These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang bonuses

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#941 - 2013-09-02 10:41:59 UTC
Ponder Stuff wrote:
These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.

That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.

No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.

Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out.


Just wanted to ask Ponder, what it is about the fleet boosting change that has had such a pivotal effect on the game for you?

This is not a challenge, it's just that your response is an extreme one that makes me wonder if there's an angle I have missed?

Are you able to say exactly which changes break your small gang doctrine and why?

I ask because I am interested.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
suid0
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#942 - 2013-09-02 10:49:24 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Ponder Stuff wrote:
These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.

That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.

No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.

Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out.


Just wanted to ask Ponder, what it is about the fleet boosting change that has had such a pivotal effect on the game for you?

This is not a challenge, it's just that your response is an extreme one that makes me wonder if there's an angle I have missed?

Are you able to say exactly which changes break your small gang doctrine and why?

I ask because I am interested.


Probably because he can no longer run them unattended from the safety of his tower.

Low sec elite solo PvP for many = you're the only one on the KM, but you've got siege/armor + loki links

the entire enemy support fleet is dead except for one interdictor a titan could easily finish off with drones  - Commander Ted
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#943 - 2013-09-02 10:52:24 UTC
suid0 wrote:

Probably because he can no longer run them unattended from the safety of his tower.

Low sec elite solo PvP for many = you're the only one on the KM, but you've got siege/armor + loki links


Well of course, this was my first thought as well. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, I wondered if there was something in the numbers I had missed...


You never know, if he explains it to us he might realize that he does not lose so much after all...

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Cade Windstalker
#944 - 2013-09-02 15:30:17 UTC
Ponder Stuff wrote:
These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.

That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.

No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.

Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out.


And for the record, yes im mad bro.


I really do hope you understand that precisely the scenario you seem to be describing, of a "solo player" with one or more boosting ships supporting him from off-grid where they are in almost no danger, or inside a POS where they are in literally no danger, is a large part of *why* links are moving on-grid.

This is hardly a change meant entirely for 0.0 fleet fights, this is a long standing complaint in engagements everywhere from Jita, to Hek, to Amamake to 6VDT.
yasumitu
Electric Sheep Machinery
Caladrius Alliance
#945 - 2013-09-02 17:24:05 UTC
oh my god ... please return long long training time and money...

good
Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100.
Quick mention of the changes to Strategic Cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems:

Worst
why nerf Skirmish Warfare link...
my tackler Arazu and Proteus THE UnemployedOops

eve online is great, but there is a strange nerf a fantasy sometimesBig smile
Cade Windstalker
#946 - 2013-09-02 19:13:01 UTC
yasumitu wrote:
oh my god ... please return long long training time and money...

good
Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100.
Quick mention of the changes to Strategic Cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems:

Worst
why nerf Skirmish Warfare link...
my tackler Arazu and Proteus THE UnemployedOops

eve online is great, but there is a strange nerf a fantasy sometimesBig smile


So, there's this funny thing that happens sometimes where something is so good it's a bit over-powered. Then the nerf bat lands on it and everything is happier.

Seriously though, Interdiction Maneuvers was way too powerful. *cough* 21km webs *cough*
Naja Ashei
Deadly Intent.
#947 - 2013-09-02 19:22:08 UTC
suid0 wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Ponder Stuff wrote:
These changes alone are going to be enough to break eve for me, it has taken me a fair amount of money and time to get 2 boosting accounts running along side my main, the severity of the t3 links nerf has directly cost CCP my subscription for those 2 accounts from the end of the month.

That said I do love the changes to command ships and think that needed doing very badly. I would love to see on grid boosting become a viable option. Sadly all you have done is put more of my isk on the field to be blobbed to death and removed nano tactics from the game as a viable option.

No one in lowsec cares how much links affect the big fleets in 0.0, maybe a stacking nerf to links with the number of people in a fleet would have been a better option, but you have ruined the small gang even more than you did with the bloody t1 logi buff.

Thanks again CCP for costing me less every month i may be able to afford star citizen when it comes out.


Just wanted to ask Ponder, what it is about the fleet boosting change that has had such a pivotal effect on the game for you?

This is not a challenge, it's just that your response is an extreme one that makes me wonder if there's an angle I have missed?

Are you able to say exactly which changes break your small gang doctrine and why?

I ask because I am interested.


Probably because he can no longer run them unattended from the safety of his tower.

Low sec elite solo PvP for many = you're the only one on the KM, but you've got siege/armor + loki links


First of all, we dont use links in a POS, and its still a risk for the people who dont, simply because they can be scanned down. But with this links nerf small-gang pilots wont be able to go against the odds in the way they can now. Its the only thing I actually enjoy in the damn game. Not to mention as ponder is saying this has just about made my links alts useless, guess ill just start running around with a falcon and logi alt now.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#948 - 2013-09-02 20:16:56 UTC
The odds you go up against just had their links nerfed exactly the same amount you did. Unless you are claiming they don't have links, in which case it's not really the odds you are claiming anyway.
So relatively speaking you should have exactly the same ratio you do now against someone.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#949 - 2013-09-02 20:52:46 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkKnife
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok update time!

  • We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus.

    • Fozzie, can we get at least some sort of usefulness to the Info mindlink? It's one of the least used because locking range is only useful to combat damps. Compare this to the other links, flat armor %, flat agility, % flat shield HP. These are all huge advantages to pay off skilling up to MindLinks. Yet, for us Information people we get locking range? When was the last time that was ever useful? In comparison to Armor HP? Come on, throw us a bone here.

    Make it at least a choice to trade off. No one, and I mean no one, is going to use a Imperial Bavy Mindlink that gives 15% to locking range and 15% Armor HP, against Federation Navy link that gives 15% Agility and 15% Armor HP. Likewise, No one is going to opt for a Cal navy link of a Republic Fleet link when you trade 15% agility for 15% lock range.

    Give us REAL choices, not the illusion of choice.

    Suggested change -

    Change the Information Warfare Mindlink (and Navy Mindlinks), to be: 15% to Locking range, Sensor strength, and Scan Resolution.

    At least then it is something to consider in exchange for 15% Agility, which is frankly a non-choice. At least with these changes, the Info link is as powerful as the others, as it should be.
    Mournful Conciousness
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #950 - 2013-09-02 23:11:18 UTC
    PinkKnife wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ok update time!

  • We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus.

    • Fozzie, can we get at least some sort of usefulness to the Info mindlink? It's one of the least used because locking range is only useful to combat damps. Compare this to the other links, flat armor %, flat agility, % flat shield HP. These are all huge advantages to pay off skilling up to MindLinks. Yet, for us Information people we get locking range? When was the last time that was ever useful? In comparison to Armor HP? Come on, throw us a bone here.

    Make it at least a choice to trade off. No one, and I mean no one, is going to use a Imperial Bavy Mindlink that gives 15% to locking range and 15% Armor HP, against Federation Navy link that gives 15% Agility and 15% Armor HP. Likewise, No one is going to opt for a Cal navy link of a Republic Fleet link when you trade 15% agility for 15% lock range.

    Give us REAL choices, not the illusion of choice.

    Suggested change -

    Change the Information Warfare Mindlink (and Navy Mindlinks), to be: 15% to Locking range, Sensor strength, and Scan Resolution.

    At least then it is something to consider in exchange for 15% Agility, which is frankly a non-choice. At least with these changes, the Info link is as powerful as the others, as it should be.


    I agree. I was disappointed to see the information warfare link bonuses returned to uselessness.

    Perhaps it's because I do all my work in small fleets, but to me sensor strength and lock time are paramount and worth investing in. Lock range? Don't need it.

    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #951 - 2013-09-03 11:30:16 UTC
    They should make information warfare an universal type (bonuses on all hulls or just bigger base bonuses) and change them to more provide more generic sensor augmentations.
    Introduce a fifth type for Amarr/Caldari that complements eWar proper (think Recons) and/or synergizes with Skirmish links (extra tackle (points/web) strength) for example so that there will be a reason, however small, to use Amarr/Caldari hulls at all .. especially when/if they pull the trigger on axing the horrible brick bonus.

    Why on Earth are the PvP centric skirmish links only available to the Winmatar/Gallente constellation and how many Dev neurons had to misfire to slap information links onto the supposed tanky race?
    Cade Windstalker
    #952 - 2013-09-03 13:11:44 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:
    They should make information warfare an universal type (bonuses on all hulls or just bigger base bonuses) and change them to more provide more generic sensor augmentations.
    Introduce a fifth type for Amarr/Caldari that complements eWar proper (think Recons) and/or synergizes with Skirmish links (extra tackle (points/web) strength) for example so that there will be a reason, however small, to use Amarr/Caldari hulls at all .. especially when/if they pull the trigger on axing the horrible brick bonus.

    Why on Earth are the PvP centric skirmish links only available to the Winmatar/Gallente constellation and how many Dev neurons had to misfire to slap information links onto the supposed tanky race?


    The intent is for Info Links to be geared more toward large fleet fights and Skirmish to be geared more toward smaller gang stuff. In a large fleet fight Skirmish only helps you avoid damage if you're moving very carefully, otherwise you're going to end up with low traversal against some part of the enemy blob and then your sig radius won't help you much.

    Plus with Skirmish Links on the less brick-tanked half of the Command Ships you're looking at something of a trade-off for using them in large fleets. Not a huge one but it's still there.
    Kuklinski
    Blunderbuss.
    #953 - 2013-09-03 14:53:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuklinski
    Quote:
    The odds you go up against just had their links nerfed exactly the same amount you did. Unless you are claiming they don't have links, in which case it's not really the odds you are claiming anyway.
    So relatively speaking you should have exactly the same ratio you do now against someone




    I think you missing the real point of what Naja Ashei was saying-he talking about being small gang and "going up against the Odds"-like outnumbered/outclassed-decent Link bonuses encourage fights between mismatched gangs or pushing a dual/multi-boxer to have a go significantly outnumbered.

    I do think the links could have been left well alone-off the top of my head i'd maybe say remove T3s ability to run links(i get the impression that decently skilling a T3 isnt that skill-intensive for the bonus you get? ) and i really have no problem with bringing Boosters on-grid-i think that might be a decent enough counter to them that sit in POS' or loiter somewhere cloaked in a deep(ish) safe until an engagement starts etc....a well-skilled Command Ship flying boosting Char. takes ages to skill for(sometimes i get the feeling that folks think it some kind of train overnight-win thing) .
    I notice a few posts from guys that i can identify with-they not using boosts to go around deliberately OP and dropping masses of ships on solo stuff or hoodwinking someone in 1v1s...i would think that there a heap of players that use boosts for the flying outnumbered or multi-boxing against gangs etc.....its complex,tricky,shall i?/shan't i? against-the-odds stuff....great fun to do.....so why are you(CCP) wanting to mess with that ?

    Im totally prepared to wait to see just how badly the nerf is going to affect things-Interdiction getting hammered is a biggie-and maybe the Mindlink halving...all in conjunction with the CS changes(more "lets make everything the same" stuff it seems)....if it does end up all gimped and you think the Chars. wasted then simple-just unsub that Char....and be sure to fill in the Survey when you un-sub when it asks for the specific reason whySad

    This is a long thread but the last few pages the "regular" supporters of the nerf-and this noticeable in the CS changes thread too-the more posts they submit as counters to any dissent it becomes more and more apparent that they basing their replies and counters on eft-warrioring and PvE stuff like Incursions-i dont REALLY get the impression that they have that much idea beyond what they can analyse from CCPs stuff/other thread comments and the paper stats etc from stuff like EFT/whats the other one?--pyft or somethin?
    Cade Windstalker
    #954 - 2013-09-03 15:33:03 UTC
    Kuklinski wrote:
    I think you missing the real point of what Naja Ashei was saying-he talking about being small gang and "going up against the Odds"-like outnumbered/outclassed-decent Link bonuses encourage fights between mismatched gangs or pushing a dual/multi-boxer to have a go significantly outnumbered.


    Except that you can never assume that you have links and the other guy doesn't. Over-powered is over-powered whether it has the potential to magically let your 10 man gang trash a 20 man gang. If it lets you do that and all other things are equal then that's a pretty good indicator of OP-ness.

    Kuklinski wrote:
    I do think the links could have been left well alone-off the top of my head i'd maybe say remove T3s ability to run links(i get the impression that decently skilling a T3 isnt that skill-intensive for the bonus you get? ) and i really have no problem with bringing Boosters on-grid-i think that might be a decent enough counter to them that sit in POS' or loiter somewhere cloaked in a deep(ish) safe until an engagement starts etc....a well-skilled Command Ship flying boosting Char. takes ages to skill for(sometimes i get the feeling that folks think it some kind of train overnight-win thing) .
    I notice a few posts from guys that i can identify with-they not using boosts to go around deliberately OP and dropping masses of ships on solo stuff or hoodwinking someone in 1v1s...i would think that there a heap of players that use boosts for the flying outnumbered or multi-boxing against gangs etc.....its complex,tricky,shall i?/shan't i? against-the-odds stuff....great fun to do.....so why are you(CCP) wanting to mess with that ?


    First off, T3s are not particularly less skill intensive than a Command Ship. You have to train leadership skills regardless along with racial Cruiser to 5. The difference between Command Ships and T3s is that one needs Battlecruiser to 5 and the other needs T3 subsystem skills along with the base hull skill. If you have the relevant system to 5 then you just need Command Ships 4 to be boosting 2% better than a T3. Overall it comes out to a similar skill train because Leadership skills still make up the bulk of it. 2 weeks one way or the other just doesn't matter compared to 6 months of leadership and another 2 months of the same ship skills for either one.

    They want to mess with it because it probably shouldn't be just that easy. If you want those bonuses then risk something by having them on-grid with you. If they're really that good it shouldn't be that much of an issue.

    As to the link nerfs? They nerfed the most powerful and "mandatory" links to bring them into line with others. What's the problem with that?

    Kuklinski wrote:
    Im totally prepared to wait to see just how badly the nerf is going to affect things-Interdiction getting hammered is a biggie-and maybe the Mindlink halving...all in conjunction with the CS changes(more "lets make everything the same" stuff it seems)....if it does end up all gimped and you think the Chars. wasted then simple-just unsub that Char....and be sure to fill in the Survey when you un-sub when it asks for the specific reason whySad


    Meh? People whine about "I'mma Unsub over X!!!" all the time. If literally the only point of that character was OGBs then that just proves to CCP the scope of the problem.

    Kuklinski wrote:
    This is a long thread but the last few pages the "regular" supporters of the nerf-and this noticeable in the CS changes thread too-the more posts they submit as counters to any dissent it becomes more and more apparent that they basing their replies and counters on eft-warrioring and PvE stuff like Incursions-i dont REALLY get the impression that they have that much idea beyond what they can analyse from CCPs stuff/other thread comments and the paper stats etc from stuff like EFT/whats the other one?--pyft or somethin?


    If you can refute my arguments then by all means do so, but single "real life" examples don't prove why a systemic problem isn't still systemic and a problem.
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #955 - 2013-09-03 15:36:41 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    The intent is for Info Links to be geared more toward large fleet fights and Skirmish to be geared more toward smaller gang stuff. In a large fleet fight Skirmish only helps you avoid damage if you're moving very carefully, otherwise you're going to end up with low traversal against some part of the enemy blob and then your sig radius won't help you much.

    Plus with Skirmish Links on the less brick-tanked half of the Command Ships you're looking at something of a trade-off for using them in large fleets. Not a huge one but it's still there.

    I get that, but wasn't the whole point of this CC revision to make each and every one of them capable in their own right and lay the foundation for the move to on-grid? The fact that we still have Fleet and Field (as per your own description) shows that the exercise so far has been a bust.

    Why not mix it up some so that both constellations (Amarr/Caldari, Minmatar/Gallente) have access to all the options? Won't even need to go so far as to make a fifth class as I mentioned, one could just:
    Damn: Armour/Skirmish.
    Abso: Armour/ Info (Abso with skirmish is too scary, much like Astarte will be when/if link ship gets own bonuses).
    NH: Shield/Skirmish.
    Vulture: Shield/Info.
    Etc.

    As for the "trade off" .. where will that be if the Devs manages to come up with a way for relatively low EHP CC's (ie. when bricks go byebye) to survive in blobby weather (ex. recoded spectrum breakers + bonus to use). When that happens you are left with a whopping 50%+ of the newly rebalanced ships not having a purpose whatsoever.

    Equal opportunity.
    Cade Windstalker
    #956 - 2013-09-03 16:00:43 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:

    I get that, but wasn't the whole point of this CC revision to make each and every one of them capable in their own right and lay the foundation for the move to on-grid? The fact that we still have Fleet and Field (as per your own description) shows that the exercise so far has been a bust.


    This is hardly true. There are definitely large fleets that benefit from Skirmish and small gangs that benefit from Info links. This makes for more meaningful tradeoffs and a much more fine-grain distinction that the old "can boost/can't boost" binary.

    Veshta Yoshida wrote:
    Why not mix it up some so that both constellations (Amarr/Caldari, Minmatar/Gallente) have access to all the options? Won't even need to go so far as to make a fifth class as I mentioned, one could just:
    Damn: Armour/Skirmish.
    Abso: Armour/ Info (Abso with skirmish is too scary, much like Astarte will be when/if link ship gets own bonuses).
    NH: Shield/Skirmish.
    Vulture: Shield/Info.
    Etc.


    I believe the intent is to create trade-offs in what you skill for and allow a pilot to use their Command Ship's racial setup without being restricted by weapons systems. Getting into this leads to why not armor/shield for every race or why not weapons AND skirmish/info and that ends up with every race needing six+ different command ship hulls.

    Personally I prefer the weapons trade-off to weird and unintuitive link mixing.

    You are welcome to advocate for a different preference but CCP gets to make the final decision there.

    Veshta Yoshida wrote:
    As for the "trade off" .. where will that be if the Devs manages to come up with a way for relatively low EHP CC's (ie. when bricks go byebye) to survive in blobby weather (ex. recoded spectrum breakers + bonus to use). When that happens you are left with a whopping 50%+ of the newly rebalanced ships not having a purpose whatsoever.

    Equal opportunity.


    I don't see that as the case having been playing around with the tanks of various Command Ships.

    I'm going to defer to Fozzie's explanation of their intentions though since it's a pretty good solution.
    Mournful Conciousness
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #957 - 2013-09-04 01:44:31 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:

    I believe the intent is to create trade-offs in what you skill for and allow a pilot to use their Command Ship's racial setup without being restricted by weapons systems. Getting into this leads to why not armor/shield for every race or why not weapons AND skirmish/info and that ends up with every race needing six+ different command ship hulls.

    Personally I prefer the weapons trade-off to weird and unintuitive link mixing.

    You are welcome to advocate for a different preference but CCP gets to make the final decision there.



    The community was quite vociferous about its preference for a skirmish and fleet version of command ship for each race in the early part of this thread.

    The dev team was silent in the face of this pressure and went ahead anyway to create the current situation.

    It's one of the few decisions made by the devs in the odyessy 1.1 patch that I do not agree with. The weapons choice argument is moot - you don't choose a command ship for its weapons, you choose it for its boosts and survivability. In the case of an on-grid small gang, you also ideally want it to be able to keep up.

    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
    Kuklinski
    Blunderbuss.
    #958 - 2013-09-04 08:34:47 UTC
    Cade Windstalker wrote:
    same old same old


    .


    ..its true though isnt it?Your kind of just a "theory crafter"/regurgitator of graph stats and stuff youve cherry-picked from others posts and blogs etc?
    Cade Windstalker
    #959 - 2013-09-04 08:51:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
    Kuklinski wrote:
    stuff


    Oh I am definitely a theory-crafter. I enjoy it immensely. I also have a pretty broad range of experience, both my own and those I've picked up from others along the way. I do not cherry pick though, if I am supporting a point it's because I feel it is correct or that at the very least no better alternative exists.

    If you can't refute my arguments though I would prefer you not resort to personal attacks. If you can then please do so and don't resort to personal attacks.

    Mournful Conciousness wrote:
    The community was quite vociferous about its preference for a skirmish and fleet version of command ship for each race in the early part of this thread.

    The dev team was silent in the face of this pressure and went ahead anyway to create the current situation.

    It's one of the few decisions made by the devs in the odyessy 1.1 patch that I do not agree with. The weapons choice argument is moot - you don't choose a command ship for its weapons, you choose it for its boosts and survivability. In the case of an on-grid small gang, you also ideally want it to be able to keep up.


    Except that in small gangs you do want a command ship to be able to contribute, and command ships have a long history of being used for things besides their intended purpose in niche rolls all over New Eden.

    If we take your argument to the extreme end of things then it would be better to simply not allow them to fit weapons and be pure boosting ships.

    This is entirely my personal opinion but I prefer the weapons split to a racial skirmish/info split. If a Command Ship pilot can't find at least two or three links to boost with on each ship regardless of the link pairings then there's a problem with the links, not with the Command Ships.
    Mournful Conciousness
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #960 - 2013-09-04 09:29:36 UTC
    I am not of course saying that the weapons on a command ship are completely useless. I am saying that I am agnostic as to whether I fit missiles or lasers. And I would happily forego that choice for the ability to fly an amarr command ship in a skirmish gang.

    In the case of the EOS/Astarte, again I am agnostic. I have perfect drone and hybrid gunnery skills. I really have no incentive to choose one hull or the other, since to me they are essentially the same.

    That's a shame, because sometimes I want buffer tank with logis and sometimes I'm ok with local tank.

    At the moment, both gallente hulls lend themselves to self tank, and both amarr hulls lend themselves (in varying degree) to logistics.

    Thus it seems to me that 50% of the command ship hulls represent a real-world loss of opportunity.

    Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".