These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1301 - 2013-08-13 04:13:24 UTC
Drop a high from the Eos and put it on a low, drop another high and put it on a mid, change stupid useless afterthought hybrid tracking bonus to 10% hp/lvl and suddenly it's a good ship.

That way you can fit this:

[Eos, Dual Rep Lonesome]
Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Reactive Armor Hardener
Damage Control II
True Sansha Armor Explosive Hardener

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II
Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II
Medium 'Vehemence' Shockwave Charge
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I


Ogre II x5

And get a DDA and a second cap booster or ewar mod on there. You only need 3 highs for links+1 for utility or a 4th link since it's a drone boat.

4H/5M/7L, job done.

For fleets you could fit this and put a co-proc in the last low so it might actually fit:

[Eos, Fleet]
Internal Force Field Array I
Reactive Armor Hardener
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
True Sansha Armor Explosive Hardener
Centum C-Type Energized EM Membrane
Centii C-Type Adaptive Nano Plating

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Command Processor I

Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity II
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II



Vote Item Heck One for CSM8

Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1302 - 2013-08-13 09:34:32 UTC
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
Let's just agree overall these changes are slightly underwhelming, I'm still a cites about what will happen to them but for the most part I'm worried about these ships, sleipnir will most likely continue to rule, Astarte will have its role, same with vulte(only for large fleets as a booster) and damnation for basically the same thing, claymore needs a small damage buff and nighthawk needs another mid(I forget how it's dps is), abso should get a tracking bonus instead of te cap bonus, vulture should have one optimal range bonus changed to 5% damage and optimal, and eos needs it stolen slot back, or much better bonuses(change turret tracking to 5% heavy drone damage and hp.... Which puts it still weaker than an Astarte but atleast comparable..... Still rather see a 5/5/7 eos tho, basically a giant myrm.... Well, t2 myrm)
We are moving in the right direction with the changes but still a little ways to go


The Eos did not have a slot "stolen"
It went from
6.25 effective turrets
3 heavies
to
4 turrets ( with tracking bonus )
7.5 effective heavies ( with tracking bonus ).

Thats an extra 4.5 effective heavies which is why it had to "give up" a high slot so that it could not run 3 links and all turrets.
Exactly the same fitting choice as other Commands.

Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands.
sprototles Ganzo
Big Fat Panda Corporation
#1303 - 2013-08-13 10:11:08 UTC
Nighthawk
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)

for me was velocity bonus more useful

My ideas...pls chceck them :) Battleship Yamato - http://bit.ly/1e3fPJY Nice Missiles - http://bit.ly/1f8j8Wb OVERHEAT Drones - http://bit.ly/1bh8MT8

Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#1304 - 2013-08-13 10:53:00 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:

...snip...
Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands.


The Astarte and Eos suffer from having to use medium armour reppers for their tank, while the shield ships can use an x-large ASB (a battleship module).

The disparity in performance is so wide that even if the Eos has 2 more slots available to it, it would die in flames to shield ships every time.

I am now more convinced than ever that ill-conceived ASB needs to go, and active tanking armour ships need a bonus slot just to compete.

There is certainly no place for active armour tanking bonuses on the command ships as they currently stand. It is simply not a viable setup.

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".

Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1305 - 2013-08-13 13:44:01 UTC
so the only viable ship for me is still the damnation, no biggie as I love it but it would be nice with a shield mate to it. CCP why STILL silent on what so many of us that actually use command ships for.. *gasp* gang links are asking for?!
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1306 - 2013-08-13 14:01:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dav Varan
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:

...snip...
Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands.


The Astarte and Eos suffer from having to use medium armour reppers for their tank, while the shield ships can use an x-large ASB (a battleship module).

The disparity in performance is so wide that even if the Eos has 2 more slots available to it, it would die in flames to shield ships every time.

I am now more convinced than ever that ill-conceived ASB needs to go, and active tanking armour ships need a bonus slot just to compete.

There is certainly no place for active armour tanking bonuses on the command ships as they currently stand. It is simply not a viable setup.



Given that commands need cap a viable X-Large ASB setup might be based around

X-Large ASB
Small injector ( to run the links / hards and prop against neuts )
Co-Pro to fit the X-Large ASB

Work out its sustainable boost. ( including reload of ASB ) and hoping theres enough buffer to get through the 60 secs reload.

Compare to Med injector Dual mar with 37.5% boost and the 15%boost Mar's are getting in the patch.


I don't have access here to the numbers or a copy of EFT.
I think you will find the Dual Mar setup sustains more rep though.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1307 - 2013-08-13 14:02:44 UTC
What would be nice is 4 tanky ships and 4 DPS ones. I just hope they see fit to buff the Eos.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1308 - 2013-08-13 14:32:56 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:

...snip...
Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands.


The Astarte and Eos suffer from having to use medium armour reppers for their tank, while the shield ships can use an x-large ASB (a battleship module).

The disparity in performance is so wide that even if the Eos has 2 more slots available to it, it would die in flames to shield ships every time.

I am now more convinced than ever that ill-conceived ASB needs to go, and active tanking armour ships need a bonus slot just to compete.

There is certainly no place for active armour tanking bonuses on the command ships as they currently stand. It is simply not a viable setup.

if the ASB goes then so does the 1600mm plate. Shield ships dont have any equivalent.
IceDe4d
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1309 - 2013-08-13 14:36:43 UTC
rly nice try to make me happy ccp but im not happy with the cs changes. I tryed it today on sisi and first of all the astarte lost 200 dps and you got 2 empty highs for it not worth it... tank is better now but that got nothing to do with the cs change itself.
On the other hand you got space for 5 mid and 5 small drones but that does not rly help the ship.

To make thinks clear i got max skills for the astarte every single skill that effects the ship is at 5 and im used that ship back in the days for many years but now i thought ok maybe i can use it again but the 2 hours on sisi made rly clear nope sry no way because the bs are way too powerfull and they do the same job.

eos changes looking better but for some reason it feels way to week compared to the damination.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1310 - 2013-08-13 14:37:12 UTC
If the 1600mm goes, then the XL shield booster goes, the shield amps go, and the passive shield recharge goes... armor doesn't have any equivalent....

Great logic there, right?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1311 - 2013-08-13 14:42:07 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
If the 1600mm goes, then the XL shield booster goes, the shield amps go, and the passive shield recharge goes... armor doesn't have any equivalent....

Great logic there, right?

shield amps and passive regen go, 10% racial resist bonus can go to
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
#1312 - 2013-08-13 14:48:14 UTC
As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me.
The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates.
And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.

I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1313 - 2013-08-13 14:55:44 UTC
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:
As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me.
The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates.
And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.

I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it.


Did you notice that the Nighthawk got a fairly large PG increase?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1314 - 2013-08-13 14:57:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:
As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me.
The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates.
And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.

I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it.


Did you notice that the Nighthawk got a fairly large PG increase?

that and it doesnt need to fit an extra launcher for the same (relatively) dps
Grutpig Cloudwalker
The Skulls
#1315 - 2013-08-13 15:21:44 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:
As for the Nighthawk, the loss of bonus to RLML's kills it for me.
The PG on the Nighthawk is so terrible its almost impossible to fit it without RLML, which actually made it useful against frigates.
And with all the recent drawbacks to Heavy missiles theres just no way I would fit one ever again.

I buried my Drake after the changes to HM, now I have to bury my Nighthawk along with it.


Did you notice that the Nighthawk got a fairly large PG increase?

that and it doesnt need to fit an extra launcher for the same (relatively) dps


I thought it was +75 PG. But if it is +265 (+190 from original post + 75 from update post) then I guess the PG should be quite ok.

Still very sceptical to HMs, the RLMLs made the Nighthawk fit a specific role in a fleet, and one of few ships that could counter frigate swarms with a fairly strong tank and strong DPS against fast, small targets. The DPS on paper is in many cases far from the truth.
Acidictadpole
Perkone
Caldari State
#1316 - 2013-08-13 15:26:39 UTC
Aplier Shivra wrote:
Acidictadpole wrote:
...


So basically what you're asking, is that command ships be left alone completely, and are fine as is. One that is dedicated to boosting, but sucks at combat, and the other that sucks at boosting but can do combat.

Or instead, we can have our current boosting dedicated ones be brought up to the combat capability of our current combat ones, and vice versa. So that instead of 4 combat command ships and 4 boosting command ships, we can have 8 command ships that are good at both and can choose before undocking if they want to focus on their combat aspect or their boosting aspect. Personally, I like the new system.


No, I'm not asking for them to be left alone completely. Right now there's about as much reason to fly a command ship as a HAC. T3 do better links and are better at surviving with a decent fit.

Even with T3s out of the picture, the fleet command ships (vulture, claymore, damnation, eos) still put out a high amount of damage compared to what I think they should. I really believe they should be given a role other than combat to go along with their links, like a lesser logistics role, while the Field command ships should have their ability to operate links removed and given a role bonus that is based on doing damage (essentially a proper battlecruiser upgrade, instead of being a command ship).

So I don't know where you got "are fine as is" from my post, because sucking at offense is not the same as sucking at combat.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1317 - 2013-08-13 15:41:56 UTC
Acidictadpole wrote:


No, I'm not asking for them to be left alone completely. Right now there's about as much reason to fly a command ship as a HAC. T3 do better links and are better at surviving with a decent fit.



I dno about you but i've found the new CS to be about as effective as you can get for solo/small scale. While this is not the pigeonholed fleet brick links ship many of the powerblocks are pushing for, there is most certainly a reason to fly them...

I'm not saying that there is not room for improvement, or anything wrong with dedicating 1 of the 2 racial ships to "fleet boosting" but... You are very much Over exaggerating their uselessness.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1318 - 2013-08-13 15:45:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
is it just me that wants the sleipnir to be armour tanked with armour link?
There are plenty of minmatar ships that are armour tanked so why not represent this correctly in the command ships?

FOZZIE

Come on the Fleet bc is a cane and the sleipnir is going to be a cane when you change them so why not make the change?
Or are you expecting people to have to use the Loki for bonused armour links?

Sleipnir:
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF)
5% Armour hitpoints
Command Ships skill bonuses:
10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
3% bonus to strength of Armoured Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M(-1), 6 L(+1), 5 turrets (-2), 2 Launchers (-1)
Fittings: 1300 PWG (-160), 425 CPU (-50)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4500(+176) / 5000(+1166) / 3500(+137)
Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75(+12.5) / 60(+10) / 40 / 50
Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 90(+5) / 67.5(+8.13) / 25 / 10
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2625 / 583s / 4.5
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000(+300000) / 12.49s (+0.3)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25(-15) / 25(-15)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+25) / 220 / 7(+1)
Sensor strength: 20 Ladar (+4)
Signature radius: 240
Cargo capacity: 475

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

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1319 - 2013-08-13 15:46:27 UTC
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:
[Still very sceptical to HMs, the RLMLs made the Nighthawk fit a specific role in a fleet, and one of few ships that could counter frigate swarms with a fairly strong tank and strong DPS against fast, small targets. The DPS on paper is in many cases far from the truth.

Valid point. I think RLML should be considered cruiser/BC sized weapons and treated as such, that's what their fitting requirement shows.. Get the proper bonuses and have the option of dedicated frigate defense.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#1320 - 2013-08-13 15:46:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:

...snip...
Theres no justification for an extra 2 slots for tank on this hull , it has no more need for tank than other commands.


The Astarte and Eos suffer from having to use medium armour reppers for their tank, while the shield ships can use an x-large ASB (a battleship module).

The disparity in performance is so wide that even if the Eos has 2 more slots available to it, it would die in flames to shield ships every time.

I am now more convinced than ever that ill-conceived ASB needs to go, and active tanking armour ships need a bonus slot just to compete.

There is certainly no place for active armour tanking bonuses on the command ships as they currently stand. It is simply not a viable setup.


OK, I stand corrected on the ability of the EOS and Astarte to tank. The trick is to fit a medium NOS so you can keep both repairers going. With faction/deadspace reps these ships will work in a small skirmish fleet I think.

The astarte *just about* out-tanks a dual ASB sleipnir when the astarte pilot is in a fleet with gang links and the sleipnir is not.

There is still a disparity, but it's smaller than I initially thought.

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".