These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Command Ship rebalance and warfare links

Author
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
Silentium Consortium
#1 - 2012-12-07 18:56:14 UTC
So the new command ships are gonna look something like this with double bonuses and the tech 3 are going to get nerfed in strength but getting even more versatility, both these changes look great to me, but the problem is, for smaller 'cheaper' gangs the only option for a linker is a battlecruiser; fair enough it's not an expensive hull, but a little more options would be nice. So I propose.

Command ships get their two set of link bonuses and their 3%, both fleet and field command (which are going to be the same thing after the balance) should be able to run FOUR links each, so they can mix and match links between the two sets of bonuses (each racial set having 3 links). This is their role, they should be the best at it.

Tech 3 should be able to run TWO links with their 2% bonus, without the need for a command processor, give them a little more versatility for their loss of link strength and multiple bonus sets.

Battlecruisers should be able to run TWO links with 1% bonus (they currently have no bonus). They should have one bonus each (unlike tech 3 which has 3 sets @ 2%, and Command ships which have 2 sets @ 3%). The bonus for the tech 1 BCs should be the racial one, Skirmish for Minmatar, Armour for Amarr, Siege for Caldari and Ewar for Gallente (I know ewar isn't the best for Gal, it should probably be reworked to something more useful, that being said, damps are now better than ever and with an Eos backing a Gal fleet up, a few celestis can shut down a lot of ships)

Support cruisers should be able to run ONE link, with no bonus. Scythe, Augoror, Osprey and Exequrer, give cruiser gangs a little help, cheap unbonuses links so they can compete a little better, it would be in line with their remote repping role too, since they could run cap need reduction links for their remote repairers.

Lastly, down the line, introduce the ability for destroyers to run a TWO small, unbonused links (a new module, small sized link similar to current ones in their bonuses), but their bonuses only apply to other destroyers and frigs (tech 1 and 2); give frig / dessy gangs the ability to bring some bonuses with them without a BC slowing them up.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2 - 2012-12-07 22:21:38 UTC
Personally I'm happy with the way links are being proposed providing they remove most of the buff from mind links also making them less required.

What I think is important for the revamp is to give the Command Ships strong firepower along with the links, meaning a similar approach to Marauders & a lot of the Pirate ships. Role bonus of 100% damage to appropriate damage type but only four turret/missile slots.

BC's are in a good spot being able to fit links at all. Fitting them onto support cruisers would just be OP.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#3 - 2012-12-07 23:24:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

What I think is important for the revamp is to give the Command Ships strong firepower along with the links, meaning a similar approach to Marauders & a lot of the Pirate ships. Role bonus of 100% damage to appropriate damage type but only four turret/missile slots.

I'd also like them to remove the stupid fleet limitation, requiring you to drag someone along to get advantage from your own bonuses. Really weird mechanics.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
Silentium Consortium
#4 - 2012-12-10 02:59:51 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
What I think is important for the revamp is to give the Command Ships strong firepower along with the links, meaning a similar approach to Marauders & a lot of the Pirate ships. Role bonus of 100% damage to appropriate damage type but only four turret/missile slots..


I think they should sacrifice turret slots to run links, having 4 bonused 100% turrets / launchers + links would be OP in my opinion.

Quote:
I'd also like them to remove the stupid fleet limitation, requiring you to drag someone along to get advantage from your own bonuses. Really weird mechanics.


I agree, I wish I could use my own bonuses as a soloer, but it makes sense that you need to be in a gang, after all they are 'leadership' skills, if you could get them when by yourself then they would become another mandatory skill for shields / armour hp etc.
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID
#5 - 2012-12-10 09:43:10 UTC
At the end of the day, you can always fit a Command Processor I if you want to fit more links.

I am happy with the rebalancing as it has been presented. If anything I am looking forward to them rebalancing the ships from the combat perspective and offering more missile platforms for me to play with.
Mole Guy
Deep Space Coalition
A Class Apart
#6 - 2012-12-11 15:51:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
i REALLY like whats being presented by ccp as well.

the ability to run armor AND skirmish for amarr is kewl as hell, but not having to gimp a damnation with 5 missiles and still have 6 on the abso is kewl.

i can run links, i can dish out pain or a combo of either.

and still get the 3% bonus for both links. now, all they need are tech 2 implants for each race that corespond to your new bonuses (amour/skirmish for amarr, etc.)

personally, i hope they follow the path of brawler for the damnation. like the vengeance and sacrilege and give rof/damage bonuses
to hams. so we will have the pulse boat that follows the retribution/zealot and then the missile side with the vengy/sac/damnation.

if the tech 2 ships from all races follow this path progression, i think it would be awesome!

but dont change whats proposed....i want a 6 ham damnation..with a resist link. =)
18k armor, 85%+ across the board and 6 hams...niiice. its a tad tougher than my sac fit. =)
Otto Weston
Pod Goo Extraction Agency
#7 - 2012-12-11 18:24:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Otto Weston
They better not **** with my damnation.

If the EHP on the Damnation even drops by 1%, there will be rage... and probably tears. If it increases though, all's well and I'll even give CCP a big wet kiss.
Everything's Air Droppable at least once.
Noisrevbus
#8 - 2012-12-11 22:26:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
I'd like to refer to something i brought up in the Ships & modules discussion of Links, with regard to the proposed changes to Tech III and CS:

AttentionThe changes are counter-intuitive.

Having a stronger bonus over fewer links on the Tech III and weaker bonuses over more links on CS always made sense.


First we need to identify what the ships do or what we predict them to be doing:

Command ships are larger, heavier ships with big tanks suitable for larger, heavier gangs with big tanks.

Tech III ships are smaller, more nimble and either far speedier or cloaky, suitable for smaller, nimble, fast or cloaky gangs.


Next we need to identify how different ships operate and how they utilize linked bonuses:

Ships that are either smaller or cloaky tend to operate by virtue of extremes. They are specialized. They do few things exceptionally well, but outside of their element they have glaring holes of weakness. Often that take the form of not having conventional tanks to speak of either literally or comparatively. With less slots, less utility and less of an allround functionality they don't need as many bonuses.

Gangs that are smaller also tend to operate in a similar fashion. They generally do not have enough ships to have variety in roles that transcend the core concept (or doctrine). Smaller gangs, just like the smaller ships, tend to use things like speed or cloaks because they are limited to one such function; conversely, if they use a tanking setup they tend to be so limited on support that enhancing certain support functions isn't as important to them.

Instead, all these ships and gangs rely on a superiority of what they specialize in.


The changes as they are proposed, inverting bonuses over the different hulls:

... are thus not only counter-intuitive when it comes to ships: such as when looking at the balance between Recon or EAF backed by Tech III compared to mixed gangs with various (frigate-) support backed by CS; nore any more than when looking at Frigate-gangs facing larger mixed gangs who will come to have more powerful frigates to your frigates (ontop of larger ships and more numbers), since bringing a CS with a Frigate gang is purpose-defeating. It's also providing further advantages to larger, heavier gangs in relation to smaller control-dependent gangs; gangs that can't expect to tank and thus have less use of a higher amount of bonuses compared to a higher volume of bonuses.

Is there a particular reasoning from CCP as to why they belive Tech III should be allround and CS specialized? I mean a sound reasoning anchored in practical use rather than idealistic drivel (their vision of modular Tech III as opposed to the existing functionality in the ships, which isn't very modular). I would just hate to see practical "up-engaging" (and the interaction that come from it) get another stick in the eye because of some ideal that has never been realized. Tech III practically do serve as boosters for gangs that require speed or stealth to travel. Tech III are not practically modular.

Did CCP envision that larger, heavier gangs needed improvement?
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
Silentium Consortium
#9 - 2012-12-11 22:43:49 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
They are specialized


No they're not, they're generalised, the devs have said that themselves.

Command ships are specialised.
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID
#10 - 2012-12-12 07:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakan MacTrew
@ Noisrevbus

Are you really trying to suggest that a Command Ship is not specialised, because its bigger? Is that your whole argument?

Command Ships are T2. T2 ships have a dedicated role which is SPECILISED. They do one thing really well.

Strategic Cruisers are T3. T3 ships, by their very "all singing, all dancing, with bells on" nature are jacks of all trades and masters of none.

If your going to write a long post that reiterates your point all the time, do your homework first, it will save you looking like a tit a bit more often.

EDIT:
Why don't you ask for a T2 Destroyer with a gang link option, for small scale and rapid warfare? That would make a lot more sense than saying command ships shouldn't do their job as well as a ship that does lots of jobs.
Mole Guy
Deep Space Coalition
A Class Apart
#11 - 2012-12-12 14:25:36 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
.

EDIT:
Why don't you ask for a T2 Destroyer with a gang link option, for small scale and rapid warfare? That would make a lot more sense than saying command ships shouldn't do their job as well as a ship that does lots of jobs.



hey now, i did ask for t2 SubCommand Ship (destroyer based) to serve with roaming frig squads...
i thought it was a kick ass idea...so did most of who replied.. =)
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID
#12 - 2012-12-12 15:11:18 UTC
We can be hope for said T2 Destoryer Jesus-Feature for a later date. (Maybe when they get around to the T2 rebalance for the frigate and destroyer hulIs. Would be a good use for the new ones!) think they make sense.
Mal journ
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2012-12-12 20:54:53 UTC
Your missing a vitally important command ship ' the orca ' I like the idea of retooling links mining links could use a buff like from the t1 s at 2% to 2.5 and the t2 raise up to 3%
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID
#14 - 2012-12-12 22:17:29 UTC
Mal journ wrote:
Your missing a vitally important command ship ' the orca ' I like the idea of retooling links mining links could use a buff like from the t1 s at 2% to 2.5 and the t2 raise up to 3%

Their fine. They don't need a buff.
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
Silentium Consortium
#15 - 2012-12-14 02:44:14 UTC
Mal journ wrote:
Your missing a vitally important command ship ' the orca ' I like the idea of retooling links mining links could use a buff like from the t1 s at 2% to 2.5 and the t2 raise up to 3%


The orca is okay in my book, it's got the 3% bonus and it's specialised, the battlecruisers can run the mining link too as is.
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID
#16 - 2012-12-14 05:40:41 UTC
Gneeznow wrote:
Mal journ wrote:
Your missing a vitally important command ship ' the orca ' I like the idea of retooling links mining links could use a buff like from the t1 s at 2% to 2.5 and the t2 raise up to 3%


The orca is okay in my book, it's got the 3% bonus and it's specialised, the battlecruisers can run the mining link too as is.

You missed his point, he wants more from mining links. Seeing as a fully boosted Hulk pulls in around 7k m3 per 3 minutes, they really don't need a buff.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#17 - 2012-12-14 07:27:34 UTC
Gneeznow wrote:

I agree, I wish I could use my own bonuses as a soloer, but it makes sense that you need to be in a gang, after all they are 'leadership' skills, if you could get them when by yourself then they would become another mandatory skill for shields / armour hp etc.

This is just a crappy mechanics serving no particular purpose other than gimping soloers even more. As for those skills, they are already kinda mandatory, but if all you do is PvP in gangs, then you can safely rely on your mates just like now, so nothing gonna change here.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Sigras
Conglomo
#18 - 2012-12-14 08:23:56 UTC
I actually like the direction the changes are going in, T3 are the more generalized ships and thus get the more general bonus, and the T2 ships are the more specialized, so their bonuses reflect that.

This will be fantastically balanced if they remove off grid boosting, the only tweak I would make would be to allow the T3 ships to field more links (like 4-6 natively) This would mean if you could only field one command ship because youre a small gang, you would usually be better off with a T3 because they could give more bonuses and have a better selection of bonuses that would apply to the fleet, but if you had a whole fleet, you could field a few more specialized T2 command ships to do the boosting more effectively.

I would also like to see a new T2 destroyer able to field 2 gang links with a 1% bonus or something like that, so small fast gangs can have something giving them a boost to play around with.