These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

What's with the little to no changes to Command Ships

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#41 - 2014-11-20 14:13:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And yet NO one ever uses CS for links , people use T3 because they can keep up with fleet and fit more easily. So no.. CS are COMBAT ships.. and almsot every single one used is used because of TANK and dps.


people use T3 because its safer to park a very hard probeable T3 on safespot and watch close range for probes, instead of keeping CS alive on field. I guess this will change once CCP fixes (read:removes) this whole offgrid link bs.
Nonetheless, command ships arent primarily for combat but for command links as their name suggests, otherwise we wouldnt have this whole class anyways, right?

Yes, some people mount guns on them and utilize them for combat, which doesnt change their primary designed purpose though - some people used to battle in rorquals or scimitars. So what? Even if some of them are strong in combat role, its not their primary role, so they shouldnt excel in it so stop requesting that.
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union
Hatakani Trade Winds Combine
#42 - 2014-11-20 14:42:03 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
In 2012 there was no ship that could outbrawl a sleipnir. The sleipnir literally ate any all cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships along with their tech 2 and faction counterparts (yes marauders included) for breakfast lunch and dinner all day long 7 days a week.


...and you don't understand how wrong this is? This is the exact reason why they needed some re-balancing.

This game isn't about "i have the uber-armor/sword/whatever and you can't touch me anymore". It's about knowing your strengths and weaknesses and also the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy... and acting accordingly. A ship without weaknesses or with too many strengths throws everything out of whack. Hence the term "(re-)balancing".
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#43 - 2014-11-20 15:58:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaerakh
Mornak wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
In 2012 there was no ship that could outbrawl a sleipnir. The sleipnir literally ate any all cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships along with their tech 2 and faction counterparts (yes marauders included) for breakfast lunch and dinner all day long 7 days a week.


...and you don't understand how wrong this is? This is the exact reason why they needed some re-balancing.

This game isn't about "i have the uber-armor/sword/whatever and you can't touch me anymore". It's about knowing your strengths and weaknesses and also the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy... and acting accordingly. A ship without weaknesses or with too many strengths throws everything out of whack. Hence the term "(re-)balancing".


Completely agree, but the whole notion that cost isn't a balancing factor is completely absurd. If I'm going to pay 300 million isk for a ship, then I want 300 million isk worth of ship. If I don't get that I'll spend my money elsewhere. I think it's fair to say a command ship is not 300 million isk worth of ship. If it was, then a 1v1 with a ship that's in the same speed, signature and weapon class should not be an issue. Edit:I should add I'm talking about a T1 counter part.

Command ships sell you on the promise that they will provide a dual role capability of being a sturdy and capable combat ship, while being an excellent command link platform. Right now it's lacking in both regards, but I think the later is an issue that could be fixed by removing off grid boosts and focusing on fixing the former.

If cost plays no role in balancing, then all of a sudden, surprise surprise, the cheaper ship that's just as effective for the same role overshadows the more expensive ship and the more expensive ship falls into obsolescent obscurity.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#44 - 2014-11-21 03:07:26 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And yet NO one ever uses CS for links , people use T3 because they can keep up with fleet and fit more easily. So no.. CS are COMBAT ships.. and almsot every single one used is used because of TANK and dps.


people use T3 because its safer to park a very hard probeable T3 on safespot and watch close range for probes, instead of keeping CS alive on field. I guess this will change once CCP fixes (read:removes) this whole offgrid link bs.
Nonetheless, command ships arent primarily for combat but for command links as their name suggests, otherwise we wouldnt have this whole class anyways, right?

Yes, some people mount guns on them and utilize them for combat, which doesnt change their primary designed purpose though - some people used to battle in rorquals or scimitars. So what? Even if some of them are strong in combat role, its not their primary role, so they shouldnt excel in it so stop requesting that.


If CCP thoughts on this subject aligns with yours then CCP should add a new line of tech 2 battlecruisers called ASSAULT BATTLECRUISERS that don't require 50 days of training useless leadership skills or TECH TECH TECH 3 3 3 BCs.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#45 - 2014-11-21 04:03:05 UTC
I would love to see a t2 battlecruiser that is designed off the Attack battlecruisers, bonused fitting for 100mn props and uses medium guns, pumping out reasonable DPS, with medium BC sig and insane on-grid speed.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Feyrin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2014-11-21 08:27:51 UTC
Look I was at fanfest both last year and the year before. The message on off grid boosting is clear CCP want to remove it. However it is not simple. Technically its really hard and like fixing the POS code will need an imaginative solution they dont have at the moment.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2014-11-21 09:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
whats wrong about command ships? They tank a lot and they provide links regardless if jammed or not - this is their purpose. They arent meant as better combat machines.


In that case CCP needs to get rolling and bring out the Tech 3 Battlecrusiers. I think I'll just skip CS and go straight for the marauders namely the vargur.

if you had issues with CS having weak sensors marauders wont be any better.


The marauders have bastion mode to take care of cheap ewar tactics


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
Marauders are never the next step up direct from command ships.
While i do agree that the slot layout on some ships could be better (nighthawk)

But, if you think that a ship is supposed to be able to handle every situation without making any sacrifices then go play another game. Each ship can be fitted to counter certain things if you want, they are not there to innately provide the perfect solution to everything.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#48 - 2014-11-21 09:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed a rule breaking post.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Previous page123