These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#641 - 2013-08-03 00:50:09 UTC
Telios Madronin wrote:
Okay, enough about mechanics of the Command Ships changes. We will adjust to them like we do to every other change that CCP gives us.

Lets hear more about what really matters...the "Command Ship model changes"


hes teasing us like he did with the marauder changes. he enjoys our pain
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#642 - 2013-08-03 01:04:28 UTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8bZ7ThlRY ship change model video

Quote:
This is something I've been thinking about during my predesign for the command ships.

I'll start with this disclaimer, we will never feel that we need to make hull designs match the function of every ship. So there's no NEED to switch the hulls on any command ships. This is not something we've decided to do, but it is something we could do and would like your opinions on.

It might be interesting to convert half the command ships into the other BC hull, picking the one that matches their weapon type at the T1 level.

That would (potentially) mean:

Eos would use the Myrm hull
Sleipnir would use the Hurricane hull
Abso would use the Harb hull
Nighthawk would use the Drake hull

This is the kind of thing that we'd expect many people would have strong opinions about, and since it wouldn't have direct gameplay effects we wouldn't consider it worth doing unless there was some significant community support for the idea that overwhelms the opposition.

So, hypothetically, what do you guys think?

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Alyssa Haginen
Doomheim
#643 - 2013-08-03 01:34:00 UTC
I can't wait to fly the new damnation. This kind of damage upgrade makes me feel better after seeing the repair changes.
All the new command ships look great.
Leskit
Pure Victory
#644 - 2013-08-03 01:55:52 UTC
ArrowMake a rig that changes an active rep bonus to a resistance bonus, and a resistance bonus to an active rep bonus.

POWAttention

Problem (theoretically) solved! Shocked
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#645 - 2013-08-03 02:00:56 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Defensive links are going down in effectiveness, but reppers are going up ineffectiveness. This does not balance out in all cases, only cases where repping is viable. That is it will not help vs:

Alpha strikes.
High sec ganks.
Blob fleets where the primary gets so much DPS it dies fast.
It might help small scale PvP by making repper fits viable. I guess thats something.


The faster you can wipe fleet ships off the field, the faster you can recover from TiDi, the less time the enemy has to ship in reinforcements. Removing resist bonuses is a good thing for fleet fights. Improving local tank bonuses is a good thing for small fights where you might actually want time to get reinforcements on the field and don't have the advantage of simply bringing enough people to the system to roll TiDi back to 10%.

Now we need a Guristas variant so we can have a shield tanking, drone wielding command ship and a Sanshas command ship so we can have a shield tanking laser shooting command ship.

The Eos is (almost) the command ship I have been wishing for ever since my drone pilot started training leadership skills.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#646 - 2013-08-03 02:18:28 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Defensive links are going down in effectiveness, but reppers are going up ineffectiveness. This does not balance out in all cases, only cases where repping is viable. That is it will not help vs:

Alpha strikes.
High sec ganks.
Blob fleets where the primary gets so much DPS it dies fast.
It might help small scale PvP by making repper fits viable. I guess thats something.


The faster you can wipe fleet ships off the field, the faster you can recover from TiDi, the less time the enemy has to ship in reinforcements. Removing resist bonuses is a good thing for fleet fights. Improving local tank bonuses is a good thing for small fights where you might actually want time to get reinforcements on the field and don't have the advantage of simply bringing enough people to the system to roll TiDi back to 10%.

Now we need a Guristas variant so we can have a shield tanking, drone wielding command ship and a Sanshas command ship so we can have a shield tanking laser shooting command ship.

The Eos is (almost) the command ship I have been wishing for ever since my drone pilot started training leadership skills.


What about everything between a five man gang and a two hundred man fleet? Those don't deserve to double dip maxed armor/skirmish links?
Gorn Arming
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#647 - 2013-08-03 02:34:29 UTC
Dvla wrote:
Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.

Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.

Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.

Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.

The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.

Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least.

I think this might be the first time I've agreed with a non-trivial opinion posted by an NPC alt.
Valterra Craven
#648 - 2013-08-03 02:57:29 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Explain how bonused damage to any damage type (which is what you're suggesting, removing the kinetic damage bonus) and loading the launcher with missiles that fire 100% of one damage type WOULDN'T hit a resist hole perfectly??? Maybe you don't understand what hitting a resist hole perfectly means, so here goes: if, for example, I am weakest to EM--my resist hole--and you can lob bonused-damage-EM missiles into that hole, then, wowie-zowie! you're hitting into that resist hole perfectly, since none of your damage is being mitigated by my higher resistances in therm/kin/explosive. Minmatar, for example, fire EM-biased EMP rounds that have some kinetic and explosive damage as well. So, although I may be weakest to EM, some of the damage from that round is being mitigated by my higher kinetic and explosive resistances.


Sure, but only if you explain to me how your command of the English language is so poor. One of the biggest problems with your post is that you don’t say what you mean. Just because I have the capability to guess at your meaning doesn’t mean I should have to. And while I’m on the topic of language, it might be better if you actually did quote what I said, because it seems you are interpreting what I’m saying just as poorly as you are communicating what you are trying to say.

With that out of the way, there is a difference between hitting “a resist hole” all the time and hitting “all resist holes” all the time. I was merely correcting you on what missiles are actually capable of.

Maximus Andendare wrote:
As far as the other point, I'm sorry if you didn't realize this was a command ship thread about command ships that use medium weapons and get bonuses to medium weapons, so obviously, any comments made in this command ship thread about command ships that get bonuses to medium weapons would apply to medium weapons. Obviously, I never suggested that you'd have bonuses on a MEDIUM hull to ALL LAUNCHERS (although, I could argue that the Caracal does, in fact, get bonuses to light missiles as well with RLMLs). "Any missile" requires some ability to comprehend the overall topic, which in this case is Command ships, which incidentally use Medium-sized launchers.


I understand the topic perfectly, it’s not my fault you have issue properly communicating things.

Maximus Andendare wrote:

Your argument about the Raven not "being broken" falls short, considering that it is one of the least used Battleships in large operations. The fact is that the issue isn't the kinetic damage bonus or lack thereof--the Raven's woes stem from the missile system itself. In fact, these woes and drawbacks caused by the Battleship hull are why the Raven "isn't broken." Adding to that, Battleships are slow and any damage that you could potentially receive from them can be mitigated by leaving the field before the missiles arrive and cause damage. Not counting issues like firewalls, missile tracking, target painting, tracking disruption-immune, etc., a Raven comparison is wholly dissimilar to a Command Ship that is faster, smaller sig, fires faster missiles, closer range, etc. You're asking for volleys and volleys of 100% damage-type missiles to shoot into a resist hole that can't be mitigated by tracking disruption or similar. No matter how badly you want it, it'd be broken in this class.


And finally we are back to the raven… here again communication issues are making this more difficult than it needs to be.

So I will simplify this you.

Your argument is that omni damage bonuses for these hulls would be OP

I said that the raven gets bonuses to all its missiles and missile types (aka all 4 cruise and torps types). Now what I said, and I quote, is that despite this “the raven […] not considered OP by any means” Word choice is important here. My point is that omni damage for missiles is not OP. There is difference between saying something isn’t broken and isn’t OP. Therefore my counter to your argument is that some missile boats already have this and as you so kindly pointed out almost NO ONE flys the raven in PVP despite getting omni damage bonus. So if the raven already sees little action with omni bonuses then why the frack would a hull that’s gimped with kinetic bonuses see any more action?!

Maximus Andendare wrote:

Also, comparing class ships similarly, a Minmatari ship will compensate its raw damage via drones. A Caldari ship vs a Minmatar ship, all things being equal with no drones taken into account, the Caldari ship is going to do more damage, despite the fact that it'd be kinetic-bonused. Just look at the Drake with its 6 launchers vs the Cyclone with 5. This same sort of comparison plays out whether we're talking about frigs (Breacher vs Condor/Kestrel), Cruisers (Bellicose (which actually is a disruption cruiser) vs Caracal or the aforementioned Drake and Cyclone comparison for Battlecruisers. The Battleships are in a different class (using large weapons) and have other drawbacks that smaller ships--medium-sized ships--simply don't share.


*Sigh* except that as others have pointed out the caldari CS’s are outclassed in almost every way by the winmater WITH this change. See the thing is you are comparing the ships pre balance when what we are discussing is post balance ships. So for the last time, let me break it down for you.

Nighthawk
5 launchers

Claymore
5 launchers

Nighthawk
10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage
5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy missile launcher rate of fire
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius

Claymore
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity

Now, which one of this ships looks better to you?! *Hint, the answer isn’t nighthawk.
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
#649 - 2013-08-03 03:08:12 UTC
For Eos


Can't we have the sentry drone bonus instead of heavy drones?

I think Ishtar should have more focused heavy drone bonus, no sentry bonus, while Eos has sentry but no heavy drone bonus...
Valterra Craven
#650 - 2013-08-03 03:13:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Entity wrote:
So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?

The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.


It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate.


Except that the things you want us to fit in the utility highs take more cpu than the guns you took away did, meaning this ship is now short on CPU.

You should compensate the loss of grid on these ships with extra CPU!
keuel
Imperium .H.E.M.P.
#651 - 2013-08-03 03:37:32 UTC
for Absol, just remove 1 hi slot and put a 4th mid slot and I wil be happy :)
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#652 - 2013-08-03 03:49:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
keuel wrote:
for Absol, just remove 1 hi slot and put a 4th mid slot and I wil be happy :)

do this with the nighthawk as well plz. reduce to 1 utility high so mission runners can boost their mates with a resist link, and I can have my command ship.

6 H, 6 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
1150 PG 550 CPU

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Justin Cody
War Firm
#653 - 2013-08-03 03:54:04 UTC
Kenhi sama wrote:
why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17?


because drones
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#654 - 2013-08-03 04:03:14 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
This isn't really a thing you can skip, getting bonus's alpha'd off the field because you're trying to make CS some small gang capable thing sucks, its always sucked and the first step you need to address in the whole "Bonuses on Grid" deal is having bonuses able to survive being on grid.


I'll be fine with command ships being able to get volleyed off the fields if fleets can also start fielding 20-30 of them that contribute more than probe and give bonuses (as in, can contribute deeps or ewar) and when one ship in a booster position gets dusted others can get automatically put into a booster position without the fleet boss needing the shuffle through names in a 250man fleet to put a backup vulture into the position of the vulture that just got alphaed.

A man can dream

No sig.
Cayden Til
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#655 - 2013-08-03 05:03:04 UTC
Dvla wrote:
Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.

Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.

Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.

Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.

The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.

Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least.


So true! +1
Sigras
Conglomo
#656 - 2013-08-03 05:17:16 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Sigras wrote:
My point is that selectable damage isnt an advantage, it makes no difference in 99% of PvP situations because even if you do find that they have a hole in a particular damage type, the extra DPS you might gain by switching to that damage type is negated by the 10 second reload time where you were doing no damage at all.

The one case where this may not be true is in large cap ship fights where the cap ships can simply refit to resist the damage type youre doing, but like I said, thats an edge case and really, if your up against that tactic, you'd better have an ace in the hole anyway.

Edit:
All that being said, yes, i agree its weird for a matari ship to have more mids than a caldari ship of the same class.


Good pilots know how to select their damage type long before they ever even start the fight... saying it's not valid in 99% of pvp fights is not a statement of truth, it's a statement of your lack of PvP abilities and only demonstrates your shortcomings.

Nighthawk is horrid as it stands. There is absolutely no reason any sound mind PvP'er would ever select it over the claymore.

Oh wise PvP guru, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us plebes as to the wisdom of choosing a damage type against . . . say a dominix coming to attack you.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#657 - 2013-08-03 06:16:04 UTC
drop the missile thing/get a thread. the kinetic damage bonus is for caldari mission runners shooting gurista NPCs. just discount it when you're factoring whether ship bonuses are fair.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
To mare
Advanced Technology
#658 - 2013-08-03 06:18:04 UTC
thanks for making the minmatar ship slower again and less agile plus all the other nerf combined on the sleipnir
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#659 - 2013-08-03 06:38:38 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Entity wrote:
So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?

The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.


It's going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10. However I expect the two utility highs, lower mass and extra resists to more than compensate.


Except that the things you want us to fit in the utility highs take more cpu than the guns you took away did, meaning this ship is now short on CPU.

You should compensate the loss of grid on these ships with extra CPU!

neuts use very little cpu.
1200dps + dual neut astarte with a viable armour tank? seems good.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#660 - 2013-08-03 06:41:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
Give them the ability to reduce the damage application speed from Alpha damage.

Just lets say if it got hit by 100000 damage it takes about 5 seconds for the damage to expand. (Or connect this Bonus to a skill or the amount of fleet members he is controlling i dunno)

So if the fire will concentrate the logis do have the time to react and the Command Ship lost his priority, now you need some advance tactics (ECM or something) to kill a Command Ship.


I know its insane but i dont care. ^^

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup