These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1461 - 2013-08-15 16:32:06 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:
Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.

Take a look around and tell me if you see ships other than the Command Ships that can field links while having considerably more EHP than even the 4x1600 Damnation .. get back to me when you see it (hint: they are bigger)Smile

For massive blobs (offensive ones at least) CC's or even T3's will not be the optimal choice due to the risk of being 'head shotted' as you mention, but there are other options hitherto unexplored due to off-grid functionality.

Off/On/Tangential-to topic: Why not add a CC level link bonus to the activation of the Triage module (think Rorqual deploy bonus)?


You have no idea what you're talking about.

Using a carrier as a subcap command ship is bad, and you should feel bad for suggesting it. The FC's command ship has to be as maneuverable as the rest of the fleet or else he's going to fleet warp everyone else away and he's going to get caught, or he's going to be unable to keep pace with the rest of the fleet if it's anything other than a immobile sentry domi fleet.

Additionally, adding a bonus to a triage module is a waste. In the fountain war the lifespan of a carrier in triage was best measured in seconds, which is hardly acceptable for a FC who's trying to direct a fleet.

It's fairly obvious that your experience in large fleet combat is lacking and your knowledge about what characteristics a FC needs are off.

/lol 4x1600 plate fits...if you don't have high resists your logi aren't going to be able to hold when you get focused
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1462 - 2013-08-15 16:41:16 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
Just has a thought that might be crazy.

This 7.5% armor rep per level.

What about 10% per level reduced rep time instead.

So at lvl 5 a med repper would basically have the rep of 2 med reppers
It would use more cap of course and a med injector would not be able to keep pace with 2xMAR.

This would basically be the same as Burst tank from a ASB

Increased cargo bays for the extra needed charges of course.

r.p.
Advanced Gallente system shunt heat out of armor reps with increased effeciency blah blah etc etc.


+1
But cap requirements would have to be reduced for armour reps.... but then they need to do that anyway... although it would mean AAR's would run out much quicker of nanite paste ... but they need to improve AAR's anyway less nanite paste consumption would be needed and allowing nanite skills to affect AAR's would be nice .. also change the reload times of AAR's or use an inject system so you can still rep at 75% whilst you wait for nanites to inject 15-20 secs.


Perhaps we could have a armour repping cap reduction skill? .. like the shield compensation skill .. which could probably do with a buff btw.

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
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1463 - 2013-08-15 18:25:12 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I have just tried a triple-rep astarte vs 2 navy 'phoons on sisi.

The astarte was not able to hold its overheated tank for longer than 2 cycles of the dual medium capacitor boosters.

I don't think it's going to survive in a skirmish Fozzie... It either needs to be able to fit LARs, or it needs better resistances.

It's just too vulnerable against more than 1 opponent at the moment.





So you cannot solotank two ships known for their crazy damage-application SIMULTANIOUSLY while sitting under two heavyneuts in an ACTIVE tanked ship while potentially being painted and webbed. Dude, two navy BS against your command ship...
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1464 - 2013-08-15 18:40:08 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I have just tried a triple-rep astarte vs 2 navy 'phoons on sisi.

The astarte was not able to hold its overheated tank for longer than 2 cycles of the dual medium capacitor boosters.

I don't think it's going to survive in a skirmish Fozzie... It either needs to be able to fit LARs, or it needs better resistances.

It's just too vulnerable against more than 1 opponent at the moment.





So you cannot solotank two ships known for their crazy damage-application SIMULTANIOUSLY while sitting under two heavyneuts in an ACTIVE tanked ship while potentially being painted and webbed. Dude, two navy BS against your command ship...


Relax Lloyd,

I am not suggesting that the astarte should be able to perma-tank them. I was sure that it would go down, but I am concerned that it went down a little too quickly to be a viable skirmish command ship

It was not capped out, it simply could not tank the damage for longer than 44 seconds.

That is not enough time for help to arrive.

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".
Peter Tjordenskiold
#1465 - 2013-08-15 19:13:06 UTC
I'm just asking who needs all the command ships for PVE? Give some love to 0.0. At least one shield CS should have a shield bonus like the Damnation for armor.
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1466 - 2013-08-15 20:10:23 UTC
I still think those cs changes are very weird, cant even understand why are you doing this...thought making fleets more viable is good...but u nerfing boosts and taking the fleet -giving ship away.

Of two cs each race u make like one.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1467 - 2013-08-15 20:39:26 UTC
Florian Kuehne wrote:
I still think those cs changes are very weird, cant even understand why are you doing this...thought making fleets more viable is good...but u nerfing boosts and taking the fleet -giving ship away.

Of two cs each race u make like one.


the thing i find most disappointing about is the lack of variety within each race.. i would like to have seen

Sleipnir - armour/skirmish links - to cater for armour minnie fleets and also change to cane model will make more sense
Armour HP based like damnation but with 5% armour HP

Vulture - shield/skirmish links - a mobile blaster boat to cater for caldari blaster fleets .. ferox's moa's merlin's.
Shield HP bonus a shield version of damnation bonus

Absolution - armour/skirmish links - a more mobile scorch ship to cater for more kitey laser ships like NOmen's, NHarbingers etc.

Eos - shield/skirmish links - a mobile drone boat with shield links to cater for gallente shield blaster boats.

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
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1468 - 2013-08-15 20:53:14 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
Forum deleted my long post about hp/s for armor reps and shield reps
I'm too busy to do it all again but basically
Astarte/ eos 2 t2 med reps cap booster and 2 rigs gets about 160hp/s
Claymore with xl asb 360hp/s with crystals 500+
Xl t2 boosters are less somewhere around 200 and 360 with crystals
All with less slots


Your quoting Burst tank for the Claymore.
Sustainable tank = Burst Tank / 105 * 45

Sustainable Tank for Clay with your numbers is actually 154hp/s

I take it you used 2xT2 rigs to get that 360 ?
So your going to need 1 x cpu in low ( with Meta4 fit ) or ( 2 x cpu in low to go t2 launchers ) and also an injector

5 slots for armor
5/6 slots for shield
160 reps for the armor
154 reps for the shield

Sounds pretty balanced to me.


I used no rigs for any of the shield numbers
Only for armor
And no sustainable is higher than that, but burst being an option is a huge deal, especially when u have the same sustainability but the same time having a huge burst tank,so yes that is why shield tankers almost always tank more
I use both armor and shield (active tanking) and shield tanking is by far better in this regard, especially with oversized modules, especially with crystals, but it's less about that and more about these ships and attempting to balance these ships
The eos is subpar by far, dps is "ok" and tank is meh, the only reason to use it over other ships in this lineup would be ... I'm not quite sure, being less of a threat than the Astarte next to you?
And no project able dps is not it, having you heavies easily picked off with only 2 sets is laughable, using only medium drones is laughable, and as present sentries are not viable, and I'm not sure if they should be, literally anything the eos can do the Astarte can do slightly better, excluding tank, which will now be equal
The eos is not super out of balance like it once was, but it IS a little too weak
Eldrith Jhandar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1469 - 2013-08-15 20:59:03 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
Just has a thought that might be crazy.

This 7.5% armor rep per level.

What about 10% per level reduced rep time instead.

So at lvl 5 a med repper would basically have the rep of 2 med reppers
It would use more cap of course and a med injector would not be able to keep pace with 2xMAR.

This would basically be the same as Burst tank from a ASB

Increased cargo bays for the extra needed charges of course.

r.p.
Advanced Gallente system shunt heat out of armor reps with increased effeciency blah blah etc etc.


+1
But cap requirements would have to be reduced for armour reps.... but then they need to do that anyway... although it would mean AAR's would run out much quicker of nanite paste ... but they need to improve AAR's anyway less nanite paste consumption would be needed and allowing nanite skills to affect AAR's would be nice .. also change the reload times of AAR's or use an inject system so you can still rep at 75% whilst you wait for nanites to inject 15-20 secs.


This is a very nice idea, would be quite interesting too see a combined bonus with some stuff like that
5% armor rep +5% armor rep speed
10% rep speed 5% cap reduction of reps
Etc
Could make quite interesting fits
+1
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1470 - 2013-08-15 23:43:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Naween
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.



I am sorry but what?!

I guess you guys just hate boosting so much you dont want anyone to actually use links, despite all the happy posting you guys did about large fleet fights in the past now you are doing everything you can to make command ships into.. I dont know what.

Give us a shield damnation (as in give us a damnation level tank on a shield ship as well)

DONT take away the one command ship that can actually survive in large fleet fights. The more I read about your command ship changes makes me VERY unhappy about my 15.8 million SP in leadership. Whats the point of all that training when I will get headshotted instantly and spend the rest of the fight in station.. every single time.

as to any.. you mad bro?

Yes. I am mad, but I am a girl so not a bro.. so shove it :P

Really, there is no need for both command ships of each race to be a dps monster. A role I think is odd for a command ship but it seems many want it. Fine, let the old field command ships do that, fleet command ships should be.. COMMAND ships.. for fleets. and the only one we can use now is the damnation.. (until you nerf it).. and really.. is that good balance? ONE viable ship.. and no the answer isnt to nerf the damnation, normally I would say.. yes nerfing one ship is better then boosting 3. but in this case if you nerf the damnation it does become useless. Give us the tools to have large fun fleet fights. If you nerf the damnation all you will see is more offgrid stuff (Until you totally remove that then we have to find other ways around the fact that a nerfed damnation is useless).

Really why cant you actually come out here and discuss it with us Fozzie? Explain to us why you feel the damnation should be the only usabable fleet ship (something you said before that you where happy it was the only one) andnow you want to nerf it. Explain yourself or you will see us still being mad at you. Come on Fozzie!! Be a human being and talk to us. We really aren't unreasonable, we WANT to be on field and have fun. But not if we got a HUGE target on our head AND no means to survive it.

We understand boosting is good, too good atm. Which is why it is being toned down, and I dont think anyone has any issues with this. Boosting needs to be fixed. But for the love of the Amarr empire we need some tools to survive more then 2 seconds on grid.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1471 - 2013-08-16 00:08:29 UTC
Lady Naween wrote:
stuffs


You see if he nerfs boosting hard enough then logistics will become useless, and fleets will turn into DPS vs EHP which is a lot easier to balance. It's all about eliminating variables from an equation.
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1472 - 2013-08-16 00:12:56 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:

You see if he nerfs boosting hard enough then logistics will become useless, and fleets will turn into DPS vs EHP which is a lot easier to balance. It's all about eliminating variables from an equation.


*chuckles* that is true :)
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1473 - 2013-08-16 00:29:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Lady Naween wrote:

We understand boosting is good, too good atm. Which is why it is being toned down, and I dont think anyone has any issues with this. Boosting needs to be fixed. But for the love of the Amarr empire we need some tools to survive more then 2 seconds on grid.


I think Fozzie understands the concerns of fleet boosters very well Lady Naween. At the moment, even though I am no expert on fitting amarr ships I can fit a 200,000 ehp damnation using just the T2 mods available in the sisi station.

I don't think anyone would say that a 200,000 ehp battleship was "weak", even though it has a significantly larger sig radius than the damnation.

With deadspace/faction hardeners I imagine we'll see damnations with 400,000 ehp, which is getting close to being as strong as a carrier when the signature radius is taken into account.

I can't see that the damnation is in danger of being one-shotted at the moment, and I am sure Fozzie has no intention of making it thus.

My concern is that if I ever meet one, I'll have to treat it like I would a double-plated proteus... with the greatest respect and care.

Smile

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".
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1474 - 2013-08-16 02:18:37 UTC
I support the removal of all bonuses that make ships semi-unkillable.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#1475 - 2013-08-16 02:47:44 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


The EOS would tank gurista sanctums with one arm tied behind it's back, while singing Bohemian Rhapsody and performing a pole dance.

If I saw it there though, I'd feel compelled to put it out of its misery... Big smile



...what... I don't even...
+1 cause it made me laugh Smile

TrouserDeagle wrote:
Kind of surprised that CCP are actually intending for people to fit XLASBs on things that aren't battleships. I thought them being able to fit at all was just an unfortunate oversight. Being able to put the equivalent of about 5 LSEs in a single slot, without even the lol sig penalty, kind of crazy. WTB capless large armour repairer for my myrmidon.

Nerf plx, ASBs are stupid.


ASBs are fine, because they aren't 5 shield extenders. ASBs are an active tank module, and they can be overwhelmed by enough DPS, or wasted by pilot error, or never activated because of pilot error.

Also, the only good ASB is the XL variant, and that's because there is no XL shield extender, as was proven by the fact that you compared an XL module to a Large module.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Anattha
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1476 - 2013-08-16 02:51:21 UTC
Then i just support 4 med slot absolution...because it finally does not correspond to its name
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#1477 - 2013-08-16 03:19:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
So if my math is right my 955dps Sleipnir that that could burst tank 2000dps for 60 seconds is going to become a 780dps Battlecruiser with a T2 Invul built in, that wont be able to fit the ASB burst tank (lost CPU and PG) and on top of that it lost 3 light drones as well.

Great another ship I can throw away thanks to the tieracide, I have lost 5 ships I loved to fly through this, after I lose this one I guess I will do what everyone else says and just go find something else to play.

Edit; Oh but the good news is an Autocannon ship will now be able to target out to 70km cause what Autocannons needed was an extra 25km of lock range.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#1478 - 2013-08-16 03:54:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
I don't think command ships, in their combat roles, are quite where they need to be, tbh. This is obviously just opinion, but I think they should be above strategic cruisers in a pure combat role, and currently...well, that isn't the case.

I think at the very least, they should come up to six hardpoints for their main weapon system, rather than five, to put them on par with Tech 3's.

And ffs, please do not leave gallente and minmatar without a resist-bonused ship, that's just dumb. Those two have the bonuses most likely to be used in a larger-scale operation, so balancing them completely for small gang stuff is idiotic. I know it breaks "character", but so do HICs...and for the very same reason.

Ideally I think they should have one active bonused one (sleipnir and eos) and one resist-bonused one (claymore and astarte), so there's a flavor for both roles.

thhief ghabmoef
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1479 - 2013-08-16 05:35:21 UTC
It would be neat if the eos could fit guns into all 6 high slots. Not because of balance, but so that when it gets changed to the myrm model it has 6 guns.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1480 - 2013-08-16 05:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassius Invictus
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.


Big smile ok so it will be useless as on grid command ship. Can i now have a sweet fleet amour HAM brawler since the new Sacri will fail at that role? +5 rate of fire to missiles? Please? No crappy bonuses? Please again?