These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#741 - 2013-08-04 11:55:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Wrayeth
My previous reply seems to have been missed by several of the people talking about the Nighthawk changes. I'm not sure if it's because they thought the suggestions were stupid/overpowered/underpowered, but still might be worth reading. Linky

tl:dr;

1.) Add powergrid so it can run ganglinks
Benefit: Self-explanatory
Drawbacks: None.

2.) Set kinetic damage bonus back to 5%. Remove RoF bonus and replace it with a 12% universal HAM/HML damage bonus (compensates for the differences between RoF and damage bonuses and also rolls in the extra 5% damage bonus that was applied to kinetic in Fozzie's post). End result: 10 effective turrets.
Benefit: Still more effective to use kinetic missiles, but now the NH is viable with non-kinetic missile types.
Possible drawback (from a game balance perspective): huge alpha.

EDIT: Alternately, set the kinetic damage bonus back to 5% and increase the RoF bonus to 7.5%. This would, however, result in a significant increase in ammo expenditure that could affect the ship in extended combats. Additionally, the additional rate of fire would likely place added stress on the server from the more frequent firing of the launchers. Whether or not the added stress would be low enough to place this into the realm of possibility, I couldn't say. If so, then this would probably be the better option unless turning the Nighthawk into a ship that focuses on alpha is a desirable goal.

3.) Swap a lowslot for a midslot.
Benefit: The nighthawk can now fit a disruptor while still having a survivable tank.
Drawback: None that I can think of.
FleetAdmiralHarper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#742 - 2013-08-04 12:00:44 UTC  |  Edited by: FleetAdmiralHarper
Goldensaver wrote:
Sigras wrote:

An explosion radius buff is better than an explosion velocity buff in basically every way. This is the missile damage formula as far as we know. Allow me to do the math for you since you obviously cant.

Right now faction HAMs with perfect skills:
Explosion Velocity 151.5
Explosion Radius 93.75
Damage Reduction Factor 4.5

Now lets say youre fighting an afterburning sacrilege:
Signature Radius 140
Top Speed 543

With no bonuses you'd be doing 46.18% of your normal damage
With an explosion velocity bonus the explosion velocity increases to 189.375 increasing your damage to 56.24% of normal
With an explosion radius bonus the radius decreases to 70.3125 increasing your damage to 59.53% of normal

This is a straight buff in all situations because of the way the formula works. Not to mention when the target's velocity is near 0 the only thing that factors into the damage reduction is signature radius vs explosion radius which was not helped by the old bonus.

Think first post second.

Expanding on this, the missile damage formula is first of all limited at 100% damage, then limited by signature radius/explosion radius. After that we come to a bit of a whacky formula involving a couple logarithmic functions, but the important stuff is in the brackets.

(Sig/Explosionrad * ExplosionV/TargetV)

Another way to put this is:
Sig*explosionV / explosionrad*TargetV

Now a bonus to explosionV would look like this:

Sig*explosionV*1.25 / explosionrad*targetV

Or in essence you're multiplying the result by 1.25

(sig*explosionV / explosionrad*target V) *1.25

A bonus to explosionrad looks like this:

sig*explosionV / (explosionrad*.75)*targetV

It's times .75 because the explosion radius is reduced by 25%, or is only 75% of what it used to be.

Or another way of putting it is:

(Sig*explosionV / explosionrad*targetV) * 1/.75
Or in other words, you're multiplying the result by 1/.75
Which can also be stated as 1.3333

So an explosion velocity bonus multiplies damage by 1.25.
Explosion radius modifies it by 1.3333.

Higher is better, by the way.


And no, Sigras, this isn't for your benefit. I know you already understand it, I'm just explaining it for FleetAdmiralHarper.




ok so the radius is better, (+10% would be even better.), but they do not need to remove a missile slot on a ship with so few anyway... if anything they need to add 1 and a high. also change the kin damage bonus to a generic damage bonus..


better yet just dont touch the command ships. NERFING THEM IS NOT what needs to be done right now. or ever..
especially considering it takes 3 months just to use the stupid things...

ied rather see tech 2 missiles get buffed with their damage application by 20% to both radius and velocity...


Diesel47 wrote:
CCP Fozzie go work for EA or something pls.

ha ha ha seriously.. i know man, my thoughts exactly.. this guy is like eves cancer, so he would be perfect for ea, sense they are gaming industry cancer XD

if one of his co workers just shot him, or he had the decency to do the right thing and just kill himself ied be ok with that too XD.

ccp fozzie no one likes you XD, you should quit your job, and i will be starting a petition to get your freaking resignation, XD no seriously we all hate you ha ha.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#743 - 2013-08-04 12:14:57 UTC
These are the most unimaginative changes I've ever seen.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#744 - 2013-08-04 12:35:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Wrayeth wrote:
My previous reply seems to have been missed by several of the people talking about the Nighthawk changes. I'm not sure if it's because they thought the suggestions were stupid/overpowered/underpowered, but still might be worth reading. Linky

tl:dr;

1.) Add powergrid so it can run ganglinks
Benefit: Self-explanatory
Drawbacks: None.


http://i.imgur.com/j9HG5EX.png - even going for HAMs with damage augmentors and stuff. It looks quite useful to me. As a flavor also avaiable with two extender rigs, invul + em-ward for some 10k EHP more against omni or good bit less against blasters.

Edit: downgrade one LSE to meta-4, and you can run complete siege with ~155k EHP. Or you could run all three infolinks.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#745 - 2013-08-04 13:28:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Would anyone else like the vulture too actually be a proper blaster boat?
seriously 2 optimal bonuses ... its not a rail boat the eagle has the same problem of getting more range than it needs .. when it actually needs more dps to be useful.

The model looks mean ... the colour scheme on the vulture is a bit lame compared to the nighthawk.. but nonetheless it looks mean so give it the stats to back it up
- more tank than the nighthawk it should be a blaster brawler ... no kiting means more tank surely???
- remove 1 optimal bonus at least and give it a second 10% damage bonus

Edit: it also needs more speed and agility .. which seems to have been nerfed here for some reason.... what is it that CCP seems to hate about caldari blaster ships?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#746 - 2013-08-04 13:40:16 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Would anyone else like the vulture too actually be a proper blaster boat?
seriously 2 optimal bonuses ... its not a rail boat the eagle has the same problem of getting more range than it needs .. when it actually needs more dps to be useful.

The model looks mean ... the colour scheme on the vulture is a bit lame compared to the nighthawk.. but nonetheless it looks mean so give it the stats to back it up
- more tank than the nighthawk it should be a blaster brawler ... no kiting means more tank surely???
- remove 1 optimal bonus at least and give it a second 10% damage bonus


But you can get a bro to fly a claymore/sleipnir and be content about 14km optimal using null, matching webrange.
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#747 - 2013-08-04 14:30:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Wrayeth
Lloyd Roses wrote:


http://i.imgur.com/j9HG5EX.png - even going for HAMs with damage augmentors and stuff. It looks quite useful to me. As a flavor also avaiable with two extender rigs, invul + em-ward for some 10k EHP more against omni or good bit less against blasters.

Edit: downgrade one LSE to meta-4, and you can run complete siege with ~155k EHP. Or you could run all three infolinks.



That fit has some nice defenses. Unfortunately, the EHP drops massively when you remove even a single extender, which it will need to do if you want to run a warp disruptor or a scrambler. As such, it needs another mid. If you add one, however, it needs to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your lows. This will either make it unable to run the second extender due to removal of a PDS, or gimp its damage by removing a damage mod. Since the goal of these changes, as I understand it, is to put these ships onto the PvP battlefield in a combat role, Fozzie's initial version just does not work.

EDIT: As a caveat, it may work on a larger battlefield with dozens or hundreds of people fighting where a disruptor is not required, but if that's the only vision for the ship's use then it's already dead to me.
Sarkelias Anophius
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#748 - 2013-08-04 15:58:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarkelias Anophius
So what's up with people calling the Foz cancer and telling him to kill himself? Is that what this thread is about?

For the rest of those whining and crying, change is usually good, and most of these ships suck **** right now. They may need fixing later and the way they get used may change, but for christs sake, calm down. 90% of these changes are good and warranted; at least things are happening.

Good god.

Also, looking forward to ratting in my Eos, and owning an Absolution but never flying it.
FleetAdmiralHarper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#749 - 2013-08-04 16:11:28 UTC
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
So what's up with people calling the Foz cancer and telling him to kill himself? Is that what this thread is about?

For the rest of those whining and crying, change is usually good, and most of these ships suck **** right now. They may need fixing later and the way they get used may change, but for christs sake, calm down. 90% of these changes are good and warranted; at least things are happening.

Good god.

Also, looking forward to ratting in my Eos, and owning an Absolution but never flying it.


get out of here obvious troll. these are BAD changes. or do you think people rage on forums for just the fun of it?.... actually don't answer that.. but i can assure you THIS ISNT ONE OF THOSE TIMES.
Hulk Miner
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#750 - 2013-08-04 17:05:47 UTC
Welcome back EOS drone bandwidth. I missed you. Lol
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#751 - 2013-08-04 17:27:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
every time i think of a new angle that might explain the nighthawk, i'm reminded no, it's a drake that saves on ammo with a gimped tank. I don't see even mission runners using it

//not.... that they were smart enough to inject CS skill anyway

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#752 - 2013-08-04 17:32:45 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
every time i think of a new angle that might explain the nighthawk, i'm reminded no, it's a drake that saves on ammo with a gimped tank. I don't see even mission runners using it


also the new cerb does the same dps at much longer ranges

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
FleetAdmiralHarper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#753 - 2013-08-04 17:47:42 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
every time i think of a new angle that might explain the nighthawk, i'm reminded no, it's a drake that saves on ammo with a gimped tank. I don't see even mission runners using it


yeah i was gonna get 2, 1 for missions/incursions and 1 for the c4 pulsar fleets.

they killed me with the command ship skill change. was 14 hours from it..
now 1 month. well its 14 days now..
but THEN THIS TOO???

i just cant handle it, i honestly will quit because this is the 10th thing they have nerfed on me in 1 year as i either got close or fell in love with something, lol.
if they do this ill quit. the nighthawk is my favorite looking ship. and i love missiles. but i NEED those 6 missile slots in fact because they raped missiles they should ADD a slot and the cpu/pg to go with it.

no lows or mediums should be messed with either... or add another rig slot and leave as is.. if they MUST change somthing. change the explosion velocity to radius and make that a 10%.

nighthawk fixed FINALLY.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#754 - 2013-08-04 17:52:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Wrayeth wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:


http://i.imgur.com/j9HG5EX.png - even going for HAMs with damage augmentors and stuff. It looks quite useful to me. As a flavor also avaiable with two extender rigs, invul + em-ward for some 10k EHP more against omni or good bit less against blasters.

Edit: downgrade one LSE to meta-4, and you can run complete siege with ~155k EHP. Or you could run all three infolinks.



That fit has some nice defenses. Unfortunately, the EHP drops massively when you remove even a single extender, which it will need to do if you want to run a warp disruptor or a scrambler. As such, it needs another mid. If you add one, however, it needs to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your lows. This will either make it unable to run the second extender due to removal of a PDS, or gimp its damage by removing a damage mod. Since the goal of these changes, as I understand it, is to put these ships onto the PvP battlefield in a combat role, Fozzie's initial version just does not work.

EDIT: As a caveat, it may work on a larger battlefield with dozens or hundreds of people fighting where a disruptor is not required, but if that's the only vision for the ship's use then it's already dead to me.



I do not the see a point for that ship. In null, you got a bubble (sabres and Hics) - and for lowsec... mates. I would not compromise the buffer any further, there is simply no need to jeopardize the fit by adding 'tackles' to the existing traits of 'brick' and 'hurts'.

Edit: Quite sad to see so many folks not grasping the rebalance. Ships are more than just stats, you gotta fit them to make any statement regarding their usefulness or viability. Many Hulls that are labeled useless are actually the smoother ones, allowing for good realistic fits.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#755 - 2013-08-04 17:53:03 UTC
i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily.

the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
FleetAdmiralHarper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#756 - 2013-08-04 17:56:57 UTC  |  Edited by: FleetAdmiralHarper
Rain6637 wrote:
i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily.

the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3



i like the hookbill, they say its the ugly duckling of the caldari, but the IRONY of it being one of the few good looking ships, that actually looks like a ship, psychically hurts me XD
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#757 - 2013-08-04 19:02:18 UTC
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily.

the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3



i like the hookbill, they say its the ugly duckling of the caldari, but the IRONY of it being one of the few good looking ships, that actually looks like a ship, psychically hurts me XD


I know, right? Especially when you take a look at the Eagle... *barf*
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#758 - 2013-08-04 19:11:59 UTC
FOZZIE
something being picked up on in this thread is the resist quantity imbalance between minmatar ships and the rest..
care to take a look? and perhaps sort out the crazy gaps in resists like 0% on EM and then 90% EM 10% EXP etc....

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#759 - 2013-08-04 19:25:56 UTC
Why are Target Spectrum Breakers only allowed on BS hulls? I can't think of a better use for them than on command ships.
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#760 - 2013-08-04 19:37:28 UTC
I'm confused, so you wanted to make it so each faction would have one ship bonused with each of their weapon systems....yet...

The turret ships now HAVE to fit launchers if they want to reclaim any of their lost DPS from the loss of their BONUSED weapon system...that just doesn't make sense. I don't want to be force to fly dual weapon ships because you (CCP) think "effective turrets" is the same as actual turrets.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...