These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Angry Mustache
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#381 - 2013-08-01 21:28:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
While on the subject, why not give us bigger HAC's rather than shoehorning that role into the differant role of being a "fleet command ship".

The people who want proper T2 fighting battlecruisers don't want to train up a half a year of leaderships skills that they will rarely use

The people who want a durable fleet boosting ship to command from don't want to have their ship bonuses wasted on guns that they will never shoot, or even fit.

If the name of the game for T2 is specialization, then make these ships specialized. The old idea of Field/Fleet command ships is actually very workable.

"Command Ships" should be extremely difficult to remove from the field, they should have absurd tanks, bonuses to warfare links, and very good electronics - Locking range, Scan resolution, and sensor strength. Hell, perhaps even add on Probing/target painting bonuses so they truly help the fleet. A true command ship would only have guns for KM whoring, and possibly smartbombs to remove drones.

"Bigger Hacs" should be another thing altogether, and arguably every "reworked" command ship (except for damnation) we have right now is a Bigger Hac rather than a "Command Ship". Giving these ships the tank to have the stay power they need to command would make them too difficult to remove when used in a DPS role. If the damage bonuses were nerfed to accommodate Command ship tanks, nobody would use them for pewing. Most importantly, do not make us train 6 million in Leadership to have to fly these things, there should be a semi-logical progression from HACs, perhaps an AWU V requirement and/or tech 2 medium weapons of that race. And if your fleet is not big enough to justify a proper command ship, it's acceptable to slap some links on a T2 BC and leave it at that.

An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#382 - 2013-08-01 21:30:00 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Alexander the Great wrote:
Damnation is still the only CS viable on field in large battles.

What (re)balance are you talking about?


It's really just a culture clash between the people who want oversized HACs and people who want ships that don't get blapped off grid in one volley in a fleet fight. I honestly think the old fleet command ships should all be brick tanks, and the old field command ships can be the oversized HACs.

I really wouldn't have a problem with this.

You are correct, some people view CS as only being used for large fleet engagements and want the huge buffer.

Others want them to be a viable alternative for more modest engagements, or even solo work.

... and then there are others (like our friend who posted above) view a little 20vs20 engagement as a fleet battle.

There are those who only think a CS is useful if it can stand in the middle of the fleet and absorb everything that's thrown at it, while others would prefer something that stays to the rear of the fight (using it's combat ability to deal primarily with anything slipping back to take it out).

People have wildly different expectations and definitions of how the vessels will be used, and that is causing a great deal of confusion.

The thing is, we've already got oversized HAC's in Tech 3's. Commandships should excel at being on the field in a similar way to HIC's. Perhaps let the sleipnier and maybe Eos keep active tanking bonuses, otherwise, without some amazing new change to active tanking mechanics... Nope.

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

Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#383 - 2013-08-01 21:31:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Terrorfrodo
edit: My post better belongs to the link thread so I'll repost it there.

.

Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#384 - 2013-08-01 21:31:15 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
FFS active tanking bonuses? Still? Really?
I've actually given up trying to make points about why the active rep bonuses suck in comparison to resist bonuses (and to a certain extent, buffer ones).

CCP is looking at active bonuses with rose-colored glasses, envisioning some perfect world where an active repair bonus can keep parity with a resist one. Unfortunately, this simply isn't so and will never be without significant changes to how active rep bonuses/resist bonuses work with incoming reps.

Over the time I've been involved posting here on the Eve-O forums, there have been several suggestions to improve active tanking vs resists, with perhaps the best being that active rep bonuses boost incoming reps by the bonused amount and resist bonuses would "resist" some amount of incoming rep (obviously balanced so that the two perform similarly in the same situation).

This sort of approach wouldn't address that resist bonuses still have some advantage in passive, or buffer, tanking, but at least it would put the two on parity when logi is on the field. Otherwise, CCP is simply happy with saddling some ships with wasted bonuses unless you're specifically fit for local tank.

What's more, the ships saddled with an active repair/boost bonus aren't even compensated by having an addition low/mid slot, so at least the argument could be made that if you wish to forego the active bonus, you can always add another eanm/invuln to compensate for the difference. In fact, the ships with the active bonuses typically have LESS low or midslots than a comparable ship with a resist bonus, only further pushing the active ships into obscurity over their resist-bonus brethren.

I can understand the fear of not wanting to "make all ships the same" by having resist or active bonuses that essentially perform the same under similar circumstances. But I am sure that most--if not nearly all--posters on these forums would agree that saddling ships with bonuses that would intentionally have to be wasted under very common "buffer" situations is not acceptable and provides no compelling gameplay choice. Something creative should be iterated on that would provide a compelling reason to take either/or ship in a given situation, with the pilot's choice revolving around weapon selection, engagement range, ewar selection or similar. The choice should NOT be mandated by having ships--many ships--forego an option to see action if that pilot has trained, say, Gallente and blasters or Minmatar and ACs.

Consider that the Mega post-rebalance saw more use after it was "compensated" with 8 low slots (to much Amarr ruckus.) Now, it is a compelling choice (among other things, certainly) to pick Mega over an Abaddon, because although the Baddon has an innate resist bonus, the Mega can compensate its lack of a bonus by making that new low slot an additional energized adaptive nano membrane. I'm certainly not advocating that all ships saddled with an active bonus are compensated in a similar manner by the addition of low- or midslots. Simply put, something to place the two tanking styles on parity needs to be worked on. And it should be a top priority.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#385 - 2013-08-01 21:35:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Alexander the Great wrote:
Damnation is still the only CS viable on field in large battles.

What (re)balance are you talking about?


It's really just a culture clash between the people who want oversized HACs and people who want ships that don't get blapped off grid in one volley in a fleet fight. I honestly think the old fleet command ships should all be brick tanks, and the old field command ships can be the oversized HACs.

I really wouldn't have a problem with this.

You are correct, some people view CS as only being used for large fleet engagements and want the huge buffer.

Others want them to be a viable alternative for more modest engagements, or even solo work.

... and then there are others (like our friend who posted above) view a little 20vs20 engagement as a fleet battle.

There are those who only think a CS is useful if it can stand in the middle of the fleet and absorb everything that's thrown at it, while others would prefer something that stays to the rear of the fight (using it's combat ability to deal primarily with anything slipping back to take it out).

People have wildly different expectations and definitions of how the vessels will be used, and that is causing a great deal of confusion.

The thing is, we've already got oversized HAC's in Tech 3's. Commandships should excel at being on the field in a similar way to HIC's. Perhaps let the sleipnier and maybe Eos keep active tanking bonuses, otherwise, without some amazing new change to active tanking mechanics... Nope.

Yeah, I added an edit along that line just as you posted.

Quote:
Edit:

I think there might be more clarity if we could get something concrete out of Fozzie as to the proposed role of T3 cruisers when used for this purpose.

If they are being designed as the ship of choice for smaller/roaming gangs, and CS as being designed as the go to ship for large fleet engagements, I think we could have a lot more focus to these discussions.

By the way, if the above is true, then those wishing bonuses more along the lines of resistance buffs or raw HP buffs instead of active tank buffs have a much more compelling case.

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

Moridunum Kanjus
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#386 - 2013-08-01 21:38:25 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 needs to be sorted before anything else +1.

Slightly off-topic but for the love of god don't change the Nighthawk to a Drake hull. It's one of the best looking ships as it is.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#387 - 2013-08-01 21:39:13 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all.


Your post
I'm Down wrote:
A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.


Please share more of your mathematics.



That line literally only exist because I had to use a saved draft rather than an edited draft when the post failed to post first time.

I'll be the first to tell you it was a mistake and has absolutely no weight on the entire rest of a very long post. The whole point of the post was about the relationship of 2 ships in balance. The re-edited version points this out.
Sigras
Conglomo
#388 - 2013-08-01 21:42:37 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.

The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense
Let me explain this clearly before people chime in:

A ship with a 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage will receive 50 damage

A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.

That means you really only take a 10% reduction in damage. This goes back to bad development where devs think % resistance works in some magical fashion rather than realistically. Hence the nerf to 4% per level recently as a compromise to active boosters. Proof the Devs don't know **** about mechanics

please do me a favor and go buy a drake or nighthawk and and just sit down in it with BC 5 . . . ill wait . . . now look at your shield explosive resists . . . now tell me, whose a good girl who needs to learn how to math . . . (hint you end up with 60% resists not 55%)

seriously, though, the bonus works exactly the same way that you would expect, if you would take 100 explosive damage with a 50% base resistance, you end up taking 50 damage, increase that resistance to 60% and you end up taking 40 damage 40/50 = .8 or 80% which means you're taking 20% less damage; just like you would expect from a 20% bonus.

Same thing with a base resist of 0% 100 damage with 0% resist = 100 damage; 100 damage with a 20% resist bonus = 80 damage so 20% less.

I'm Down wrote:
The only time a resist bonus actually matters the way the Devs run numbers is when you start at 0% resist across the board. This hardly ever happens as a matter of base statistics on all ships.

Furthering the problem is Tech 2 resistances. A Tech 2 ship with a 20% resist bonus does not actually receive 20% less damage than a comparable tech 1 ship. Instead, it receives 20% less damage than a comparable ship with the same base resistances. 2 totally different mechanics at play.

How is this bad for Tech 2 balance. Well lets further examine the claymore / nighthawk conundrum I posted about earlier.

Claymore without any bonuses has 220 total resist for an average of 55
Nighthawk with bonuses has a 240 total resist for an average of 60% damage reduction

Lets use really lazy math since it provides easy to work with numbers

100 damage applied on the claymore nets 45 damage
100 damage applied on the nighthawk nets 40 damage.

2 ways of looking at this:

Offensively, I have 12.5% more projected damage versus the claymore.*

Defensively, the nighthawk is receiving 8.9% less damage than the claymore.*

*this is a ratio mechanic that causes 2 different values. It seems weird at first until you realize how the wording plays.
One is how much more damage is the claymore taking compared to the NH (ratio of C:NH). The other is how much less damage is the Nighthawk taking compared to the Claymore (ratio of NH:C)


Both ways show that in no way do you approach 20% reduced damage, and certainly not higher than 20% reduced damage. However the Developers will try to convince you that this is not true because in Imagination land, they are allowed to assume all resistances are 0 to start with and there's no such thing as diminished returns in EVE.

Fact is, the gaps that Caldari and Gallente have are far inferior to the more spread, resist gap fills of the Amarr and Matar. When you make 2 similar ships with other drastically severe balance problems like the NH and Claymore, this resist gap really shows how bad the balance is.

So glad our developers can post on here how smart they are about their mechanics and how closely they sit to each other in the office to assure us they know what they're doing. Maybe you should learn core mechanics and fundamentals of the game first.

This is just another in a long line of failures.

the above is only true if you continue along the idiotic line of thinking that you fit both ships the same way. All you did was point out that there is an EM hole that needs to be plugged by a hardener in the NH. I was also going to point out that a single EM hardener on the NH has a much better effect at raising the "average resists" than does a kinetic hardener on the claymore, but it doesnt matter because this argument is moot.

Not to mention that the NH has 17% more shields than the claymore but you know, that fact doesnt fit your pre conceived idea, so i guess you chose to exclude it

TL;DR
there is more to a ship than its bonuses, perhaps you should check out the other stats.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#389 - 2013-08-01 21:47:25 UTC
Lugia3
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#390 - 2013-08-01 21:47:44 UTC
Claymore will be blatently better than the Sleipnir now.

I approve of buffing the dual-XL ASB Claymore.

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#391 - 2013-08-01 21:47:45 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all.


Your post
I'm Down wrote:
A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.


Please share more of your mathematics.



That line literally only exist because I had to use a saved draft rather than an edited draft when the post failed to post first time.

I'll be the first to tell you it was a mistake and has absolutely no weight on the entire rest of a very long post.

Consider this:

If I had hypothetically 90% base resists, and a 20% bonus to those resists, I would have 92% resists.

True, this is only a 2% increase at that level.

However, if I were taking 1000dps with 90% resists I'd be taking 100dps... with 92% resists I'd be taking 80dsp... a difference of 20% less damage relative to the damage that would actually be getting thorough. Smile

Those bonuses do matter to the end damage that you actually receive, no matter how you slice it.

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

I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#392 - 2013-08-01 21:48:05 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.

The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense
Let me explain this clearly before people chime in:

A ship with a 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage will receive 50 damage

A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.

That means you really only take a 10% reduction in damage. This goes back to bad development where devs think % resistance works in some magical fashion rather than realistically. Hence the nerf to 4% per level recently as a compromise to active boosters. Proof the Devs don't know **** about mechanics

please do me a favor and go buy a drake or nighthawk and and just sit down in it with BC 5 . . . ill wait . . . now look at your shield explosive resists . . . now tell me, whose a good girl who needs to learn how to math . . . (hint you end up with 60% resists not 55%)

seriously, though, the bonus works exactly the same way that you would expect, if you would take 100 explosive damage with a 50% base resistance, you end up taking 50 damage, increase that resistance to 60% and you end up taking 40 damage 40/50 = .8 or 80% which means you're taking 20% less damage; just like you would expect from a 20% bonus.

Same thing with a base resist of 0% 100 damage with 0% resist = 100 damage; 100 damage with a 20% resist bonus = 80 damage so 20% less.

I'm Down wrote:
The only time a resist bonus actually matters the way the Devs run numbers is when you start at 0% resist across the board. This hardly ever happens as a matter of base statistics on all ships.

Furthering the problem is Tech 2 resistances. A Tech 2 ship with a 20% resist bonus does not actually receive 20% less damage than a comparable tech 1 ship. Instead, it receives 20% less damage than a comparable ship with the same base resistances. 2 totally different mechanics at play.

How is this bad for Tech 2 balance. Well lets further examine the claymore / nighthawk conundrum I posted about earlier.

Claymore without any bonuses has 220 total resist for an average of 55
Nighthawk with bonuses has a 240 total resist for an average of 60% damage reduction

Lets use really lazy math since it provides easy to work with numbers

100 damage applied on the claymore nets 45 damage
100 damage applied on the nighthawk nets 40 damage.

2 ways of looking at this:

Offensively, I have 12.5% more projected damage versus the claymore.*

Defensively, the nighthawk is receiving 8.9% less damage than the claymore.*

*this is a ratio mechanic that causes 2 different values. It seems weird at first until you realize how the wording plays.
One is how much more damage is the claymore taking compared to the NH (ratio of C:NH). The other is how much less damage is the Nighthawk taking compared to the Claymore (ratio of NH:C)


Both ways show that in no way do you approach 20% reduced damage, and certainly not higher than 20% reduced damage. However the Developers will try to convince you that this is not true because in Imagination land, they are allowed to assume all resistances are 0 to start with and there's no such thing as diminished returns in EVE.

Fact is, the gaps that Caldari and Gallente have are far inferior to the more spread, resist gap fills of the Amarr and Matar. When you make 2 similar ships with other drastically severe balance problems like the NH and Claymore, this resist gap really shows how bad the balance is.

So glad our developers can post on here how smart they are about their mechanics and how closely they sit to each other in the office to assure us they know what they're doing. Maybe you should learn core mechanics and fundamentals of the game first.

This is just another in a long line of failures.

the above is only true if you continue along the idiotic line of thinking that you fit both ships the same way. All you did was point out that there is an EM hole that needs to be plugged by a hardener in the NH. I was also going to point out that a single EM hardener on the NH has a much better effect at raising the "average resists" than does a kinetic hardener on the claymore, but it doesnt matter because this argument is moot.

Not to mention that the NH has 17% more shields than the claymore but you know, that fact doesnt fit your pre conceived idea, so i guess you chose to exclude it.

TL;DR
there is more to a ship than its bonuses, perhaps you should check out the other stats.


And the claymore doesn't have an extra mid for a shield extender or hardener? Guess that 6% from a PDS in the NH low will account for that huh?.... lets see 2100 * 1.25 * 1.20 *1.20 = 3750 bonus shield for the claymore without even adding in gang bonuses....

Lets also not consider the fact that the NH has to actually burn a mid slot for a dedicated EM hardener that has no benefits other than to EM... Where as a Claymore can use that same slot for an Invul if it so desires because it doesn't have that hole. Lets see, gaining 30% across the board for a slot or 55% for one...
Suliux
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#393 - 2013-08-01 21:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Suliux
CCP Fozzie,

Great work, this looks like fun stuff.

Forgive me if this was already mentioned, I have a question concerning the Claymore and Sleipnir stats.

Looking over the stats the Claymore is more agile, faster, more base EHP, and extra mid slot to support the active shield tanking design.

While I can see the sweet new niche for the Sleipnir as an alpha beast, it's main offensive strength has always been it's vaga like high AC DPS w/ awesome falloff and ability to GTFO if needed. Keep in mind AC falloff range is still hovering around long point range, which is also HAM range; HAMs are applying more or all of their DPS (usually) that far, while AC's are what, ~50%?

Why is a ship specifically designed to fight closer than it's brother, given less agility, speed, AND base tank? I'm not sure exactly how much more EHP the extra 100 hull HP add when you throw on a DCII, but it isn't going to overshadow an invul is it? Seems a little backwards to me: Sleipnir has less tank (due to less mid slots ~mostly~), so it should be faster and more agile. I would love to hear an explanation for this.

Thanks,
- Suli


edit: spelling correction
Kirtar Makanen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#394 - 2013-08-01 21:50:48 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all.


Your post
I'm Down wrote:
A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.


Please share more of your mathematics.



That line literally only exist because I had to use a saved draft rather than an edited draft when the post failed to post first time.

I'll be the first to tell you it was a mistake and has absolutely no weight on the entire rest of a very long post.

Actually it does have weight on the most of the post since the post assumes that the mistake is actually true.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#395 - 2013-08-01 21:51:18 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:

Consider that the Mega post-rebalance saw more use after it was "compensated" with 8 low slots (to much Amarr ruckus.) Now, it is a compelling choice (among other things, certainly) to pick Mega over an Abaddon, because although the Baddon has an innate resist bonus, the Mega can compensate its lack of a bonus by making that new low slot an additional energized adaptive nano membrane. I'm certainly not advocating that all ships saddled with an active bonus are compensated in a similar manner by the addition of low- or midslots. Simply put, something to place the two tanking styles on parity needs to be worked on. And it should be a top priority.

A 7 mid Maelstrom? Where do I sign up? Cool

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

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
Goonswarm Federation
#396 - 2013-08-01 21:51:26 UTC
its very simple.

pick one from each race and add res and hp amount bonus's

pick one from each race and active tank dps bonus it.

balance accordingly


OMG when can i get a pic here

Guru Gaspar
The Patriots
#397 - 2013-08-01 21:51:38 UTC
I like the look of these on first glance.

2 questions:

Any chance the damnation could get something besides missile velocity? Its not bad, but its also not like this ship is going to be a skirmisher.

Any chance the nighthawk could move a low to a mid to make it more viable in smaller gangs where it needs a point and web?
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#398 - 2013-08-01 21:56:00 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Ranger 1 wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all.


Your post
I'm Down wrote:
A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.


Please share more of your mathematics.



That line literally only exist because I had to use a saved draft rather than an edited draft when the post failed to post first time.

I'll be the first to tell you it was a mistake and has absolutely no weight on the entire rest of a very long post.

Consider this:

If I had hypothetically 90% base resists, and a 20% bonus to those resists, I would have 92% resists.

True, this is only a 2% increase at that level.

However, if I were taking 1000dps with 90% resists I'd be taking 100dps... with 92% resists I'd be taking 80dsp... a difference of 20% less damage relative to the damage that would actually be getting thorough. Smile

Those bonuses do matter to the end damage that you actually receive, no matter how you slice it.



and yet you're still not comparing 2 ships resistances while quoting a dated post that has already been fixed for the 1 error that has no weight on the point.
Solai
Doughfleet
Triglavian Outlaws and Sobornost Troika
#399 - 2013-08-01 21:56:49 UTC
Angry Mustache wrote:
While on the subject, why not give us bigger HAC's rather than shoehorning that role into the differant role of being a "fleet command ship".

The people who want proper T2 fighting battlecruisers don't want to train up a half a year of leaderships skills that they will rarely use

The people who want a durable fleet boosting ship to command from don't want to have their ship bonuses wasted on guns that they will never shoot, or even fit.

If the name of the game for T2 is specialization, then make these ships specialized. The old idea of Field/Fleet command ships is actually very workable.

"Command Ships" should be extremely difficult to remove from the field, they should have absurd tanks, bonuses to warfare links, and very good electronics - Locking range, Scan resolution, and sensor strength. Hell, perhaps even add on Probing/target painting bonuses so they truly help the fleet. A true command ship would only have guns for KM whoring, and possibly smartbombs to remove drones.

"Bigger Hacs" should be another thing altogether, and arguably every "reworked" command ship (except for damnation) we have right now is a Bigger Hac rather than a "Command Ship". Giving these ships the tank to have the stay power they need to command would make them too difficult to remove when used in a DPS role. If the damage bonuses were nerfed to accommodate Command ship tanks, nobody would use them for pewing. Most importantly, do not make us train 6 million in Leadership to have to fly these things, there should be a semi-logical progression from HACs, perhaps an AWU V requirement and/or tech 2 medium weapons of that race. And if your fleet is not big enough to justify a proper command ship, it's acceptable to slap some links on a T2 BC and leave it at that.


This is excellent stuff. Command/boosting needs durability, or its no good. But the flipside is that a ship with that kind of durability shouldn't be able to throw out lots of damage, or else it's just *better,* which we know is bad. Maybe the answer is differentiating T2 fighty BC's away from command BCs.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#400 - 2013-08-01 21:57:59 UTC
Solai wrote:
Angry Mustache wrote:
While on the subject, why not give us bigger HAC's rather than shoehorning that role into the differant role of being a "fleet command ship".

The people who want proper T2 fighting battlecruisers don't want to train up a half a year of leaderships skills that they will rarely use

The people who want a durable fleet boosting ship to command from don't want to have their ship bonuses wasted on guns that they will never shoot, or even fit.

If the name of the game for T2 is specialization, then make these ships specialized. The old idea of Field/Fleet command ships is actually very workable.

"Command Ships" should be extremely difficult to remove from the field, they should have absurd tanks, bonuses to warfare links, and very good electronics - Locking range, Scan resolution, and sensor strength. Hell, perhaps even add on Probing/target painting bonuses so they truly help the fleet. A true command ship would only have guns for KM whoring, and possibly smartbombs to remove drones.

"Bigger Hacs" should be another thing altogether, and arguably every "reworked" command ship (except for damnation) we have right now is a Bigger Hac rather than a "Command Ship". Giving these ships the tank to have the stay power they need to command would make them too difficult to remove when used in a DPS role. If the damage bonuses were nerfed to accommodate Command ship tanks, nobody would use them for pewing. Most importantly, do not make us train 6 million in Leadership to have to fly these things, there should be a semi-logical progression from HACs, perhaps an AWU V requirement and/or tech 2 medium weapons of that race. And if your fleet is not big enough to justify a proper command ship, it's acceptable to slap some links on a T2 BC and leave it at that.


This is excellent stuff. Command/boosting needs durability, or its no good. But the flipside is that a ship with that kind of durability shouldn't be able to throw out lots of damage, or else it's just *better,* which we know is bad. Maybe the answer is differentiating T2 fighty BC's away from command BCs.


basically what he's saying, bar few, it's another ship without any role.