These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

When will the Command Ships get their Love CCP??

Author
Salvos Rhoska
#21 - 2015-10-09 10:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ive not flown one, but their stats look fantastic (especially the Sleipnir).

Perhaps one indirect option is reducing the Warfare Link type specific pre-req skills to I, inorder to access Command Ships I?

To the result that you can fly the ship, as it is, earlier, and then pick/choose which warfare link types you would like to specialise in therafter, whilst flying it.

This would parallel the T3Cruiser line in its subsystem pre-reqs, as subsituted by warfare link pre-reqs for CBC.
(Albeit it with caveat T3cruiser subsystems are race specific therafter, whereas Warfare Links skills are universal).

Its rather unusual that you need nigh perfect warfare link skills, across the board, to even get into the ship.

This doesnt "buff" the class, just lowers the threshold for getting into one, as well as not having to "waste" SP on links you may not have any intention of ever using.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#22 - 2015-10-09 10:17:22 UTC
I love how all the people who don't even fly the ships have all these great ideas about how to "fix" them.

And by love, I don't actually mean love.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

Salvos Rhoska
#23 - 2015-10-09 10:20:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Glathull wrote:
I love how all the people who don't even fly the ships have all these great ideas about how to "fix" them.

And by love, I don't actually mean love.


My cursory proposal doesnt change the ships themselves at all.

Just reduces the training time to get into them.
In order to benefit from the Warfare Links, you have to train those skills at the same rate as before anyways.
The modules in and of themselves themselves provide very little benefit.
Skilling is required to multiply it to pragmatically useful levels.

While the player is skilling those, the T2 Battlecruiser hulls themselves still provide a very formidable weapons platform, but are largely useless in the Link department, till the player skills them up.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#24 - 2015-10-09 12:18:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
Val'Dore wrote:
They can't buff them too much, else they'll be the best ships in the game.


Not the best, but considering their lengthy training time and status as T2 BCs, they should be one of the best sub-caps ships in the game.

They are already good, it's other problematic ships that are causing the issues.


The Sleipnir is the best CS at the moment because XLASBs. If it wasn't for that one module the Sleipnir would be in horrid shape like the rest of the CSs. The others need cap badly (especially the Abso) so CCP needs to either buff their cap recharge or give them a cap boost inject bonus. Additional cargo space would also be needed since the Sacrilege have a bigger cargo hold then any CS. A MMJD bonus falls in line with the Marauders T2 role bonus and would solve the limited mobility issue CSs has.

I don't know who created the idea of the T3C, but it looks like the current CCP develop staff wasn't the ones behind it's origin. But due to the T3Cs popularity and close ties to WH space economy, it looks like CCP are up against a wall as to what to do with them. If they remove them from the game like you want baltec, It could lead to disaster. CCP isn't going to take that risk right now, given the already shakey PO situation so I wouldn't hold my breath. I would rather see another higher ship class meet (or slightly surpass) the T3Cs potential instead, namely the CSs.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#25 - 2015-10-09 12:19:51 UTC
Glathull wrote:
I love how all the people who don't even fly the ships have all these great ideas about how to "fix" them.

And by love, I don't actually mean love.


I fly both both the Sleipnir and Astarte Einstein. Get a clue before posting rubbish.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#26 - 2015-10-09 14:59:30 UTC
Command Ships got a major rebalance about 2 years ago at the same time as the BC and dessie skill split into racial skills. They are solid combat ships (some more so than others) as well as link boats.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#27 - 2015-10-09 15:03:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Daniela Doran wrote:
Glathull wrote:
I love how all the people who don't even fly the ships have all these great ideas about how to "fix" them.

And by love, I don't actually mean love.


I fly both both the Sleipnir and Astarte Einstein. Get a clue before posting rubbish.


Sure buff the Sleip I throw more or less blindly at anything that I can't kill with a sabre, I'm the last to complain. Pirate (But I think they're excellent already and buffing anything outside of on-grid mobility or cargohold would go terribly wrong)
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#28 - 2015-10-09 15:18:10 UTC
Command ships are so bad it's funny.

I've got command ships 5 and near perfect skills and I'm still not going to touch one with a ten foot pole.
Faenir Antollare
For Ever And Ever
#29 - 2015-10-09 15:22:24 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Command ships are so bad it's funny.

I've got command ships 5 and near perfect skills and I'm still not going to touch one with a ten foot pole.



Very much the same.

RiP BooBoo 26/7/1971 - 23/7/2014 My Lady My Love My Life My Wife

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#30 - 2015-10-09 17:06:09 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
Val'Dore wrote:
They can't buff them too much, else they'll be the best ships in the game.


Not the best, but considering their lengthy training time and status as T2 BCs, they should be one of the best sub-caps ships in the game.

They are already good, it's other problematic ships that are causing the issues.


The Sleipnir is the best CS at the moment because XLASBs. If it wasn't for that one module the Sleipnir would be in horrid shape like the rest of the CSs. The others need cap badly (especially the Abso) so CCP needs to either buff their cap recharge or give them a cap boost inject bonus. Additional cargo space would also be needed since the Sacrilege have a bigger cargo hold then any CS. A MMJD bonus falls in line with the Marauders T2 role bonus and would solve the limited mobility issue CSs has.

I don't know who created the idea of the T3C, but it looks like the current CCP develop staff wasn't the ones behind it's origin. But due to the T3Cs popularity and close ties to WH space economy, it looks like CCP are up against a wall as to what to do with them. If they remove them from the game like you want baltec, It could lead to disaster. CCP isn't going to take that risk right now, given the already shakey PO situation so I wouldn't hold my breath. I would rather see another higher ship class meet (or slightly surpass) the T3Cs potential instead, namely the CSs.


I don't want them taken out of the game, I want them to be cruisers.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2015-10-09 17:22:21 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Command ships are so bad it's funny.

I've got command ships 5 and near perfect skills and I'm still not going to touch one with a ten foot pole.


What do you expect them to do beside being a little better at combat than a T1 BC and much better at boosting than a T1 BC? Their current "better at combat than T1" might be debatable since the last buff to T1 BC but their T2 role of boosting is already in place.

The train time and cost are not really supposed to be argument to ask for a ship to be better. Making a ship better is supposed to be based on it not filling it's role because it's out-done by something else. They boost better than their T1 counterpart and are arguably better in combat than their T1 counterpart. If you really want a T2 "combat" BC, it might warrant a new class instead of stapling additional role on a ship that already has a defined role.
Salvos Rhoska
#32 - 2015-10-09 21:02:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I've got command ships 5 and near perfect skills and I'm still not going to touch one with a ten foot pole.


This begs the question, why the hell did you get these skills in the first place?

This is not a rhetorical nor troll question.
Im sincere and would appreciate an answer.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#33 - 2015-10-09 22:25:10 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Glathull wrote:
I love how all the people who don't even fly the ships have all these great ideas about how to "fix" them.

And by love, I don't actually mean love.


My cursory proposal doesnt change the ships themselves at all.

Just reduces the training time to get into them.
In order to benefit from the Warfare Links, you have to train those skills at the same rate as before anyways.
The modules in and of themselves themselves provide very little benefit.
Skilling is required to multiply it to pragmatically useful levels.

While the player is skilling those, the T2 Battlecruiser hulls themselves still provide a very formidable weapons platform, but are largely useless in the Link department, till the player skills them up.


Glathull's point still stands, doesn't it? But then again, you do love to hear yourself type those responses.
Salvos Rhoska
#34 - 2015-10-09 22:42:03 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Glathull's point still stands, doesn't it? But then again, you do love to hear yourself type those responses.

He didn't make a point. He expressed an opinion and preference. But yes, it still stands, as does mine.
And I can't hear myself typing my responses as my keyboard is very silent.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#35 - 2015-10-09 23:31:24 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Command ships are so bad it's funny.

I've got command ships 5 and near perfect skills and I'm still not going to touch one with a ten foot pole.


What do you expect them to do beside being a little better at combat than a T1 BC and much better at boosting than a T1 BC? Their current "better at combat than T1" might be debatable since the last buff to T1 BC but their T2 role of boosting is already in place.

The train time and cost are not really supposed to be argument to ask for a ship to be better. Making a ship better is supposed to be based on it not filling it's role because it's out-done by something else. They boost better than their T1 counterpart and are arguably better in combat than their T1 counterpart. If you really want a T2 "combat" BC, it might warrant a new class instead of stapling additional role on a ship that already has a defined role.



As long as TC3 capability of using OGB exist, that defined Role you speak of is redundant. CSs main focus should be combat, not link boosting. And as combantant ships they pale in comparison to their little cousins, the HACs. HACs has nearly identical tanking, better cap recharge, identical cargo hold capacity and far better mobility then the CSs. It's clearly obvious to me that CCP didn't thoroughly complete the CSs rebalance 20 months ago when they did the HACs.
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
#36 - 2015-10-10 01:28:42 UTC
I beg you to remember that balance is boring. I didn't think they needed to be nerfed back when they were nerfed.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2015-10-10 03:05:18 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:

You don't fly Command Ships at all, do you? And if you do, you definitely don't use it for combat.


PEW! PEW! PEW!

I love command ships. Had full L5 for all leaderships and hulls plus fittings before I could fit T2 turrets. This picture is a fave of mine. I play eve for fun, so I brought em on roams. Hell, full tank config, I loved attracting agro. Meant they were shooting at toughest hull on grid instead of the damage dealers and logi. On grid also meant I wasnt having to warp around to evade scanners. Links dont work in warp. I like that current tactics means that a T1 frig can completely take command ships out of the fight.

Sides, on grid is more fun!

Scipio Artelius wrote:

While changes to OGB might hopefully eventually happen at some point or not in the near distant future™, I actually hope it's a lot more creative than simply bringing links on grid.

edit: probably shouldn't have even mentioned that tbh. This is a thread about Command Ships, not links.


They are closely related. Command ships used for command do very well. Not sure what people want until their role gets improved. Most every command complaint relates to or can be remedied by something separate from the hull

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Otso Bakarti
Doomheim
#38 - 2015-10-10 04:04:11 UTC
Janeway84 wrote:
They could make their stats over run the t3 cruisers since you need to spend more time to train CS than t3's P
Imo CS could need more cpu and grid and perhaps a midslot more on each and perhaps a highslot more aswell for +1 turret / launcher. MJD bonus would be fun Smile and cap injector bonus gets huge original idea points +1 Idea


If they protect themselves, one more high to make that a reasonable expectation. The additional mid? I guess if shield tanking. If armor tanking then a low.

Fighting in one of these? I always thought that was a bit odd. CS should be almost purely a support ship, with enough tank and oompf to protect itself should an engagement start to go sideways. The ships it supports should be providing the firepower and protection (to state the obvious). There really are better ships to fight with.

Maybe it's not a good idea to view the requirements of this ship in terms of solo PvP, or using it as a main damage doer. It'd be a shame to lose any of it's support function to such cross purposes. One size fits all usually doesn't fit anybody.

There just isn't anything that can be said!

Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#39 - 2015-10-10 04:28:33 UTC
Otso Bakarti wrote:
Janeway84 wrote:
They could make their stats over run the t3 cruisers since you need to spend more time to train CS than t3's P
Imo CS could need more cpu and grid and perhaps a midslot more on each and perhaps a highslot more aswell for +1 turret / launcher. MJD bonus would be fun Smile and cap injector bonus gets huge original idea points +1 Idea


If they protect themselves, one more high to make that a reasonable expectation. The additional mid? I guess if shield tanking. If armor tanking then a low.

Fighting in one of these? I always thought that was a bit odd. CS should be almost purely a support ship, with enough tank and oompf to protect itself should an engagement start to go sideways. The ships it supports should be providing the firepower and protection (to state the obvious). There really are better ships to fight with.

Maybe it's not a good idea to view the requirements of this ship in terms of solo PvP, or using it as a main damage doer. It'd be a shame to lose any of it's support function to such cross purposes. One size fits all usually doesn't fit anybody.


CCP really made a big mistake when they bridged all CSs into the "Supporting Fleet Boosting" Role. Before they were divided with one being a fleet support booster and the other solely combantant role. Now at this rate, they're gonna need to come out with an entirely new class of T2 BCs meant for pure combat. This way there would be no more confusion about the roles of the CSs.
NFain
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2015-10-10 07:29:19 UTC  |  Edited by: NFain
101 guide to CS balance:

1) add a mid and a low slot
2) add a 6th hard point to all
3) increase cpu/pg to allow for variations in fits, not one fit that magically make them work decently.
4) give us back the old ship models >:(

But yeah basically they used to be awesome, then they blew, then they got kinda better but with tiericide they're useless in the state they're in.