These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aesheera
Doomheim
#1901 - 2013-08-29 10:43:05 UTC
I'm getting emo tional.

I need a moment here to catch my breath and sniff abit.

My Eos.. is getting love.


Brb resubbing for the next two years.

- I think my passion is misinterpreted as anger sometimes. And I don't think people are ready for the message that I'm delivering, and delivering with a sense of violent love.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#1902 - 2013-08-29 17:30:19 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
raawe wrote:
So, as you can see every dps oriented command ship got 1 tank bonus, 2 dps bonuses and 1 bonus related to main weapon that will either increase damage projection (Astarte & Sleipnir) or increase dps vs smaller/faster targets (Nighthawk) except Absolution that needs to have laser capacitor reduction just to be able to fire them. Now if lasers would have superior damage or tracking i would understand cap bonus on Absolution but like this, already worst turrets will be even worse, and they still use more cap bonused then hybrids. I would suggest to roll cap bonus into special bonus and to add one more dps oriented bonus like tracking (or anything else devs see fit).I personally wouldn't do anything to laser optimal and fallof because scorch. Lasers are so broken atm that even another dps bonus will not make them good and OP but it will be something until devs fix them.


Check your numbers, lasers have the best tracking of all long range guns on Beam Lasers and a fantastic mix of tracking and range on Pulse Lasers.

Beams also do better DPS than Rails or Arty and Pulse have better effective range than either Blasters or Autocannons for the damage they project at those ranges.

Please check your numbers before you post asking for something to be "fixed".

Leto Atal wrote:
So better DPS with fewer weapon slots. Improved tanking on an already strong set of hulls. Hell yes.

I'll take a slight nerf to the link bonuses in exchange for the ability to get two bonuses from one module in the Navy versions.


You're not getting 2 bonuses off one module. Navy Mind Links allow you to bonus 2 different types of links off one implant.

Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
4.5/s cap regen across the whole lineup is still lazy fozzie... Not responding to any of the questions in regards to this cap recharge is even more lazy fozzie... Rise understands the concept of varying cap recharge as a balancing tool based on ship needs, why is it that you seem to be less than capable of this? *looks at BCs and Commands* Roll


As Fozzie pointed out, the majority of hulls in Eve right now have the same base cap regen with differing recharge time and max capacitor. We just didn't notice. The HACs are currently the exception to this.

Voi Ta wrote:
Hi, what about the skills? Pyfa shows me command ships will need all warfare skills to 5, but i fly command ship now and i have only one to 5. Does it mean i will have to skill them or shall we get skills for free? (as usual)
Sorry for asking if it was answered earlier in this thread, but is is 94 pages now and i dont want to read it all :-)


These skill changes already happened, you only need those to inject the skill, not fly the ship IIRC.


Lasers have horrendous tracking, and marginally higher DPS than the other weapon systems, but only past blaster optimal. Yes, they project damage to tackled targets well, but against moving targets they are the worst weapon system.

As for the above comment that 425mm AC's only project out to 5km, wtf are you thinking? They can hit out to 60km with barrage and no falloff hull bonus (okay, 40km the damage becomes noticable).

The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster. And lasers don't perform enough better than blasters / AC to warrant the amount of cap they require. The laser cap use bonus is a requirement to make the weapon system useable for longer than 2 minutes.

TLDR: Laser cap use bonus is garbage and needs to be re-examined. There is no logical justification for it, particularly when coupled with a Rate of Fire bonus. And consider that Amarr ships don't have an inherently better capacitor anymore.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1903 - 2013-08-29 17:51:04 UTC
Phaade wrote:
[
The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster.



It's not realistic to active tank *anything in pvp* without a cap booster, unless it's a faction fitted tengu or using an ASB.

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".
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#1904 - 2013-08-29 17:54:29 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Phaade wrote:
[
The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster.



It's not realistic to active tank *anything in pvp* without a cap booster, unless it's a faction fitted tengu or using an ASB.



You can hardly run dual reps with a medium injector and lasers. Forget about neut pressure.
Leto Atal
LoneStar Industries
#1905 - 2013-08-29 18:00:57 UTC
To those complaining about the Claymore change to missiles. Just use the Sleipnir. There is now no difference between them in resists or fleet boosting capability. We now have the choice between fielding a missile based fleet ship or a projectile based fleet ship. Yay for choice.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1906 - 2013-08-29 18:24:16 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Phaade wrote:
[
The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster.



It's not realistic to active tank *anything in pvp* without a cap booster, unless it's a faction fitted tengu or using an ASB.



You can hardly run dual reps with a medium injector and lasers. Forget about neut pressure.


Well, remember that lasers do not need to reload, so it's reasonable to expect that the pilot should need to pause firing every 40 shots or so in order to rest the capacitor.

At least a laser ship gets the choice of diverting cap to either tank or guns and he gets to carry a few more boosters since he doesn't need to carry bulky ammo.

It may not be perfect, but it doesn't seem too far out of balance.

For the record, for fleet work I'd rather have lasers in the fleet. For ganks and solo, definitely blasters!

But that's ok - everything has a role.

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".
Cade Windstalker
#1907 - 2013-08-29 19:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Phaade wrote:

Lasers have horrendous tracking, and marginally higher DPS than the other weapon systems, but only past blaster optimal. Yes, they project damage to tackled targets well, but against moving targets they are the worst weapon system.


Incorrect, check the ratio between Laser optimal and tracking, this gives you an idea of how a weapon tracks at its optimal range since in the turret damage formula tracking is multiplied by the distance to the target.. For your convenience I've already done some tracking calculations comparing Medium Hybrids and Lasers. The relevant column is the one on the far right and is what I would call a turret's "Damage Application rating", or a measure of how well it applies damage at its optimal range.

As you can see Blasters, despite their overall higher tracking numbers, don't actually track that well. If they want to track as well as Pulse Lasers they need to fight in falloff which means they're losing damage there, per the turret damage formula.

As for your comment of "only past blaster optimal", well, that means they're their own unique weapon system and not a carbon copy of Blasters. If you can out-range a blaster ship then you just flat win because it doesn't matter how hard you hit if you can't hit.

Phaade wrote:
As for the above comment that 425mm AC's only project out to 5km, wtf are you thinking? They can hit out to 60km with barrage and no falloff hull bonus (okay, 40km the damage becomes noticable).


Okay, lets take a look at this claim. These various weapon system pissing contests have become popular enough that I have several Test Myrmidons saved for comparing weapon systems. Since even with all-5s AC425s only hit 3+18km I threw two Tracking Enhancers and a Tracking Computer (Optimal Range script) on each Myrm for this test.

The Autocannons have Barrage and the Pulse Lasers have Scorch, both set to the EFT All 5s profile.

As you can see while the Auto-cannons can hit out to 60km they do less damage than the Pulse Lasers flat out until right at 40.2km where both they and the Pulse Lasers are dealing a paltry 42 DPS and out at 30km where the Pulse Lasers aren't quite in falloff yet they're dealing just over twice the DPS of the Autocannons (168 and 77 respectively).

If you were curious with both Myrms counter-orbiting each-other the Pulse Lasers still win up to about 3.5km, Barrage vs Scorch.

Obviously there are instances where Auto-cannons win but it's certainly not in damage application at range.

Phaade wrote:
The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster. And lasers don't perform enough better than blasters / AC to warrant the amount of cap they require. The laser cap use bonus is a requirement to make the weapon system useable for longer than 2 minutes.

TLDR: Laser cap use bonus is garbage and needs to be re-examined. There is no logical justification for it, particularly when coupled with a Rate of Fire bonus. And consider that Amarr ships don't have an inherently better capacitor anymore.


Well yeah, there are supposed to be trade-offs here. The trade-off for the otherwise great stats Lasers get is that their capacitor sucks. If they didn't have bad capacitor use they'd probably be the best all-around weapon system in the game.

Where other systems fit a Tracking or Damage mod Lasers fit a Capacitor mod.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#1908 - 2013-08-29 19:54:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Phaade wrote:

Lasers have horrendous tracking, and marginally higher DPS than the other weapon systems, but only past blaster optimal. Yes, they project damage to tackled targets well, but against moving targets they are the worst weapon system.


Incorrect, check the ratio between Laser optimal and tracking, this gives you an idea of how a weapon tracks at its optimal range since in the turret damage formula tracking is multiplied by the distance to the target.. For your convenience I've already done some tracking calculations comparing Medium Hybrids and Lasers. The relevant column is the one on the far right and is what I would call a turret's "Damage Application rating", or a measure of how well it applies damage at its optimal range.

As you can see Blasters, despite their overall higher tracking numbers, don't actually track that well. If they want to track as well as Pulse Lasers they need to fight in falloff which means they're losing damage there, per the turret damage formula.

As for your comment of "only past blaster optimal", well, that means they're their own unique weapon system and not a carbon copy of Blasters. If you can out-range a blaster ship then you just flat win because it doesn't matter how hard you hit if you can't hit.

Phaade wrote:
As for the above comment that 425mm AC's only project out to 5km, wtf are you thinking? They can hit out to 60km with barrage and no falloff hull bonus (okay, 40km the damage becomes noticable).


Okay, lets take a look at this claim. These various weapon system pissing contests have become popular enough that I have several Test Myrmidons saved for comparing weapon systems. Since even with all-5s AC425s only hit 3+18km I threw two Tracking Enhancers and a Tracking Computer (Optimal Range script) on each Myrm for this test.

The Autocannons have Barrage and the Pulse Lasers have Scorch, both set to the EFT All 5s profile.

As you can see while the Auto-cannons can hit out to 60km they do less damage than the Pulse Lasers flat out until right at 40.2km where both they and the Pulse Lasers are dealing a paltry 42 DPS and out at 30km where the Pulse Lasers aren't quite in falloff yet they're dealing just over twice the DPS of the Autocannons (168 and 77 respectively).

If you were curious with both Myrms counter-orbiting each-other the Pulse Lasers still win up to about 3.5km, Barrage vs Scorch.

Obviously there are instances where Auto-cannons win but it's certainly not in damage application at range.

Phaade wrote:
The big problem with lasers is the cap they require; it's not realistic to active tank with lasers without a cap booster. And lasers don't perform enough better than blasters / AC to warrant the amount of cap they require. The laser cap use bonus is a requirement to make the weapon system useable for longer than 2 minutes.

TLDR: Laser cap use bonus is garbage and needs to be re-examined. There is no logical justification for it, particularly when coupled with a Rate of Fire bonus. And consider that Amarr ships don't have an inherently better capacitor anymore.


Well yeah, there are supposed to be trade-offs here. The trade-off for the otherwise great stats Lasers get is that their capacitor sucks. If they didn't have bad capacitor use they'd probably be the best all-around weapon system in the game.

Where other systems fit a Tracking or Damage mod Lasers fit a Capacitor mod.


Crap, didn't mean to hit post, but since I did....

AC's do 50% dps at that 32km, however they still do 25% at 47, all the way out to about 60km. You'll land some decent hits out around the 50-55km range occasionally.

Blaster dps is significantly higher than pulse, and while the ranges are shorter, if you are brawling, chances are that tracking speed is more important than the 1-3km of falloff. Scorch is the only reason this weapon system is not less desirable than others.
Cade Windstalker
#1909 - 2013-08-29 23:11:22 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Crap, didn't mean to hit post, but since I did....

AC's do 50% dps at that 32km, however they still do 25% at 47, all the way out to about 60km. You'll land some decent hits out around the 50-55km range occasionally.

Blaster dps is significantly higher than pulse, and while the ranges are shorter, if you are brawling, chances are that tracking speed is more important than the 1-3km of falloff. Scorch is the only reason this weapon system is not less desirable than others.


Decent, maybe, but not enough DPS to do more than tickle someone's shields and probably not enough to beat the regen. For any sort of active armor or shield fit you'll be barely registering.

Yes, Blasters have fantastic short-range damage, but they lose a ton of range compared to Auto-cannons or Pulse Lasers to make up for this. If you can keep any kind of range on them then you win, if you can't you lose. Pretty simple.

Medium Pulse Lasers actually do better DPS than Medium Blasters past ~7km. I'd show a graph for this one but it's more like seven graphs since lasers have to keep switching ammo where as Blasters get locked into Null very quickly and range simply determines what ammo the lasers use until they hit Scorch ranges and stop.

The point I'm trying to illustrate here is that Lasers have a very nice niche in the Eve weapons ecosystem in their versatility. They pay for this with capacitor but Eve is a game of tradeoffs.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to them taking a look at medium laser cap use but I doubt they'd knock off more than 5-10% if anything.
Doed
Tyrfing Industries
#1910 - 2013-08-30 08:18:00 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Patch on tuesday and not a single reply considering the exact same cap recharge of all CS.

Sure, they all use links but cap hungry ones should still have better cap recharge.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Not saying balancing is easy and it could always be implemented later due to patch day closing in but not even a single reply regarding the issue??? Even Marauders are balanced according to this now.

Im seriously disappointed, i really thougt you could do better.
Cade Windstalker
#1911 - 2013-08-30 08:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Doed wrote:
Patch on tuesday and not a single reply considering the exact same cap recharge of all CS.

Sure, they all use links but cap hungry ones should still have better cap recharge.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Not saying balancing is easy and it could always be implemented later due to patch day closing in but not even a single reply regarding the issue??? Even Marauders are balanced according to this now.

Im seriously disappointed, i really thougt you could do better.


Here's your reply on the issue. If you'd actually run the numbers you'd see that these are not in any sort of terrible position with their current cap regen.
Doed
Tyrfing Industries
#1912 - 2013-08-30 11:18:18 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Doed wrote:
Patch on tuesday and not a single reply considering the exact same cap recharge of all CS.

Sure, they all use links but cap hungry ones should still have better cap recharge.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Not saying balancing is easy and it could always be implemented later due to patch day closing in but not even a single reply regarding the issue??? Even Marauders are balanced according to this now.

Im seriously disappointed, i really thougt you could do better.


Here's your reply on the issue. If you'd actually run the numbers you'd see that these are not in any sort of terrible position with their current cap regen.


Here i got scared and thougt i missed something. But no. 4.5 is fine for Sleip, Nighthawk, Claymore and Damnation, and to some degree Eos.

Eos should have 5% more cap/sec, Vulture and Astarte 10% and finally Absolution should have 15%. They do not at all need Deimos and Sac cap but higher than 4.5 for those 4.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1913 - 2013-08-30 12:58:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
4.5/s cap regen across the whole lineup is still lazy fozzie... Not responding to any of the questions in regards to this cap recharge is even more lazy fozzie... Rise understands the concept of varying cap recharge as a balancing tool based on ship needs, why is it that you seem to be less than capable of this? *looks at BCs and Commands* Roll


As Fozzie pointed out, the majority of hulls in Eve right now have the same base cap regen with differing recharge time and max capacitor. We just didn't notice. The HACs are currently the exception to this.



No they don't. Other than BC (3.8/s) and a couple others, pretty much every other ship in the last 2 years of balance passes have varying cap/s rates based on race. Hacs being one in this balance pass...

Even look at the Cap/s of the new marauders... The Paladin gets a significant advantage in cap/s compared to the others. I fail to see why Abso (and to a lesser degree, the zealot) should be any different.

Fozzie's argument about cap/s being the same across an entire "Class" only holds true in a specific few cases... Look at Assault Frigates, you will see that the enyo has 1.83/s and the retribution has 2.33/s. Or how about in the case of t1 combat cruisers? Rupture is at 3.0/s Maller is at 3.5/s. Attack Battleships? Megathron is at 5.22/s Tempest is at 4.7/s....

Checking the numbers for yourself is generally a better idea than white-knighting a dev's posts. Just saying Roll


So yeah, 4.5/s across all commands is lazy, nothing else.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1914 - 2013-08-30 13:45:52 UTC
Jerick, as ever your posts are insightful and accurate.

However my dear friend, I fear that you are pissing in the wind. Odyessy 1.1 has been set. It's Summer Time, and the dev team have decided what they have decided.

I have worked in Scandinavia. I learned very quickly that there is a culture there that avoids calling out colleagues' mistakes in public - it's considered the height of rudeness, and the callee will always ignore you. This is at odds with the American culture of freely admitting error in the pursuit of the common good. (I am English, and fall somewhere in between Smile).

It's a shame that there is not a private channel for passing information back to the dev team. This would actually be a lot more effective at ironing out inconsistencies prior to release.

Ah well, nothing's perfect...

/MC

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
#1915 - 2013-08-30 14:27:52 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Jerick, as ever your posts are insightful and accurate.

However my dear friend, I fear that you are pissing in the wind. Odyessy 1.1 has been set. It's Summer Time, and the dev team have decided what they have decided.

I have worked in Scandinavia. I learned very quickly that there is a culture there that avoids calling out colleagues' mistakes in public - it's considered the height of rudeness, and the callee will always ignore you. This is at odds with the American culture of freely admitting error in the pursuit of the common good. (I am English, and fall somewhere in between Smile).

It's a shame that there is not a private channel for passing information back to the dev team. This would actually be a lot more effective at ironing out inconsistencies prior to release.

Ah well, nothing's perfect...

/MC


So I'm guessing the Command Ship model changes aren't going to be ready for 1.1 then, since nothing has been said about them What?
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1916 - 2013-08-30 14:34:58 UTC
Serenity Eon wrote:


So I'm guessing the Command Ship model changes aren't going to be ready for 1.1 then, since nothing has been said about them What?


Aye, last i knew, command ship model changes were confirmed to not be coming in 1.1.

Hopefully we will see "Semi unique" model changes for the commands as well as changes/animations to mauarader models for winter.
Doed
Tyrfing Industries
#1917 - 2013-08-30 15:07:51 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
4.5/s cap regen across the whole lineup is still lazy fozzie... Not responding to any of the questions in regards to this cap recharge is even more lazy fozzie... Rise understands the concept of varying cap recharge as a balancing tool based on ship needs, why is it that you seem to be less than capable of this? *looks at BCs and Commands* Roll


As Fozzie pointed out, the majority of hulls in Eve right now have the same base cap regen with differing recharge time and max capacitor. We just didn't notice. The HACs are currently the exception to this.



No they don't. Other than BC (3.8/s) and a couple others, pretty much every other ship in the last 2 years of balance passes have varying cap/s rates based on race. Hacs being one in this balance pass...

Even look at the Cap/s of the new marauders... The Paladin gets a significant advantage in cap/s compared to the others. I fail to see why Abso (and to a lesser degree, the zealot) should be any different.

Fozzie's argument about cap/s being the same across an entire "Class" only holds true in a specific few cases... Look at Assault Frigates, you will see that the enyo has 1.83/s and the retribution has 2.33/s. Or how about in the case of t1 combat cruisers? Rupture is at 3.0/s Maller is at 3.5/s. Attack Battleships? Megathron is at 5.22/s Tempest is at 4.7/s....

Checking the numbers for yourself is generally a better idea than white-knighting a dev's posts. Just saying Roll


So yeah, 4.5/s across all commands is lazy, nothing else.



This... BCs were pointed out during BC balance but nothing happened... And truth about cruisers and frigs afs etc.
Cade Windstalker
#1918 - 2013-08-30 23:26:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
And yet even with fairly flat cap-regen the Command Ships seem in quite a good spot.

The Battlecruisers certainly aren't doing poorly post-balance either.

I think my biggest issue with all of this "give them variable cap recharge" is that no one's produced solid numbers to support it. There have certainly been impassioned emotional pleas but no one's come out and said "here are my numbers and fits, this is why ship X needs more cap/second".

There should also be some understanding that such an increase would likely be paid for somewhere else in the ship's stats since as has been pointed out repeatedly cap is life and therefore better cap pool or cap regen are very important.

Also as MC pointed out, Odyssey 1.1 is rolling out in 3 days. Post release the real-world performance of these ships will speak for itself and adjustments will be made based on that.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1919 - 2013-08-30 23:35:47 UTC
Talking of cap being life. I just thought I'd mention it here, where there is less hysteria:

I fitted up a hypothetical vargur cyno bait ship on Pyfa (like EFT) - triple x-large ASB. With some cargo expanders it's able to hold enough cap boosters to give the ship an effective EHP of 1.6 million (unheated, unboosted, undrugged, unimplanted).

Then I made some adjustments for the proposed bastion module, drugs, implants, fleet boosts and a couple of faction hardeners...

10 million effective hitpoints.

cap is life indeed...

I fear that the good that Fozzie and Rise have brought to the game by reworking HACs and command ships is about to be erased by ultra-tank cyno monsters spawned by Ytterbium.

If any of you have this man's ear, can you for Christ's sake stop him please?

Cry

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".
Centac
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1920 - 2013-08-31 05:55:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Centac
I find it incomprehensible that people want to argue that the laser using Absolution is balanced vs its no cap competitors, especially the Sleipnir. Does anyone really believe that lasers turrets are better than projectile turrets? They would have to be vastly better for the respective bonuses to be balanced. Not only do lasers still need high cap and the Sleipnir gets an additional falloff bonus as has been pointed out in this thread, the Absolution's damage bonuses are worse: two 10% damage bonuses for Sleipnir, one 10% damage and 5% rof for Absolution on the same 5 turrets and cap delta. (No, 5% rof is not close to an equal dps enhancer as 10% damage). To add insult, Sleipner gets 2 off bonus launcher slots for its 2 utility highs that Absolution lacks. Arguments that this constitutes balance strike me as patently absurd.