These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

T2 Destroyer Command ships

First post
Author
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#21 - 2014-01-03 15:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
I continue to insist that these sorts of ships should be able to use one link.

Want more links? Use a bigger ship. Two links will completely obsolete T3s in a command role and may go so far as to endanger CS.

That being said, I 100% support the idea of Command Destroyers using T2 versions of the new destroyer hulls.
Mr Doctor
Therapy.
Brave Collective
#22 - 2014-01-03 15:17:45 UTC
Not one link, 2 but at a slightly lower % than T3s and using 2 links should impact their dps so only one utility slot. Maybe even give them the ability to fit one command processor for "free" pg/cpu except for the loss of a med slot in order to get the second link running.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#23 - 2014-01-03 15:33:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This has been something I've wanted to do for a long time, but I think it's going to need to wait to be released with the next big iteration of warfare link mechanic changes as those will change the mechanic fairly drastically.

So don't expect it right away, but I would really like to see them someday.



so you guys have figured that out?

i recall you were having trouble with removing oGB

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

StahlWaffe
Doomheim
#24 - 2014-01-03 18:18:04 UTC
Wow, i was about to post some looong story of why command destroyers are so cool and need to be implemented, but then i remembered that arguing on the forum is like trying to have a conversation in Jita local.

It's useless.



Anyways, +1 for command destroyers, -1 for bonus to boosting.
More mobile links that are also able to dive into the fight is what we need, and less of this 'Okay we need a Pimp'd out boosting Tech3/CS with out who then sits idle at a stargate/station/safespot and does *nothing*!'


TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#25 - 2014-01-03 19:37:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
next big iteration of warfare link mechanic changes



still waiting for this
Fal Dara
Vortex Command Corporation
#26 - 2014-01-03 23:43:37 UTC
i love that some one else posted this thread! i do!

if CCP goes the way of making on-grid links, i think that it's a MUST that they give the destroyer class an option to run atleast 1 link... small ganks NEED links.

i like the OP's idea in general, but i would like it to be just 1 link, not 2.

Peronally, i was thinking about them having the link--and then a different kind of mod...

new mods go off the base skills (siege warfare, rather than siege warfare spec)... less powerful than actual links (they would have range limits, not just grid limits). But easier to fit into high slots. The new mods shouldnt be effected by leadership implants, and, at t2 w/ lvl 5 skill, should give maybe +20% to what ever stat they effect (like 18% to resists). The t1/t2 mods would have set bonuses(t1 would be 15%, t2 18%), but the skill would effect the RANGE of their effect in the group--so:

T1 mod for dessy link bonus,
... 15% bonus to armor resists for group memebers in range, 10km range.
... 100% range bonus per level of armor warfare after lvl 1... (for a total of 50km range--i know my manths is prolly wrong)

t2 mod
... 18% bonus to armor resists for group members in range, 25km range.
... 100% bonus to range per lvl of armored warfare after lvl 1(total of 125km)

those are great ranges for small gangs, and, imho, the t2 mod should approch 3m in cost, while the t1 is about 500k. Gives a good motivation to fit properly.


If the ship is allowed to use 1 link, and any of these types of mods (as many as they like, but not to stack with eachother, or command links), this would make small gang warfare EXPLODE with possiblities. every destroyer/t2 dessy would be a serious threat, since it could be running those links.
Tsobai Hashimoto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2014-01-04 00:47:52 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This has been something I've wanted to do for a long time, but I think it's going to need to wait to be released with the next big iteration of warfare link mechanic changes as those will change the mechanic fairly drastically.

So don't expect it right away, but I would really like to see them someday.



YES!

Also T2 Logi Frigs would be awesome, we need more small ship and small gang fleet comps!

w00t!
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#28 - 2014-01-04 02:20:34 UTC
Supporting. And throwing all the support I got from my thread on this same subject: "Light" Command Ships.
Xavier Azabu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#29 - 2014-01-04 04:56:08 UTC
I feel like destroyers in general need a new mods and the stats to help them deal with frigates (the new interceptors!) like they are supposed to. Right now only a few cruisers work at this role; yet both cruisers and destroyers are too slow anyway.

Destroyer command ships sound cool but I feel like Destroyer Escorts would be nice to fill out a class of new destroyers:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309786&find=unread

Maybe these T2 Destroyer Command ships could also have additional frigate-hunting capabilities:
1. Class-specific mods to help catch interceptors or bombers (a frigate catching interdiction-bubble-like "net")
2. Improved resistances to help them survive mobbing easier
3. Bonuses to long range weapons to help them snipe 'dem frigs
Eisenhornx
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#30 - 2014-01-10 15:11:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Eisenhornx
I would think, in order for the destroyers to not be the new off grid boosters they should have their boosting bonuses applied to ships on grid only. This will make the BC command ships the go to for off grid boosting, but if more players wanted cheaper boosting boats then they would need to be on grid to dish out their bonuses.

Sorry if this idea has been expressed already...
Notorious Fellon
#31 - 2014-01-10 15:17:10 UTC
I cannot fathom how anyone would suggest T3 as a solution or a reason to why we don't need frig/destroyer level link ships.

Seriously, are you so damn spacerich that a billion ISK hull + fit are just tossed aside in small gang roams?

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2014-01-10 15:48:51 UTC
My vote is for:

1 warfare link only
limited range of effect (they are escort ships, they should need to remain within a reasonable distance of their escorted companion)
Boosted tracking for anti-frig work or boosted light scout navigation for chasing down pesky frigs (the destroyer role after all)

buffed resists/ehp as befits a Tech II ship
Asguard Dragonis
truckers high sec corp
#33 - 2014-01-11 03:32:14 UTC
Eisenhornx wrote:
I would think, in order for the destroyers to not be the new off grid boosters they should have their boosting bonuses applied to ships on grid only. This will make the BC command ships the go to for off grid boosting, but if more players wanted cheaper boosting boats then they would need to be on grid to dish out their bonuses.

Sorry if this idea has been expressed already...


I like this idea for on grid and off grid boosting plus it gives the fc options on how they sets up their gang or fleet.
I'm not in favor of having all boosters on grid or limiting the range of boost effects. I have been in large fleet fights being out numbered all most 3 to1 and the only thing that kept us in the fight was our off grid boosters keeping the links up and running.
Plus there is a secondary game finding the booster and killing the link ship. if you can make the links warp you drop the boost for the fleet or the wing.so lets add a destroyer size link ship for small gang warfare and leave the command ships / t3 alone





ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#34 - 2014-01-11 05:02:53 UTC
Asguard Dragonis wrote:
Eisenhornx wrote:
I would think, in order for the destroyers to not be the new off grid boosters they should have their boosting bonuses applied to ships on grid only. This will make the BC command ships the go to for off grid boosting, but if more players wanted cheaper boosting boats then they would need to be on grid to dish out their bonuses.

Sorry if this idea has been expressed already...


I like this idea for on grid and off grid boosting plus it gives the fc options on how they sets up their gang or fleet.
I'm not in favor of having all boosters on grid or limiting the range of boost effects. I have been in large fleet fights being out numbered all most 3 to1 and the only thing that kept us in the fight was our off grid boosters keeping the links up and running.
Plus there is a secondary game finding the booster and killing the link ship. if you can make the links warp you drop the boost for the fleet or the wing.so lets add a destroyer size link ship for small gang warfare and leave the command ships / t3 alone

FYI: the DEVs are working on a way to make ALL LINKS on-grid only.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2014-01-11 05:38:13 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I continue to insist that these sorts of ships should be able to use one link.

Want more links? Use a bigger ship. Two links will completely obsolete T3s in a command role and may go so far as to endanger CS.

That being said, I 100% support the idea of Command Destroyers using T2 versions of the new destroyer hulls.




1 link I think is a must. Otherwise use a T3 links character. Maybe I'm bias cause I'm heavily invested in Leadership/Command ships, but more than 1 link seems like it'd create some serious conflict with the other boosting hulls... Now when links are forced on grid, then maybe 2 links.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-01-11 10:07:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
I would still vote for only one link. To me the natural progression would be command dessie filling the role of squad leader, BC as wing leader and CS for fleet command. T3 would be a floating type of ship placed where you think it will be most effective.

Note: I have little fleet combat experience so am posting based on observations and learning from here ad thinking of traditional naval fleets
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-01-11 11:31:48 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
I would still vote for only one link. To me the natural progression would be command dessie filling the role of squad leader, BC as wing leader and CS for fleet command. T3 would be a floating type of ship placed where you think it will be most effective.

Note: I have little fleet combat experience so am posting based on observations and learning from here ad thinking of traditional naval fleets



Where that line of thought runs into a problem is when on grid boosting is the only way to go. If you have, for instance, an AF gang running around, if these only fit 1 link each, the best you can do is 3 of the links for your AF gang using these ships(reason to use them would be for example getting in and out of plexes in FW space). Still not sure myself what I think in terms of 1-2 links, but fitting 2 links each would give frigate gangs the option, at least, for having full links sets. Just tossing ideas around.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2014-01-11 13:08:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
If 2 links are required in gameplay terms for small gang it shoild come at the expense of tank i guess...so you can have full link sets but be more fragile or carry one link and be a more tough anti-frig boat. Would give a choice for true escort duty or providing frigate gang boosts.

I still lean towards only 1 link. A destroyer captain would be some learning command skills and maybe specialized into one set. This should be a smaller scale boost ship geared to escorting groups of frigates or haulers.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#39 - 2014-01-11 17:03:24 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This has been something I've wanted to do for a long time, but I think it's going to need to wait to be released with the next big iteration of warfare link mechanic changes as those will change the mechanic fairly drastically.

So don't expect it right away, but I would really like to see them someday.



so you guys have figured that out?

i recall you were having trouble with removing oGB


If they had figured it out, it is unlikely he would be using the word "someday".
I am guessing they are still having issues with the code.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2014-01-11 20:32:41 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
If 2 links are required in gameplay terms for small gang it shoild come at the expense of tank i guess...so you can have full link sets but be more fragile or carry one link and be a more tough anti-frig boat. Would give a choice for true escort duty or providing frigate gang boosts.

I still lean towards only 1 link. A destroyer captain would be some learning command skills and maybe specialized into one set. This should be a smaller scale boost ship geared to escorting groups of frigates or haulers.




Links aren't required. But if ya got 'em, why not use 'em? A command ship of any role also has to have the survivability to hang around a bit, otherwise it's pointless. What they don't need to do is alot of DPS. It's a tricky balance to reach there.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Previous page123Next page