These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposed Changes for Command Ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#21 - 2015-08-17 10:59:59 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
I'm in agreement on the point that the training time for command ships is unreasonable, however, I disagree with the proposed changes to ship bonuses. If anything, what needs to happen is that command oriented skill requirements be reduced. Also, I think that the current five hard point plus two utility high slot scheme is perfectly reasonable as it forces players to fully optimize one strength of their ship at a time.

As a whole, I don't believe that the battlecruiser class as a whole is very healthy, but the command ship lineup is certainly far stronger than the t1 line. Buffing them in the way you've outlined would lead to an ugly situation where the t2 derivatives would be far, far stronger than the t1 hulls and unreasonably increase the disparity between low skill point or low income characters and higher end PVPers.

Stitch Kaneland wrote a nice proposal here a few months ago detailing a list of potential changes to battlecruisers that are reasonable, and I believe would help establish the class a little better at countering cruiser sized hulls. I strongly encourage you to check it out, there are some very well reasoned arguments both for and against the proposal to be found there.


I pretty much agree with everything here. CCP might consider reducing the leadership prerequisites to train the Command Ships skill to Level IV, but I know they intended to make it a long skill train to get into Command Ships.


The lengthy training time is no longer an issue as far as I'm concern since I've already trained CS 5. Instead I'd rather they give CSs more useful bonuses to justify the time sink it takes to get into these hulls. At the very least they need a 70% reduction to MMJD reactivation delay role bonus and 25% increase in cap recharge.
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#22 - 2015-08-17 11:02:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Segraina Skyblazer
Lu Ziffer wrote:
My problem with shield commandships is that they have 190k ehp no midslots and armor commandship can get 350k ehp and have it's midslots for support using target painters. In big fleetfights a Vulture with 400m Signature and 190k ehp is a easy target, a Damnation with 265m signature and 350k ehp has a good chance to survive when being the primary.



In that case, CCP should add a 10% shield hitpoint bonus to the NIghthawk to complement the Damnations 10% armor hitpoint bonus.
Blackfeathers
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#23 - 2015-08-17 11:25:04 UTC
YOU LEAVE MY SLEIPNIR ALONE!



Even though that Sleip with dual 180s would be fun to listen to as it fires with a 75% ROF buff.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#24 - 2015-08-17 11:42:41 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:


The lengthy training time is no longer an issue as far as I'm concern since I've already trained CS 5.


So, basically, "**** you, I've got mine!" Well, so do I... saw the change coming and made sure to get all my characters into Command Ships before it happened. It's still a long slog uphill for anyone contemplating training a new character. I believe the concern is that Command Ships might actually be a viable fleet doctrine if they lowered the prerequisites and enabled more pilots to get into them easily.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-08-17 12:08:00 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:


The lengthy training time is no longer an issue as far as I'm concern since I've already trained CS 5.


So, basically, "**** you, I've got mine!" Well, so do I... saw the change coming and made sure to get all my characters into Command Ships before it happened. It's still a long slog uphill for anyone contemplating training a new character. I believe the concern is that Command Ships might actually be a viable fleet doctrine if they lowered the prerequisites and enabled more pilots to get into them easily.

Thing is, the training time didn't change. Just the required skills changed, for those who don't remember they used to require both Battlecruisers V and Racial Cruisers V and then either Logistics IV or Heavy Assault Cruisers IV.

A picture. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64158/1/SkillCommandShip.jpg

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2015-08-17 12:20:59 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:


The lengthy training time is no longer an issue as far as I'm concern since I've already trained CS 5.


So, basically, "**** you, I've got mine!" Well, so do I... saw the change coming and made sure to get all my characters into Command Ships before it happened. It's still a long slog uphill for anyone contemplating training a new character. I believe the concern is that Command Ships might actually be a viable fleet doctrine if they lowered the prerequisites and enabled more pilots to get into them easily.

Thing is, the training time didn't change. Just the required skills changed, for those who don't remember they used to require both Battlecruisers V and Racial Cruisers V and then either Logistics IV or Heavy Assault Cruisers IV.

A picture. http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64158/1/SkillCommandShip.jpg


Any everyone active then who didnt already have them dropped EVERYTHING to skill for them to avoid it (and to round of BC V and dessie V if not gotten yet).

Thus the "skill train length" isn't really valid, because most* of the people in the ships don't even have them.



*unsubstantiated but statistically likely.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#27 - 2015-08-17 13:36:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
You have to be one hell of an ignorant to come up with those ideas and not see what you're doing there. The ones that aren't outright ridiculous:

Four hardpoints, going against the conception of including fitting choices and trade offs
They don't need native cap recharge, they need more cargohold if anything. Cargohold determines your time on grid, native recharge is completely sufficient to sustain guns, links and hardeners with the occasional mwd sprint.
MJD bonus, ayyyy lmao.

Edit: One of my toons flies CS without leadership skills, will train them on the next remap though anyways. The others did go the long way. Still worth, since I need those (people claim useless) skills anyways.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2015-08-17 14:24:29 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:

Nighthawk
75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire
.


I liked the general idea until I saw this. After reading that I am on the edge of reporting your post for trolling attempt.
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#29 - 2015-08-17 20:57:41 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
You have to be one hell of an ignorant to come up with those ideas and not see what you're doing there. The ones that aren't outright ridiculous:

Four hardpoints, going against the conception of including fitting choices and trade offs
They don't need native cap recharge, they need more cargohold if anything. Cargohold determines your time on grid, native recharge is completely sufficient to sustain guns, links and hardeners with the occasional mwd sprint.
MJD bonus, ayyyy lmao.

Edit: One of my toons flies CS without leadership skills, will train them on the next remap though anyways. The others did go the long way. Still worth, since I need those (people claim useless) skills anyways.


You have a point. I forgot about cargo space. In that case they could use a 650m3 - 750m3 cargo hold.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2015-08-17 21:19:03 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:

Nighthawk
75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire
.


I liked the general idea until I saw this. After reading that I am on the edge of reporting your post for trolling attempt.



I hadn't even noticed that.

OP, why would anyone ever fly anything that isn't a CS under your proposal?
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-08-21 01:31:16 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:

Nighthawk
75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire
.


I liked the general idea until I saw this. After reading that I am on the edge of reporting your post for trolling attempt.



I hadn't even noticed that.

OP, why would anyone ever fly anything that isn't a CS under your proposal?


If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2015-08-21 07:43:29 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:

If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears.

Give the shield CS more ehp so they can be used in a big fleet situation and everything is fine.



Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
Before I started training for CS last year I wasn't aware of PYFA or EFT and so I just went on here say as far as my training went. Now a year later and having max out skills for the Astarte, I've been EFT warrioring like mad to find an appropriate fit for the Astarte to run Level 4's in and later C3 WHs. But to my immense frustration, I can't find a fit that is anywhere close to cap stable with 2 med reppers unless I fit 6 darn cap mods whereas only 3 is needed for the Deimos. The Deimos has the same 4 mids and 6 lows slot layout as the Astarte, gets higher speeds, lower sig and almost twice the cap recharge. I find this to be a huge oversight on CCPs part in not properly balancing CSs after the HACs got their delicious buff. So I propose to CCP to please continue balancing the higher class of ships. SInce my last proposal for CSs didn't meet with favorable response, I've proposed another simpler one aimed at the root of CSs lacklusterness compared to the HACs.

That is why I tell everyone to stay away from CS and Leadership skills unless they are willing to invest 1.5years into something that is not very big on action.
CS are by definition very special ships. They were never intened for PVE and as soon as you fit them for their job which is to give fleet boost they will loose their dps. That is why a lot of fittings have only one gun or missle launcher and the highslots full of utility modules smartbombs, probe launchers, entosis links or cyno generators.

So I guess you skilled for the wrong ship but that is not CCPs fault.
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#33 - 2015-08-21 07:52:41 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:

If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears.

Give the shield CS more ehp so they can be used in a big fleet situation and everything is fine.



Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
Before I started training for CS last year I wasn't aware of PYFA or EFT and so I just went on here say as far as my training went. Now a year later and having max out skills for the Astarte, I've been EFT warrioring like mad to find an appropriate fit for the Astarte to run Level 4's in and later C3 WHs. But to my immense frustration, I can't find a fit that is anywhere close to cap stable with 2 med reppers unless I fit 6 darn cap mods whereas only 3 is needed for the Deimos. The Deimos has the same 4 mids and 6 lows slot layout as the Astarte, gets higher speeds, lower sig and almost twice the cap recharge. I find this to be a huge oversight on CCPs part in not properly balancing CSs after the HACs got their delicious buff. So I propose to CCP to please continue balancing the higher class of ships. SInce my last proposal for CSs didn't meet with favorable response, I've proposed another simpler one aimed at the root of CSs lacklusterness compared to the HACs.

That is why I tell everyone to stay away from CS and Leadership skills unless they are willing to invest 1.5years into something that is not very big on action.
CS are by definition very special ships. They were never intened for PVE and as soon as you fit them for their job which is to give fleet boost they will loose their dps. That is why a lot of fittings have only one gun or missle launcher and the highslots full of utility modules smartbombs, probe launchers, entosis links or cyno generators.

So I guess you skilled for the wrong ship but that is not CCPs fault.



It's no one elses fault but CCPs as far as I'm concern because they didn't finish what they started and that is balancing out the remaining ships, not just HACs and below. The CSs needs help or CCP needs to make proper T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers that are COMBAT focused that don't have crappy role bonuses.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2015-08-21 08:18:44 UTC
The only command ship that I've really struggled to fit out is the absolution. The rest seem in an ok place to me.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2015-08-21 08:23:46 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
It's no one elses fault but CCPs as far as I'm concern because they didn't finish what they started and that is balancing out the remaining ships, not just HACs and below. The CSs needs help or CCP needs to make proper T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers that are COMBAT focused that don't have crappy role bonuses.

Can you read?
Is it called Commandship or is it called T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers.
What do the bonuses tell you? That it is a high dps and high tank ship or that it is a ship designed for fleet boost?
You want a PvE ship take a faction BC, a Marauder, a faction BS or BS they all have good dps and good tank.
You skilled the wrong ship because you did not bother to inform yourself it is your fault and now you can decide to take it or cry .
The chance that CCP will add a new ship that is called the T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers and adds a new skill for that is higher then that they will rebalance the CS so that you are happy.

This is just funny by now.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#36 - 2015-08-21 08:30:14 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:

Nighthawk
75% bonus to Medium Missile Launcher rate of fire
.


I liked the general idea until I saw this. After reading that I am on the edge of reporting your post for trolling attempt.

It's proposed with 4 hardpoints though. If my math is right that's 660 DPS with Rage and 3 Ballistic Controls.

Not supporting the idea however for reasons already mentioned. If they force boosters on-grid the MJD cooldown proposal perhaps has merit.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#37 - 2015-08-21 08:31:56 UTC
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
It's no one elses fault but CCPs as far as I'm concern because they didn't finish what they started and that is balancing out the remaining ships, not just HACs and below. The CSs needs help or CCP needs to make proper T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers that are COMBAT focused that don't have crappy role bonuses.

Can you read?
Is it called Commandship or is it called T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers.
What do the bonuses tell you? That it is a high dps and high tank ship or that it is a ship designed for fleet boost?
You want a PvE ship take a faction BC, a Marauder, a faction BS or BS they all have good dps and good tank.
You skilled the wrong ship because you did not bother to inform yourself it is your fault and now you can decide to take it or cry .
The chance that CCP will add a new ship that is called the T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers and adds a new skill for that is higher then that they will rebalance the CS so that you are happy.

This is just funny by now.


Ahh whatever, I'm gonna take a break from this game and play Star Citizen. Until they properly rebalance Command Ships or come out with T2 Assault BCs anyways.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#38 - 2015-08-21 08:32:53 UTC
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:
It's no one elses fault but CCPs as far as I'm concern because they didn't finish what they started and that is balancing out the remaining ships, not just HACs and below. The CSs needs help or CCP needs to make proper T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers that are COMBAT focused that don't have crappy role bonuses.

Can you read?
Is it called Commandship or is it called T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers.
What do the bonuses tell you? That it is a high dps and high tank ship or that it is a ship designed for fleet boost?
You want a PvE ship take a faction BC, a Marauder, a faction BS or BS they all have good dps and good tank.
You skilled the wrong ship because you did not bother to inform yourself it is your fault and now you can decide to take it or cry .
The chance that CCP will add a new ship that is called the T2 Heavy Assault Class Battlecruisers and adds a new skill for that is higher then that they will rebalance the CS so that you are happy.

This is just funny by now.


Ahh whatever, I'm gonna take a break from this game and play Star Citizen. Until they properly rebalance Command Ships or come out with T2 Assault BCs anyways.

Can I has your Command Ships?

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Segraina Skyblazer
Doomheim
#39 - 2015-08-21 08:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Segraina Skyblazer
I said I'm taking a break, not Biomassing, at least not yet. Before I go on my Hiatus, I'd like to post another idea I came up with that I posted in another thread until the ISD boys shut it down since I already had this one.



SInce my last proposal for CSs didn't meet with favorable response, I've proposed another simpler one aimed at the root of CSs lacklusterness compared to the HACs. All original stats on CSs would remain the same with this proposal with only the following changes.

Since Command Ships have crappy cap recharge I propose to make them cap booster dependent and increase their cargo holds in the ranges of 650m3 to 750m3.

New Additional Role Bonuses for Command Ships

Role Bonus:
• Can use 3 Warfare Link modules simultaneously
* 70% reduction in Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay
* 100% bonus to Cap Boost Injected amount
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#40 - 2015-08-21 11:55:27 UTC
Put nos in the utility highs rather than command links.

I didnt find it difficult to get cap stable with dual reps and an mwd...

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Previous page123Next page