These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

The all-inclusive Fleet Command Ship / Leadership Skill / Modules / Tree Discussion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#21 - 2012-07-29 16:26:43 UTC
Loving all the propositions but I can't agree with the idea of a covert Eos though. The ship might be useless as is, but the changes to it shouldn't be so radical to improve gameplay.
Lili Lu
#22 - 2012-07-29 17:24:29 UTC
This is a damn good thread. Every post in it has something redeeming. Whether it be a salient observation or valid critique or counter argument. I hope Ytterbium and his team are reading this and taking in the ideas.

I like some of the OP's Eos suggestions and don't like others. I'd like to post a longer reply but rl pulling me away from computer atm.StraightP I'll probably come back and enter a more detailed post. But just wanted to say good job to everyone that posted here so far.Smile
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#23 - 2012-07-30 00:59:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jojo Jackson
Misato Katsuragi wrote:
4. Eos and Information Warfare
Information in its current state fills a pretty niche roll not to mention, fielding as Eos in that roll makes it even more difficult.

(All modules are T1 at max skills with mindlink):

Electronic Superiority: Boosts the strength of the fleet's electronic warfare modules by +25.875%
Sensor integrity:Boosts sensor strengths for all of the fleet's ships by +38.8125%
Recon Operation:Increases range of modules requiring Electronic Warfare, Sensor Linking, Target Painting or Weapon Disruption for all ships in the fleet by: +15.525%

Mediocre at best

They are fine. The problem isn't the bonus but the moduls it boosts. They need some rework.

Misato Katsuragi wrote:
4. Eos and Information Warfare
Proposed changes:

[i]Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per skill level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: Multiplies the cloaked velocity by 125% per level and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Information Warfare Links per level

It is a FLEET-Command, no COVERT-Command. Covert-Comands must be invented first ;).

Bonus to tracking, explo radius/speed, weapon sig would bring new problems. The same problems why X-Large weapons got nerfed resently. One would be the ability to insta-pop any interceptor which is used in fleets for example.

PS: more defens is nice. And "if" CCP introduces a Armor-Rep-Booster compareble to this new mega-Shield-Booster the 7,5%/Level might become GODLIKE :). Check Ally-Turny to see the power of this new Shield-Booster Modul. Might not be for 255 man fleets, but for any smaller fleet it will be for sure.

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#24 - 2012-07-30 17:11:34 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
This is yet another one of those threads where the OP go through various problems with more or less method and accuracy, only to suggest a number of completely uninformed solutions.

In reality, the only thing all these classes of ships need is the removal of the Command processor module, to deal with rampant alt-usage and on/off-grid balance, and small individual tweaks to the ships with intended styles of play that no longer function.

Without a command processor a Tech III ship will only be able to provide one link, forcing you to seed links in your gang. Likewise the CS will no longer have the option to make ridiculous boost cocktails (ie., seven-link ships) to plant in POS. That will make booster alts less appealing and in turn make off-grid boosting less appealing, without removing it as an option. Option is good, option under balance.

The Damnation and Claymore have always been doing exactly what they are supposed to. It's two good ships. The Vulture only really suffer from what all Tech II Caldari hybrid platforms do - you don't sit still and snipe beyond 150km anymore. The Eos only really suffer from the active repair bonus and the stacking of some of it's link bonuses - though not all. On note of the active repair bonus, i am usually an adamant defender of it. Those who oppose it generally just want something better and streamlined for what they do. On the Eos however i concede that there is some merit to questioning having the active repair bonus as it's a ship meant to boost other ships in a somewhat sizable gang. It could easily be removed and replaced by some other racial signature bonus, such as turret tracking or maybe a bandwidth boost up to 100m3 (placing it just under the typical Drone platforms).

The more exaggerated issues people have with the information links or the slot-layout of the Eos are just that, exaggerations. It tanks just as well as the Claymore (it doesn't need a Damnation-level tank) and the more even slot-allocation is a racial trait that you can swing both ways. That the links catches so much flak mainly have to do with people not utilizing EW with much frequency at all today. The ECCM link and the lock-range passive could probably use a tune-up, but the others work perfectly as intended, provided someone would use the ship as intended.


Hmmmm, this is certainly an interesting approach. I don't know if I like it, but it's interesting.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#25 - 2012-07-30 18:06:55 UTC
I have a couple of observations about your proposal:
1. I've observed that people with T3 boosters do not usually sit them at a POS. They're at a safe spot and are therefore very vulnerable to attack. The biggest reason for this is that most gangs roam some.
2. In the video he said that he'd like to bring command ships on grid but that it's a very tricky problem. You didn't address any of the things that make it tricky.
3. On grid gang boosting ships are by and large not engaging ships to fly. Sitting on grid with half a million EHP spamming 100 DPS is just not engaging gameplay.
4. Small gang PVP will be very hard hit, because every person and every slot in a small gang matters so much more than in a larger gang. Moving gang links to be only on grid will mean that only larger gangs will have access to them. Where previously 5 guys and an off grid loki could harass a 20-30 man fleet, now we will have a 20-30 man fleet with a full rack of bonuses simply running down the completely unbonused harassing gang.
5. It will become impossible to preposition links in such a way that the aggressor will start the fight with bonuses. This means that a defender has an even larger advantage than having loaded grid first.

IMO points 3 (engagement) and 4 (skirmish/harassing warfare) are the most important, followed by point 5 (aggressor links). I feel like 4 can be addressed as a subset of point 3 if we stop to challenge the traditional mindset regarding fleet commands. See, everyone believes that fleet commands should be boring as **** to fly because they provide links - but really nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe we should examine each command ship and the kinds of gangs we would expect it to be flying with. From there, give it bonuses that make sense in those kinds of gangs.

Here's two examples:

Claymore
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 10% bonus to Shield Booster effectiveness per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Skirmish Warfare Links per level

Additionally: lower the mass or increase base speed significantly.

Net result is a lowish DPS kiting command ship that isn't a MASSIVE hinderance just because you brought it on field with a kiting gang.

Eos
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 10% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per skill level and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Information Warfare Links per level

Additionally: 125m^3 drone bay, fairly fast and agile.

The net result here is that the Eos fulfills the DPS role in ewar based gangs.

Another option is to turn Command Ships into true support ships - 3 links and 5 RRs. I'd personally be very partial to that approach. ;-)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Silas Shaw
Coffee Hub
#26 - 2012-07-31 00:35:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Silas Shaw
So... I read and agreed with this until i got to the ship changes. I'm not sure that a stiff tank nano-command Claymore is the best thing for the state of EVE. it seems like that would be so much like the Eos of old: pwnmobile with bonuses to... what again? links? ok, sure.

also, while speaking of the Eos: did you mean to remake the Sin as part of a command ship discussion? 'Cause that's what happened.

Edit: Look at what Liang says above me. There's a lot of stuff there that I kinda want to just shout agreement with, but... this is a complicated problem. If they become RR platforms as well, then YES, they need a Damnation's tank. RR + Links means probably primary every time. Etc.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#27 - 2012-08-02 19:43:36 UTC
I feel like this is an interesting post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1736202#post1736202

Ezra Tair wrote:
I would not mind seeing tech 1 BCs and the tech 2 counter parts simply get a passive bonus to gang mates while they are on grid. requiring no special modules. The best bonus takes affect, and if the best bonus giver dies, the next best takes over. Each of the two types of BCs gives a particular bonus, and the T2 variants give a better bonus, but have the combat capability of a field command ship.

For T3,s that sub now gives a passive bonus while on grid at some rate similar to the T2. Eliminate leadership entirely and refund the SPs.


Solves the issue of 'on grid' boosters, because in a fleet with 20 BCs, they ALL could potentially give a bonus. And it makes CS more entertaining to fly because its not a boring role to play with the tank and DPS that could be available on them. Eliminates non-active alt game play (which apparently is going to happen anyway in regards to boosters), and encourages combat and targets.

--edit to add--

oh and it makes BCs do what they are advertised to to, but seemingly never do.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
UTHAJA
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2012-08-04 06:39:38 UTC
The changes proposed in this thread are long overdue. Hopefully Big smile
Shukuzen Kiraa
F4G Wild Weasel
#29 - 2012-08-04 10:35:22 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
i want sleipnir and nighthawk to be changed to hurricane and drake models. that is all i have to contribute.


Never post again.
Previous page12