These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

The all-inclusive Fleet Command Ship / Leadership Skill / Modules / Tree Discussion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Misato Katsuragi
N. E. R. V.
#1 - 2012-05-30 08:05:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Misato Katsuragi
I will attempt to update as needed as new developments arise.

It’s no great mystery that the whole Leadership section of EVE is in need of a review.. There have been many discussions at hand that are spread all over the forums; it is my attempt to bring those topics under one roof. Do to the upcoming ships redesigns, I want to make our voice loud and clear to the Devs.

If you decide to reply, please read the topic of discussion and comment in relation to that, let’s be polite and not step over ourselves.

Topics:
1. On Grid vs Off Grid Boosting
2. T2 vs. T3
3. Fleet Command Ship Redesigns
4. Eos and Information Warfare
5. Industrial Considerations



1. On Grid vs Off Grid Boosting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5wnCBfkMh8&feature=relmfu (44 min in).

I know that there is hot debate between many eve players, however I feel that to receive command bonuses, a player should be on grid. CCP, as seen in the video, appears to feel the same way too. I do not think the intentions of the Devs were to have a player sit in a POS, completely invulnerable, and pass out +25% shield/armor resist bonus fleet wide. Now in doing so, there are obviously some serious changes that will need to take place to the current line up (which I will attempt to address) in regards to survivability and additionally some serious ramifications in regards to industrials.


2. T2 vs. T3

Currently as it stands, T3 can pass out 5% bonus to one module (without Command Processor) and a Fleet can pass out 3% to three modules (without Command Processor). Skill training wise, it takes longer to get into a Fleet Command as compared to a T3, yet they can give out improved bonuses. As pointed out from CCP Ytterbium “Yep, that is a just observation, balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest.” (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1371309#post1371309). In regards to the bonus, I’m inclined to have them switched, 5% to Fleet Commands and 3% to T3. As it takes longer time in skill training for Fleet Commands.


3. Fleet Command Ship Redesigns

If all Fleet Command ships are forced to come on Grid, (as what is intended per Fan Fest) they are all going to need a serious bonus to their tanking abilities. (Eos is a special case.) Their primary jobs are to give bonuses and survive. Across the board all Fleet Command ships should have 8 high slots (to improve their bonus giving abilities) and have a small boost to their stats (as to improve their survivability).

Damnation

Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity and 5% bonus to all armor resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to armor hitpoints and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored Warfare Links per level

The only Fleet Command ship that I feel got it right. With an updated 8/4/6 layout and some slight boost to its stats as to allow the additionally command link, this ship would be about perfect. As much as I would love to the nit pick the missile velocity bonus, it probably should stand.

Vulture

Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level

The useless double rail bonus that very few people use has to be changed. I propose following changes:

Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to shield HP per level and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level

Additionally to the 8/6/4 layout, a small boost to the grid as to improve its ability to fit rail guns.

Claymore

Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster effectiveness per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Skirmish Warfare Links per level


The claymore is a very fine ship as it stands; it even has the additional 8th high slot that the other Fleet Command ships are missing. What I propose might be controversial, but I feel it would be keeping with the overall importance of survival ability.

Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire and 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to max velocity per level and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Skirmish Warfare Links per level

Some nerfing to overall speed may be needed to bring it in line, and the possibility of this ship becoming a little too powerful is there. But I see a nano-tank command ship that can keep up with the rest of the fleet. I look forward to your feedback on this topic.
Misato Katsuragi
N. E. R. V.
#2 - 2012-05-30 08:05:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Misato Katsuragi
4. Eos and Information Warfare

I felt like the Eos was the estranged bastard child of the ship line up. Even before Trinity the ship was never used as its intended purpose and then after Trinity it sat dry docked, waiting for another patch to save it. The Eos is directly dependent on Information Warfare and its current function.
Information Warfare, keep it or toss it?

Information in its current state fills a pretty niche roll not to mention, fielding as Eos in that roll makes it even more difficult.

(All modules are T1 at max skills with mindlink):

Electronic Superiority: Boosts the strength of the fleet's electronic warfare modules by +25.875%
Sensor integrity:Boosts sensor strengths for all of the fleet's ships by +38.8125%
Recon Operation:Increases range of modules requiring Electronic Warfare, Sensor Linking, Target Painting or Weapon Disruption for all ships in the fleet by: +15.525%

Mediocre at best, and I feel all these numbers should be looked at if we are to keep Information Warfare.
One alternative is to change Information Warfare into a Gun/Missile Booster, giving bonus’ to tracking/explosion velocity; range/flight time; and gun signature resolution/ missile explosion radius. It would improve the overall chance of weapons to hit and not a flat damage bonus. (Probably over powered either way).
I’m torn both ways as too keeping or changing it. But if the Eos somehow became most suited to pass those bonuses on in a “covert” situation, then I would probably be inclined to keep it.

Eos

Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: +15 m3 extra Drone Bay space and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Information Warfare Links per level

Yup, some of the worse bonus’ to any ship in the game. Additionally, it only has a 75Mbit/sec drone bay, has a bad tank, weak command link base, in addition to making it extremely difficult in sharing those bonus’ to EWar ships, you have what sums up to be one of the most misguided ships in the game.
Proposed changes:

Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per skill level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: Multiplies the cloaked velocity by 125% per level and 3% bonus to effectiveness of Information Warfare Links per level

Note: No targeting delay after decloaking

Not perfect, but I feel it’s on the right track. Make it so it can also use Covert Cynos, increase the drone bay to 125Mbit/sec, decrease 1 turret slot and add one high slot. I feel these changes would greatly improve this lack luster ship. Additionally I look forward to your guys feedback on this.


5. Industrial Considerations

With the possible On-Grid changes, a boosting Rorqual and Orca become a lot more dangerous to utilize. Perhaps the dangers of mining in null-sec should be increased. But much of this hinges around future mining changes. If all asteroid belts become scannable, then possibly it would not be as bad. Only time will tell.

With that, I thank you for reading my lengthy post. I look forward to all of yours insights on future changes to the Leadership tree.

V/R MK
Misato Katsuragi
N. E. R. V.
#3 - 2012-05-30 08:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Misato Katsuragi
Reserved for updates and changes.
Dalts
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#4 - 2012-05-30 09:59:42 UTC
Not too bad an assessment, although I've got to disagree on the Eos changes. Returning to the 125m3 drone bandwith that it used to have, combined with the new drone damage mods, would just turn it into a Combat BC that pretty much ignores its fleet bonus role like it used to be when it had that sized drone bay.

I honestly don't see why one race can't have a covert ops cloaking T2 BC, just write in the description that they found some technology that allows it in a Sleeper site. If you did that and could then bring the Eos along with the cloakies it would suddenly have a distinct role that it would be used in whilst keeping its current Info Warfare bonuses, maybe with a little bit of tweaking to bonus amounts.

Having a fleet command ship that is supposed to go along with a cloaky fleet that can't warp cloaked would only serve to give warning that there's the fleet out there and so mean they just don't get used. Additionally using drones with a cloaky ship is generally subpar as it ties you to a spot or waiting for drones to return without the ability to cloak up if required. This works ok for the Pilgrim because its a get in close type ship, but is a royal pain is the ass when using Black Ops that have significant drone bays.

As such how about the 4 bonuses:-
5% Agility per level (to keep up with the bombers/recons when warping around) and 10% hybrid damage
Covert Ops Cloak fitting and Link Bonus on Command Ship Skill

with 5 guns and 8 high slots (1 needed for cloak) you leave the choice to the pilot to fit 4 guns for 6 effective turrets damage and 3 links, or 5 guns for 7.5 effective turrets and 2 links. Can probably allow it to keep the current 75m3 drone bay in that situation so it can still provide some utility or with 5 guns fit act as the dps ship in the group if its willing to get in close.
Misato Katsuragi
N. E. R. V.
#5 - 2012-05-30 12:09:28 UTC
Dalts wrote:
Not too bad an assessment, although I've got to disagree on the Eos changes. Returning to the 125m3 drone bandwith that it used to have, combined with the new drone damage mods, would just turn it into a Combat BC that pretty much ignores its fleet bonus role like it used to be when it had that sized drone bay.

I honestly don't see why one race can't have a covert ops cloaking T2 BC, just write in the description that they found some technology that allows it in a Sleeper site. If you did that and could then bring the Eos along with the cloakies it would suddenly have a distinct role that it would be used in whilst keeping its current Info Warfare bonuses, maybe with a little bit of tweaking to bonus amounts.

Having a fleet command ship that is supposed to go along with a cloaky fleet that can't warp cloaked would only serve to give warning that there's the fleet out there and so mean they just don't get used. Additionally using drones with a cloaky ship is generally subpar as it ties you to a spot or waiting for drones to return without the ability to cloak up if required. This works ok for the Pilgrim because its a get in close type ship, but is a royal pain is the ass when using Black Ops that have significant drone bays.

As such how about the 4 bonuses:-
5% Agility per level (to keep up with the bombers/recons when warping around) and 10% hybrid damage
Covert Ops Cloak fitting and Link Bonus on Command Ship Skill

with 5 guns and 8 high slots (1 needed for cloak) you leave the choice to the pilot to fit 4 guns for 6 effective turrets damage and 3 links, or 5 guns for 7.5 effective turrets and 2 links. Can probably allow it to keep the current 75m3 drone bay in that situation so it can still provide some utility or with 5 guns fit act as the dps ship in the group if its willing to get in close.


I`ve played with countless builds in my heads and the most glaring problem I see with the covert cloak is the CPU problem. Stacking that many CPU mods is going to cap the CPU out.

There are couple ideas I was thinking. Going with my original build, drop one of the high slots down to a low or mid slot, the decrease the turrets to three. This may stack the whole drone damage problem though, and you might have a ship too similar to the Sin and Ishtar. I get CreoDron needs another drone boat, but why a crappy one?

Another Idea I had was to scrap the Drone boat, and take a page from Rodeh Ship Yards, and make 3 Turret / 2 Missile, 8/4/6 layout, with bonus' to 5% Hybrid, 5% Therm missiles, cloak bonus, and info links. I know people hate split weapon systems, but it would be something different and fun.

Another idea would swap the Astarte to the drone boat and the EOS to the Blaster Boat. Do a 5% bonus to damage, a reduction to armor repair cap use (as opposed to amount), cloak, and info. 5 turrets, with 8/3/7. (Dual armor reps).

I think a Fleet Command with a Covert cloak might be to over powered. I feel people would not use it as intended.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#6 - 2012-05-30 12:20:28 UTC
i want sleipnir and nighthawk to be changed to hurricane and drake models. that is all i have to contribute.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#7 - 2012-05-30 13:04:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Theres one good rule of game design that is all to often ignored - you don't **** with established game mechanics unless absolutely necessary.

Switching T3 and Command Ships bonuses around would not be a good move IMO if for no other reason than that a boosting T3 costs far more than a boosting command ship in most cases.

Off grid v on grid boosting is something that needs addressing with care - a lot of people don't really understand command links and only seem to see it from the perspective of "I don't have a boosting alt so its unfair that guy just beat me coz he had an off grid booster" and the changes they are proposing would have a larger negative impact on PVP in general. I'm very much of the opinion tho that off grid boosting should not in any way be as effective as ongrid boosting but it needs to be addressed carefully so as not to suddenly nerf it into oblivion or make ongrid boosting too overpowered.

I think one thing that should distinguish between T3s and command ships is that the command ships would get a bigger bonus to ongrid boosting compared to the T3s - which touching back on the cost aspect would mean relegating T3s to a more offgrid boosting role and moving command ships back to a more part of the fight role (otherwise you end up with a situation where an ongrid boosting T3 costs several 100m ISK more than a command ship is weaker than said command ship). This would suggest putting a flat bonus on T3 boosting but then you'd have to nerf its off grid boosting back significantly while making it unattractive for use in ongrid boosting resulting in boosting T3s becoming sidelined and the sub-system pointless.

I don't want to put hard figures on off/on grid boosting as it needs a lot of testing and delicacy to get it right unfortunatly the current stats make it difficult to bonus ongrid boosting without nerfing offgrid boosting or the T2/3 balance hard.

On another note I was thinking it would be interesting to give the nidhoggur an ongrid boosting role as it seems to be have been sidelined a fair bit in mainstream combat.

EDIT: Oh and cloaky T3s can fulfill the role of booster for cloaky fleets so there is no need for a covert ops cloaky command ship.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-05-30 13:10:58 UTC
Loving your opinion on the obvious fact that Boosts SHOULD be on grid, exception made perhaps for mining links.

The subs bonuses are indeed a big part of the problem essentially because those are off grid, no one on his right mind would bring an almost or over 1B (depending on fits) command T3 ship on the field because of this first argument.

Lets assume boost becomes on grid, at this point the fact T3 command sub offers a little plus is a tricky argument of balance because the price tag and skill loss must bring something interesting, otherwise will just make, yet, another useless sub

Maybe keep the % but reduce the number of links and unavailability to add command processors.

What impact would this have directly in game?-better bonus but at only one or 2 links witch could perfectly fit small expensive roaming gangs but not worthy for fleets where you WANT more boosts overall because dps is a matter of numbers multiplier.

Doesn't mean Command ships are not meant to fly in small expensive gangs and doesn't mean T3 command ships cant fly in fleet but this small benefit comes at a higher, much higher cost.

Will not comment the specificities of actual command ships since I'm not used to fly them but at first look, Eos for sure will never find place in my hangar, I hate drone boats, and EWAR (Damps) drone boats makes me sick just by thinking about Lol

brb
Hulasikaly Wada
DO.IT
I.N.D.E.P.E.N.D.E.N.T
#9 - 2012-05-30 13:24:44 UTC

Agree on most
About the cost/bonus if the gang bonus will become only on grid :
Normal tier 1, tier 2 and field command ships can already boost with 1 module like a tech 3 cruiser ( without bonus, offcourse )

Hula
Noisrevbus
#10 - 2012-05-30 14:05:27 UTC
This is yet another one of those threads where the OP go through various problems with more or less method and accuracy, only to suggest a number of completely uninformed solutions.

In reality, the only thing all these classes of ships need is the removal of the Command processor module, to deal with rampant alt-usage and on/off-grid balance, and small individual tweaks to the ships with intended styles of play that no longer function.

Without a command processor a Tech III ship will only be able to provide one link, forcing you to seed links in your gang. Likewise the CS will no longer have the option to make ridiculous boost cocktails (ie., seven-link ships) to plant in POS. That will make booster alts less appealing and in turn make off-grid boosting less appealing, without removing it as an option. Option is good, option under balance.

The Damnation and Claymore have always been doing exactly what they are supposed to. It's two good ships. The Vulture only really suffer from what all Tech II Caldari hybrid platforms do - you don't sit still and snipe beyond 150km anymore. The Eos only really suffer from the active repair bonus and the stacking of some of it's link bonuses - though not all. On note of the active repair bonus, i am usually an adamant defender of it. Those who oppose it generally just want something better and streamlined for what they do. On the Eos however i concede that there is some merit to questioning having the active repair bonus as it's a ship meant to boost other ships in a somewhat sizable gang. It could easily be removed and replaced by some other racial signature bonus, such as turret tracking or maybe a bandwidth boost up to 100m3 (placing it just under the typical Drone platforms).

The more exaggerated issues people have with the information links or the slot-layout of the Eos are just that, exaggerations. It tanks just as well as the Claymore (it doesn't need a Damnation-level tank) and the more even slot-allocation is a racial trait that you can swing both ways. That the links catches so much flak mainly have to do with people not utilizing EW with much frequency at all today. The ECCM link and the lock-range passive could probably use a tune-up, but the others work perfectly as intended, provided someone would use the ship as intended.
ROXGenghis
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-05-30 14:14:20 UTC
OP forgot issue 6: All bonuses are too high and need to be reduced across the board.

Right now bonuses are overpowered (106km point? double your tank?) to the point they are absolutely mandatory if you want to remain competitive.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-05-30 14:26:06 UTC
The nerfing of off gird boosting may be enough without swapping T3 and command ship bonuses. It’s hard to tank a T3 heavily and include multiple warfare links (excluding multiple billion ISK fits). I could see T3’s using a single better bonused warfare link. But let’s face it on grid may still mean 100+km out from the fight.

Command ships possibly need a base hit point boost and perhaps better fittings.

Eos, bring the Armour rep bonus in line with the Incursus and Proteus at 10% (all gallente repping bonused ships please).
Number of turrets is fine; Drone bandwidth should be max 100mbit especially if a drone damage bonus is introduced so as not to push Ishtar out of its role. Alternative is just a hitpoint bonus like the Ishkur or include drone speed like the Proteus.

Drone bay bonus is poor just give it the drone bay and replace with something else?

Other Gallente style bonus that may be useful: -

  • Microwarpdrive capacitor use for better cap for active tank.
  • Microwarpdrive sig reduction, better tank when on the field through reduced sig.
  • Could take the Dissolution Sequencer sub type bonus for really good base sensor strength, but is this needed as warfare links cannot be jammed.
  • Point range bonus may reinforce a front line skirmish style of play.

Its main problem is Information warfare itself.

Electronic Superiority: This only give bonus to the E-war modules, it could be changed to also include the boosting mods such as tracking comps, sensor boosters, ECCM etc, this may fulfil the offensive boost you are looking for without being overpowered.

Sensor integrity: Only really useful one, this at least needs to be doubled if not more should be at least equivalent to an ECCM.

Recon Operation: Weakest one. Replace completely?

  • Microwarpdrive sig reduction maybe, makes it a better alternative than the minmatar version when using a Microwarpdrive only.

  • Outright scan res bonus

  • Replace with Drone Operation - boosts drone tracking, control range, speed.

Dalts
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#13 - 2012-05-30 15:01:08 UTC
With regard to a Covert Cloak needing too much CPU, this is a non-issue as you just set the bonus appropriately, i.e. on Recons at level 5 the cloak uses 0 CPU, at level 4 it uses 100 CPU.

I know that people inherently start to worry that a covert cloaking Command Ship would be overpowered, but really we already have covert cloak capable T3s that can pack hefty EHP. Just adjust the dps that the Cloaky CS can put out until you are happy with it. I think that a covert capable Eos is the only way it really fits with its bonuses that tend to improve Recon abilities rather than any of the direct tank/gank ships.

Although there would be scope to look at switching the Astarte to being a drone CS I don’t think that would go down well, and I don’t really see too much wrong with not having a drone CS.

Speaking of a Drone CS, the arrival of drone damage rigs and mods certainly gives scope for the Eos to be changed to give various drone bonuses instead of the Info Warfare ones it currently does if people feel that Info Warfare is useless currently (hard to argue against that atm). Personally I think the covert cloak route would be interesting and would give it a unique purpose without stepping on any other toes (apart from cloaky command T3s a bit).

Finally, I think it would be best if the distinction between Fleet Command Ships and Command T3s was down to number of links vs strength of each link. In theory this is already the case but in practise the use of off-grid boosting allows T3s to be fit to use. The post above talking about removing command processors would also solve this issue.

Nothing wrong with the T3 giving a greater str if the T3 cannot provide more than 1 or 2 links. This may be solved by on-grid boosting only (which I think should happen) as the EHP suffers too much when trying to shoe-horn on 3 or 4 links on a T3.
Also got to say that I agree that the impact of the 3 (exc Eos) is too great, the bonuses provided are too much when all the various %s are stacked up together.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#14 - 2012-05-30 15:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
While this post is more about the ganglinks themselves and probably belongs more in the other thread on this it also touches on on/off grid boosting and possible changes to the command ships - what I'm thinking is something like this could be done:


*Ganglink modules provide half the current bonuses in passive mode on grid, off grid, in warp, etc. aslong as the ship is in system and the pilot is in a boosting position.

*Ganglinks when enabled should light the ship up like a christmas tree sig wise for scanning but it shouldn't bloom the actual ship sig (not sure if thats possible) so it doesn't make it possible to 1 shot it with a dread but it should be really really easy to scan down a ship with links running.

*No ships get racial bonuses to ganglinks when off grid except T3s which get a 3% per level bonus (possibly not able to activate ganglinks inside a forcefield? - not sure on this as I kinda think boosting from POS for PVE isn't really a problem but would rather have a balance where a fleet with a booster on grid is at an advantage compared to a fleet with a booster at POS while this means the booster could sit just outside FF it does expose it more to danger than if its inside the FF).

*T3s get 5% per level racial bonus to ganglinks as usual when on grid.

*Field command ships get a 3% per level racial bonus on grid and can fit 1 extra ganglink (2 total without command procs)

*Fleet command ships get a 5% per level racial bonus on grid and 2 or 2.5% per level to non-racial links

Personally I think that if you want to remain competitive at a decently setup fleet level then you should be running command links I'd rather encourage people to run a half decent fleet composition rather than give people who run half-arsed fleets more of a chance. Tho there probably needs to be a balance somewhere for people to have fun with more casual fleet setups but I think thats a wider eve issue.

I'm also thinking that field command ships should get an inherent racial bonus thats applied when they are in a boosting position to ships that are on grid with them - needs a bit more thinking out but for instance astarte could get a 10% drone speed, hitpoints and control range (just an exmaple).

Some of the links need massaging downwards I think as well tho the 106km point range does have some useful applications its also a bit OP in some other situations - a few of the T2 ganglinks do go a bit far really a small nerf to some of them wouldn't go amiss. I'm tempted to suggest nerfing off grid links even more but it might be better just to reduce the effectiveness of all links a little bit and maybe increase the on grid bonus a little bit more (same effect more or less).
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-05-30 15:54:13 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
In reality, the only thing all these classes of ships need is the removal of the Command processor module, to deal with rampant alt-usage and on/off-grid balance, and small individual tweaks to the ships with intended styles of play that no longer function.

Without a command processor a Tech III ship will only be able to provide one link, forcing you to seed links in your gang. Likewise the CS will no longer have the option to make ridiculous boost cocktails (ie., seven-link ships) to plant in POS. That will make booster alts less appealing and in turn make off-grid boosting less appealing, without removing it as an option. Option is good, option under balance.


This IMO is one of the best options I have heard. It seems the prevalence of offgrid boosting is largely due to maxing out a T3's number of links. Limit them and you might as well have a heavily tanked T3 on grid giving one boost plus some DPS.

Or maybe somehow limit the number of command processors that can be used, so you still have some options but not this crazy 7 boost type setups.

you may still have offgrid boosting, but it would not be nearly as OP only supplying a limited number of links.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#16 - 2012-05-30 16:23:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Noisrevbus wrote:
In reality, the only thing all these classes of ships need is the removal of the Command processor module, to deal with rampant alt-usage and on/off-grid balance, and small individual tweaks to the ships with intended styles of play that no longer function.

Without a command processor a Tech III ship will only be able to provide one link, forcing you to seed links in your gang. Likewise the CS will no longer have the option to make ridiculous boost cocktails (ie., seven-link ships) to plant in POS. That will make booster alts less appealing and in turn make off-grid boosting less appealing, without removing it as an option. Option is good, option under balance.


This IMO is one of the best options I have heard. It seems the prevalence of offgrid boosting is largely due to maxing out a T3's number of links. Limit them and you might as well have a heavily tanked T3 on grid giving one boost plus some DPS.

Or maybe somehow limit the number of command processors that can be used, so you still have some options but not this crazy 7 boost type setups.

you may still have offgrid boosting, but it would not be nearly as OP only supplying a limited number of links.


I like the approach but...

One problem with this is that the some of the tanking links are designed to compliment each other i.e. one will reduce the capacitor needs of a repair module while the other increases the rate of it making it much less useful to use either module on its own. Likewise there are links like recon operation that no one would ever bother with as you'd only really use it in conjunction with one of the other 2 infowar ones and once your using 2 of those your using up a slot that could have been used for a more useful gang link.

You also water down the seperation between people who actually put some thought into a fleet composition and those that just throw some half thought out stuff together its much easier just to throw in the odd 1 ganglink incidentally and be on parity with another better thought out fleet for command bonuses with that idea.
Linda Shadowborn
Dark Steel Industries
#17 - 2012-05-30 16:27:07 UTC
(wrong char but meh)

as a Leadership char in pvp i think the damnation is perfect, the other Fleet command ships are.. a tad flimsy, they simply wont survive for long in a fleet fight where they are supposed to be. Give them all a boost in their EHP (no active tanking in a fleet fight is pointless) and i would be happy with them tbh.

And i am all for boosting on grid only, but im selfish, it is boring as hell to sit in a safespot all the time and file my nails while bashing the scan button for probes.
Cosmoes
Peraka
#18 - 2012-05-31 00:24:17 UTC
OK let me throw my two cents in.


1. Ongrid vs Offgrid

Off grid boosts are too safe atm and with command processors you can outperform on grid boosts. The problem I see is if you make boosts only work on grid they will become less useful in a lot of circumstances. Say I'm a boosting claymore in system to help our tacklers but we have 3/4 tacklers each at the 5 different gates my links are useless for the majority of the fleet. We'd also need to change some things like warping with gang links active.

I think a better solution is to give stronger boosts on grid but still have boosts to everyone in system. This could either be done through having two types of links or scripts (one for off grid one for on grid) or having two different bonuses for the links depending on weather the ship they are boosting is on or off grid.



2. t2 vs t3

Really doesn't make sense that the ship specialized in something is outperformed by the ship that is more general in everything. If you want to specialize in leadership you train for the command ship. That doesn't mean the t3 can't be more useful in certain situations it can do a lot more things like cov ops, ewar etc. so it can do gang links and something else but it shouldn't outperform the command ships at commanding. This is also where we should be getting our cov ops gang command ships from which is why I don't agree with the ops idea of a cov ops spec'd eos.


3. Redesigns

Damnation - fine as is

Vulture - hybrids.... yeah a tank bonus would be much nicer

Claymore - The shield boost bonus isn't great in big fleets but with the new shield boosters and this being great for smaller nano fleets I wouldn't want to get rid of this just yet. As for speed boost.... the claymore does need to be fast it has to keep up with nano gangs but I'm not sure a 5% speed per level boost is the best way to do it. If we where gonna give the other ships an eighth high why not give claymore a bit more agility.

Eos - nfi what to do with this ship.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#19 - 2012-06-02 16:43:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cosmoes wrote:
OK let me throw my two cents in.


1. Ongrid vs Offgrid

Off grid boosts are too safe atm and with command processors you can outperform on grid boosts. The problem I see is if you make boosts only work on grid they will become less useful in a lot of circumstances. Say I'm a boosting claymore in system to help our tacklers but we have 3/4 tacklers each at the 5 different gates my links are useless for the majority of the fleet. We'd also need to change some things like warping with gang links active.

I think a better solution is to give stronger boosts on grid but still have boosts to everyone in system. This could either be done through having two types of links or scripts (one for off grid one for on grid) or having two different bonuses for the links depending on weather the ship they are boosting is on or off grid.



2. t2 vs t3

Really doesn't make sense that the ship specialized in something is outperformed by the ship that is more general in everything. If you want to specialize in leadership you train for the command ship. That doesn't mean the t3 can't be more useful in certain situations it can do a lot more things like cov ops, ewar etc. so it can do gang links and something else but it shouldn't outperform the command ships at commanding. This is also where we should be getting our cov ops gang command ships from which is why I don't agree with the ops idea of a cov ops spec'd eos.


3. Redesigns

Damnation - fine as is

Vulture - hybrids.... yeah a tank bonus would be much nicer

Claymore - The shield boost bonus isn't great in big fleets but with the new shield boosters and this being great for smaller nano fleets I wouldn't want to get rid of this just yet. As for speed boost.... the claymore does need to be fast it has to keep up with nano gangs but I'm not sure a 5% speed per level boost is the best way to do it. If we where gonna give the other ships an eighth high why not give claymore a bit more agility.

Eos - nfi what to do with this ship.


RE point 1 I definitely think there should be a balance to off grid v on grid boosting - i.e. when someone crashes through a gate with a command ship in tow against a similiar size fleet but with their booster in POS there should be some strength to having the ongrid booster but at the same time not nerf off grid boosting into the ground. There are also PVE applications for off grid boosting.

As for point 2 I think my suggestion a few posts above would nicely balance between the cost and effectiveness of T3 v command ship boosting without changing either one too much from what they are now - the T3s aren't quite as effective as on the field boosting ships but still have good application in a general boosting role (off grid, nano, cloaky, etc.) absolutely agree we shouldn't get a command ships covert ops cloaky thats where the T3 comes in and this justifies both its cost and general purpose role.

For point 3 the bonuses to hitpoints and resists is something that all fleet command ships should get, field command ships should get the resist bonus but trade the HP bonus for a dps bonus. Trading the local tanking bonuses for something else would be a good idea as well but I think T3s should be the preferred booster for nano gangs.

personally I think the EOS should be changed to the myrmidon hull - make it as comfortable shield tanked as armor tanked (like the myrmidon is), ramp up its drone capabilities a bit - it would be useful (if anyone uses it) for an infowarfare booster to be able to fly in either armor or shield fleets quite comfortably and the drone capabilities would mean it could stay more on the edges of a fight. Likewise the claymore probably should be more like the cane in that it can armor or shield tank as skirmish links are also useful for armor fleets (although I'm kinda used to seeing the claymore as the cyclone model) this would also give it the low slots to make it decently nanoable for nano gangs.
Linda Shadowborn
Dark Steel Industries
#20 - 2012-06-02 17:55:25 UTC
Rroff wrote:


For point 3 the bonuses to hitpoints and resists is something that all fleet command ships should get, field command ships should get the resist bonus but trade the HP bonus for a dps bonus. Trading the local tanking bonuses for something else would be a good idea as well but I think T3s should be the preferred booster for nano gangs.


couldnt agree more, active tank on a FLEET command ship is kinda.. meh. give me resists and ill be a happy panda. oh and fix the fitting on the eos too its a ***** to actually fit up.
12Next page