My proposition : 70 CPU and 125.000 power grid.
Exactly what is needed to mount additional gun.

This looks like a reasonable place to start. Thank you for considering everyone's feedback and taking it into accout!


You're exaggerating. It's looking like you'll be able to fit one capital size mod on an arty fit with no fitting mods at all. With one RCU, you'll be able to fit two. What other ships that can comfortably hit out to 160+185km can fit a heavy tank?

Also it's worth noting that this is only a change to Light Fighters, not the Heavies, so Carriers are only really losing a bit of effectiveness against Sub-Caps, not larger targets.

Fixed.

Also are you really better off using one battleship over 1 Carrier? I can't check the numbers at the moment but I kind of highly doubt that even with the nerfs...

Is that bad?

Okay, yes, I did misunderstand and I see your point.

That said, I think that does make this look a lot like a "this other thing should maybe be nerfed too" at least just on the numbers. Carriers have been getting a lot of complaints lately, and the nerf seems pretty justified overall. Super-carriers may just be less of a problem even with more sub-cap damage, because they are a *lot* more expensive and logistics hard to field in large numbers than a regular Carrier, and part of the reason Carriers are getting nerfed is because of how ubiquitous and dangerous they are to sub-caps.

If I find a Carrier out ratting alone right now it's "eh, lets see if it's worth it" because you'll almost guaronteed take losses killing the thing even if he doesn't have a Cyno. If I find a Super it's "Holy **** who can I call to bring this sucker down!" because it's just that tempting of a target, which is why supers getting deployed (or killed) makes news but no one really cares if 10 carriers die of in Low Sec space.

Those Fibo application numbers are live right now and yet I've heard zero complaints about them. I've heard Carriers mentioned probably two dozen times in the last week (generally accompanied by some variation of the word "nerf") in *high sec Incursion Coms*. Yes a fair number of these people are WH and Null players on alts, but it still says a lot about the state of carriers that it's coming up in a conversation in space where you can't even see one.

I dont think raven cost like 10 cerbs.

You're really just making a case for Heavy Fighters to get a similar application nerf here, not one for Lights to be nerfed less.

Light Fighters are currently an issue in the balance between Carriers and sub-caps, hence the nerf. If Heavy Fighters are now invalidating Light Fighters with these changes then the answer to that is to nerf Heavies, not to not nerf Light Fighters.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but what you're actually saying is a better argument for nerfing Heavy Fighters than it is for actually supporting the point you're trying to make here.

Basically what this guy said the comment right after yours, in response to someone else:



So, Morrigan, if you want to argue that the nerfs are too severe then come up with some examples for why this is the case against real-world targets, don't just point to something else and say "but now this other thing that should be worse is better!", that probably just means that the aforementioned other thing is also in for a round with the nerf bat.

You mean like most Battleship guns can't get their full DPS onto another Battleship (let alone a Cruiser) without significant help either in the form of fittings or EWar?

Not getting the full damage against a target is *not* the same thing as "having trouble" applying damage to it. Blasters at 50km is "having trouble", Arty on a moving target at 10km is "Having Trouble", getting a fairly minor DPS drop on a target at any range because they're moving (at all) is pretty normal.

Torps aren't relevant because the main reason they aren't used isn't really their application, it's because there are just better options for most PvP situations where a torp-fitted ship would be useful. Light Fighters are working in a completely different ecosystem, don't have competition from other weapons a Carrier could fit, and have other advantages over Torpedoes. There is no equivalence between Light Fighters and Torpedoes except on *one stat* which happens to be close in value, which does not make comparing the two in any way valid.

If you want to start making a case for this being a bad change, I suggest you start posting some hard numbers for a variety of cases rather than just alluding to them and then making false equivalencies between Light Fighters and a Torp-fitted Raven (especially using fits and situations that seem to be chosen specifically to be effective at tanking Light Fighters).

You're completely ignoring the fact that the fighters' primary weapons, which provide the majority of a carrier's dps, will apply perfectly to most of those targets even without omnis. If you're concerned about fleet-level application with the rocket salvo, you or another member of your fleet can easily bring a few painters and long-range webs along, exactly as you would for any other large ship weapon system.

How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate?

At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones.

Reduced DPS overall, at least without support, seems to be the point.

Out of curiosity what do you think would be the best way to achieve this if not an unassisted application nerf? Leave the application alone and just drop the overall DPS?

You're right in your understanding of what drf does, but wrong to suggest that you could fix the salvo's excessive application just by tweaking it - as it stands on TQ, light fighter salvoes with dual tracking-scripted omnis get an explosion radius of 65m, which is comparable to light fury missiles (and much better than precision heavies), i.e. weapons designed to kill destroyers. It would apply oppressive levels of alpha to smaller targets even if you set drf to 5.5 so the exponential term in the damage equation disappeared.

The fundamental problem here, I think, is that the battleship you're trying to hit basically has the speed and sig of a fat unlinked cruiser (the mach does 580 m/s with a sig of 229m; an unlinked shield tanked AB moa does 565 m/s with a sig of 180 m). With the missile damage formula being what it is, there's no way to create a weapon system that hits the former for near-full damage without also applying very well to the latter. Linked AB machs mitigate damage from a lot of other missile type weapons - not just cruises and torpedoes, but also faction heavy and heavy assault missiles.

i guess what i meant was could have just dropped more supers. Also you can abandon fighters :p drop one LR and launch 3 lights.


and yes we pointed out how strong the lr ones were back on the sisi thread...

They can orbit with the MWD on, are you so dense?

Proof of what, that I can click a button every 5 seconds?

Devil's advocate here, since I deal (on a MUCH smaller scale) with customer service -

There's a rule of thumb that you almost never explain a "why" in customer service. You simply and politely lay down a decision. I don't know if it's an American thing, or perhaps global, but people get told a perfectly rational "why", then they want to argue about the "why". It ends up being very unproductive, because customers want to argue every point up to and including the very foundation of your business model because they're "special" and "rules should have exceptions" and "it's just this one time" and "I have a right to know" and and and and....

...and it never ends. We are lucky that we get as much explanation as we do with CCP. Part of it is probably because the "why" is straightforward. "Why were heavy missiles nerfed so bad?" "Because their application was too good". And what does that usually bring here on the forums? Pages of people citing personal and general examples where the application sucks, turrets are better, etc.

The thing is, in my quick example, heavy missiles may have needed a nerf for a hundred different reasons, ranging from over-representation in large fleet battles, play and counterplay factor for both the person using it and the person hit by it, plans down the line to nerf or readjust all missiles and this is just convenient or a bit more urgent right now, etc. But if you post an eight-page summary of the years of data and future plans, you'll have the entire playerbase nitpicking and arguing one way or the other, over every. single. detail.

That's not to say all this are the reasons for a lack of CCP interaction on the forums, I'm just saying it makes sense from my line of experience. Also worth noting, there was a similarly-themed article written on Cracked.com some years back. A mother wrote a funny article about how, when she was growing up, she hated when her parents dropped the "because I said so!" excuse during an argument, and that now that she's a mother, she finds herself finding many very good reasons to do the same to her child. The themes are about identical. If you were ever curious to look it up, I'm sure you could glean some insight into the Developer/customer relationship.

The Gram MWD is a combo Speed + Defense cooldown. The hilarious thing is they are slower than Einherji's by a lot.

E: My testing is like this:

Inty warps in at 30km, turns MWD on, orbits at 30.
I turn on NSA, target Inty, lanch fighters, Spam F1 (turn off NSA and will set all fighters to attack target when they launch)
Once you see fighters in space, spam F1 and F2 till they MWD.
Pretty much can keep spamming F1 and F2 to victory, but you lose a bit of DPS unless you manage F1 properly (range overshoot issues with MWD active)

If your target is further out, like 50km faction point with links range and a 100mn AB like I tested earlier, you have to pilot all the fighters better.

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.

The Carrier has never, ever, been billed by CCP as an Anti-Subcap ship. This is something players decided must be the case because of how effective Carriers were at killing sub-caps. It has been decided that this is a bad thing so their ability to kill subcaps is being nerfed.

This really shouldn't surprise anyone since "super effective against sub-caps" is one of the things CCP was pretty explicitly against capitals being, since then the answer becomes "bring all the Capitals" if they're just flat more effective on a per-ship basis..

So Crazy Vania and I tested some fits. I can't really give any specific logs because I didn't mark down what was what, and we tried a few things. The take aways:

3xDDA is the minimum to force an Inty off-grid.
Tracking Links and Tracking Enhancers are pointless (at least when using Superiority Fighters, but my earlier testing showed them to be useless for Einherji's as well)
Fighter Speed is critical

1 OTE and 1 DNC would be better, but whatever.

They're a lot less effective vs small ships, they can't easily one-shot them without a ton of assistance and coordination, and their overall DPS has been reduced. Overall I would hardly call that a "murderzone" unless what you're flying is un-tanked Battleships, in which case I have no sympathy.

As for the fleets, good. Easy alpha-strikes are bad for the game, they invalidate Logi as a class.

Why do I have to keep pointing out that it's not about the fit. If that oynx had 300,000 ehp, it would still be taking 600+ dps from a capital ship while moving at 900+ m/s.



The light fighters are doing 600+ dps to a speed tanked cruiser, with a PVE RATTING CARRIER FIT. If you think this is a 'niche' fit, you have obviously never ******* used a carrier in-game.

Seriously? That PG requirement wasn't hint enough - It would not fit... Or was common sense (check fitting requirements) too hard for you?

I mean do Devs also need to put, won't fit on a frigate on T2 1600 plates and Large guns.

Please show me a battleship that has 75,000 PG (T1 Capital Shield Extender).
Even the Regolith (62,500 PG) - Which requires the least fitting, WILL NOT fit any battleship, even with 3 T2 Ancillary Current Routers.

Have I been missing something? Like a new Battleship that can get at least 3 times the maximum PG of any existing Battleship.

Just saying~ You know you broke carriers when carrier ratting brings you almost the same isk per tick as a battleship

Please teach me Senpai. How is this possible? Could it be because of the NPC types you are killing? I do 1390 to a Blood Pope per hit. lol

I'm well aware of all of this, and that it makes these modules more niche, but that's more or less the same for Neuts and NOS at the sub-cap level too. You either fit it for something specific or it's used in a utility high, and not much in between.

None of this has stopped people from doing stuff like Neuting FAX fits though, which at least shows that these modules are getting some use.