Player Features and Ideas Discussion

EOS is a droneboat.........

and why should the damnation have so much more tank than the rest of them? its lack of dps is more important to address surely

So is the Tristan

Any chance of changing the T2 resists 0% -90% is bizarre frankly.. some more sensible omni resists make more sense?

And Command Ships are getting some new models as well?

So many of these ships are already super tight on powergrid using a proper fit. I see here most of them are actually getting powergrid reductions in the same context of wanting to have them include ganglinks on board which use 200 powergrid each just for the t1 version. I also included the nighthawk here which is notoriously tight on CPU and its actually losing another 5 cpu. This really doesn't make any sense to me.

General thoughts:

The lack of "on grid only" ganglinks is really, really bad. Without it ganglinks will never be "fixed", out of POS or not.


Active repair bonus still as bad as ever.
When will you realize it just prevent those ships from being good in fleet while giving an almost imperceptible bonus only when there is no logi on field? Especially when you have really poor base resistances and not enough slots to compensate (Gallente...).
Only thing that saves Claymore/Sleipnir is their base resists which allows to omni-tank, and ASB which are worth it when armor boosters are not, but still, passive bonus would help them for fleets.

Make CSs like HICs, and give them all a passive bonus to resistances as a role bonus.


-Add capacitor like you did for HACs.
-Info warfare feels wasted on Amarr, better on damps than on TDs.
-No Skirmish on tanky CS (because yes, active bonus -> lack tank in fleets) is annoying.



Ship by ship:

TLDR:
Nighthawk really needs a fix. A complete redesign, from slot layout to PG to bonuses.
The others are disappointing but not too bad.
Stealth nerfs to agility/speed/capacitor are really annoying.




Absolution:
10 effective turrets (or 8) instead of the former 10. No improvement in dps which is sad.
It's lacking compared to Legion, Sleipnir, and even Zealot (for the price difference).
Fitting is rather good. Tank will be CS-worthy, might even be on par with Legion?

Thoughts:
-add a damage application bonus like ALL other CS would be welcome (tracking/optimal?)
-a real dronebay, 50mb. It already gains no dps, at least give it that.
-boost the cap and drop the turret capacitor use bonus, to add the other (tracking/optimal). Or just do as I said above and put the resists as a role bonus.



Damnation:

7.5 launchers... Bad. Especially given the aweful state HML are in. You promised us all CS will be worthy to be flown as dps ships, this one won't be.
No bonus to RLM is really annoying, as usual. HML and HAM are bad atm compared to rapid light.
The tank feels really massive, as usual. Will be harder to dual plate though, with the PG nerf.

Thoughts:
-add better missile bonuses or drone damage to go with its 50mb dronebay [Khanid do missiles AND drones, cf Curse]
-bonus to rapid light too



Nighthawk:

The absolute worst of the bunch. And you really don't want it to get any better it seems.

Still lack PG, won't be able to fit 2 links+5 launchers+LSE+MWD.
Claymore has 175 more PG (+20%) for no reason: both are shield missile ships.
10 launchers worth of kinetic (not enough) 6.7 worth of other damage (aweful). Current has same for kinetic, but more elsewhere.

Thoughts:
-stops forcing Caldari missile ships into kinetic, give it 10% to all
-give it RLM bonus
-+100PG, just to be in line with Claymore
-fix the slot layout (impossible to omni tank it properly with 5 meds on caldari ships), and impossible to nano either, so the 5 lows are wasted (or used for PG mods because you did not give it enough PG)
-the nerf to cap and align time is really annoying, the ship is already so bad... But no, you had to make it the slowest and the less agile of all...



Vulture:

Might actually be mildly interesting. 7.5 turrets is not enough, but really good range, and the locking range to go with it.

Thoughts:
-make it blaster worthy too somehow? Shield fleets like blasters too...



Astarte:

10 turrets instead of the former 10.9 turrets, so a dps nerf. Not needed imo. Better dronebay is nice though.
Active repair bonus still as bad as ever on that kind of ship, just make it bad for fleet while not helping much for small gang.

Thoughts
-replace active bonus by passive bonus (as a role bonus like HICs)
-give it back some shield...



Eos:

Turret tracking bonus feels totally out of place and useless.
Bonus to heavy drone only is annoying, but might make it more balanced... Still, feels as dumb as giving bonus to blasters and not rails.



Sleipnir:

Was too good, had to nerf it?
Had 11.67 turrets, now 11.25, but better alpha... Poor compensation...
Nerf to dronebay, why? Nerf to agility (and thus speed with MWD on) is really, really bad.
HUGE nerf to CPU (-11%) will make active tanking fits struggle.

-give it the cpu, dronebay, agility back...
-passive bonus instead of active ofc.



Claymore:

8.9 effective launchers in all damage type with a full flight of medium, a good slot layout for a missile boat, omni base resist so better actual tank, faster, easier to fit: NO NEED TO FLY NIGHTHAWK EVER.
Double ROF is bad for overheat and ammo usage though.

Thoughts:
-seems good, looking forward to test it
-give it rapid light missiles bonus..........

And what's with missile brawlers getting more HP than the blaster version
Nighthawk - Vulture
Also why does the vulture need 2 optimal range bonuses to use blasters? .... its not a sniper come on damage or tracking please
Also only 17 slots???? navy has 18 come on stop scrimping with the slots.

wat

http://raynor.cl/eve/formRecive.php?id=fDnkNQO

Am I calculating it wrong or does the new Sleip do 6.8k volley with faction EMP?

Happy enough.