These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1101 - 2013-08-08 15:31:01 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
The concern I have with the Astarte in terms of lows is active vs passive tank along with its nice dps
6 lows means a very weak tank either way, 7 lows means nice balance for dps and active tank, but might be too much passive tank, but without a resist bonus maybe not....

Part of the reason this is the case is how it can fit battleship plates but cruiser armor reps... (Imnot saying lets change that) but we need to take cruiser reps into consideration


I think the biggest issue with cruiser/bc sized active tanking is massive difference between medium and large cap boosters... I'd like to see a change allowing t2 medium cap boosters to fit 2x navy 800s.

As for the lows on the Astarte, I won't lie, I would "love" to see a 7 low astarte, however I see it being extremely op. right now, with a single dmg mod, the astarte can easily put out 1k dps while sporting a tanking that can deal with a couple BCs. In the case of kin/therm dmg, the astarte can tank 2 vindis if you're pilled and linked.
I tend to agree. My only gripe at the initial changes, was the loss of DPS and inclusion of missiles to the Astarte. Now he's addressed the turrets with a change of it's bonuses, I think it's a rather fine ship and any extra low would tip it to being OP.

But the more I look at the EOS..... damn Lol Not that I'll fly that thing anyway and it's the perfect candidate for the Merm hull. P

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Largus Jett
Technicorum
#1102 - 2013-08-08 15:31:43 UTC
So I had this ******** idea, and it could be broken in scenarios I hadn't thought of but here is the general concept:

People dislike active bonuses for their CS, and we aren't getting the "local tank bonus also helps incoming reps" so could we perhaps let all reps (on active tank bonused ships) extended the base raw hp pool up to a percentage? like 37.5% maybe, just like the bonuses do to local reps.
Let this extra buffer gradually decay back to the normal maximum if no reps are received/done locally. So keep a logi ship repping the CS to make sure the buffer is kept at a maximum.

I can see single plate+rep or LSE + ASB fits potentially becoming too strong, but wouldnt a single rep + new nos + plate concept be pretty cool?

Alright, bash away and point out all the flaws gents.
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1103 - 2013-08-08 15:38:48 UTC
A 2x 800 booster would be very useful, but not part of this thread, unfortunately, and if it can get over 1k dps with 1 magstab then the Astarte is probably fine on lows, but I'm not sure I can't check eft I'm at work, but going by solely therm/kin is silly, it's exp/em hole is massive, to get rid of those requires an em and explosive hardener (or two) then 2 reppers and a dcu
And that's all of your lows

And as a side thought with the eos having split weapons it's even worse off, a magstab or drone damage mod is much less effective, makes me feel like a 7th low on the eos is even more required

And the abso is ok on cap with a 4th low IMO, then you could change the cap usage to a tracking bonus, reinforcing the brawler in it

Maybe give the vulture 7 mids for diversity, make it tanky like the damnation, but gives the option for a tracking computer without hurting the tank, gives it a more sniper feel perhaps

+1 mid for nighthawk and more pg, it can't compare to the claymore ATM (don't nerf it :p) make the nighthawk do more damage with kinetic than the claymore can apply, but less dps with other damage types, but still good dps
I'd worry about a 7mid claymore or sleipnir with t2 resists an active bonus and a couple of xp asb's tho so don't give them an extra mid, maybe an extra high and gun, with pg/CPU to compensate, and change the damage bonuses to compensate if you are happy with them
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1104 - 2013-08-08 15:53:57 UTC
The more I look at these ships the more apparent it becomes some of these are balanced with 17 slots, while it seems some like the eos need 18 to compare, claymore/sleipnir seem ok with 17 slots, I would actually not change those to 18

The nighthawk/vulture idk about the vulture, maybe an extra mid for it, but nighthawk needs an 18th slot(+1 mid) and a little more pwg

Absolution needs another midslot and damnation maybe a high/launcher, or change the missile velocity to a damage bonus

Astarte I'm not quite sure yet, I need to eft warrior that but I believe an extra low would help, as it has always had a pathetic tank, and not much is changing in that regard
The eos needs 5 mids 7lows tho
6/5/7 would make it quite interesting and unique without changing the bonuses(which would make it something special and different than any of the other drone boats, so please don't change the bonuses just the slots)
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1105 - 2013-08-08 16:14:35 UTC
56 pages of suggestions suggests to me that the whole mechanic of command ships is b0rked from the ground up.

As I recall, Darth Vader always commanded his fleets from a supercapital. Perhaps we can kill 2 birds with one stone here:

Remove command bonuses from command ships entirely. Only Titans get the command bonus. Disallow off-grid boosting. When a command module is activated, make it light up on overview like a cyno does. Use it at your peril.

This has the following effects:

1. It finally forces titans to stay and fight, and ensures that they are on the field rather than gathering dust in deadspace.
2. No sides in a skirmish are at a disadvantage
3. No command bonuses in wormholes, ensuring evenly matched skirmish-style fights (gudfite!)
4. T2 battlecruisers can focus on tank and gank, which is pretty much the only way they'll get used on grid ever in the entire history of eve past, present and future.
5. no command bonuses in hisec, which makes duels and hisec wars fairer and more fun for both sides.
6. In order to alpha the command ship off the field, you'll need to bring a BIG fleet. So all that whinging about command ships not being useful in fleet warfare goes away.

Remember, listen to your Uncle Darth. The Dark SIde of the Force knows best.

/MC

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".
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1106 - 2013-08-08 16:23:26 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


Remove command bonuses from command ships entirely. Only Titans get the command bonus. Disallow off-grid boosting.




Nice, so only super alliances with on grid titans are allowed to gets links...

Do you understand how fundamentally broken this idea is?
J A Aloysiusz
Risk Breakers
SONS of BANE
#1107 - 2013-08-08 16:40:34 UTC  |  Edited by: J A Aloysiusz
Why is it that the Sacrilege and Damnation (amarr brawlers) are getting missile velocity bonus, and the Nighthawk (caldari is range?) and Claymore (winmatar wants to kite) are not?

My speculation is that it was difficult to find a last bonus for the sacrilege (to replace cap), and then it was carried to the Damnation for "synergy" or whatever. But taking that approach, the Nighthawk should be similar to the cerberus...

The Damnation is a BRAWLER big time - it has armor like nothing else, and 4 mids, which mean dual web. I think the damnation will be epic with a velocity bonus, but it's not the ship that needs it. The nighthawk, however, does not have the same tackle capabilities, and if it's caldari, it should really have some range capabilities. As is, it currently lacks the tank+tackle to brawl like the damnation, and can't even hit as far as it... It's still going to be a ship without a niche, unless this is changed.

Dat explosion radius. If I can't one shot Dramiels with it, I'd rather have a real bonus.

e: let me elaborate; a bonus that specializes in killing smaller ships (especially on a t2 ship) is not isk efficient, but isk deficient. The exception to this rule, of course, is PvE. However a kinetic bonus on every caldari ship there ever was pigeonholes the ship into being strong against only a few pirate types, and with the heavily penalized range of the HML nerf of '12, the nighthawk can no longer project to what is necessary to be an optimal pve ship. As it stands, the nighthawk really sucks at everything, and is basically a useless ship when compared to other options (want cheap, go drake, want effective, go tengu).
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
#1108 - 2013-08-08 16:53:40 UTC
With tiercide overall I am concerned that recent changes (HACs and command ships) seem rather rushed. These balance changes to pretty much all the ships in the game are by far and away the most important thing to happen to EVE (for me anyway) within my 4+ years of playing. However I do find evidence of iterative and polish passes to previous tiercide implementation reassuring. We have gone from excellent (T1 frigs and cruisers), to good (battlecruisers, navy cruisers), to ok (battleships), to meh (industrials, HACs and command ships). I just hope we are not on the slippery slope to herp-a-derp.


Now some specific features that stand out as poor (or stupid),

The Nighthawk needs a low moving to a mid. 5 slots is not enough for a ship that should be able to fit a big shield tank, especially if you are in small gangs or solo and want to fit a point.
Shield fleets need a Damnation equivalent brick tank, change one of the 2 lol-range bonuses of the Vulture for a shield HP increase.
A tracking bonus on the Eos seems totally redundant, change for anything that may be useful. As I said previously in the HAC thread I would love this ship to have a +1 drones controlled per level like the Guardian-Vexor (keep bandwith at 125) so it could launch a swarm of Valkyries, at least this would give it an identity in the ever-increasingly crowded drone boat group.
Some are the cargo capacities are way off others for no particular reason, unless you are thinking of ammo use/size. Reliance on cap charges is far more relevant.


Things I like,

The Astarte does even more damage and should hopefully have a bit more tank.
The Claymore is god mode (at least in my mind).
The Nighthawk might actually do a lot of paper DPS.


Also there is no longer any good reason for tech 2 ships to only have 2 rig slots. Give them all 3 please.

Also also another slot for the command ships would be nice, but probably a little OP. They do seem to suffer from being constrained by the slot layout of the pre-tiercide tier 1 battlecruisers, which we all knew were almost universally terrible not least in part due to their lack of slots compared to their tier 2 counterparts. I know you have tried to address this by limiting highs and having double damage bonuses, but some ships seriously need another mid (nighthawk, absolution) or another low (Astarte).

Oh and hurry up with the model change announcement would you P
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
#1109 - 2013-08-08 16:55:41 UTC
Dysgenesis wrote:
With tiercide overall I am concerned that recent changes (HACs and command ships) seem rather rushed. These balance changes to pretty much all the ships in the game are by far and away the most important thing to happen to EVE (for me anyway) within my 4+ years of playing. However I do find evidence of iterative and polish passes to previous tiercide implementation reassuring. We have gone from excellent (T1 frigs and cruisers), to good (battlecruisers, navy cruisers), to ok (battleships), to meh (industrials, HACs and command ships). I just hope we are not on the slippery slope to herp-a-derp.


Now some specific features that stand out as poor (or stupid),

The Nighthawk needs a low moving to a mid. 5 slots is not enough for a ship that should be able to fit a big shield tank, especially if you are in small gangs or solo and want to fit a point.
Shield fleets need a Damnation equivalent brick tank, change one of the 2 lol-range bonuses of the Vulture for a shield HP increase.
A tracking bonus on the Eos seems totally redundant, change for anything that may be useful. As I said previously in the HAC thread I would love this ship to have a +1 drones controlled per level like the Guardian-Vexor (keep bandwith at 125) so it could launch a swarm of Valkyries, at least this would give it an identity in the ever-increasingly crowded drone boat group.
Some are the cargo capacities are way off others for no particular reason, unless you are thinking of ammo use/size. Reliance on cap charges is far more relevant.


Things I like,

The Astarte does even more damage and should hopefully have a bit more tank.
The Claymore is god mode (at least in my mind).
The Nighthawk might actually do a lot of paper DPS.


Also there is no longer any good reason for tech 2 ships to only have 2 rig slots. Give them all 3 please.

Also also another slot for the command ships would be nice, but probably a little OP. They do seem to suffer from being constrained by the slot layout of the pre-tiercide tier 1 battlecruisers, which we all knew were almost universally terrible not least in part due to their lack of slots compared to their tier 2 counterparts. I know you have tried to address this by limiting highs and having double damage bonuses, but some ships seriously need another mid (nighthawk, absolution) or another low (Astarte).

Oh and hurry up with the model change announcement would you P



Oh and as stated by the previous poster a velocity bonus on the Damnation also seems somewhat pointless.
J A Aloysiusz
Risk Breakers
SONS of BANE
#1110 - 2013-08-08 17:04:56 UTC
Dysgenesis wrote:
Dysgenesis wrote:
With tiercide overall I am concerned that recent changes (HACs and command ships) seem rather rushed. These balance changes to pretty much all the ships in the game are by far and away the most important thing to happen to EVE (for me anyway) within my 4+ years of playing. However I do find evidence of iterative and polish passes to previous tiercide implementation reassuring. We have gone from excellent (T1 frigs and cruisers), to good (battlecruisers, navy cruisers), to ok (battleships), to meh (industrials, HACs and command ships). I just hope we are not on the slippery slope to herp-a-derp.


Now some specific features that stand out as poor (or stupid),

The Nighthawk needs a low moving to a mid. 5 slots is not enough for a ship that should be able to fit a big shield tank, especially if you are in small gangs or solo and want to fit a point.
Shield fleets need a Damnation equivalent brick tank, change one of the 2 lol-range bonuses of the Vulture for a shield HP increase.
A tracking bonus on the Eos seems totally redundant, change for anything that may be useful. As I said previously in the HAC thread I would love this ship to have a +1 drones controlled per level like the Guardian-Vexor (keep bandwith at 125) so it could launch a swarm of Valkyries, at least this would give it an identity in the ever-increasingly crowded drone boat group.
Some are the cargo capacities are way off others for no particular reason, unless you are thinking of ammo use/size. Reliance on cap charges is far more relevant.


Things I like,

The Astarte does even more damage and should hopefully have a bit more tank.
The Claymore is god mode (at least in my mind).
The Nighthawk might actually do a lot of paper DPS.


Also there is no longer any good reason for tech 2 ships to only have 2 rig slots. Give them all 3 please.

Also also another slot for the command ships would be nice, but probably a little OP. They do seem to suffer from being constrained by the slot layout of the pre-tiercide tier 1 battlecruisers, which we all knew were almost universally terrible not least in part due to their lack of slots compared to their tier 2 counterparts. I know you have tried to address this by limiting highs and having double damage bonuses, but some ships seriously need another mid (nighthawk, absolution) or another low (Astarte).

Oh and hurry up with the model change announcement would you P



Oh and as stated by the previous poster a velocity bonus on the Damnation also seems somewhat pointless.


Yes to everything here.
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1111 - 2013-08-08 17:32:35 UTC
The eos's current bonuses are interesting and unique, I like them but it definately doesn't need the typical -1 slot
Re add that slot to a low and move a high to a med for a 5/5/7 although you wanted full gank and 2 utility highs, with 4 unbonused guns it would be ok, and still useful/interesting

Nighthawk needs an extra mid for sure, as well as the absolution,
And change the damnation velocity bonus to a damage bonus

And the more I think of the Astarte the more I think it might be ok the way it is, it gets extra resists, a lil more damage, and two utility highs.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1112 - 2013-08-08 17:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
The proposed new changes will do absolutely nothing to address the issues at hand.

Each race should have 1 fleet command ship with brick tank for large fleets that can withstand large alpha, and 1 skirmish (field) command ship for small gangs that can survive on local tank. The current assortment and assignment of link boosts is fine.

The Damnation, nor any ship within a single class, should not stand out so clearly that any other available choice is obviously outclassed. Either remove its extra HP bonus or give the same or similar (shield HP in the case of Minmatar and Caldari) to their respective fleet CS.

Since the role of fleet CS is to provide links and not die, dps is really not the point. Hell, I don't even put launchers/turrets on my fleet CS because, why? I can whore on killmails with a Target painter or civilian gun. I have smartbombs and a cyno in my highs because I don't want to die to a fleet of warrior IIs or get perma-jammed by EC-300s.

I'm not saying we can't have CS with active tanking bonuses. I think its great to have the option. But don't make it so that both skirmish-boosting races can't survive on field in large fleets.

Or.... is this intentional? Death to skirmish boosts? :tinfoil:

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1113 - 2013-08-08 18:01:03 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
I'm not saying we can't have CS with active tanking bonuses. I think its great to have the option. But don't make it so that both skirmish-boosting races can't survive on field in large fleets.

Or.... is this intentional? Death to skirmish boosts? :tinfoil:


I'm pretty sure it is intentional. CCP are saying that bonused skirmish links should only come from CS with skirmish-type tank bonuses. I think what this actually means is that the Skirmish links are overpowered but CCP can't quite bring themselves to nerf them properly.
Gheyna
Hoover Inc.
#1114 - 2013-08-08 18:47:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Gheyna
This is my opinion of the CS

There should be 1 command ship that can do pvp/pve, basically a T2 combat bc. (no racial skill boost)

There should be 1 command ship that can do small gang/fleet boost and shoot at things (2 links. Racial skill boost boost more then the fleet command ship)

And there should be 1 command ship that can do large scale battles and survive/tank with boost (2 different leadership boost 3-4 links, boost less then the small gang one)
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1115 - 2013-08-08 19:15:17 UTC
Its really sad when people are flying Damnations with skirmish links because nothing else will survive on field. Some boosts are better than no boosts and an empty wallet.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Rain6638
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1116 - 2013-08-08 19:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6638
run all your links on damnations.

34.5% -> 30% max skirmish evasive/interdiction
30.2% -> 26.25% rapid deployment.

//lol soldarius i wish i had posted mine sooner (and before you)

[ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1117 - 2013-08-08 19:39:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


Remove command bonuses from command ships entirely. Only Titans get the command bonus. Disallow off-grid boosting.




Nice, so only super alliances with on grid titans are allowed to gets links...

Do you understand how fundamentally broken this idea is?


Not quite. Anyone could fit a link, just not a bonused one.

The requirement to put a supercap on the field in order to get the extra bonuses would create a dilemma for an FC. If he fields a supercap and advertises it's presence on overview it becomes a beacon to killmail whores all over New Eden. He needs to think about whether he wants to run that risk.

It also means that to get the mega-bonuses you have to commit 100Bn to the fight. I think that's reasonable. In the current world, if a weak alliance is involved in a fight with a strong one, they will expect to get cynoblobbed. That's why big alliances get big - to be strong. It's reasonable and realistic.

For reference, my original tongue in cheek post was #1105. But the more I think about it, the more reasonable I think the suggestion is.

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".
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1118 - 2013-08-08 19:41:04 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Its really sad when people are flying Damnations with skirmish links because nothing else will survive on field. Some boosts are better than no boosts and an empty wallet.


Vulture?
Mole Guy
Bob's Bait and Tackle
#1119 - 2013-08-08 20:04:34 UTC
Mole Guy wrote:
i just had a thought:
before i share it, i fly amarr cs mostly. but i can and do fly them all.

give a 10% per cs level to all incoming remote reps.
we can fit a descent tank if we are fleet boosting and any healing that comes to us will keep us alive.
the active tank would be good for solo battles or small gang warfare. im not saying get rid of it, but as a role for command ships, give them the ability to amplify incoming reps.

that way, in fleet setups, it would take advantage of incoming reps without having to have 400k EHP (which i think is a lot for a bc btw), it would still be able to self rep in solo or small gang situations AND maintain its tank or link setup as it likes.

fleet doctrines would mean several links AND maintaining tank
small gang would mean to use of a command ship without the need for logi.

maybe get rid of the active tank bonus all together and just have a bonus for incoming reps.
all ships maintain max dps (astarte level) with chosen weapon system. i know ccp is trying to make multi weapon choices and i REALLY am looking forward to smokin someone with my hamnation, or settling into using my absolution with killer resists now...

if you think about it, with the high resists they have, they need 1/2 the healing normal ships do to maintain their tank and with them gaining from incoming reps, we could keep them alive A LOT longer than you guys think.
this would give the damnation another bonus instead of the tank bonus. maybe another missile bonus or something.

with my incursion abso, good resist, links up and the armor implant, (1 1600 plate and good skillz), i had it at 110k EHP. this was gank fit for incursions. the ehp will be higher now because of links so i would expect 180k ehp or so or alot more with 2 1600 plates.

thats a descent buffer, not huge, but descent. now, if it gained 50% to reps at cs 5, thats a crap load of incoming reps.
as soon a the battle starts, logi lock a cs. 10 current logi healing equates to 15 post patch logi healing. this will keep them alive, allow them to fulfill their roles in fleet AND for those who like solo fighting, maintain their dps output.

just give bonuses to incoming reps and keep the tanks the same.
read this post. most skipped over it. i think this would fix everything. all we have to do is balance the ships for dps and let the incoming reps get bonuses.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1120 - 2013-08-08 20:18:11 UTC
Well you know, in general I agree with local rep bonuses being extended to incoming reps BUT...

This only scales up to a point. It only scales to the point where the incoming rep cycle repairs 100% of your armour. After that it's not helpful.

The armour resist bonus is still better because it gives you incoming rep bonuses AND more ehp.

Resistance ships would still be better able to absorb alpha damage.

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".