|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Anthar Thebess
1534
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 11:19:47 -
[1] - Quote
Why nerf to shield extenders? Way to early - we didn't have any big capital battles or citadel sieges. Cutting it by 10% will put shield capitals again below EHP achievable by armor versions, without increased signature.
3 x extender Chimera is 15.4 KM in signature 3 x pladed archon is 9.94 KM
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1534
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 11:59:33 -
[2] - Quote
When you do more bad things to carriers remember. People live in nullsec as this is true sandbox that don't have most bad mechanic found in lowsec and higsec.
If carriers are bad because people abuse them in lowsec to kill newbies - put restriction to lowsec usage of modules or abilities. Don't ruin nullsec fun.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1535
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 13:11:24 -
[3] - Quote
Tried to fit arty Naglfar that have some tank - need more power grid, cpu increase is also to small. T2 arty gun require 77 CPU, and my 2 gun naglfar already required a co processor.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1535
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 13:34:01 -
[4] - Quote
CyberRaver wrote:https://zkillboard.com/kill/53696372/
5 carriers and a aeon dropped on our small gang
We killed 2 carrier before the others decided Nope
The aeon was 50% armour before we called in the bombers
Bring a proper setup small gang
You know that no one will now listen your input. Change is already done, and carriers will get another nerf, and another, so they will be put in old place. Big ratting ships that can be tackled by a frigate, and killed by few more.
I also hate it.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1535
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 13:41:27 -
[5] - Quote
It was not about jamming carrier, but fighters. Griffin could jam all carrier fighters. CCP simply want to people keep in cruisers. Who would ever start to play eve to fly something more just a frigate or cruiser hull.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1537
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 13:58:58 -
[6] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:CyberRaver wrote:Carriers wwere a free lunch before patch, they arent now, thats basicly it Tishu guy defends ratting carriers. Priceless. This ship class deserved to be something else than bloob boat, and ratting ship. NSA needed a change, but instead of cutting boost carrier could just be blocked from using sensor booster and NSA in the same time.
We tested 2 carriers VS mothership - and carriers where able to kill fighter bombers fast enough to not die. This will be probably no longer possible - as you will be not able to lock them on time.
Boosting signature of fighters is not the solution.
More nerfs to carriers are expected as damage amplification will be changed. What is wrong in 2-3k dps CAPITAL ship? This dps is equal to 2 rattlesnakes/ machariels / vindicators or even Talos. All fitted in the same way - no tank.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1537
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 14:00:35 -
[7] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:It was not about jamming carrier, but fighters. Griffin could jam all carrier fighters. CCP simply want to people keep in cruisers. Who would ever start to play eve to fly something more just a frigate or cruiser hull. Griffin will die a horrible death if there's a single piloting mistake. That's of course assuming a carrier pilot who has adapted to the new meta and pilots his fighters in order to juke the griffin. It was a fun game of piloting and reaction between the griffin and the carrier pilot manually moving his fighters around on grid. RIP skill based gameplay.
Griffin is just example. 2mil ship requiring no skills that can disable ship you need to train over a year to properly fly it. When you use balckbird you can jam fighters before they get close to you.
Skia Aumer wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Force Auxiliaries- Triage Mode now gives ECM Immunity
Dreadnoughts- Siege Mode now gives ECM Immunity
What is the reasoning behind this? I mean, I dont mind it one way or another, I just dont understand what does it change?
Wrong people where dying?
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1539
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 09:49:24 -
[8] - Quote
Quote:Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU and +80,000 PG XL Artillery power grid requirements have been reduced (T1: 162,500 > 125,000)
My proposition : 70 CPU and 125.000 power grid. Exactly what is needed to mount additional gun.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1539
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 12:52:24 -
[9] - Quote
This Explosion Radius for Heavy Rocket Salvo look extreme now, rename it to Torpedo Salvo or Heavy Assault Missile Salvo as it is misleading people.
Just for reference - by weapon size : S: Light missiles / Rockets M: Heavy Missile / Heavy Assault Missile L: Cruise Missile / Torpedoes XL: XL Cruise Missile / XL Torpedo
Current Heavy Rocket Salvo salvo stats put them between S and M , new fighter missiles put them between M and L, very close to L statistics - when you include player skills for L weapon system, and lack of skills that affect fighter missile.
This is no longer Rocket Salvo
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1543
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 13:59:34 -
[10] - Quote
Don't forget about application. Now this new Rocket Salvo look more than Torpedo Salvo. Check how torpedo apply damage.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
|
Anthar Thebess
1548
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 08:06:23 -
[11] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Q&A
Q: Why are you nerfing Capital Shield Extenders? A: The balance between shield and armor is a complicated issue. Shield gets some passive regen, repairs on the start of the cycle and the ability to fit both damage and tank at the same time. While armor often has a higher buffer and greater accesability to EWar modules while fitting tank. We believe that for capitals the balance is just a little too strong toward shields. Just curious but could you show where the small amount of passive regen helps when your being shot by, say 10 Dreads or 30 or 40 Machs? Having lost a T2 fit shield Nag in less than 30 seconds after hitting siege (to 43 machs) - I'm curious as to why shield should have less buffer than armor. Shield regen is only really useful, until you get targeted or after a fight, if you manage to survive (unless your doing PVE and you know your incoming damage after having run the same mission 100+ times) NB; My current Nag fit has 2.4 mil EHP (roughly the same as other Dreads) - With your "minor" (I don't see 10% as minor but...) adjustment it will have 1.8.. Essentially shield is now "again" the worst option - Due to a small amount of (during a fight) useless passive regen. Feedback - Leave shield amount as it is and remove regen (shield operation skill regen bonus) from capital shields - That would at least keep shield capitals at the same level as armor. (until whenever, armor caps have a huge advantage with slaves, leave any other adjustments until AFTER shield is on par with armor for implants, when they eventually get released) It will not leave shields in the same position. Shields get much bigger signature and all shield modules consume a lot of cap.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1551
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 07:00:44 -
[12] - Quote
Current fighters are fine. Carriers need to have ability to clear tackle for the rest of the fleet.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1551
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:22:06 -
[13] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:wait... how were the carriers better at saving the supers then the supers were at saving themselves?
also carriers should not be able to function w/o support at least not easily something that is true of them now if they go up against a decent gang Carrier cannot do nothing against decent gang. Carrier can be countered by 1 person in blackbird.
People are crying that "carrier killed my sabre, while rest of fleet was just 4 jumps away".
This OSS vs PL fight showed that new fighters allow smaller groups to do something when they get PL supers hot drop. Something that was not possible before capital changes, and will not be again after new fighter arrives.
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Because the salvo still works. We could clear the HICs incredibly quickly as a result allowing the supers to leave field.
That would have been 100% impossible after the changes and everything on field would have died.
New fighters offered you fighting chance - something impossible after next patch. PL could easily wreck your fleet if the supers deployed anti fighters. After the changes there will be no need to use anti fighters in this kind of fight again from the blobing side.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1551
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 08:35:59 -
[14] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
whats surprising is there seems to be very few ppl who think this nerf is the right way to go just ppl who are glad they will be off gates :/
Solution can be simple - make gate guns auto attack any fighter in range of the gate or station - this is only viable for lowsec - but it will be good enough change for removing this issue in lowsec. You cannot camp gate in lowsec if all your squadrons are dead long before something jump in.
Nullsec gate camping carrier - this is nullsec.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1556
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 08:36:39 -
[15] - Quote
Maybe just give us anti subcapital fighters - designed to fight sub capitals - something like Light Fighters.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1556
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 12:36:03 -
[16] - Quote
Yes fighter shooting stuff for 0 damage from 100km is annoying.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1558
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 07:33:12 -
[17] - Quote
What do you want to prove? What i see : Normal drones can have critical shoots (31 :Glances Off, 49. Penetrates ;168 : Wrecks) Fighters cannot (Hits) (nothing new)
Lowest damage per ship : 17:24:34 Combat 18 from VNI_Pilot(Vexor Navy Issue) - Warrior II - Grazes 17:18:15 Combat 18 from Einherji II[Thanny](Einherji II) - Hits
Highest damage per ship : 17:24:53 Combat 168 from VNI_Pilot(Vexor Navy Issue) - Warrior II - Wrecks 17:18:34 Combat 130 from Einherji II[Thanny](Einherji II) - Hits
Average damage per shoot VNI : ~90 Carrier :~75.3
But there is more! If you analyze carrier and VNI damage you will notice huge spike of damage at the end. Target stopped?
Next thing : VNI get 10% damage bonus and 5% tracking speed bonus per level. Carrier gets 5% damage per level.
How this is important? Because hull bonuses and modules don't stack, adding just 1 damage and 1 tracking module favors VNI.
Price - this never should be a balancing factor - but lets try it. VNI - 70mil 3 Wing of Einherji 180mil ; carrier 1.5bil
Conclusion? Bring VNI instead of carrier to fight off light tackle. You will get better result for much lower price!
But then you can bring rapid light Cerberus and kill this interceptor much faster, or anti tackling zealot.
Carriers need to have a role in fleet. Current carrier role is fighting off sub capitals and providing anti fighter coverage. Your test on SISI proved that carrier is worst anti tackler than a VNI. Why?
Carriers is expensive, carrier is slow. My VNI ( or other better anti tackler) can rewarp between ships on grid and in system scarring off and killing the tackle while carrier still will recall fighters and align.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1561
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 13:04:04 -
[18] - Quote
Onictus wrote: So the moral of the story is that 1.5 billion doesn't do the job close to as well as a Zealot. Got ya.
You are wrong, it is worst than VNI that is not anti tackling ship in any way. Subcapital drone ship is last thing someone want to use for anti tackling.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1565
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 06:11:40 -
[19] - Quote
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.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1568
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 07:32:27 -
[20] - Quote
I have no problem that carriers will die. Current fighter bombers even ensure that carrier will die - people use them in battles as they are useful. Slow but useful. All groups start to evolve to 3 fleets working together.
Sub capitals (battleships or cruiser) try to do main objective, or pin down enemy fleet so it can be escalated to carriers, both groups also keep dreads ready if any carriers will be tackled.
This is how it should be working - and what is wrong with this? At some point it will end up in 100 dead capitals on a killboard (now the best part ) from both fighting groups. Huge PR for CCP and a lot of fun for players.
For people who someone say that light fighters will hit dreads good - no one will drop dreads on carriers that cannot do good damage against sub capitals, as sub capitals will take care of them easily - so what is the point of any escalation?
What is the point of bringing carrier on battlefield grid when the same pilot in battleship will be more useful? Battlefields are to dynamic for upcoming carriers to have any effect.
Next thing is the anti tackle capability of carrier - currently i will gladly drop my carrier in the middle of the enemy fleet to kill few dictors or hictors before it will die - just to save something bigger. After this change i will just bring some hac that will outperform new carrier.
We have issues with T3 destroyers, nullified interceptors, linked ships like orthurus, swarm of logistic ships that can save any thing from dying for years , and yet after a month carriers are nerfed to the ground as they are no more easy targets for small gangs. We didn't have bigger capital fight. Few battles that have dedicated capital wing , PL vs OSS fight - and in all cases carriers proved to be useful as support, that will die.
They cannot have big impact on new sov mechanic - nodes spawn and despawn - carriers are to slow.
If someone form CCP read this posts, can we get at least clarification - what is wrong with current carriers? There is easier to find DEV on reddit than on official forum
For me and many other players - the only issue with carriers are the lowsec gate and FW plex camps. Instant lock is going away - and people don't have any issue with this.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
|
Anthar Thebess
1571
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 10:00:31 -
[21] - Quote
Crazy Vania wrote:Greetings. I do not own a Carrier. I am an interceptor pilot, and as such I am here to give some perspective. Today I have spent 4 hours on SiSi with my friends testing these upcoming changes in a standard Malediction[All our inties have a template: Unlinked and Unsnaked [5km/s]+[5k ehp]+[3pts] I come from a background of 8 years doing things in Stilettos or Maledictions that keep me alive while pointing stuff, so I might be kinda ok at it. We have, as many other groups, done our testing methodically, from both the perspective of killing carriers, and flying carriers. Post Citadel we saw what carriers did to interceptors and I wept while my friends cheered. Today I sadistically laughed while my friends wept. Today: 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. A carrier's only hope then is to have 2 heavy neuts, which, well, many will, right? It's just sound. But Heavy Neuts is what battleship use to get rid of tackle. And they won't really kill the inty, they'll just eventually make it have a bad point cycle and either drop point or take too much damage so it has to warp away. 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. Even though it benefits me as a tackler, I'd like it if Carriers weren't completely shite. I'm happy they don't immediately blap my Malediction anymore, but maybe give them a way to make it risky for me to get in range to them. Right now there is no zero risk. --- And I don't know if my corpies have posted this yet, but this is what I wrote yesterday sitting in a Rapier on sisi: http://pastebin.com/raw/H2S7s4YC Enjoy! People are telling this CCP for quite while now. Please post this on reddit - plenty DEV's read it .
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1574
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 17:54:25 -
[22] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:For anyone who is interested CCP confirmed that the 8 missile load was indeed an error.Crazy Vania wrote: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. This sounds like it's getting into an awfully niche (and expensive) fit just to tackle a carrier, and if you're relying on Cap Boosters you're probably going to have issues in general as soon as you run out, or at the very least have a useless mod. Unless you're in a large fleet I don't really see the point in fitting an Inty specifically to deal with Carriers when you could bring a HIC or a T3 to point them and survive much longer with remote reps, except maybe some very niche uses. In general you're probably going to bring a generic Inty fit and tackle whatever you can find.
If he can survive 2-3 minutes tackling a carrier .... he don't need to do it more. During a fleet fight 1 minute is long, for ratting carrier even less.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1574
|
Posted - 2016.06.24 09:40:28 -
[23] - Quote
When people are looking solutions trying to use things against the design, then something broken.
Using Space Superiority fighters to kill frigates :
The Gram can launch a swarm of missiles that are especially apt at destroying fighter and drone craft. These however do very little damage to full-sized starships.
Resetting MWD cycle by scoping fighters to deal sufficient damage.
Fighter lock range smaller than optimal range.
Secondary attack unable to do full damage to armor battleship.
For me carriers need big re-balance after upcoming patch, as a ship class they will be broken.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1582
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 09:25:44 -
[24] - Quote
CCP current carriers are solution for the bad logistic ship design.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1583
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 13:46:27 -
[25] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Henry Plantgenet wrote:can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals? I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;( 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. You can get enough power grid to fit capital or a plate. 1600 Plates are battleship size yet people put them on cruisers.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1583
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 13:48:58 -
[26] - Quote
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:Robertina Palazzo wrote:ApolloF117 HUN wrote:Wonder if devs do even read the forum, or they just listen to crybaby's and make their own decision regardless of looking at anything what others say what is the real problem. Just a quick question, why didn't t3s got nerfed this fast? Small ships can never be nerfed because big ships should be easy to kill because "i want muh killboard loot" or something. Blin... forgot this one, we're still playing frigate online. Where is Hyde? That's why we voted for him, to do something about the situation. Mr Hyde was lobbing this fighter changes. For him much bigger ship cannot shoot smaller targets, unless it is battleship and frigate. I voted for him, and now he supports frigates.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1586
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 22:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
To big fighter nerf!
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1612
|
Posted - 2016.07.08 10:14:38 -
[28] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Devs balanced their carriers to mimmick the CV class as found in WOWS. I also see them having the same problems. If they're dedicated anti battleship ships then that's one thing but it's not what I'm seeing.
As for the support fleet idea yes I guess so they should require a support fleet.. so long as ccp remember that CV tiers 6 and up as CACL speed and sometimes faster than BB and this is one of their saving graces.
Seriously, EVE is not wow. **** wow.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Anthar Thebess
1645
|
Posted - 2016.09.29 07:43:36 -
[29] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Gary Webb wrote:CCplease fix the fighter follow mechanic so they dont land 5000 Km off of the carrier after warp. a couple hundered, sure, but this is refreakingdiculous Don't recall them until you've come out of warp. If they're already returning before you commence warp, then stop them (send them somewhere else first) - then recall them after you have warped.
It is still a bug.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
|
|
|