Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
 

[March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors

First post First post First post
Author
Shadow Cartel
#141 - 2017-02-25 19:58:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Benevolant George
Quote:
Regarding your Fighters -> Heavy Drones comparison...the best ships I can think of (someone correct me here) to utilize heavy drones (arguably the only ones worth using) are:

Rattlesnake
Eos
Myrmadon
Prophecy (?)
Ishtar
VNI

Every single one of these ships have large bonuses to BOTH drone HPs and drone speed (velocity or MWD). This means the base stats of heavy drones are worthless for comparison because almost no one uses them at those HP/speed to sig radius ratios. These bonuses are what consistently keeps these heavy drones alive, therefore keeping there use affordable.


WHAT HE SAID + additionally all of these ships have a way of generating dps from their highslots too - so even when their drones do die - they still arent completely useless on the field.


I dont know why u need to touch the sig radius AT ALL - i have to mirror others opinions here that fighters die pretty easy already -and if u HAVE TO DO THIS - increase HP, ECM resistance.....also sirens in squads of 3.....maybe increase to 5?

seriously though ur balancing team - it really doesnt feel like they play the game at all and have no concept of what it is they are doing.
Shadow Cartel
#142 - 2017-02-25 20:03:06 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Dip PotatoChip wrote:
Don't touch fighters please :( the new Chimera model is so cool


it's ****

the took a powerful sturdy looking ship and made it look fragile and awkward



chimera - looks great
phoenix - shoebox
Wyvern....uh what am i looking at? im not sure...


LETS RESCULPT THE CHIMERA!!

...why?
#143 - 2017-02-25 20:31:58 UTC
Fifth Blade wrote:
Honestly it's the extremes which are the problem.

They need to be significantly less oppressive to mwd cruisers (bc/bs are obviously in a worse spot still), and more oppressive to 100mn ab cruisers. Otherwise we'll be flying them until the end of time, as the only viable option. Very boring. No diversity at all.

an example depending on which prop mod i use on my cruiser:
I can choose to either be 1-2 shot (mwd) or
I can choose to infinitely tank 3 squadrons (actually more) with no problem at all.

They should not counter, nor be countered so absolutely.


I think this presents a decent argument in favor of maybe adjusting the sig bloom on the MWD to account for the sig changes here, but it really does need some testing to back it up.

Which brings up nicely the number of people going "OMG this is gonna wreck ratting!" without any evidence to back that up.

If you want to make an argument one way or the other the changes are on SiSi, someone go out and film an hour or two of competently run Carrier sites and see what it actually costs you in Fighter losses vs on TQ.

Forum pro-tip: CCP respond best to arguments backed up by hard facts, data, math, and/or spreadsheets. Screeching like nails on a chalkboard doesn't work so well. CCP Greyscale made an awesome post a long while back on how to good-post. It's an awesome read.
#144 - 2017-02-26 03:14:00 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Fifth Blade wrote:
Honestly it's the extremes which are the problem.

They need to be significantly less oppressive to mwd cruisers (bc/bs are obviously in a worse spot still), and more oppressive to 100mn ab cruisers. Otherwise we'll be flying them until the end of time, as the only viable option. Very boring. No diversity at all.

an example depending on which prop mod i use on my cruiser:
I can choose to either be 1-2 shot (mwd) or
I can choose to infinitely tank 3 squadrons (actually more) with no problem at all.

They should not counter, nor be countered so absolutely.


I think this presents a decent argument in favor of maybe adjusting the sig bloom on the MWD to account for the sig changes here, but it really does need some testing to back it up.



im not sure altering the bloom on all mwds just to account for carriers is a good idea.


besides that extreme is just wrong you can shut off your mwd when you see fighters headed in your direction and tank them relatively well with no prop mod (particularly with logi) only time this is a problem is if you are all anchored on one guy in one spot and the entire fleet has to shut off their mod but that avoidable with better fleet tactics. When it comes to ABs it's sort of true but if the carrier has a proper support fleet with webs and paints its not all that bad.

only issue with fighters is HAW are better in most med sized fleets do to the carriers extra cost over dreads and the fighters vulnerability to ECM.(this is also true for small gangs but that not an area caps need to be balanced around) in large fleets they have a role since the number of fighters makes ECM less practical but by that time you may as well be using supers.

another issue with fighters is since carriers have such a small bay and you can not mix fighter squads it means carriers are generally damage locked. and to a large extent role locked. if you decide to bring Kin and EM fighters you will wind up in situations where you still have fighters in the hold but are unable to field a full 3 squads of fighters drastically hampering your dps. Chimeras and Archons are also in a bad place. chimeras melt under even the smallest amount of neut pressure and have a minuscule fighter bay anchons get anemic dps if they want any tank at all and again that fighter bay.

that said just upping the fighter bay is not that good of an option either considering the monster amount of resources CCP has made fighters. the T2 ones will cost you more than the carrier itself if you bring a full load. Really i think carriers would be in a good place if the cost of fighters was cut by ~25% at least this way carriers and dreads would cost about the same to field combine this with a 2x to fighter sensor strength and over all i think they will be a more viable choice.
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2017-02-26 03:41:05 UTC
Jesus CCP, I know you have been actively trying to run this game in to the ground but at this point its just ridiculous. Its like this game is being developed by North Korea just to troll us.
Warped Intentions
#146 - 2017-02-26 04:41:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Thomas Lot
Hi m8s,

In March, we're releasing a number of balance tweaks and we would love your feedback.




Let me translate this for you all... "We at CCP have no clue how to accurately balance gameplay and will swing the balance pass WILDLY until everyone is equally dissatisfied. We really do NOT want your input, we just want to sit back and laugh at you as you scream at how we are ruining your gameplay."



These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.
Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.


Anyone interested in buying several Carriers? They're basically useless now. I guess this is part of CCPs reaction to the massive isk faucet that is null-sec bounties.
Goonswarm Federation
#147 - 2017-02-27 02:33:05 UTC
If you want the fighters to die more often, you have to cut their build price by 50%
If you dont want to cut the price, then double the fighter EHP, they will still be easily tracked, but they will be able to survive atleast a few seconds more on the battlefield.
#148 - 2017-02-27 03:53:34 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Fifth Blade wrote:
Honestly it's the extremes which are the problem.

They need to be significantly less oppressive to mwd cruisers (bc/bs are obviously in a worse spot still), and more oppressive to 100mn ab cruisers. Otherwise we'll be flying them until the end of time, as the only viable option. Very boring. No diversity at all.

an example depending on which prop mod i use on my cruiser:
I can choose to either be 1-2 shot (mwd) or
I can choose to infinitely tank 3 squadrons (actually more) with no problem at all.

They should not counter, nor be countered so absolutely.


I think this presents a decent argument in favor of maybe adjusting the sig bloom on the MWD to account for the sig changes here, but it really does need some testing to back it up.



im not sure altering the bloom on all mwds just to account for carriers is a good idea.


besides that extreme is just wrong you can shut off your mwd when you see fighters headed in your direction and tank them relatively well with no prop mod (particularly with logi) only time this is a problem is if you are all anchored on one guy in one spot and the entire fleet has to shut off their mod but that avoidable with better fleet tactics. When it comes to ABs it's sort of true but if the carrier has a proper support fleet with webs and paints its not all that bad.


Apologies Lugh I was unclear. I meant adjusting the sig bloom on the MWD ability *on the fighters* to account for the sig radius change on the fighters that CCP is proposing. The idea being that Fighters get easier to kill once they're on you and killing your face, but have a slightly better chance of actually getting to that point or escaping back to their mothership when they take agro.

Again, I was unclear, apologies.
Pandemic Horde
#149 - 2017-02-27 14:49:22 UTC
nearly doubling the sig radius of fighters in addition to increased npc aggression sounds a bit much to me.. when is this live on SISI? I want to test what this means for carrier ratting
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#150 - 2017-02-27 15:38:45 UTC
Such nerf has no sense.
Now the operation of super requires a top level of micromanagment. After nerf I see no sense to use supers in PVP and at PVE at all. The only point using them will be counter drop at dreds.

How good was Super with 25 drones. I remember such times when neighbors fly from another region just to see these war machines. Now super is not "super" at all.
In those times EVE was great! Very sorry that EVE will never be so great as it was.

I suggest to make a ship which will cost 200b or more but can be "one man army". 1 vs 256 sub-cap pilots will be good enough.
WE FORM V0LTA
#151 - 2017-02-27 15:43:13 UTC
Atum' Ra wrote:
Such nerf has no sense.
Now the operation of super requires a top level of micromanagment. After nerf I see no sense to use supers in PVP and at PVE at all. The only point using them will be counter drop at dreds.

How good was Super with 25 drones. I remember such times when neighbors fly from another region just to see these war machines. Now super is not "super" at all.
In those times EVE was great! Very sorry that EVE will never be so great as it was.

I suggest to make a ship which will cost 200b or more but can be "one man army". 1 vs 256 sub-cap pilots will be good enough.


Noone care about your PVE bullshits
#152 - 2017-02-27 15:53:07 UTC
Harry Forever wrote:
nearly doubling the sig radius of fighters in addition to increased npc aggression sounds a bit much to me.. when is this live on SISI? I want to test what this means for carrier ratting


I believe it's live now, but I'm not positive on that.
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#153 - 2017-02-27 15:56:38 UTC
"super" carrier...

facepalm
Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance
#154 - 2017-02-27 16:08:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Fifth Blade
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

besides that extreme is just wrong you can shut off your mwd when you see fighters headed in your direction and tank them relatively well with no prop mod (particularly with logi) only time this is a problem is if you are all anchored on one guy in one spot and the entire fleet has to shut off their mod but that avoidable with better fleet tactics.
Everything you have posted here is wrong. Clearly you have never used a carrier or mwd cruiser against a carrier.

This is why - a 1 omni, 3 DDA, 2 FSU Nid does:
1700+ dps to an mwding cynabal
1500+ dps to a (prop off) cynabal
334 dps to a 100mn AB cynabal

Anchoring doesn't apply since we don't do that.
At least check yourself in pyfa before making ignorant comments in future.

Edit: All numbers before links, snakes or heat. T2 fits.
Caldari State
#155 - 2017-02-27 16:43:40 UTC
from what i can see this topic is pretty much clear that noone likes it noone wants it its not good for the game but heh ho ccp dont care they gonna introduce it anyway so why are we wasting our time putting posts here.i think we all know the ccp motto if its not broke FIX IT.
Mercenary Coalition
#156 - 2017-02-27 20:57:43 UTC
firkinballbag wrote:
from what i can see this topic is pretty much clear that noone likes it noone wants it its not good for the game but heh ho ccp dont care they gonna introduce it anyway so why are we wasting our time putting posts here.i think we all know the ccp motto if its not broke FIX IT.

From this thread alone maybe.

Let's not pretend that 150 posts (not 150 people, and not all in agreement) represents the thousands or hundreds of thousands of players in Eve.

Doing that would be even worse than not taking feedback at all imo.
The-Culture
#157 - 2017-02-27 21:10:49 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
Atum' Ra wrote:
Such nerf has no sense.
Now the operation of super requires a top level of micromanagment. After nerf I see no sense to use supers in PVP and at PVE at all. The only point using them will be counter drop at dreds.

How good was Super with 25 drones. I remember such times when neighbors fly from another region just to see these war machines. Now super is not "super" at all.
In those times EVE was great! Very sorry that EVE will never be so great as it was.

I suggest to make a ship which will cost 200b or more but can be "one man army". 1 vs 256 sub-cap pilots will be good enough.


Noone care about your PVE bullshits

Choose another tree if you need to bark to make a post on forums Lol

Rowells wrote:
firkinballbag wrote:
from what i can see this topic is pretty much clear that noone likes it noone wants it its not good for the game but heh ho ccp dont care they gonna introduce it anyway so why are we wasting our time putting posts here.i think we all know the ccp motto if its not broke FIX IT.

From this thread alone maybe.

Let's not pretend that 150 posts (not 150 people, and not all in agreement) represents the thousands or hundreds of thousands of players in Eve.

Doing that would be even worse than not taking feedback at all imo.

This leads to very dangerous approach: to completely ignore all forum posts. And as we have no voting system which takes all players opinion then developers can just make any changes they want.

Not that they do not do it already tho Roll

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Solar Citizens
#158 - 2017-02-27 22:52:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Chixy
Rip supper-carriers.... and carriers why you do that?! suppercarrier and carriers was not over powered you have alrdy fixed them all the EHP but why you make the sig bigger? a bomber squad and fighter is rly easy to kill but you have make that he get killed a much better with this cruiser signature if you do that make that the fighters and bombers cant get jammed or get a reb...CCP pls think what you do with the carriers.. and supers im see that eve going done with years it was so a wonderful game but they updated will be sh... all the time with this rebalances....
WE FORM V0LTA
#159 - 2017-02-27 23:57:54 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

Choose another tree if you need to bark to make a post on forums Lol




Let's be honest, most of the people here are bitching because they'll lose more fighters to rats than before, which noone care.
Corpse Collectors Group
#160 - 2017-02-28 14:15:35 UTC
Can you give Revenant and Vendetta their command burst bonuses? Vanquisher too for that matter. Seems strange that they don't get the 2%/lvl of other supercarriers.
Forum Jump