These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
SkyMeetFire
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#961 - 2013-08-07 16:46:02 UTC
May be a stupid idea but - have you considered something like giving all the command ships a role bonus of +5% shield, armor, and structure per level, and then changing the Damnation's 10% armor bonus to a sort of damage application bonus?

That would somewhat narrow the gap between the Active vs Resist tanked CS for fleets, and could make the Damnation not stand out as the only major fleet CS, while also giving the Damnation a better status as a real fighting CS.
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
#962 - 2013-08-07 16:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Wrayeth
Ranger 1 wrote:
Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.


Thought on making the Vulture more versatile: change one of the two optimal bonuses to falloff. Then it will have both an optimal and a falloff bonus.

Disclaimer: I've yet to fly a Vulture, so this is all theorycrafting.

Also, \o R1.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#963 - 2013-08-07 16:49:06 UTC
Any chance you might address the fact that some of the bonuses ships get are just inferior to others.

Like on a Vulture, a 50% optimal range bonus doesn't actually give you more dps at range than a ROF bonus. You feel like it should but it really doesn't, if you equalize ranges on different ships you will find that a DPS bonus >> optimal range at pretty much all ranges unless you're trying to shoot into SEBO'd ranges.

Just look at the ferox vs the brutix. Even though the ferox has one more physical gun and a double optimal range bonus the brutix wins the dps race at pretty much all ranges. The brutix outdpses the ferox to ******* 60km and beyond that the ferox only pulls ahead slightly.

Should make optimal range bonuses higher (could also make railguns less falloff based)

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#964 - 2013-08-07 16:50:22 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.


I guess I can see your point - though falloff is equally tiny (~5k falloff for ~3k optimal for medium blasters unbonused). Now that I think about it, it seems silly to have a single family cover both the shortest and longest range weapons. Maybe optimal range bonuses for hybrid weapons should list the bonus for blasters and rails separately? I don't want to discuss this too much here to avoid taking this thread off the rails (so to speak).
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#965 - 2013-08-07 16:50:40 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?

I'm telling you, this tracking bonus would be PERFECT to turn into +10% Armor HP per level.

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

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

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#966 - 2013-08-07 16:54:39 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?

I'm telling you, this tracking bonus would be PERFECT to turn into +10% Armor HP per level.


Only way this would be reasonable is if the additional hp granted to the eos in the most recept proposal was reverted to the original proposal.
Sparkus Volundar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#967 - 2013-08-07 16:55:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sparkus Volundar
Hello,

Thanks for all the work on everything of late.

I think the premier shield tanking race command ships should follow the Drake and have of 6 mids (e.g. like the Claymore). The Nighthawk will also be shooting missiles like the Drake after all.

It makes no sense to me to have the Caldari missile command ship mirror the hybrid weapon T1 battlecruiser model of 5 mids while the hybrid weapon T2 command ship has 6 mids. Nighthawk still seems to suffer from the old tier issue of being based on the lower tier BC hull.

My suggestion would be to move one low to a mid.

Regards,
Sparks

.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#968 - 2013-08-07 17:07:58 UTC
Wrayeth wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.


Thought on making the Vulture more versatile: change one of the two optimal bonuses to falloff. Then it will have both an optimal and a falloff bonus.

Disclaimer: I've yet to fly a Vulture, so this is all theorycrafting.

Also, \o R1.

07

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#969 - 2013-08-07 17:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Any chance you might address the fact that some of the bonuses ships get are just inferior to others.

Like on a Vulture, a 50% optimal range bonus doesn't actually give you more dps at range than a ROF bonus. You feel like it should but it really doesn't, if you equalize ranges on different ships you will find that a DPS bonus >> optimal range at pretty much all ranges unless you're trying to shoot into SEBO'd ranges.

Just look at the ferox vs the brutix. Even though the ferox has one more physical gun and a double optimal range bonus the brutix wins the dps race at pretty much all ranges. The brutix outdpses the ferox to ******* 60km and beyond that the ferox only pulls ahead slightly.

Should make optimal range bonuses higher (could also make railguns less falloff based)


Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists.

But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need

These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet

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
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#970 - 2013-08-07 17:27:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Harvey James wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Any chance you might address the fact that some of the bonuses ships get are just inferior to others.

Like on a Vulture, a 50% optimal range bonus doesn't actually give you more dps at range than a ROF bonus. You feel like it should but it really doesn't, if you equalize ranges on different ships you will find that a DPS bonus >> optimal range at pretty much all ranges unless you're trying to shoot into SEBO'd ranges.

Just look at the ferox vs the brutix. Even though the ferox has one more physical gun and a double optimal range bonus the brutix wins the dps race at pretty much all ranges. The brutix outdpses the ferox to ******* 60km and beyond that the ferox only pulls ahead slightly.

Should make optimal range bonuses higher (could also make railguns less falloff based)


Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists.

But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need

These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet

I appreciate what you are saying, but therein lie's a slippery slope.

Rare, expensive, but much superior ships end up having entire fleets dedicated to them in short order.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#971 - 2013-08-07 17:30:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ersahi Kir
Harvey James wrote:
Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists.


I think he was talking about the vulture and not the ferox.

Harvey James wrote:
But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need

These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet


We don't need fleets of command ships wrecking all comers, we need command ships to give fleets boosts. Unfortunately, we have the well designed damnation and 7 other ships that are over-sized HAC's. The real issue here is that command ships, HACs, and T3 ships are still going to be stomping over each other because they all fill the same niche. Too bad the obvious command ship niche of 'fleet booster able to survive fleet sized alpha' was ignored in favor of shoving more ships into the medium sized brawler niche.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#972 - 2013-08-07 17:32:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Update time!
...
I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with the existence of active repair bonuses on half of these ships, but I think that giving all command ships buffer bonuses isn't the right way to go. I believe that the four skirmish bonused command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.


Fozzie, the players don't mind if half the command ships have an active tanking bonus, as long as it's split 50/50 for each race. i.e. each race gets a 'skirmish' and each race gets a 'fleet' CS.

Of course we all know, and I know the evidence is there in your logs to support this position, no-one, just no-one ever did or every will fly a command ship with an active tank bonus in any kind of real pvp 'skirmish'. Active tank bonuses are useful in hypothetical 1v1 or 1v2 confrontations. These actually almost never happen other than under contrived circumstances on the test server.

In addition, given that a command ship is only useful in a fleet, it is further rendered useless on a command ship. Either,

your gang will gank a single solo ship - in which case you don't need local reps at all, or

your gang will engage another gang, and their combined firepower will render your local rep bonus completely irrelevant.

You know this full well. We know that you know it, and I think I can speak for the entire Eve community when I say we think you are wrong to persist in your current position.

Sorry to say this mate. Your previous work has been great. On this issue, for the good of the game, you need to relent.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Sarkelias Anophius
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#973 - 2013-08-07 17:33:51 UTC
Quote:
Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.


Discounting blaster nagas, of course.
I'm pretty sure a vulture with dual 150s might pack a modest punch for what it is.
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#974 - 2013-08-07 17:49:48 UTC
The nightwk and Astarte damage buffs are nice and so are the small up shuffles
But come on you missed a lot with this "update"
Eos is still lacking a slot which it needs, -1 slot when it has only 4 unbounded turrets? That's laughable...
And why a damage application bonus for guns when it has no damage to apply?
And give all the commandships +1 slot
They should have one more slot than their t1 counterparts

Tl;dr +1 slot to all commandships
Then ontop of that add a second slot to the eos to make up for the lack of anything but drones, or give it a better 4th bonus
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#975 - 2013-08-07 18:15:52 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists.


I think he was talking about the vulture and not the ferox.

Harvey James wrote:
But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need

These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet


We don't need fleets of command ships wrecking all comers, we need command ships to give fleets boosts. Unfortunately, we have the well designed damnation and 7 other ships that are over-sized HAC's. The real issue here is that command ships, HACs, and T3 ships are still going to be stomping over each other because they all fill the same niche. Too bad the obvious command ship niche of 'fleet booster able to survive fleet sized alpha' was ignored in favor of shoving more ships into the medium sized brawler niche.


There could always be a limit per fleet so say 3 CS one for each booster FC/WC/SC. or maybe 1 per fleet in the highest boosting position and the other 2 slots would have to be filled by T3's or T1 bc's

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
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#976 - 2013-08-07 18:17:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Update time!
We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.


Astarte:
+100 Armor
  • Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now).
    • Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC
    Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships




    This has one problem though.

    You are giving astarte 11 effective turret for damage.
    But at the same time you are increasing its 7 turrets to 8 effective turrets considering cap and ammunition consumption. yet astarte has smaller cargohold than brutix with 6 effective turrets.

    Any plan to compensate?
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #977 - 2013-08-07 18:28:29 UTC
    Shpenat wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Update time!
    We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.


    Astarte:
    +100 Armor
  • Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now).
    • Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC
    Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships




    This has one problem though.

    You are giving astarte 11 effective turret for damage.
    But at the same time you are increasing its 7 turrets to 8 effective turrets considering cap and ammunition consumption. yet astarte has smaller cargohold than brutix with 6 effective turrets.

    Any plan to compensate?


    Yes another thing Fozzie has ignored is the small cargobays on some of the ships yet one CS has 700...

    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
    Jerick Ludhowe
    Internet Tuff Guys
    #978 - 2013-08-07 18:30:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
    Shpenat wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Update time!
    We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.


    Astarte:
    +100 Armor
  • Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now).
    • Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC
    Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships




    This has one problem though.

    You are giving astarte 11 effective turret for damage.
    But at the same time you are increasing its 7 turrets to 8 effective turrets considering cap and ammunition consumption. yet astarte has smaller cargohold than brutix with 6 effective turrets.

    Any plan to compensate?


    Increasing the cargo capacity to 475m3 should be pretty much mandatory. The increased cap consumption can easily be offset by the usage of a nos tho. Other than that, I don't think the Astarte needs any more attention. It's faster, tanks better (against kin/therm) does more dmg, and has the option to fit missiles for even MORE dmg, or fit nos/nuets for offensive/defensive cap warfare. In short, it's looking very sexy.
    Rek Seven
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #979 - 2013-08-07 18:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Eos:
    -300 Shield
    +500 Armor
    +300 Hull

    I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with the existence of active repair bonuses on half of these ships, but I think that giving all command ships buffer bonuses isn't the right way to go. I believe that the four skirmish bonused command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.


    You are being ridiculous!

    Most people are of the opinion that it makes logical sense to have one CS designed for small fights (active tank high dps brawler/skirmisher) and one ship that is designed for fleet fights (buffer tank field CS).

    You recognise the necessity for an armour buffer CS in large fleet fights but instead of doing anything about it, you choose to ignore it and instead, suggest that people waste a bonus on their ship by fitting a buffer tank to an active tanked ship... That's crap game design IMO!

    Ps. get rid of the stupid tracking bonus.

    The wishlist is pretty much complete...
    Mister Vee
    Magellanic Itg
    Goonswarm Federation
    #980 - 2013-08-07 18:40:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mister Vee
    Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.


    Still can't use on-grid boosting

    • Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
    • Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).


    Off-grid boosting just got more annoying
    • Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
    • Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.


    What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like

    • Fix wing command bug first
    • Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
    • Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
    • Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
    • Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
    • And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...