These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kataki Soikutsu
Deltoles Scram LLC
#541 - 2013-08-02 14:49:58 UTC
+1 to making WC receive fleet boosts. That is a very weird bug as boosts are supposed to cascade down the fleet hierarchy.

The changes are interesting but I am not sure they really capture what a command ship is. These should be ships that every FC wants to fly and should be designed with this in mind. Making the Boosting bonus a role bonus is a good step in this direction, but you should go further. In particular separating the hulls into a "large fleet" and "small gang" CS would be the best thing to do as those FCs require very different things.

The large fleet CS should have a brick tank and good electronics systems so the FC can stay on grid under heavy fire and still give commands. The damage bonuses are secondary for this role and there should be a tanking bonus on both the BC & CS skill. Like the Damnation gets both Resists and Armor HP. Outside of large fleet combat these ships should be less desirable due to the poor damage output.

The small gang CS should have good DPS and have more utility highs for links, but should not have anywhere near the tank of the large fleet CS. Think something about the current power level of the Sleipnir but with 3 links. In small gang every ship counts, and having to gimp the DPS by 20% to fit a full compliment of links is a big penalty. In addition you should be looking ahead to when boosting finally becomes On Grid and the affects of forcing ships to gimp themselves to bring a full complement of links.

As an example, consider Incursions. There you are limited in the number of ships you can bring and right now only the Sleipnir is any good for Shield fleets but no where near top tier, with the Nighthawk also being viable but not as good. To run Incursions safely you need 5 links (3 siege & 2 skirmish) which means that you have to have 2 CS on grid. Given the current design 1 will have to be gimped by 20% in damage to fit that third link. In HQs where you have 40 people, this might not be a big deal. But in VG having 2 weaker ships and one of them being gimped just to run Incursions is very steep. Honestly it will increase the barrier to entry both through more demanding fleet compositions and by advanced plays moving up to HQs as VG will be less worth it to do. So please think through what will happen by only giving CSs 2 utility highs when you switch to On Grid boosting.

Another Incursion Aside: Could you do something about Nation Consolidation Networks? Allowing CSs to take both gates instead of just the BS gate would help make them more interesting to do as right now only the T3s are powerful enough to keep up with the BSs on the other side. Also balancing the spawns across sides so that we don't get an easy spawn on one side and a hard one on the other leaving the easy side to sit and wait would be very nice.
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#542 - 2013-08-02 14:56:39 UTC
Just asking again. What about astarte cargo hold size? Should it not be 475 m3?
Ong
Lumberjack Commandos
#543 - 2013-08-02 14:59:29 UTC
Claymore, and I guess Sleipnir now still need a buff to their speed, for ships that are meant to provide boosts to nano fleets their stupidly slow when compared to the ships they will be flying with such as hacs/recons, and massively hinders kyiting, which is half the reason why OGB is so much more preferable.

Speeds of those ships with the claymore boosts:

Claymore: 1974 m/s

Vaga: 3464 m/s

rapier: 2481 m/s

Arazu: 2250 m/s

Cynabal: 3500 m/s

zealot: 2491 m/s

At least take it up to the speed of the recons, 2.5kms ish (or whatever speed these ships will be post nerf)
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#544 - 2013-08-02 15:01:01 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
WTF I trained skirmish warfare link to V for my damnation now I'm getting the rug pulled out under me again? I want/need skirnish for my incursion damnation I been using for Incursion booster Ugh

Is there a logic disconnect somewhere? Skirmish fits better with Amarr due to the Bhaalgorn bonus I thought and Gallente would do better with the INFO warfare link due to the onie's sensor bonus'.

CCP Fozzie tricked by meta gamers mistakenly wrote wrote:


One significant change from the proposal last year is the link bonuses on the Amarr and Gallente ships, which we've swapped thanks to player feedback. Amarr gets armor and info, Gallente gets armor and skirmish which fits them much better.



Kid you just need to suck it up. so many plans. so many changes. so many opinions. and still NOTHING IN CONCRETE till its done. you should have known this. and yeah I know it sucks. and i LIKE it. Gallente gets shat on so many times Amarr can suffer
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#545 - 2013-08-02 15:05:41 UTC
Are there any plans to bring boosting to smaller ship levels, such as Frig / Dessy / Cruiser should they ever be made to be on grid?
Dairokuten Maoh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#546 - 2013-08-02 15:07:22 UTC
Command ship role bonus made command ship 5 pilots boost just as good as command ship 1 pilots.

余の前に人は無く、余の後にも人は無し Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.
Rutger Centemus
Joint Empire Squad
#547 - 2013-08-02 15:27:47 UTC
Dvla wrote:
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.

seconding this
Azlana
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#548 - 2013-08-02 15:28:41 UTC
+1
Shadow Leigon
Azrael's Dogs
#549 - 2013-08-02 15:30:31 UTC
+1
BigSako
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#550 - 2013-08-02 15:39:50 UTC
Dvla wrote:
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 support his comments
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#551 - 2013-08-02 15:45:39 UTC
Dvla wrote:
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.


Some good points, although I'm curious about why you didn't post them with your main. I think you know that I have plenty of respect for your opinions.

Wing command bonuses from fleet is something that I 100% want to get fixed, although there are a few complications that mean I can't promise a specific timeline for it yet.

Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Laura Belle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#552 - 2013-08-02 15:47:21 UTC
buy why eos loose a slot and remains with 16 when ALL the other command ships with 17?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#553 - 2013-08-02 15:47:52 UTC
In general guys I'm not quite caught up on the thread yet, so expect my posting here to slow down until the tournament weekend ends. I'm taking a vacation day today and will be quite busy tomorrow and Sunday, but am already sketching up some changes in response to your feedback so far.

I really do appreciate the feedback, don't feel like I'm abandoning you when I don't post much this weekend.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#554 - 2013-08-02 15:49:30 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.


Possible to do something with those and rig slots? as that would have the same impact on both tanking types. Tho a bit messy with T2 hulls due to only having 2 rig slots.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#555 - 2013-08-02 15:55:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
In general guys I'm not quite caught up on the thread yet, so expect my posting here to slow down until the tournament weekend ends. I'm taking a vacation day today and will be quite busy tomorrow and Sunday, but am already sketching up some changes in response to your feedback so far.

I really do appreciate the feedback, don't feel like I'm abandoning you when I don't post much this weekend.


don't worry about that mine are the most important posts anyway :P
at least leave us with some thoughts please

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#556 - 2013-08-02 16:00:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Some good points, although I'm curious about why you didn't post them with your main. I think you know that I have plenty of respect for your opinions.


ROFL, DEV-BURN lol
Diivil
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#557 - 2013-08-02 16:03:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Some good points, although I'm curious about why you didn't post them with your main. I think you know that I have plenty of respect for your opinions.



In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :)
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#558 - 2013-08-02 16:10:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
In general guys I'm not quite caught up on the thread yet, so expect my posting here to slow down until the tournament weekend ends. I'm taking a vacation day today and will be quite busy tomorrow and Sunday, but am already sketching up some changes in response to your feedback so far.

I really do appreciate the feedback, don't feel like I'm abandoning you when I don't post much this weekend.


Seriously though with all the boosts to the Armor rep i feel the only thing missing now is a boost to the rep bonus on Gal ships.

Think of it like the drone bonus its allways a hybrid bonus to hp and damage.

why not make the repair amount bonus also include a reduction in cap activation cost? that would really help gal as they are cap heavy ships using mwd reps and hybrids.

thanks

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#559 - 2013-08-02 16:13:16 UTC
Diivil wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Some good points, although I'm curious about why you didn't post them with your main. I think you know that I have plenty of respect for your opinions.



In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :)


My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#560 - 2013-08-02 16:17:15 UTC
Rroff wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.


Possible to do something with those and rig slots? as that would have the same impact on both tanking types. Tho a bit messy with T2 hulls due to only having 2 rig slots.


I don't think converting them into a rig would be a bad thing. As it goes with Command Ships at least, they will now all be able to fit three links out of the box; if you want all three, you already sacrifice a DPS high. If you want more than that, you could sacrifice a rig slot. Same with T3 cruisers and on up; you can fit what you can fit. Any more will require sacrificing your rig slots. Sounds like a good compromise for a game where fitting is supposed to be all about compromise. And in the case of having to use rigs, everyone would have to compromise from the same ship attribute, regardless of ship or tank type.