These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1681 - 2013-08-20 16:23:48 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.

Nice.

Out of curiosity have you contemplated the idea of introducing cruiser and frigate versions of the TSB? The module is still young so to speak and needs a tad bit more tweaking (lower CPU and capacitor usage), but I do like the idea of a module acts as a counter to the standard alpha and brick tank we see in almost every form of fleet fighting.
Vorgx
Game.Theory
GameTheory
#1682 - 2013-08-20 16:28:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Vorgx
I have to say that i was excited when i heard about the CS changes, now that i read the changes i understand that i will not use them anymore, they are pretty mediocre ships that not worth the isk.

sadface for this totally fail changes
mine mi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1683 - 2013-08-20 16:30:51 UTC
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.
Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1684 - 2013-08-20 16:51:04 UTC
WTB Marauder CS ^_^
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#1685 - 2013-08-20 17:15:38 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Capt Canada wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU

Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.


It ain't gonna happen. The design team have the caldari ships pegged as fleet boosters, not active tankers.

The nighthawk is no longer a superdrake. For that, look no further than the Claymore.

Except that 6/4 is better for fleet boosting since you can fit a stronger buffer, while 5/5 is fine for active since you need a coproc for the XLASB anyway. Drake is 6/4, Cyclone is 5/5. The Nighthawk and Claymore are backwards.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1686 - 2013-08-20 17:23:41 UTC
mine mi wrote:
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.


can't you put links in carriers and supercaps?

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".
mine mi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1687 - 2013-08-20 17:47:11 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
mine mi wrote:
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.


can't you put links in carriers and supercaps?

supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this.
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1688 - 2013-08-20 17:56:34 UTC
The eos is just in a sad spot ATM
250 dronebay is too small, (adding 200 is a little too much)
And it still is just lacking when it comes to being compared to other commandships especially the Astarte
Even when I mwd around in an eos the ogres can't keep up with me...
And this whole hacs have more regen than commandships is just weird and wrong
As somebody pointed out the abso should have highest cap regen etc etc
It's like ccp is just too timid with these ships....
And btw these ships are meant to be combat ships if you choose them to be
Not strictly links
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1689 - 2013-08-20 18:07:55 UTC
mine mi wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
mine mi wrote:
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.


can't you put links in carriers and supercaps?

supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this.


from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no?

sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.

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".
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1690 - 2013-08-20 18:35:27 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
mine mi wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
mine mi wrote:
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.


can't you put links in carriers and supercaps?

supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this.


from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no?

sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.



You are just cripling more and more possibilites throught your "Warfare Links for Fleets belongs to Caps only" opinion.

I dont get it why your view is so capital centered...

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1691 - 2013-08-20 18:38:49 UTC
because if you want your link booster to absorb the alpha of a 2000 man fleet (which seems to be some people's concern), you really have little choice...

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".
Captain Organs
Veldspar Industries
#1692 - 2013-08-20 19:35:54 UTC
Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:

PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken
Doed
Tyrfing Industries
#1693 - 2013-08-20 20:36:04 UTC
Captain Organs wrote:
Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:

PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken

Current NH Sleip and Abso look much better now than they would if hulls get changed, I seriously hope they dont change the models

And id be happy to get a reply from DEVS why the capless and caphungry CS have the same cap/sec.
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1694 - 2013-08-20 21:16:32 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
because if you want your link booster to absorb the alpha of a 2000 man fleet (which seems to be some people's concern), you really have little choice...


I think the concern atm is that it can't absorb the alpha of 16 dudes.... so even in a 250 man max fleet fight.... it dies way to easily.

General rule of thumb is that if you can't take about 50 ships worth of alpha.... you remove any skill for a max fleet to alpha through you and let just about anyone do it.

The issue with tank comes back to the stupid nature of Logistics ships. ALL SHIPS deserve more hp and local tank and logistics really need a considerable nerf. EVE needs to implement a degrading HP system into combat where logistics cannot repair a ship to 100% health.

I would say that shields and armor need to have a base recharge cap amount that affects where their max hp can return to. This would help a ship survive with logistics, but degrade over time when receiving constant DPS. It keeps value with logistics, but removes this unbreakable bullshit in fleet fights.

Recharges could be something like 2 minutes with similar peaks and valleys as the normal shield and capacitor recharge rates now.... only these would affect max cap and not current cap.
Webzy Phoenix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1695 - 2013-08-20 21:37:52 UTC
Doed wrote:
Captain Organs wrote:
Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:

PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken

Current NH Sleip and Abso look much better now than they would if hulls get changed, I seriously hope they dont change the models

And id be happy to get a reply from DEVS why the capless and caphungry CS have the same cap/sec.

Plan is to change Nighthawk model to that of a black Drake... Evil

Apparently because we don't have enough Drake models in the game already and the perfect look of the current Nighthawk is problematic in some way. Roll
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1696 - 2013-08-20 22:12:30 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
mine mi wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
mine mi wrote:
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.


can't you put links in carriers and supercaps?

supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this.


from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no?

sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.



So you're proposing to have subcap fleet booster be ships that can't move with the rest of the fleet?

That's some weapons grade stupid.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1697 - 2013-08-20 22:47:19 UTC
I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.

Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.

If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!

Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?

On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.

Adapt and survive...

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".
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#1698 - 2013-08-20 23:05:35 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.

Adapt and survive...



Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1699 - 2013-08-20 23:10:31 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.

Adapt and survive...



Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now.


Ain't that the truth...

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".
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
#1700 - 2013-08-20 23:27:29 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.

Adapt and survive...



Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now.


Ain't that the truth...

except....that eos's got a heavy drone bonus that's starring at SOME PEOPLE in the eye up close.

I mean, REALLY CLOSE.

did I mention close????