My math wasn't precise for the 15%; doing the math again it looks more like 11% less paper DPS while the missile attack still has ammo. The cycle time effectively went from 19 seconds to 15 (remember you can't activate the ability till after the cycle has finished, then you have to wait till the next tick.) for a 26.67% improvement. With the 40% decrease in damage, that comes out to a 24% decrease in DPS for the salvo.
On top of the paper DPS nerf, the salvo can no longer fully apply to most battleships, let alone cruisers or frigates.

Beyond the paper math it's more subjective, but I just can't really see a noteworthy use for carriers if they lose the one thing they were good at, which was doing a lot of damage in a very short time. If you want sustained DPS, HAW dreads are a little better against battleships and with proper support, vastly better against smaller targets.

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.

Were only it possible to stuff heavy fighters into my carrier.

Currently I'm better off using long range fibos vs subcaps, than light fighters. I don't even....

Making Light Fighters less effective against sub-cap targets seems to be part of the overall point here. While HAW Dreads may do better on paper they're also easier to deal with. They represent a single target, rather than a Carrier plus all its fighters, and they have less ability to project damage than a Carrier does. While you could argue that Fighters can be killed independently and that justifies their effectiveness in practice this seems to be harder to do than just targeting and neuting out a single Dread, running away from it, or bringing in your own Dreads to kill the HAW fit one(s).

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.

Correction: Also it's worth noting that this is only really affecting how effective Light Fighters are against smaller targets, not really larger Battleships or 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...

OFC, because you fly battleships.

Can we reconnect to our fighters again after abandoning them?

With the 118.6 release, we're making some tweaks to a bunch of capital gameplay. We would love your feedback!

Carriers & Fighters

General Light Fighters (Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg, Einherji) have had their basic attack application stats increased and their heavy rocket salvo application & damage stats decreased:

Basic Attack - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 160 (-80)
Basic Attack - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 150 (+30)
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 350 (+250)
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Velocity (higher is better): 100 (-20)
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Speed: 14 seconds (-4)
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Damage (Average): 146 (-94)
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Charges: 12 (+4)
Heavy Rocket Salvo - Reload Time: 4 seconds (-2)

I feel like you misunderstood my post.

I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

I'm 100% serious.

Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
expl rad | 330 | 350
expl vel | 110 | 100

Alpha from a 2x DDA thanatos and nyx respectively (post changes)? 17900ish vs 36000ish. Almost twice the damage, better applied and available to fire again. And at longer range.

Now, this isn't a "nerf supers", this is a "in what world does that even make sense to nerf light fighters this hard"

General Light Fighters (Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg, Einherji) have had their basic attack application stats increased and their heavy rocket salvo application & damage stats decreased

[Correction: Also it's worth noting that this is only really affecting how effective Light Fighters are against smaller targets, not really larger Battleships or larger targets.

I'll apply more damage to *any* subcap using a long ranger fighter bomber (Antaeus etc) than I will using a light fighters (Firbolg) salvo.

I'm 100% serious.

Stat | Fibo | Light fighter
expl rad | 330 | 350
expl vel | 110 | 100

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.

It's like a raven being better at killing frigates than a cerberus. What do you think?

I dont think raven cost like 10 cerbs.

I dont think raven cost like 10 cerbs.

no, against battleships this is still a 25% nerf on the secondary dps without any compensation.

Yeah that's because carriers had very high alpha with excellent application.

Now they have vastly reduced alpha (~28%) but this has been coupled with making the application worse than faction torps. Given my damage is laughable vs capitals, I'm rather disappointed to be faced with needing webs and painters to apply effectively to battleships, never mind anything smaller: god forbid you shoot logi, or a T3.

Keep your risk averse ass out of sov null then


3 patrol boats dont hold down a aircraft carrier, even if you gold plate the engines to make them cost more

Small gangs should be fighting small gangs, 3 frigates die to a ishtar so 3 lightly tanked stealth ships should die to a carrier many times bigger

You arent meant to butt heads with blops but be rather tactical and kill smaller things

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.

well than compare raven and caracal... a raven costs about 20 caracal and still is not better at killing frigs.

No, my point is that the nerfs are too strong. Remember the application nerf is on top of a 28% reduction to volley as well.

It is not as if this is just an application change.

Furthermore we should keep in mind carriers are absolutely useless vs other caps, except killing their drones. All they have is subcap capabilities and this has just been nerfed into the dirt and then some.

Alright, you got me. Caracal is OP!
On a serious note, if heavy fighters should be nerfed - ask CCP to nerf them, rather than use it as excuse to keep light fighters OP.

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.

How about that I need painters to apply fully to a linked mwding rattlesnake? Think 1.8km sig.

How about that I need several webs and linked painters to apply well to an armor mach?

These are battleships. Heaven forfend I should want to shoot a T3 or a logi with their sigs.

Ask yourself this, why are torp fleets not a thing today?

Run the numbers, I've been doing it most of the day, the nerf is exceptionally severe.


Seriously when you're talking about need linked painters AND webs to apply to a BATTLESHIP that's some appalling application, especially when you consider you're incapable of threatening a ship of your own size.