These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

What should CCP do about command ships vs T3? (spoiler alert: answer inside)

Author
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#1 - 2011-11-14 11:28:58 UTC
T3 are great. Love 'em. Like butter over warm bread.

But isn't the whole point that: they can be good at everything but not as good as the focused t2 version?

Should the t2 cmd ships be better than the t3 counterparts?
Lets take a vote:
(survey says: YYYYYNYYYYYYYYYYYNYYYY)


p.s.

Also,
whats up with not needing to be on grid to give bonuses? No brainer fix right there, if CCP knows anything they are looking at this already
Jenshae Chiroptera
#2 - 2011-11-14 11:50:27 UTC
Tier 1 or Tier 2 command ships?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Sakkar Arenith
Kenmei Corporation
#3 - 2011-11-14 12:03:40 UTC
I second the OP completely
Sakkar Arenith
Kenmei Corporation
#4 - 2011-11-14 12:05:41 UTC
Also, if you provide ganglink boni you should also be flagged for war targets, same as remote reppers
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#5 - 2011-11-14 13:32:06 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Tier 1 or Tier 2 command ships?


I was discussing tech 2 vs tech 3, however
if you feel there is room to discuss tiers by all means

Sakkar Arenith wrote:
Also, if you provide ganglink boni you should also be flagged for war targets, same as remote reppers


indeed
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-11-14 13:33:19 UTC
Sakkar Arenith wrote:
Also, if you provide ganglink boni you should also be flagged for war targets, same as remote reppers


GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Red Templar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2011-11-14 13:37:38 UTC
T3 are doing marginally better for thrice the price. And most t3 command fits i saw is crap for anything else than sitting on pos and giving bonuses. Their tank is so-so, and no dps whatsoever.

So i see no problem here.

[b]For Love. For Peace. For Honor.

For None of the Above.

For Pony![/b]

Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#8 - 2011-11-14 13:41:19 UTC
Red Templar wrote:
T3 are doing marginally better for thrice the price. And most t3 command fits i saw is crap for anything else than sitting on pos and giving bonuses. Their tank is so-so, and no dps whatsoever.

So i see no problem here.


Price doesn't enter into the discussion.

As far as sitting on POS, you only speak to my argument.

I thank god game balance doesn't hinge on what you do or don't see.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-11-14 13:54:07 UTC
gang boosting being only doable on grid would solve these problems.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Red Templar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2011-11-14 13:56:19 UTC
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
Red Templar wrote:
T3 are doing marginally better for thrice the price. And most t3 command fits i saw is crap for anything else than sitting on pos and giving bonuses. Their tank is so-so, and no dps whatsoever.

So i see no problem here.


Price doesn't enter into the discussion.

As far as sitting on POS, you only speak to my argument.

I thank god game balance doesn't hinge on what you do or don't see.

Price matters. Or otherwise you can say we should nerf titan bonuses as well, they are better than the ones command ships can give you.

And if you think t3 should do better things than their t2 counterparts, then you have to nerf entire t3 class concept.
They are better at pve, pvp and probably anything else you can think of. The disadvantage is that they cannot do those things all at once. And they cost a tonn, and you lose skillpoints when you lose a ship.

So my answer - CCP shouldnt do anything to either command ships, or t3. They are fine as they are.

You wanted opinions, you wanted vote, you got one.

[b]For Love. For Peace. For Honor.

For None of the Above.

For Pony![/b]

Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
#11 - 2011-11-14 14:09:44 UTC
IMO change boosting to be on grid only and you smooth out the differences automatically.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#12 - 2011-11-14 14:15:16 UTC
Sakkar Arenith wrote:
Also, if you provide ganglink boni you should also be flagged for war targets, same as remote reppers

This.
This is not as crazy as it sounds.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Lili Lu
#13 - 2011-11-14 14:51:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Derath Ellecon wrote:
IMO change boosting to be on grid only and you smooth out the differences automatically.


+1. If boosting was on-grid then we wouldn't get ridiculous T3 off gird fits with officer co-pros in lows and command processors in mids on T3s, or nullifier and eccm and/or cloaks meant to warp to a ss and boost while being nigh unscannable.

CCP really fuckedup the tech II utility for HACs, Recons, and Command ships. Commands the most because they flat out gave T3 a better boost percentage.

As to the fella who sees no problem because he pays half a billion or so for a T3 and command ships are roughly half that he's missing the real cost issue, which is a cost of sp. Also, he's missing the issue that this is a combat game. We really should not have a character and ship playing such an important part in a battle while sitting outside the arena and safe.

Now if CCP kept the bonus %s the same, but required on-grid to pass the buff, then T3s would have to tank their ships, and their tanks are adequate to do this while fitting one or maybe two better buffs, but not 3. That would preserve a job for command ships. It would also make fleet makeup, construction, and placement a true factor in a battle. T3s and commands could be shifted from fleet to wing to squad command positions to configure the best buffs for each class of ships in the fleet. These boosters would also be losable, and thus a big affect on the course of a battle. This would be a good thing for the game.

I would prefer a swapping of the T3 and command ship %s such that the command reattain their place as "command ships" and have the better buff to pass. Or that the buffs were equal.

I fly command ships. I want to be in the battle and at risk of losing my ship as well. I don't want to be a stupid ridiculously fit command processored wimp sitting at a pos or ss. Please CCP get rid of this crap situation you created.

edit- aside from pvp, this would also help partially fix another problem which is the isk faucet that is high sec incursions (and to a lesser extent level 4 missions). If a vanguard fleet of 10 ships wants command link buff(s) they would have to have that T3 or Command ship in the site with them. This arguably could reduce the dps of the incursion fleet, increase the completion time and thus reduce the isk per hour that CCP is presently handing out like candy on Halloween.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#14 - 2011-11-14 17:45:23 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Tier 1 or Tier 2 command ships?

There are no tiers with command ships....? You have the combat-oriented one, and the less powerful one with more links.

thhief ghabmoef

Katareena Starfire
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2011-11-14 18:37:04 UTC
This is a terrible idea because it breaks something in the game that is clearly needed and not combat oriented, mining gang bonuses. Mining is already a bad way of making ISK, and only becomes remotely good with Orca/Rorqual bonuses in a large fleet of Hulks. While some would risk the Orca, nobody is gonna put a Rorqual in a belt.

Kat
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#16 - 2011-11-14 18:39:44 UTC
I dont know where you got the idea that a t3 with 3 links, no tank and a half a percent better boost is "better" than a cs with a full rack of links and a massive tank but maybe you and I have a different definition of better. My vote is leave it as it is. Speaking of votes, you seem to have quite a few more "votes" than there are posts in this thread so I guess we count different too.

Limiting boosting to on grid only would make t3 boosting utterly useless. Why bring a more expensive/less tanky/less links ship on grid with the fight? Nobody would use a t3 when they could use a command ship and be able to keep the links on for more than a few seconda after the fight starts.


What happens when you have a fleet reffin' a pos and you wanna spread your light tackle out on the gates to catch incoming hostiles, are you gonna set up a squad and command ship for each gate or do you just leave your light tackle without bonuses? Thats just one example why a fleet might not all be on the same grid.

This thread smacks of crying about unprobable booster alts which arent unprobable anymore and are paper thin and extremely expensice, which are pretty decent limiting factors. If you like to fly command ships straight into the fray go ahead, but trying to change the game to fit your personal idea of how the game should work isnt in the interests of the game. Dont wanna fight a gang with a t3 booster? Change systems and make em move the booster or do without.

Ps. If you have to run a bunch of officer co-pros youre doing it wrong. My tengu booster can run all 3 seige links, cloak, probes, ship scanner and passive targeter and it doesnt have a single co-pro on it.

I used to have a clever sig but I lost it.

Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2011-11-14 19:06:06 UTC
I vote for Option C.
Warzon3
Perkone
Caldari State
#18 - 2011-11-14 19:11:53 UTC
Katareena Starfire wrote:
This is a terrible idea because it breaks something in the game that is clearly needed and not combat oriented, mining gang bonuses. Mining is already a bad way of making ISK, and only becomes remotely good with Orca/Rorqual bonuses in a large fleet of Hulks. While some would risk the Orca, nobody is gonna put a Rorqual in a belt.

Kat


This is a very valid point you make. Altough how hard can it be to make combat boosters only work on grid.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#19 - 2011-11-14 19:52:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
T3 are great. Love 'em. Like butter over warm bread.

But isn't the whole point that: they can be good at everything but not as good as the focused t2 version?

Should the t2 cmd ships be better than the t3 counterparts?
Lets take a vote:
(survey says: YYYYYNYYYYYYYYYYYNYYYY)


p.s.

Also,
whats up with not needing to be on grid to give bonuses? No brainer fix right there, if CCP knows anything they are looking at this already


Yes, but that's a terrible fix.

-Liang

Ed: My preferred fix would be swapping the boost percentages from fleet/T3s.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Kira Deschain
Arcane Odyssey
Electus Matari
#20 - 2011-11-14 19:55:18 UTC
Definitely agree that bonuses should only apply when the boosting ship is on-grid.
123Next pageLast page