These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Field command ships using Tier 2 BC Hulls, and Balancing the Astarte
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#1 - 2011-11-25 05:28:54 UTC
Command ships come in two varieties, Field and Fleet. Fleet ships are designed to be more utilitarian and tanky having the ability to run 3 warfare links at a time. The Field ships are meant to be more combat oriented.

Both are based on the Tier 1 battlecruiser hulls, and I feel this is a mistake.

As it is, the Tier 2 hulls make for better combat ships in 3/4 cases (Gallente being the odd kids out once again). So I'd suggest moving the Field command ships over to the Tier 2 hulls. The skills arrange around a 3 DPS/1 Tank schematic.

Thus you would have the list as such:

Quote:
Amarr:

Tier 1 BC: Prophecy - 10% reduction in Medium Energy Weapon capacitor use and 5% bonus to all armor resistances per level
Tier 2 BC: Harbinger - 10% reduction in laser capacitor need and 5% bonus to laser damage per level. [SIC]

Field Command Ship: Absolution -
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret capacitor use and 5% bonus to all armor resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage and 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire per level


Swapping the BC skills around to match the new hull you would have essentially the same ship with only minor changes. The Redundant medium turret damage skill can be replaced with the 5% bonus to armor resistances that the Prophecy gets to retain the 1 tanky skill. You end up with the same bonuses, but with the addition of a 7th turret and the better armor/shield that the Harbinger hull comes with over the Prophecy. The end result would look like this:

Quote:
Field Command Ship: Absolution - New
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% reduction in laser capacitor need and 5% bonus to laser damage per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to all armor resistances per level and 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire per level


The Caldari setup is pretty similar...

Quote:
Caldari:

Tier 1 BC: Ferox - 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level
Tier 2 BC: Drake - 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles per level

Field Command Ship: NightHawk -
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to assault missile, heavy assault missile and heavy missile launcher rate of fire and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to heavy missile Kinetic damage and 5% bonus to heavy missile explosion velocity per level


The Nighthawk would see similar simple changes. It already uses the Drake's bonuses, and could be swapped around to get a more consistent bonus. This change would see the rate of fire increase moved to the command ship skill, and the bonus to kinetic damage placed in the BC spot. It would get an additional bay slot moving to the Drake hull, as well as getting the better tank numbers.

Quote:

Field Command Ship: NightHawk - New
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to assault missile, heavy assault missile and heavy missile launcher rate of fire and 5% bonus to heavy missile explosion velocity per level


Minmatar and Gallente below
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#2 - 2011-11-25 05:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkKnife
Minmatar are also very similar to the setup of the Amarr ships.

Quote:

Minmatar:

Tier 1 BC: Cyclone - 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 7.5% bonus to shield boosting per level
Tier 2 BC: Hurricane - 5% increase in projectile weapons damage and Rate of Fire per level [SIC]

Field Command Ship: Sleipnir -
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster effectiveness per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage and 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff per level


The Sleipnir would need to see a few swaps as well, to match the Hurricane, the increases in strait damage and rate of fire would be moved to the BC skill, and the tank/falloff bonus would be moved to the command ship. skill.

Quote:

Field Command Ship: Sleipnir - New
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% increase in projectile weapons damage and Rate of Fire per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster effectiveness per level and 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff per level



Now onto my beloved Gallente, those odd kids have things sort of right, but mostly...not.
Quote:
Gallente:

Tier 1 BC: Brutix - 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness per level
Tier 2 BC: Myrmidon - 10% increase to drone hitpoints and damage dealt by drones, and 7.5% increase to armor repair amount per level

Field Command Ship: Astarte
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid turret falloff per level

Fleet Command Ship: Eos
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: +15 m3 extra Drone Bay space and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Information Warfare Links per level.


As we see from the current setup, the Brutix is the more combat oriented getting a bonus to hybrid dps over drone HP/Dps. The Astarte gets a redundant second 5% bonus to hybrid damage, while the Eos gets a mixed bonus to hybrid bonus and drone bay space...on a Brutix hull? Additionally, the Astarte already has 7 turrets, meaning it has to forgo one turret to fit a warfare link if it so chooses.

So, swapping these two around we can some much more fun ships:
Quote:

Field Command Ship: Astarte
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Tracking and 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid turret falloff per level


Fleet Command Ship: Eos
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% increase to drone hitpoints and damage dealt by drones, and 7.5% increase to armor repair amount per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: +15 m3 extra Drone Bay space and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Information Warfare Links per level


The Eos now would get an additional 15m3 of drone bay space per level, making it much more synergistic with the BC skill bonuses that the Myrmidon gets. The Astarte can get any real non straight dps skill in lieu of the redundant hybrid damage bonus, such as Tracking, Rate of Fire, or Optimal Range.

So as we can see that the ships get much more interesting. Across the board the field ships get a bit more tanky, and with the addition of that 7th turret slot the Sleipnir/Absolution start to do some nice DPS (as they should for 200m hull ships), and the Eos becomes relevant again as a damn nice drone boat.

There are some other changes that would be needed as well, the Astarte would need an 8th utility slot high to match the new Absolution/Nighthawk, and the Sleipnir might need a 7th turret slot as it gets no bonuses to missiles and thus no one would ever fit a missile slot in the 7th high.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#3 - 2011-11-25 09:37:34 UTC
Such an ability to topsy-turn everything (as it is usually shown at these moronic threads) will never cease to amaze me.

PinkKnife wrote:


Both are based on the Tier 1 battlecruiser hulls, and I feel this is a mistake.

You can feel whatever you want, but command ships using tier 1 battlecruiser hulls is just the way it is and it couldn't have been otherwise. As simple as that.

PinkKnife wrote:

The Nighthawk would see similar simple changes. It already uses the Drake's bonuses


0/10

It's Drake which uses NH's bonuses. Again, it's pretty evident.

Unless, of course, you're a total n00b with limited game experience and unlimited unwillingness to learn the history of EVE (that is - how and when ships were introduced) or a pesky troll.

Btw, why isn't this crap listed among commonly proposed 'ideas'? Could save us a lot of forum space.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#4 - 2011-11-25 10:05:01 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkKnife
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Such an ability to topsy-turn everything (as it is usually shown at these moronic threads) will never cease to amaze me.



Both are based on the Tier 1 battlecruiser hulls, and I feel this is a mistake.
You can feel whatever you want, but command ships using tier 1 battlecruiser hulls is just the way it is and it couldn't have been otherwise. As simple as that.


Hybrids have always sucked, so that means we should never try to change anything. *rolleyes* It's a wonder anything ever gets changed in eve with all the nay sayers and poo-pooers that don't like anything just because its different.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#5 - 2011-11-25 10:42:22 UTC
Hybrids have nothing to do with this crap. Making changes for the sake of changes has never been a good way of applying one's efforts.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#6 - 2011-11-25 10:53:29 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Hybrids have nothing to do with this crap. Making changes for the sake of changes has never been a good way of applying one's efforts.


It is an example of something that was broken, and got something done about it. People say the field ships are broken/useless, so we should change them.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#7 - 2011-11-25 11:09:31 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Hybrids have nothing to do with this crap. Making changes for the sake of changes has never been a good way of applying one's efforts.


It is an example of something that was broken, and got something done about it. People say the field ships are broken/useless, so we should change them.

Enough of that burred demagogy. Command ship problems have nothing to do with one's stupud idea to make them look liky fugly drakes etc.

And as I said, this has already been proposed 1000 times.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#8 - 2011-11-25 11:11:41 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Hybrids have nothing to do with this crap. Making changes for the sake of changes has never been a good way of applying one's efforts.


It is an example of something that was broken, and got something done about it. People say the field ships are broken/useless, so we should change them.

Enough of that burred demagogy. Command ship problems have nothing to do with one's stupud idea to make them look liky fugly drakes etc.

And as I said, this has already been proposed 1000 times.


Yep, this is the best feedback thread. No wonder it took 2 years to get anything out of CCP, their own Features/ideas discussion section is ridiled with "veterans" screaming about how X won't work has been discussed before, yet bringing absolutely no ideas or discussions to the table aside from that they think the drake is ugly (Ps. compared to the ferox? Neither one of those wins a beauty contest).
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#9 - 2011-11-25 11:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
LOL what? That's you who has to elaborate your desire to change something. And as far as this thread goes your arguments just suck and reveal someone with limited game experience and unlimited unwillingness to learn the history of EVE (that is - how and when ships were introduced).

Command ships are fine hull-wise until proven otherwise. No proof has ever been shown - and I've seen a crapload of such threads.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#10 - 2011-11-25 12:35:43 UTC
T2 Tier 2 BC you say?
Well, I'd me remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to post this. P
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#11 - 2011-11-25 21:00:57 UTC
Lol You would need to reskin most of the t2 BCs, but that shouldn't be too much trouble for most of them with the new shaders that they are bringing out.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#12 - 2011-12-02 03:36:28 UTC
Discussions other than Fon's hating on all things new?
Autonomous Monster
Paradox Interstellar
#13 - 2011-12-02 12:27:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
T2 Tier 2 BC you say?
Well, I'd me remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to post this. P

A Roden Myrm? Why would you do that? Sad
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#14 - 2011-12-02 12:50:56 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Such an ability to topsy-turn everything (as it is usually shown at these moronic threads) will never cease to amaze me.

You can feel whatever you want, but command ships using tier 1 battlecruiser hulls is just the way it is and it couldn't have been otherwise. As simple as that.

PinkKnife wrote:

The Nighthawk would see similar simple changes. It already uses the Drake's bonuses


0/10

It's Drake which uses NH's bonuses. Again, it's pretty evident.

Unless, of course, you're a total n00b with limited game experience and unlimited unwillingness to learn the history of EVE (that is - how and when ships were introduced) or a pesky troll.

Btw, why isn't this crap listed among commonly proposed 'ideas'? Could save us a lot of forum space.


The fail is strong with this one. Some players arent as old and are not going to go and research expansion history to find out lets see... what is the drake release date....

In terms of skill training, you will have the drake before the nighthawk. The Nighthawk and drake share the same bonuses, so it only seems logical that in the magical fictional universe of eve, that the T2 missile field command bc should be based off the missile bonused T1 bc. Things change, how things look change, do you want the old scorpion back because that is the way it is? How about moldy potatos for asteroid? Fuzzy peaches for planets back?

I think it would be an excellent visual change, for the first little bit some regular field command ship and eos pilots (do they exist?) will be ponderous as their ship magically changes hull. In a week, nobody would remember that the absolution was a prophecy hull because the absolution with the harbinger hull is just something I would love.

This is an honest to good suggestion visually. There is limited ideas and roles for T2 battlecruisers outside of the existing command ships, at least that I have seen. Updating the different command ship models to reflect the T1 matching counterpart is an excellent idea provided it does not come at the cost of much more needed art department projects.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#15 - 2011-12-07 20:36:19 UTC
Glad to see some support for the idea.
codenemisis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2011-12-07 20:42:49 UTC
So long as I may keep my blue and white Claymore I am content. Otherwise, absolutely yes. Command ships could use a nice little graphic overhaul and some balancing as well.
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#17 - 2011-12-07 23:14:22 UTC  |  Edited by: CobaltSixty
The main problem with this is that unfortunately, the Gallente lineup breaks the logic. Allow me to illustrate.


  • Absolution based off a Harbinger? You bet, I'm sure many an Amarr pilot would love to see red plating on their Harby.
  • Nighthawk based of a Drake? Great idea, I always thought the Drake in black/red would be sweet and appropriate.
  • Sleipnir based off a Hurricane? Batting a thousand so far, tiger striped 'canes, here we come.
  • Astarte based off a Myrmidon? What? No. The Eos is the CreoDron ship and more drone-inclined.

The motivation behind this thread is clearly more about the visual inconsistencies than the ship design beneath the skin. It's pointless to try and combine the issues. Can we make the Eos based off the Myrmidon and leave the Astarte as is as you suggest? Well no, the Eos is the Fleet Command, all the others are Fields. In changing the ships as you suggest, the Astarte should be the weakest Field Command as it's the only one based off a tier-1 and the Eos the strongest Fleet Command because it's the only one based off a tier-2.

The only way to rectify this without fixing broken logic with new broken logic is for CCP to decide that it would not be detrimental for the different races to draw on different tiers to make equivalent classes of vessels. Frankly, I don't see a problem with this and it's another good reason to remove tiers from how the ships are designed but, until that call is made, this proposal exceeds the game design limits present at EVERY other level.
Misanthra
Alternative Enterprises
#18 - 2011-12-07 23:54:37 UTC
main problem is you aren't getting a model change. t2 CS indy has been up and running based on the t1 bpo's used now for years. This would be big ole monkey wrench in the works.

Indies aren't charities....make pita changes to their stuff, they dont eat the cost. they pass the savings down to you, the customer. Post dominion t2 moon goo shift a good example for this. Lots of ships marked up till the markets settled. Hell lots of ships were ass gapings since in apoc they were much cheaper to make. Moon goo shift for example raised hulk costs. Smart indies made these in bulk before the patch. 80-90 mil before patch.....after dominion they sold for 300 mil. too lazy to make em, some just speculated.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#19 - 2011-12-08 00:03:05 UTC
If CCP makes my Nighthawk look like a drake, I will personally see to it that you are disemboweled.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#20 - 2011-12-08 00:54:10 UTC
If CCP makes the Nighthawk look like a drake...


Honestly Drake might look neat with those chevrons. I wouldn't be against it.
123Next page