These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T2 Command Destroyers are a bad idea.

Author
Coyote Laughing
#1 - 2014-06-22 11:48:27 UTC
Trying to create a small gang ship with warfare links is going to be a problem with adding warfare links to a destroyer, as it relies on high slots to do damage.

When I fit my command ships, I'm scraping around to find enough CPU to fit the command processors and still leave enough for the warfare links themselves.

Instead, I suggest they have a similar bonus to the mining implant (which increases the effectiveness of the mining foreman skill) - which translates into increase the bonus from the basic command skills (not the command link specializations).

Unless CCP is planning to introduce a "raider" class of ships as the T2 upgrade of the newer destroyers, then the class is always going to be a bit of an oddball.

l8r \o/

Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#2 - 2014-06-22 12:11:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
I am sorry, if it looks like I am trolling you, but I am not, I mean I am, since I reply to the to posts that come up and look interesting or the poster needs to be reminded, that a search function exists and as well as a bad idea thread, but nor on purpose. Yours just all popped up as the last responses and they all were of the same quality...

That said, to talk about proper boost and and proper damage application is plain stupid. As well as trying to give a statement to an unasked and absurd question as the thread heading.

Command ships boost as in its proper fleet role, or apply damage as another fleet role, but never both, unless maybe in the odd-thing in a tournament, where every drop of dps counts - but no game is developed with its eyes on a once-in-a-year event.

That said, there should be no further comment.
Spacemover
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-06-22 14:13:47 UTC
i´m sorry but... where do you got that commandship-destroyer idea? haven´t heard about it before.
Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc.
#4 - 2014-06-22 14:17:11 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1580397#post1580397
heres a link to ones we brought up a long time ago.
command ships kick azz, but they are slow. if we could have a mini version of them that either get a CPU/pg reduction,
we could easily fit them.
they could build them like the new command ships of today. you either do full dps and a link or 2, or sacrifice dps for more boost.

we should have fast boosters for smaller fleets. i mean a frig pack roaming null sec would be fun as hell with a SubCmd ship. it would also give folks a chance to train fleet boosting to see if they like it before training cruiser 5 and all of those skillz.

eve is all about stepping up into bigger roles, one ship class at a time.

we have logi frigs, logi cruisers and t2 logi. where r the t2 logi frigs?
t2 destroyers -SubCmnd Ships seem the step that was missed.

ill bring up another post on the missing ship types from eve..

they would make eve fun as hell
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#5 - 2014-06-22 15:31:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
There is even more then one thread, and CCP Fozzie as some personal stakes in it and likes the idea.

Though all threads have been temporarily locked, they could be opened on a request, especially since they were 'just' closed and not due to any rule breaking (as the OP here should consider if he wants to refresh that discussion).

But reading through that, it became clear, that all aspects the 'new' command destroyer would bring could be done by other ships without much effort anyway. I guess that's why the discussion stagnated and no such ship has yet made it into the development (we know about). To just hint that it might be due to not being able to fit tank or damage onto the ship as the OP tries to do is not true and far from any real concern.

Again, if you want to discuss it, I would petition to reopen the main thread that has Fozzies comments in it (super easy to google), the negative thread title as a statement is bad, it already hints itself relating to an existing discussion which I would point towards rule #16.
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#6 - 2014-06-22 15:37:16 UTC  |  Edited by: DrysonBennington
A Command Class of ship for each Class of ship isn't a bad idea.

Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battle-cruiser and Battleship class Command Ships would all have high slot modules that would boost their subordinate class ship within a fleet while the aging and slowly becoming obsolete class of Fleet Boosters would still provide boosts to the fleet overall.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#7 - 2014-06-22 16:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
DrysonBennington wrote:
A Command Class of ship for each Class of ship isn't a bad idea.

Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battle-cruiser and Battleship class Command Ships would all have high slot modules that would boost their subordinate class ship within a fleet while the aging and slowly becoming obsolete class of Fleet Boosters would still provide boosts to the fleet overall.

I see the discussion continues...

Can you explain to me, what you mean by within the fleet, .. while .. boosts to the fleet overall ? Aren't the two parts doing the same ?

Though I like the idea of each type its own booster, you will multiply the training investment by ship types. Not just due to having multiple sizes in one fleet, but also due to the fact, that most smaller ships only will be able to fit 1-3 modules (depending on ship attributes and fleet composition) and you kind of want to have 12 links in fleet for each size.... that's 12 mil SP times 12-48 members. I am sure someone will scream against that, ones you ll start thinking about it.
Even if you talk boost for all sizes and on grid (hot topic), you still might end up by having to fleet a bunch of warfare link frigs to get them past the gate. Not sure every small gang now sets out to train leadership skills.

Sure, I finished just a few months to get all my leadership skills to max and you will save me 2 more months to cut back on the ship training, but still, I would neither want it, nor do I see the necessity at this point at all. At the moment it's just to 'fill the gap' of named stuff - worst reason for additions.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#8 - 2014-06-22 22:26:50 UTC
DrysonBennington wrote:
A Command Class of ship for each Class of ship isn't a bad idea.

Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battle-cruiser and Battleship class Command Ships would all have high slot modules that would boost their subordinate class ship within a fleet while the aging and slowly becoming obsolete class of Fleet Boosters would still provide boosts to the fleet overall.


I like the idea of a command frig, looking forward to command destroyers. More options are always a good thing.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Caleb Seremshur
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#9 - 2014-06-22 22:35:08 UTC
DrysonBennington wrote:
A Command Class of ship for each Class of ship isn't a bad idea.

Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battle-cruiser and Battleship class Command Ships would all have high slot modules that would boost their subordinate class ship within a fleet while the aging and slowly becoming obsolete class of Fleet Boosters would still provide boosts to the fleet overall.


I already don't see carriers using command modules why would we create scenarios where there are ships with no prior need for command modules and they now have them?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-06-22 22:51:31 UTC
I'd rather there be a tech 2 destroyer class with a role boost on leadership skills than another boat carrying command links. A destroyer should be a small fleet command ship for gangs and therefore limited to small gangs, preferably only affecting squad members on grid and within a specific range
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#11 - 2014-06-22 22:52:00 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
DrysonBennington wrote:
A Command Class of ship for each Class of ship isn't a bad idea.

Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battle-cruiser and Battleship class Command Ships would all have high slot modules that would boost their subordinate class ship within a fleet while the aging and slowly becoming obsolete class of Fleet Boosters would still provide boosts to the fleet overall.


I already don't see carriers using command modules why would we create scenarios where there are ships with no prior need for command modules and they now have them?


A destroyer represents a mobile fast platform that can keep up with frigate fleets. Currently, (in order of smallest hull to largest) the combat ships that can field command links are; strat cruisers, battlecruisers, command ships, carriers, super carriers, and titans.

With sub capitals there are really only 2 options with one of them featuring a further 2 options in the form of cost or specialization.

I think T2 command destroyers are a wonderful way to flesh out destroyers and furthermore giving regular T1 tier 1 destroyers the ability to field a single unbonused command link would be interesting as well as a nice stepping stone for newer players interested in that section of gameplay.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#12 - 2014-06-22 23:27:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Kaerakh wrote:
A destroyer represents a mobile fast platform that can keep up with frigate fleets. Currently, (in order of smallest hull to largest) the combat ships that can field command links are; strat cruisers, battlecruisers, command ships, carriers, super carriers, and titans.

With sub capitals there are really only 2 options with one of them featuring a further 2 options in the form of cost or specialization.

I think T2 command destroyers are a wonderful way to flesh out destroyers and furthermore giving regular T1 tier 1 destroyers the ability to field a single unbonused command link would be interesting as well as a nice stepping stone for newer players interested in that section of gameplay.


I tend to disagree with the conclusion, though as I mentioned, the basic idea has its merit. Command destroyers would be t2 in any way following ship progression, further more do you need the leaderships kills up as well as warfare links, not to mention the new or old command ship skill for an efficient boost, yes the last level (L5) makes a huge difference, those 3 skills alone, if it would be for one link group would be 60 to 90 days and not really any stepping stone for anyone.

I know, you wrote unbonused, but that's not doing anyone any good, especially not if you neglect all other training for that. And you still need at least two skills to 5 just to sit in it, might even be more, didn't check.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#13 - 2014-06-22 23:54:45 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
A destroyer represents a mobile fast platform that can keep up with frigate fleets. Currently, (in order of smallest hull to largest) the combat ships that can field command links are; strat cruisers, battlecruisers, command ships, carriers, super carriers, and titans.

With sub capitals there are really only 2 options with one of them featuring a further 2 options in the form of cost or specialization.

I think T2 command destroyers are a wonderful way to flesh out destroyers and furthermore giving regular T1 tier 1 destroyers the ability to field a single unbonused command link would be interesting as well as a nice stepping stone for newer players interested in that section of gameplay.


I tend to disagree with the conclusion, though as I mentioned, the basic idea has its merit. Command destroyers would be t2 in any way following ship progression, further more do you need the leaderships kills up as well as warfare links, not to mention the new or old command ship skill for an efficient boost, yes the last level (L5) makes a huge difference, those 3 skills alone, if it would be for one link group would be 60 to 90 days and not really any stepping stone for anyone.


That's more of an issue with the leaderships skill line than the merit of the hull itself. Plus, you can cut a huge portion of that out by making the hull skill prereq only two categories of leadership skills(as opposed to all categories under the current system for command ships). On top of that you could make the same exact argument against T1 battlecruisers being able to fit warfare links, but they can all the same and are as close as you get to a stepping stone.

Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:

I know, you wrote unbonused, but that's not doing anyone any good, especially not if you neglect all other training for that. And you still need at least two skills to 5 just to sit in it, might even be more, didn't check.

I don't remember providing any information previous to this post saying you would need two. I get the feeling you're just knee jerking a response rather than reading my post. Plus I would point to T1 battlecruisers again only get to fit a single unbonused warfare link, but you're not complaining about that.

Basically I'm just suggesting a fast mobile platform that can keep up with frigate fleets and provide boosts. It would still be stopped by bubbles so it doesn't buff cepter fleets, but still encourages light skirmish play. I really don't see a downside to it and it fills a role not already provided. It pretty much fits all the criteria for introducing a new class of ship.
Damen Apol
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2014-06-23 00:26:51 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
DrysonBennington wrote:
A Command Class of ship for each Class of ship isn't a bad idea.

Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battle-cruiser and Battleship class Command Ships would all have high slot modules that would boost their subordinate class ship within a fleet while the aging and slowly becoming obsolete class of Fleet Boosters would still provide boosts to the fleet overall.


I like the idea of a command frig, looking forward to command destroyers. More options are always a good thing.


That's not an option, it's a necessity.

Your blob needs a space cleric, you need your tanks, you need your ranged DPS, and now you need your buffs along with your anti-buffs.

just go play WoW already and stop ruining EVE with this crap.

Instead of just being negative I'll throw out what I think an excellent example of "options" in EVE is.

E-war, is in a nice place, enemy ships are too fast I have the choice of webbing them or neuting them out or damping them so they can't target me or flat out killing them (not e-war but i'm talking options so meh). Need to keep the turret ships from hitting me, could damp them out or neut them or web them and out-run them or TD them or ecm them etc.

There's no one singular answer that E-war provides as the best in every case, each is good for different circumstances.

But with crap like logistics and on grid links, you NEED those roles filled in that exact ship type and stuff.

EVE combat shouldn't be a place where you have necessary roles to fill, aside from DPS (and hell, even then you can run terribly amusing troll fleets of keres and kitsunes). It should be a place where you have multiple tools to deal with multiple problems and each tool has unique advantages and disadvantages.

This is not the case with logistics ships, you flat out get an advantage with these that can't really be replicated any other way, but worse, an advantage that is pretty exclusive to flying in large groups (it would be stupid to make 1 of the three pilots in my typical gangs fly in a logi ship when we have other needs). Currently if you're flying without off-grid links you're gimped versus someone who has them, but guess what, you can get your own links (don't tell me that makes them overpowered, go try fighting without a point).

As soon as links move on grid they become like logi, unreachable for small-gang PvPers because we have other more important roles to fill, while serving as a force multiplier for the ever pervasive blob which can sacrifice pilots to fill these more and more necessary roles because they have so damn many of them, and can protect them.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#15 - 2014-06-23 00:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Kaerakh wrote:

I don't remember providing any information previous to this post saying you would need two. I get the feeling you're just knee jerking a response rather than reading my post. Plus I would point to T1 battlecruisers again only get to fit a single unbonused warfare link, but you're not complaining about that.

Basically I'm just suggesting a fast mobile platform that can keep up with frigate fleets and provide boosts. It would still be stopped by bubbles so it doesn't buff cepter fleets, but still encourages light skirmish play. I really don't see a downside to it and it fills a role not already provided. It pretty much fits all the criteria for introducing a new class of ship.


Well, the two I meant were faction destroyer 5 to unlock the command destroyer and the specific leadership skill to 5 to unlock the link. That makes two for just sitting in it with a T1 unbonused module. I wouldn't call that knee jerking.

The other thing is, that full fledged command ships with just 2 stabilizers can almost match a destroyers align speed.

The question regarding its use is still the debate of off/on grid boosting. Cause a destroyer is way more vulnerable and has less capabilities and options. Not to mention that all stats so far, highslot number for WFL, PG, CPU are so extremely off, you need like 100% reductions on everything, just to fit a single module with nothing else on the ship. But again, we are not here to do the developers job, I guess ,)

And I am still not convinced with the stepping stone, I just finished my warfare link training and it took like 3-4 months and not a single SP in destroyers yet, far away from BC5. So much for easy stepping stones. And in regards to the T1 BCs, I haven't mentioned them nor gone into it, since I have seen literally nobody ever use one nor hear of them being used, but that's just my personal observation, I bet there are some statistics out there with more insight.

Nothing against introducing a new ship class, I just think this one is unnecessary atm.

Damen Apol wrote:
.


I agree with everything you said after the WOW comment, but are you now against or for command destroyers ? Wasn't sure whom you meant and I read contra from your text, but I might be wrong.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#16 - 2014-06-23 00:34:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Dun'Gal
fwiw interdictors do just fine with a bubble launcher and weapons, no reason why a t2 destroyer that (edit: could potentialy) fit a single ganglink module couldn't also do well in this roll. aside from the obvious reasoning, in that they die extremely quickly.

edit 2: Also, should ships like this be created I would say that off-grid links should be removed without prejudice.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#17 - 2014-06-23 00:45:06 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Well, the two I meant were faction destroyer 5 to unlock the command destroyer and the specific leadership skill to 5 to unlock the link. That makes two for just sitting in it with a T1 unbonused module. I wouldn't call that knee jerking.


That's a failure to communicate that information then. Plus I never said they were all unbonused. As far as level V skills are concerned that's pretty much any T2 ship and par for the course.

Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
The other thing is, that full fledged command ships with just 2 stabilizers can almost match a destroyers align speed.


Great, do the same with a destroyer and it still does it better and as an added bonus actually does keep up with frigates. Roll Not sure what it was you were trying to point out.

Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
The question regarding its use is still the debate of off/on grid boosting. Cause a destroyer is way more vulnerable and has less capabilities and options. Not to mention that all stats so far, highslot number for WFL, PG, CPU are so extremely off, you need like 100% reductions on everything, just to fit a single module with nothing else on the ship. But again, we are not here to do the developers job, I guess ,)


Sure in a toe to toe fight with larger ships, but it's not meant for that. A skirmish force doesn't go toe to toe. Roll The rest are fine details that would be implied with the idea.

Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
And I am still not convinced with the stepping stone, I just finished my warfare link training and it took like 3-4 months and not a single SP in destroyers yet, far away from BC5. So much for easy stepping stones. And in regards to the T1 BCs, I haven't mentioned them nor gone into it, since I have seen literally nobody ever use one nor hear of them being used, but that's just my personal observation, I bet there are some statistics out there with more insight.

Nothing against introducing a new ship class, I just think this one is unnecessary atm.


As I said, that's a problem with skills rather than the merits of the hull itself. Assuming you mean redundant by unnecessary, then I would challenge you to find a command capable ship that doesn't cost half a billion that can keep up with a fleet of assault frigates. You won't find one.
Damen Apol
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2014-06-23 00:51:49 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:

Damen Apol wrote:
.


I agree with everything you said after the WOW comment, but are you now against or for command destroyers ? Wasn't sure whom you meant and I read contra from your text, but I might be wrong.


Against moving links on grid unless SERIOUS changes are made to the way links work.

I'd rather links be removed entirely than placed on grid where they become out of the hands of small gang pvpers.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#19 - 2014-06-23 00:51:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Dun'Gal wrote:
fwiw interdictors do just fine with a bubble launcher and weapons, no reason why a t2 destroyer that (edit: could potentialy) fit a single ganglink module couldn't also do well in this roll. aside from the obvious reasoning, in that they die extremely quickly.

edit 2: Also, should ships like this be created I would say that off-grid links should be removed without prejudice.

Sure sure, but while 1 or 2 cyno destroyer might do the job for the fleet, would you set 6 to 12 command destroyers aside in a small gang instead of 1 or 2 command ships to get the appropriate or max links ?
What I am arguing is not the fact that they exist, but their application for the role you would want them to be in. Just think about the number of tackle and dps ships you sacrifice for each link instead of just 1 proper ship with 2 T2 inertia stabilizers.

Damen Apol wrote:
Against moving links on grid unless SERIOUS changes are made to the way links work.

I'd rather links be removed entirely than placed on grid where they become out of the hands of small gang pvpers.

Ah, ok, that's where the thread got sidetracked or rather not being specific in the first place, I don't think we are really discussion on/off grid boosting, it just got some consideration in what we are arguing about.
I think there is an extensive thread from fozzie about it somewhere.