These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1521 - 2013-08-16 21:04:02 UTC
even with null m u have more dps than the absolution and this by equal range
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1522 - 2013-08-16 23:39:53 UTC
Florian Kuehne wrote:
even with null m u have more dps than the absolution and this by equal range

What is the applied DPS between the two ships outside of scram range?
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#1523 - 2013-08-16 23:57:38 UTC
surely that depends on the fits?

Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?

I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1524 - 2013-08-17 00:03:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits.

But that's just my opinion.


Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings).

One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all.


This explains a lot. I think its a little odd though. I would think that T2 should have enough fitting to fit a complete T2 fit without fitting mods. Top tier weapons, a prop mod, and some kind of defense. Or downgraded weapons, a prop mod, and a strong defense. I think in a lot of cases its in that range but often T2 ships seem to be making to many sacrifices even with what I would consider basic fits, but now at least I know why.

I hope CCP comes out with that ring mining moon goo soon, cause the farther this re-balancing goes it seems less and less worth it to put up the extra cost for the benefit of T2 over T1. If it was really only 2x the cost for 25% better that would be fine but in many cases its 10x the cost for 10% better.
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1525 - 2013-08-17 02:30:27 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
surely that depends on the fits?

Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?

I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.



Your confusing the Abso with the Damnation, The Abso like the Slep and Astarte is the DPS ship, but with a cap bonus rather than a range bonus like the other two have. Lasters usualy win out on range but if the laser ship has no range bonus and the others all do than the lasers lose its one advantage.
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1526 - 2013-08-17 06:42:25 UTC
well the fleet bosster should be the damnation and not the absolution but ccp is trying to force this dumb decision.

On Sisi i got on the Absolution(both ships with 3x Damagemod) like 750dps or so on short range(Confl M) while the Astarte with Void m got over 1000dps, even with null m over 700 dps. Scorch M on the absol give u about 530.

I think this is a quite big difference.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#1527 - 2013-08-17 09:40:49 UTC
I still wish commandships just dropped 150km range command probes instead of giving out bonuses as a ship

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1528 - 2013-08-17 10:15:43 UTC
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
surely that depends on the fits?

Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?

I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.



Your confusing the Abso with the Damnation, The Abso like the Slep and Astarte is the DPS ship, but with a cap bonus rather than a range bonus like the other two have. Lasters usualy win out on range but if the laser ship has no range bonus and the others all do than the lasers lose its one advantage.


The Abso is very decent using both pulses and beams. Pulses got the tracking, beams got (using vanilla 2 heatsinks) 620 dps at 18k, 360dps at ~60k. It really isn't terrible. Advantage of Pulses: You can even take some smartbombs (with fitting acrobatics) or neuts/nos along!

A significant downside for the astarte is that - when dualwebbed - you're pretty much screwed. And every afterburning t1 cruiser says ***** *** tracking or screw you range :S
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#1529 - 2013-08-17 10:35:26 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
...A significant downside for the astarte is that - when dualwebbed - you're pretty much screwed. And every afterburning t1 cruiser says ***** *** tracking or screw you range :S

Doesn't that go triple for the Absolution with its less drones, less tracking, less midslots, less tank, less everything really .. except Scorch range?

Absolution is in a bad place if it is to be the dps/vanguard hull, granted the Devs may have laser changes in mind and thus deliberately underbuffing the hull, but if that is the case then we really ought to know.

PS: Scorch has been used to justify sub-par performance of practically all laser hulls since forever which is just plain wrong. If I had the choice between fun competitive ships and a narrow niche (projection only) single ammo type I'd choose the former every day of the week .. (read: Nerf Scorch already so that Amarr can get rid of that damn crutch once and for all).
Alsyth
#1530 - 2013-08-17 10:36:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Alsyth
CCP Fozzie wrote:

It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


Except for armor CS you can fit 1600+2 MAR+cap booster+guns+links (with some meta 4 indeed) and with shield if you want dual XL-ASB no amount of meta4 will save you, you need 6 fitting mods/rigs.

So armor ones are really easy to fit, shield ones are a nightmare unless you go for the passive fit.
And you end up with less EHP than armor CS which still has 2 MAR+cap booster...

By making fitting -very- tight for shield CS with passive fits you just totally ruined their active tanking fits, while armor can still do both effectively (at the same time if they downgrade guns, without a fitting mod even!).


Nighthawk slot layout is still waiting for a fix...
Sleipnir only has 30cpu more than Vagabond with one more mid and one more hi to put a 50cpu ganglink in, how can you think it's fine??
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1531 - 2013-08-17 10:37:18 UTC
The astarte got bonus for falloff range btw so it has quite a good range in comparison to the abso.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1532 - 2013-08-17 12:52:04 UTC
Give the Abso 11 relative turrets like the astarte...
Capt Canada
Tactically Challenged
Tactical Supremacy
#1533 - 2013-08-17 13:07:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Capt Canada
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Update time!
We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.



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

    Quote:
    Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
    4% bonus to all Shield Resistances
    7.5%(+2.5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage
    Command Ships skill bonuses:
    7.5%(+2.5) 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)
    3% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links
    Fixed Bonus:
    Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
    Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
    Fittings: 900 PWG (+190), 550 CPU (-5)
    So I gather from the description, the nighthawk is to be used as a battlecruiser only not a command ship? Even once link fitting requirements are lowered (with all lv 5's) you need to drop 3 launchers to fit 3 links, 4 if you want to fit an MWD and give it a little survivability by putting a mediocre tank on it. Now if you don't care about DPS or HP they will work well but I thought the idea of the rebalancing ( for want of actually calling it what it is - a massive nerf, to an already below par T2 ship) was in line with the plan to remove off grid boosting. Unless of course there are plans to "rebalance" them again when off grid boosting is removed. If not, simply scrap warfare link bonuses for caldari and give the command ships a usable bonus instead.
    You want to make them usable - slot layout, 7h, 6m, 4 l and give back the bonus to rapid light missiles. It would still be a mediocre command ship but would at least be usable. ( I for 1 can't afford to fly 300+ mil throw away ships)

    NB; It might be a nice idea if you did some fitting tests before releasing these upcoming changes. The plan is to have command ships boosting ongrid in the future?? Try to make sure they are capable of dealing "some" DPS and have the ability to fit a tank relevant to the risk they will face being the primary target of every encounter. For large scale fleets this is probably not an issue but not everyone wants to fly in 2000 man fleets. Try balancing them to suit the average fleet of say + - 100, where the boosting ship is required to do more than just sit there getting reps to stay alive as long as possible..
    Mournful Conciousness
    Embers Children
    TOHA Conglomerate
    #1534 - 2013-08-17 13:33:57 UTC
    In a 100 man fleet, a 50% increase in your dps equates to an increase of (roughly) 0.5% of your fleet. That is an insignificant increase when compared to the increase in fleet effectiveness by fitting 1 more command module.

    That one module effectively gives every ship in the fleet an extra slot.

    This is the purpose of a command ship.

    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

    Smoking Blunts
    ZC Omega
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1535 - 2013-08-17 13:48:14 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.


    so you want the only command ship that can be used on grid and survive in big fleet fights to eventually be reduced to the point it cant be used on grid in big fleet fights?

    OMG when can i get a pic here

    Mournful Conciousness
    Embers Children
    TOHA Conglomerate
    #1536 - 2013-08-17 14:05:06 UTC
    Smoking Blunts wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.


    so you want the only command ship that can be used on grid and survive in big fleet fights to eventually be reduced to the point it cant be used on grid in big fleet fights?



    Lets resolve this argument one way or the other.

    Q1: What is the exact number of EHP a fleet command ship need to be able to survive while being given logi reps?
    Q2: Is it possible to fit the damnation with that much EHP?

    Let's have some justified numbers before we start complaining.



    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

    Capt Canada
    Tactically Challenged
    Tactical Supremacy
    #1537 - 2013-08-17 14:28:20 UTC
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    In a 100 man fleet, a 50% increase in your dps equates to an increase of (roughly) 0.5% of your fleet. That is an insignificant increase when compared to the increase in fleet effectiveness by fitting 1 more command module.

    That one module effectively gives every ship in the fleet an extra slot.

    This is the purpose of a command ship.

    Sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where is the 50% increase in DPS coming from?? If the current changes go through as proposed, the nighthawk will have the ability to fit 3 warfare links, 1 launcher and 5 small drones ( so effectively, no dps).

    What I would like to see is a command ship that doesn't need to sacrifice all its dps and or tanking ability to run links. I have pretty good boosting skills but rarely fly command ships as they are just not, and with the proposed changes will not be a practical ship to fly into combat. It is clear those who put these changes forward have never flown command ships (with links).

    NB; why have 7 highslots if you have to leave 3 of them empty?? Quite simply.. The nighthawk does not have enough PG to even be considered in the "fitting trade offs" category CCP is so fond of.
    I have no problem dropping "some" dps or tank to fit 3 links but to have drop next to all dps and have minimal tank?? Next time your out in your boosting tengu, warp it on grid and see how long it survives. There is a reason people boost offgrid, no right or wrong, the reason is - on grid boosting is committing suicide
    Mournful Conciousness
    Embers Children
    TOHA Conglomerate
    #1538 - 2013-08-17 14:44:58 UTC
    Capt Canada wrote:
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    In a 100 man fleet, a 50% increase in your dps equates to an increase of (roughly) 0.5% of your fleet. That is an insignificant increase when compared to the increase in fleet effectiveness by fitting 1 more command module.

    That one module effectively gives every ship in the fleet an extra slot.

    This is the purpose of a command ship.

    Sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where is the 50% increase in DPS coming from?? If the current changes go through as proposed, the nighthawk will have the ability to fit 3 warfare links, 1 launcher and 5 small drones ( so effectively, no dps).

    What I would like to see is a command ship that doesn't need to sacrifice all its dps and or tanking ability to run links. I have pretty good boosting skills but rarely fly command ships as they are just not, and with the proposed changes will not be a practical ship to fly into combat. It is clear those who put these changes forward have never flown command ships (with links).

    NB; why have 7 highslots if you have to leave 3 of them empty?? Quite simply.. The nighthawk does not have enough PG to even be considered in the "fitting trade offs" category CCP is so fond of.
    I have no problem dropping "some" dps or tank to fit 3 links but to have drop next to all dps and have minimal tank?? Next time your out in your boosting tengu, warp it on grid and see how long it survives. There is a reason people boost offgrid, no right or wrong, the reason is - on grid boosting is committing suicide


    The 50% was an example number to illustrate the point that dps is not the issue.

    Ability to survive, I agree with you, is.

    Are you saying there is no viable nighthawk fit in which it is possible to survive, given that you will have some form of logistics on grid with you?

    That seems unlikely, but I'll see if I can fit something up on sisi since I haven't tried it yet. What numbers do you need to regard it as survivable?

    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

    Capt Canada
    Tactically Challenged
    Tactical Supremacy
    #1539 - 2013-08-17 14:47:56 UTC
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    Smoking Blunts wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.


    so you want the only command ship that can be used on grid and survive in big fleet fights to eventually be reduced to the point it cant be used on grid in big fleet fights?



    Lets resolve this argument one way or the other.

    Q1: What is the exact number of EHP a fleet command ship need to be able to survive while being given logi reps?
    Q2: Is it possible to fit the damnation with that much EHP?

    Let's have some justified numbers before we start complaining.




    That depends on how big a fleet your in, how much logi you have compared to the incoming dps.. Won't matter how much logi you have if the command ship is primary vs a high alpha fleet. The idea should be to get all command ships usable, the current imbalance is too wide but rather than nerfing the damnation down, all command ships should receive a buff to make using them in a combat situation viable. Justifiable numbers would be nearly impossible unless you also have set fleet makeup and numbers.
    Capt Canada
    Tactically Challenged
    Tactical Supremacy
    #1540 - 2013-08-17 15:13:20 UTC
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    Capt Canada wrote:
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    In a 100 man fleet, a 50% increase in your dps equates to an increase of (roughly) 0.5% of your fleet. That is an insignificant increase when compared to the increase in fleet effectiveness by fitting 1 more command module.

    That one module effectively gives every ship in the fleet an extra slot.

    This is the purpose of a command ship.

    Sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where is the 50% increase in DPS coming from?? If the current changes go through as proposed, the nighthawk will have the ability to fit 3 warfare links, 1 launcher and 5 small drones ( so effectively, no dps).

    What I would like to see is a command ship that doesn't need to sacrifice all its dps and or tanking ability to run links. I have pretty good boosting skills but rarely fly command ships as they are just not, and with the proposed changes will not be a practical ship to fly into combat. It is clear those who put these changes forward have never flown command ships (with links).

    NB; why have 7 highslots if you have to leave 3 of them empty?? Quite simply.. The nighthawk does not have enough PG to even be considered in the "fitting trade offs" category CCP is so fond of.
    I have no problem dropping "some" dps or tank to fit 3 links but to have drop next to all dps and have minimal tank?? Next time your out in your boosting tengu, warp it on grid and see how long it survives. There is a reason people boost offgrid, no right or wrong, the reason is - on grid boosting is committing suicide


    The 50% was an example number to illustrate the point that dps is not the issue.

    Ability to survive, I agree with you, is.

    Are you saying there is no viable nighthawk fit in which it is possible to survive, given that you will have some form of logistics on grid with you?

    That seems unlikely, but I'll see if I can fit something up on sisi since I haven't tried it yet. What numbers do you need to regard it as survivable?
    It's not really about an exact number, it's more about fitting trade offs, base PG of 900 compared to the next lowest of 1100 (claymore). These 2 ships have basically the same fitting and role requirements. Claymore has all round better attributes, with good skills you can actually use all the highs (3 links 4 launchers) and have 6 usable mid slots and the option to use rig slots for something other than fitting mods. I'd like to have a caldari command ship I can use for something other than anoms. 5 lows is a waste, 7h 6 m 4 l