Sorry… can you re-word this? It sounds like you’re saying SS fighters can apply roughly 300 DPS to frigates/destroyers? I’m not going to dispute this as I’ve honestly never tried. Pure word-of-mouth from people who have when I express the belief that SS fighters don’t apply worth ■■■■ to any subcaps.
If you meant light attack fighters, then that’s about where it should be… however I’d want to funnel them a bit more. By improving their application and reducing their overall damage output, they’d be (ideally) exactly where they are against frigates/destroyers, but far worse off against larger ships like BC/BS.
I’d want to make them less effective so that the super could be funneled back into an anti-subcap role again, against heavier subcaps. Which in turn justifies the removal of HAWs.
you get ~3000dps out of 3 SS flights with a damage nid/thanny. against sub caps SS fighters do 90% reduced damage but their base application is pretty high (unless this has been changed) so when it comes to their total DPS they don’t apply for ■■■■ getting that 90% reduction but out of that 10% you still do the application is solid
either when i tested it i used faction mods or damage has been reduced a T2 gets closer to 221dps but that’s still solid against small ships. application is still 15m expl rad and 300 expl vel so that part still holds
Definitely… if I was fighting small ships and getting 220 applied dps, I’d be fine with that. As Carriers should never be operated solo, they’d utterly murder frigates. Destroyers would fare a little better, but they deserve to.
I like the idea of switching carriers to more application, less damage, but nerfing carriers directly is a scary subject. If there were a capital rebalance, I agree, removing dreads as a subcap power and making carriers good against small stuff and supers good against larger subcaps is a good idea. Dreads would be the cap and super cap killers. Kinda stupid idea, but maybe giving battleships HAWs is something we could discuss. Similar lack of dps that current HAW dreads face, but makes it easier to deal with smaller stuff, whilst not being great at fighting battleships and higher. I mean we have attack battlecruisers, and destroyers are just frigates with a ton of guns. It’s an idea. I agree, making battleships atleast be able to WARP as fast as cruisers or battlecruisers would make things so much better. Sublight speed they can remain sluggish snails. Hell, as a trade off, you could make exiting warp take longer. I’d much rather have that. Then the rigs would be used to either mitigate the exiting time or just make them faster, out run cruisers in warp speed, if this trait is maximized in builds.
Or, have it in the fleet functionality where warp speeds/ entering or exiting warp can be decoupled, making it so smaller stuff doesn’t have to wait so long to get on field and pin things down, whilst the big guns slowly appear in field.
this is already done just by fitting undersized guns. you already have more hard points so you are still doing more than a cruiser and have more tank than a cruiser.
giving up dps or tank they can already do this and they do do this in FW space at least. i feel the stigma that comes from this is people believing you should never fit a hyper mod or rig to a combat ship but the balance of it isn’t all that bad
you can already do this in several ways. don’t align before the warp (if speed is an issue like it would be for tackle you shouldn’t be any way). split the fast and heavy ships into different squads and warp them independently. or have the fast tackle warp themselves independently.
while i wouldn’t care if BBs were given a warp speed buff they would need to change the entire mechanic as the acceleration does play a big part particularly in NS/WH.
Going from 800mm to dual 425 yield you something along the line of 32% more tracking and some fitting space at the cost of 25% optimal, 20% falloff and 12% of your DPS. You also eat more ammo.
For HAW, you go from 2500mm to 800mm. This gain you fitting space of course and 4600% tracking. For that, you pay about 25% optimal, 25% falloff and 70% of your DPS. You also again eat more ammo.
The damage loss to tracking gain ratio on HAW is better than on L weapons.
Because I dont want BS power creeping further past sub-BS hulls.
I dont want BS roaming fleets supplanting cruiser/bc roams.
Speed, both on grid and warping, is the tradeoff for BSs far larger dps/ehp.
So you are saying that before BS warp speed was nerfed, you were thinking to yourself “Man, these damn battleships warp too fast! It’s a travesty! Can’t anyone else see this? Battleship warp speed needs to be nerfed!”
Even assuming I agree with the idea that battleships needed some kind of nerf, that they were ‘power creeping’ onto smaller hulls, etc. (I don’t agree, but let’s pretend that I do), this was the wrong nerf. IT’S A NERF THAT AFFECTS THE FUN-NESS OF THE UNIT, THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF PLAYERS WHO WANT TO USE THE UNIT, AND MAKES IT A PAIN AND TEDIOUS TO USE THE UNIT. Nerfs like that are always bad, and this is obvious. It is obvious that we want a fun game - that’s the point. It is obvious that we want fun units - that’s the point. So, if battleships needed a nerf (I don’t agree, but let’s pretend that I do), another nerf should have been found rather than a nerf which has the intention and effect of driving people away from the hull by making it not fun to use the hull.
Battleships don’t need any such tradeoff in order to be battleships. That’s absurd.
that’s not really a fair comparison considering capital guns were balanced in a way to make them completely useless against sup caps. its not that HAW are so much better but that capital guns are much much worse
i mean 4600% better tracking on BBs and your swatting frigs like it was nothing
It’s obviously not fair because the goals are IMO not the same. HAW are designed to change the job of the ship fielding them like you are flipping a switch. Smaller version of turrets don’t really seem to be designed that way. Smaller variant of the large auto-cannon feel more like adjusting dials on your fit. Small trade off here and there but no hard switching from one role to another.
4600% would obviously not work but if they actually wanted us to be able to shoot down by swapping to smaller variant of a turret size, the application you gain will need to be much better. I mean, a 425mm out-track a dual 425 by a factor of about 6 while doing about 84% of it’s damage. At the edge of scram range, even a Machariel with double damage bonus on large projectile does not always out damage fitting medium turrets for for shooting smaller stuff.
If it’s not supposed to work then ok but if it is supposed to work then the stats are off the mark. It lust really does not look like that is the goal of fitting the smaller guns like it was mentioned in the post I was replying to.
well no it’s not supposed to work that way because you can actually downsize your guns like many PvP BBs used to (and some still do) before grapples were added
How do you propose to make a division between the strategic response time of a battleship fleet and one of a cruiser fleet if you do not make one slower in warp? Because at the end of the day, that was one of the problem with everything warping at the same speed. Adding some difference meant you could replay super fast with frigs/destroyer, decently fast with cruisers, somewhat slow with BC and slow with BS while each ship bring more power tot eh table when they manage to arrive.
ever heard of damage application? That’s the BS tradeoff. You won’t blast every class below BS because of that. Faster warping speed is huge QoL change for this game. So where is your damage projection?
then you have no idea what you are talking about. The idea of warp speed changes was to discriminate ship classes. The base speed was 3AU, and BS fall beyond that value. When you add slow align time suddenly they become very slow to play with.