but have come around after flying and fighting against the new Carriers. (Still think carriers need a dedicated support fighter launch tube) They can't be compared to the carriers of old, they are a brand new class of ship that got stuck with an old name - Devs let the side down by keeping the old class name, they came up with a new name for capital logistics, why not for the "new" Carriers as well. This would have removed silly arguments like the one above, simply because no-one would have had preconceptions about them. Yes new carriers may be a little OP when trying to fight them with small ships but this IS intended - The other, more important side of this coin - A Carrier will just die as soon as a super or even a dread lands on grid as they just aren't designed to fight other capital ships. Pretty big trade off for a capital ship, yes? If you can't kill carriers because they just aplha small ships - Bring bigger ships - or USE LOGI or both. A poor fleet comp does not make Carriers/Light Fighters OP. 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 2717	Posted - 2016.05.31 07:28:23 - [867] - Quote well the chimera can survive against two supers even without logistics ^.^ i have pulled that off (no other carrier can don't try it). but yeah dreads melt them and they are helpless against well flown sub caps. Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1425	Posted - 2016.05.31 07:40:54 - [868] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: as for fighter aplication it is ripped apart by an arbitrator or by simply putting WDs on the ships in your fleet and spreading them out. their penalty is much stronger than the tracking links bonus. They don't actually work. Immune. Likewise the remote versions also do not work.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2717	Posted - 2016.05.31 07:55:27 - [869] - Quote they should be immune to the remote(helpfull) ones not the offensive ones though... that has to be a bug and i thought they fixed it Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1425	Posted - 2016.05.31 08:22:24 - [870] - Quote Nah, it is currently working as intended, but they are considering it. I don't mind a two way street, but if you're able to ewar it, remote assistance as a counter should be an option imo. ________ Here's a great video showing fighter lag/lock times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfzZZ0olP3Y&feature=youtu.be

Lugh Crow-Slave 2717	Posted - 2016.05.31 08:28:11 - [871] - Quote i know the remote assistance is working as intended as it says so in their attributes but ccp repeatedly commented on them being effected by e-war and they even built it into the UI. E-war also affects all other drones and ecm works so where did you hear that it was working as intended? Citadel worm hole tax
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 147	Posted - 2016.05.31 08:39:01 - [872] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i know the remote assistance is working as intended as it says so in their attributes but ccp repeatedly commented on them being effected by e-war and they even built it into the UI. E-war also affects all other drones and ecm works so where did you hear that it was working as intended? Well quite some time ago Larrikin told me to make a bug report on tracking disruptors and range damps not affecting fighters. It's still open, so I'm not sure what's going on. Tracking disruptors definitely don't work as of 2 days ago though.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2717	Posted - 2016.05.31 08:51:16 - [873] - Quote remember when ccp said the moved to a faster release scheduled because it made it easier to delay things that were to buggy and quickly fix the ones that were kinda buggy? it seems like they just use it now to rush things out and maybe get around to fixing them... Citadel worm hole tax
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1427	Posted - 2016.05.31 09:12:25 - [874] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i know the remote assistance is working as intended as it says so in their attributes but ccp repeatedly commented on them being effected by e-war and they even built it into the UI. E-war also affects all other drones and ecm works so where did you hear that it was working as intended? Well quite some time ago Larrikin told me to make a bug report on tracking disruptors and range damps not affecting fighters. It's still open, so I'm not sure what's going on. Tracking disruptors definitely don't work as of 2 days ago though. Yeah my recollection was they were looking into making it work on them. I may have misinterpreted, I took that to mean it was currently working as intended and they may look to change.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.05.31 13:49:31 - [875] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Ohh the "my killboard shows" line.. I so luv that one. Get a clue -Very Very few players actually post with their mains. >"My issue is" - Your one of "that" crowd who wants it all easy - Why should anyone going to fight a carrier have to require a decent fleet comp. > Most carrier fights I come across are; the carrier is there and gets engaged by a large or small blob - Expecting an easy kill vs a ship specifically designed to counter them. > Basically, if one carrier - Bring dreads (boy some people are slow) >Adapt or Die - Maybe not - But you are the one here crying about how OP they are. Which would seem to be quite unfounded looking at how many die each day. But hey, what would I know - Right? Seems your nothing but a cry baby "don't change eve" and for that, I feel sorry for you. NB; Sooo - You decided to high jack an ongoing discussion with your own (I don't like change) biases - Well done. Are you really that daft? My issue with the new carriers is that it makes it way too easy for people to kill others. Many die each day because morons, like yourself, fly them into people, like me. The change to the new carrier role is good. The change to having fighters instablapping small ships with impunity DOES NOT belong in this game. Literally some mongoloid sits there and kills frigs with a carrier and thinks they are 1337 or something. All I want CCP to do is move the DPS application of the rocket salvo to somewhere where the current turret attack is (240m) and possibly reduce the weapon attack to around 200m radius. Nothing needs to change with the damage, alpha, or projection. That would make sense. My entire issue with the carriers is the application is way too good for a ship of their size class.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.05.31 13:58:18 - [876] - Quote Also, this is the general consensus on why carriers are broken (application and instalocking) summed up in a reddit post. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4lt53t/psa_if_you_think_instalock_svipul_are_cancer/ You guys fall under the: "this is completely balanced because I am a carrier pilot and feel it should be after all I trained the skills and spend mad isk" category.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1427	Posted - 2016.05.31 14:13:38 - [877] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Also, this is the general consensus on why carriers are broken (application and instalocking) summed up in a reddit post. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4lt53t/psa_if_you_think_instalock_svipul_are_cancer/ You guys fall under the: "this is completely balanced because I am a carrier pilot and feel it should be after all I trained the skills and spend mad isk" category. I take it you didn't get as far as the post completely debunking that set of images? He's just buttmad about carriers. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4lt53t/psa_if_you_think_instalock_svipul_are_cancer/d3q5bz3 TLDR: Fighters do not instantly lock, they have a lock time and a very noticeable delay between activating their weapons and damage being applied. I made a video and short explanation below and why I think the in-game logs are not accurate to the second. This is something you can actually test, and I have done many tests when it comes to carriers and fighters. I have even gone as far as making a horrible training video for our Alliance M8ts. I have many kills with insta-locking carriers, these are all post-expansion kills. I have participated in many station carrier fleets AND been in combat with my fighters. People who do this will tell you there is a delay. I've even gone as far as recording myself doing this with my alt on Sisi (https://youtu.be/hfzZZ0olP3Y) and there is a very noticeable delay from activating the skill and the weapons starting. This is a carrier with over 3k scan res. The carrier does in fact insta lock the abbadon but upon activating the guns, you can see on the other client that there is a delay as the fighter must lock and then fire. EFT IS AN HAS NEVER BEEN A GOOD TOOL FOR BALANCE DISCUSSIONS as it always shows you best case scenario and doesn't always account for everything. What is most likely happening is the client is only receiving a log notification when the server reports it. In that case, things may be happening faster than your client is being updated, lag or whatever, so your client receives multiple messages during the same tick. It's also possible that the events aren't even server time stamped and are only time stamped by the client when it receives and processes the log events. If you want to see how many log messages the client actually receives, play around the the LogServer in your game install directory tree, it is (or used to) be there. SO, I give you....experience using the system and actual video evidence showing the delay, your move.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2720	Posted - 2016.05.31 14:21:33 - [878] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Also, this is the general consensus on why carriers are broken (application and instalocking) summed up in a reddit post. https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4lt53t/psa_if_you_think_instalock_svipul_are_cancer/ You guys fall under the: "this is completely balanced because I am a carrier pilot and feel it should be after all I trained the skills and spend mad isk" category. way to cherry pick there also i'm not a carrier pilot. well not all that much i have flown them a few times but i mainly fly logi and e-war Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2720	Posted - 2016.05.31 14:26:21 - [879] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: My entire issue with the carriers is the application is way too good for a ship of their size class. its just like rapid lights or rapid heavies they are built not to hit their weight class but under it Citadel worm hole tax
Longdrinks My Wife's Son Play Hard Pray Harder 244	Posted - 2016.05.31 14:51:19 - [880] - Quote Is this the sub 1k kills noobs arguing with experienced players central? why yes it looks like it is

Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1427	Posted - 2016.05.31 14:55:21 - [881] - Quote Experienced players suggesting a carrier will be webbing with an NSA running? Top kek sir, TOP KEK.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2723	Posted - 2016.05.31 14:59:21 - [882] - Quote Longdrinks wrote: Is this the sub 1k kills noobs arguing with experienced players central? why yes it looks like it is as humans fallacies in arguments are bound to happen and generally can be ignored but when your entire statement only consists of one... Citadel worm hole tax
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.05.31 16:05:26 - [883] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Experienced players suggesting a carrier will be webbing with an NSA running? Top kek sir, TOP KEK. Your meme is bad, and you should feel bad. Nobody suggested this. My entire linking of that reddit post was to illustrate that with some tracking links, a carrier can volley ships as they undock (typically smaller ships). This is a big problem in lowsec, something you know nothing of, as you are ill-informed. These are issues none of you have faced, because all you do is station spin all day until your FC tells you there is something to kill. And this is coming from experienced players, with more kills than you, more small gang kills than you, more carrier kills than you, and generally know a lot more about the game mechanics surrounding carriers than you do. If you were less of a forum warrior, and more of an eve warrior, you would know a lot more.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1427	Posted - 2016.05.31 17:19:08 - [884] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Experienced players suggesting a carrier will be webbing with an NSA running? Top kek sir, TOP KEK. Your meme is bad, and you should feel bad. Nobody suggested this. My entire linking of that reddit post was to illustrate that with some tracking links, a carrier can volley ships as they undock (typically smaller ships). This is a big problem in lowsec, something you know nothing of, as you are ill-informed. These are issues none of you have faced, because all you do is station spin all day until your FC tells you there is something to kill. And this is coming from experienced players, with more kills than you, more small gang kills than you, more carrier kills than you, and generally know a lot more about the game mechanics surrounding carriers than you do. If you were less of a forum warrior, and more of an eve warrior, you would know a lot more. You claimed a web is easily provided by the carrier like a page or two ago. But by all means, backtrack and post debunked reddit threads.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.05.31 17:55:14 - [885] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Experienced players suggesting a carrier will be webbing with an NSA running? Top kek sir, TOP KEK. Your meme is bad, and you should feel bad. Nobody suggested this. My entire linking of that reddit post was to illustrate that with some tracking links, a carrier can volley ships as they undock (typically smaller ships). This is a big problem in lowsec, something you know nothing of, as you are ill-informed. These are issues none of you have faced, because all you do is station spin all day until your FC tells you there is something to kill. And this is coming from experienced players, with more kills than you, more small gang kills than you, more carrier kills than you, and generally know a lot more about the game mechanics surrounding carriers than you do. If you were less of a forum warrior, and more of an eve warrior, you would know a lot more. You claimed a web is easily provided by the carrier like a page or two ago. But by all means, backtrack and post debunked reddit threads. You run one cycle of NSA and use the web afterwards. Do you not know how to fly a carrier? And the guy that "debunked" that says carriers lock way too quick, and NSA needs to be cut back. Or did you cherry pick as well?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1427	Posted - 2016.05.31 18:03:40 - [886] - Quote If the alpha is so high, how are you living through the cycle? It is far from short. I'm aware of how that thread went. I also asked the devs about that and they confirmed that the lack of stacking is being looked at and I fully support that. But you carry right on ahead with your assumptions about me.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2896	Posted - 2016.05.31 19:52:59 - [887] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Experienced players suggesting a carrier will be webbing with an NSA running? Top kek sir, TOP KEK. Your meme is bad, and you should feel bad. Nobody suggested this. My entire linking of that reddit post was to illustrate that with some tracking links, a carrier can volley ships as they undock (typically smaller ships). This is a big problem in lowsec, something you know nothing of, as you are ill-informed. These are issues none of you have faced, because all you do is station spin all day until your FC tells you there is something to kill. And this is coming from experienced players, with more kills than you, more small gang kills than you, more carrier kills than you, and generally know a lot more about the game mechanics surrounding carriers than you do. If you were less of a forum warrior, and more of an eve warrior, you would know a lot more. You claimed a web is easily provided by the carrier like a page or two ago. But by all means, backtrack and post debunked reddit threads. You run one cycle of NSA and use the web afterwards. Do you not know how to fly a carrier? And the guy that "debunked" that says carriers lock way too quick, and NSA needs to be cut back. Or did you cherry pick as well? Isn't the cycle time of the NSA 60 seconds? Wouldn't your web be a bit late by then?
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.05.31 22:43:34 - [888] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Experienced players suggesting a carrier will be webbing with an NSA running? Top kek sir, TOP KEK. Your meme is bad, and you should feel bad. Nobody suggested this. My entire linking of that reddit post was to illustrate that with some tracking links, a carrier can volley ships as they undock (typically smaller ships). This is a big problem in lowsec, something you know nothing of, as you are ill-informed. These are issues none of you have faced, because all you do is station spin all day until your FC tells you there is something to kill. And this is coming from experienced players, with more kills than you, more small gang kills than you, more carrier kills than you, and generally know a lot more about the game mechanics surrounding carriers than you do. If you were less of a forum warrior, and more of an eve warrior, you would know a lot more. You claimed a web is easily provided by the carrier like a page or two ago. But by all means, backtrack and post debunked reddit threads. You run one cycle of NSA and use the web afterwards. Do you not know how to fly a carrier? And the guy that "debunked" that says carriers lock way too quick, and NSA needs to be cut back. Or did you cherry pick as well? Isn't the cycle time of the NSA 60 seconds? Wouldn't your web be a bit late by then? Well if you die in 60 seconds it seems it wouldn't matter then. However 1 web is equivalent to two omnidirectionals with tracking scripts against smaller targets.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 983	Posted - 2016.05.31 23:33:35 - [889] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Ohh the "my killboard shows" line.. I so luv that one. Get a clue -Very Very few players actually post with their mains. >"My issue is" - Your one of "that" crowd who wants it all easy - Why should anyone going to fight a carrier have to require a decent fleet comp. > Most carrier fights I come across are; the carrier is there and gets engaged by a large or small blob - Expecting an easy kill vs a ship specifically designed to counter them. > Basically, if one carrier - Bring dreads (boy some people are slow) >Adapt or Die - Maybe not - But you are the one here crying about how OP they are. Which would seem to be quite unfounded looking at how many die each day. But hey, what would I know - Right? Seems your nothing but a cry baby "don't change eve" and for that, I feel sorry for you. NB; Sooo - You decided to high jack an ongoing discussion with your own (I don't like change) biases - Well done. Are you really that daft? My issue with the new carriers is that it makes it way too easy for people to kill others. Many die each day because morons, like yourself, fly them into people, like me. The change to the new carrier role is good. The change to having fighters instablapping small ships with impunity DOES NOT belong in this game. Literally some mongoloid sits there and kills frigs with a carrier and thinks they are 1337 or something. All I want CCP to do is move the DPS application of the rocket salvo to somewhere where the current turret attack is (240m) and possibly reduce the weapon attack to around 200m radius. Nothing needs to change with the damage, alpha, or projection. That would make sense. My entire issue with the carriers is the application is way too good for a ship of their size class. Name calling AGAIN.. "Everything" I had heard about you must be wrong. So by your logic, Rattlesnakes, T3D's, Mordus ship line - Should all be removed from the game Because they can instablap a small ship - Get over yourself. Six months from now (when those who want to adapt and learn have done so) carriers will be getting killed faster than they did before Citadel. You want to fly small ships against carriers - Deal with what they will do to you, don't ask for them to be nerfed to suit your play style. > "All I want CCP to do" is nerf carriers enough so they are easier to kill with a small unprepared group. Aside from that - How fukin stupid are you - You change the explosion radius of the rocket attack you reduce the amount of damage (alpha, as that all's they have going for them) they can do. They have basically the same attributes (after skills) as Faction Heavy Missiles - Are you now saying Faction Heavy Missiles are too strong? Do you not understand how missiles work? They are the most expensive "ammo" in the game, they die easily, are easily countered by normal game play (ECM etc) and to get full advantage from them, take a fukin long time to train into. And you want them nerfed simply because you can't deal with a ship that has only ONE role - Killing Subcaps. Why can't you just actually play the new meta instead of coming up with as many excuses as you can for Devs to nerf the only thing carriers have going for them is your answer (oh and calling anyone who disagrees with you childish school yard names. Not really appropriate, unless you know your on the losing end of an argument and it is all you have left). Svipuls kill more ships everyday on TQ than carriers and can fight ships 2 or 3 classes above them - Carriers kill small ships relatively easily and just die to anything in their own class with no way too defend themselves - Grow up, stop whining about something that is competitive against you and adapt. The poor me, they come and kill me, is something I would expect to hear from a week old character because he doesn't know any better - You should.. NB; Light fighters don't "instablap" anything that is prepared for the fight - Bad fleet comp is no reason too blame others. You take a Caracal fleet out and meet a Cerb fleet you should expect to die - This is how Eve works, Dscan, Logi and many other things are an amazing counter to being dropped on by something that may "instablap" your little ships. *maybe we need to nerf blops because when used right (as intended) they just blap small ships off the field. Lets just settle this - How many small ships, that if you get your way carriers won't be able to kill, do you think it should take to kill a ship that is (was) specifically designed to kill them? Just how far do we go with making Eve into a game that suits your ideals of - It can't instantly kill me? Funny though, most of the fights I've seen where a carrier drops on small ships, the carrier ends up a lossmail due to escalation (5 blops, logi legion, rapier and arazu = dead carrier) - Repeating - This is Eve, there is nothing "fair" about it. You want "fair play" go play Farmville; Eve is about overcoming and adapting, not nerfing because "I died". 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.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.06.01 03:50:08 - [890] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Name calling AGAIN.. "Everything" I had heard about you must be wrong. So by your logic, Rattlesnakes, T3D's, Mordus ship line - Should all be removed from the game Because they can instablap a small ship - Get over yourself. Six months from now (when those who want to adapt and learn have done so) carriers will be getting killed faster than they did before Citadel. You want to fly small ships against carriers - Deal with what they will do to you, don't ask for them to be nerfed to suit your play style. > "All I want CCP to do" is nerf carriers enough so they are easier to kill with a small unprepared group. Aside from that - How fukin stupid are you - You change the explosion radius of the rocket attack you reduce the amount of damage (alpha, as that all's they have going for them) they can do. They have basically the same attributes (after skills) as Faction Heavy Missiles - Are you now saying Faction Heavy Missiles are too strong? Do you not understand how missiles work? They are the most expensive "ammo" in the game, they die easily, are easily countered by normal game play (ECM etc) and to get full advantage from them, take a fukin long time to train into. And you want them nerfed simply because you can't deal with a ship that has only ONE role - Killing Subcaps. Why can't you just actually play the new meta instead of coming up with as many excuses as you can for Devs to nerf the only thing carriers have going for them is your answer (oh and calling anyone who disagrees with you childish school yard names. Not really appropriate, unless you know your on the losing end of an argument and it is all you have left). Svipuls kill more ships everyday on TQ than carriers and can fight ships 2 or 3 classes above them - Carriers kill small ships relatively easily and just die to anything in their own class with no way too defend themselves - Grow up, stop whining about something that is competitive against you and adapt. The poor me, they come and kill me, is something I would expect to hear from a week old character because he doesn't know any better - You should.. NB; Light fighters don't "instablap" anything that is prepared for the fight - Bad fleet comp is no reason too blame others. You take a Caracal fleet out and meet a Cerb fleet you should expect to die - This is how Eve works, Dscan, Logi and many other things are an amazing counter to being dropped on by something that may "instablap" your little ships. *maybe we need to nerf blops because when used right (as intended) they just blap small ships off the field. Lets just settle this - How many small ships, that if you get your way carriers won't be able to kill, do you think it should take to kill a ship that is (was) specifically designed to kill them? Just how far do we go with making Eve into a game that suits your ideals of - It can't instantly kill me? Funny though, most of the fights I've seen where a carrier drops on small ships, the carrier ends up a lossmail due to escalation (5 blops, logi legion, rapier and arazu = dead carrier) - Repeating - This is Eve, there is nothing "fair" about it. You want "fair play" go play Farmville; Eve is about overcoming and adapting, not nerfing because "I died". Woah. Like I said before - I have no problem killing carriers. I can counter them no problem. However, I do not believe CCP intended for carriers to be such an effective anti-subcap platform. The ability to apply 40k alpha damage perfectly to a cruiser moving it's full speed (250 m/s, 2 omnidirectionals) is something no ship has ever had the ability to do. Not even close. It's like warping 4 arty nados and having a rapier webbing/tping a cruiser, all instantly, and firing, in one ship. THAT is broken. THAT is what I have an issue with. I never said carriers were invincible. They apply too well. And if you have a single rapier tackling for you, you will apply full damage to a dessie with a 200m explosion radius missile attack. As of right now, you can apply 44% dps to a dessie straight up, no support. And in most scenarios, it's either a lone carrier or two in lowsec, either camping a gate while on a citadel or camping on station, volleying ships off of station before they warp, and just docking the aggro. Or, it's in nullsec, where you just warp in 3 carriers with no support ships whatsoever and you can literally kill every gang that consists of subcaps, no matter the ship class (sub battleship gang, not including T3s with T2 logi support), of under 15-20. Increasing the explosion radius would increase the risk of doing this, forcing a group that wants to drop carriers field support, making the gameplay more in-depth and interesting. Not just "drop x many carriers until fleet is dead." This is a common occurrence, believe it or not. The application of the turret attack, however, should be INCREASED. It makes no sense that the alpha damage is more precise than the consistent dps, to say maybe 100 or 120m. DPS of the carrier would be made more consistent. You'd still be able to kill smaller ships, this would not inhibit a carrier from doing this. It would just give more time for a well supported frigate gang with logi to attempt to catch reps, or help prevent alpha strikes from somebody undocking from a station camped in lowsec.

Lugh Crow-Slave 2726	Posted - 2016.06.01 04:50:34 - [891] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Isn't the cycle time of the NSA 60 seconds? Wouldn't your web be a bit late by then? Well if you die in 60 seconds it seems it wouldn't matter then. However 1 web is equivalent to two omnidirectionals with tracking scripts against smaller targets. but i thought the issue was being alphaed off the ubdock in small ships? what are you doing sitting there sor 60s? besides if anything your issue is not with the fighter bass tracking but with how much tracking the omnis give Citadel worm hole tax
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.06.01 06:07:53 - [892] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Isn't the cycle time of the NSA 60 seconds? Wouldn't your web be a bit late by then? Well if you die in 60 seconds it seems it wouldn't matter then. However 1 web is equivalent to two omnidirectionals with tracking scripts against smaller targets. but i thought the issue was being alphaed off the ubdock in small ships? what are you doing sitting there sor 60s? besides if anything your issue is not with the fighter bass tracking but with how much tracking the omnis give That's just one issue. If you just modify the application of the alpha strike volley, you can leave the omnis where they are at. And I said it was either ONE WEB OR TWO OMNIDIRECTIONALS. Both will give you the same application to a target.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2726	Posted - 2016.06.01 06:10:22 - [893] - Quote problem is if you change the base application you hurt the shield tanks more then if you just change the omnis. anyway the main issue is the e-war is not working on them like it should and yes that is a problem. lets not try to fix them around a bug lets get the bugs fixed first Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 983	Posted - 2016.06.01 22:33:09 - [894] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Woah. Like I said before - I have no problem killing carriers. I can counter them no problem. However, I do not believe CCP intended for carriers to be such an effective anti-subcap platform. The ability to apply 40k alpha damage perfectly to a cruiser moving it's full speed (250 m/s, 2 omnidirectionals) is something no ship has ever had the ability to do. Not even close. It's like warping 4 arty nados and having a rapier webbing/tping a cruiser, all instantly, and firing, in one ship. THAT is broken. THAT is what I have an issue with. I never said carriers were invincible. They apply too well. And if you have a single rapier tackling for you, you will apply full damage to a dessie with a 200m explosion radius missile attack. As of right now, you can apply 44% dps to a dessie straight up, no support. And in most scenarios, it's either a lone carrier or two in lowsec, either camping a gate while on a citadel or camping on station, volleying ships off of station before they warp, and just docking the aggro. Or, it's in nullsec, where you just warp in 3 carriers with no support ships whatsoever and you can literally kill every gang that consists of subcaps, no matter the ship class (sub battleship gang, not including T3s with T2 logi support), of under 15-20. Increasing the explosion radius would increase the risk of doing this, forcing a group that wants to drop carriers field support, making the gameplay more in-depth and interesting. Not just "drop x many carriers until fleet is dead." This is a common occurrence, believe it or not. The application of the turret attack, however, should be INCREASED. It makes no sense that the alpha damage is more precise than the consistent dps, to say maybe 100 or 120m. DPS of the carrier would be made more consistent. You'd still be able to kill smaller ships, this would not inhibit a carrier from doing this. It would just give more time for a well supported frigate gang with logi to attempt to catch reps, or help prevent alpha strikes from somebody undocking from a station camped in lowsec. > Not just "drop x many carriers until fleet is dead." This my friend is how EVERY fight in Eve goes - You either drop more Carriers or you drop more Dreads or you just bring more and more of everything, until your enemy is dead. This is a friend of mine, fight started out 67 vs 84Ended up 60 something (after a few losses) VS 700 +. That Aeon was the last to die in the fight, local had gone from +-150 to over 1,000. And your wrong You don't need T3's with T2 logi to kill a CarrierThis was the first loss I clicked, there are a few hundred more like it. As I said, Eve is not about "fair" it is about adapting and playing to the meta. Every fleet make up needs to have plus's and minuses, for carriers their minus is, they can be easily countered with the right ship types - Their plus is, they can lock small stuff quickly and if they have the right support with them can "maybe" win a fight that a month ago, they never would have stood a chance in. Carriers are no longer "drone spewing" remote repping beasts of invulnerability - They are more like a small mother ship controlling 3 pretty powerful cruisers And should be treated as such. Yes, with support (Rapier, Hugin) they can alpha some ships off the field but then so can your example of Tornado's with a rapier, should Tornado's have their abilities reduced because 3 or 4 of them can alpha a T1 cruiser? This might show your theory about Carriers, is not what it seems Bringing the "right" ships to a fight, makes all the difference. Your little gang not only managed to kill 2 carriers with a support fleet But most of the support fleet as well. With no logi and near enough to half their numbers. From this it would seem, while yes carriers (like every other ship on TQ) might perform a little too well in some scenarios - You yourself have shown, they have shortcomings when engaged by the right ship types. 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.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.06.02 07:38:33 - [895] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Woah. Like I said before - I have no problem killing carriers. I can counter them no problem. However, I do not believe CCP intended for carriers to be such an effective anti-subcap platform. The ability to apply 40k alpha damage perfectly to a cruiser moving it's full speed (250 m/s, 2 omnidirectionals) is something no ship has ever had the ability to do. Not even close. It's like warping 4 arty nados and having a rapier webbing/tping a cruiser, all instantly, and firing, in one ship. THAT is broken. THAT is what I have an issue with. I never said carriers were invincible. They apply too well. And if you have a single rapier tackling for you, you will apply full damage to a dessie with a 200m explosion radius missile attack. As of right now, you can apply 44% dps to a dessie straight up, no support. And in most scenarios, it's either a lone carrier or two in lowsec, either camping a gate while on a citadel or camping on station, volleying ships off of station before they warp, and just docking the aggro. Or, it's in nullsec, where you just warp in 3 carriers with no support ships whatsoever and you can literally kill every gang that consists of subcaps, no matter the ship class (sub battleship gang, not including T3s with T2 logi support), of under 15-20. Increasing the explosion radius would increase the risk of doing this, forcing a group that wants to drop carriers field support, making the gameplay more in-depth and interesting. Not just "drop x many carriers until fleet is dead." This is a common occurrence, believe it or not. The application of the turret attack, however, should be INCREASED. It makes no sense that the alpha damage is more precise than the consistent dps, to say maybe 100 or 120m. DPS of the carrier would be made more consistent. You'd still be able to kill smaller ships, this would not inhibit a carrier from doing this. It would just give more time for a well supported frigate gang with logi to attempt to catch reps, or help prevent alpha strikes from somebody undocking from a station camped in lowsec. > Not just "drop x many carriers until fleet is dead." This my friend is how EVERY fight in Eve goes - You either drop more Carriers or you drop more Dreads or you just bring more and more of everything, until your enemy is dead. This is a friend of mine, fight started out 67 vs 84Ended up 60 something (after a few losses) VS 700 +. That Aeon was the last to die in the fight, local had gone from +-150 to over 1,000. And your wrong You don't need T3's with T2 logi to kill a CarrierThis was the first loss I clicked, there are a few hundred more like it. As I said, Eve is not about "fair" it is about adapting and playing to the meta. Every fleet make up needs to have plus's and minuses, for carriers their minus is, they can be easily countered with the right ship types - Their plus is, they can lock small stuff quickly and if they have the right support with them can "maybe" win a fight that a month ago, they never would have stood a chance in. Carriers are no longer "drone spewing" remote repping beasts of invulnerability - They are more like a small mother ship controlling 3 pretty powerful cruisers And should be treated as such. Yes, with support (Rapier, Hugin) they can alpha some ships off the field but then so can your example of Tornado's with a rapier, should Tornado's have their abilities reduced because 3 or 4 of them can alpha a T1 cruiser? This might show your theory about Carriers, is not what it seems Bringing the "right" ships to a fight, makes all the difference. Your little gang not only managed to kill 2 carriers with a support fleet But most of the support fleet as well. With no logi and near enough to half their numbers. From this it would seem, while yes carriers (like every other ship on TQ) might perform a little too well in some scenarios - You yourself have shown, they have shortcomings when engaged by the right ship types. Well yes I managed to kill them - they were bad and using T1 fighters. Was pretty close at a few points. You either face tank the fighters or jam them. Carriers are very killable. Never said they weren't. I just believe the radius of the missile attack is too accurate, (something between 150-200m would be perfect), and the gun attack is way too inaccurate (around 100-120m would be good). The alpha strike should be there, because it's what makes carriers epic. It's just I feel the alpha strike applies too well for an unsupported capital ship. These things should trash the mwd shield extended kiting orthrus/gila meta, but should have a little tougher time killing an interceptor going 5k m/s with 60 sig (I took a MSE stilletto to armor in one volley), or say a low sig AB cruiser. And the nados shouldn't be nerfed because you need support and you'd have an entire fleet really to do it. You only need one ship with the carrier. That's a silly comparison. And when your numbers are less than 15-20, you do need such a fleet. That is, assuming the carrier pilots know what they're doing, which is a rare occurrence, as demonstrated by my beheading of those thanatos. And the ships I killed them in were RR fit and worth a fair amount of isk, on of the fleet comps I run. And "dropping x many carriers until fleet is dead" is merely a matter of perspective. Three unsupported carriers seem to be a bit much for anything under 15 guys. Tackling a carrier in null it's just "light cyno on tackled carrier, in jumps 2-3 more, wrecks everything." It should be a bit more in-depth than simply that. A logi supported brick T3 dessie gang shouldn't just get completely trashed by 2 carriers that are properly fit/unsupported.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2740	Posted - 2016.06.02 09:44:23 - [896] - Quote i don't think its the rad that needs to be changed i would be fine with lowering the expl vel down to 100-80m/s however. the main gun does not need to be changed as that is only meant to apply to large targets Citadel worm hole tax
maCH'EttE Furnace Thermodynamics 210	Posted - 2016.06.02 22:43:53 - [897] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Experienced players suggesting a carrier will be webbing with an NSA running? Top kek sir, TOP KEK. Your meme is bad, and you should feel bad. Nobody suggested this. My entire linking of that reddit post was to illustrate that with some tracking links, a carrier can volley ships as they undock (typically smaller ships). This is a big problem in lowsec, something you know nothing of, as you are ill-informed. These are issues none of you have faced, because all you do is station spin all day until your FC tells you there is something to kill. And this is coming from experienced players, with more kills than you, more small gang kills than you, more carrier kills than you, and generally know a lot more about the game mechanics surrounding carriers than you do. If you were less of a forum warrior, and more of an eve warrior, you would know a lot more. You claimed a web is easily provided by the carrier like a page or two ago. But by all means, backtrack and post debunked reddit threads. You run one cycle of NSA and use the web afterwards. Do you not know how to fly a carrier? And the guy that "debunked" that says carriers lock way too quick, and NSA needs to be cut back. Or did you cherry pick as well? MY DEAR FRIEND, DONT WASTE YOUR BREATH ON THESE F1 WARRIORS, OR SHIP SPINNERS. THIS CARRIER CHANGE GIVES THEM THE BALLS TO BLAP SMALL GANG PVP TO THE GROUND. THE PROBLEM RESIDES WITH CCP, IGNORING THE FACT OF THE OUTCOME OF SUCH BUFFS. DRONES GOING 10,000MPS, WITH INSANE DPS AND TRACKING, AND LOCK SPEED. WHAT HAPPENED TO THI IS EVE, NO RISK NO REWARD. BUY A CARRIER, JOIN A BLOB THAT HAS A CITADEL, SIT AT UNDOCK, AND BLAP THINGS THAT ARE 1000KM AWAY FROM YOU. DONT WASTE YOUR BREATH. THIS SHITE IS BROKEN, IT WAS BROKEN THE FIRST DAY, IT IS STILL BROKEN, AND IT WILL BE F((((( BROKEN UNTIL THE FAT HOBBIT, AND THE GOING BALD, HIDE WITH A HAT HOBBIT, FIX WHAT THEY BROKE. ITS NOT WORTH PLAYING EVE ANYMORE. ROAM FOR 15+ JUMPS, FIND A FIGHT, AND THAN HAVE 2+ CARRIERS DROPPED OR WARPED ON YOU. I PLAY OVERWATCH, INSTANT PVP.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 983	Posted - 2016.06.03 00:41:20 - [898] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i don't think its the rad that needs to be changed i would be fine with lowering the expl vel down to 100-80m/s however. the main gun does not need to be changed as that is only meant to apply to large targets This whole debate is based on the fittings of 1 maybe 2 carriers out of the 4 available. Those that have free mids to fit drone upgrades.. All that really needs to happen is for there to be a delay between MWD ability and missile ability activation. Light fighter missile ability has a 10K range - Have a 5 second delay between activating abilities, it solves this whole debate and doesn't penalize one carrier more than another. Unless your sitting still and the fighters manage to land at zero on you, 5 seconds is enough time for smaller ships to burn out of range. They may get hit by the normal attack (which is fine) but the missile attack is unlikely to hit them, unless the carrier has web support (Loki or Hugin) that is on the ball. Larger slower ships will get hit but should also be able to tank enough not to get alpha'd.. 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 2742	Posted - 2016.06.03 02:52:19 - [899] - Quote maCH'EttE wrote: -snip- there is a key probably just to the left of your 'a' key i think you bumped it Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2742	Posted - 2016.06.03 02:53:56 - [900] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i don't think its the rad that needs to be changed i would be fine with lowering the expl vel down to 100-80m/s however. the main gun does not need to be changed as that is only meant to apply to large targets This whole debate is based on the fittings of 1 maybe 2 carriers out of the 4 available. Those that have free mids to fit drone upgrades.. All that really needs to happen is for there to be a delay between MWD ability and missile ability activation. Light fighter missile ability has a 10K range - Have a 5 second delay between activating abilities, it solves this whole debate and doesn't penalize one carrier more than another. Unless your sitting still and the fighters manage to land at zero on you, 5 seconds is enough time for smaller ships to burn out of range. They may get hit by the normal attack (which is fine) but the missile attack is unlikely to hit them, unless the carrier has web support (Loki or Hugin) that is on the ball. Larger slower ships will get hit but should also be able to tank enough not to get alpha'd.. true but i think the issue is with the nid/than i think the original 2.5 damage per level was far better and they went overboard when people freaked out about it being two low b4 fighter dps had even been set. it is these two carriers being used to blap small ships as the chimera and archon are no where near able even with two omnis Citadel worm hole tax

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 150	Posted - 2016.06.03 09:31:36 - [901] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i don't think its the rad that needs to be changed i would be fine with lowering the expl vel down to 100-80m/s however. the main gun does not need to be changed as that is only meant to apply to large targets This whole debate is based on the fittings of 1 maybe 2 carriers out of the 4 available. Those that have free mids to fit drone upgrades.. All that really needs to happen is for there to be a delay between MWD ability and missile ability activation. Light fighter missile ability has a 10K range - Have a 5 second delay between activating abilities, it solves this whole debate and doesn't penalize one carrier more than another. Unless your sitting still and the fighters manage to land at zero on you, 5 seconds is enough time for smaller ships to burn out of range. They may get hit by the normal attack (which is fine) but the missile attack is unlikely to hit them, unless the carrier has web support (Loki or Hugin) that is on the ball. Larger slower ships will get hit but should also be able to tank enough not to get alpha'd.. true but i think the issue is with the nid/than i think the original 2.5 damage per level was far better and they went overboard when people freaked out about it being two low b4 fighter dps had even been set. it is these two carriers being used to blap small ships as the chimera and archon are no where near able even with two omnis I think they need that strong of a bonus to be usable in a fleet setting. The problem is that due to other design decisions carriers aren't fleet ships anyway, thus the Thanatos and Nidhoggur are the obvious choices.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2743	Posted - 2016.06.03 10:02:12 - [902] - Quote true but that damage bonus puts them well over what they need (particularly nid) and they already have a strong place in med sized fleets the only thing they can't do is hold up against other capitals but no carrier can do that.(chimera can pretend to for a bit) i mean a 4% bonus would put it at right about the level of a free DDAII rather than a free officer DDA three things happened when they did the change to nerf the amarr/caldari and buff the gal 1 Archon became a joke 2 nid/than became gank gods ( and i don't even mean just the attack fighters) 3 chimera became resonable and no longe what i'm worried about is that damage bonus being used as effectively as it is against poor pilots in sub caps. generating large amounts of outcry causing all carriers to be nerffed into total uselessness. Citadel worm hole tax
Milostiev Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 11	Posted - 2016.06.05 07:21:09 - [903] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: This whole debate is based on the fittings of 1 maybe 2 carriers out of the 4 available. Those that have free mids to fit drone upgrades.. All that really needs to happen is for there to be a delay between MWD ability and missile ability activation. Light fighter missile ability has a 10K range - Have a 5 second delay between activating abilities, it solves this whole debate and doesn't penalize one carrier more than another. Unless your sitting still and the fighters manage to land at zero on you, 5 seconds is enough time for smaller ships to burn out of range. They may get hit by the normal attack (which is fine) but the missile attack is unlikely to hit them, unless the carrier has web support (Loki or Hugin) that is on the ball. Larger slower ships will get hit but should also be able to tank enough not to get alpha'd.. It won't work. First of all, fighters are too squishy to hang around, after mwd-ing (with mwd on) and wait for missile ability to activate. It would kill fleet fights. Second, it would not fix the instalock gatecamp problem, which is the very reason why they need to be nerfed. Fighters have 12.5km range on missiles (t1 firbolgs), and you can boost that easily with omnidirectionals with optimal script, because the application is near perfect and you don't need precision stuff. It is very easy to cover a regular gate with the fighter wings staying at 0km, on the gate model. maCH'EttE wrote: MY DEAR FRIEND, DONT WASTE YOUR BREATH ON THESE F1 WARRIORS, OR SHIP SPINNERS. THIS CARRIER CHANGE GIVES THEM THE BALLS TO BLAP SMALL GANG PVP TO THE GROUND. THE PROBLEM RESIDES WITH CCP, IGNORING THE FACT OF THE OUTCOME OF SUCH BUFFS. DRONES GOING 10,000MPS, WITH INSANE DPS AND TRACKING, AND LOCK SPEED. WHAT HAPPENED TO THI IS EVE, NO RISK NO REWARD. BUY A CARRIER, JOIN A BLOB THAT HAS A CITADEL, SIT AT UNDOCK, AND BLAP THINGS THAT ARE 1000KM AWAY FROM YOU. DONT WASTE YOUR BREATH. THIS SHITE IS BROKEN, IT WAS BROKEN THE FIRST DAY, IT IS STILL BROKEN, AND IT WILL BE F((((( BROKEN UNTIL THE FAT HOBBIT, AND THE GOING BALD, HIDE WITH A HAT HOBBIT, FIX WHAT THEY BROKE. ITS NOT WORTH PLAYING EVE ANYMORE. ROAM FOR 15+ JUMPS, FIND A FIGHT, AND THAN HAVE 2+ CARRIERS DROPPED OR WARPED ON YOU. I PLAY OVERWATCH, INSTANT PVP. I'm afraid you are right. CCP cares only for raw subscription #'s and not for balance. I've got 4 accounts, 2 of them are close to maxed carrier pilots, and i regret having paid my accounts untill next February (2 have a few months left on subscription). Beyond logging in for my dailies, i haven't logged in for much the past few weeks, and i've only done the dailies the past few days. Having quit before, i know this is how it starts, i'll take a look at Overwatch. PS: Considering he complexity of EVE, and how long it takes one to catch up once you have been gone for a while, i honestly doubt i'll be back from this quit.
Milostiev Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 11	Posted - 2016.06.05 08:08:15 - [904] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: And pray tell what the NSA does for the fighters lock time? To put bluntly, it lowers your time to find a potential escape, to the point where there is just ~blap~. All you need is a large bubble on the gate, but an instalock ceptor buddy will work too (large t1 bubble is far better). Let's say you jump in, and you meet this situation, you are in a frig. 1000k away a carrier, t1 fighters on the gate, 3 wings, large bubble up. You've got 4s from the moment of decloak to find a way out, before you get blapped. You can't go to range, the fighters have at least double your velocity under the 20s mwd and they apply just as well with and without their mwd on. So you try to go back to the gate, and prey he lags a little, because even with 3.7km/s (without overload) and over 5km/s with overload, under 3s align time, you still need time to accelerate. Making it worse, you are mwd-ing right towards the fighters, because that's where the gate is. And that's how you die. For t1 cruisers it's even worse. You can't tank them unless you have a very specialized buffer fit with logi's. You can't jam them all because it takes time to lock each and everyone of them, by which time they will have applied 1 salvo (partial or in full). And you can't drop them because you are in enemy space, far from your own ppl, and probably came fro a wh. Most nullsec regions have 4-5 chokepoints and many constellations have 1 way in and out, a single carrier on the gate and it's a guarantee you won't get out in full, or in, in full. Certain constellations have 6-7 .... even 10+ large bubbles on the grid itself, with 60+ km from the gate, the closest you can possibly warp out (a 20s delay btw between acceleration, exit of bubbles, warp). Solo roaming, or small gang roaming, has been hugely hit by this.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2764	Posted - 2016.06.05 08:17:41 - [905] - Quote ... if you are afraid of a carrier camp fit AB and not MWD takes 3 salvos to kill a T1 frig using an AB if you are in a small gang bring ECM Citadel worm hole tax
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 329	Posted - 2016.06.05 09:16:27 - [906] - Quote but if we fit AB then Instasvipul kills us ;-)
Lugh Crow-Slave 2764	Posted - 2016.06.05 09:18:45 - [907] - Quote lol what if you fit the mwd but get hit by a nado? Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 984	Posted - 2016.06.05 10:15:20 - [908] - Quote Milostiev wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: And pray tell what the NSA does for the fighters lock time? To put bluntly, it lowers your time to find a potential escape, to the point where there is just ~blap~. All you need is a large bubble on the gate, but an instalock ceptor buddy will work too (large t1 bubble is far better). Let's say you jump in, and you meet this situation, you are in a frig. 1000k away a carrier, t1 fighters on the gate, 3 wings, large bubble up. You've got 4s from the moment of decloak to find a way out, before you get blapped. You can't go to range, the fighters have at least double your velocity under the 20s mwd and they apply just as well with and without their mwd on. So you try to go back to the gate, and prey he lags a little, because even with 3.7km/s (without overload) and over 5km/s with overload, under 3s align time, you still need time to accelerate. Making it worse, you are mwd-ing right towards the fighters, because that's where the gate is. And that's how you die. For t1 cruisers it's even worse. You can't tank them unless you have a very specialized buffer fit with logi's. You can't jam them all because it takes time to lock each and everyone of them, by which time they will have applied 1 salvo (partial or in full). And you can't drop them because you are in enemy space, far from your own ppl, and probably came fro a wh. Most nullsec regions have 4-5 chokepoints and many constellations have 1 way in and out, a single carrier on the gate and it's a guarantee you won't get out in full, or in, in full. Certain constellations have 6-7 .... even 10+ large bubbles on the grid itself, with 60+ km from the gate, the closest you can possibly warp out (a 20s delay btw between acceleration, exit of bubbles, warp). Solo roaming, or small gang roaming, has been hugely hit by this. Your talking about T1 frigs here yes? So what happens if your T1 frig jumps into a Svipul gate camp. Let me guess, the same thing as happens if you jump into a carrier gate camp (or any other gate camp set up specifically to catch people jumping in) but of course the carrier is OP and the Svipul's and others are? T1 frigates should die to just about any prepared gate camp - They are cheap, nasty, no tank, throw away ships. Even T1 cruisers shouldn't survive, without a lot of luck on their side. This is not the fault of carriers - they can't "insta lock" you as many would believe, without links and max skills my Thany has only 812 scan res - Not enough to "insta lock" much of anything. Yes it is a pretty fast lock time but not as extreme as it is made out to be. Lastly, if your in a T1 frig gang or anything small enough to be one shot by a gate camp, you should ALWAYS use a scout. That way if there is a gate camp, they will only kill the scout and not your whole inadequate for the job fleet. Where I live there are gate camps all over the place, some carriers others svipuls, others a mixture of whatever. I run the gauntlet every day with my indy toon in Ceptors. 2 most recent losses, not to the regularly seen carrier camps (they can't lock me fast enough when alone); both losses were to Svipuls - They insta lock and one shot (sometimes 2) Ceptors, yet your screaming for carriers to be nerfed because they can sort of insta lock a T1 frigate. Roaming frigate gangs are a pain - About time there was an effective way to deal with the amateurs who don't use scouts. 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 2765	Posted - 2016.06.05 10:25:50 - [909] - Quote why are carriers OP but svips aren't? because this is a new person that slapped them in the face. You can get used to being slapped in the face by the same person even come to enjoy it but when the quit kid in the corner you don't think much about comes up and slaps you he's a dangerous sociopath. particularly when the only real memory you have about him is him playing with himself in the corner with a bunch of red crosses. Citadel worm hole tax
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 984	Posted - 2016.06.05 11:05:09 - [910] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: why are carriers OP but svips aren't? because this is a new person that slapped them in the face. You can get used to being slapped in the face by the same person even come to enjoy it but when the quit kid in the corner you don't think much about comes up and slaps you he's a dangerous sociopath. particularly when the only real memory you have about him is him playing with himself in the corner with a bunch of red crosses. You have such a way with words. It is true, had carriers not been turned into subcap killing specialists these guys would still be crying about whatever it was killing them before. Guys, reality is, carriers may be good at killing certain types of ships but remember they die quite easily to a well prepared small gang and even easier to a single Dread. 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 2766	Posted - 2016.06.05 11:12:22 - [911] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: [quote=Lugh Crow-Slave] Guys, reality is, carriers may be good at killing certain types of ships but remember they die quite easily to a well prepared small gang and even easier to a single Dread. you don't even need to be in a well prepared small gang there are so so many groups out there with public chat chs all you need to do is "there is a carrier in X camping Y gate if anyone wants to pop it (insert zkill link of system and any screens you managed to capture)" the number of ppl out there willing to take a risk of a trap for the sake of a cap kill is incredible Citadel worm hole tax
Milostiev Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 12	Posted - 2016.06.05 12:45:11 - [912] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ... if you are afraid of a carrier camp fit AB and not MWD takes 3 salvos to kill a T1 frig using an AB if you are in a small gang bring ECM AB frig does not survive in null sec solo, because of grid control and because it has low ehp. A correction, it does not survive for fast roaming, if you are willing to go +1 scout it will do just fine. ironically, a ceptor would do better with ab than a regular frig. On a grid, you want to fight 80-130km from the blob, it's the sweetspot where you stand a chance, and where you can actually do something (before you are killed). You go to their space, they already have MWD fits, so you are talking of a 2km/s speed diference. Because of the low ehp you can't rely on the speed with low sig either, unless you want to nibble some guy down. Basically, ab fits on frigs force you from kite+brawl, to brawl+brawl. You lose grid control. Dual prop frig fits are pretty much the only way to go at this point, but even those will only do so much. In the case of T3d's, if you roam solo, the ehp of the svipul with dual prop might be enough to make it back to the gate. Confessor won't, 10mn ab fit takes too long to get up to speed, and mwd fit tend to not have good ehp. Confessor is more of a paper kiter anyway. Cruisers, you have 2 options, buffer or repp fit. Buffer will die to 2 volleys, which means in the case of armor that you have to repp quite often, while repp fits don't have the buffer to make it to the gate. :P One of the few cruiser options with some validity, is mwd-cloak to make it back to the gate, an option i admit i haven't explored fully in EFT (though keep in mind a t2 cloak uses 60 CPU and most solo fits are at the limit precisely on CPU). PS: Svipuls are also OP. When i returned in last October, and i met the svipul (it was introduced after i left eve), i was shocked at how OP it was. After looking at it, the other changes and the philosophy behind it (i looked at CCP's actions, not their words), i said in BSB channel and to others that CCP does not want the svipul nerfed, and that the t3d focus group is a committee designed to bury the problem. It is almost 7 months later, and i have not been proven wrong. If anything, with 40k scram hics and instalock instablap carriers, the discussion about that seems buried. Do you still believe in Kil2, Suitonia ?
Milostiev Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 12	Posted - 2016.06.05 13:19:20 - [913] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Your talking about T1 frigs here yes? So what happens if your T1 frig jumps into a Svipul gate camp. Let me guess, the same thing as happens if you jump into a carrier gate camp (or any other gate camp set up specifically to catch people jumping in) but of course the carrier is OP and the Svipul's and others are? I have lived through many Svipul gatecamps. The trick is to have the 1st mwd cycle an overloaded one, and to align in a direction as far away as possible from them. 280mm Svipul has 14-25km range for damage (the first being optimal, the 2nd optimal + falloff). Full repp fit frigs, will borderline live through it. Shield buffer fit (slasher/firetail .... even raptor) just shrug it off and move on. :P 2 good Svipul pilots with synchronized fits, i won't survive that in a decent shield buffer frig. But this doesn't happen that often (just avoid Stain :P ). Quote: T1 frigates should die to just about any prepared gate camp - They are cheap, nasty, no tank, throw away ships. Even T1 cruisers shouldn't survive, without a lot of luck on their side. The key here is 'prepared'. I know how to prepare a gatecamp, it hasn't changed that much since we did it with full max boosted Lachesis with rf point in low-sec, i know what a gatecamp can do and what it cannot do. It doesn't take much to have a good gatecamp prepared. But you still need ppl, plural. In some cases with maxed out fits, OGB's, and maybe a slightly pimped out HIC. I keep saying 'chance', and ppl keep hearing 'i-win button'. 'i-win' button is boring, chance means that if i am a good pilot, with good reactions and good judgements, i have a chance of getting out. Quote: This is not the fault of carriers - they can't "insta lock" you as many would believe, without links and max skills my Thany has only 812 scan res - Not enough to "insta lock" much of anything. Yes it is a pretty fast lock time but not as extreme as it is made out to be. 2k scan res is very easy to get. Beyond that it doesn't help you that much unless you can get 3500 through other means. Quote: Lastly, if your in a T1 frig gang or anything small enough to be one shot by a gate camp, you should ALWAYS use a scout. That way if there is a gate camp, they will only kill the scout and not your whole inadequate for the job fleet. I never said gang, i go alone. Quote: Where I live there are gate camps all over the place, some carriers others svipuls, others a mixture of whatever. I run the gauntlet every day with my indy toon in Ceptors. 2 most recent losses, not to the regularly seen carrier camps (they can't lock me fast enough when alone); both losses were to Svipuls - They insta lock and one shot (sometimes 2) Ceptors, yet your screaming for carriers to be nerfed because they can sort of insta lock a T1 frigate. Roaming frigate gangs are a pain - About time there was an effective way to deal with the amateurs who don't use scouts. Your example is faulty. A ceptor can just warp out of a bubble, and a travel ceptor can do this even better. You cannot fit a ceptor for both combat and travel. And nobody is asking for bubble immunity. What i am asking is for the chance to make it back to the gate, or to warp off from dictor bubble when i'm in a freaking t1 frig. Not guarantee, chance .... big difference. Also, when you lose a t1 frig in null roaming solo, the problem is not the isk loss, which is quite frankly .... pathetic, 13-15m isk. The problem is the fact that you have to go 30+ jumps again to get another, to die without any .... fun.
Longdrinks My Wife's Son Play Hard Pray Harder 244	Posted - 2016.06.05 20:04:53 - [914] - Quote Are carriers supposed to be able to kill targets while they themselves are safe inside pos shields? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHS-r5v01M
maCH'EttE Furnace Thermodynamics 211	Posted - 2016.06.05 20:27:24 - [915] - Quote Longdrinks wrote: Are carriers supposed to be able to kill targets while they themselves are safe inside pos shields? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHS-r5v01M IF CCP WISHES AND THE LARGE ALLIANCES AND CORPS DEMAND IT, IT SHALL HAPPEN. WHO GIVES A TWO SH* A* ABOUT THE SMAL GANG PVP CORPS OR PLAYERS. DROP CARRIERS ON EVERYTHING, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFTY OF A CITADEL, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFETY OF A POS..
Lugh Crow-Slave 2769	Posted - 2016.06.05 20:52:37 - [916] - Quote maCH'EttE wrote: Longdrinks wrote: Are carriers supposed to be able to kill targets while they themselves are safe inside pos shields? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHS-r5v01M IF CCP WISHES AND THE LARGE ALLIANCES AND CORPS DEMAND IT, IT SHALL HAPPEN. WHO GIVES A TWO SH* A* ABOUT THE SMAL GANG PVP CORPS OR PLAYERS. DROP CARRIERS ON EVERYTHING, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFTY OF A CITADEL, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFETY OF A POS.. it's a bug report it Citadel worm hole tax
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 566	Posted - 2016.06.05 21:23:43 - [917] - Quote Some feedback on carriers if CCP is still reading this: 1. Why do the capital neuts need to be so subpar at hitting anything below capital size? A standard 400M battleship has 220GJ capped every 48 seconds.... A standard heavy neut will cap any ship at 600GJ every 24 seconds, which works out at 1200GJ for an equivalent 48 seconds. That is over 5X better when using against a battleship! And it is a joke to even consider using it on anything below 400m. It doesn't need to be this bad and should be on parity with the other neuts when using against other ships which are not capital class. I don't like that it uses signature radius in the first place as no other cap warfare module calculates anything using sig radius. But if you are going to go with it then its sig resolution should be more like 2000m as opposed to 8000m. 2. The flex hardeners need to be better. The reason is that they promote skilful piloting and good gameplay. It is a good module in terms of making capital piloting more fun, so why make it so niche that they are going to be barely used over an energized membrane or invuln. 3. Heavy warp disruptor and scrambler (particularly the disruptor) need to give a greater range bonus. This is a heavy capital module, so make it feel like a capital module! Currently I can get greater range out of a faction disruptor or scram. The extra point bonus is nice but in the majority of cases is going to be useless. At least they won't gimp you though unlike the capital neuts. 4. Armour buffer fits seems to be a lot worse than shield fits. Especially considering that you are forgoing DDAs. Slave implants are required for parity with shield fits. I know there is going to be some slave equivalent implants for shields coming in the future which will widen this gap further. Why not increase the armour bonus from the 2500mm plates. 5. Now we have no triage module buffing active tanking to crazy levels, crystal implants should work with capital shield boosters and an armour equivalent should also be released for active armour fits. So there is my opinion on the changes so far. The capital modules really should have had their own individual threads as they need a hell of a lot of work still. I also think the networked sensor array needs a good look at although will need more testing before I can give a definitive opinion. From initial impressions though it needs to give more risk / reward type gameplay as currently it gives quite a small benefit (although in edge cases the fast lock can be overpowering) for very little risk. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Lugh Crow-Slave 2769	Posted - 2016.06.05 21:31:38 - [918] - Quote 1 because they are only supposed to be used on capitals you can still fit heavy nuets 2 they are nearlly as strong as a dead space mod what more do you want? 3 the point is to hold supers with their high WCS not have range 4 i agree 5a) carriers are built to buffer tank not active tank this is by design. I for one think it is a good choose and helps diversify them further. They give up being able to local rep for the ability to take remote ones 5b)... dreads and FAUX still exist so just no and they talked about and armor variant of crystal the same time they talked about shield slaves. the NSA is a replacement to atemt to replicate the initial goal of carriers not having to lock at all. this was because the UI just couldn't be made to work. Citadel worm hole tax
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 566	Posted - 2016.06.05 21:45:30 - [919] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 1 because they are only supposed to be used on capitals you can still fit heavy nuets. They should work on any ship. There is no reason why a module costing 250M and using 45x more PG should be inferior. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 2 they are nearlly as strong as a dead space mod what more do you want? They need a higher resist bonus. Hardly anyone is using them at the moment for good reason. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 3 the point is to hold supers with their high WCS not have range See point 1. If I am not fighting super carriers or titan (ie in the majority of cases) the extra WCS is useless. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 5a) carriers are built to buffer tank not active tank this is by design. I for one think it is a good choose and helps diversify them further. They give up being able to local rep for the ability to take remote ones 5b)... dreads and FAUX still exist so just no and they talked about and armor variant of crystal the same time they talked about shield slaves. I was thinking about this being useful mainly for dreads as active tanking a carrier is inferior to buffer tanking (although with crystals there may be a few edge cases in which active tanking a carrier becomes viable) I haven't messed around with FAUX yet though so admittedly this could break some things in that respect. But for dreads and carriers they should work. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: the NSA is a replacement to atemt to replicate the initial goal of carriers not having to lock at all. this was because the UI just couldn't be made to work. Missed opportunity. They should make it a bit more interesting. Disallowing warp and perhaps increasing resist bonus or buffing some aspect of fighters would promote more risk / rewards type gameplay. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 987	Posted - 2016.06.05 21:52:55 - [920] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: maCH'EttE wrote: Longdrinks wrote: Are carriers supposed to be able to kill targets while they themselves are safe inside pos shields? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHS-r5v01M IF CCP WISHES AND THE LARGE ALLIANCES AND CORPS DEMAND IT, IT SHALL HAPPEN. WHO GIVES A TWO SH* A* ABOUT THE SMAL GANG PVP CORPS OR PLAYERS. DROP CARRIERS ON EVERYTHING, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFTY OF A CITADEL, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFETY OF A POS.. it's a bug report it The fighters seemed idle. Maybe they "had" been shooting the poco and the Thany warped to the pos when the neutral cloaky cyno came into system. You know - The smart thing to do if you want to keep your carrier alive. Patch notes May 2016 Quote: It is no longer possible to give any commands to fighters (except Recall) while the commanding ship is in a forcefield. If your still genuinely unsure what you saw, send a bug report and be sure to include all the video you took not just the "specific to whine" edited part. NB; No-one gives a shite about someone coming to the forums and screaming like he is an entitled brat. 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 2769	Posted - 2016.06.05 22:24:32 - [921] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: ... 1 by that logic battle ship guns should be better against frigates than frig guns. all sizes of neuts have their uses by making it so the capital ones were not as strong against sub caps ccp only had to balance them against capitals allowing them to be much more powerful in their given role. 2.... again it's almost as strong as an x-type and can swap resistances. the reason no one uses them is because the x-type is still 4% better 3 just because you have no use for the tool doesn't mean there is an issue with the tool with the NSA by having it add resists you now must take away base resists of the hull making it almost mandatory to use this mod (to lock in smaller fleets and to tank in larger ones) right now it is a much bigger chose. removing the carriers ability to warp does very little balance wise. if you could not catch a carrier you do not deserve the carrier. On a more superficial level it removes the current theme of mobility the carriers have Citadel worm hole tax
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 566	Posted - 2016.06.05 22:38:39 - [922] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Moac Tor wrote: ... 1 by that logic battle ship guns should be better against frigates than frig guns. all sizes of neuts have their uses by making it so the capital ones were not as strong against sub caps ccp only had to balance them against capitals allowing them to be much more powerful in their given role. 2.... again it's almost as strong as an x-type and can swap resistances. the reason no one uses them is because the x-type is still 4% better 3 just because you have no use for the tool doesn't mean there is an issue with the tool with the NSA by having it add resists you now must take away base resists of the hull making it almost mandatory to use this mod (to lock in smaller fleets and to tank in larger ones) right now it is a much bigger chose. removing the carriers ability to warp does very little balance wise. if you could not catch a carrier you do not deserve the carrier. On a more superficial level it removes the current theme of mobility the carriers have 1. Wrong. Currently a Heavy neut, medium neut, and small neut are all useful against all classes of ship. Heavy neuts to nuke out targets and then smaller neuts to keep the cap drained with the fast cycle time. The Capital neut is the only one that is useless against every ship except capitals. 2. The resist bonus isn't strong enough to make choosing it over a second Invuln or EANM viable. Only when you get onto the third you would consider using one. 3. They designed a tool that has a very limited use in the majority of situations and is overshadowed by sub capital modules. 4. Disallowing warp wouldn't impact on a carriers mobility if it stays on grid. Again its just poor design, testing, and balancing on these modules. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Lugh Crow-Slave 2769	Posted - 2016.06.05 22:52:54 - [923] - Quote 1. ... i said they each had their uses not that they were only useful against certain classes. 2 not if you are trying to use them as an adaptive but they are not meant to be used as adaptives 3. something niche isn't bad. 4 mobility isn't tied to the grid. besides if they disabled warp the null bears would cry so loud about their ratting ship being pointlessly nerfed it would be swapped right back the design isn't poor just not what you want. balance is again fine none of the mods are over powered or under powered and each one has situations where they are more viable than their competitors. Citadel worm hole tax
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 566	Posted - 2016.06.05 23:00:12 - [924] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: 1. ... i said they each had their uses not that they were only useful against certain classes. 2 not if you are trying to use them as an adaptive but they are not meant to be used as adaptives 3. something niche isn't bad. 4 mobility isn't tied to the grid. besides if they disabled warp the null bears would cry so loud about their ratting ship being pointlessly nerfed it would be swapped right back the design isn't poor just not what you want. balance is again fine none of the mods are over powered or under powered and each one has situations where they are more viable than their competitors. I am glad that you are happy with these modules and do not think the design is poor; but I will have to respectfully disagree with you there. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Lugh Crow-Slave 2769	Posted - 2016.06.05 23:02:21 - [925] - Quote why because they are not clearly better?? Citadel worm hole tax
Longdrinks My Wife's Son Play Hard Pray Harder 244	Posted - 2016.06.06 03:36:03 - [926] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: maCH'EttE wrote: Longdrinks wrote: Are carriers supposed to be able to kill targets while they themselves are safe inside pos shields? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHS-r5v01M IF CCP WISHES AND THE LARGE ALLIANCES AND CORPS DEMAND IT, IT SHALL HAPPEN. WHO GIVES A TWO SH* A* ABOUT THE SMAL GANG PVP CORPS OR PLAYERS. DROP CARRIERS ON EVERYTHING, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFTY OF A CITADEL, SHOOT STUFF AT THE SAFETY OF A POS.. it's a bug report it The fighters seemed idle. Maybe they "had" been shooting the poco and the Thany warped to the pos when the neutral cloaky cyno came into system. You know - The smart thing to do if you want to keep your carrier alive. Patch notes May 2016 [quote]It is no longer possible to give any commands to fighters (except Recall) while the commanding ship is in a forcefield. thats why i lock up the poco so you can see it going from 57% to 56% armor because its still being shot by the fighters.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2769	Posted - 2016.06.06 03:39:27 - [927] - Quote and you bug reported it right? Citadel worm hole tax
Longdrinks My Wife's Son Play Hard Pray Harder 244	Posted - 2016.06.06 14:51:32 - [928] - Quote yup
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 352	Posted - 2016.06.07 21:52:34 - [929] - Quote Carriers are dumb at the moment. HIC's despite the long scram are ridiculously vulnerable to being volleyed as are interdiction destroyers. I'm not sure if CCP has really addressed the N+1 situation that existed before properly. It was a good start...but now people are forced into over-sized prop mods since fighters can do 11-15k m/sec and volley interceptors -> Battleships. I'm excited to abuse this before it gets nerfed.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 566	Posted - 2016.06.07 22:29:23 - [930] - Quote Justin Cody wrote: Carriers are dumb at the moment. HIC's despite the long scram are ridiculously vulnerable to being volleyed as are interdiction destroyers. I'm not sure if CCP has really addressed the N+1 situation that existed before properly. It was a good start...but now people are forced into over-sized prop mods since fighters can do 11-15k m/sec and volley interceptors -> Battleships. I'm excited to abuse this before it gets nerfed. With a carrier you are extremely vulnrable to dreads. Literally one dread will ruin your 4-5 billion ISK carrier. I'm glad HICs are getting volleyed off the field, they were far too overpowered and with carriers being the new dominant force in subcapital warfare it levels this playing field out. A well orchestrated small gang could still quite easily take down a carrier. Although with a dread it is literally as easy as hitting scram and pressing F1 and you can kiss goodbye to that carrier. I don't think people realise quite how easily a dreadnought will demolish a carrier in the current meta. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 988	Posted - 2016.06.07 23:33:02 - [931] - Quote Justin Cody wrote: Carriers are dumb at the moment. HIC's despite the long scram are ridiculously vulnerable to being volleyed as are interdiction destroyers. I'm not sure if CCP has really addressed the N+1 situation that existed before properly. It was a good start...but now people are forced into over-sized prop mods since fighters can do 11-15k m/sec and volley interceptors -> Battleships. I'm excited to abuse this before it gets nerfed. So nerfing Carriers and Supers is the answer to "fixing" something that is working as intended? Actually people are being forced to adapt to a new style of combat, oversize prop mods is one of many options available to those who want to kill carriers. You bring out a carrier and someone turns up with a small gang or fleet that is fit to fight it, the carrier will die. If you expect to kill carriers with frigates and destroyers - Expect losses, this is how Eve works. The right ship for the right job. 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.
Ormarr Kai Doughboys 28	Posted - 2016.06.13 18:40:33 - [932] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Justin Cody wrote: Carriers are dumb at the moment. HIC's despite the long scram are ridiculously vulnerable to being volleyed as are interdiction destroyers. I'm not sure if CCP has really addressed the N+1 situation that existed before properly. It was a good start...but now people are forced into over-sized prop mods since fighters can do 11-15k m/sec and volley interceptors -> Battleships. I'm excited to abuse this before it gets nerfed. So nerfing Carriers and Supers is the answer to "fixing" something that is working as intended? Actually people are being forced to adapt to a new style of combat, oversize prop mods is one of many options available to those who want to kill carriers. You bring out a carrier and someone turns up with a small gang or fleet that is fit to fight it, the carrier will die. If you expect to kill carriers with frigates and destroyers - Expect losses, this is how Eve works. The right ship for the right job. Exactly this. Destroyers and frigates should stand no chance against a carrier, if you want to bring them down you need to ship up appropriately.
Prometheus Exenthal mnemonic. 817	Posted - 2016.06.19 06:54:21 - [933] - Quote I'm not really concerning myself about carrier damage output against smaller hulls. What I AM concerned about is the retardation that is instalocking with the NSA. I mean, I didn't really want to roam around in a Cruiser or larger anyways Maybe you folks should sit back and fix/play the game you've ALREADY broken before adding more aust garbage https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage *DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT*
Lugh Crow-Slave 2819	Posted - 2016.06.19 07:57:19 - [934] - Quote ... but even with an nsa they cant insta lock Citadel worm hole tax
Prometheus Exenthal mnemonic. 818	Posted - 2016.06.19 09:06:13 - [935] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: ... but even with an nsa they cant insta lock 2 seconds or under is pretty well instalocking for most ships. Especially if they have to try to burn back to a gate or out of a bubble. Currently, a BC will be locked the moment it is lockable, regardless of any module activation. A Cruiser will be locked in ~2 seconds or less. Even WITH the proposed changes, if fighters are already on location you will be shredded before you can turn around or warp. Don't even DREAM of roaming anywhere in something remotely tanky. Instalocking is already a ******* problem in this game, and the NSA just furthers the issue. Devs, play the game & stop adding garbage. Just because it looks neat on paper, and maybe the 10% of time there's a massive engagement, doesn't mean it isn't broken as hell for the other 90%. We're still waiting on those bloody Svipul nerfs. https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage *DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT*
Lugh Crow-Slave 2819	Posted - 2016.06.19 09:54:43 - [936] - Quote .... server ticks alone prevent the carrier + fighters from engaging in 2 seconds even if their scan res was 99999 Citadel worm hole tax
Prometheus Exenthal mnemonic. 818	Posted - 2016.06.19 17:41:43 - [937] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: .... server ticks alone prevent the carrier + fighters from engaging in 2 seconds even if their scan res was 99999 go try it https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage *DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT*
Lugh Crow-Slave 2823	Posted - 2016.06.19 23:22:57 - [938] - Quote i have and there is even a video in this thread showing the delay.... Citadel worm hole tax
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1258	Posted - 2016.06.20 02:18:47 - [939] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i have and there is even a video in this thread showing the delay.... Once a freaking tech 1 fighter looks at you funny, you go poof in a large frigate. You can't even get a target lock on those. Can I know has 100% application missiles? Fighters got them, I want them too. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2823	Posted - 2016.06.20 03:47:13 - [940] - Quote but they don't have 100% and the application is easily mitigated so long as the carriers are not full of omnis those are what is to strong not the base states i have had a mord frig survive 2 volley shots from two carriers so that's a total of 4. with logistics support only reason i died was because i flew into a citadel and let my speed drop to 0. besides with the changes coming to carriers they are about to get a lot more broken against frigs :/ carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements Citadel worm hole tax

Prometheus Exenthal mnemonic. 820	Posted - 2016.06.20 15:17:24 - [941] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements Hey look https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage *DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT*
Tetrach Naari Hole Violence Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2016.06.20 22:56:48 - [942] - Quote Chimera is now the most useless carrier in game... Fighter ECM boni and resistance is a waste ! Thanny easyly gets 1k more dps!!! Carriers are not evenly balanced and should have overall equal dmg application. Since their role is damage application they shoudn't have any ECM nor tanking bonis
Lugh Crow-Slave 2841	Posted - 2016.06.21 01:04:00 - [943] - Quote .... the problem with the archon and chimera is the fighter bay that's it. There is nothing wrong with having the choice of tank over dps Citadel worm hole tax
Lugh Crow-Slave 2841	Posted - 2016.06.21 01:05:25 - [944] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements Hey look What's your point I have also given several solutions that fix the camp issue without nerfing the hull in the rest of the game Citadel worm hole tax
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 86	Posted - 2016.06.22 20:22:01 - [945] - Quote Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1264	Posted - 2016.06.22 22:11:53 - [946] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: but they don't have 100% and the application is easily mitigated so long as the carriers are not full of omnis those are what is to strong not the base states i have had a mord frig survive 2 volley shots from two carriers so that's a total of 4. with logistics support only reason i died was because i flew into a citadel and let my speed drop to 0. besides with the changes coming to carriers they are about to get a lot more broken against frigs :/ carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements Well carriers and above are now IWIN-solo-wtf-bbq-pwn-mobiles for all situations and it is okay? Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Onictus The Scope Gallente Federation 940	Posted - 2016.06.23 10:23:47 - [947] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying. Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any?
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 87	Posted - 2016.06.23 16:22:51 - [948] - Quote Onictus wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying. Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any? Still doesn't change how good they are for PVE, still good for projecting damage, they still do a ton of dps. Now you need a web and an unbonused target painter to apply damage with a capital ship to small targets. Seems reasonable, don't you think?
Onictus The Scope Gallente Federation 941	Posted - 2016.06.23 21:24:03 - [949] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Onictus wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying. Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any? Still doesn't change how good they are for PVE, still good for projecting damage, they still do a ton of dps. Now you need a web and an unbonused target painter to apply damage with a capital ship to small targets. Seems reasonable, don't you think? PvE? LOL
Fyt 284 The Stone Cutters Guild Requiem Eternal 25	Posted - 2016.06.26 13:21:08 - [950] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Onictus wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying. Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any? Still doesn't change how good they are for PVE, still good for projecting damage, they still do a ton of dps. Now you need a web and an unbonused target painter to apply damage with a capital ship to small targets. Seems reasonable, don't you think? It would be reasonable, IF CARRIERS COULD USE THEM! In case you forgot, the NSA makes all ewar unusable. Carriers at the moment have ONE thing going for them: their extreme range. They have no role in fleets, given the fact that if there are caps on field, its better to bring a dread, and if there are subcaps on field, its also better to bring a HAW dread (or more subcaps). Their application is so garbage on SISI that they do less than half their damage to battleships. They no longer have any alpha what so ever, and their total damage was just cut a raw 40%. Tell me, how does all that seem reasonable?

Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 155	Posted - 2016.06.26 18:13:09 - [951] - Quote Fyt 284 wrote: ...their total damage was just cut a raw 40%. Tell me, how does all that seem reasonable? Actually, the total DPS will decrease by about 11%. The alpha of the "rocket" salvo is getting cut by 40% but with an increased rate of fire, resulting in a 26.7% decrease in DPS. The main attack damage remains untouched. That said, it does seem quite unreasonable. Their DPS is already kind of pathetic when the alpha doesn't get the job done, so they could use more DPS, not less, especially when they can't even apply it all to a battleship without painting and webs.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 87	Posted - 2016.06.27 17:11:35 - [952] - Quote Fyt 284 wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Onictus wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying. Ok so is there any reason to undock said carrier? any? Still doesn't change how good they are for PVE, still good for projecting damage, they still do a ton of dps. Now you need a web and an unbonused target painter to apply damage with a capital ship to small targets. Seems reasonable, don't you think? It would be reasonable, IF CARRIERS COULD USE THEM! In case you forgot, the NSA makes all ewar unusable. Carriers at the moment have ONE thing going for them: their extreme range. They have no role in fleets, given the fact that if there are caps on field, its better to bring a dread, and if there are subcaps on field, its also better to bring a HAW dread (or more subcaps). Their application is so garbage on SISI that they do less than half their damage to battleships. They no longer have any alpha what so ever, and their total damage was just cut a raw 40%. Tell me, how does all that seem reasonable? You mean to tell me that a capital ship might need help from a sub capital ship to apply it's damage? What an unheard of concept. And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1494	Posted - 2016.06.28 07:58:27 - [953] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers. You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself. 0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1030	Posted - 2016.06.28 11:56:20 - [954] - Quote Actually, it is more like 2 or 3 subcaps to apply around 60% of their DPS to a slow moving battleship. Even if every fleet had to bring just one subcap to support each carrier, carriers become useless in fleets. You never want more support than DPS. I know the popular and most used meta for a long time has been N+1 for everything but surely it is time players were able to start looking at different strategies and tactics. Carriers and Dreads were designed with exactly that in mind and in less than a month Devs decided that carriers were OP so reverted them back to - You need tons of them to be effective, N+1 rules the field once again. Their logic and reasoning here is exactly the same as with the removal of fighter assist. A minority of players whined loudly enough to the right Dev and because an even smaller minority of players were seen to be abusing a legitimate game mechanic, a well meaning but uninformed Dev helped the whiners by having it, not fixed but removed. At the time, there were better options but Devs took the easy way out and just removed it, thereby affecting the whole player base rather than just those seen as using it in ways CCP hadn't intended. They have done the same thing here with carrier light fighter nerfs - The easiest way to be seen to appease the whiners was to nerf carriers beyond anything resembling what they were. It has been a common outcome for a long time now, with things Devs don't have time to fix (or just don't know how to do it right) they just nerf the shite out of it. It is time that big Norse nerf hammer was locked in a glass cabinet and put on display in the CCP bar, as a reminder on how not to "balance" the game. Planning and moderation, will always prove to be better. 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.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 94	Posted - 2016.07.01 01:15:54 - [955] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers. You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself. 0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there. Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen 188	Posted - 2016.07.01 01:21:24 - [956] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers. You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself. 0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there. Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron. Actually, a large signature can compensate for the target moving quickly, so the target painters are a valid approach. Given that they have vastly more range than webs, they may be the only choice. Also, have you ever seen someone make a Machariel move under 120m/s in actual combat? It's not as easy as it sounds.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 94	Posted - 2016.07.01 02:24:27 - [957] - Quote Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers. You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself. 0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there. Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron. Actually, a large signature can compensate for the target moving quickly, so the target painters are a valid approach. Given that they have vastly more range than webs, they may be the only choice. Also, have you ever seen someone make a Machariel move under 120m/s in actual combat? It's not as easy as it sounds. In an actual fleet confrontation, you would use webs. If you use a shield MWD machariel, then your sig is about 2k. You get trashed hardcore. If you use an AB machariel, you're easily caught up to and webbed -- problem solved. Signature only compensates for velocity when the signature is significantly larger than the explosion radius, like 2-3x as much. Why the 100m sig rocket salvo pre-patch could volley a shield cruiser no matter how fast it was going. That being said, I think the rocket salvo explosion radius nerf was a tad much. It should be around 250~. The rockets should be able to wreck BCs with little issue.
Saleya Blackheart I've no Idea 30	Posted - 2016.07.01 08:29:49 - [958] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: stuff Taking your killboard into consideration it is crystal clear why you are defending the fighter nerf this strongly.
Robertina Palazzo 43	Posted - 2016.07.02 02:50:03 - [959] - Quote I do have to ask why pvpers claim "carebears" cry and whine and want safety yet cry every time something requires setup to kill until it is nerfed back into free kb stats? If you have to cry and throw a tantrum because something is "too hard" to handle (even though others handle it quite fine), well, i needn't even say. if carriers were "omgbbqwtfwin" mobiles, why were people killing them with easy tank setups? why do they do less dps than dreads (before nerf)? why do fleets destroy their utility? It isn't even difficult logic, you cannot live forever EVEN in small ships, isn't that what you all tell the "carebears"?
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1510	Posted - 2016.07.02 20:48:34 - [960] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers. You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself. 0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there. Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron. I'm the "moron" after I trivially demonstrate your claim was complete and unadulterated bullshit? Ok chief. Let me repaste your drivel for you: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints Or are you trying to claim a completely stationary battleship is relevant?

Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1089	Posted - 2016.07.03 01:19:46 - [961] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers. You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself. 0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there. Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron. I'm the "moron" after I trivially demonstrate your claim was complete and unadulterated bullshit? Ok chief. Let me repaste your drivel for you: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints Or are you trying to claim a completely stationary battleship is relevant? Thanatos with T1 Firbolgs will hit a POCO for full damage, without webs or painters (although it was webbed I'm assuming as it is a structure, it didn't matter, lol) Carriers are able to support subcaps on a POCO shoot - I'm impressed 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.
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1089	Posted - 2016.07.03 01:28:35 - [962] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying. Yes unfortunately the whiners were louder than those seeking any sort of balance. As for "Majority"; Not sure where you get that you are in the majority. The "majority" don't post on the forums but the whiners do have a loud voice. 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.
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2016.07.04 01:20:12 - [963] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying. Yes unfortunately the whiners were louder than those seeking any sort of balance. As for "Majority"; Not sure where you get that you are in the majority. The "majority" don't post on the forums but the whiners do have a loud voice. Is there anyone else that's kept up with this thread who also appreciates the irony of this statement?
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2016.07.04 01:41:31 - [964] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: carriers are broken in the gate camp environment but not in standard engagements Hey look Nice to see that you're back. Hope all is well and will check in to your stream again soon.
elitatwo Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance 1287	Posted - 2016.07.04 15:00:33 - [965] - Quote FT Cold wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Well it would seem that CCP and the majority of the EVE playerbase agrees with me on the fighter damage application, and it has been changed. Contrary to what you forum warriors were saying. Yes unfortunately the whiners were louder than those seeking any sort of balance. As for "Majority"; Not sure where you get that you are in the majority. The "majority" don't post on the forums but the whiners do have a loud voice. Is there anyone else that's kept up with this thread who also appreciates the irony of this statement? I do but then, its darkness.. they need 3 destroyers, 2 battleships and 3 battlecruisers to kill a frigate, so their word almost matters. Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike. We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
Blood ofGODS Relentless Destruction Immediate Destruction 94	Posted - 2016.07.04 17:49:43 - [966] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints, and will apply 90% to a BC with no webs/paints. So quit complaining, you had your run with OP carriers. You literally couldn't be more wrong. Not even two painters and two omnis is enough. That would be FOUR application mods. Two of which the carrier can't realistically run itself. 0 painters. Double omni: 17:51:52 Combat 686 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 1 Painter. Double omni: 17:52:05 Combat 862 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits 2 Painters. Double omni: 17:52:18 Combat 1053 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Completely stationary, double omni, double painted: 17:54:33 Combat 1662 to Morrigan LeSante[OMEGA](Machariel) - Dragonfly II - Hits Webs are now mandatory for the damage not to be a joke. Even then, hits like the ones above only tickle a battleships soooo yeah, there's there. Well for one, painters aren't your problem, it's velocity, and I'm assuming you have an AB on to get those numbers. Seems like you're trying to skew it a bit. Make a machariel move under 120 m/s with no paints and you will hit full damage with 2 omnis. It's simple math really, stop being a moron. I'm the "moron" after I trivially demonstrate your claim was complete and unadulterated bullshit? Ok chief. Let me repaste your drivel for you: Blood ofGODS wrote: And yes it will still apply fully to a battleship with no webs/paints Or are you trying to claim a completely stationary battleship is relevant? Because most nearly all battleships have a velocity under 120 m/s and a sig over 350, therefore it will apply fully. Do I need to break out the missile damage calculation formula for you, who clearly can't do math?
DoingUntoOthers Three Inch Wonders Brothers of Tangra 0	Posted - 2016.07.04 23:30:08 - [967] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Because most nearly all battleships have a velocity under 120 m/s and a sig over 350, therefore it will apply fully. Do I need to break out the missile damage calculation formula for you, who clearly can't do math? This is true. a sniping battleship will indeed be that slow. Every other battleship fit ingame however, are we ignoring them? I mean we can but, it's more ignorant than intuitive for someone telling others they cannot do math <.<
Sgt Ocker Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1097	Posted - 2016.07.05 00:34:31 - [968] - Quote Blood ofGODS wrote: Because most nearly all battleships have a velocity under 120 m/s and a sig over 350, therefore it will apply fully. Do I need to break out the missile damage calculation formula for you, who clearly can't do math? The 2 most common battleships found in fleets, Mach and Snake both do well over 120m/s, sig on the Mach, is exactly 350. So unless it is stationary, your not hitting it for full damage. Then, take into account links and drugs, your chances of a full damage hit are further reduced. Even my dual extender Snake, sig 565 before links, implants and drugs, doesn't get hit for full damage doing around 330m/s. (Nano Snake, just because so many low slots - 410m/s with fairly cheap AB and 2 nanos) Dual plate Mach, T2 Trimarks + faction AB = 485m/s (Base speed of a Mach with skills applied and no fittings - is over 200m/s) You need to at least dual web those 2 (pretty commonly seen) battleships to get them under 120m/s and only one of those has a sig over 350. Presuming the missile calculator spreadsheet is accurately applied in the game (it isn't), you may hit a Snake for full damage if it is dual webbed and painted but your not hitting the commonly seen Mach for full damage unless it is stationary. I think in all fairness, you should "break out the missile calculation formula" apply it to ships and fittings actually seen and used, then apologize to Morrigan (and anyone else reading this that actually plays the game and flies carriers). Don't forget to actually test your findings on SISI or even TQ, spreadsheet/ EFT warriors often come undone when it comes to applying their findings in game. "Things often just don't work out as EFT/Spreadsheets suggest". (Edit; I know this from experience) Yes, in an ideal situation, everything you shoot will be dual webbed, scrammed and not have links, implants or drugs to change how spreadsheets say it will go down. Reality is, a spreadsheet is only a guide, it can't actually apply damage for you. There are a multitude of variations that can change damage application and when you start out with poor application and reduced damage (due to recent nerfs) your up against it. 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.
Morrigan LeSante Black Omega Security The OSS 1514	Posted - 2016.07.05 11:03:00 - [969] - Quote Thanks for saving me the effort. Maybe he just fights a lot of propless, shield buffer abaddons


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]

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.