These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rain6638
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1061 - 2013-08-08 03:56:37 UTC
cap chain claymores with local reps and egress port maximizer rig. that was a fun EFT exercise.

don't bother, it was a 500hp rep tank w/ LSB and a 125k EHP buffer.

stable, but crap.

[ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337
Namamai
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1062 - 2013-08-08 04:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Namamai
The NH changes are welcome, but I still think the hull is pretty underwhelming compared to the rest of the CSes, or even compared to the Cerberus.

I think it's worthwhile to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the Claymore:
* Both are shield boats with bonuses relevant to active tanking (NH gets resists, Claymore gets boost bonus)
* Both are missile users with 5 hardpoints
* Both get bonuses to missile application -- NH gets exp radius, Claymore gets exp velocity

The main difference is that the Claymore has much higher base mobility and a sixth mid slot. However, as it turns out, this makes a massive difference.

* The Claymore is significantly faster -- 400m/s faster base, over 700m/s faster if it's using one of its option highs for a bonused Rapid Deployment link.
* The Claymore ends up having about the same EHP on a buffer fit -- while the NH has a resist bonus, the Claymore's kin hole is much smaller than the NH's em hole, and it can comfortably fit double T2 LSEs. In the end, it's 110K EHP versus 115K EHP if both are taking a Shield Harmonizing link.
* The Claymore has far more fitting room -- 35 less CPU, but 200 more grid.
* The Claymore has less missile DPS, but it can take a flight of medium drones instead of lights. It ends up being about a 100dps difference -- 600 versus 700 for a HAM fit. However, the Claymore can apply that DPS better since it has an extra mid slot for a web. (Especially if it opts for an Interdiction link instead of a SHarm.)

Given the choice between 100dps, and 600m/s of mobility plus an extra tackle mod, the choice is pretty obvious for me. And I suspect that the Claymore's link bonuses (Siege+Skirmish) are far more compelling to medium and large gangs than a Nighthawk's.

As it stands, the only time I'd take NH is in very large gangs where buffer is extremely important -- in which case, it has to compete with the Vulture, and you may want to spend your highs on smartbombs/cyno instead of HMLs.
Rain6638
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1063 - 2013-08-08 04:15:36 UTC
please don't make the claymore sound good, or fozzie will touch it

[ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337
Caldess
The Executives
#1064 - 2013-08-08 04:56:57 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Oh yes, lets nerf the only functional command ship for large fleet engagements. In return it can add a few more DPS to the tens of thousands when large fleets clash.

Get out.


PS: How do you know that it is the only functional blob link platform when they have generally never seen action so far .. anyone can sit in a POS or at a safe. Even CCP has no clue where the chips may land when/if they get through the Gordian knot they have their resident hacker chewing on.



Its pretty simple how we know it. If you are almost able to headshot a Damnation, what do you think will happen to any other Commandship?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1065 - 2013-08-08 05:08:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Caldess wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.

For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage.
Gallente Battlecruisers :
+10% Drone Damage and HP per level
+100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level
Command Ships:
+7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level
-5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level
+3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level

I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.

This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships.


Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable?

I think that soon you will find a sharp reduction in the amount of large fleet FCing done from Command Ships. No matter how this balancing goes, or the eventual fate of off grid boosting, as fleets get larger and larger it will eventually become impossible to survive alpha strikes via tank alone. FC's are going to have to get either sneaky or clever to survive.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Swiftus Mahyisti
The Crusty Sock Club
#1066 - 2013-08-08 06:12:35 UTC
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
tl;dr - step in the right direction, but not enough...

as most have pointed out these changes seem rather... underwhelming, although they are a step in the right direction for sure.
damnation seems meh
nighthawk seems meh (troll ship apparently?) 5 mid 5 low?
and one of the few i've been following (the eos) seems quite meh)
you had something going with the sleipnir's old slot count, but instead of carrying the extra slot over you nerf the sleip/claymore slot layout, you need to put that slot back onto all of the CS's
and i dont like the current slot layout of the eos, yes its a drone boat so -1 compared to all of the other ships makes sense, but not when you have 4 unbonused guns, just tracking? (lol)
the 7.5% tracking to heavy drones is interesting, and unique... i like it, but 250 drone bay? needs much more, especially when you are trying to get people to use heavy drones, a cruiser (ishtar) shouldnt have 125m^3 more than a battlecruiser...

all of the ships seem lacking in overall DPS, they need a bit more, even if you destroy your tank for dps, 905 dps and 617 tank (eos) is quite hilariously.... bad... and this seems to be a general trend... these ships are slow and large... they cant effectively kite against much, so they need to have an actual tank, and a good amount of dps while tanking halfway effectively

give all of the commandships the +1 slot they deserve
give the eos more dronebay, and a better 4th bonus
something like 7.5% MHT tracking and damage would be much better, and make it worth not having the extra slot the other CS's have
or roll the tracking of MHT into the heavy drone tracking (weird yes) and add a +10% armor bonus (still not worth -1 slot tho for being a drone ship)

a 7.5% MHT tracking/damage bonus for its 4th bonus, 6/4/7 eos with 375 dronebay would be much better, and worth using.
and because of the split weapon systems, you wouldnt get a silly 1500 dps ganker on roids, with 3 drone damage mods, only 1074dps and 617 tank...
heck, the eos is an active tanker, it needs a second cap booster to be effective, a 6/5/7 slot layout might be a bit too much, but maybe not...

most ships that need help with tank should get a midslot for shield tankers or lowslot for armor tankers, excluding the damnation which already has a very nice tank, give it a 5th mid and change its velocity bonus to damage bonus, or give it an extra high and missile turret

but why are you bringing t2 bc's down in slot layout? t1 -> t2 cruisers give you +1 slot
t1 -> t2 frigs give you +2 slots...
t1 bc -> t2 bc should give you +1 slot, its ridiculous not to...





THIS! +1, outlined everything that is wrong, and gave reasonable replacements for useless bonuses. Please take a hint from this man.
Gustav Mannfred
Summer of Mumuit
Remember Mumuit
#1067 - 2013-08-08 06:49:34 UTC
I have a question:

On the damnation, you give a bonus to all kind of missile damage, why you give on the nighthawk just a bonus to kinetic damage?

i'm REALY miss the old stuff. 

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183
Aplier Shivra
#1068 - 2013-08-08 06:58:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Aplier Shivra
Gustav Mannfred wrote:
I have a question:

On the damnation, you give a bonus to all kind of missile damage, why you give on the nighthawk just a bonus to kinetic damage?



It's fairly standard for caldari's missile bonuses to be for kinetic
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1069 - 2013-08-08 07:39:04 UTC
Amarr = EM
Caldari = Kinetic
Gallente = Thermal
Minmatar = Explosiv

I know some maybe different but thats the official Rule.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Gustav Mannfred
Summer of Mumuit
Remember Mumuit
#1070 - 2013-08-08 08:08:16 UTC
but i still want to know, why the amarr and minmatar ships gets a bonus to ALL damage types and the caldari just for kinetic?
i find it a littlebit strange, that the scyte fleet has a 10% to all damage types and the osprey navy just 10% to kinetic.

the same with the damnation and nighthawk.

i'm REALY miss the old stuff. 

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1071 - 2013-08-08 08:19:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with the existence of active repair bonuses on half of these ships, but I think that giving all command ships buffer bonuses isn't the right way to go. I believe that the four skirmish bonus command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.


I don't think the issue is "the existence of repair bonuses on half of these ships". The issue is how that "half" is defined.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that command ships have two sub-categories, which are a perfect way to make that distinction:

  • Give fleet command ships resist bonuses (and make them rely on the fleet for repairs).
  • Give field command ships active repair bonuses (and make them self-reliant).

The actual bonuses can be differentiated by race, but this way not only does every race have both options, there is also a stronger sense of identity and role for field command ships vs. fleet command ships.

The issue people have is that some races seem to have two field command ships and zero fleet command ships.
FleetAdmiralHarper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1072 - 2013-08-08 08:25:34 UTC  |  Edited by: FleetAdmiralHarper
Malango wrote:
Why is the nighthawk losing a launcher???........... what the hell is that about.


agreed. i want it to keep all 6. it looks better aesthetically and its better for when you need to change damage types in pvp or pve. shooting kinetic 24/7 doesn't ******* always help... so even if it does magically have the equivalent of 11 launchers (according to fozzie) with its 5. it doesnt matter because people arent always going to use that freaking damage type...

im a little less pissed about the just now updated ship stats, because the increased rate of fire will help out when changing missiles. but im still HEAVILY against the -(launcher)

i think they believe that these changes will make the nighthawk over powered in some way. but the night hawk is so sh1tty now because of the heavy missile uber nerf last December.... if they left the 6th launcher and added the changes.,all it would succeed in doing is making the nighthawk slightly useable.

please leave the 6th slot fozzie, and add the rest of the current changes, and all will be well.

atleast for the nighthawk....

sorry guys i cant help you fix the rest of your command ships. i have no experience with them, and im a firm believer in you shouldn't talk what you dont know about XD


CCP Fozzie wrote:
Post-patch Nighthawk does the same damage with non-kin missiles as current nighthawk, and 1 more effective launcher with kin. (Plus all the other buffs)


that helps. thanks. i guess you guys do listen.
though i really like the look of 4 launchers upfront and 2 in back. aesthetically it just looks soooo coool.
i wont be happy about losing a launcher on my ship with this update, but at-least i wont be petitioning your resignation now XD ha ha.
i also might not quit. but yeah, you guys nerfed heavy's so much, that it really wouldn't do anything if you did leave the 6th launcher and added your new changes.
Grymwulf
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1073 - 2013-08-08 08:41:08 UTC
Has anyone considered that perhaps CCP should set it up that each race has a viable skirmish and fleet command ship? Instead of making Minmatar/Gallente kings of small gangs and Amarr/Caldari kings of fleet boosting, give each race one command ship with a resist bonus and the other with the local rep bonus.

This allows those who prefer a specific race to choose a ship based on not just it's weapon types, but on whether they will be doing small gang or fleet ops.

I'm a jerk.  Get used to it.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1074 - 2013-08-08 09:45:45 UTC
Shimbei wrote:
Maybe it's a lack of direct experience? Why not open up a constellation or two in UUA-F4 with some dev group holding sov. We'll come and fight you I'm sure.


Up for this

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1075 - 2013-08-08 09:58:16 UTC
Rain6638 wrote:
disambiguate.

-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)

-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships

-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)

Covops BC:

Primary Skill required
Command Ships V

Secondary Skill required
Black Ops I



I don't like solo pownmobiles because it's always fun at a very large number of other players unfun, it's fun 5min then I get quickly bored, no challenge whatsoever.

But this could be really nice indeed to replace T3 command sub (never gonna happen anyway for what we see).
I mean a T2 BC with that firepower and Cov OPs Cloak on top? -ho man I'd get a full hangar of those !!

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Kane Fenris
NWP
#1076 - 2013-08-08 10:02:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Nighthawk:
+75 PWG
  • Shifting strength between the two dps bonuses adds 1 effective launcher (now 11) and especially increases damage dealt with non-kin missiles. Post-patch Nighthawk does the same damage with non-kin missiles as current nighthawk, and 1 more effective launcher with kin. (Plus all the other buffs)
    • Kinetic missile bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Caldari BC
    Missile RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships


    thanks your the best! (missile bonus change)
    still i seem to need that reactor controll for a normal setup...

    i hope your in charge for marauders?
    Rain6638
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1077 - 2013-08-08 10:30:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6638
    Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
    Rain6638 wrote:
    disambiguate.

    -those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)

    -those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships

    -if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)

    Covops BC:

    Primary Skill required
    Command Ships V

    Secondary Skill required
    Black Ops I



    I don't like solo pownmobiles because it's always fun at a very large number of other players unfun, it's fun 5min then I get quickly bored, no challenge whatsoever.

    But this could be really nice indeed to replace T3 command sub (never gonna happen anyway for what we see).
    I mean a T2 BC with that firepower and Cov OPs Cloak on top? -ho man I'd get a full hangar of those !!

    since writing that I thought maybe the tier 3 glass houses would be a better option.

    but covops only in the sense that they can take the covops bridge--and have the gimped cloak like those of the blackops battleships.

    a sidetrack thought, in a muddy thread.

    I'm over it--I have nothing to be upset about, tbh. the nighthawk change is a huge boost in terms of what I use it for currently--hauling goodies out of jita and scaring miners. even though I'm missing the benefits of the "effective turrets" thing, I'll let it slide.

    T2 drake hauler is going to be sexy. I dislike the Ferox's face-heavy, pinched-hindquarters look anyway.

    [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337
    Mag's
    Azn Empire
    #1078 - 2013-08-08 12:35:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
    Sarkelias Anophius wrote:


    Wait wait

    Its primary weapons system gets buffed (read the effective turrets part) and you get two highs that *can* fit missiles and just as easily fit neuts/nos

    and you then complain about split weapons systems and how this ship is bad and you won't fly it

    can you even read? if not, how do you post? this is awfully confusing
    Wait wait it seems I missed the update yesterday. Oops And of course this never happens to you. Amirite?

    But thanks for posting such a wonderful and highly thoughtful reply. Big smile

    Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
    Roime
    Mea Culpa.
    Shadow Cartel
    #1079 - 2013-08-08 12:49:31 UTC
    Mag's check the latest update:

    Astarte:
    +100 Armor
    Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now).
    Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC
    Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships

    <3

    Along with the other changes, Astarte got a pretty major buff imho :)

    .
    Mag's
    Azn Empire
    #1080 - 2013-08-08 13:09:09 UTC
    Roime wrote:
    Mag's check the latest update:

    Astarte:
    +100 Armor
    Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now).
    Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC
    Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships

    <3

    Along with the other changes, Astarte got a pretty major buff imho :)
    Ahh so it was changed yesterday, that explains the guys sh**ty attitude and reply. Shame he couldn't simply point out it had been updated.

    Yea I agree, good buff mate. Cool

    Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.