These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Command Ships, and how they will affect PVE

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#1 - 2012-11-07 10:53:29 UTC
Well here comes another blow.

I don’t own a tech moon, and I don’t buy and sell billions in items in Jita, I don’t have a disposable toon that can do faction warfare and ignore the standings hit, I do incursions to pad my wallet and fund the other things I love to do in EVE.

Little History

Last year CCP hit the incursion community with the Nerf Bat and stopped us dead in our tracks. Making the PVE more challenging was a bit of an understatement. The first rendition of the Update made some sites nearly undefeatable in anything less than a Deadspace fitted fleet of Machariels and Vindicators. So we suffered through and made the OGB a requirement for fleets giving us a safety margin that allowed us to grind out our ISK. Without this margin many ships are lost due to the unpredictable spawns. After a couple months CCP realized the madness of their plan and reverted some of the changes making the sites less ‘ARE YOU KIDDING ME!’’ and more “WOW These are alot of work.” Since then we have grown back to about half the community we were pre-nerf and recovering well.

New suggestion

I can see how the old T3 vs. Command ship bonuses were in need of tweaking, and I am happy for the most part with the direction they are heading, except for the ‘Off Grid’ portion. My suggestion, simply make the warfare modules not activate inside a POS.

As always CCP nerf is more ‘sledgehammer’ than ‘tweak’.

The proposal;
lower the warfare link bonuses
give dual role bonuses
give a specific combat role
lose the ability to boost the fleet system wide
This is too much and will result in the usual complaint of “CCP ruined the command links.”

Scanning down a command ship is really quite easy, so if you’re going to use it then you will need to defend it. Not allowing them to operate inside a POS solves the problem without ruining the current role they provide for many fleets. Is there something I am missing here?

From a Meta game point of view command ships are the information platform that receives and sends information making the fleet stronger and more reactive to the changing environment on the battlefield; that sounds like a FOB (Forward Operations Base) close to the front line, but rarely in it.

Summary

+1 this if you agree with the concept, or if you have another suggestion add and hopefully Fozie will come up with a plan that doesn’t exclude mission runners for the sake of allaying PVP tears.

CCP has screwed the Incursion community repeatedly in the last year, can’t they find some way of ‘fixing’ the problem without asking us to lube up first.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#2 - 2012-11-07 11:02:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
In addition I wanted to point out that over 4 months of training, the ISK for the skills, and of course the relevant fees paid to keep the account up and running, were paid to make a command ship pilot capable of assisting a fleet, another month to get the miscellaneous skills and Cybernetics V so the Mindlink would work.

The CCP Moto of ‘if you can fly it before you can fly it after’ seems a little suspect if what you trained for is no longer what you wanted.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#3 - 2012-11-07 11:39:17 UTC
There are a lot of posts on this issue but I agree with its sentiments and give it a +1.

In addition I personally feel that the link bonuses should be better on a Command Ship than on one of the T3 ships. A Command Ship is specific to this use whereas a T3 ship has a multitude of possible options therefore this seems obvious to me. Smile
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#4 - 2012-11-07 11:39:28 UTC
You know I am in agreement with you, CCP may developed the game and have access to statistical information but I doubt they use it as often as most players do in the creative, cleaver, and often unpredictable ways eve players find.
As you point out instead of a tweek they hit it with a hammer, often leading down unintentional paths, I often think that eve is becoming like the U.S. tax code problem so many changes and adds and subtracts and nobody knows how it even started anymore it's become a mess pull here loosens it there, pull there loosen another part over here till it's impossible to unravel without messing it up elsewhere.
Grombutz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-11-07 11:41:33 UTC
Whatever you do, don't miss the Rorq. It will be useless for boosting purposes if you have to use the core ongrid..
Azura Solus
Rules of Acquisition
#6 - 2012-11-07 11:44:57 UTC
Now i agreee that boosters shouldnt be able to boost behind a pos shield. But off grid at a safe spot should be fair game. cause a person can easily scan down and pop the booster both in a pve and a pvp environment.
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#7 - 2012-11-07 11:51:44 UTC
Thanks Celgar I agree. I found several forums threads, but I didn't find any here in mission and complexes. I figured it would be best to move the conversation to the palce that will be affected the most.

Piugattuk, It takes a degree to adequately deal with the US tax code, and they only have us to advise them :) The unexpected results from previous CCP ‘fixes’ has hamstrung players more times than I care to count, I can only hope that they see this and apply their 'fix' a little more gently.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#8 - 2012-11-07 11:59:03 UTC
Grombutz wrote:
Whatever you do, don't miss the Rorq. It will be useless for boosting purposes if you have to use the core ongrid..


So possibly a role bonus to Rorq’s letting them run command links in a POS. would probably make it the latest preferred command link booster.

Of course I have never used a Rorq, it primarily uses the mining links right?
If so then simple fix would be no restriction on mining links They would work in, or out of the POS. I don’t think the PVP’ers would care if you’re getting mining bonuses :)

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Celgar Thurn
Department 10
#9 - 2012-11-07 12:05:52 UTC
Grombutz wrote:
Whatever you do, don't miss the Rorq. It will be useless for boosting purposes if you have to use the core ongrid..


Aye the Rorqual should be an exception to the rule and be allowed to boost while in a POS but only with mining links.

NB I don't know if the Rorqual can only use mining links or not as I don't fly one. Smile
Julius Priscus
#10 - 2012-11-07 12:07:30 UTC
its gonna hurt incursions more than it will hurt me or my alt whom both can do the hardest anoms and in some cases 10/10 plex's
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#11 - 2012-11-07 12:19:31 UTC
Julius Priscus wrote:
its gonna hurt incursions more than it will hurt me or my alt whom both can do the hardest anoms and in some cases 10/10 plex's


Running Anoms solo or at least with your own boxes certainly has its appeal, then you know what you’re doing and you know that everyone is qualified. Not really that cut and dry in a fleet.

I have discussed this with several Incursion FC’s, and I think we all agree that the loss of resists is easily compensated by a more expensive Invul. The thing we will miss the most is the 2.9 cycle time on the Logi reps. And of course if you lower the rep time, you need to lower the cap use too, so two Links minimun or none at all, or you end up with cap dry Scimitars and soon after a lot of expensive pods.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Kodavor
Iz Doge Korp .
#12 - 2012-11-07 12:43:36 UTC
goldiiee wrote:
Well here comes another blow.

I don’t own a tech moon, and I don’t buy and sell billions in items in Jita, I don’t have a disposable toon that can do faction warfare and ignore the standings hit, I do incursions to pad my wallet and fund the other things I love to do in EVE.

Little History

Last year CCP hit the incursion community with the Nerf Bat and stopped us dead in our tracks. Making the PVE more challenging was a bit of an understatement. The first rendition of the Update made some sites nearly undefeatable in anything less than a Deadspace fitted fleet of Machariels and Vindicators. So we suffered through and made the OGB a requirement for fleets giving us a safety margin that allowed us to grind out our ISK. Without this margin many ships are lost due to the unpredictable spawns. After a couple months CCP realized the madness of their plan and reverted some of the changes making the sites less ‘ARE YOU KIDDING ME!’’ and more “WOW These are alot of work.” Since then we have grown back to about half the community we were pre-nerf and recovering well.

New suggestion

I can see how the old T3 vs. Command ship bonuses were in need of tweaking, and I am happy for the most part with the direction they are heading, except for the ‘Off Grid’ portion. My suggestion, simply make the warfare modules not activate inside a POS.

As always CCP nerf is more ‘sledgehammer’ than ‘tweak’.

The proposal;
lower the warfare link bonuses
give dual role bonuses
give a specific combat role
lose the ability to boost the fleet system wide
This is too much and will result in the usual complaint of “CCP ruined the command links.”

Scanning down a command ship is really quite easy, so if you’re going to use it then you will need to defend it. Not allowing them to operate inside a POS solves the problem without ruining the current role they provide for many fleets. Is there something I am missing here?

From a Meta game point of view command ships are the information platform that receives and sends information making the fleet stronger and more reactive to the changing environment on the battlefield; that sounds like a FOB (Forward Operations Base) close to the front line, but rarely in it.

Summary

+1 this if you agree with the concept, or if you have another suggestion add and hopefully Fozie will come up with a plan that doesn’t exclude mission runners for the sake of allaying PVP tears.

CCP has screwed the Incursion community repeatedly in the last year, can’t they find some way of ‘fixing’ the problem without asking us to lube up first.



Approved .
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#13 - 2012-11-07 13:59:08 UTC
I run incursions in fleets that take on vanguards and assaults with no OGB at maximum influence. I also run in fleets that have two OGBs to maximise Siege/Skirmish boosts. The requirement to bring boosters on-grid is great: finally I'll get paid for boosting. Those fleets who choose to do without OGB can still run incursions just fine — just add more logistics, or bring command ships on-grid with slightly less than optimal DPS fittings but two or three links.

The links that are "essential" for shield fleets are Harmonization & Interdiction maneuvers. The two extra siege links are nice-to-have if your logistics aren't up to snuff. So focus on Sleipnirs and Claymores (people already bring Sleipnirs due to their awesome short-range DPS anyway).

The only think I'd like to change with the proposals is to provide a Large rig that adds the ability to fit one warfare link to a battleship, so that I can fit Interdiction Maneuvers link to my rattlesnake. That would make a perfect anchor, especially since sleepers, sanshas and the new level one AI seem to prioritise command ships over ECM.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#14 - 2012-11-07 15:59:35 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
I run incursions in fleets that take on vanguards and assaults with no OGB at maximum influence.




Agreed anyone could run VG’s with no need for a booster. Assaults with 3 logistics I would say requires a booster for fleet safety when running max/DPS min/Tank fleets. However I have been in some fleets where an LSE’s, two invuls, and an EM ward are standard having an OGB is almost a waste when running this much tank. So yes of course Incursions can be done without an OGB. My concern is more about the waste of SP that I feel is incurred if the ‘Off grid’ portion of boosting gets nerfed.



The waste of skills



Command ships; A 3% boost per level of effectiveness totals 15% at lvl V. Then add 10% per level of warfare link specialist adding 50% more effectiveness at lvl V for 22.5%. Add to that Cybernetics V for the mindlink and a 50% boost to the links, making the command ship bonuses 4.5% or a total of 33.75% an impressive stack of bonuses. All for 4+ month’s worth of training with remaps, more when tertiary skills are included.



All that math sorry, in simpler terms.


All this time was used to have a command ship pilot that gives your group the best possible boosts. If CCP removes the OG portion of OGB then I would view that as a waste of mine and every other players time and money, as the toon, ship, and boost we were training for are no longer the ship we would want them in.



Imagine you trained for a Titan and when you finally got it they made it into a highsec only mining barge.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Fishsticks Fred
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-11-07 22:17:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Fishsticks Fred
OGB was and still is overpowered, in both PVP and PVE. Why should you get a bonus for literally no risk? (hint: the answer is you shouldn't)

Quote:
If CCP removes the OG portion of OGB then I would view that as a waste of mine and every other players time and money, as the toon, ship, and boost we were training for are no longer the ship we would want them in.


As for this, welcome to literally anything in Eve ever. I know a lot of super pilots miss the old titans and supercarriers. I know a lot of people hated the nano nerf. I know a lot of people miss < insert fleet doctrine that is no longer viable > because ccp made some change that made it bad. Deal with it.

In addition, all ccp has said on the matter is...

Quote:
As a side note, as we announced a while ago, we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid. Command and Tech3 ships providing that much of an advantage should commit to an engagement instead of being safely parked inside a POS bubble.


All they've said is they want to remove OGB. They haven't said how, maybe you can do it, just not inside of a POS. No one knows, they haven't said. In addition, this is hardly a new stance, they've been talking about it for at least 6 months now, if not a year.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-11-07 23:13:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Sure, cos no one will just move to parking it 1km off the shield of a dickstar with 200 ECM mods on it...

Just take your booster into your silly incursion site and take the 5% efficiency hit.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#17 - 2012-11-08 00:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Pohbis
goldiiee wrote:
Scanning down a command ship is really quite easy, so if you’re going to use it then you will need to defend it. Not allowing them to operate inside a POS solves the problem without ruining the current role they provide for many fleets. Is there something I am missing here?
Maybe the fact that NPCs don't scan down and attack your fleet members?

In PvP, yes, I'd consider a command ship, in space, outside a POS shield and uncloaked to be "on the field" ( apart from the obvious park it near a well defended/ECM POS ), in PvE however, not so much.
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#18 - 2012-11-08 06:53:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
Fishsticks Fred wrote:
OGB was and still is overpowered, in both PVP and PVE. Why should you get a bonus for literally no risk? (hint: the answer is you shouldn't)...
.


Fishsticks
I don’t want this to degrade into a ‘PVE is for weak losers’ ‘PVP is for brain damaged juveniles’ thread. I am well aware of how an OGB makes it hard for a Blob to deal with another fleet, (as I said in my original post ‘I use Incursions to fund the other things’) But an OGB does not make it impossible, just more difficult. Most people I play with say EVE is not challenging enough most days, now the direction I see CCP heading is to make the game idiot proof by putting a tag on the lynchpin of the opposing fleet. No tactics, no scanning, scouts are a thing of the past, just hop in find enemy, and press F1, in descending order Command Ship first, then take your pick they are all here on the field, Hmm sounds like a mission more than a PVP, gift wrapped for your entertainment. Isn’t that exciting?

I sound angry? Was going for entertaining.

An OGB should not be considered ‘getting a bonus for no risk’ it is getting a bonus for planning ahead, for time invested, for strategic logistics, and for sacrifice. Is a toon that has trained all their skills to V getting an unfair bonus to one that created an account yesterday? Anyone who owns a toon that runs command links has invested both time and money (the RL stuff not just ISK) to have a Knight on the chess board. It allows them to control certain aspect of how an engagement plays out, In the middle of a 100 or 1000 man blob there is very little visible tactic, yet for a 100+ man blob the benefits of an OGB can be overwhelmed with ease. For small gangs the OGB makes the battle last longer, and yes oftentimes the victor is the one with the boosts, as that group sacrificed one fleet spot for a ‘thinking’ ship.

In PVE an OGB is seen as an expense, cost of doing business if you will. With currently 600 mil a month to PLEX it, or the standard fare to pay for it, the toon makes no ISK and is totally dependent on the gratuities of others. Think of it as ‘renting’ skills, same as recruiting Cap pilots, HICs, and HACs or whatever is needed to fill doctrine, if I want the best boost then I need to keep my OGB alive and running. So I know they haven’t decided, and I know everything changes, after all we adapted through a hailstorm of changes this summer already.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Rolstra
Moo's Mudpit
#19 - 2012-11-08 07:03:14 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Sure, cos no one will just move to parking it 1km off the shield of a dickstar with 200 ECM mods on it...

Just take your booster into your silly incursion site and take the 5% efficiency hit.


So is there some current mechanic that keeps the entire fleet from staging next your dreaded ‘dickstar’ or is that the next thing PVP’ers are going to ask for ‘no fleet can operate a POS in the vicinity of the fight’ really? How dumb does the game need to get to make you happy?

And BTW learn to read, the hit 33% not 5%.
Fishsticks Fred
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-11-08 09:14:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Fishsticks Fred
goldiiee wrote:
:words:


I never said anything about PVP over PVE. In this issue they are equal. However, I'd say in the current game, OGB is as necesary in PVP as it is for incursion fleets. Whoever has an OGB already set up in a small gang when the battle starts has a massive advantage. In large blobs its not a deciding factor, but it's still a pretty big advantage. To be clear, I dislike OGB in all its forms, incursion fleets, small gang warfare, and large fleets.

There is no risk. Even outside of a POS, T3 boosting alts are typically fit to be as hard as possible to scan down, and require a lot of effort to do so. The risk is even lowers in highsec. Eve is all about risk vs reward. Why should a fleet get a massive reward (and the reward IS massive) for essentially zero risk?

What's going to happen with incursions, as will happen with PVP, is one of two things. Either you make use of your boosting alt by bringing him on grid and sacrifice a DPS slot in your fleet, or you just end up bringing a few more logistics. I still think boosting will be the way to go. Command ships can fit a pretty nice tank, you know?
12Next page