These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lixia Saran
Perkone
Caldari State
#981 - 2013-08-07 18:43:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie:

so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well?
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#982 - 2013-08-07 18:56:32 UTC
All of these ships are large and slow (they're battle cruisers) so they need their tank and gank
And they cannot kite, maybe the sleipnir/claymore with links and snakes, but that is all
They need the extra slot compared to their t1 versions like all other t2 ships get
And give the eos it's slot you unjustly took away

Please stop ignoring the fact they deserve these slots :/
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
#983 - 2013-08-07 18:57:06 UTC
Sleipnir still needs more CPU.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#984 - 2013-08-07 19:02:58 UTC
Lixia Saran wrote:
CCP Fozzie:

so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well?



plz not

in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt.
so i hope this was just a troll...

plz let it be a troll
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#985 - 2013-08-07 19:05:33 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
plz not

in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt.
so i hope this was just a troll...

plz let it be a troll


If they don't change the eos into a myrm hull I'm going to flip tables and kick puppies.

The rest I don't really care about.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#986 - 2013-08-07 19:06:21 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Lixia Saran wrote:
CCP Fozzie:

so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well?



plz not

in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt.
so i hope this was just a troll...

plz let it be a troll
lol. There was plenty of feedback in the thread that said "yes, please." The hard core Sleipnir lovers said no, but many of them even said "well, if I have to lose the beloved Sleipnir to get the other hulls, then I guess it'd be a good tradeoff."

Maybe you can go back and take a look through the thread and not only pick out the negative comments you agreed with, and you might have a more objective viewpoint of the feedback. Big smile

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#987 - 2013-08-07 19:10:20 UTC
When are you going back to all the bad t1 ships that have been left behind? (atron executioner tristan punisher rifter corax ferox etc)
And are T2 frigates/destroyers going to get done soon? They're pretty horrible at the moment.

For command ships though, swap the slot layouts on claymore and nighthawk, switch one of the sleipnir's damage bonuses for ROF and drop that ******** turret tracking bonus on the eos for something useful.

Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#988 - 2013-08-07 19:17:35 UTC
Kane Fenris wrote:
Lixia Saran wrote:
CCP Fozzie:

so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well?



plz not

in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt.
so i hope this was just a troll...

plz let it be a troll


Blue Myrm = awsome, red harb = awsome, black drake = awsome, also there was a ton of positive suport in that thread.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#989 - 2013-08-07 19:20:42 UTC
Mister Vee wrote:
Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.


Still can't use on-grid boosting

  • Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
  • Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).


Off-grid boosting just got more annoying
  • Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
  • Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.


What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like

  • Fix wing command bug first
  • Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
  • Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
  • Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
  • Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
  • And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...




Space Jesus has talk. You should read this at wake up and 10 times before hitting your bed Fozzie.

What I don't get is your absolute closed idea about Damnation being the only possible choice for commanders because they have enough ehp.
You're not offering options but instead force this ship as only possible setup because anything else will simply die, thus not funny to fly thus no one will jump in with a smile knwoing a first or second volley they get the right to watch the rest of the fight on twich tv.

Just say it if you can't because of whatever code but stop pushing the same reasonning over and over when everyone and his grandmother is able to see the mistake in your decision.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Rain6638
Team Evil
#990 - 2013-08-07 19:23:48 UTC
Fozzie.

post a fit for the Nighthawk.

[ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337

Shpenat
Facta.Non.Verba
#991 - 2013-08-07 19:35:04 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Mister Vee wrote:
Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.


Still can't use on-grid boosting

  • Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
  • Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).


Off-grid boosting just got more annoying
  • Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
  • Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.


What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like

  • Fix wing command bug first
  • Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
  • Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
  • Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
  • Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
  • And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...




Space Jesus has talk. You should read this at wake up and 10 times before hitting your bed Fozzie.

What I don't get is your absolute closed idea about Damnation being the only possible choice for commanders because they have enough ehp.
You're not offering options but instead force this ship as only possible setup because anything else will simply die, thus not funny to fly thus no one will jump in with a smile knwoing a first or second volley they get the right to watch the rest of the fight on twich tv.

Just say it if you can't because of whatever code but stop pushing the same reasonning over and over when everyone and his grandmother is able to see the mistake in your decision.


I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.

He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.

So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
Rain6638
Team Evil
#992 - 2013-08-07 19:38:59 UTC
it seems to me you're trying to get Command Ships and the Command Ships skill to act like separate Assault Battlecruiser and Command Ships skills (and two completely different roles)

You'll have an easier time by separating the two, into Assault Battlecruisers and Command Ships.

[ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337

S1dy
Uplifting Infernal Paradise
Synergy of Steel
#993 - 2013-08-07 19:43:35 UTC  |  Edited by: S1dy
I really don't get what you did there Fozzie. That were minor tweaks, nothing special and mostly not needed. This patch will be the most frustrating one since Incarna, because you balanced HAC's and Command Ships into ****. I can't believe it, really.

Why do you want to nerf the Damnation which is in the whole thread the only ship everyone agrees with as perfect as it is right now. It's tanky enough to achieve it's role in fleets. But you throw 300 Armor HP away. That's unbelievable Shocked

And what's with the Vulture you ignored completely? It should be at least comparable to the Damnation.

I don't know why you refuse to change the roles in both ship classes, that makes really no sense. Don't you see the aweful lot demands here in the threads? They have mostly the same topics they critisize.

This changes won't change anything in usage, that's for sure. You made it just worse with the Damnation nerf... Tech 3's for the win despite they will boost less Roll

Quote:
I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.

He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.

So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.


There are 2 Command Ships for every race. As a lot already suggested in this thread CCP could split them into 2 different roles: 1 for medium- and largescale, 1 for PvE, Solo and Smallscale. The first with superior tank and tools for fleets, the letter with mainly damage and average tank (active tank if there's no way around). Both with bonus to links and they are perfect to achieve every role they are specialized for. It's not that hard to do exactly that. But CCP just ignores that.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#994 - 2013-08-07 19:52:35 UTC
Shpenat wrote:
I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.

He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.

So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.


The people who are advocating for the huge brick tank boosters are willing to make that trade off. Their concern is staying on the most hostile battlefields while people are trying to headshot them, the DPS they put out is a distant third concern at best.

That's why people are asking for 1 heavy tank command ship where the offensive bonuses are unimportant, and 1 heavy assault battlecruiser ship that small-ish gangs can use to have a ganky boosty ship. As it stands now we have 7 HABC and 1 brick tank command ship.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#995 - 2013-08-07 19:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Quote:
Of course we all know, and I know the evidence is there in your logs to support this position, no-one, just no-one ever did or every will fly a command ship with an active tank bonus in any kind of real pvp 'skirmish'. Active tank bonuses are useful in hypothetical 1v1 or 1v2 confrontations. These actually almost never happen other than under contrived circumstances on the test server.

In addition, given that a command ship is only useful in a fleet, it is further rendered useless on a command ship. Either,

your gang will gank a single solo ship - in which case you don't need local reps at all, or

your gang will engage another gang, and their combined firepower will render your local rep bonus completely irrelevant.


While I'm not arguing your general stance, your supposition isn't really accurate.

Command ships are commonly used even in very small gang conflicts (many of them are tough, powerful ships even now), and part of the over reaching goal of this update is that they be a very useful combat ship with or without gang links.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#996 - 2013-08-07 19:58:12 UTC
Fozzie can't make all the command ships a brick like the Damnation. It would 1) destroy the damnation and 2) ... umm.. ok I don't have a 2.

He wants the ships to have roles. The main command ships have 4 roles, Two Large Fleet Doctrine Ships (one armor, one sheild), one small fleet doctrine ship (one armor, one shield).

I get it... I would love to have the EOS be a Brick. Anyway.

Yaay!!!!

Diivil
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#997 - 2013-08-07 20:02:07 UTC
Mister Vee wrote:
Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.



This exactly. Fozzie, you are not making on-grid boosting an option and instead you are just making flying boosters more annoying than it already is.

My views:

As long as it is not possible to put wing commanders on grid (so until skirmish boosters have Damnation level of EHP) POS boosting should stay in the game. I understand you want to make bonuses vulnerable and I do agree with that. But until on-grid boosting is a viable option, making running off-grid boosters more annoying isn't going to change anything. Fix on-grid boosting first, then force off-grid boosters out of their POSes.

Skirmish boosting ships absolutely have to have Damnation level of EHP. There seriously is no other way. If they don't, they are not going to ever be used in full fleets. Your current design would leave a fully tanked Claymore to around 150k EHP and the others aren't too far from that. Do you really think a ship which is insanely important but has less EHP than a fleet BS will ever survive when fleet BS die by the dozens if not hundreds in a proper fight.

If command processors were made to be rigs then the only ships that would ever use them would be off-grid t3 boosters. You would be unlikely to drop any tank from your on-grid command ships because they need all the EHP they can get. If they are changed to be rigs then at least I think carriers should have the ability to fit more than 1 link without command processors.

While Vee says off-grid boosting should be removed, personally I think it should stay stay in the game. Simply put it is the easiest solution with no new code being required, no need to invent frigate sized boosters for frigate fleets etc. But considering how you announced that it would be going away something like a year ago and it still hasn't leads me to believe you are not able to do it without a considerable amount of resources spend on it or without having too much stress on the server. Whatever the reason, off-grid boosting seems to be here to stay for at least the next few years. And it is not a bad thing. There are many fleet doctrines, small gang and full fleet sized, that need bonuses but can't bring a command ship on grid with them. As long as bonuses are as overpowered as they are now all fleets will want to have them so off-grid boosting allows us to have better and more interesting fleet concepts overall. Also as I have explained before it allows us to have more mobile fleets because you can sacrifice a few DPS ships to reposition but you can't sacrifice your bonuses.

In longer term I believe we need something in between no bonuses at all and full links. This would mean either nerfing the bonuses even more so that the gap is not as big (and simultaneously rebalancing most ships and weapons in game because everything is balanced based on the fact that people always have bonuses) or putting lesser form of bonuses in between no bonuses and full bonuses. This is because generally right now you will not be fighting in nullsec unless you have bonuses. So I want there to be an option to at least considering of keeping on fighting if you do lose your bonuses. While the warfare skills give some bonuses already it is not enough because it's just "base" stats (raw armor/shield, agility, targeting range) and not what the links actually give (better reps, tackle range, stronger ewar etc.) So what I would like to see to bridge this gap is that a perfect 5s leadership character could give maybe 30% to 50% link bonuses while being in any ship. It would still be worth bringing a dedicated bonus ship but you would not instantly be ****** if it dies.

All fleet command ships need to have enough PG to be able to fit 3 links, full tank (meaning 2 plates) and an MWD without fitting mods. Also preferably a probe launcher on top of that but that is not as important.

Even if you do all of this and manage to get people to use on-grid command ships they of course can do nothing while they are on the grid except run away. They will be fully tank fit which leaves no room to fit guns. No that the guns would do any real damage without DPS mods. Or that they would ever hit anyone when the command ships would be anchoring on the logi anchor and staying as far away from the fight as possible. So what fleet command ships need is not DPS bonuses. If you want to make them fun you will need to give them utility.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#998 - 2013-08-07 20:02:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Shpenat wrote:

I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.

He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.

So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.



But that's absolutely not what we're asking for !

As Vee perfectly explained we need A command ship per race able to push Damnation tank, DPS is not the FC/commander problem because there are better ships dedicated or specialized for this, ok to hoar on KM's but no need 800dps CS.
Make the second one still tanky but less, less links and eventually take down some of that dps, COMMAND ships should not be solo pownmobiles no matter the number of ships on the gang or solo. For that people should train T3's or take faction ships.
Look at the sleipnir and how many people bring for fleets? -none, it's a gang/solo pownmachine CS that not even fits links most times, this is silly.
Gallente get two clones of Sleipnir and matar gets one half good tanker slow as a battleship with bulkheads in lows.


Logisitcs can perfectly survive with little tanks, with current large fleets numbers command ships never, if it's not a Damnation or if you don't have 30 logis on the field 10 already exclusively stressing on the FC HP watch (and all other pre locking also) even then with perfect volleys despite so many logis I've seen super tank Vultures get two volleyed off the field (alpha is really stupid for this)

Command ships are specialized boosting ships, why the hell should they do more dps than HACs? -take dps out and give them HP for higher tiers and loose some dps for mobility for second tiers.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#999 - 2013-08-07 20:03:39 UTC
This entire round of changes feels really sloppy, even more so with today's revisions.

No sig.

Shpenat
Facta.Non.Verba
#1000 - 2013-08-07 20:04:09 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Shpenat wrote:
I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.

He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.

So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.


The people who are advocating for the huge brick tank boosters are willing to make that trade off. Their concern is staying on the most hostile battlefields while people are trying to headshot them, the DPS they put out is a distant third concern at best.

That's why people are asking for 1 heavy tank command ship where the offensive bonuses are unimportant, and 1 heavy assault battlecruiser ship that small-ish gangs can use to have a ganky boosty ship. As it stands now we have 7 HABC and 1 brick tank command ship.


That's a bit tricky. Which one should do which? Lets take astarte and eos (as those are ships I know best).

It seems astarte is better for small fleets while eos for larger. SO in the end there will again be no option for eos to do any significant damage. So skirmish commander who wants to use drones now has no ship to fly.