Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Since when do T3 get a bonus to 3 types of links?

Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.

Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.

Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.

Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.

The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.

Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least.

I usually like to sit back and wait and see how the changes play out. I don't mind some shuffling around of roles and ship purposes, so long as the common goal is to INCREASE the diversity of the game, and the ships within it.

However,

Much like your original proposed changes for haulers, I feel like you've reduced the diversity of the game here. You finally recognized that you were dumbing down your game in the case of the industrials. I hope you can recognize the same quality in this change.

I'm sure that Field command ships will be more capable in some senses, but the bottom line is that DPS is dropping across the board. I feel like you're really only doing it to attack the prevalence of Sleipner's in the tournament. This isn't about boosts, since field command ships were rarely used for boosting.

Anyway, I have two problems with your changes.


1: There's really no such thing as a field command ship anymore. You have taken it right out of the game. The two ships are now virtually identical in role - with the only real difference being the weapon type. They are both fleet command ships now, aren't they? And if they are, how can you not recognize that you have reduced the diversity of your game?

2: People who originally trained for field command ships did so through the Heavy Assault Cruiser line. You may have taken that requirement out a few months ago, but it doesn't suddenly change the fact that people originally were training for a: DPS Attack ship. Changing the skill requirement and then completely changing the ship is pretty poor form.

Recognizing that your changes were unjust, I think you tried to obfuscate. Instead of just taking the pinnacle of the Assault ship line and wiping it out, INSTEAD you removed the assault skill first, waited a few months, and then turned them all into boosting ships.

Not cool, and very disingenuous.

Stage 1: Promise that if you could fly the ship before, you can fly it afterwards.
Stage 2: Change the skill requirements of the ship to be for a different ship. Claim it's won't hurt anyone because of stage 1.
Stage 3: Change the ship itself to be a different ship. Point to stage 2 for justification. Ignore the promises made in stage 1.

This is hardly fair.

For a more extreme example, should you have the right to:
Change the skill requirement on Archon to be Mining Foreman 5, and 2 months later change the Archon into a fleet mining ship?