These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#1641 - 2013-08-19 22:39:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.

And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser?
Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1642 - 2013-08-19 22:48:13 UTC
Hey Fozzie. The Cap usage bonus on the absolution is pretty pointless, especially with the fewer guns it has to fuel.

Any chance it could get the bonus partially folded into the base recharge, and then add some form of optimal range bonus?

It really has issues projecting damage since in medium size gangs its obliged to have a 1600 plate, and its laughably slow with no means to project damage. If you think 10%/Level is too much, perhaps 7.5 like the apoc?
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1643 - 2013-08-19 22:51:09 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.

And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser?


I know I've already been bringing up this point in multiple threads but it's getting a quote because it needs to be addressed.
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1644 - 2013-08-19 23:20:22 UTC  |  Edited by: MJ Incognito
Frothgar wrote:
Hey Fozzie. The Cap usage bonus on the absolution is pretty pointless, especially with the fewer guns it has to fuel.

Any chance it could get the bonus partially folded into the base recharge, and then add some form of optimal range bonus?

It really has issues projecting damage since in medium size gangs its obliged to have a 1600 plate, and its laughably slow with no means to project damage. If you think 10%/Level is too much, perhaps 7.5 like the apoc?



Have you even flown a beam absolution... I suggest you try it in small fleet or large fleet formation before saying that ship needs a range boost.

If the absolution got a range boost, it would quite possibly be the best sub-capital platform in game.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1645 - 2013-08-19 23:24:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
MJ Incognito wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.

And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser?


I know I've already been bringing up this point in multiple threads but it's getting a quote because it needs to be addressed.


Have you even flown a beam absolution... I suggest you try it in small fleet or large fleet formation before saying that ship needs a range boost.

If the absolution got a range boost, it would quite possibly be the best sub-capital platform in game.


That quote was about cap recharge, not range Roll

I think you clicked the quote button on the wrong post.

Edit before no one sees!!
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1646 - 2013-08-19 23:30:27 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU

Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1647 - 2013-08-19 23:33:24 UTC
Capt Canada wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU

Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.


"but that would make it too similar to the vulture!"

*looks at eos and astarte*.......
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1648 - 2013-08-19 23:33:29 UTC
Capt Canada wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU

Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.


It ain't gonna happen. The design team have the caldari ships pegged as fleet boosters, not active tankers.

The nighthawk is no longer a superdrake. For that, look no further than the Claymore.

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".
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1649 - 2013-08-19 23:46:33 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.


whatever you do don't make random numbers a key factor of it. A working target spectrum breaker could be inverse ECM 2.0, and i can't imagine anybody with competitive playstyle would want yet another playerskill independent dice on the field.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1650 - 2013-08-20 01:27:50 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers..

At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements. Many of you will have noticed that one effect of the gang link changes is that T1 Battlecruisers will provide better bonuses, and a character with level 3 or 4 skills will be vastly improved compared to the current situation. There will still be significant benefits to training skills to 5 and upgrading to a Command Ship, but for people that can't afford to bring redundant Command Ships, redundant Battlecruisers will be a fine option.

I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
I might be missing some thing really big here, could you explain how a T1 battlecruiser with low SP pilot is going to provide better bonuses? T1 battlecruiser can only fit 1 link, gets no specific ship bonuses to gang links. Lower SP pilots aren't going to be boosting for 2000 man fleets, they will be the small fleet / gang boosters. Lower SP pilot, with all level four skills for gang links is only getting the base boost from the gang link (lvl 4 skills means no leadership implants), how is that any better than it is now??
Maybe T1 battlecruisers could get a small fixed bonus to 1 link, which only works with T1 links?? It could still be used by higher skill pilots but the bonus is negated if the pilot fits a T2 link or has leadership implants.

Target spectrum breakers on command ships?? Why?? All your doing is giving the enemy a chance to relock you faster than your logi can. Unless the Target Spectrum Breaker can be scripted to work only on a targeted ship it will probably be more of a hindrance than help.


NB; there is a bug in SISI, when I use "strip fitting" to try it on another ship, yes the ship gets its fittings stripped but they do not appear in items hanger, all the fitted modules are gone. I tried re-logging, seems the eve gods needed my modules.
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1651 - 2013-08-20 01:55:38 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Capt Canada wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:

Nighthawk:
+100 PWG
+10 CPU

Sleipnir:
+50 CPU

Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.


"but that would make it too similar to the vulture!"

*looks at eos and astarte*.......
Swap them around, the Vulture would benefit more from a 5th lowslot over the nighthawk. Also, I may be 1 of the last, but I like missiles.


Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Capt Canada wrote:

Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk.


It ain't gonna happen. The design team have the caldari ships pegged as fleet boosters, not active tankers.

The nighthawk is no longer a superdrake. For that, look no further than the Claymore.
Hmmm, ok that being the answer, why have the nighthawk at all?? most of what I've read and seen on sisi says the nighthawk is totally inferior for its intended role, just get rid of it.. Or better still, fix it.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#1652 - 2013-08-20 03:12:26 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Please BUFF the NH and dont nerf it even more ... DPS went down even more, and they were abysmal before.


They're not for brawling. They're for tanking huge alpha while boosting.

See above


I am perfectly aware what CS are for. Still there is no need to severerly gimp the NH in DPS-aspects in comparison to other CS! I want the NH to be fixed and afterwards on par or even on top of the rest - Caldari deserve a good ship for sure. Btw, did someone notice how the Drake ceased to exist as a combatship like it used to do before? Exactly how I predicted .... now no one with their brains set right seems to pvp in a Drake anymore ... but yeah, go on and nerf everything more :)
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1653 - 2013-08-20 04:55:47 UTC
Fozzie what about people who got all skills on V like me? I can fly all cs with 3 races. I want to have something that i trained all to V. To skill to lvl4 is not a big deal, please give older players more cool stuff.

And again, what about gang modules who boosts damage? Or tracking bonuses(not from logistics).
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1654 - 2013-08-20 05:39:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Capt Canada wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers..

At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements. Many of you will have noticed that one effect of the gang link changes is that T1 Battlecruisers will provide better bonuses, and a character with level 3 or 4 skills will be vastly improved compared to the current situation. There will still be significant benefits to training skills to 5 and upgrading to a Command Ship, but for people that can't afford to bring redundant Command Ships, redundant Battlecruisers will be a fine option.

I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
I might be missing some thing really big here, could you explain how a T1 battlecruiser with low SP pilot is going to provide better bonuses? T1 battlecruiser can only fit 1 link, gets no specific ship bonuses to gang links. Lower SP pilots aren't going to be boosting for 2000 man fleets, they will be the small fleet / gang boosters. Lower SP pilot, with all level four skills for gang links is only getting the base boost from the gang link (lvl 4 skills means no leadership implants), how is that any better than it is now??
Maybe T1 battlecruisers could get a small fixed bonus to 1 link, which only works with T1 links?? It could still be used by higher skill pilots but the bonus is negated if the pilot fits a T2 link or has leadership implants.

Target spectrum breakers on command ships?? Why?? All your doing is giving the enemy a chance to relock you faster than your logi can. Unless the Target Spectrum Breaker can be scripted to work only on a targeted ship it will probably be more of a hindrance than help.


NB; there is a bug in SISI, when I use "strip fitting" to try it on another ship, yes the ship gets its fittings stripped but they do not appear in items hanger, all the fitted modules are gone. I tried re-logging, seems the eve gods needed my modules.

As far as I can tell, in that quote he's talking about how the average T1 BC will be better at boosting than it was before the patch. What with the lower emphasis on skills and mindlinks to have a proper booster, you can be closer to peak with a T1 BC than you could before.

Hell, after this you won't absolutely require a mindlink since it's going from 50% increase to only 25%. You won't need perfect level 5's. It all makes it better, of course. But it's not going to be nearly as bad as today where a level 1 skill doesn't get you the mindlink and only gets you a 2.2% increase to resists for example.

Edit: also, it'll take 100 less PG to fit so less gimping on the fit.
Cade Windstalker
#1655 - 2013-08-20 06:11:13 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Why does every single CS have the same cap recharge? Pretty sure the Absolution should have a higher recharge than a Sleipnir given, oh I don't know, the fact that lasers take a **** ton of cap, projectiles and ASB's require ZERO. But hey, call me crazy.

And why does a T2 BC have less recharge than a T2 Cruiser?


That's average recharge, look at the recharge rates and total cap for each and then apply skills. You get some pretty major differences. Peak recharge on the Amarr ships with a decently skilled character is going to be worlds better than either of the Minmattar ships, which by comparison have an absolutely anemic capacitor total.

Capt Canada wrote:
I might be missing some thing really big here, could you explain how a T1 battlecruiser with low SP pilot is going to provide better bonuses? T1 battlecruiser can only fit 1 link, gets no specific ship bonuses to gang links. Lower SP pilots aren't going to be boosting for 2000 man fleets, they will be the small fleet / gang boosters. Lower SP pilot, with all level four skills for gang links is only getting the base boost from the gang link (lvl 4 skills means no leadership implants), how is that any better than it is now??
Maybe T1 battlecruisers could get a small fixed bonus to 1 link, which only works with T1 links?? It could still be used by higher skill pilots but the bonus is negated if the pilot fits a T2 link or has leadership implants.

Target spectrum breakers on command ships?? Why?? All your doing is giving the enemy a chance to relock you faster than your logi can. Unless the Target Spectrum Breaker can be scripted to work only on a targeted ship it will probably be more of a hindrance than help.


NB; there is a bug in SISI, when I use "strip fitting" to try it on another ship, yes the ship gets its fittings stripped but they do not appear in items hanger, all the fitted modules are gone. I tried re-logging, seems the eve gods needed my modules.


T1 BCs are going to provide better bonuses than before the changes, not better than a fully fitted and skilled Command Ship, meaning that for a newbie who's getting into BCs on his way to command ships and boosting for his friends' small gang roam he's going to have more of an impact than pre-1.1

Command Ships are still going to be better, but it's not going to be the exponentially better of pre-1.1 where between skills, implants, and the command ship/T3 boost, BC links are barely noticeable and you don't get nearly the full effect until your pilot is maxed as a booster.

Given how quickly Logi ships and Triage carriers lock I can hardly see a BS gang re-locking you before they can. As he said though, it's just something they're considering.

That bug report probably belongs in the bugs thread, not the CS thread where no one related to bug-hunting is going to see it.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1656 - 2013-08-20 07:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers and coordination people are going to find a way to volley just about anything we design, and then we'll be right back where we started. We're not going to get into an escalating design battle against the dps and alpha of player fleets.

Common sense from an Eve Dev, what is the world coming to!
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home.

Any ideas as to how to go about it? Assuming you mean a mechanic that will remove the necessity of FC to manually assign boosters every time one drops, watchlist system that is depleted as a fight goes on? Tagging all link ships and letting server determine which is better (based on what links dropped)? .. will it play nice with squads/wings and if not is fleet interface going on the make-over show?
Common sense is awesome, but be careful, once you start down that path there is no going back and you'll start seeing weird and irrational things at every corner Big smile
CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements....

You teasing with a frig based link platform perchance? If not ... could you? Big smile
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.

Just make sure it is fixed beforehand .. we don't want a situation where a logi wing can immunize a CC just by locking it.

Speaking of, can it be made into a permanently active defense module like ECCM and discriminate between Friend and Foe so that a hard limit can be used? Was thinking that you could use the wardec system if FF options are scarce, alpha threat is most pronounced in the big territorial spats and well it is just common decency to declare war before dropping an army in a persons backyard!

PS: "A few times" .. you are dissing my forum whoring!!111 Smile

Would love a Devblog detailing the thought processes going into the on-/offgrid work, it is a change that will have a bigger impact than the introduction of POS back in the day as it affects Eve on all levels. If nothing else, your deranged braintrust (ie. the playerbase) might have ideas as to how to get around specific/general obstacles so abuse it/us.
Cade Windstalker wrote:
That's average recharge, look at the recharge rates and total cap for each and then apply skills. You get some pretty major differences. Peak recharge on the Amarr ships with a decently skilled character is going to be worlds better than either of the Minmattar ships, which by comparison have an absolutely anemic capacitor total.

They all have 4.5 per second .. that number is a straight division of cap and recharge so applying skills won't change it much as proportions will remain the same.
Seems like they just took the old number and tweaked numbers on field hulls upwards to have a bigger pool on them regardless of weaponry and bonuses to active tanking .. actually kind of strange. Considering that active tanking is wanted on the smaller scale and tank relevant slots remain static there ought to be significant differences (read: Abso needs much MOAR! and Astarte need a little moar!) to account for weaponry, bonuses and slots available for cap (ie. injector).
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1657 - 2013-08-20 07:48:50 UTC
So i guess, this "Rebalance" is Command Ships 1.5 not 2.0?

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Rukia Taika
Allied Operations
Mechanicus Macabre Immortale
#1658 - 2013-08-20 08:22:18 UTC
Trying to think of a constructive way to say this about the Command ship changes and the Strategic cruiser changes. Great seeing that the command ship are back at the forefront for what they do compare to a strategic cruiser boosting.

Just one tiny problem I noticed. The strategic cruiser has enough CPU to fit 6 links with no CPU upgrades, Rigs or implants including it having several Command Processors on it where with the Command ship you need 2 CPU rigs, a couple of CPU upgrades and the implant to fit 2 command processors, and 6 links and still not enough CPU to fit the silly thing. Some Extra CPU for the Command Ship would be nice.

Yes I know I am trying to fit it with the appropriate links for the command ship and seeing the changes I like them still but I also feel that the changes will affect the Armor Incursion Community who has always been suffering where as the Siege changes have no serious change to them.

Come on CCP get your head out of each others butt and remember that the armor tankers do not rely on the condom but love going bare back.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1659 - 2013-08-20 08:26:36 UTC
@ CCP Fozzie

I have a question, though slightly off topic, but does relate to these changes

People who fly command ships tend to have good implant and booster skills, to combine them together to make the CS a better ship whether it be for DPS or tank.

Currently there are no implants in the game that affect drones. Any thoughts on whether or not we are going to get some?

id like to see ones like;

increase drone hp
increase drone RoF or in ewar drones case cycle time
increase tacking
maybe a set of faction implants that allow for longer drone control range

i also believe there should be a single "officer implant" that increases Fighter and Fighter Bomber damage, id like to see this as a rare drop from the Super at the end of incursions.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#1660 - 2013-08-20 08:42:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

To be clear, we are not removing the Damnation's HP bonus in Odyssey 1.1, as right now it helps the Damnation fill a useful role that would be lost if we removed it.


Well, technically there already is a dedicated 'Command' ship for large scale fleet combat. It's not very popular, though Twisted.