The fact that you don't understand what 3pts interceptor means is evidence that you've never really paid attention to how to fit and fly them. I hope I can convince you to change for the better:

I've always tried to share what I've learned across the years from many groups, including Podla, Agony, and Feign. My bio has a link that will provide you with the interceptor fits you need to become someone a bit less uninteresting :)

Or you could clicky here: http://i.imgur.com/WlTixDc.png



The fact that you were able to extrapolate a number from my math means it was effective at presenting you a fact.

These numbers are provided with no commentary, just a simplified view that you may use against or for your argument. I will not argue with you wether they are balanced or not, just give you the facts.- You're welcome!

All of those inties fight within 12k range.

Incorrect.

Try again :)

So you have 1 point strenth instead of 3... Ok. The fighters will reach out to 30km just as you lock them, at which point they have you webbed, and they don't need their WMD anymore. You sitll die. You can PM me if you want I can log onto SiSi and wreck your Inties for you to see if you want.

In that time, I can have 1x Fighter, 1x Web Fighter, 1x Scram fighter on you, and you will die in 30s.

Are you sure you're a carrier pilot trying to argue from their perspective? You seem a little bit removed from reality :)

He has admitted in this thread he is not a carrier pilot, and has frankly been unpleasant to anyone who holds the view that the changes make carriers ****.

A single carrier can only field 1 support drone at all time. No existing drone mechanics allow to scram subcapitals (only point).

Are you sure you're a carrier pilot trying to argue from their perspective? You seem a little bit removed from reality :)

So Super Carriers do not exist? Waiting on your PM for SiSi testing still... Also I use scram as a hold over from the old days before MWD would be shut off. The days when real nano kite existed.

Moving the goalpost ? I havent done any super testing.

I'm on sisi right now, testing more stuff with a friend. You can contact me there of you want? But the aforementioned clause about being a bit more reasonable and pleasant has not been filled, so I'm not promising anything.

Can a Carrier on sisi kill a single interceptor? No.
Can it force the interceptor to drop the point? Yes, after approx 60 seconds, but not using Cenobytes or Fighters or Grams, but using 2x Heavy neuts, just like any old battleship.

The reason is: I can scram whatever support drone the carrier throws at me at 13km (cenobyte range is 10 I think) and I can survive the Einrehjis by just tanking the light amount of damage they'll do before their MWD turns off and I orbit away. All the while keeping point on the carrier.

Is this acceptable? I don't know... I don't think so?

Before Citadels, a combat fitted carrier could wipe me out in 10 seconds with a flight of 10-15 warriors.

So Super Carriers do not exist? Waiting on your PM for SiSi testing still... Also I use scram as a hold over from the old days before MWD would be shut off. The days when real nano kite existed.

Cenobite II has 10km optimal and 5km falloff. And you're a really good ceptor pilot if you can actually do what you claim.


I think it is acceptable. A good (excellent?) ceptor pilot should be able to tackle a carrier that is ****-fit (t1 support drones only), ratting unaligned, not paying attention on local and intel channels - and hold it tackled for the whooping 60 seconds.


Before Citadel, a carrier with whatever fit they could come up with, could do nothing to a half-decent interdictor. Now I get dry in a second even if it's 1x heavy neut and then die horribly in my own bubble. Doesnt look like it will change after this patch goes live, but I'm fine with that, just for the record.

Just out of curiosity, in which scenario in your world would you send in a solo ceptor to tackle a supercarrier, rather than a HIC or a DIC???

I'm on Sisi. I'm waiting :) Crazy Vania ingame mate! Convo me and I'll /moveme wherever.

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 over dreadnoughts 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. Nerfing the missile damage application into the ground doesn't actually fix anything.

They update a thread with changes if they alone decide upon them.

That isn't what feedback is meant to be. There should be dialogue, and rebuttals, a back and forth, with reasons stated for their decision, and reasons stated if they disagree with the community provided feedback. Silence isn't feedback.

You have plenty of people just yelling no, sure, but a lot of peoples willingness to write out long reasoned feedback is diminished by the fact it is not responded to. You would be surprised how much people would prefer to be told "no, here is our reasons for not wanting to do that", rather than nothing.

Sorry, but "ships dying even when we have 30 logistic ships on grid" is not a problem.
This 30 logistics repairing 1 ship is more cancerous than carrier sitting on lowsec gate.

Nothing should be untouchable - and biggest argument against current carrier is that : this ships should not die, because :
- it was linked and snaked and moving fast
- it was repaired by so many logistics ...


CCP re analyze this changes.

Hi! We have been testing in more detail this afternoon. The angry guy saying "fite me brah" here still has not, I'm sad to say :(

T2 Cenobytes on a Niddy were very annoying indeed. I think I do need a faction scram to keep them out of their falloff range. Or links. But otherwise it was a matter of using a cap boosted inty that did the trick. That'll survive for 2-3m.

Dromis were ineffective. You can either overheat away from the 16km webs and survive for about 3-4m, or you can rep the incoming damage in an active rep Malediction like Roigon's (famous Agony/Camel interceptor pilot).

And now I go play Overwatch :) Too much sisi testing is not so healthy! And plus servers are going down.

Btw since capitals were just recently rebalanced and now the Nag is getting another pass which potentially changes the way it is fit completely, any kind of compensation for potential billions lost on rigs?

lol remember when the nag lost its xl missile capabilities ?
now ccp just wants to force players to spend another 200 mil on a new turret. just like that.

Fleet Inty vs 2 Fighter, 1 Web

Dromi's overshoot their target every time, and only web on a 2nd or 3rd pass. I cannot dual box fast enough to lock the fighters before it doesn't matter, mainly because of the need to control the fighters (good thing imo, regular drones are boring). Total combat time including targeting is 34s.... 34s!

How do your Gram IIs catch the inty? Aren't they much too slow because they have no MWD ability, only AB? Do you manually position them in the orbit path of the inty?

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.

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.