These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page12
 

Command Destroyers, Please make it happen
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
#21 - 2015-06-29 02:18:40 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Zappity wrote:
I see these as pretty much essential for when links go on grid only.


Will never happen.

Too much money in link alts.

they said that about multiboxers,
you really think they will lose any sleep over us winging about our ogb alts needing active piloting and a tank?


You really think that "technical limitations" are why links are not on grid....

Are you kidding me???

This is 2015 man, and there are multiple, multiple modules / deployables that function on an area of effect basis. There is no way in hell they can't make links be area of effect modules.

It's a joke. Actually it's a pay to win cash grab.


Can we say the ilumittani has been confirmed?

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#22 - 2015-06-29 02:45:42 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
just how fast are the roams/ops going they can't wait for a CS/link t3 to keep up? Or link BC if no pro link support on hand yet?


A CS takes 7secs to warp and then only warps at 3.3AU or something like that before hyperspatials, but you'd rather end up with T2 collision accelerator and agility rig than warpspeed.

Link-BC, please don't be silly.


<5s align, 5au/s warp speed for ~110m t1 BC with 3 links? Sounds like a reasonable set of tradeoffs to me, and can keep up with most frigate roams by the time you add 5s per jump for scouting.

[Cyclone, gang clone]

Inertial Stabilizers II
Inertial Stabilizers II
Inertial Stabilizers II
Experimental Hyperspatial Accelerator
Experimental Hyperspatial Accelerator

Command Processor I
Command Processor I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Large Shield Extender II

Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers II
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]
[Empty High slot]

Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I
Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I
Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2015-06-29 06:44:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Make boosts targeted modules so that the command dessie passes it's boost to targeted squad members as any remote module does. Now a fleet has to spider boost, boosts are intrinsically on grid, fleet maneuvering becomes more important and boosting is forced on grid. In addition make the boosts cumulative so that a command dessie is useful in small gang, a command cruiser adds additional boost to any targeted command dessie, command BC boosts again.


Please, if you cite someone else's idea, atleast refer to the person properly. Don't just copy/paste other people, thx.

He would have to make a list longer than his post in order to refer everyone who promoted the idea.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#24 - 2015-06-29 07:40:40 UTC
Yes, more links, exactly what the game needs.

[/sarcasm]
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#25 - 2015-06-29 09:14:46 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Phaade wrote:
Zappity wrote:
I see these as pretty much essential for when links go on grid only.


Will never happen.

Too much money in link alts.

they said that about multiboxers,
you really think they will lose any sleep over us winging about our ogb alts needing active piloting and a tank?


You really think that "technical limitations" are why links are not on grid....

Are you kidding me???

This is 2015 man, and there are multiple, multiple modules / deployables that function on an area of effect basis. There is no way in hell they can't make links be area of effect modules.

It's a joke. Actually it's a pay to win cash grab.

Again, if that were the case then why did they nuke is boxer.

And yes I would very much believe that fleet booster mechanisms are mad because this games code is over half as old as my girlfriend.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-06-29 09:30:55 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Make boosts targeted modules so that the command dessie passes it's boost to targeted squad members as any remote module does. Now a fleet has to spider boost, boosts are intrinsically on grid, fleet maneuvering becomes more important and boosting is forced on grid. In addition make the boosts cumulative so that a command dessie is useful in small gang, a command cruiser adds additional boost to any targeted command dessie, command BC boosts again.


Please, if you cite someone else's idea, atleast refer to the person properly. Don't just copy/paste other people, thx.


That was no copy and paste, I've proposed the same idea many times in various command ship/on-grid boost threads. The idea is my own, if someone else has the same idea then all well and good, we back up each others argument.

And yes, I still *really* want a tech II algos...
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2015-06-29 11:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
This has been suggested quite a few times and always gets a positive response.

CCP Fozzie has even stated that he wants to do this but needs to fix off grid links first.

Can't wait for OGB's to get removed from the game.

I don't understand why it simply can't just be a "in fleet?" check with a "range is less than xx" check but hey ho. I'm not a programmer


personally, I think the destroyer hull needs to be fully fleshed out with support line ups.

A light logistics ship using the destroyer hull would be far better than the frigate version.

A Point defense Destroyer is needed to fix bombs

A Command destroyer is required to allow small gang support with links (OGB's need to be removed first)
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#28 - 2015-06-29 14:29:24 UTC
no...no.

no.

no.

we need less links. not more.
Raphendyr Nardieu
Avanto
Hole Control
#29 - 2015-06-29 15:41:28 UTC
Ideas to think about:

Link power should be only somewhere in range 50-90% of the bigger variants. (Bigger ships have more cpu and should not be replaced too easily with smaller ones).

Squad only (limits to "small" gang. 1 link destroyer per 9 other ships).

And of course I think links should be on grid only.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#30 - 2015-06-29 16:12:10 UTC
We need less links and they need to become less powerful, on grid and have zero effect on the ship giving out the bonuses.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#31 - 2015-06-29 20:35:28 UTC
Phaade wrote:
More serious note, links need to be removed from the game.

Or nerfed by about 80%.

They are so blatantly stupid right now it's hard to imagine CCP being so idiotic about them.

This is how bad CCP is at balance / sanity: The Ishtar has been utterly and completely broken for over 3 years.



this guy must be one of the ones with no friends who trained links


links are only op when one side doesn't have them and nothing forces one side not to have them

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#32 - 2015-06-29 20:56:55 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Phaade wrote:
More serious note, links need to be removed from the game.

Or nerfed by about 80%.

They are so blatantly stupid right now it's hard to imagine CCP being so idiotic about them.

This is how bad CCP is at balance / sanity: The Ishtar has been utterly and completely broken for over 3 years.



this guy must be one of the ones with no friends who trained links


links are only op when one side doesn't have them and nothing forces one side not to have them

Links in their current incarnation are the epitome of bad game design: they are not involved in the fight, they are not particularly active, they are almost exclusively alts, and there are no interesting decisions.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#33 - 2015-06-29 21:08:55 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.

Link
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-06-30 01:07:59 UTC
The way i see for Command destroyers is to not be able to used as off grid boosters.
To ensure that we have to introduce new link modules, they will be high slot, reduced PG and CPU and scripted.

4 types or it, Info, Warfare, Skirmish and Siege (No mining modules, we have orca for this).
Example for Armored warfare is 3 total scripts: Damage control, Passive defense and rapid repair.

The best part is: The modules will work like the Warp disruption field generator (without the penalties). Every fleet pilot is in the "bubble sphere" gets benefit from the links.
The sphere should have a radius like (or more) 80km to include the logistic ships, sniper ships etc.

The ship should be able to carry 4 guns (bonused to 6 effective) and 4 link slots (Command processor will not work on these ships).
The ship should have T2 resists, 2 times more Hp on shield/armor/hull from the T1 hulls and of course more mid/lows to be tanked properly.
Previous page12