These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1821 - 2013-08-24 11:14:37 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


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.
Yeah sorry but no.. I'm not talking about the rare occasion when you have 300 or 400 people in system and 10 to 20 boosters, I'm talking about the average to small fleet where there are at best 2 or 3 boosters. Being on grid as it stands now can be from 200 to 400 or 500km depending on the system.

Quote:
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.
So again here your talking about large fleets, don't worry about small gangs or fleets, why should they have the benefit of boosters

Quote:


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.
Nighthawk, Tq 3363 armour 4805 shield, bonuses BC 5%ROF 4$ resist, bonuses CS 5% kinetic damage, 5% explosive velocity. Nighthawk revamped, 3200 armour, 5500 shield, bonuses BC 7.5% kinetic damage, 4% resists Bonus CS 7.5% ROF 5% explosion radius. Yes, a little more shield and the bonus makes up for the loss of 1 launcher, has less capacitor than tq albeit with a 41 second faster recharge and still has 1 pretty much useless lowslot. The poor vulture I feel suffered just as much with a dual range bonus, 4% to resists and 10% damage.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1822 - 2013-08-24 11:33:59 UTC
Capt Canada wrote:
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


I think just 'on the grid' is a reasonable approximation for 'close enough'. Grids start off with a 3-dimensional radius of something like 250km I think, and that region expands as ships get closer to the edge. In the course of a fleet fight I can imagine there might be enough time to grow the grid to be a few thousand km across, but not in the early stages which is arguably the most dangerous time for a command ship.

So I guess a reasonable strategy for a command ship is to warp to 200km from the nearest enemy ship with some logistics and a few thousand dps of bodyguard and start burning directly AWAY from the enemy, while the rest of your fleet interposes itself between you and the enemy.

You'd want to be aligned to something though for when the combat-probe-equipped cloaky frigate drops in 30km in your wake and provides a warp-in point for the rest of his fleet.

I suppose a possible counter is to have a trail of smartbomb battleships trailing behind the CS at 5km intervals, in order to auto-blap the scanner?

:-)

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".
Capt Canada
What Corp is it
#1823 - 2013-08-24 12:06:52 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Capt Canada wrote:
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


I think just 'on the grid' is a reasonable approximation for 'close enough'. Grids start off with a 3-dimensional radius of something like 250km I think, and that region expands as ships get closer to the edge. In the course of a fleet fight I can imagine there might be enough time to grow the grid to be a few thousand km across, but not in the early stages which is arguably the most dangerous time for a command ship.

So I guess a reasonable strategy for a command ship is to warp to 200km from the nearest enemy ship with some logistics and a few thousand dps of bodyguard and start burning directly AWAY from the enemy, while the rest of your fleet interposes itself between you and the enemy.

You'd want to be aligned to something though for when the combat-probe-equipped cloaky frigate drops in 30km in your wake and provides a warp-in point for the rest of his fleet.

I suppose a possible counter is to have a trail of smartbomb battleships trailing behind the CS at 5km intervals, in order to auto-blap the scanner?

:-)
I was actually thinking of smart bombs on the CS but battleships sounds better :P. The placement and care of CS will I think become easier once off grid boosting is removed and the current hierarchy of setting fleet boosts is simplified. Smaller fleets will need to rely on the tankier boosters as they are less likely to have the numbers for CS redundancy. Where as the large fleets can decide on a situational basis whether to have them on grid at range or in the midst of things. I see logi playing a more important role in both small and large fleets.
I would like to hear something from the devs as to what plans they have for the eventual removal of off grid boosting. If gang links were limited by range it would certainly change the playing/battle field a lot. If links are fixed to range are the current proposed changes to CS going to work or will they need to be rebalanced again? Maybe thinking too far ahead but I plan on being around a while and forward planning is far better than hindsight.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1824 - 2013-08-24 12:39:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Cassius Invictus wrote:
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...


Since you're from wormholes, try fitting

Quote:
[Absolution, brick 3]
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Damage Control II
Armor EM Hardener II
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium 'Gattotte' Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 800
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Ancillary Current Router II


Hornet EC-300 x5


and tell me again that you can't make use of that second high. In case you've been aiming at beamfits: LR-guns and badass utility doesn't go hand-in-hand without fitting mods. With a little trickery, you achieve what I meant with 'can get great fits on each of those CS' :D

edit: in a regular fight though, it should run out of boosters within the first 15 minutes...
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1825 - 2013-08-24 13:04:20 UTC
Capt Canada wrote:


(Command ships only fleetuse)

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??


I laughed pretty hard right there. 'Command ships receiving major buffs regarding tank and mostly ammunition use / OH-profile, forgotten CS get lifted into the present and receive either damage at all or crucial boni to application (looking at nighthawk)' - 'CS nerfed for solo' // I really can't folow up on that. Please tell how a theoretical 5% decrease using (theoretical) biggest guns will lead to a nerf. They all got their fittings opened up a big lot in average, with only Claymore/Sleipnir now being a bit tight - which is good given what to much fittings could let you do in the past. Nighthawk might be tight aswell, but every regular decent fitting (your ASB scrublordfits won't work, just warning) fits without any issues whatsoever. Talking of every way of fitting up a nighthawk that still looks familiar to a drake)

It's wrong what you're stating. As for incursion fleets, OFC they will have offgrid CS now instead of T3s. But there are less people boosting incursions than orca-links in egyfe or POS-booster in Auga+Amamake, so yeah.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1826 - 2013-08-24 14:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
it's funny looking at the description of ishukone on the vulture it says ...Most of the recent designs off their assembly line have provided for a combination that the Ishukone name is becoming known for: great long-range capabilities and shield systems unmatched anywhere else.

yet the Nighthawk has better shields mm..... i think you need to switch their shield HP around .. also vulture is a fair bit heavier on mass than the ferox ... the vulture needs more... also please switch that second optimal bonus to a 5% ROF that second optimal is a waste of a bonus space. or 5% shield HP which would make more sense with the above description.

clearly the nighthawk is meant to be more mobile and kitey of the two so surely it should have weaker tank than the vulture anyway

I don't understand why nighthawk has explosion radius as a bonus as opposed to missile velocity .. i thought that was a navy exclusive bonus the nighthawk would benefit more from range and especially for HAMS which will surely have its range nerfed and javelins are worse than fury HM's for damage oddly... seems odd the damnation should have the kitey bonus rather than the kitey ship of the two.??

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
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1827 - 2013-08-24 15:56:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassius Invictus
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
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...


Since you're from wormholes, try fitting

Quote:
[Absolution, brick 3]
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Damage Control II
Armor EM Hardener II
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium 'Gattotte' Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 800
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Ancillary Current Router II


Hornet EC-300 x5


and tell me again that you can't make use of that second high. In case you've been aiming at beamfits: LR-guns and badass utility doesn't go hand-in-hand without fitting mods. With a little trickery, you achieve what I meant with 'can get great fits on each of those CS' :D

edit: in a regular fight though, it should run out of boosters within the first 15 minutes...


Well this was actually my first idea for using highs. However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was. This said there are some valid uses for those hi slots. What I was actually pointing out, was the fact that while 2 highs are nice, a med slot is just vital to the abso as many have said before me. Just don't get it why it cant have it.

Ps. For God's sake give the caldari players a 6th mid slot for nighthawk...
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1828 - 2013-08-24 16:43:39 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Well this was actually my first idea for using highs. However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was. This said there are some valid uses for those his slots. What I was actually pointing out, was the fact that while 2 highs are nice, a med slot is just vital to the abso as many have said before me. Just don't get it why it cant have it. ....

As a laser ship it suffers the whiplash of Scorch, adding a 4th mid is a risky proposition balance wise as the stuff one can use an extra mid for is mindboggling.
That is not to say that the call for utility => mid is not called for as it will end up borderline (ie. right side of border) but will increase the relative power manyfold in pretty much all situations. Alternative would be to add a gun slot, invalidating the arbitrary (there, I said it!!!!!) "2 slots for links" rule yet still making it worthwhile outside larger gangs/blobs.

What scares me is that the Dev in charge was a player who prided himself (and rightfully so) on doing everything with anything yet does not seem to understand what the main problem is with lasers ...

To Dev: Add a pure test version (ie. SiSi, only with no promises) of the medium and larger gatlings, if only to see how far that goes ... a thorough laser revision might not even be necessary if proper application options were available.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1829 - 2013-08-24 17:39:14 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was.


So true... Really wish the basecap for the abso wouldn't be so terribly weak. Flew a Zealot, pewed a lot - went for an abso... meeeeeeeeh.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1830 - 2013-08-24 17:59:24 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was.


So true... Really wish the basecap for the abso wouldn't be so terribly weak. Flew a Zealot, pewed a lot - went for an abso... meeeeeeeeh.


Agreed, I think it's safe to say that the cap recharge on all the Commands needs another pass. 4.5/s across all of them is "meh" at best.
Cade Windstalker
#1831 - 2013-08-24 21:20:23 UTC
Capt Canada wrote:
Yeah sorry but no.. I'm not talking about the rare occasion when you have 300 or 400 people in system and 10 to 20 boosters, I'm talking about the average to small fleet where there are at best 2 or 3 boosters. Being on grid as it stands now can be from 200 to 400 or 500km depending on the system.


Neither am I, if you have a small fleet of, say, 20 people with Logi on both sides and they primary the command ships then you're making the very risky bet of applying DPS to probably the strongest tanks on the field and hoping you can burn through them fast enough that the enemy doesn't burn through your Logi or DPS boats first. Even if you succeed then the enemy will have likely taken out at least one of your non-command ships for every command ship of theirs that you take out and probably be part-way through another at the least.

I can't claim to have watched every match of the last Alliance Tournament, or even most of the matches, but I seem to recall targeting the obviously over-tanked ship to be a bad idea and a losing strategy for most teams.

Capt Canada wrote:
So again here your talking about large fleets, don't worry about small gangs or fleets, why should they have the benefit of boosters


I was addressing one of your cases (a CS sitting off at the edge of a grid). Honestly I don't think any small fleet would do this. If they have the manpower to sit off protecting it then they have an even better chance of keeping it alive if it's with the rest of the fleet and providing DPS.

Capt Canada wrote:
Nighthawk, Tq 3363 armour 4805 shield, bonuses BC 5%ROF 4$ resist, bonuses CS 5% kinetic damage, 5% explosive velocity. Nighthawk revamped, 3200 armour, 5500 shield, bonuses BC 7.5% kinetic damage, 4% resists Bonus CS 7.5% ROF 5% explosion radius. Yes, a little more shield and the bonus makes up for the loss of 1 launcher, has less capacitor than tq albeit with a 41 second faster recharge and still has 1 pretty much useless lowslot. The poor vulture I feel suffered just as much with a dual range bonus, 4% to resists and 10% damage.


Honestly, I love the new Vulture. It has a grand total of 200 less shield HP than the Nighthawk which is a tiny different, and the Nighthawk needs the extra shields more anyway since it's more likely to engage at shorter ranges.

The Vulture on the other hand is flat out gaining a massive DPS bump from TQ, keeps its damage projection, can still run two links, and gets a bonus to lock range. I think the first thing I'm going to do with it on TQ is run around with Blasters fitted enjoying my ability to project absurd DPS to 14+km with Null.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1832 - 2013-08-25 00:22:23 UTC
Please switch a low to a mid on the Nighthawk.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1833 - 2013-08-25 05:12:57 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
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...


Since you're from wormholes, try fitting

Quote:
[Absolution, brick 3]
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Damage Control II
Armor EM Hardener II
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium 'Gattotte' Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 800
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Ancillary Current Router II


Hornet EC-300 x5


and tell me again that you can't make use of that second high. In case you've been aiming at beamfits: LR-guns and badass utility doesn't go hand-in-hand without fitting mods. With a little trickery, you achieve what I meant with 'can get great fits on each of those CS' :D

edit: in a regular fight though, it should run out of boosters within the first 15 minutes...


Well this was actually my first idea for using highs. However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was. This said there are some valid uses for those his slots. What I was actually pointing out, was the fact that while 2 highs are nice, a med slot is just vital to the abso as many have said before me. Just don't get it why it cant have it.

Ps. For God's sake give the caldari players a 6th mid slot for nighthawk...


the abso is better balanced in a NoS setup, n btw if your gona fit one spend some cash... try the below for a fleet ship.
The NoS can keep you cap stable, and you only need to pulse mwd between targets

[Absolution, pro cash]
Damage Control II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corpum A-Type Energized Thermic Membrane
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Faint Warp Disruptor I
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M
Medium Nosferatu II
Corpii A-Type Small Nosferatu

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II



Hornet EC-300 x5
Naomi Anthar
#1834 - 2013-08-26 00:32:46 UTC
What is this madness. Why damn Minmatar Sleipnir Command ship got 2 x 10% damage bonus and Absolution 5% RoF and 10% damage ... Not saying it's unfair ... ok it's unfair.

What you are literally doing here is justifying 10% cap usage bonus on Absolution. You could remove RoF bonus give 10% bonus as you did with Sleipnir ... and then since you removed one turret point ... then ... then ... then...

YES then you could remove super ****** cap usage bonus and give something real like optimal range (sleipnir got falloff) or tracking or anything useful.
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1835 - 2013-08-26 01:33:22 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:
What is this madness. Why damn Minmatar Sleipnir Command ship got 2 x 10% damage bonus and Absolution 5% RoF and 10% damage ... Not saying it's unfair ... ok it's unfair.

What you are literally doing here is justifying 10% cap usage bonus on Absolution. You could remove RoF bonus give 10% bonus as you did with Sleipnir ... and then since you removed one turret point ... then ... then ... then...

YES then you could remove super ****** cap usage bonus and give something real like optimal range (sleipnir got falloff) or tracking or anything useful.


Umm... I'd take an Absolution over a Sleipnir any day with the current patch.... solo or fleet. Abolution with beams dominates a Sleipnir with Auto's or Artillery. With pulses, it's even easier due to the lower cap drain and better tracking.

Sleipnir is garbage now b/c it doesn't fill any slot that 5-7 other ships do way better for lower cost or better defense.
Cade Windstalker
#1836 - 2013-08-26 03:15:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Naomi Anthar wrote:
What is this madness. Why damn Minmatar Sleipnir Command ship got 2 x 10% damage bonus and Absolution 5% RoF and 10% damage ... Not saying it's unfair ... ok it's unfair.

What you are literally doing here is justifying 10% cap usage bonus on Absolution. You could remove RoF bonus give 10% bonus as you did with Sleipnir ... and then since you removed one turret point ... then ... then ... then...

YES then you could remove super ****** cap usage bonus and give something real like optimal range (sleipnir got falloff) or tracking or anything useful.


The main down-side of Lasers is their cap usage, which is why most Amarr ships get bonuses to cap use for lasers. It offsets some of the trade-off for those weapon systems. In exchange you get a great mix of tracking, range, and damage along with instant ammo switching.

Functionally it's very similar to the Falloff or Range bonuses on most Hybrid weapon ships or the falloff and ROF bonuses on most projectile ships (projectiles actually have kinda crap DPS by default).

Basically if you don't like cap usage bonuses don't fly Amarr.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1837 - 2013-08-26 05:58:05 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


The main down-side of Lasers is their cap usage, which is why most Amarr ships get bonuses to cap use for lasers. It offsets some of the trade-off for those weapon systems. In exchange you get a great mix of tracking, range, and damage along with instant ammo switching.

Functionally it's very similar to the Falloff or Range bonuses on most Hybrid weapon ships or the falloff and ROF bonuses on most projectile ships (projectiles actually have kinda crap DPS by default).

Basically if you don't like cap usage bonuses don't fly Amarr.


It's actually a poor crutch dating back to when Lasers base stats were far superior relative to other weapons and the heavy cap useage was to stop any non bonused ship ever using lasers. They have woken up to this finally at the BS level and removed the cap useage 'benefit' from all the T1 BS and reduced the base cap useage of large lasers a bit to match, so it's now actually possible to use them on a ship without the -50% cap useage benefit.

They just have yet to fix this at the medium & Small levels.
Cade Windstalker
#1838 - 2013-08-26 06:23:27 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

It's actually a poor crutch dating back to when Lasers base stats were far superior relative to other weapons and the heavy cap useage was to stop any non bonused ship ever using lasers. They have woken up to this finally at the BS level and removed the cap useage 'benefit' from all the T1 BS and reduced the base cap useage of large lasers a bit to match, so it's now actually possible to use them on a ship without the -50% cap useage benefit.

They just have yet to fix this at the medium & Small levels.


They still have pretty good stats overall and since I assume you're referring to [https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=224896] yous till end up with worse cap in the end after they remove the bonus... you just get something else in exchange for that.

I'll agree that medium lasers could maybe use a once over from the devs but I'm also not sure that would lead to the bonus being removed or changed to "something more useful" even if they did lower medium laser cap use by 10%, since all of the Command Ships seem to have a 'soft' bonus that is just a little less useful than the others. The exception to this is the Vulture that gets two range bonuses that, while not really soft individually given the weapons it mounts don't quite add up to, say, two full damage bonuses of usefulness.


If they were to swap it then it would probably be for range or tracking, but that would leave you with a much softer capacitor if you're trying to shoot and do anything else so you'd have to trade a tracking computer for a Cap Recharger or cap booster, which IMO is not a terribly good trade.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1839 - 2013-08-26 13:14:16 UTC
Come on fozzie, we need another pass on cap/s... There is no reason a deimos should have 6.2/s where an abso gets 4.5/s.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1840 - 2013-08-26 13:45:34 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


I suppose a possible counter is to have a trail of smartbomb battleships trailing behind the CS at 5km intervals, in order to auto-blap the scanner?

:-)


Assuming the scanner doesn't just fleetwarp his wing. Stranger things have happened.