These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shimbei
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1021 - 2013-08-07 21:02:49 UTC
Diivil wrote:
Even if you do all of this and manage to get people to use on-grid command ships they of course can do nothing while they are on the grid except run away. They will be fully tank fit which leaves no room to fit guns. No that the guns would do any real damage without DPS mods. Or that they would ever hit anyone when the command ships would be anchoring on the logi anchor and staying as far away from the fight as possible. So what fleet command ships need is not DPS bonuses. If you want to make them fun you will need to give them utility.


Ohhh won't anyone think of the roles? I think some are off starving someplace.

Maybe it's a lack of direct experience? Why not open up a constellation or two in UUA-F4 with some dev group holding sov. We'll come and fight you I'm sure.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1022 - 2013-08-07 21:10:06 UTC
Shimbei wrote:
Diivil wrote:
Even if you do all of this and manage to get people to use on-grid command ships they of course can do nothing while they are on the grid except run away. They will be fully tank fit which leaves no room to fit guns. No that the guns would do any real damage without DPS mods. Or that they would ever hit anyone when the command ships would be anchoring on the logi anchor and staying as far away from the fight as possible. So what fleet command ships need is not DPS bonuses. If you want to make them fun you will need to give them utility.


Ohhh won't anyone think of the roles? I think some are off starving someplace.

Maybe it's a lack of direct experience? Why not open up a constellation or two in UUA-F4 with some dev group holding sov. We'll come and fight you I'm sure.
Are you kidding? PL would be all over that with their superblob.

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

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

FalconX Blast
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1023 - 2013-08-07 21:14:51 UTC
Balanced with Alliance Tournament on the brain instead of the real EVE Online.
Shimbei
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1024 - 2013-08-07 21:17:12 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Are you kidding? PL would be all over that with their superblob.


Oh? and CCP can't limit ships by mass? Or engage alliance leaderships? It's their game. Don't be stupid.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1025 - 2013-08-07 21:20:33 UTC
I think the root problem with command ships is that there is nothing good for ships that specialize in tank (like command ships should) to do except give gang boosts . . . theyre not even usually that good at tackle because they usually cant keep up with their target.

This creates problems because CCP wants to make these ships interesting to fly, but:

  • giving them massive DPS and EHP makes them solo pwnmobiles
  • giving them little EHP leaves them vulnerable to being alphaed off the field
  • giving them little damage makes them very un-fun to play


I think the answer is to give ships that focus primarily on tank a role. A while ago, I proposed a module which would do just that..

Not every ship needs to tank and gank

TL;DR
a high slot module which would decrease the target ship's signature radius by 15% and increase yours by 30% This would of course be stack penalized but you could transfer a significant amount of the sig radius from one of your friendly ships to your own at the cost of your own DPS as you are using high slots to do so.

This would allow for a "tank class" of ship in order to encourage your opponents to fire at one ship over another without forcing them to.
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1026 - 2013-08-07 21:23:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
Diivil wrote:
Mister Vee wrote:
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.



Really awesome post...


**** these forums.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1027 - 2013-08-07 21:30:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
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.
    Edit: Seems I missed the fact it was changed today. My bad. Oops

    Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
    Mark Artreides
    V0LTA
    WE FORM V0LTA
    #1028 - 2013-08-07 21:41:54 UTC
    Selling all my command ships because CCP is doing the ******** thing again.

    Jesus holy **** Fozzie how can you skip 45 pages of feedback and not get it? You are changing one of the most vital ships in nullsec warfare and seem to be doing it without ANY consulting, experience or feedback.

    Sarkelias Anophius
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #1029 - 2013-08-07 21:41:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarkelias Anophius
    Mag's wrote:
    Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
    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.
    Split weapon systems suck chubby and I thought we were past them. I dislike the weapons change to the Astarte greatly and doubt if I'll now be using it again tbh.


    Wait wait

    Its primary weapons system gets buffed (read the effective turrets part) and you get two highs that *can* fit missiles and just as easily fit neuts/nos

    and you then complain about split weapons systems and how this ship is bad and you won't fly it

    can you even read? if not, how do you post? this is awfully confusing
    Zagdul
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #1030 - 2013-08-07 21:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
    I spent the greater part of a year training into command ships only to find that I spend my time on another account, alt+tabbed in order to have fun.

    I want to repeat this...

    It takes almost a year, with implants, to properly fly these very niche and specialty ships. They should be powerful.

    Before you remove the POS use, you need to make Command Ships viable on grid.

    Small gangs (<20) are horribly gimped by your current proposal in that, any large gang they feel they'd be able to take will have the numerical advantage to keep a command ship on grid. Furthermore, fielding these in 'small gang' environments makes them a liability, not an asset. In addition, forcing a Fleet Commander into the only position to warp a fleet into a ship that takes about a year to properly fly raises the barrier for entry. Not to mention revoking and assigning boosts has never functioned properly and breaks too easily.

    Command ships and boosting in general as I see them:

    Arrow Remove Command Procs and create hard points.

    • Destroyer 1 (make frig gang boosting viable).
    • T1 (Ferox etc.) 2
    • T2 (Vulture etc.) 3
    • T3 (Loki etc.) 5
    • Carriers get 3
    • Titans 5.


    Arrow Command ships should have the highest (sub-cap) tank on grid, period.

    Not the T1 counterparts, just the T2 "Command Ship" should. No sub cap should be able to match the "Command Ship"'s overall EHP with a reasonable T2 fit.

    Mini would be the fastest, Amarr largest armor tank. etc, however if I'm fielding a claymore, allow it to function in a nano gang if you're going to keep it's current EHP.

    Arrow Bring utility to the command ship on grid by giving them recon bonuses.

    This makes it so the ship isn't just a boosting platform, but actually brings a use on grid.

    • Claymore = Web/TP
    • Vulture = ECM / (Probe strength?)
    • Damnation = TD/Neut
    • Eos = Point/SD


    Arrow Bonuses would be "Aura" based rather than Fleet Position based.

    • 1 AU Range
    • Remove the 'fleet position' necessity, provided the pilot has the proper leadership skill, they can pass bonuses.
    • Ships in EVE now accept auras, so that, a frigate can only get maybe 1-3 boosts, a battleship on the other hand has the ability to get boosts from all 9 possibilities.

    Dual Pane idea: Click!

    CCP Please Implement
    Mole Guy
    Bob's Bait and Tackle
    #1031 - 2013-08-07 21:48:42 UTC
    Roime wrote:
    CCP Fozzie

    [b wrote:
    Astarte:[/b]
    +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

    Eos:
    -300 Shield
    +500 Armor
    +300 Hull

    We're moving the gang link bonuses for command ships back to the command ships skill, at 3% per level instead of the 15% role bonus.

    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.


    Lovely stuff :)

    Only one thing concerns me- the speeds of Astarte and Eos, especially Eos is really very slow, and might have issues getting to brawl properly because of that. Skirmish, BS speeds...

    There is a huge gap in EHP between these two ships and Damnation, and I do understand the whines of the blobheads- when there's a differences of well over 100K EHP. However, blob PVP is a small niche in EVE and all ships shouldn't be designed for that.

    there is a huge difference in dps between these 3 ships as well. gallente can dish out the pain, but not the damnation. it CAN hurt ya, but the astarte has always shredded...and now it seems its even more deadly.
    and we lost 300 armor on the damnation. i would MUCH rather have the same tank as the astarte and dish out the same dps than being able to take it all day and eventually die a slow, agonizing death
    Maegor Stark
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #1032 - 2013-08-07 21:52:13 UTC
    What about the sleip? I wanted to run C3s in it but now its gonna be very dangerous :x
    Lephia DeGrande
    Luxembourg Space Union
    #1033 - 2013-08-07 22:01:47 UTC
    Why the DPS anyway? Let us Support and Tank, we are already busy calling targets and smacktalking!

    Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
    stup idity
    #1034 - 2013-08-07 22:27:03 UTC
    S1dy wrote:

    Why do you want to nerf the Damnation which is in the whole thread the only ship everyone agrees with as perfect as it is right now. It's tanky enough to achieve it's role in fleets. But you throw 300 Armor HP away. That's unbelievable Shocked

    And what's with the Vulture you ignored completely? It should be at least comparable to the Damnation.


    I can only agree to that.

    And (some points were already mentioned, probably several times):
    -All command ships should get a resists bonus, not just Amarr/Caldari.

    - One CS of each race should get a second tank bonus, the other one should emphasize a little more on gank. Active boosting is of rather limited use, so how about a signature bonus or, even if it's untypical, also a buffer bonus.

    -What I really dislike: the same bonus on one ship twice, like damage on the sleipnir, looks very unimaginative.

    -They all should have the resists, one damage and the warfarelink bonuses on the command ship skill. For symmetry and to encourage heavy sp investment.

    -Hybrid tracking on the eos really looks out of place. I also don't get the double range bonuses on the Vulture; honestly, even one is too much for my taste.

    I am the Herald of all beings that are me.
    Rain6638
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1035 - 2013-08-07 22:35:40 UTC
    disambiguate.

    -those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)

    -those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships

    -if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)

    Covops BC:

    Primary Skill required
    Command Ships V

    Secondary Skill required
    Black Ops I

    [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337
    Sarkelias Anophius
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #1036 - 2013-08-07 22:52:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarkelias Anophius
    Rain6638 wrote:
    disambiguate.

    -those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)

    -those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships

    -if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)

    Covops BC:

    Primary Skill required
    Command Ships V

    Secondary Skill required
    Black Ops I


    I find this idea far-fetched yet incredibly rational and satisfactory
    Ashlore
    The Cult of Domingo
    #1037 - 2013-08-07 22:59:10 UTC
    So basicly enemy fart and the bonus is gone..
    What is the point in having them then?

    I think you should listen to mister vee
    He have som constructive suggestions.
    Omnathious Deninard
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #1038 - 2013-08-07 23:02:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
    It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.

    For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage.
    Gallente Battlecruisers :
    +10% Drone Damage and HP per level
    +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level
    Command Ships:
    +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level
    -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level
    +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level

    I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.

    This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships.

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
    Acidictadpole
    Lethal Dosage.
    Scary Wormhole People
    #1039 - 2013-08-07 23:05:17 UTC
    I do believe that the two racial battlecruisers need to be split. A command ship, by name, just doesn't seem like it should fit the role you're giving it. One of the two can be made a combat ship, with a bonus to offensive and defensive capabilities over its t1 variant, but the other should remain strictly a fleet ship, and be dubbed a Command ship.

    If a Command ship is given prowess over links, then it should be the best at fielding them. It should have high defenses and very little offensive capability, and perhaps even an EW defensive capability which is projected to nearby friendlies. These command ships should move with the fleet and be in close proximity to any fight taking place. In addition, they *should* be a high priority target in a fight (not necessarily highest, but high).


    The combat variant should not have any command abilities whatsoever, but instead trade those for its offensive capability. It should have slightly less defensive capabilities than its command ship brethren, yet still have bonuses over its t1 counterpart.
    Eldrith Jhandar
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1040 - 2013-08-07 23:05:40 UTC
    52 pages and I'm the only one who thinks that these proposed changes are lacking because of the silly slot numbers... These commandships are the only t2 ships that have the same amount of slots as the t1 variants... Many of the problems people are finding would be solved if these ships got their proper slot count
    T1 bc --- 17 slots
    Faction bc --- 18 slots
    Cs --- 17 slots

    Every other t2 ship has at least one more slot than the t1 ship
    ....