These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#621 - 2013-08-02 20:19:22 UTC
After some consideration, I feel that these changes are somewhat positive. But they are not going to change anything as is.

I whole-heartedly approve of the armor/shield split with each having an info warfare link boosting CS option. The racial pidgeon-holing of EWAR link bonuses on Gallente hulls was terrible. EWAR bros deserve love, too.

Due to the overall weakness of shield doctrine in the current meta, I doubt we'll see Caldari CS being used more, except for those brave enough to field Rohktrine, Tengu-fleet, or Caralols. They will still continue to get bombed into oblivion so long as extenders and CDFEs have a sigRad bloom. A skill to reduce this penalty for shield extenders would be great. There already is one for rigs.

Meanwhile, the Damnation will most definitely see an increase in use since it can now be used as a booster for EWAR wings. The Absolution will continue to sit in hangers and shipyards gathering dust. Damnation still does it better because of it's double-tank bonuses.

With Gallente having access to Skirmish link bonuses, I think we will see the Astarte and Eos being used more in armor fleets at first. But once people realize that they die a lot faster due to no EHP bonus at all, they may just go back to the Damnation and say "F-it, I'll take the weaker skirmish links and better tank." A dead CS boosts no one.

I also would have liked to have seen each race with a resist bonused CS, and a local rep bonused CS. Then there would have been something for both large fleets and skirmish gangs. Nothing says you can't use the resist bonused CS for skirmish fleet. But taking the local rep-bonused CS puts that pilot at a significant disadvantage when you have to survive high alpha conditions.

Overall, while I like the changes and see them as a good step forward, I think they will mostly reinforce the current meta. Shield doctrine is still lost and Gallente are inferior to Amarr in every way. Minmatar are the shield equivalent of Gallente, and are overshadowed by Caldari for the same reasons. Simply swapping the active tanking and resist bonuses so that each race has a resist bonused CS and a local rep bonused CS would go a long way towards fixing these issues.

I also approve of the efforts to get boosting links out of POSes. Sure they can roll right back in there. But then links go off. You want links, get out of your POS and take some risks.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Diivil
Magellanic Itg
Goonswarm Federation
#622 - 2013-08-02 20:22:33 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
The bottom line is that having boosters on grid will make the fights less fun. They will always be primaried first. They will always be locked down 24/7 so you can't reposition at all. They will be neuted, or they will be webbed long enough until the battle evolves to a point where you can neut them without dying. If the fleet moves (not warp, just moves around with their prop mod) the boosters will be left behind. All these things make the fights become less fun because you can sacrifice a few DPS ships to reposition, you can't sacrifice a boosting ship. So instead we will have everyone sitting still not even trying to maneuver.


Serious question. Why would your fleet allow a webbing ship close enough to the fleet (let alone your CS) without vaporizing it?

And if the enemy does somehow have the ability to keep a webbing ship in close proximity to your fleet, wouldn't your logistics ships actually be the better choice as they are far easier to pop when webbed?


Have you ever been in a 500v500 fight? 1000v1000? It is impossible to kill every single thing with a web if there are enough of them on grid and all it needs is one or two webs to stay on one command ship and you have to stop moving your fleet to stay in range of it. The max web range before these nerfs was just under 108km. I haven't calculated how much it will go down with the nerfs but I suspect it will still be over 80km for the longest range ships. Luckily they are not used as often since shield doctrines are pretty much dead in these big fights and armor fleets use lower range Lokis instead but the whole thing still is such a massive limitation on fleet movements that it just isn't good for the game PvP tactics wise. But there are also many doctrines that don't even have an 80km engagement range. Are you suggesting that all those should get ****** and fly something that can shoot farther away?

If your wing commanders are on grid and even just one of them gets webbed you are pretty much 100% committed. You can't reposition if it costs you a wing commander because the bonuses are too important. If they get webbed, they will most likely eventually get neuted too. So now you are not even running links. Sure it's great for the more aggressive fleet doctrines or those that don't move at all but I feel it will take too much away from the actual tactics used in these fights. So in the end we are stuck with the most obvious question, why would you put wing commanders on grid when you can use off grid boosters?

I am not understanding your second point. Logistic ships are good targets in smaller scale fights. They are horrible targets in big fights because you have enough DPS to kill most things that are not pre-locked by the logis. Killing logistics generally won't speed up your killing rate that much because most of the time stuff is not catching reps anyway especially if they are armor. Killing boosters would increase your killing rate much more. Or killing DPS would decrease the rate of your own ships dying.


Sol Mortis wrote:

I would just like to point out that:

A) It is completely inappropriate for a dev to publicly identify a player's character as being an alt or a main. It smacks of intimidation and petty condescension based on nothing more than the dev's position of authority and access to information.

B) Dvla made many extremely salient points, and it shouldn't matter what character or player posts them. It is sad to think that you wouldn't be able to recognize good ideas unless they are posted by a familiar name.

C) The new commands ships are worse than the old ones, except for the Eos and Claymore. Nobody wants to fly command ships with the same number of turrets as a cruiser, even if they do have stronger bonuses.

D) The Fozzie knows that the command ship changes are a big nerf to the class as a whole and don't even address the most glaring issues with the ships. He has no valid arguments to support these changes, so he has resorted to personal attacks on people for posting with alts while ignoring their valid points.


There is no reason to white knight me here. It's not like my identity was secret anyway when the post and my name was broadcasted in jabber to a few thousand CFC members. Fozzie simply thought I was someone else. Now why did I post on an alt in the first place? Because I didn't want to get dragged in to a posting campaign as someone would call this. I just wanted to get my opinion heard and GTFO of this thread.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#623 - 2013-08-02 20:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Sol Mortis 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.

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.


I would just like to point out that:

A) It is completely inappropriate for a dev to publicly identify a player's character as being an alt or a main. It smacks of intimidation and petty condescension based on nothing more than the dev's position of authority and access to information.

B) Dvla made many extremely salient points, and it shouldn't matter what character or player posts them. It is sad to think that you wouldn't be able to recognize good ideas unless they are posted by a familiar name.

C) The new commands ships are worse than the old ones, except for the Eos and Claymore. Nobody wants to fly command ships with the same number of turrets as a cruiser, even if they do have stronger bonuses.

D) The Fozzie knows that the command ship changes are a big nerf to the class as a whole and don't even address the most glaring issues with the ships. He has no valid arguments to support these changes, so he has resorted to personal attacks on people for posting with alts while ignoring their valid points.



A) There is nothing inappropriate about his observation, he obviously knows (or thinks he knows) this person. How could identifying the poster as an alt be considered intimidating or condescending in any way? Nobody gives a damn, at least not in a negative way, except possibly you.

B) Since Fozzie knows this persons main he felt that the points would carry even more weight with US if it came from a source that was known and respected. You are a very confused person.

C) You have completely missed the point of what people are complaining about.

D) There were no personal attacks made except within your fevered paranoid imagination.

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

Ayatsuji
Doomheim
#624 - 2013-08-02 20:49:04 UTC
Is it a typo that the Eos and AStarte not getting information Warfare Links?
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#625 - 2013-08-02 21:10:04 UTC
if you're referring to the dev blog about it, which listed gallente and amarr with opposite not-armor links, http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/73530 then it might be, and it might not.

"inconsequential" troll or change is possible in the way CCP will do with these things.
Tsai Ashitaka
Caidin Global Academy
#626 - 2013-08-02 21:16:32 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
Sigras wrote:

seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?!



Because the whole frickin point of the missle system is that you can choose your damage type.

Having a bonus to only one type of damage negates one of the huge over arching benefits of the platform.
Yeah, bit it's unrealistic to expect to be able to hit *every* resistance hole perfectly, which is what an omni-damage bonus (meaning no damage bonus to a specific type) would be.

Every race has to fire a damage type, with most of them being mixed damage types as it is. Asking for all Caldari missile systems to do bonused damage to any missile would be broken. But Minmatar can! Yes and no. Their primary weapon system, projectiles, fires a mixed damage round that you can distribute to more reflect one damage type or another but its never a perfect, 100% one-damage-type. The missile turreted ships that they use typically have bonuses to omni, yes, but the damage from these ships is augmented by drones or some of the missile ships just have bonuses to explosive damage.

Firing all missiles, from long range (HML and others) or short range, high damage (HAMs and others) perfectly into a resist hole would be broken. Caldari favor kinetic damage. That's the way it is, just as much as Amarr favor EM, Gallente Thermal, and Minmatar Explosive.


Who cares if the Minmatar damage isn't perfectly distributed? They can still overwhelmingly hit resistance holes with full damage bonuses. Honestly, I'd rather hit a spread of multiple damage types, anyway. EMP ammo is the only ammo that can cover the unusual spread of EM/Explosive, and projectiles are the only turret whose LONG RANGE ammo gets INCREASED tracking. Let's not forget that Minmatar have 3 tiers of ammo range with damage type selection within each, while hybrids and lasers are forced on a useless 7-tier continuum of inversely proportional range and damage (you only want short range and T2 long range. Period).

Minmatar missile ships all have omni-damage bonuses, while the comparable Caldari ship only has kinetic, with the caveat of an extra hardpoint, sometimes. Same goes for Amarr missile ships.

If you don't want to compare projectiles to missiles, then AT LEAST give amarr missile ships bonuses to only EM missiles and Minmatar ships bonuses to only explosive missiles.

I mean, hitting every resistance hole is unrealistic, right?
Phaade
Proioxis Assault Force
Rogue Caldari Union
#627 - 2013-08-02 21:27:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
Can you please stop giving Amarr ships bonuses to Energy turret cap use AND Rate of Fire? They basically cancel each other out.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#628 - 2013-08-02 21:28:45 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
snip.
Explain how bonused damage to any damage type (which is what you're suggesting, removing the kinetic damage bonus) and loading the launcher with missiles that fire 100% of one damage type WOULDN'T hit a resist hole perfectly??? Maybe you don't understand what hitting a resist hole perfectly means, so here goes: if, for example, I am weakest to EM--my resist hole--and you can lob bonused-damage-EM missiles into that hole, then, wowie-zowie! you're hitting into that resist hole perfectly, since none of your damage is being mitigated by my higher resistances in therm/kin/explosive. Minmatar, for example, fire EM-biased EMP rounds that have some kinetic and explosive damage as well. So, although I may be weakest to EM, some of the damage from that round is being mitigated by my higher kinetic and explosive resistances.

As far as the other point, I'm sorry if you didn't realize this was a command ship thread about command ships that use medium weapons and get bonuses to medium weapons, so obviously, any comments made in this command ship thread about command ships that get bonuses to medium weapons would apply to medium weapons. Obviously, I never suggested that you'd have bonuses on a MEDIUM hull to ALL LAUNCHERS (although, I could argue that the Caracal does, in fact, get bonuses to light missiles as well with RLMLs). "Any missile" requires some ability to comprehend the overall topic, which in this case is Command ships, which incidentally use Medium-sized launchers.

Your argument about the Raven not "being broken" falls short, considering that it is one of the least used Battleships in large operations. The fact is that the issue isn't the kinetic damage bonus or lack thereof--the Raven's woes stem from the missile system itself. In fact, these woes and drawbacks caused by the Battleship hull are why the Raven "isn't broken." Adding to that, Battleships are slow and any damage that you could potentially receive from them can be mitigated by leaving the field before the missiles arrive and cause damage. Not counting issues like firewalls, missile tracking, target painting, tracking disruption-immune, etc., a Raven comparison is wholly dissimilar to a Command Ship that is faster, smaller sig, fires faster missiles, closer range, etc. You're asking for volleys and volleys of 100% damage-type missiles to shoot into a resist hole that can't be mitigated by tracking disruption or similar. No matter how badly you want it, it'd be broken in this class.

Also, comparing class ships similarly, a Minmatari ship will compensate its raw damage via drones. A Caldari ship vs a Minmatar ship, all things being equal with no drones taken into account, the Caldari ship is going to do more damage, despite the fact that it'd be kinetic-bonused. Just look at the Drake with its 6 launchers vs the Cyclone with 5. This same sort of comparison plays out whether we're talking about frigs (Breacher vs Condor/Kestrel), Cruisers (Bellicose (which actually is a disruption cruiser) vs Caracal or the aforementioned Drake and Cyclone comparison for Battlecruisers. The Battleships are in a different class (using large weapons) and have other drawbacks that smaller ships--medium-sized ships--simply don't share.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#629 - 2013-08-02 21:29:43 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Can you please stop giving Amarr ships bonuses to Energy turret cap use AND Rate of Fire? They basically cancel each other out.

Actually one enables the other (theoretically).

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

Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#630 - 2013-08-02 21:39:11 UTC
Sometimes it looks like the Alpha and the Logis are the Problem not the Command Ships.
Telios Madronin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#631 - 2013-08-02 21:40:45 UTC
Okay, enough about mechanics of the Command Ships changes. We will adjust to them like we do to every other change that CCP gives us.

Lets hear more about what really matters...the "Command Ship model changes"

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#632 - 2013-08-02 21:44:52 UTC
just want to say, Multitasking V is relevant for logi with a signal amplifier.
Kelarc Keld
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#633 - 2013-08-02 21:52:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
[quote=Xequecal]
We want there to be a variety of different ships for people to fly that have different skill levels. Command ships require a lot of training, this is part of their design. Until that training is complete there's a lot of other options including the T1 battlecruisers or Navy Battlecruisers, both of which are a lot of fun in combat and are very capable of providing helpful gang links to your fleetmates.

But unlike other ships you have to train completely unrelated stuff. It would be better to switch out the Warfare lv5s with a racial Battlecruiser V skill. For example the vulturepilot will hardly ever use the skirmish or armoured Warfare stuff.
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#634 - 2013-08-02 22:09:35 UTC
A post with multiple forum rule violations has been removed.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL

William Darkk
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#635 - 2013-08-02 22:44:26 UTC  |  Edited by: William Darkk
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.

I'm curious what you think is the right way, because a local rep bonus is clearly not the way to go either. It's absolutely useless in a large fight (a 256 man fleet will usually have more than 20 logi, unless you let DBRB form it or something).

Rain6637 wrote:
just want to say, Multitasking V is relevant for logi with a signal amplifier.

I thought that was bugged to hardcap at 10 targets.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#636 - 2013-08-02 22:48:46 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Aglais wrote:
Sigras wrote:

seriously, why do people keep making such a big deal out of a selectable (or non selectable) damage type?!

It's not like people omni-tank or anything . . . RollRollRoll

In fact if youre going to be stuck to one damage type, Kinetic isnt a bad way to go, it only makes you suck against T2 gallente ships which ATM are lulz terrible.

Also, the nighthawk is fine, extra shield HP, extra resists, same DPS better lock range, more PG, higher sensor strength.


One of the biggest points about the missile weapon system in general is selectable damage types. That's one of their maybe two advantages over (most) guns. Take that away, and they're not nearly as good.

The nighthawk is NOT fine, either, because it's slot layout is... Why? Why does it have only five medslots? Claymore has more PG than the NH, too, as a note.

My point is that selectable damage isnt an advantage, it makes no difference in 99% of PvP situations because even if you do find that they have a hole in a particular damage type, the extra DPS you might gain by switching to that damage type is negated by the 10 second reload time where you were doing no damage at all.

The one case where this may not be true is in large cap ship fights where the cap ships can simply refit to resist the damage type youre doing, but like I said, thats an edge case and really, if your up against that tactic, you'd better have an ace in the hole anyway.

Edit:
All that being said, yes, i agree its weird for a matari ship to have more mids than a caldari ship of the same class.


Good pilots know how to select their damage type long before they ever even start the fight... saying it's not valid in 99% of pvp fights is not a statement of truth, it's a statement of your lack of PvP abilities and only demonstrates your shortcomings.

Nighthawk is horrid as it stands. There is absolutely no reason any sound mind PvP'er would ever select it over the claymore.
Otto Schultzky
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#637 - 2013-08-02 22:52:26 UTC
Any chance that Eos will be receiving +10% to Armor Hit Points per Level instead of their current bonus to repair amount ?

Considering reductions to power grid and a lack of a resist bonus, Eos will not be capable of a Damnation level tank with a 10% armor HP bonus.
Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc.
Drifters.
#638 - 2013-08-02 23:11:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
now that the hype is over, i have read through most of the complaints and have to agree with a lot of the peeps here.

since i fly amarr, i was only looking at the hamnation and drooling over its hp and ham speed bonus.
something i noted months ago in our "command ship" chatter was that ALL command ships will need ehp since they will be forced on grid. that expensive of a ship WILL be primaried. that powerful of a ship WILL be primaried.

as a role bonus to ALL cmd ships, drop the damnation 10% armor per level and give them ALL 10% to either shield or armor.
the nighthawk needs some serious lovin. its so low on pg its not funny. as noted several times, the claymore dominates it in everything.

and why is it that the minmatar ships have a huge resist profile to begin with?
they are known for speed, not resists. amarr and caldari have to get to command ship rank 5 to compete with the claymore, sleipnir, muninn, vaggy eyc, etc. caldari is known for shield resists. they should not come second to a ragtag bunch of duct-taped fleets and neither should amarr. our resist profile should be unmatched as winmatar speed should be unmatched.
gallente dps should be unmatched. its tradition...blaster boats..nuff said.
now bring in the sleipnir. thats thing is a beast. it already has a resist profile from hell and its fast and dishes out damage like that? what happened to the astarte? that thing needs to be a beast too.

winmatar needs ALL of their t2 shield resists lowered as a rule. who ever originally made them favored minmatar and its been followed through the same for years. either boost all the rest on their profiles so we have em shield resistances from the factory or drop minmatar down some.

now, for command ships, drop the kinetic only. give more mid slots on the nighthawk. its a shield based critter. the claymore has always been about balance between shield and armor..typical minmatar. give more pg to the nighthawk.

drop the tracking bonus on the eos. i mean really? bonuses for 4 blasters when its a drone boat? give it another drone bonus, like range/tracking on the domi. drop the active rep bonus. these are for fleet support, not solo. one cannot run links in solo play. they CAN be used for solo play, but their intent is fleet use. small fleet, large fleet doesnt matter. one cannot be a commander of yourself.

and why do command ships have less slots than their parent ships? thats kinda weird. 1 more slot in a favorable spot would make these better.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#639 - 2013-08-02 23:17:41 UTC
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#640 - 2013-08-02 23:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Mole Guy wrote:
now that the hype is over, i have read through most of the complaints and have to agree with a lot of the peeps here.

since i fly amarr, i was only looking at the hamnation and drooling over its hp and ham speed bonus.
something i noted months ago in our "command ship" chatter was that ALL command ships will need ehp since they will be forced on grid. that expensive of a ship WILL be primaried. that powerful of a ship WILL be primaried.

as a role bonus to ALL cmd ships, drop the damnation 10% armor per level and give them ALL 10% to either shield or armor.
the nighthawk needs some serious lovin. its so low on pg its not funny. as noted several times, the claymore dominates it in everything.

and why is it that the minmatar ships have a huge resist profile to begin with?
they are known for speed, not resists. amarr and caldari have to get to command ship rank 5 to compete with the claymore, sleipnir, muninn, vaggy eyc, etc. caldari is known for shield resists. they should not come second to a ragtag bunch of duct-taped fleets and neither should amarr. our resist profile should be unmatched as winmatar speed should be unmatched.
gallente dps should be unmatched. its tradition...blaster boats..nuff said.
now bring in the sleipnir. thats thing is a beast. it already has a resist profile from hell and its fast and dishes out damage like that? what happened to the astarte? that thing needs to be a beast too.

winmatar needs ALL of their t2 shield resists lowered as a rule. who ever originally made them favored minmatar and its been followed through the same for years. either boost all the rest on their profiles so we have em shield resistances from the factory or drop minmatar down some.

now, for command ships, drop the kinetic only. give more mid slots on the nighthawk. its a shield based critter. the claymore has always been about balance between shield and armor..typical minmatar. give more pg to the nighthawk.

drop the tracking bonus on the eos. i mean really? bonuses for 4 blasters when its a drone boat? give it another drone bonus, like range/tracking on the domi. drop the active rep bonus. these are for fleet support, not solo. one cannot run links in solo play. they CAN be used for solo play, but their intent is fleet use. small fleet, large fleet doesnt matter. one cannot be a commander of yourself.

and why do command ships have less slots than their parent ships? thats kinda weird. 1 more slot in a favorable spot would make these better.


Some nice points here i would like to pickup on the minmatar insane resists especially when you're talking 90% EM granted that's armour to which i come to the next point is the sleipnir is going to get the hurricane hull so i would think making it the armour based hull with the cane flexibility for shield tanking and perhaps could have armoured warfare instead of siege there's no reason why both CS should be limited to the same links.

There is too much homogenization in Eve now there is no need for it .. i also hate that the stats for most of these ships are the same within their own class and the cap regen is the same across the board ignoring the fact that amarr and gallente need better cap regen.

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