These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

First post First post First post
Author
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2013-08-01 18:59:31 UTC
Magnus Coleus wrote:

How about this:

Field command ships:

  • Optimized for small gangs (armor rep / shield booster / base shield regen bonuses)
  • Can use 2 links
  • Slight DPS boost (compared to current proposal)
  • Slight sensor / range nerf


Fleet command ships:

  • Optimized for larger fleets (resist bonuses)
  • Can use 3 links
  • Reasonable DPS nerf (compared to current proposal)
  • Reasonable sensor / range buff


[...] giving each race a resist-based command ship and a repair-based command ship would silence the main complaint people seem to have.



This.

Grarr Dexx wrote:
[...] Why can't it be:

Gall Cal Min Amarr: ACTIVE PASSIVE

Big gangs can't have shield/armor + skirmish?



Or this, which is kind of the same thing.

There are two types of command ships, so just give each race a "local tank" version (field command) and a "fleet tank (resist-based)" version (fleet command).
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#282 - 2013-08-01 19:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.

The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense
Let me explain this clearly before people chime in:

A ship with a 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage will receive 50 damage

A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 60% resistance, and therefore take 40 damage.

That means you take a 20% reduction in damage. This goes back to bad development where devs think % resistance works in some magical fashion rather than realistically. Hence the nerf to 4% per level recently as a compromise to active boosters. Proof the Devs don't know **** about mechanics. In truth, this only accounts for that specific ship.... with no relation to the rest of the eve environment.

The only time a resist bonus actually matters the way the Devs run numbers is when you start at 0% resist across the board comparing 2 different ships. This hardly ever happens as a matter of base statistics on all ships.

Furthering the problem is Tech 2 resistances. A Tech 2 ship with a 20% resist bonus does not actually receive 20% less damage than a comparable tech 1 ship. Instead, it receives 20% less damage than a comparable ship with the same base resistances. 2 totally different mechanics at play.

How is this bad for Tech 2 balance. Well lets further examine the claymore / nighthawk conundrum I posted about earlier.

Claymore without any bonuses has 220 total resist for an average of 55
Nighthawk with bonuses has a 240 total resist for an average of 60% damage reduction

Lets use really lazy math since it provides easy to work with numbers

100 damage applied on the claymore nets 45 damage
100 damage applied on the nighthawk nets 40 damage.

2 ways of looking at this:

Offensively, I have 12.5% more projected damage versus the claymore.*

Defensively, the nighthawk is receiving 8.9% less damage than the claymore.*

*this is a ratio mechanic that causes 2 different values. It seems weird at first until you realize how the wording plays.
One is how much more damage is the claymore taking compared to the NH (ratio of C:NH). The other is how much less damage is the Nighthawk taking compared to the Claymore (ratio of NH:C)


Both ways show that in no way do you approach 20% reduced damage, and certainly not higher than 20% reduced damage. However the Developers will try to convince you that this is not true because in Imagination land, they are allowed to assume all resistances are 0 to start with and there's no such thing as diminished returns in EVE.

Fact is, the gaps that Caldari and Gallente have are far inferior to the more spread, resist gap fills of the Amarr and Matar. When you make 2 similar ships with other drastically severe balance problems like the NH and Claymore, this resist gap really shows how bad the balance is.

So glad our developers can post on here how smart they are about their mechanics and how closely they sit to each other in the office to assure us they know what they're doing. Maybe you should learn core mechanics and fundamentals of the game first.

This is just another in a long line of failures.
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#283 - 2013-08-01 19:06:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Baren
Wow this is going to be crazy

CS rebalance
Sleipnir:
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF)
7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount
Command Ships skill bonuses:
10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff


plus this

Medium Artillery:
+10% Rate of Fire
-5% Tracking

=

holy **** crazy sleipnir
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#284 - 2013-08-01 19:06:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
glepp wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
glepp wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

That's actually a pretty decent buff to base resists, and it's effectiveness is dependent on what the enemy is shooting. Lasers do EM/Thermal by the way, and Caldari frequently are using Kinetic missiles due to their bonus restrictions. Projectile ammo frequently will be affected as well.

Yes, it's not as high resists across the board and more vulnerable to high alpha in a fleet situation, but hardly an easy target if set up properly. Past that point the 15% boost all active tanking just got isn't anything to sneeze at, especially in an encounter like the 20 man BS fight you gave as an example.

It's a decent buff if the opponent is shooting Multifreq, Phased Plasma or Scourge, yes.
What is the damage distribution on scorch, the most commonly used crystal in a kiting Pulse Oracle? (Answer:36EM/8therm) Any Missile ship shooting kin at a Gallente hull desrves to lose, and it's not very common now. With the changes to Phoons and Ravens, do you really think this large-sigged ship will survive long in a BS fight without ignoring its hull bonus?

In a 20 v 20 BS fight, 2k local reps is worth nothing, since you need to gimp you buffer to fit it. Think paint+webs+large sig+lowish buffer.

Big smile Yes, I'd take any of the CS we are discussing into that. Without the slightest hesitation.

With local reps on your Astarte?

Yep. How I'd play it would depend entirely on how the Ravens/Phoons were set up.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#285 - 2013-08-01 19:07:39 UTC
XXSketchxx wrote:
So the nighthawk is still shit.

The cerb is still shit.

What do you guys have against caldari missile boats?


But atleast they get to shoot Kinetic fist missiles. Think about it, Kinetic - Fist - Missiles.
Vince Draken
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#286 - 2013-08-01 19:15:37 UTC
Terrible changes shame on you Fozzie
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#287 - 2013-08-01 19:16:20 UTC
Witchking Angmar wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
No, 10.9375 to 10. Math man, learn it.

5*1.5/.75 = 10. Bonuses stack on each other, RoF is done by division due to the interaction, yadda yadda.


Yeah, edited my post.. Thought it was damage bonus, not ROF at first.


Alright, alls good. I'm just getting sick and tired of people calling Fozzie out about this stuff without even checking their math. It's not the first time in the thread it's happened. Someone was claiming the Sleipnir went from 11.666 turrets to 10 as opposed to 11.25. I'm sorta undecided on the changes, though I'm largely becoming happy because of them, but I just can't stand people spreading misinformation about this stuff.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#288 - 2013-08-01 19:19:50 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Witchking Angmar wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
No, 10.9375 to 10. Math man, learn it.

5*1.5/.75 = 10. Bonuses stack on each other, RoF is done by division due to the interaction, yadda yadda.


Yeah, edited my post.. Thought it was damage bonus, not ROF at first.


Alright, alls good. I'm just getting sick and tired of people calling Fozzie out about this stuff without even checking their math. It's not the first time in the thread it's happened. Someone was claiming the Sleipnir went from 11.666 turrets to 10 as opposed to 11.25. I'm sorta undecided on the changes, though I'm largely becoming happy because of them, but I just can't stand people spreading misinformation about this stuff.



yeah, the devs aren't doing any misinformation of their own :-/
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#289 - 2013-08-01 19:20:43 UTC
XXSketchxx wrote:
The cerb is still shit.


You're clinically insane.
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#290 - 2013-08-01 19:25:27 UTC
PLEASE give one gallente ship a resistance bonus. armour rep amount is useless in a larger fleet.

please please please please please please!!!!!!!!
Ms Valkyrie
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#291 - 2013-08-01 19:26:05 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


Yep, Fozzie, Rise and I never talk to each other regarding ship balancing changes, despite the fact we sit 5 meters apart.


Only 5 meters from the portland dude? God please save Yitterbium's and Fozzie's souls!
Leskit
Pure Victory
#292 - 2013-08-01 19:27:16 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Damnation:
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
4% bonus to all Armor Resistances
10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity

Command Ships skill bonuses:
10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints
10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile damage (Was link bonus)

Fixed Bonus:
Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links
Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L , 2 turrets (-2), 5 Launchers
Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG, 500(+25) CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 5000(+395) / 4300(-24)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.7(-0.004) / 13500000 / 13.10s(-0.08)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 100 (+75)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+20) / 210 / 7(+1)
Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6)
Signature radius: 265
Cargo capacity: 645


As much as like like keeping the 10% armor amount bonus, this will do less damage than a sacrelige (499 damn vs 516 sac)
For upping the abso's resistances and base armor amount, I just can't see the trade-off. Most of the other CS's look like heavy dps platforms that can also stay on field a little longer, but the Damnation still looks like the sole ship for boosting only. Could we get that 10% damage changed to a ROF bonus? I was really really hoping to have a HAM spewing monster in the new damnation.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#293 - 2013-08-01 19:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ersahi Kir
I'm Down wrote:
Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.

The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense
Let me explain this clearly before people chime in:

A ship with a 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage will receive 50 damage

A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.

The only time a resist bonus actually matters the way the Devs run numbers is when you start at 0% resist across the board. This hardly ever happens as a matter of base statistics on all ships.

Furthering the problem is Tech 2 resistances. A Tech 2 ship with a 20% resist bonus does not actually receive 20% less damage than a comparable tech 1 ship. Instead, it receives 20% less damage than a comparable ship with the same base resistances. 2 totally different mechanics at play.


Your math is pretty atrocious.

If you have 50% base resist, and your hull ends up with a 20% bonus to resists, your ship will have a total of 50 + (100-50)*.2 total resist, in this case 60% total resist.

So if you get hit with 100 base damage with just the 50% resist you take 50 damage.
If get hit with 100 base damage with 60% reisit you take 40 damage.

It doesn't matter what the base resist is, you will always take 20% less damage. But the effect that has is a 25% boost to survivibility. To illustrate this, take a ship with 500 hp. If you're taking the damage from above with just the base resist it takes 10 seconds to burn through the HP. If you have the extra resist profile it takes 12.5 second, or 25% longer to burn through the same amount of hp.

If you don't understand everything I just said you probably shouldn't be attacking the devs for their understanding of the game mechanics.

I'm Down wrote:

How is this bad for Tech 2 balance. Well lets further examine the claymore / nighthawk conundrum I posted about earlier.

Claymore without any bonuses has 220 total resist for an average of 55
Nighthawk with bonuses has a 240 total resist for an average of 60% damage reduction


To bring your attrocious math full circle lets look at just this statement.

Claymore:
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75 / 60 / 40 / 50 = 225 base resists

Nighthawk:
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 = 200 base resists

The nighthawk with the 20% resist bonus:
EM = 0 + (100-0)*.2 = 20
TH = 80 + (100-80)*.2 = 84
Kin = 70 + (100-70)*.2 = 76
Exp = 50 + (100-50)*.2 = 60
240 total resists

I have no idea what you're trying to say besides this because whatever math you thought was supporting your argument is bad.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#294 - 2013-08-01 19:28:17 UTC
I'm Down wrote:

yeah, the devs aren't doing any misinformation of their own :-/

Such as? Are they posting stats while claiming they're completely different? Can you link me to the post where a Dev says that a ship gets 100k EHP but only gets 50k EHP in a maximum tank setup with perfect boosts? Can you share with me the post where a Dev claims that a ship will get 15 effective turrets where it only gets 10?

It's one thing for them to think that things will be fine and post their belief in the matter. It's another to perform the calculations incorrectly and spread incorrect information.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#295 - 2013-08-01 19:32:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
I'm Down wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
Witchking Angmar wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
No, 10.9375 to 10. Math man, learn it.

5*1.5/.75 = 10. Bonuses stack on each other, RoF is done by division due to the interaction, yadda yadda.


Yeah, edited my post.. Thought it was damage bonus, not ROF at first.


Alright, alls good. I'm just getting sick and tired of people calling Fozzie out about this stuff without even checking their math. It's not the first time in the thread it's happened. Someone was claiming the Sleipnir went from 11.666 turrets to 10 as opposed to 11.25. I'm sorta undecided on the changes, though I'm largely becoming happy because of them, but I just can't stand people spreading misinformation about this stuff.



yeah, the devs aren't doing any misinformation of their own :-/

It's not really the Dev's fault if people don't understand what the numbers mean, despite how many times it's been explained.

I'm pretty sure Fozzie and Rise know how the formula's work, but thanks for the attempted recap. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Minister of Death
Colossus Enterprises
#296 - 2013-08-01 19:35:49 UTC
Not a giant fan of these changes, sorry to say :(

Also, Nighthawk .vs Vulture...

Nighthawk:
Signature radius: 285
Cargo capacity: 700

Vulture:
Signature radius: 285
Cargo capacity: 400 (+55)

Claymore:
Signature radius: 240

Why does the Claymore have such a smaller sig rad?

Why does the Vulture have ~half the cargo of a Nighthawk?
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#297 - 2013-08-01 19:35:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Lady Naween wrote:
PLEASE give one gallente ship a resistance bonus. armour rep amount is useless in a larger fleet.

please please please please please please!!!!!!!!



I'm eyeballing the Eos and the Astarte. There is an issue. The Astarte is potentially a damage monster, ontop of it, it can now fit links (the good ones for Gallente). It now has the potential to outlast a small fight (small to medium fleet fight) due to its ability to repair monkey itself (that with both the NOS changes and the Repairer changes, it could essentially be a endless fight against a Astarte unless you can bring a Substantial amount of DPS to break it. The same could be said about the Damnation but most don't fit repairers on it (cause it makes it lose hit points and has no bonus).

The viable choice is the EOS, but it has also become a possible DPS monster Magnet, having the same tank as the Astarte, but now with Heavy drones that will not Miss, almost always hit for close to if not full damage (even on cruisers and frigates, note the alpha of sentry drones on Dominix's in the tournament), and ontop of that, now has turrets that will pretty much never miss either. The EOS has the potential to be a Dominix on the Field, that can repair itself, launch a full fight of super tracking heavies, boost the group and do damage if brawling.

Giving one of the ships extra resists would be... well a bit crazy.

(I'm being frank I would love to get the Amarr resists on gallente ships but the repairing bonus would be overkill). Not all fights are 100 Vs, 100, sometimes is 20 vs 20, or 40 vs 40.

I would consider whether these ships should have gone to 7 lows. I'm pretty sure the EOS could, but I guess you can't get a mega tank Command Ship, and a DPS monster to boot.

Yaay!!!!

Extraterra
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#298 - 2013-08-01 19:37:26 UTC
NICE CHANGES. ILOVE IT
Ivana Twinkle
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#299 - 2013-08-01 19:43:06 UTC
haha boosting claymores will be the first ship nuked off the field now.
Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#300 - 2013-08-01 19:43:58 UTC
CCP FOZZIE.


is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200

NIGHTHAWK
Fittings: 825 PWG (+115)