|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
418
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 12:34:08 -
[1] - Quote
Do Force Auxiliaries really need to be even more of an "escalate to capitals or a hundred pilots or GTFO" button than they already are? |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
418
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 13:35:42 -
[2] - Quote
Wouldn't it be a more reasonable tweak/nerf to the networked sensor array to give it a weapons timer and criminal flag on activation? Gatecampers would take heat immediately and the citadel tethering shenanigans would be brought to a screeching halt. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
422
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 01:00:56 -
[3] - Quote
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote: while i agree that the old fighters would be better than the proposed changes, i still like the idea of making the heavy rocket attack something that you should actually think about when to use; and keeping or increasing the alpha and just nerfing it's application on frigs/cruisers is one way of doing that.
If the balance state of fighters on the test server allowed them to apply more than a single digit percentage of their damage to a frigate, I might be on board with this concept. As things stand, the carrier is not capable of applying even 25% of its damage to a slow boating heavy assault cruiser, and requires a substantial number of webs and paints (3 webs, 2 painters) to apply all of it. As things stand, the carriers are essentially an inferior, and more expensive, high angle dreadnought that can be quickly de-fanged and rendered defenseless by a modest number of cruiser-on-down hulls. The carrier simply is honestly not worth fielding over other ships if their damage application remains this poor. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
424
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 03:19:47 -
[4] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:How is this toxic though? The current environment is basically: see Carrier -> Do I feel like losing most/all of my ships today just to fight something? No? Run awaaaayyyyyy!!!
It sounds like, in your own words, this gives Carriers a role in fleets, just not a dominant one, and it also kind of sounds like there's room in the small to medium gang meta for Carriers with support ships as a tactic, with the fleet built around the Carrier(s) and their ability to project damage on the field. If this kills the solo-PvP Carrier why is that a bad thing for anyone who isn't a solo-Carrier pilot or one of the small number of people dedicated to killing solo-Carriers? (probably by dropping Dreads on them at that...)
You are misreading the direction this is going to evolve. With this change in direction, carriers are going to become a ship that requires critical mass to use - but once you reach that critical mass, it becomes incredibly, ridiculously powerful, and the mechanics for countering the carrier will be even more difficult to bring into play than they are now if you are trying to fight outnumbered. Carriers, like Dreadnoughts, will remain dominant on the battlefield (but the situations where you'll actually want carriers will once again be limited to near zero). The bar on being able to use them just happens to be going up in a way that limits the number of organizations who will be able to make use of them.
In the current tranquility stats, if you expect carriers, you need ECM to jam the fighters, and you need an unreasonably fast locking speed on your ECM ships to avoid scenarios where the carrier pilot recalls his fighters and re-deploys them to one-shot the ECM ship before he can react. Beyond that unreasonable scenario, the fighters quickly die if they're webbed.
Personally I think the carrier mechanics would play better if the tracking/application was poorer while the fighters were MWDing around the field. Outside of that Zoom-and-boom tactic that deletes ships from the field, I think carriers are in a pretty good place mechanically. Above all else, It's the perfect damage application, regardless of fighter speed, that's currently broken. A more nuanced approach than the missile formula should be used. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
427
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 16:53:11 -
[5] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The problem with making Fighters use turret damage rules is that it makes them close to worthless against anything they can't track with their base speed and very frustrating to use, in the same but less extreme way old and even dumber drones were frustrating when they used to require you to not train Drone-Nav past 3 or they would pretty much just perma MWD and be worthless.
Also if they used the turret damage formula then it becomes much much easier for them to nail many fast and small targets because of how turret tracking works, as opposed to missiles which can't be mitigated based on how closely you're matching the enemy's speed. For example if the Fighters travel at 1k and they're tracking someone traveling at 1.1k, that enemy is going to be effectively moving at .1k for most of the time the Fighters are shooting at him and he's going to take much more damage. They would also need to not out-track themselves while orbiting, giving them very high base application because of their own high speed.
To address this point in particular, the simplest solution off the top of my head is to add a penalty element to the missile application formula based on how fast the fighters and their target are going. Basically the tracking speed formula, but re-purposed for damage percentiles rather than hit/miss. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
427
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 17:42:56 -
[6] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:To address this point in particular, the simplest solution off the top of my head is to add a penalty element to the missile application formula based on how fast the fighters and their target are going. Basically the tracking speed formula, but re-purposed for damage percentiles rather than hit/miss. There's no reason to do this, missile weapons are already adjusted to take into account their better and more consistent application vs guns against small targets. This is just Light Fighters getting balanced around the same principal and for more or less the same reason.
The missile formula does not take into account the velocity of the fighters themselves, which is where I believe the problem lies. The current state of carriers would be a lot less troublesome if they couldn't just zip across two hundred kilometers of space at 16+ kilometers per second and delete enemy ships with guns and volleys the second they get in range because of reduced damage from their extraordinarily high velocity. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
427
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 17:51:06 -
[7] - Quote
C-137 wrote:The MWD cooldown is actually quite obnoxious. If you are fighting within 35kms, it is better to recall and relaunch between targets than wait for the MWD, unless you are already near the next target obviously. It seems too much like a Fire-and-forget ability right now. Very little interactivity, you pretty much use it when its up, no matter the situation.
It's a pretty boring and often tedious ability, I agree with that. You basically wish your drones moved that fast all the time, and otherwise manage your fighters by working around the MWD cool-down cycle. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
427
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 18:38:02 -
[8] - Quote
C-137 wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote: The chap you're arguing/debating with is scramming the dromis. You seem not to be? This will make a huge difference if that is the case.
I cannot target them fast enough on my 2nd account to scram them before they are already in web range, at which point scramming them is bad because they overshoot with the MWD on, and you would just web yourself earlier. If you overheat your scram you scram at 13k factoring travel and the Dromi webs at 16km... I have no idea what that guy is talking about other than they have bad fighter skills.
Carrier and anti-carrier combat is not multibox friendly. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
427
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 20:14:15 -
[9] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Then you would run into the same problem as if you just gave them 'guns' and made them use that damage formula, where they would need to get increased application to offset Drones (and Fighters) being dumber than a sack of hammers about shutting off their MWDs and reducing speed close to a target, or even about reducing speed in general to better apply damage. Making Fighters lose damage based on their own speed would just create frustration by the pilot's inability to tell them to do something even an hour old newbie out on a fleet can manage, slow down their ship.
Drones get around this problem by having fantastic application but relatively low DPS, except for Sentries which are basically deploy-able guns and sit stationary, thus not needing the crutch of fantastic application for what they are.
Fighters are doing something similar, but because of how they function the gun damage formula would be massively impractical, for more or less exactly the reason you seem to want them to use some half-way version of it.
I want them to use a half-way version of it because outside of situations where the fighters are moving extremely quickly and obliterating their targets as soon as they get close enough, the gun damage application on carriers doesn't need that big of a nerf and could basically be left as-is. The damage application would not need to be any better than it is on TQ. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
428
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 21:01:29 -
[10] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Evelgrivion wrote:I want them to use a half-way version of it because outside of situations where the fighters are moving extremely quickly and obliterating their targets as soon as they get close enough, the balance isn't that far off. I could agree that missile volleys are a bit too powerful, but it's only in conjunction with the microwarpdrive ability that fighters are truly broken. I don't really agree with this. The overall application is out of control and there's some pretty good math in this thread showing that. If the MWD ability was at the root of it they could just make them move slower and call it a day, but it's not, it's that they're doing the whole "nuke sub-caps off the field entirely" thing, not really how fast the fighters get out to 100km and start doing it. I'm not saying that you couldn't make Fighters useless with a sufficient nerf to the MWD, but I think that would mostly just be frustrating to everything than an actual fix. What CCP are doing with these changes is an actual fix.
I'm not sure you understand my argument. They aren't broken because the MWD is fast, they're broken because there's no strategic tradeoff in using the MWD. Aside from cooldown management, the MWD is nothing but a benefit to fighters, and it makes the time-to-target extremely low. |
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
432
|
Posted - 2016.06.25 03:39:21 -
[11] - Quote
C-137 wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Given the current state of the changes I wouldn't worry about Light Fighters being a solo I-Win button. If you get nuked by a single carrier's fighters, in a decently tanked Cruiser, it will be because you've been webbed, painted, and EWar'd to Jita and back.
As for the last bit, I don't really see that happening. Big fights are, in general, good for the game and 3 players are never going to have a chance against 1000. Not that people really form up fleets like that unless they expect major resistance so... not sure what the actual example case for your issue is. Seems like you may have obscured your point a bit with hyperbole. I have logs a few pages back showing carrier applying 600+ dps to a cruiser size ship (175m sig) going 900-950m/s, without webs or TPs. That seems a tad high to me.
Didn't you have a Thanatos fit with Tech 2 fighters, four Fighter Support Units, quad DDAs, two Omnidirectional Tracking Computers with tracking speed scripts, and two more omnidirectional tracking enhancers in the lows? |
|
|
|