These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post First post
Author
Rynnik
Evasion Gaming
The Ancients.
#301 - 2013-08-01 19:44:31 UTC
I think a sound argument could be made that like HICs, CS all need to have 'super tank' as part of the baseline. Homogenization is bad and all that but once the technical hurdles are cleared they will be expected to be on grid for all conceivable engagement ranges and sizes. Based on this I don’t think having them be the weak link from a tank perspective in a BS gang is a good thing conceptually. Just like HICs make other trade offs, I wouldn’t mind seeing what these would turn into with a bit more focus on survivability.

My suggestion would be to make the resist bonus part and parcel with the link bonus. Give all the Gal/Amarr hulls 20% armour resists, all the Min/Cal hulls 20% shield resists and keep the bonuses the same on Gal/Min and replace the current resist bonuses with 10% to armour and shield hp for Cal/Amarr CS (finding a fourth bonus for the damnation shouldn’t be tough).
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#302 - 2013-08-01 19:45:01 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:

I'm eyeballing the Eos and the Astarte. There is an issue. The Astarte is potentially a damage monster, ontop of it, it can now fit links (the good ones for Gallente). It now has the potential to outlast a small fight (small to medium fleet fight) due to its ability to repair monkey itself (that with both the NOS changes and the Repairer changes, it could essentially be a endless fight against a Astarte unless you can bring a Substantial amount of DPS to break it. The same could be said about the Damnation but most don't fit repairers on it (cause it makes it lose hit points and has no bonus).

The viable choice is the EOS, but it has also become a possible DPS monster Magnet, having the same tank as the Astarte, but now with Heavy drones that will not Miss, almost always hit for close to if not full damage (even on cruisers and frigates, note the alpha of sentry drones on Dominix's in the tournament), and ontop of that, now has turrets that will pretty much never miss either. The EOS has the potential to be a Dominix on the Field, that can repair itself, launch a full fight of super tracking heavies, boost the group and do damage if brawling.

Giving one of the ships extra resists would be... well a bit crazy.

(I'm being frank I would love to get the Amarr resists on gallente ships but the repairing bonus would be overkill). Not all fights are 100 Vs, 100, sometimes is 20 vs 20, or 40 vs 40.

I would consider whether these ships should have gone to 7 lows. I'm pretty sure the EOS could, but I guess you can't get a mega tank Command Ship, and a DPS monster to boot.


I am all for removing the damage and rep amount on one of each of the 4 races to get the damnation like brick tank. Tbh when i am in a CS i dont give a rats behind on damage just that i am to survive. that way we would have an option, small gang.. bring out the damage one.. large fleet.. EHP up the wazzoo. as it is now when the fleet starts to scale up.. i have to bring the damnation which limits my links because anything else gets alphad to fast. (yes i cant spell today, darn meds)
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#303 - 2013-08-01 19:47:37 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
so damnation gets
20% armour res bonus and 50% armour amount.

the eos and astate both start with less base armour and get a rep bonus plus dps bonus... like wtf

surely one of them should get the res and armour amount bonus

same can be said for vulture and the claymore/Sleipnir

you want them on grid? so at least give us one from each race that can stay on grid a while before it explodes please


An then you'll start watching full gangs of command ships everywhere assaulting everything with little to no logistics because they can either push stupid amounts of dps and reps or because they can simply bring enough dps and even more stupid amounts of tank.

Look at it like this, Command ship are already solo pownmachines in solo situations, give them more without drawbacks and they'll become high/low sec nightmares, null sec full fleets of those and some support would become impossible to kill.

Atm the balance seems rather in line, first the amount and advantage over T3's I'm super happy with this, then not much happy about DPS nerf but they're getting a bit extra here and there.
Local reps are changing a bit, not as far as they should get balanced because deadspace SB's will still be stupidly op, take a Sleipnir with a faction SBA+combat booster+implants+links and you get a thing able to tank an entire gang on his own and still not die. (double xl'asb was exactly that and I did it a couple times)

If something claymore and vulture need is better agility or speed, I'd say both for all command ships, after all at this SP level the commander should be able to fully experiment the benefits of his skills with such ship.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#304 - 2013-08-01 19:48:12 UTC
Baren wrote:
CCP FOZZIE.


is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200

NIGHTHAWK
Fittings: 825 PWG (+115)

That's an interesting catch. Even the Claymore has almost 300 more PG than it, and they use the same weapon and tanking systems...

Either the Nighthawk needs another PG buff, or it'll be delegated to a HAC style ship as it won't have the PG to mount the links.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#305 - 2013-08-01 19:51:54 UTC
NetheranE wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
My biggest concern is that there is no good skirmish command ship that has staying power, especially in an armor doctrine. The armor skirmish boosters actually take a double hit in that they have less low slots to work with when building a tank and they lack the resist bonus. You could actually count it triple if you consider that the damnation has a 10% armor bonus on top of those two advantages.

I would really hate to see the legion be the skirmish warfare ship for armor fleets because it can't get alpha-ed off by perfectly coordinated sentry drone fleets, while the galente boosters remain as second class citizens in the command ship world.


This is fine, skirmish armor fleets are a little bit of an oddity. We should keep agility and nano-based fighting with shield tanking, while giving ewar and resilience to armor fleets.
Ever thought of how powerful armor scorpions will be under the boosts of a new damnation running info and armor?


I think you're missing that skirmish links are used in almost every mega fleet to help control mobility and reduce signature radius. I know in almost every fleet I'm in we have skirmish boosters to help with sig tanking, and the extra mobility and tackle range is nice too.

Which is what concerns me with the proposed changes. There's no option to brick tank an armor skirmish booster, which makes it a prime candidate to alpha off the field using assisted sentry drones and their perfectly coordinated alpha. It would be nice if one of the galente command ships was able to be brick tanked, but it looks like the only option is to use a tech III and fit it up so that it has as many lows as possible.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#306 - 2013-08-01 19:56:01 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Baren wrote:
CCP FOZZIE.


is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200

NIGHTHAWK
Fittings: 825 PWG (+115)

That's an interesting catch. Even the Claymore has almost 300 more PG than it, and they use the same weapon and tanking systems...

Either the Nighthawk needs another PG buff, or it'll be delegated to a HAC style ship as it won't have the PG to mount the links.

I have a feeling it has to do with how their tank will typically be set up, but you two may well have a point there.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
#307 - 2013-08-01 19:58:35 UTC
Agreed the Nighthawk doesn't look that great compared to the other two missile command ships. A flight of medium drones more than makes up the damage difference, and you can carry an additional flight of lights to handle frigates. Nighthawk needs to be 7/6/4, at least, and needs to lose the kinetic-only restriction (especially now that the restriction is 50% instead of just 25%).

It also needs to get an RLML bonus back, like it currently has on TQ.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#308 - 2013-08-01 20:01:03 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
Baren wrote:
CCP FOZZIE.


is there a reason all Command ships expect the knighthawk have Power Grid over 1200

NIGHTHAWK
Fittings: 825 PWG (+115)

That's an interesting catch. Even the Claymore has almost 300 more PG than it, and they use the same weapon and tanking systems...

Either the Nighthawk needs another PG buff, or it'll be delegated to a HAC style ship as it won't have the PG to mount the links.

I have a feeling it has to do with how their tank will typically be set up, but you two may well have a point there.

Both get 7 highs that use approximately 100 PG apiece (medium launchers or links, averages around 100) leading to 700 PG there. A MWD takes 150 PG, and LSE's take about 150 PG. Assuming a standard 2 LSE's you're at ~1150 PG. The Nighthawk gets 1031 PWG at max skills, and will need fitting mods for that. But for some reason, the Claymore gets 1375 PWG, leaving an oddly high 225 PWG left after all that for more fitting. Also, the Nighthawk doesn't get much more CPU either, so I don't really know what's supposed to be done here.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#309 - 2013-08-01 20:03:09 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
NetheranE wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
My biggest concern is that there is no good skirmish command ship that has staying power, especially in an armor doctrine. The armor skirmish boosters actually take a double hit in that they have less low slots to work with when building a tank and they lack the resist bonus. You could actually count it triple if you consider that the damnation has a 10% armor bonus on top of those two advantages.

I would really hate to see the legion be the skirmish warfare ship for armor fleets because it can't get alpha-ed off by perfectly coordinated sentry drone fleets, while the galente boosters remain as second class citizens in the command ship world.


This is fine, skirmish armor fleets are a little bit of an oddity. We should keep agility and nano-based fighting with shield tanking, while giving ewar and resilience to armor fleets.
Ever thought of how powerful armor scorpions will be under the boosts of a new damnation running info and armor?


I think you're missing that skirmish links are used in almost every mega fleet to help control mobility and reduce signature radius. I know in almost every fleet I'm in we have skirmish boosters to help with sig tanking, and the extra mobility and tackle range is nice too.

Which is what concerns me with the proposed changes. There's no option to brick tank an armor skirmish booster, which makes it a prime candidate to alpha off the field using assisted sentry drones and their perfectly coordinated alpha. It would be nice if one of the galente command ships was able to be brick tanked, but it looks like the only option is to use a tech III and fit it up so that it has as many lows as possible.

I have a feeling that they will be staying towards the rear of the engagement, preferably out of range of the sentries in use... and likely need to play the warp off and repair on the way back game. Which means we'll be seeing the newly buffed medium rails used a lot more commonly on these ships.

Keep in mind that even when they get forced on grid (hasn't happened just yet) they will just need to be on grid when used for fleet boosts, and a grid is a big place.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Dvla
Doomheim
#310 - 2013-08-01 20:03:47 UTC
Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.

Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.

Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.

Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.

The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.

Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#311 - 2013-08-01 20:14:29 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
I have a feeling that they will be staying towards the rear of the engagement, preferably out of range of the sentries in use... and likely need to play the warp off and repair on the way back game. Which means we'll be seeing the newly buffed medium rails used a lot more commonly on these ships.

Keep in mind that even when they get forced on grid (hasn't happened just yet) they will just need to be on grid when used for fleet boosts, and a grid is a big place.


It's fair to say that 'on grid' is a large area, but if you're anywhere near your fleet you're a target. The optimal engagement range for gardes goes out to around 80km when using domi's, if you switch to any other sentry it stretches over 120km. We'll see what they ultimately choose to do with boosting on grid, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have to be close enough to be engaged to use their boosts.
Mark Artreides
I'm Sorry Shoot What?
WE FORM V0LTA
#312 - 2013-08-01 20:17:03 UTC
Dvla wrote:
Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.

Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.

Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.

Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.

The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.

Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least.


QFT. Get your heads out of your collective asses CCP.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#313 - 2013-08-01 20:17:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Dvla wrote:
Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.

Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.

Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.

Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.

The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.

Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least.

You might consider that since CS will be quite effective in a fight with or without links it's pretty doubtful that only your wing commanders will be in them. Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.

Also your definition of "paper thin tank" is ... interesting to say the least.

However, I will say that fleet boosts really need to affect every member of the fleet... regardless of position or whether you happen to be doing the boosting or not.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Leskit
Pure Victory
#314 - 2013-08-01 20:17:39 UTC
Dvla wrote:

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.


Because the damnation's dps sucks in relation to the others (~500). Even the sacrilege gets more dps. I don't expect to see it fielded en masse unless it's an attrition fleet. just my view.
Kenhi sama
Project Stealth Squad
The Initiative.
#315 - 2013-08-01 20:18:03 UTC
why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#316 - 2013-08-01 20:18:41 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
I have a feeling that they will be staying towards the rear of the engagement, preferably out of range of the sentries in use... and likely need to play the warp off and repair on the way back game. Which means we'll be seeing the newly buffed medium rails used a lot more commonly on these ships.

Keep in mind that even when they get forced on grid (hasn't happened just yet) they will just need to be on grid when used for fleet boosts, and a grid is a big place.


It's fair to say that 'on grid' is a large area, but if you're anywhere near your fleet you're a target. The optimal engagement range for gardes goes out to around 80km when using domi's, if you switch to any other sentry it stretches over 120km. We'll see what they ultimately choose to do with boosting on grid, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have to be close enough to be engaged to use their boosts.

Quite possible. It should be interesting.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#317 - 2013-08-01 20:20:14 UTC
Kenhi sama wrote:
why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17?

Because it's a drone boat.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Rikard Stark
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#318 - 2013-08-01 20:22:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Rikard Stark
Ranger 1 wrote:
Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.


Confirming no one in null sec has spies
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#319 - 2013-08-01 20:22:03 UTC
Dvla wrote:
Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.

Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.

Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.

Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.

The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.

Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least.


quoting for truth!
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#320 - 2013-08-01 20:23:06 UTC
Leskit wrote:
Dvla wrote:

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.


Because the damnation's dps sucks in relation to the others (~500). Even the sacrilege gets more dps. I don't expect to see it fielded en masse unless it's an attrition fleet. just my view.


The damnation is built to be a brick tanked command ship, and it's damn good at it's job. All the other command ships seem to be leaning towards the "battlecruiser sized HAC," but the damnation is the only ship I've seen FC's use to actually stay on the field of a fleet engagement. I just think it would be nice to have more than one command ship designed that way.

Kenhi sama wrote:
why does the eos only have 16 slots while all others have 17?


Because drone boat.