These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1481 - 2013-08-16 07:19:56 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
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?


@ CCP Fozzie

Why is the damnation so weak?

The damnation can be out DPSed by what is supposed to be the ship directly below it, The Sacrilege.

There is no way a AHAC should be able to out DPS its CS counterpart.

I think the damnation needs to be a full brawler so loose the Velocity to missiles and add it 7.5% RoF and change the damage down to 7.5%.
Maybe give it 200-500 more base armour and take the hit point bonus down to 5% to compensate for this change


Currently with its bonuses the way they are this ship is still only gona fill one main role in a fleet. that would bring it to a closer par with the other ships
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1482 - 2013-08-16 07:30:53 UTC
A command ship is a fleet boostin specialist variant. It should never be as strong in combat as a navy battlecruiser. A regular battlecruiser ability is even pushing it, because the links have the potential of making a single ship worth a dozen in fleets.

The changes look good for all purposes except the tankability/gank ratio. Build the 50% hp bonuses into all ships and remove one or two effective turrets in compensation. EoS can live with 100 bandwidth. Reinforce CS as what they have become: a tough nut to crack whose boosts make you take a decision whether to kill it first or not. Don't have them compete in damage dealing with hac, BC, BS and other damage focused roles.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1483 - 2013-08-16 08:01:23 UTC
The Spod wrote:
A command ship is a fleet boostin specialist variant. It should never be as strong in combat as a navy battlecruiser. A regular battlecruiser ability is even pushing it, because the links have the potential of making a single ship worth a dozen in fleets.

The changes look good for all purposes except the tankability/gank ratio. Build the 50% hp bonuses into all ships and remove one or two effective turrets in compensation. EoS can live with 100 bandwidth. Reinforce CS as what they have become: a tough nut to crack whose boosts make you take a decision whether to kill it first or not. Don't have them compete in damage dealing with hac, BC, BS and other damage focused roles.


I can see your point, but since CCP clearly doesn’t want to do this, then I would love to fly a Damnation as a heavy brawler before CCP finds a new "brilliant" role for it. If the +10 hp bonus is gone than i want a dmg bonus instead and not some other crap.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1484 - 2013-08-16 11:05:38 UTC
The Spod wrote:
A command ship is a fleet boostin specialist variant. It should never be as strong in combat as a navy battlecruiser. A regular battlecruiser ability is even pushing it, because the links have the potential of making a single ship worth a dozen in fleets.

The changes look good for all purposes except the tankability/gank ratio. Build the 50% hp bonuses into all ships and remove one or two effective turrets in compensation. EoS can live with 100 bandwidth. Reinforce CS as what they have become: a tough nut to crack whose boosts make you take a decision whether to kill it first or not. Don't have them compete in damage dealing with hac, BC, BS and other damage focused roles.


I disagree, as having (as oh so many others) used command ships near exclusively as pimped up battlecruisers. If at all, the current 6 mids on the vulture and the 10% bufffer bonus the damnation has on the pro-side are just hints that THAT ship is your tanky fleetbrick.

I can't recall ever seeing Abso/Eos/Astarte/Sleipnir on grid -boosting - before like ever. Why would you want to pidgeonhole all those ships down into one role again :(
As for the skillreqs, command ships take ages longer to train compared to navy BCs and are a god bit more expensive (like 170 to 250mil average against 220 to 320 latest I checked), why shouldn't they be able to compete with navy BCs?
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1485 - 2013-08-16 11:25:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
The Problem is T2 is for specialized Roles and to be honest i can hardly see the specialized in the Command Ship changes, its just one Brick, and 7 Navy BC with option to more then one Warfare Link.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1486 - 2013-08-16 11:29:41 UTC
I think the answer to that is that the design team perceive that the game is a better one when players must make trade-offs in their decision making.

I happen to agree here.

If you make a CS more powerful than a navy BC in all respects, there's no reason to choose a navy BC once you can fly a CS, which obsoletes a whole line of ships.

As it stands, if you want good tank and fleet boosts, you choose a CS. If you want ultra-dps at the cost of tank and links, you choose a navy BC.

That seems reasonable to me.

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".
Serenity Eon
League of Paranoid D-Scanners
#1487 - 2013-08-16 11:30:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Serenity Eon
Vulfen wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
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?


@ CCP Fozzie

Why is the damnation so weak?

The damnation can be out DPSed by what is supposed to be the ship directly below it, The Sacrilege.

There is no way a AHAC should be able to out DPS its CS counterpart.

I think the damnation needs to be a full brawler so loose the Velocity to missiles and add it 7.5% RoF and change the damage down to 7.5%.
Maybe give it 200-500 more base armour and take the hit point bonus down to 5% to compensate for this change


Currently with its bonuses the way they are this ship is still only gona fill one main role in a fleet. that would bring it to a closer par with the other ships


I agree with this, However I would remove the 10% hit point bonus instead. this would put the damnation on par with other CS and would remove any disparity between them. Either give all command ships a 10% hit point buffer, or remove it completely, simple as that.

Edit: No one likes flying a brick that does jack DPS :(
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1488 - 2013-08-16 11:59:55 UTC
Serenity Eon wrote:


I agree with this, However I would remove the 10% hit point bonus instead. this would put the damnation on par with other CS and would remove any disparity between them. Either give all command ships a 10% hit point buffer, or remove it completely, simple as that.

Edit: No one likes flying a brick that does jack DPS :(


Hallelujah to you my brother!
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#1489 - 2013-08-16 12:11:32 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I think the answer to that is that the design team perceive that the game is a better one when players must make trade-offs in their decision making.

I happen to agree here.

If you make a CS more powerful than a navy BC in all respects, there's no reason to choose a navy BC once you can fly a CS, which obsoletes a whole line of ships.

But dedicating 4 months of training in addition to the BC skills should grant you a ship more powerful than any BC.

Quote:
As it stands, if you want good tank and fleet boosts, you choose a CS. If you want ultra-dps at the cost of tank and links, you choose a navy BC.

you mean if you want paper tank and ultra DPS you fly the Teir 3 BC, after all that's what they were designed for.

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.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1490 - 2013-08-16 12:43:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Harvey James wrote:
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


@ Fozzie .. have you considered doing this or something similar and what did you think?

There are 11 minnie ships that are either armour tanked or can armour tank fairly well .. so why no armour CS???
Rifter, Rupture, Stabber fleet issue,Scythe fleet issue, Rapier, Hurricane fleet issue,Hurricane, Tempest, Typhoon, Wolf, Muninn.

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
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#1491 - 2013-08-16 12:48:06 UTC
Serenity Eon wrote:

I agree with this, However I would remove the 10% hit point bonus instead. this would put the damnation on par with other CS and would remove any disparity between them. Either give all command ships a 10% hit point buffer, or remove it completely, simple as that.

Edit: No one likes flying a brick that does jack DPS :(


Oh god.
Must be a troll. A really bad one. I just lost faith in humanity.
Serenity Eon
League of Paranoid D-Scanners
#1492 - 2013-08-16 13:02:48 UTC
bloodknight2 wrote:
Serenity Eon wrote:

I agree with this, However I would remove the 10% hit point bonus instead. this would put the damnation on par with other CS and would remove any disparity between them. Either give all command ships a 10% hit point buffer, or remove it completely, simple as that.

Edit: No one likes flying a brick that does jack DPS :(


Oh god.
Must be a troll. A really bad one. I just lost faith in humanity.


Hypocrisy at its finest :P
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1493 - 2013-08-16 13:15:06 UTC
I am at work right now. so unable to do a proper link of eft fit. but i have to say i had a bunch of fun last night in an Astarte on SISI.

this was my first attempt at fitting and i wanted to go big everything.

high:
1 med nuet
1 med nos
5 nuetron blaster II

mid:
10 mwd
10 ab
scram
medium cap booster (800)

lows:
MAAR
dcu II
1600 plate II
2 energy adaptive membrain II
RCU II

Rigs:
2 pg rigs

drones:
5 ecm 600
5 warrior II

now upon reflection i can allways drop to ions and then can take advantage of the rigs... but it was allot of fun. i killed a deimos then a cane then a curse.

I also used one of those active tanking pills that made the tank really good. the 1600 allows me to reload the MAAR.

i do have to say the nos was allot of help to keep my mods running bettween cap boosters.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1494 - 2013-08-16 13:41:50 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I think the answer to that is that the design team perceive that the game is a better one when players must make trade-offs in their decision making.

I happen to agree here.

If you make a CS more powerful than a navy BC in all respects, there's no reason to choose a navy BC once you can fly a CS, which obsoletes a whole line of ships.

But dedicating 4 months of training in addition to the BC skills should grant you a ship more powerful than any BC.

Quote:
As it stands, if you want good tank and fleet boosts, you choose a CS. If you want ultra-dps at the cost of tank and links, you choose a navy BC.

you mean if you want paper tank and ultra DPS you fly the Teir 3 BC, after all that's what they were designed for.


The 4 months of training gets you:
all ships in fleet have better armour resistances so they live longer
all ships in fleet fly faster
all ships in fleet have a smaller signature radius so they live longer

... and various combinations of links ...

That's equivalent to an extra, say 3 slots on all the ships in the fleet (being conservative). For this I feel my training has been worthwhile.


paper tank:
The comparison was drawn between a navy brutix and an astarte. The navy brutix can field an 80k ehp buffer while delivering 1000 overheated outgoing dps. This is by no means a paper tank.

The talos is not in a comparable class.

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".
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1495 - 2013-08-16 16:12:31 UTC
Just let the cs how they are but allow all ships to fit these gang modules while the fleet cs still got the extra bonus.
If people want to fit gang modules on the field cs instead of weapons, they can do it or if they dont want to fly the other one.

give amarr a bit more laser damage & tank
give gallente bit more dronebay and dronedamge or something like that
give caldari a bit more missile damage, no one will fit hybrid weapons on a tanky vulture really
give minmatar a bit more agility and speed + scanresolution etc.

To nerf shield on armor ships and armor on shield ships to make this more real is OK.
To boost so much locking range on a cs is not that optimal in my opinion, u have other stuff/things for that.
Why nerf or boost pg and cpu so hard? How can i fit the damnation with serveral plates now :) Really make small changes please.

+ some smaller adjust. like sensor strength
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1496 - 2013-08-16 17:28:55 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
I am at work right now. so unable to do a proper link of eft fit. but i have to say i had a bunch of fun last night in an Astarte on SISI.

this was my first attempt at fitting and i wanted to go big everything.

high:
1 med nuet
1 med nos
5 nuetron blaster II

mid:
10 mwd
10 ab
scram
medium cap booster (800)

lows:
MAAR
dcu II
1600 plate II
2 energy adaptive membrain II
RCU II

Rigs:
2 pg rigs

drones:
5 ecm 600
5 warrior II

now upon reflection i can allways drop to ions and then can take advantage of the rigs... but it was allot of fun. i killed a deimos then a cane then a curse.

I also used one of those active tanking pills that made the tank really good. the 1600 allows me to reload the MAAR.

i do have to say the nos was allot of help to keep my mods running bettween cap boosters.


It's been patiently explained to me how the new NOS mechanic nerfs them into complete uselessness... especially against same size or smaller targets... regardless of how much cap your ship burns (and certainly on any ship using a Neut or a Cap Booster).

Nice to see practical use proving them wrong. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#1497 - 2013-08-16 17:34:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Claymore is a disaster on Sisi.
Just tried fitting one.

Forget it.

Needs about 85 more CPU to fit a shield buffer with 3 command links, 4 HAM's, and 3 T2 BCU's.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=269052&find=unread


Fitting what you want on a ship is intended to take creativity and require tradeoffs.

In your case I advise checking out meta modules. Switching the LSEs and DC to meta 4 and dropping to two BCUs allows your fit to work without any fitting mods or implants, even with T2 links. Add Genolution CA-1 and CA-2s and a 3% cpu implant it works with 3 BCUs.


Can you please explain why that applies only to T2 hulls while T1 have no issues with fittings? Or it's a some sort of an achievement after months of training?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1498 - 2013-08-16 17:47:36 UTC
Cyaron wars wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Claymore is a disaster on Sisi.
Just tried fitting one.

Forget it.

Needs about 85 more CPU to fit a shield buffer with 3 command links, 4 HAM's, and 3 T2 BCU's.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=269052&find=unread


Fitting what you want on a ship is intended to take creativity and require tradeoffs.

In your case I advise checking out meta modules. Switching the LSEs and DC to meta 4 and dropping to two BCUs allows your fit to work without any fitting mods or implants, even with T2 links. Add Genolution CA-1 and CA-2s and a 3% cpu implant it works with 3 BCUs.


Can you please explain why that applies only to T2 hulls while T1 have no issues with fittings? Or it's a some sort of an achievement after months of training?

That's to fit 3 links. Fitting two is easier, but if you want to go the full Monty there will be some sacrifices here and there to be made.

Unless you're trying to say that T1 ships can max every aspect of their fit with no sacrifices, including mounting 2 or 3 links? Big smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#1499 - 2013-08-16 18:18:29 UTC
I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships.
If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1500 - 2013-08-16 18:25:50 UTC
Cyaron wars wrote:
I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships.
If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board.


It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie