These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1381 - 2013-08-14 15:27:29 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

Give it 325m3 and I'll be "more" inclined to believe that they are well balanced.


+1
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1382 - 2013-08-14 15:32:01 UTC
People seem to be forgetting how these arnt just for giving bonuses, they are also meant to be combat pew pew ships. And it's not even 702 vs 785 it's 702 vs 785+[50-70 from implants] +[80 from hams]
And taking away from the astartes versatility instead of bringing the eos into line is a bad idea IMO

On the teat server I saw an eos losing its hammerheads to an astartes blasters... Before he could recall them, 250 drone bay isn't enough if the eos is meant to be using heavies

And I'm thinking and attemtping to balance on a solo to small gang level
5/5/7 might be too much, I havnt done the numbers for everything to see how we'll it'll be in line tank wise if somebody went full tank as compared to other ships, claymore sleip abso etc, but in terms of eos-Astarte it would be much closer to balanced than now

If nothing more the bonuses need looked at or a slot needs to be given back, you say fozzie how these ships effectively get another high from double damage bonuses but then take a high from the eos without giving it a double damage bonus

It either needs another slot or better bonuses and it also needs more drone bay, 250 for a drone boat meant to use heavy drones. Just isn't enough
+1 mid or +1 low
And the eos might be slightly better vs neuts even tho it is an active tanker because its guns don't have to fire to do most of its damage, but the Astarte doesn't have the fear of losing its drones...
Mournful Conciousness
TOHA Heavy Industries
Blades of Grass
#1383 - 2013-08-14 15:37:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The 400m3 on the Astarte and Eos was a conscious decision, yes. It's possible we might change it but we don't automatically give ships every feature their "parent" has.
The giant cargobays on the Damnation and Nighthawk I mostly left in place because there wasn't a good enough reason to drop them down and overloading players holds on patch day isn't something we want to do without a good reason.


Please understand that on Sisi you are not seeing the astarte etc being used as a skirmish booster. Gangs have an OGB and then use the astarte/eos as a front line dps ship with 2 nosferatus. This is how they are staying alive (i speak from experience here).

I can understand the decision, because in a very small scale skirmish the eos/astarte's strong capacitor and very strong resitances make each cap booster count for a great deal more than on the T1 ships.

In reality though these ships will be primaried because they are dangerous and killing them weakens the gang. They will be energy neutralised very heavily (I have already seen this on SiSi). They will need 2 cap boosters to stay up. That's ok since they are not designed to be tacklers, but they will burn through cap very quickly. I think they and the game would benefit from an increased cargo capacity.

I speak as a player who will be using the eos as a gang booster in skirmish squads in foreign wormholes. We just don't have the option to OGB in these situations.

I look forward to it, but as the ships stand, I would not field an Eos or Astarte without at least one oneiros in the fleet.

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
#1384 - 2013-08-14 15:38:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin.
Frothgar
Moosearmy
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1385 - 2013-08-14 15:38:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Frothgar
The 10% cap/level seems poor on the Absolution. Every other CS gets some sort of damage projection bonus (Falloff, Exp Radius, Exp Velocity, Missile Velocity)

Due to the general brickiness of the abso it has some real issues with applying damage. Its still in the same boat its on in TQ which is all properly fit BS have better damage, more EHP, and about 1.5/2x the range, on top of that the abso isn't going to be chasing down anything except a plated amarr battleship. That in itself means it won't have a role.

While it might be dangerous to do a flat 10% optimal/level, the reduced amount of guns on the abso really makes the cap bonus of questionable utility.

I'd love an optimal range bonus, but if 10% is too good, perhaps 7.5%/level so as to not make the zealot/Nomen redundant?

I'd also love to see something done with its fitting so that beams could be a viable option. The fitting, range and damage/range compared to the Sleip or Astarte means currently its just not happening. (Sleipnir makes an solid arty boat, Astarte can do rails fairly decently)

<3

Edit: Perhaps Gleam also plays an issue in making beams poor. Lazers being exclusively in optimal means short range ammo for beams really get some savage drawbacks compared to say projectiles and blasters. Edit2: Could probably say the same about spike and quake, but quake to a lesser extent than the others.
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1386 - 2013-08-14 16:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Eldrith Jhandar
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin.


5/5/6 would be a step I the right direction, and it's not the amount it ranks that worries me from 7 lows, it's how cap stable it would be compared to the vulture clay sleip which can do the same tank with xl shield boosters, those shield ships have huge tanks but struggle on cap for that tank, the eos wouldn't without cap pressure on it

325 would give 2 sets of heavies a set of mess and a set of lights which is so much better

And I can get behind the 3 rig idea for all commandships, would help to fill a lot of the holes that many of these ships have such as a t2 tracking rig for the abso +20% tracking for about 10mil

Edit: this would also give a rig for the nighthawk and claymore to get CPU, or fill pesky resistance holes that 6 slots doesn't allow you to fill
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#1387 - 2013-08-14 16:12:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Dav Varan
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin.


No

The slot layout is fine.

Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second.
and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams.
Valterra Craven
#1388 - 2013-08-14 16:16:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
I know this is pointless and a waste of time, but I really hate the direction fittings are going in. Personally speaking, I think that a ship should be fitable for its intended role without extra things like grid and cpu implants or fittings mods like cpu IF you have maxium fitting skills. (I mean any skill that could affect the CPU or grid of any module you chose to fit)

I know this might be a poor comparison as really the only thing people care about is PVP in this thread, and also the two ships I'm comparing might be a bit silly but they are similar in a lot of ways:

Astarte
Medium Armor Repairer II
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

10MN Afterburner II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
Cap Recharger II

250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II

This is over cpu by 20 (or 4%) and has a bit of spare grid.

Eagle
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II

10MN Afterburner II
Medium Shield Booster II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M

This has over 75 cpu left and over 200 grid....

Both are using 5 guns, 2 dmg mods, and 4 slot tanks. Their resit profiles are similar.

These are both really really simple fits. But, it doesn't make since to me that these two ships have near exactly the same CPU for pretty similar things and are in two completely different classes. If you want us to fit 5 guns and 2 link mods for on field combat, then you should at least give them the fitting to do so. You have to realize that fitting CPU or GRID mods is a huge oppurtunity cost waste, you are essentially losing TWO slots (one because you have to fit a fitting mod and two because you can't use that slot for something else like dmg or tank)
Mournful Conciousness
TOHA Heavy Industries
Blades of Grass
#1389 - 2013-08-14 16:18:39 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:


No

The slot layout is fine.

Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second.
and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams.


I think you are right in all circumstances except crystal implants and gist shield modules.

We have not seen Gist X-L shield fits on sisi yet because the deadspace modules are not generally available. When these ships go to TQ I expect to see some uber-tanking shield monstrosities.

This is not a problem with command ships. It's a problem with the *ridiculously low* (50%) cap requirements of gist shield boosters.

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".

Mournful Conciousness
TOHA Heavy Industries
Blades of Grass
#1390 - 2013-08-14 16:22:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Valterra Craven wrote:
...I know this might be a poor comparison as really the only thing people care about is PVP in this thread, and also the two ships I'm comparing might be a bit silly but they are similar in a lot of ways: ...


I hear you but in this example, the astarte is doing something the eagle is not - it's giving armour boosts to everyone in your (PVE) fleet.

It seems reasonable to me that this would require some sacrifice elsewhere, no?

[am a fan of the astarte, but for the good of the game accept its limitiations - except the small cargo hold ;-) ]

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".

Frothgar
Moosearmy
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1391 - 2013-08-14 16:25:18 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I know this is pointless and a waste of time, but I really hate the direction fittings are going in. Personally speaking, I think that a ship should be fitable for its intended role without extra things like grid and cpu implants or fittings mods like cpu IF you have maxium fitting skills. (I mean any skill that could affect the CPU or grid of any module you chose to fit)

I know this might be a poor comparison as really the only thing people care about is PVP in this thread, and also the two ships I'm comparing might be a bit silly but they are similar in a lot of ways:

Astarte
Medium Armor Repairer II
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

10MN Afterburner II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
Cap Recharger II

250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II

This is over cpu by 20 (or 4%) and has a bit of spare grid.

Eagle
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II

10MN Afterburner II
Medium Shield Booster II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M

This has over 75 cpu left and over 200 grid....

Both are using 5 guns, 2 dmg mods, and 4 slot tanks. Their resit profiles are similar.

These are both really really simple fits. But, it doesn't make since to me that these two ships have near exactly the same CPU for pretty similar things and are in two completely different classes. If you want us to fit 5 guns and 2 link mods for on field combat, then you should at least give them the fitting to do so. You have to realize that fitting CPU or GRID mods is a huge oppurtunity cost waste, you are essentially losing TWO slots (one because you have to fit a fitting mod and two because you can't use that slot for something else like dmg or tank)



So... you're trying to do some things with these setups that don't really make much sense.

I'm assuming they're going to be PvE fits since you have no points, and you're incredibly slow.

First for the Astarte, you could make it a fine PvE boat. in your case you're really crazy overtanked, but you have no cap coming in to it. You have 6 slots dedicated to tanking, but you don't select a damage type. If you were say running lvl4s, drop the active hardeners, put in say a tracking enhancer, and ditch your tracking computers for cap recharge. You should be able to perma run everything.

For the eagle, you're using an undersized tank, cruisers easily fit "Large" shield boosters. That should put your fits more towards something functional.
Frothgar
Moosearmy
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1392 - 2013-08-14 16:28:54 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
...I know this might be a poor comparison as really the only thing people care about is PVP in this thread, and also the two ships I'm comparing might be a bit silly but they are similar in a lot of ways: ...


I hear you but in this example, the astarte is doing something the eagle is not - it's giving armour boosts to everyone in your (PVE) fleet.

It seems reasonable to me that this would require some sacrifice elsewhere, no?

[am a fan of the astarte, but for the good of the game accept its limitiations - except the small cargo hold ;-) ]


If you just said "PvE Fleet" the sacrifice is you're going to get Awoxed ;)
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1393 - 2013-08-14 16:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Eldrith Jhandar
Dav Varan wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin.


No

The slot layout is fine.

Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second.
and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams.


The damage is not protectable, even at 15k
Doing the math right now, 2 armor reppers one aux nano pump one nano bot accel 152.13 hp/s using 3 slots (cap booster)
Xl asb gets a monstrous 563 hp/s with one slot and no rigs, not even close, you can argue about reloads but then again you can reasonably add another asb xl or l

Xl t2 booster gets 396.29hp/s also without rigs but needs a cap booster
Dual rep seems pretty lackluster

Edit: once you get deadspace boosters which are fairly cheap it gets even better
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1394 - 2013-08-14 16:34:03 UTC
Harvey James wrote:


yes 12 mil for a meta 4 DC really??
those 2 implants are 25mil each minimum and i would imagine ASB's would be even harder to fit

I made a post a couple pages back that said that your problems could be fixed literally by just changing a BCU to a Co-Processor. Seeing your fit you're quite apparently not a primary damage dealer. The damage is nice, but you don't need 3 BCU's for it.
Valterra Craven
#1395 - 2013-08-14 16:59:05 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


I hear you but in this example, the astarte is doing something the eagle is not - it's giving armour boosts to everyone in your (PVE) fleet.

It seems reasonable to me that this would require some sacrifice elsewhere, no?



And I understand what your saying, but the astarte in this design was meant to do both (given the role bonus) etc. My point was I dont understand why CCP would not make a ship with an intended function without giving the ship the need resources to do that function?
Valterra Craven
#1396 - 2013-08-14 17:06:59 UTC
Frothgar wrote:


So... you're trying to do some things with these setups that don't really make much sense.

I'm assuming they're going to be PvE fits since you have no points, and you're incredibly slow.

First for the Astarte, you could make it a fine PvE boat. in your case you're really crazy overtanked, but you have no cap coming in to it. You have 6 slots dedicated to tanking, but you don't select a damage type. If you were say running lvl4s, drop the active hardeners, put in say a tracking enhancer, and ditch your tracking computers for cap recharge. You should be able to perma run everything.

For the eagle, you're using an undersized tank, cruisers easily fit "Large" shield boosters. That should put your fits more towards something functional.


Well I did mention my comments weren't related to PVP, so...

Speed is not really of a concern in PVE, the astarte is not a speed boat to begin with, so you aren't going to be sig tanking it like you would a frig etc. You don't need points since the targets don't run.

As to cap, anything past 2 minutes recharge I've found to be over kill (given the damage application and tank anyway) There is no need to perma run everything. The only benefit to perma running stuff is if you are too lazy to pulse your mods. In any case I have only 4 slots dedicated to tank, not 6. One rep and three hardners. My actuall mission 4 fit loses the Adapt nano and adds a third Mag Stab for more damage. The point here was to show similar fits on ships that use the same gun types. Its seems weird that a cruiser and a battle cruiser would have exactly the same CPU output given the role the BC is intended to fill.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1397 - 2013-08-14 17:11:54 UTC
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin.


No

The slot layout is fine.

Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second.
and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams.


The damage is not protectable, even at 15k
Doing the math right now, 2 armor reppers one aux nano pump one nano bot accel 152.13 hp/s using 3 slots (cap booster)
Xl asb gets a monstrous 563 hp/s with one slot and no rigs, not even close, you can argue about reloads but then again you can reasonably add another asb xl or l

Xl t2 booster gets 396.29hp/s also without rigs but needs a cap booster
Dual rep seems pretty lackluster

Edit: once you get deadspace boosters which are fairly cheap it gets even better


Alright, gonna be completely honest with you, not sure where you're getting your numbers. The rep numbers are looking decent, though still off, but I can't figure out the ASB numbers.

The rep numbers I'm getting are: 320 HP, 12 second duration. 25% reduction to duration from skills, 37.5% bonus to amount from hull, 15% reduction to duration from rig, 15% increase to amount from rig. Then apply heat of +10% amount and -15% duration

Most of this isn't from mods, so I don't see any stacking penalties.

So: (320 * 1.375 * 1.15 * 1.1) / (12 * .75 * .85 * .85)
Then multiply it by 2 for 2 reppers.
I get 171.2 HP/s from the 2 reppers and 2 rigs.

*oh, forgot the 15% increase to rep amount they're giving it next patch*
So with that: 196.9 HP/s

Now for the booster I'm getting 980hp, 5s duration, 37.5% bonus to amount from hull.

So: (980 * 1.375 * 1.1) / (5 * .85)

Or 348.8 HP/s on an XLASB with no other mods.

Now that XL ASB takes up much more fitting than 2 reppers even with the PWG penalties. 200 CPU vs 56, 500 PWG vs 302.2.

I'm not necessarily saying that makes up for only taking one slot, not using cap, and still repping more HP/s. Just wondering where you got your numbers.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1398 - 2013-08-14 17:21:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.



This honestly has to be the most disturbing post by a CCP member I have ever seen.

I have said it a dozen times, and will say it a dozen more.

If you nerf off grid boosting (Which is fine by me), we need a way to keep them alive ongrid, and that is NOT nerfing the only Command ship that can actually be used in a larger fleet fight without it dying when you sneeze on it.

Well that and links not automatically disabling in warp (Once ogb is removed) so that the linker does not have to scramble to put up links after every on grid warp.
Valfreyea
Zervas Aeronautics
The Bastion
#1399 - 2013-08-14 17:27:45 UTC
Still wondering about those hybrid tracking bonuses and the limited dronebay on the Eos. Not sure what it can do. Those heavies get killed fast, regardless of range, since they're slow and have a massive sig radius. And the tracking bonus still kinda feels like an afterthought.
Kallie Rae
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1400 - 2013-08-14 17:34:52 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Kara Vix wrote:
Has the ship models changed yet and if so, any images? Curious minds want to know Big smile


Ship models are not changing for 1.1, that is something planned for later. I'll see about getting that sticky up asap so we can link to it.



Why? :( Was really hoping to see the Eos in the myrmidon shell soon.