These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kevin Emoto
No Code of Conduct
Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
#1861 - 2013-08-27 20:07:56 UTC
Another great Minmatar is Fozzied to disuse...


Apparently you didn't learn from the cyclone...haven't seen one of those on the battlefield in months.


Minmatar are projectiles.... Caldari are missiles.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1862 - 2013-08-27 21:07:24 UTC
Kevin Emoto wrote:
Another great Minmatar is Fozzied to disuse...


Apparently you didn't learn from the cyclone...haven't seen one of those on the battlefield in months.


Minmatar are projectiles.... Caldari are missiles.

Translation:
I have no idea whats going on, but I'm very upset about it.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
FleetAdmiralHarper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1863 - 2013-08-27 21:58:47 UTC  |  Edited by: FleetAdmiralHarper
now that fozzie has fixed the power grid issue on the nighthawk. it no longer needs that 5th low slot..
so even i would be ok with it going to medium.

then maybe i could fit some tackle or a prop mod on my NH instead of nothing but tank....

as for drake hull on the nighthawk... NO, missile ferox is SEXY! best ship in the game (visiually) imo.
though they also need a missile rokh =P
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#1864 - 2013-08-27 22:18:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
IWhen we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home.


Is this something that the CCP crew have trouble with due to a coding mess or something we can expect in the near future (tm)? Because I think we both agree that this is the definite solution to most of the CS problems.

No sig.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#1865 - 2013-08-27 22:49:53 UTC
Kevin Emoto wrote:
Another great Minmatar is Fozzied to disuse...


Apparently you didn't learn from the cyclone...haven't seen one of those on the battlefield in months.


Minmatar are projectiles.... Caldari are missiles.


It's funny because the Minmatar missile ships are consistently better than the Caldari ones as of late, with exception of the Caracal.
MJ Incognito
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1866 - 2013-08-27 23:28:12 UTC
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
IWhen we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home.


Is this something that the CCP crew have trouble with due to a coding mess or something we can expect in the near future (tm)? Because I think we both agree that this is the definite solution to most of the CS problems.


The old gang link system was exactly this... but they ditched it because it was a massive drain on resources. The only way they can fix it is if they assign gang boosters.... which totally defeats the purpose of what they are arguing for. Don't get your hopes up.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1867 - 2013-08-27 23:30:18 UTC
MJ Incognito wrote:
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
IWhen we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home.


Is this something that the CCP crew have trouble with due to a coding mess or something we can expect in the near future (tm)? Because I think we both agree that this is the definite solution to most of the CS problems.


The old gang link system was exactly this... but they ditched it because it was a massive drain on resources. The only way they can fix it is if they assign gang boosters.... which totally defeats the purpose of what they are arguing for. Don't get your hopes up.


You'd be amazed what a little refactoring and the additional of parallel computing can do. Stay hopeful! :-)

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".
Cade Windstalker
#1868 - 2013-08-27 23:31:59 UTC
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:
It would be so much easier if they just put the NH in a trash can and started over:
- Use Drake as a template
- Add T2 resistances
- Remove some launchers and the corresponding CPU/PG, give some bonus to the remaining ones
- Add cap/CPU/PG worth 3 active links
- Add ability to run 3 links with some bonuses
- Hit save button. End result: T2 command ship version of a Drake.

And I guess the same should be done for most command ships, its just that the NH is in most desperate need.

There are plenty of issues with tiericide and T2 ships that's either been left behind or left too powerful. Easiest way to fix it is to start from scratch.

Edit: Assume the Drake is fitted with 6 launchers + 1 link. Switch 2 launchers to 2 links, adjust CPU/PG/cap accordingly.


I am so very very glad you are not in charge of balance decisions at CCP. Doing this would produce the most over powered hull in the game.

Vulfen wrote:
El Geo wrote:
I still can not understand the mentality of totally removing off grid boosts, unless you have some sort of convoluted plan which enables gangs of 2 or 3 players to provide assistance while taking on gangs of 10+ because at the moment its difficult enough trying to pull and separate players off their bigger gangs, let alone when they have gang links and you don't, which is exactly what slaying off grid boosts will do.

NB Yes, I occasionally use an off grid booster, sometimes I am that booster for a friend, more often than not I do not use them as they can be a pain in the ass to look after and get into position if dual boxing, if I have to bring them on grid its likely I will never use them at all UNLESS IN A LARGE GANG.


They are not removing Off grid boosting, just nerfing it compared to on grid boosting. its the simple thing of risk = reward. its still viable to run some Off grid boosting and infact some will benfit from the t3 changes, for example if your currently running a Shield BC solo and have your links setup, currently you can fit a tengu with 5 links but 2 are unbonused, but now those 2 links will also be bonused, meaning you can set up a tengu to be hard to scan cloaky with boosts to Sheild boosting amount shield resists, web+point range bonus, speed bonus, and sig radius reduction.

off grid boosting is very important, and while mining ships have gang links aswell, they will not remove it otherwise Rouqal wrecks will stain the skies of new eden.


No, their long-term plan is to flat remove off-grid boosting but allow you to have multiple redundant links without juggling around the command chain to bring them into play. Per CCP Fozzie earlier in this thread.
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1869 - 2013-08-28 00:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Capt Canada
Cade Windstalker wrote:


For a start you're wrong about the DPS, at least at the high end of the skill curve. With all 5s, Neutron 2s, and Antimatter (no other fittings or drones) the Ferox gets 310 and the Vulture gets 331. Not a huge DPS change but the Vulture is also picking up an extra 50% range (~14km vs 9.4km at all 5s) and T2 resist bonuses which shouldn't be under estimated. It also has better capacitor, betting fittings, needs fewer guns, and has more base shield HP.

I've never claimed it was a particularly fantastic solo boat compared to the other command ships and you'd probably need to be a very skilled PvPer to make use of it that way effectively, but in a small gang with Logi it can tank and project DPS far better than the Ferox and either boost the fleet with links or fit utility highs.
I agree, the max skill pilot is going to have much better gains from not only this but all CS changes. But with, say average skills of, CS 4, Blaster spec 4 and everything else 5 (my skills). Comparing the cost of the Vulture and the Ferox to the small difference in specs?
Using T2 neutrons, standard antimatter, with no other damage mods fitted.
Vulture 300mil, 208dps @ 10.3k, 5300 base shield, thermal 80, kinetic 70
Ferox 100mil, 249dps @ 9.5k, 5000 base shield, thermal 20, kinetic 40

I will be concentrating on all 5's for the CS. Without a remap I have 207 days to get all leadership and CS related skills to 5. Not long really in the scheme of things.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I think the first thing I'm going to do with it on TQ is run around with Blasters fitted enjoying my ability to project absurd DPS to 14+km with Null.
I was a little off the mark. My response was in relation to this comment and I, it seems incorrectly thought you were referring to solo pvp.
Cade Windstalker
#1870 - 2013-08-28 01:38:38 UTC
Capt Canada wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


For a start you're wrong about the DPS, at least at the high end of the skill curve. With all 5s, Neutron 2s, and Antimatter (no other fittings or drones) the Ferox gets 310 and the Vulture gets 331. Not a huge DPS change but the Vulture is also picking up an extra 50% range (~14km vs 9.4km at all 5s) and T2 resist bonuses which shouldn't be under estimated. It also has better capacitor, betting fittings, needs fewer guns, and has more base shield HP.

I've never claimed it was a particularly fantastic solo boat compared to the other command ships and you'd probably need to be a very skilled PvPer to make use of it that way effectively, but in a small gang with Logi it can tank and project DPS far better than the Ferox and either boost the fleet with links or fit utility highs.
I agree, the max skill pilot is going to have much better gains from not only this but all CS changes. But with, say average skills of, CS 4, Blaster spec 4 and everything else 5 (my skills). Comparing the cost of the Vulture and the Ferox to the small difference in specs?
Using T2 neutrons, standard antimatter, with no other damage mods fitted.
Vulture 300mil, 208dps @ 10.3k, 5300 base shield, thermal 80, kinetic 70
Ferox 100mil, 249dps @ 9.5k, 5000 base shield, thermal 20, kinetic 40

I will be concentrating on all 5's for the CS. Without a remap I have 207 days to get all leadership and CS related skills to 5. Not long really in the scheme of things.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

I think the first thing I'm going to do with it on TQ is run around with Blasters fitted enjoying my ability to project absurd DPS to 14+km with Null.
I was a little off the mark. My response was in relation to this comment and I, it seems incorrectly thought you were referring to solo pvp.


Honestly if I'm going to go joy-riding in a Command Ship it's probably going to be in Incursions, though solo-PvP was a fair guess. I'm not quite rich enough to just toss about half a billion ISK down the tubes Blink

Your damage numbers are a bit off though. I'm showing:


  • Ferox: 310DPS with stock Antimatter and Neutron 2s at 3.4+6.3km (All 5s profile)
  • Vulture 309 DPS with sotck Antimatter and Neutron 2s at 4.7+6.3km (All 5s but with Command Ships at 4 and the 40% damage bonus taken into account)


Note, damage is at optimal, Optimal+Falloff listed for range comparison.

Is this a huge boost in damage? No, but it's at least even with the Ferox and you get some decent bonuses out of the hull as well. I'm not sure if it's worth 3 Battlecruisers as a solo ship but it's probably worth it if you've got a limited number of pilots with the skills to fit and fly the thing effectively, at least as much as any Navy, Faction, or T2 ship is worth the massive price increase.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1871 - 2013-08-28 01:52:42 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I'm not sure if it's worth 3 Battlecruisers as a solo ship but it's probably worth it if you've got a limited number of pilots with the skills to fit and fly the thing effectively, at least as much as any Navy, Faction, or T2 ship is worth the massive price increase.


A caldari command ship with 3 shield links increases shield resistance by ~25% and repair rate by ~25%. Taking the two together gives about a 60% increase (ignoring stacking penalties for a moment) in the performance of any logistics ships or local shield tanks.

So if your fleet has 3 or more people in it, I'd say it is probably worth the expense. After all, in pvp money is rarely a problem - lack of pilots is, so it's sensible to maximise each pilot's effectiveness.

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".
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#1872 - 2013-08-28 02:37:27 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Wow, theyre really going live with the nighthawk having 5 lows and 5 mids... sheesh

The loss of that one low amounts to the loss of 40 dps, or about 12-13%, but the gain in mid would account for on the order of 20% or so ehp, which is the primarily what CSs need. In the case of the NH, its the difference not being sure weather or not you want to use a drake, or actually spending the isk and taking the NH out for a spin.


This. Many times, this.

Fozzie, would you be able to provide us some insight as to the reason(s) behind this design decision? It would be very much appreciated.
Cade Windstalker
#1873 - 2013-08-28 03:22:07 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
I'm not sure if it's worth 3 Battlecruisers as a solo ship but it's probably worth it if you've got a limited number of pilots with the skills to fit and fly the thing effectively, at least as much as any Navy, Faction, or T2 ship is worth the massive price increase.


A caldari command ship with 3 shield links increases shield resistance by ~25% and repair rate by ~25%. Taking the two together gives about a 60% increase (ignoring stacking penalties for a moment) in the performance of any logistics ships or local shield tanks.

So if your fleet has 3 or more people in it, I'd say it is probably worth the expense. After all, in pvp money is rarely a problem - lack of pilots is, so it's sensible to maximise each pilot's effectiveness.


Ah, sorry, I meant it "worth three drakes" as in how much fun and how many kills you can potentially get out of those three solo Ferox hulls vs that 1 solo Vulture. In terms of pilots it's definitely better to have people in the best ships possible for a fleet :)
Huttan Funaila
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1874 - 2013-08-28 04:11:51 UTC
Are the model changes going in with 1.1 or are they being delayed? I'm not going to have cruiser construction 5 completed before the patch.
Caroll Otsolen
Doomheim
#1875 - 2013-08-28 05:03:15 UTC
I came back after 5 years and it is really sad to see that CCP the game start to be going to the sh1t hole. The complete game mechanic had been changed. Plus now also the ships that were still nice to play with get nerved. EVE-online is a nice game. Only that I that I feel sorry for is that CCP is the maker.
Cade Windstalker
#1876 - 2013-08-28 05:09:02 UTC
Caroll Otsolen wrote:
I came back after 5 years and it is really sad to see that CCP the game start to be going to the **** hole. The complete game mechanic had been changed. Plus now also the ships that were still nice to play with get nerved. EVE-online is a nice game. Only that I that I feel sorry for is that CCP is the maker.


With all due respect, Eve is a FAR better game than it was 5 years ago and Command Ships were in a much worse place relative to other ships in the game than they are going to be after this patch.

If you want to go into more specific complaints there's probably an explanation or a refutation of most of them. This thread isn't the place for it though and your post would likely be removed. Post in a more appropriate place and link me Lol

Also, Eve Online is CCP's game. It's oxymoronic to say that you somehow hate the devs but love the game that they made.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1877 - 2013-08-28 06:17:24 UTC
MJ Incognito wrote:
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
IWhen we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home.


Is this something that the CCP crew have trouble with due to a coding mess or something we can expect in the near future (tm)? Because I think we both agree that this is the definite solution to most of the CS problems.


The old gang link system was exactly this... but they ditched it because it was a massive drain on resources. The only way they can fix it is if they assign gang boosters.... which totally defeats the purpose of what they are arguing for. Don't get your hopes up.


Can someone explain me the Old System please?

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Cade Windstalker
#1878 - 2013-08-28 07:01:14 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Can someone explain me the Old System please?


Preferably with sources since there's nothing in the Wiki history to suggest that fleets were introduced as anything other than the current system.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1879 - 2013-08-28 10:54:57 UTC  |  Edited by: raawe
So let's discuss new command ship bonuses and their cap. It's widely known that most of the time pvp fits on them will be actively tanked and with 4.5 cap per second they will be extremely vulnerable to neuting. Considering the price and training time you need to fly one that should be buffed by some amount to at least new HAC values. Now, considering ship bonuses:

Absolution: 1 tank bonus, 1 laser cap bonus (fitting?), 2 laser dps bonuses
Nighthawk: 1 tank bonus, 1 missile explosion bonus, 2 missile dps bonuses
Astarte: 1 tank bonus, 1 hybrid fallof bonus, 2 hybrid dps bonuses
Sleipnir: 1 tank bonus, 1 projectile fallof bonus, 2 projectile dps bonuses


So, as you can see every dps oriented command ship got 1 tank bonus, 2 dps bonuses and 1 bonus related to main weapon that will either increase damage projection (Astarte & Sleipnir) or increase dps vs smaller/faster targets (Nighthawk) except Absolution that needs to have laser capacitor reduction just to be able to fire them. Now if lasers would have superior damage or tracking i would understand cap bonus on Absolution but like this, already worst turrets will be even worse, and they still use more cap bonused then hybrids. I would suggest to roll cap bonus into special bonus and to add one more dps oriented bonus like tracking (or anything else devs see fit).I personally wouldn't do anything to laser optimal and fallof because scorch. Lasers are so broken atm that even another dps bonus will not make them good and OP but it will be something until devs fix them.

So proposed change:

Absolution
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
4% bonus to all Armor Resistances
1-10% bonus to Medium Energy turret something
Command Ships skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
10%(+5) bonus Medium Energy Turret damage
3% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use per level

Any thoughts?
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#1880 - 2013-08-28 11:07:11 UTC
raawe wrote:

Any thoughts?


You forgot a fourth med slot and a hello kitty skin.