These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#321 - 2013-08-01 20:25:47 UTC
Rikard Stark wrote:
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

Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. Blink

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

Mark Artreides
I'm Sorry Shoot What?
WE FORM V0LTA
#322 - 2013-08-01 20:29:12 UTC
Rikard Stark wrote:
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


Also super capitals are a fairy tale.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#323 - 2013-08-01 20:29:29 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
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.

While I don't view the other CS as unworkable (just workable in different ways than currently), I really can't disagree with this sentiment.
Especially since I've long been a fan of the armor bonus the Damnation currently has. Smile

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
#324 - 2013-08-01 20:29:47 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Rikard Stark wrote:
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

Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. Blink

CCP clearly want to (eventually) move boosts on grid though. I really can't understand why you would oppose giving them at least a chance to survive being primaried. And as for you comment on everyone flying them in a fleet that's just dumb and you're clearly responding from a position of ignorance concerning null sec warfare and fleet comps.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#325 - 2013-08-01 20:30:25 UTC
Mark Artreides wrote:
Rikard Stark wrote:
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


Also super capitals are a fairy tale.

Close. Super caps are for fairies. Big smile

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

Daktar Jaxs
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#326 - 2013-08-01 20:30:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Daktar Jaxs
why on earth would you choose to make the game experience of the one of the groups of people who play your game most worse?

generally I feel that the changes made over the last year have been about changing the nature of eve's game play: making it easier. even though that hasn't always been the end product (lololol these boosting changes) I cannot imagine why the **** you would want to do that.
Mark Artreides
I'm Sorry Shoot What?
WE FORM V0LTA
#327 - 2013-08-01 20:31:36 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Rikard Stark wrote:
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

Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. Blink


Ranger 1 wrote:
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.


Are you even the same dude posting? Or are you just posting random answers? At one post you say they will just get popped and in the other you are arguing the paper thin tank on the other fleet command ships.

You sir, have no clue what you are talking about.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#328 - 2013-08-01 20:31:52 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. Blink


Being a logi pilot I've held a FC against obnoxious incoming DPS (q9pp, 3we, 9-v etc) which is why I'm pushing for more command ships other than the legion to be able to survive against a headshot...assuming the logi's are on the ball.
Drunken Bum
#329 - 2013-08-01 20:32:50 UTC
These ships are gonna **** all over everyone and every thing. I cant wait. This is the first balance pass where ive liked the look of every ship.

After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary.  -Fozzie

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#330 - 2013-08-01 20:33:49 UTC
FFS active tanking bonuses? Still? Really?

Get a grip guys,

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#331 - 2013-08-01 20:35:42 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Is there a link for the command ship model changes, or has that not been announced yet?


Here you all go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8bZ7ThlRY
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#332 - 2013-08-01 20:36:13 UTC
Rikard Stark wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Rikard Stark wrote:
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

Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. Blink

CCP clearly want to (eventually) move boosts on grid though. I really can't understand why you would oppose giving them at least a chance to survive being primaried. And as for you comment on everyone flying them in a fleet that's just dumb and you're clearly responding from a position of ignorance concerning null sec warfare and fleet comps.

LOL hardly.

What I actually said is that they will be much more common, we'll very likely see fleet doctrines shifting a fair amount in the near future.

Also, I don't oppose bonuses to resistance or buffer amount. However I can also see way to make repair bonuses work within the current meta. I try not to always compare things from the point of view of "but if we do things exactly as we are now, this won't work"... because that is a losing point of view.

Most of your better fleet (and gang composition) doctrines got their start from someone looking at a set of abilities that everyone else thought was "meh" and realized it could be made to work very well indeed.

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

Domiblob
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#333 - 2013-08-01 20:36:37 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.



This.
Tirion Stargazer
Celestial Signature Security Crew
#334 - 2013-08-01 20:37:16 UTC
I dislike the mixup of field and fleetcom roles,

the fleetcoms could use a little seasoning, but the fleetcoms are getting into an odd direction
El Scotch
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#335 - 2013-08-01 20:39:26 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.


This seems rather relevant, CCP. Would you please comment further?
Dominionix
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#336 - 2013-08-01 20:39:31 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.


Not empty quoting. CCP you really need to take this in to account, these ships are designed for FLEET combat, and they are so vulnerable to hostile fleets they will be an absolutely horrible, miserable experience for whoever has to fly them. Whilst I don't like the AFK in a POS boosters, at least that means they can be done with alts rather than ruining the game for 5 people in every fleet.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#337 - 2013-08-01 20:40:36 UTC
Mark Artreides wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Rikard Stark wrote:
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

Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. Blink


Ranger 1 wrote:
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.


Are you even the same dude posting? Or are you just posting random answers? At one post you say they will just get popped and in the other you are arguing the paper thin tank on the other fleet command ships.

You sir, have no clue what you are talking about.

No, YOU have no clue what I'm talking about. Big difference.

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

Scooter McCabe
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#338 - 2013-08-01 20:41:35 UTC
El Scotch wrote:
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.


This seems rather relevant, CCP. Would you please comment further?


There might be something to this CCP.
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#339 - 2013-08-01 20:45:07 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Is there a link for the command ship model changes, or has that not been announced yet?


Here you all go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8bZ7ThlRY


Dat Myrmidon.
Craystorm
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#340 - 2013-08-01 20:45:26 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.


This is a good post.

As a Pilot who flys a Wing/Fleet Booster Alt regularly: Let us field them with the fleet on grid (fix wing recieving fleet boosts + unfuck the shield tank problems this dude is talking about) or let them boost in peace without constantly alt+tabbing to check for probes.

Tank you :>