Earlier in the Vat out of Hel update, Light fighter speed was for some reason nerfed while their signature radius was changed to match the same as that of heavy fighters. The resulting update had no description on as to why CCP thought this was a good idea or needed change, and they seem to put absolutely no thought into why it would make sense or what plain stupid scenario it would create such as the one shown below (A light fighter being slower than a heavy fighter while having the same signature radius as the heaviest/slowest fighter in the game)
That defied common sense and logic to the point to where I was certain it was a bug instead of an intelligent balance decision and reported it as such, but apparently its legit. This also means that it would be easier to shoot light fighters than it would be to shoot heavy fighters. I made an earlier post asking exactly who or what thought how this could possibly be a good, sensible idea, and the responses I got from players devolved into an argument of how âEVE IS A DEAD GAME. CAPITALS ARE KILLING THE GAME AND SUPPRESSING SUBCAPS!!! THEY SHOULD BE NERFED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLEâ or âBRO CARRIERS HAVE GOOD DAMAGE APPLICATIONâŚâ (end of statement, as if thatâs apparently enough to justify the nerf). That was utterly worthless.
As far as CCP is concerned, they just seemed to be mindlessly biased against drones/fighters in general, because the situation this change creates is similar to the drone aggro change which would easily break mechanics of the game or make the game look stupid if even a 10 year old kid put minor thought into it, but CCP decided to go with the strategy âNerf first, and then turn on our brain laterâ which resulted in them pulling that change back later. Thatâs a massive red flag to me.
Itâs a bit demoralizing to see a game balanced from a viewpoint that goes so far as to defy common sense and reason to achieve what appears to be whatever the devs feel like on a whim. If theyâre willing to balance and build a game to the point to where they break their own game mechanics or think heavy, anti-capital fighters should move faster than light fighters (because they just donât like light fighters?), then I donât think I want to proceed or keep subscribing, because that kind of thought process is repulsive no matter what its applied to. Maybe Iâve got the wrong idea or maybe this gameâs developers arenât for me, but either way, I was told to post this here to the CSM forums.
Might as well replace all fighter MWDs with civilian afterburners like CCP inexcusably did with Sirens while youâre at it. Could apply it to drones too, but I propose leaving warriors without any prop mod since they are too oppressive against frigates.
Somehow ccp got the idea that caps are bad. They highlight them in several propaganda videos, and the game makes world records because of them, which brings in new players.
But caps are bad.
They take a lot of investment, in terms of isk and sp, but theyâre just so bad for the game that they must be hammered down.
Light fighters should be on par with frigates. Not necessarily equal, as light fighters are piloted by humans, and frigates by capsuleers.
Carriers and above should be impossible for even a large group of frigates to kill, or really even injure. Bombers should have a reduced impact on carriers and above, as theyâre pretty small bombs.
Carriers and above have superstructures covered by supposedly hardened metals.
There have been consistent complaints about the use of caps in PvP and PvE. Nerfing fighters, in particular their speed and increasing their sig, means itâs more likely that those carriers can be defanged in PvP, or the loss of fighters will make using them for PvE less attractive to AFK ratters.
Thatâs why they did this. It may not make sense from a lore/common sense perspective that the speeds are the same, but thatâs the justification. This is the first complaint Iâve heard about it, too.
As a carrier pilot, Iâm confused about this idea of afk ratting. Fighters donât respond like drones. You canât pull them out and they wipe the field for you while you watch youtube.
Iâve been reading the forums for all these complaints about carriers and above in pvp, and it pretty much comes down to âwhy canât my t2 frigate kill a ship 300 times bigger than it?â
Carriers and above Should be oppressive in pvp, as they take years of skilling into, and billions of isk just in skill books. The ships themselves cost more than a fleet of t2 frigates or destroyers.
Just as carriers irl are oppressive to samali gunboat pirates.
From the other perspective, the complaints of the carrier pilot come down to âWhy can I as solo player not easily survive and defeat many other players who are working together in fleets of tiny ships specialised in shooting huge targets like my ship?â
Just because you put more money in your ship doesnât mean you should automatically win the fight.
2 carriers, super and dread here.
No.
Capitals are an immensly powerful tool but not a âI winâ button. I agree that the fighter changes are a little too much though.
An I win button?
Against frigates, yes. Against battleships no.
Due to a larger power core, and more shield emitters, a carrier and above should passively regen more than a single frigate can put out. More than 10, even.
Once youâre in armor, except for minimal damage from bombs and torps, everything else a frigate can do should bounce off. Weâre talking structurally enforced hardened metals designed to take abuse from much larger weapons, and to block out heavy amounts of radiation and other cosmic forces.
If you find yourself in hull, which should never happen against fewer than 27 frigates, you should also expect a hardened superstructure designed to take on forces beyond what frigates can dish out.
I say 27 frigates because that would be equal to 3 squads of fighters.
This isnât starwars. The force isnât going to guide your puny missile or laser into a poorly designed hole that goes straight to your core.
When a cap hits the field, frigate pilots should crap their pants.
Battle cruisers and battleships, maybe not so much.
Imagine a moped crashing into a tank irl. How little damage that could do. Now imagine 25 mopeds doing it. Nothing significant.
However, a different story when a ford f-250 does it.
To that purpose, I actually suggest a new series of cap modules. For example, a normal multispectrum shield hardener should be about as effective as sticking a AAA battery into your car and expecting it to start.
A cap hardener, on the other hand, should suck more power than even a battleship can produce. After all, itâs working on more shield emitters than any smaller ship is capable of.
I say make caps More expensive to fit, as long as theyâre also overwhelming for mid size fleets.
We spend years on skills, billions on skill books. More than a billion on implants. Billions on fits.
Make it impossible to fit a carrier for less than 5b. And make it impossible for 15 kikiâs to kill it.
Iâve seen it happen, and itâs frustrating. A floating city killed by the smallest weapons in the game.
Sadly but its xyz metall and this and that does not apply to eve gameplay mechanics. If we took everything at face value titanium sabot ammo would bypass armor hitpoints and torpedos would do massive AOE Damage (they used to and it was broken af).
Just a side note from real life: one submarine is enough to sink even the biggest carrier in the ocean. Thatâs why they sail always with a large support fleet.
Same is in EVE: a Carrier is a powerful space ship, but without proper support even one properly fitted assault ship is able to kill it in the very long run.
Actually, a submarine in EVE would be the equivalent to a frigate. Itâs called a Stealth Bomber. A small, (relatively) nimble cloaky ship that fires torpedoes and bombs to take out larger ships.
In terms of boats for ships in eve, a frigate would be a speed boat. Fast, high maneuverability, small weapons systems.
Remember, u-boats fire torpedos too.
Submarines are a bit bigger, slower, less maneuverability, and a lot more firepower.
Uh U-Boats are Submarines. . . And compared to other frigates, Stealth Bombers are slower, bigger (sig radius), less nimble and have a lot more firepower (they use Battleship sized weapons).
Sure, most Frigates (T1 Combat/Attack, Combat Interceptors, Fleet Interceptors, Assault Frigs) fill the role of small, fast combat ships designed to kill small to medium ships. However, as I said before Stealth Bombers are designed to kill Battleships and above. Unless you are going to make the case that Battleship weapons (such as Torpedoes) shouldnât be able to kill Carriers, I canât see how your argument holds any water. A group of well fit Kikis should be able to absolutely waste a solo Carrier. A quick side note: prior to the Carrier/Supercarrier changes from the past couple years, Battleships would get absolutely wrecked by Fighters.
Battleships should still get wrecked by fighters. Theyâre designed to do that.
I suppose Iâd say that frigates that use battleship weapons systems need revamped. The launch of weapons that big should at least cause the frigate sized bombers to lose their alignment and any speed they have at the moment.
I could see larger ships being bombers that are effective against carriers and above.
Why do they need to be revamped? These ships are glass cannons, they die when you sneeze at them. Just bring something to sneeze at them and youâll be fine.
And donât fly that carrier without small ship support.
