These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#841 - 2013-08-06 00:40:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Balzac Legazou wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...]


Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues".

Ok, that covers one instance while ignoring all other situations in which the bonus is actually useful, basically any time you are under more DPS than the reps could handle unbonused. If you aren't using more cap you aren't taking advantage of the bonus.

No matter how you look at it, if you use a Repairer with this bonus, you ARE taking advantage of the bonus. How do i justify that you may ask. Well it's because of the nature of Armor Repairers. The thing about Armor Reps is that they're designed to give you your repair at the END of the cycle. This means that even if you run your rep in single cycles where you repair at exactly the same frequency as an unbonused rep, you still are given greater effect as your rep comes sooner. This also gives you the option to burst rep by turning your lasers off for a moment and allowing your rep to cycle a few times. Also it may be note worthy to know that cycle reduction provides greater Repair per second than does increase repair amount.

That would be a 1 time bonus at the point as after the first cycle hits the delay to keep cap usage the same causes each additional rep cycle to complete at the same time as it would on an unbonused rep. If the goal is a 1 time saving on up to 25% of a single cycle to avoid the increased cap and get the first, and only the first, cycle in faster then cool. But as stated, all practical uses of the bonus cause you to use more cap.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#842 - 2013-08-06 00:54:05 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
honnestly i think its time to rethink your rejection of allowing the 7.5% to armor repair include external incoming RR.

no mater how much tinkering you do to internal reps its not going to fix the scaleability of the bonus.

basically to take advantage of the skill you have to use that mod and it only scales in usefulness up to a certain amount of incoming damage. after 3-4 ships the bonus is uesless.

but if it was to include a bonus to incomming RR then the bonus would scale all the way up to fleet fights.

Honestly you claim that you dont want to encourage alpha as the main docterine is kind of silly due to how tidi works and that there is literally no diminishing return for stacking damage on a single ship.

Please please make the skill usefull after 3-4 ships and allow incomming RR to be increased.


Even if they did allow repair bonuses to affect incoming reps, Resists would still be more effective. Resists increase the effectiveness of incoming reps as well as increase total HP buffer. Rep bonus would not increase survivability.

That's why you can't compare them. Rep bonus is too narrow in scope to compete with Resist bonuses. They really need to be changed to not compete with each other at all.
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#843 - 2013-08-06 01:04:35 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Balzac Legazou wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...]


Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues".

Ok, that covers one instance while ignoring all other situations in which the bonus is actually useful, basically any time you are under more DPS than the reps could handle unbonused. If you aren't using more cap you aren't taking advantage of the bonus.

No matter how you look at it, if you use a Repairer with this bonus, you ARE taking advantage of the bonus. How do i justify that you may ask. Well it's because of the nature of Armor Repairers. The thing about Armor Reps is that they're designed to give you your repair at the END of the cycle. This means that even if you run your rep in single cycles where you repair at exactly the same frequency as an unbonused rep, you still are given greater effect as your rep comes sooner. This also gives you the option to burst rep by turning your lasers off for a moment and allowing your rep to cycle a few times. Also it may be note worthy to know that cycle reduction provides greater Repair per second than does increase repair amount.

That would be a 1 time bonus at the point as after the first cycle hits the delay to keep cap usage the same causes each additional rep cycle to complete at the same time as it would on an unbonused rep. If the goal is a 1 time saving on up to 25% of a single cycle to avoid the increased cap and get the first, and only the first, cycle in faster then cool. But as stated, all practical uses of the bonus cause you to use more cap.

You are given the option to use more cap to increase repair speed. Bonuses like this are good, they give you a choice, and give you something to do while fighting. It's not just a "turn on all modules and press F1 on target" type of Bonus. It's a bonus that gives you a great boost to a module at the cost of turning your weapons off. The ability to balance the 2 is where player skill will come into play.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#844 - 2013-08-06 06:40:55 UTC
Honestly I'm more for the idea of giving the Eos, Claymore and Vulture a +50% bonus to (racial) HP in place of, respectively, the armour rep bonus, the shield rep bonus and (one of) the optimal range bonus.

The % HP bonus gives double the amount of extra EHP versus the resist bonus (only 25% bonus to EHP) making them less likely to be headshot. The Caldari and Amarr can keep the advantage in HP and fleet tanking by keeping the resist bonus as a one up, but this will lessen the gap between the Damnation and every other races CS options in fleet substantially.

In exchange for the lack of a resist bonus the Minmatar and Gallente CS's should have somewhat better signature radii and higher speeds (WTF Eos?) allowing them to mitigate the damage a little more naturally rather than simply standing around taking it.

I'll admit, this still might (and probably will) leave the Damnation preferred in extremely large gang fights compared to the Eos and the Vulture to the Claymore, but it'll do a lot more to bridge the gap than giving them a bloody active rep bonus.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#845 - 2013-08-06 07:03:29 UTC
Balzac Legazou wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...]


Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues".

Well yes, if you want to be pedantic they don't use more cap. You can even make them use less cap if you don't even turn the bloody thing on.
I fully realise this would open up extra options, but it is exactly the same as rate of fire bonuses on lasers. It massively hits cap usage when actually being used. I'd take 7.5% rep amount of 7.5% faster cycle time on an Absolution any day of the week despite the slightly lower peak tank - it's hugely more manageable. It's the same as chosing between the 2 active tank rigs. Aux Nano pumps are pretty much the way to go unless you can use dual cap boosters or don't have lasers to run.

I'll keep the resist bonus ta.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#846 - 2013-08-06 10:22:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
from https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3409697#post3409697

CERBERUS

In the first iteration we didn't quite go far enough with the Cerb in terms of power. In this pass we are going further to support its role as both a long range missile platform and a potential skirmisher by increasing its speed significantly and also adding more fitting to make fielding the extra launcher more comfortable. The change to cap recharge should go a long way to help the Cerb.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty

Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage
10% bonus to Missile velocity

Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Missile flight time
5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire

Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 0 turrets, 6 launchers(+1)
Fittings: 800 PWG(+165), 520 CPU(+80)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2000(-4) / 1200(+4) / 1400(-6)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1200(+137.5) / 235s (-100s) / 5.1/s (+1.93)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+45) / .463 / 12720000 / 8.17s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 95km(+15km) / 282 / 6
Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric(+8)
Signature radius: 135


OP:

Nighthawk:
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
4% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage
Command Ships skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy missile launcher rate of fire
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5500(+695) / 3200(-163) / 3700(-144)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 86.25(+6.88) / 62.5(+9.38) / 10
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812(-187.5) / 625s(-41.7) / 4.5
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.02) / 14810000(+800000) / 13.35s (+1.15)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km (+20) / 195 / 9(+1)
Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric (+5)
Signature radius: 285
Cargo capacity: 700

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#847 - 2013-08-06 10:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyaron wars
Split current command ships into 2 groups:
Field Command ships:
- Claymore
- Damnation
- Vulture
- Eos
No change for skill requirements.
Heavy Assault Battlecruiser:
- Sleipnir
- Absolution
- Astarte
- Nighthawk
Leave those ships as they are just remove ability to fit links and change skill requirements to: Heavy assault cruisers 5 -> Heavy Assault Battlecruiser 1 + Racial BC 5.

Rain6637 wrote:
you mean remove the bonus to links?

Yes
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#848 - 2013-08-06 10:39:59 UTC
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#849 - 2013-08-06 12:08:21 UTC
Remove the link bonus, on the ship class designed specifically for running links, that's based on the T1 class, that is for running links?
No.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#850 - 2013-08-06 12:10:06 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.
We shall see, but I have my doubts. I've use this as an expensive gun boat for quite some time and accepted the cost and risk. Not sure it's worth it now.

Oh and since when do we use effective turrets, as any kind of metric? I would much prefer to know the actual % loss tbh.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#851 - 2013-08-06 12:16:28 UTC
Without digging out a calculator, 10.9 to 10 would be roughly 10% - I'm sure someone will come and give a more accurate answer if they can be bothered.
It's still going to have a lot of fire power, 2 utility slots on top of that is potentially brutal.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#852 - 2013-08-06 12:45:11 UTC
1) While removing 6th turret for abso make sure those turrets are nicely arranged on the ship (symmetrically on both sides of the ship).

2) Keep the missile slot for abso.

3) Remove +10 hp for Damnation and give it +5 rate of fire to missiles. Otherwise it won't be a combat ship.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#853 - 2013-08-06 12:48:07 UTC
lol @ point 1.

I get angry if my ships have odd placed guns. You'll find the ships do actually have as many turret slots as there are high slots though. If you just place the guns in the latter slots first they'll show in different places on the ship model :)
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#854 - 2013-08-06 12:51:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Cassius Invictus wrote:


3) Remove +10 hp for Damnation and give it +5 rate of fire to missiles. Otherwise it won't be a combat ship.


/facepalm

Yeah, lets remove one of the only functional bonuses in the command ship lineup so that they can all suck equally for their intended role...


As as been pointed out probably over a hundred times in this thread... The solution is for EACH race to receive one fleet oriented ship with double tank bonuses (1 hp, 1 racial flavor) and one Small scale ship with 3x dmg bonuses, and 1x racial flavor tank bonuses. W/o such a change, we're going to go full circle and end with a result that is oh so very similar to the issues we have on sisi today in which only 2-3 Commands are realistically used.


Also, normalizing slots to 19 instead of 20 was kind of a fail as well... Command ships are -1 slot compared to a TECH 1 BC, and -2 compared to the navy varieties if these bad change go live... I think Fozzie needs to scrap the whole lot and start a new with a less naive approach... Chances are that his typical egomongering will interdict the chances of this happening tho...

P.S. I miss Tux and tomb
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#855 - 2013-08-06 12:52:16 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
lol @ point 1.

I get angry if my ships have odd placed guns. You'll find the ships do actually have as many turret slots as there are high slots though. If you just place the guns in the latter slots first they'll show in different places on the ship model :)


Does not work with abso coz turrets are displaced in two dimensions on wings (top/bottom and front/back) and the odd bottom turret is placed slightly left or slightly right from the axis.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#856 - 2013-08-06 12:54:42 UTC
Ah ok I see what you mean. In that case, fix the model please CCP :D
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#857 - 2013-08-06 13:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Mag's 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.
We shall see, but I have my doubts. I've use this as an expensive gun boat for quite some time and accepted the cost and risk. Not sure it's worth it now.

Oh and since when do we use effective turrets, as any kind of metric? I would much prefer to know the actual % loss tbh.


There's almost no loss of dps, as far as I can tell a dual rep neutron fit drops only 43 dps (770 > 727, Void, Hammers, no dmg mods) but gains 100m/s speed, medium NOS (and link with fitting implants), and with the rep buffs also 250 hp/s tank. Astarte looks p good tbh.

As a curious hilarisoty (likely not a word), MAAR+MAR+RAH fit with T2 resist link and Standard Exile tanks 10719 dps against Kinetic missiles. 4324 against antimatter. Will fly.




edit: small mistake with dps, still will fly

.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#858 - 2013-08-06 13:32:33 UTC
Roime wrote:


There's almost no loss of dps, as far as I can tell a dual rep neutron fit drops only 43 dps (770 > 727, Void, Hammers, no dmg mods) but gains 100m/s speed, medium NOS (and link with fitting implants), and with the rep buffs also 250 hp/s tank. Astarte looks p good tbh.

As a curious hilarisoty (likely not a word), MAAR+MAR+RAH fit with T2 resist link and Standard Exile tanks 10719 dps against Kinetic missiles. 4324 against antimatter. Will fly.



I'm not trying to bash you romie, hope you know that... But... 727 dps of which 150ish is from drones is pretty ******* bad... Especially when your ship is very low on ehp, has a double rep tank with a RAH fed by a single med cap booster....

Yes, the astarte is faster, yes it can fit a med nos or 2?(lol..) but it's still a 1 trick pony pretty much good for 1 thing, and 1 thing only. Station game trolling at undock....

If, we're going to keep the fail 19 total slots, then at the very least the Astarte needs a 7th low. So -1 high and +1 lowslot... It's not like anyone is going to use the ship as a gang booster anyway (unless they are dumb, not sane, or simply trolling).
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#859 - 2013-08-06 13:42:14 UTC
You can easily make it gankier, that is low dps I agree and I just used that fit to compare the loss of dps. 52K EHP with Hype-like tank is quite enough for small gang work imho.

You can push it to 1243 peak dps and still have 780hp/s omni tank with S Exile.

There's plenty of small gang happening outside station undocks where the Astarte will be just fine.

Why wouldn't you slap a link on it? I can fit one along the NOS and it'll benefit all the ships in the gang. It's just like fitting a link on a BC with utility high, a no-brainer, just with better bonuses. I fly the Abso always with a link and don't really get why not.

.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#860 - 2013-08-06 13:59:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Roime wrote:
You can easily make it gankier, that is low dps I agree and I just used that fit to compare the loss of dps. 52K EHP with Hype-like tank is quite enough for small gang work imho.


But it's not a hype like tank, it FAR FAR more cap susceptible (has a med cap booster and not 2x large), has LESS ehp, and reps FAR LESS against anything other than kin/therm.

I just don't see the point, especially when it's doing 750ish dps with point blank ammo..., and only really shines at troll tanking multiple vindis(or other blaster ships)

All I'm getting at here romie is that the current Command Ship Proposal feels very underwhelming, especially considering these ships have been horrendously balanced for 7+ years... There has been so much discussion on these ships over this time that I find the lack of addressing the real issues with them almost disheartening...

Sorry for the semi discussion lacking posts btw, at "work" so semi time limited.