These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Un-Suck Field Command Ships.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2011-11-13 07:31:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Miriiah
Field Command Ships are pretty underwhelming bar the Sleipnir which happens to have the correct amount of slots/decent bonuses/fitting

They should have the same amount of slots as tier 2 BC's (Myrm is an exception as it's a drone boat, yeah, it needs 100m3 bandwidth)

Absolution, give this ship another midslot. rest is fine


Astarte, give this ship another lowslot.
(Active repping bonus needs replacement or changing to affect RR like every other local rep bonus) but this would be a good and EASY solution to making it more useful.


Nighthawk, give this ship another midslot. add x amounts of PG. 100-200'ish?


Sleipnir, this ship is fine.

This wouldn't nessecerily make every field CS actually worth it, but it's a quick and easy solution which wouldn't really take too much time to sort. I've gotta say I'm really disappointed in CCP and how they've behaved with sorting problems with broken ships etc, I'd really like to see these ships actually being flown more than 1 per 100 gangs(-sleipnir)

I'd like to see this being done something with @ Winter expansion.

Edit : Derping on the Sleipnir.

L.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#2 - 2011-11-13 08:23:52 UTC
Don't forget about resists, which - for some weird reason (if any) - are lower than those of hacs, tech3 cruisers etc. It's just stupid.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#3 - 2011-11-13 08:27:20 UTC
just train t3, commandships are crap.

not only does nh have too little cap it only goes for cerb.

minmatar have imba grid cos autocannons lololo

no one should be flying anything else but minmatar except for some specilized ships like ecm.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2011-11-13 13:23:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Miriiah
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Don't forget about resists, which - for some weird reason (if any) - are lower than those of hacs, tech3 cruisers etc. It's just stupid.


Resists being slightly lower is ok imo, but they should really get another slot (-sleip) and NH should either get a mid + grid or a high + launcher slot + grid.
Alexa Coates
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-11-13 16:21:28 UTC
The hell with the asstart, give the Eos a 125mb drone bandwidth again! It doesn't make sense to have a t2 drone boat that can use heavies.

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2011-11-13 17:48:35 UTC
Alexa Coates wrote:
The hell with the asstart, give the Eos a 125mb drone bandwidth again! It doesn't make sense to have a t2 drone boat that can use heavies.


Well, the Eos is a Fleett Command gang boosting ship so can't really complain too much about it, it used to be rather overpowered back in the days for a fleet command ship
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#7 - 2011-11-13 18:20:56 UTC
Miriiah wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Don't forget about resists, which - for some weird reason (if any) - are lower than those of hacs, tech3 cruisers etc. It's just stupid.


Resists being slightly lower is ok imo, but they should really get another slot (-sleip) and NH should either get a mid + grid or a high + launcher slot + grid.


If OK means "one can live with that" then yes, it's ok. As for extra guns/launchers, I don't think it's a good idea. What field command ships really lack is the ability to use gank-links without gimping their damage/tank, which is plain wrong - why bother lowering these precious values at a command ship when you can tune down a mere Drake with the same gang-boosting effect? Thus each command ship should have a better role bonus (lowering PG requirements, too) and 1 additional utility high-slot.

That's the way number 1.

Surely it's also acceptable to just give them more slots (in med/low racks) - and that's the way number 2.

Either will be welcome. CCP just has to decide what they think field CS are intended for and act accordingly.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2011-11-13 18:52:20 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Miriiah wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Don't forget about resists, which - for some weird reason (if any) - are lower than those of hacs, tech3 cruisers etc. It's just stupid.


Resists being slightly lower is ok imo, but they should really get another slot (-sleip) and NH should either get a mid + grid or a high + launcher slot + grid.


If OK means "one can live with that" then yes, it's ok. As for extra guns/launchers, I don't think it's a good idea. What field command ships really lack is the ability to use gank-links without gimping their damage/tank, which is plain wrong - why bother lowering these precious values at a command ship when you can tune down a mere Drake with the same gang-boosting effect? Thus each command ship should have a better role bonus (lowering PG requirements, too) and 1 additional utility high-slot.

That's the way number 1.

Surely it's also acceptable to just give them more slots (in med/low racks) - and that's the way number 2.

Either will be welcome. CCP just has to decide what they think field CS are intended for and act accordingly.


"Extra guns/launchers". the only ship I mentioned this on is the NH which does pretty abmysmal damage as it is, giving in a 7th launcher slot and an 8th hi-slot wouldn't really be overpowered, the other ships have sufficient guns/launchers

Only ships that can't really fit a ganglink is the NH (**** grid) and Astarte(like every other blaster boat it lacks pg, but this is somewhat being fixed next patch)
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#9 - 2011-11-14 04:22:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
There's nothing wrong with damage output of NH. It already outdamages Abso at basically any distance (bare 0-7.5 km I guess). Heavy missiles are already very potent and there's just no need to boost ships in this regard even further.

We'd better fix tier2 BC instead, which deal way too much damage for their class.

None command ship can fit gang-link with ease - it always comes with a cost of downgrading guns or something alike. It is as stupid as asking covert recons to drop something to utilize their cloak. 50 CPU and 200 PG - that's just too harsh.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2011-11-14 04:57:35 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
There's nothing wrong with damage output of NH. It already outdamages Abso at basically any distance (bare 0-7.5 km I guess). Heavy missiles are already very potent and there's just no need to boost ships in this regard even further.

We'd better fix tier2 BC instead, which deal way too much damage for their class.

None command ship can fit gang-link with ease - it always comes with a cost of downgrading guns or something alike. It is as stupid as asking covert recons to drop something to utilize their cloak. 50 CPU and 200 PG - that's just too harsh.


Getting a 100% fit with the ganglink is sorta hard on them yeah, esp NH

Heavy missiles are very potent, but Tengu would still out dps the NH without counting the drones, yes it's got an exp whatever bonus, but only 1 range bonus

I'd be more for the 6th mid really, but I don't think it'd be OP'd if it got another missile launcher(unless you pimped the ship, and most pimped ships are OP)

tier 2 bc's are rather powerful, but nerfing them isn't the right way to go I think

Battleships are still quite abit more powerful and are fully capable of hitting bc's

Fix tier 1 bc's instead of nerfing tier 2 ones, boost cruisers and remove the tier system for them(and frigs)

But yeah, this was a thread about field command ships so I'll save those rants for later.


Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2011-11-14 21:18:27 UTC
bump
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-11-15 17:11:04 UTC
bump
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#13 - 2011-11-15 18:22:47 UTC
Its dead, Jim.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2011-11-16 15:28:00 UTC
Emperor Salazar wrote:
Its dead, Jim.



/Cast resurrection
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2011-11-17 06:06:35 UTC
Over the hills and far away
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2011-11-17 11:06:08 UTC
+1ing an additional role bonus for reduced fitting on ganglinks and for additional slots on every field CS but the Sleipnir.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2011-11-21 00:51:41 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
+1ing an additional role bonus for reduced fitting on ganglinks and for additional slots on every field CS but the Sleipnir.


Bump
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2011-11-22 06:13:56 UTC
Bump

CCP, Don't let us down. make these ships worth flying again, fixing them isn't exactly a huge task.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2011-11-24 09:59:00 UTC
Miriiah wrote:
Mfume Apocal wrote:
+1ing an additional role bonus for reduced fitting on ganglinks and for additional slots on every field CS but the Sleipnir.


Bump


Bump
Elindreal
Planetary Interactors
#20 - 2011-11-24 18:20:45 UTC
I somewhat understand your frustration with field command ships, but what about fleet command ships?

I mean fleet command ships are only useful as offgrid with a full high rack of ganglinks, they 99% of the time never utilize their weapon systems.

Not to mention they're outclassed by T3s (with the exception that they can fit 1 more link than a t3 - Claymore can fit 8 on a l33t fit)

/shrug
12Next page