These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1801 - 2013-08-23 14:26:09 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
So I am on Sisi right now.
Been fitting up the various Command Ships.

Finally got around to the Sleipnir.

Has anyone combat tested one?



It's quite magnificent. Mostly like the old sleip, but dual S-large ASB isn't attractive anymore, though classic X-large with dualcapboost seems to be the new way. For gangs, more the dual-med-neut / single ASB/LSE seems to be useful.

regards



The Sleipnir has always been to me more of a machine that terrifies solo players, or even very small gangs.
Yeah, it has more tank now, with the resist boosts, and the shield booster buff (but a lot of ship fits are getting a repper/booster buff with the new repper/booster stats), but the ship is taking a big hit in DPS (10.00 effective guns vs 11.6667), and losing that 8th slot really hurts it's utility at the same time.

Plus I was having, and still am, having issues, when comparing it to the EOS.
I realize I will get toasted for comparing apples and oranges, but from a strict DPS point of view, the EOS with a pair of 250 rails, 3 drone damage mods, and Ogre II's does virtually identical ONPAPER damage ( I am looking at the fitting window on Sisi) to the Sleipnir fitted with 5 425's and 2 HAM's, and 3 Gyro's. Which I could live with, but I can also fit a wicked buffer tank on the EOS and FOUR links, while the Sleipnir to achieve that damage (856) uses all 7 high slots.

And if someone from CPP reads this, for god's sakes, DON'T take this as reason to nerf the EOS. Instead, buff the Sleipnir.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1802 - 2013-08-23 15:35:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:



(10.00 effective guns vs 11.6667), and losing that 8th slot really hurts it's utility at the same time.



It actually has 11.25 effective turrets not 10 ontop of the fact that it gets this dmg out of 5 guns instead of 7 meaning that your comment about the loss of the 8th high hurting it's utility is wrong as the ship now has 2 utility high slots rather than 1.

Also, while it's lost dps in terms of eft, the move from rof to all dmg means that in the short term, it's going to do more dps compared to the older sleipnir. Alpha from arty setup is also higher.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1803 - 2013-08-23 15:36:35 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The Sleipnir has always been to me more of a machine that terrifies solo players, or even very small gangs.
Yeah, it has more tank now, with the resist boosts, and the shield booster buff (but a lot of ship fits are getting a repper/booster buff with the new repper/booster stats), but the ship is taking a big hit in DPS (10.00 effective guns vs 11.6667), and losing that 8th slot really hurts it's utility at the same time.


It's remedial math time.

Damage bonuses are multiplicative. That means that the first bonus raises the damage from 5 turrets to 7.5 effective turrets. The second 50% damage bonus raises 7.5 effective turrets to 11.25 effective turrets. The ship now has 2 utility high slots after fitting max turrets instead of just one, so it's actually gaining a utility high slot.

Ultimately, I really don't know what you're going on about. The sleip is losing a small amount of DPS (~3.5%) and is gaining a utility high slot and some base resists. This is hardly the epic nerf you're trying to make it out to be.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1804 - 2013-08-23 15:42:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.

You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs...

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".

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1805 - 2013-08-23 16:15:06 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.

You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs...


And Serpentis, the green dudes in the Syndicate asteroid belts

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1806 - 2013-08-23 16:21:34 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.

You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs...


And Serpentis, the green dudes in the Syndicate asteroid belts


Oh well, that's fine then. We've found a role for the EOS!

It's a 200m isk rat-catcher :)

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".

Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1807 - 2013-08-23 17:53:21 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
EDIT: posted without thinking - that bit was deleted.

You *can* put 3 drone damage mods on an EOS, but it's not going to tank anything other than Guristas NPCs...


And Serpentis, the green dudes in the Syndicate asteroid belts


Oh well, that's fine then. We've found a role for the EOS!

It's a 200m isk rat-catcher :)


Now I understand what the tracking bonus is for. Throw blasters on an eos and clear guristas tackle frigs quickly. The role is falling into place, this is an epic guristas ratting ship to replace the ishtar.
Cool
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1808 - 2013-08-23 23:56:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

The Sleipnir has always been to me more of a machine that terrifies solo players, or even very small gangs.
Yeah, it has more tank now, with the resist boosts, and the shield booster buff (but a lot of ship fits are getting a repper/booster buff with the new repper/booster stats), but the ship is taking a big hit in DPS (10.00 effective guns vs 11.6667), and losing that 8th slot really hurts it's utility at the same time.

Plus I was having, and still am, having issues, when comparing it to the EOS.
I realize I will get toasted for comparing apples and oranges, but from a strict DPS point of view, the EOS with a pair of 250 rails, 3 drone damage mods, and Ogre II's does virtually identical ONPAPER damage ( I am looking at the fitting window on Sisi) to the Sleipnir fitted with 5 425's and 2 HAM's, and 3 Gyro's. Which I could live with, but I can also fit a wicked buffer tank on the EOS and FOUR links, while the Sleipnir to achieve that damage (856) uses all 7 high slots.

And if someone from CPP reads this, for god's sakes, DON'T take this as reason to nerf the EOS. Instead, buff the Sleipnir.


Quite the opposite. By using but five highs for turrets you now got two medium neuts. Also the easier fitting by using only 5 modules, you don't have to sacrifice three cows anymore to fit artillery.

Quote:

[Sleipnir, single ASB]
Internal Force Field Array I
Republic Fleet Gyrostabilizer
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II

Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Processor Overclocking Unit II
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II


Hornet EC-300 x5


It's a little tight, but ammo consumption is now of that sort that you reload once for damage type, and afterwards you could burn all the way through a proteus buffer without reloading :) Aside from that, I fitted that up before that last CPU adjustment, means that the CPU-rig can be switched for a t2 therm/explo-rig and that RF gyro can be switched for a regular T2.
Sleipnirs have been attractive before, the acceptable speed (especially linked some 2.3km/s OH) and damageoutput basically stays as is, but utility got increased.

When going for smallscale brawlfits, you can stuff two med neuts, a cap booster or ASB and medium or top tier guns on pretty much any of these.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#1809 - 2013-08-24 00:22:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


( I am looking at the fitting window on Sisi) to the Sleipnir fitted with 5 425's and 2 HAM's, and 3 Gyro's.

Strange I am seeing 953dps, guns only Hail ammo(Fitting window on sisi) No drones.

Edit; Ah I have implants in, ignore DPS.

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.

To mare
Advanced Technology
#1810 - 2013-08-24 00:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: To mare
all this rebalancing started well but the far it goes the more it sound like overall nerfs to everything except gallente ships
Cade Windstalker
#1811 - 2013-08-24 01:30:44 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


( I am looking at the fitting window on Sisi) to the Sleipnir fitted with 5 425's and 2 HAM's, and 3 Gyro's.

Strange I am seeing 953dps, guns only Hail ammo(Fitting window on sisi) No drones.

Edit; Ah I have implants in, ignore DPS.


Everyone does realize that the fitting window is going to take into account skills, right? Meaning that your numbers may vary from either someone else's numbers or from the "maxed" numbers for the fit...

To mare wrote:
all this rebalancing started well but the far it goes the more it sound like overall nerfs to everything except gallente ships


Read more diverse opinions, there isn't a single command ship here that's legitimately ending up worse off overall than it was before these changes. The Gallente ships are going to show high DPS because blasters are high damage guns, but they suffer from extremely short range and can be completely negated by various combinations of range, e-war, cap-warfare, and simply out-tanking the enemy.
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1812 - 2013-08-24 02:42:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Capt Canada
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.

Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.

If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!

Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?

On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.

Adapt and survive...


Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it..
When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle.
I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark.
Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.

With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role..
Hookswoop Skydance
Doomheim
#1813 - 2013-08-24 05:45:11 UTC
To mare wrote:
all this rebalancing started well but the far it goes the more it sound like overall nerfs to everything except gallente ships

Funny... I would say the Eos is the most worthless turd in a bowl full of other turds. Roll
Cade Windstalker
#1814 - 2013-08-24 06:56:56 UTC
Capt Canada wrote:

Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it..
When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle.
I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark.
Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.


Big quote, tiny response. You should read this post by CCP Fozzie in this other thread which goes into where they want command ships to go and what the problems with them at present are.

I believe you can infer answers or at least general direction of answers to all of your questions from that post.

Capt Canada wrote:
With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role..


These are still meant to be viable for small to medium gangs though, which means they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the fight. If they can contribute to a fight while running links in a small to medium gang then they can lose the links for something else in a solo situation, or missions, or incursions, or scan sites, ect. Since we don't have any other T2 Battlecruiser hulls saying these ships should only be good at one thing is a bit silly.
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1815 - 2013-08-24 08:56:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Capt Canada
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Capt Canada wrote:

Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it..
When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle.
I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark.
Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.


Big quote, tiny response. You should read this post by CCP Fozzie in this other thread which goes into where they want command ships to go and what the problems with them at present are.

I believe you can infer answers or at least general direction of answers to all of your questions from that post.

Capt Canada wrote:
With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role..


These are still meant to be viable for small to medium gangs though, which means they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the fight. If they can contribute to a fight while running links in a small to medium gang then they can lose the links for something else in a solo situation, or missions, or incursions, or scan sites, ect. Since we don't have any other T2 Battlecruiser hulls saying these ships should only be good at one thing is a bit silly.
Well, unless there is something hidden in the post you linked it doesn't really address what I have put forth

2nd; did you actually read the whole post or just the 1st line?? And, did you know you were linking a post from page 82 of this thread?? If you look really carefully, I posted just before and after the dev post you highlighted, which in part prompted me to ask the questions I have.

So in your opinion, should we have command ships that are good at solo pvp at the expense of usability as boosters?

If you had actually read even half this thread you would see 90% of my posts relate to small gang/fleet use of CS.

A command ship will be just that, you can still use them to run missions or scan sites etc without links, they just won't be as good at it as they are now due to their focus being switched to that of boosters rather than elite solo pvp/pve boats. As for incursion fleets, what do you think the fleet boosters for them will be flying??

NB; If you could please highlight where I stated or even inferred CS should only be good at 1 thing?? As you brought it up, why should a T2 battlecruiser be the only T2 ship with dual roles?? You want a ship that has numerous roles get a T3 cruiser, they are specifically designed to fill multiple roles and with the right skills do their job very well.

Please if your going to troll do it to someone else.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1816 - 2013-08-24 09:07:11 UTC
Capt Canada wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.

Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.

If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!

Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?

On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.

Adapt and survive...


Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it..
When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle.
I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark.
Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.

With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role..


250km is outside the range of most weaponry (but not ravens with cruise missiles). but that's ok. Correct tactical positioning of your command post is part of warfare.

The point is that once it's on grid it's part of the fight. It's quite possible to get a ship near it because you can see it. And once you've got a ship within weapons range, other ships can warp to the first ship.

So, getting a command ship to the grid outside weapons range is one thing. Keeping it that way is another entirely. This is a good thing, because it gives the pilot of the command ship something to do: i.e. staying out of weapons range while keeping the links running as much as possible. That's not going to be so easy.


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".

Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1817 - 2013-08-24 09:34:22 UTC
I’ve just realized that the absolution will have 2 utility hi but still has only 3 meds... Seriously is that ok for you CCP Fozzie? Won’t be able to fit anything into the second high slot but I can’t get additional mid instead. Call me dumb but I don’t see any logic in that...
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1818 - 2013-08-24 09:51:02 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Capt Canada wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.

Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.

If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!

Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?

On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.

Adapt and survive...


Now you've opened the next can of worms can I run with it..
When off grid boosting is removed, what will constitute "offgrid" if you can land your boosters 250k from the fight (just out of a good sniper fleets range) will they be considered as being ongrid as far as boosting is concerned? If for example "ongrid" means within lock range / weapons range then you have a real problem unless using capitals (for lock range) for boosting. If grids were to stay as they are now, it really poses no problems but if grids are modified to enable the removal of off grid boosting then sitting your booster 250k off would mean no boosts as technically he is offgrid. I can't see the point of removing off grid boosting if all your going to do is let them sit outside the battle, albeit visible but essentially offgrid. Boosting at range eg; 250k is quite viable in a larger fleet where you can have a couple of logi and dedicated combat ships to guard the boosters while they orbit the battle.
I was thinking, with these changes the CS was meant to be a part of the fleet and actually be involved in the fight. Probably well off the mark.
Maybe a dev could give an example of what "ongrid" will be once offgrid boosting is removed. I know it is not something planned for the near future but for those who fly CS or plan on it, knowing what will constitute "ongrid" would be nice.

With all the talk about utility highs, ability to fit neuts etc.. You guys do know these are meant to be command ships not elite pvp boats. Try fitting the ship for its intended role and stop complaining about how useful or not, they are for solo pvp. Yes they are and will continue to be used for other things than fleet boosting but if you fly a hulk to a frigate gang fight, don't complain when it doesn't perform. That is not its intended role..


250km is outside the range of most weaponry (but not ravens with cruise missiles). but that's ok. Correct tactical positioning of your command post is part of warfare.

The point is that once it's on grid it's part of the fight. It's quite possible to get a ship near it because you can see it. And once you've got a ship within weapons range, other ships can warp to the first ship.

So, getting a command ship to the grid outside weapons range is one thing. Keeping it that way is another entirely. This is a good thing, because it gives the pilot of the command ship something to do: i.e. staying out of weapons range while keeping the links running as much as possible. That's not going to be so easy.
I agree with you here but my question still stands as far as what is considered ongrid, will links be tied to a specific range? With grids as they are now, ongrid can vary greatly from system to system.
Yes keeping the links running and staying out of range poses problems. Add to that most of the command ships are about as maneuverable as a snail on wet glass and yes managing CS is not going to be easy. More an interesting challenge :P
To mare
Advanced Technology
#1819 - 2013-08-24 09:58:30 UTC
Hookswoop Skydance wrote:
To mare wrote:
all this rebalancing started well but the far it goes the more it sound like overall nerfs to everything except gallente ships

Funny... I would say the Eos is the most worthless turd in a bowl full of other turds. Roll

its going to be what all the gallente drone user asked in the last 5 years, it have its 5 bonused heavy drones back
Cade Windstalker
#1820 - 2013-08-24 10:08:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Capt Canada wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
These are still meant to be viable for small to medium gangs though, which means they should be able to contribute meaningfully to the fight. If they can contribute to a fight while running links in a small to medium gang then they can lose the links for something else in a solo situation, or missions, or incursions, or scan sites, ect. Since we don't have any other T2 Battlecruiser hulls saying these ships should only be good at one thing is a bit silly.
Well, unless there is something hidden in the post you linked it doesn't really address what I have put forth

2nd; did you actually read the whole post or just the 1st line?? And, did you know you were linking a post from page 82 of this thread?? If you look really carefully, I posted just before and after the dev post you highlighted, which in part prompted me to ask the questions I have.

So in your opinion, should we have command ships that are good at solo pvp at the expense of usability as boosters?

If you had actually read even half this thread you would see 90% of my posts relate to small gang/fleet use of CS.

.....

NB; If you could please highlight where I stated or even inferred CS should only be good at 1 thing?? As you brought it up, why should a T2 battlecruiser be the only T2 ship with dual roles?? You want a ship that has numerous roles get a T3 cruiser, they are specifically designed to fill multiple roles and with the right skills do their job very well.

Please if your going to troll do it to someone else.


I read the entire thing, I said 'other thread' because I was confusing that for a different saved post that actually was from a different thread than the FaID thread it pertained to. Oops Oops

This is the relevant paragraph to what you're talking about:

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.
Now of course command ships are larger, more expensive and skill intensive than those other key classes, so it will still make sense for them to have significantly better tanks than a recon ship. However at that point the perceived need to have over 300k EHP will be significantly lessened.


With regards to "how on-grid is on-grid?" we can sum this up as "it won't matter". Having your CS on-grid but far away from the rest of your support fleet is a bigger risk to your boosts than having many distributed links and therefore command ships mixed into the rest of the fleet. Since we can at least surmise that "on-grid" has to mean literally rendering in-space to both fleets then that answers your question.

With the popularity of Battlecruiser fleets especially it becomes easy to have several primary command ships and then hide redundant backup links on-field among the rest of the DPS ships or simply have enough well-tanked command ships on field that it becomes impractical to try and DPS them all down rather than reducing enemy DPS.

Either way you're likely better off than sitting a CS off on the edge of the grid where it's potentially susceptible to grid-fu, cloaked warp-ins, and you don't have your full logistics support there to try and keep it online.


Capt Canada wrote:
A command ship will be just that, you can still use them to run missions or scan sites etc without links, they just won't be as good at it as they are now due to their focus being switched to that of boosters rather than elite solo pvp/pve boats. As for incursion fleets, what do you think the fleet boosters for them will be flying??


Have you actually run the stats on these between their current state on TQ and the revamp? Every ship is gaining either tank or DPS or both, between the 4th bonus and the full T2 resists applying to the pure DPS focused ships. The loss of extra guns on some is made up for added damage and they're flat out gaining in tanking potential, along with 2 utility high slots if they choose not to fit links meaning probe launchers, neuts, NOS, cloak, or any number of other fun options open up for these non-boosting roles.

I also never said that they should see their role as boosters reduced. The former DPS only ships are now much better at boosting and overall the entire class is gaining pretty significant buffs to their boosts with the second link type bonus, improved fittings for links, and extra tank.