These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tampopo Field
Deep Stellar Coalition Enterprises
Silent Company
#401 - 2013-08-01 22:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tampopo Field
The proposed changes for CS seem to force a choise between ship survivability in larger fleets, in the form of resistance bonus, and the more useful skirmish link bonuses. While this seems to create a balance between different CS as link ships, I'm somewhat concerned about the potential role of link fit strategic cruisers.

They could be given the role of less effective universal booster, by giving them a smaller bonus (10% perhaps) to tank, information and skirmish links. Or they could be given a more powerful bonus (20% maybe) to information and skirmish links. Or equally more powerful bonus to tank links only. However, all these options would either make them OP, useless or very marginalized when comapred to the CS.

I'd recommend changing the link bonuses into one CS from each rage having a link bonus to tanking while the others would have a link bonus to both information and skirmish links. This would free up the niche of a less powerful but more generalized link ship for strateginc cruisers that would have a smaller link bonus to tank, information and skirmish links. It would also allow a choise between active and passive tank to be separate from the choise between which links to use. Or use with bonus.

Notification: Because I'm lazy, I have a tendency to post without proof reading. This may result in various errors including but not limited to typos, weird typos, grammatical errors, bizarre sentence structure, words written repeatedly, mislocated paragraphs, pointlessly complicated explanations, general incoherency, and abrupt endings.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#402 - 2013-08-01 22:04:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Quote:
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.

I wasn't commenting on your debate between the two ships. I was commenting on your assertion that resistance bonuses didn't truly offer the advantage you would think (and that somehow this has been misrepresented by CCP), when in fact they do reduce incoming damage in a logical manner.

I do recognize you made an error and admit to not correcting it before the post went out (+1 on that), but it did also affect some of your assertions throughout your post.

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

Corporal Cina
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#403 - 2013-08-01 22:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Corporal Cina
Command Ships should be like HICs.

Huge tank.
1 main purpose

I completely agree with whomever above said that these are just bigger HACs.

Give us a T2 BC and one Command Ship for each race?

edit: I know this is not the exact solution, but at least we can recognize the problem? It seems there are a lot of level heads here who see that there is no way you can force command ships on the grid without giving them Damnation like tanks.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#404 - 2013-08-01 22:07:39 UTC
Hate links love the changes the only major concern i have is that the Nighthawk still seems like its going to be a complete pain in the ass to fit and its fitting is considerably more gimped than any other command ship.


Also lol people in this thread meeting Yaay for the first time and realizing what kind of garbage he is.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Zagdul
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#405 - 2013-08-01 22:10:29 UTC
Edward Pierce wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Calmoto wrote:
resist + armour hp bonus on a damnation
where is the vultures shield hp bonus?
active boosting on a claymore?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

wtf is going on


Claymore is now a ship designed to take functional advantage of a ASB. Considering it's the 'skirmish' command ship, it makes sense.


Yeah, it will be great for all those active repper fleets going around these days.

Get out.


Sorry this change doesn't effect your playstyle friend.

:iiam:

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#406 - 2013-08-01 22:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
CS skill level 1 is sufficient for using as a command ship and as it stands i need more incentive to dump 40 d into taking that skill to level V.

maybe take a look at that metric in a year and decide to give the CS a tank bonus per skill level. though i'm scared to ask for that, due to the chances of returning to a per level link effectiveness bonus to spite the griping.

i'm happier for the positives than i am jealous of the damnation, but an on grid nighthawk with 6 links and command processors is going to suuuuuck.

correct me if i'm wrong but mandatory 6 link nighthawk fitting looks like:

link
link
link
link
link
link
empty due to fitting

core defense field extender
core defense field extender

prop
ASB
command proc
command proc
command proc

damage control II
coproc
coproc
reactor control
reactor control

i need... either PG, a mid, or a HP bonus.

I'm only flying it because it's going to be pretty. and willing to lose it for the same reason. but i'm probably in the minority on that one.

and let's be real here. before saying "just fit 3 links" using it as a link boat at all precludes any need for the combat bonuses.

excellent level 4 missioning boat, though. for drake lovers it's a pure dream
Rek Seven
Galactic Deep Space Industries
Warped Intentions
#407 - 2013-08-01 22:12:12 UTC
Jason Dunham wrote:

So for example, some of these command ships have local rep bonuses instead of ehp bonuses. But since they are also buffing local reps, this would make the command ship more independent, and free up a pilot since logistics may not be necessary in all fleet setups now.


Yeah but we have two command ships so why can't we have one buffer tanked and one active tank?
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2013-08-01 22:14:02 UTC
What the hell is with the Rep bonuses?!?!

So a few things that CCP does consistantly that make certain implications.

Rep bonuses are gallente and minmatar racial specific bonuses.
Resist bonuses are amarr and caldari racial specific bonuses.

And by having knowledge of the dispairities of rep bonuses vs resist bonuses in large fleet combat CCP has implied that Amarr and caldari are intended for Large fleet battles whereas minmatar and gallente are for small gang/solo only.

We all know that rep bonuses will always be less effective than resist bonuses for large fleet warfare. There's nothing you can do to change this short of limiting the number of ships that can simultaneously target a single ship. Its time to get past the philosophy of rep/resist being racially specific.

Each race has 2 variations of basically the same ship fitting the same role. Why don't we split these into slightly separate roles?
Why don't we have one ship be more geared towards fleet command with resist bonuses. We can call them a "Fleet" Command Ship. And another ship with rep bonuses that is more geared towards solo or small gang roams that you can field in all directions. We could call these "Field" command ships.

All sarcasm aside, the resist vs rep problem will always exist in its same form. Why don't we stop beating our heads agaisnt a brick wall and stop using them???????????

What you could do is just change the Resist and Rep bonus to Shield and Armor Rig bonuses. This way people could choose between resist bonuses or rep bonuses or a multitude of other bonuses that don't really change how the ships function. Except of course there isn't a blanket resist rig however good or bad that may be. And there isn't a shield rep amount rig which is easily remedied.
PipeViper
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#409 - 2013-08-01 22:14:53 UTC
The Broadsword gets a resistance increase stat for durablitly, so its not like a command ship cannot have the same thing, especially if it fulfills a role, and this even goes for the "fast race". The active tanking bonus is just pretty dumb IMO for the Fleet command when its meant to hand out bonuses in large fleets where it's in extreme danger.
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#410 - 2013-08-01 22:15:07 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Jason Dunham wrote:

So for example, some of these command ships have local rep bonuses instead of ehp bonuses. But since they are also buffing local reps, this would make the command ship more independent, and free up a pilot since logistics may not be necessary in all fleet setups now.


Yeah but we have two command ships so why can't we have one buffer tanked and one active tank?


which would make everyone much happier and i cant see all that many people being mad about it.

but.. :ccp:

I normally love fozzies work.. and not just because he is cute.. but this is.. I am disappointed. and i got max LD (yes even mining director and fleet command to 5) and command ship to 5.. so.. it isnt like i just now and then hop into a command ship
Unforgiven Storm
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#411 - 2013-08-01 22:18:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Unforgiven Storm
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.


well said sir, well said. Like I said in a previous post: Get your priorities strait, these are COMMAND SHIPS or COMBAT SHIPS?

Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-)

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#412 - 2013-08-01 22:18:29 UTC
Does anyone else believe a 50 CPU loss on the Sleipnir to be too much? Especially in light that it's going to want to be fitting more gang links? It's already CPU-strict, and a loss of 50 CPU on a ship that only had 475 to begin with is a tremendous blow to its capabilities.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#413 - 2013-08-01 22:21:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
there's gotta be a reason for these changes beyond the gameplay. like getting people train the CS skill for months of subs (or something). too much doesn't make sense.

wait, am i supposed to fit a medium ASB to the nighthawk (is that what the rep bonus is for?) oh wait, nevermind. just resists. sorry

just so you know, i'll probably go with claymore/nighthawk, again because pretty, splitting the links 4 and 5, so they can have equal number of mids open for tank after command processors.

and yes to the more experienced players i am aware of my lack of experience, just perhaps not exactly how much. (someone's gotta be the yayhoo willing to welp command ships for their gang who is not as good as yours)

thank you
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#414 - 2013-08-01 22:27:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Fredric Wolf
It is accurate that the Asterte is getting a lower recharge rate +15.18 with the stats posting in this thread with the old recharge of +18.75? If this is the case what is your thoughts behind this as it will make running guns, MWD, and links all at the same time -26 GJs?

Please disregard as I had the numbers wrong they recharge is the same.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#415 - 2013-08-01 22:28:11 UTC
Mithrawndo 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.


QFT

While you're at it, can we throw out damage bonuses on blockade runners, freighters, orcas, rorquals, and any other non-dps ship just for the sake of having the option of stepping outside of their intended roles? Buff the battle badger with 5% damage to light missile per level and explosion radius.



and for god sake we need more drones on everything! we just got far too few! almost no ship with utility!

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.

Sir Ladle
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#416 - 2013-08-01 22:28:45 UTC
So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining?
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#417 - 2013-08-01 22:32:35 UTC
Awesome!

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Command Ship model changes


Wait, what ?! What?
Lady Naween
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#418 - 2013-08-01 22:35:25 UTC
Sir Ladle wrote:
So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining?


read more clearly they said that mining links work fine in pos shields for now until they can fix the orca and rorqual
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#419 - 2013-08-01 22:36:13 UTC
Sir Ladle wrote:
So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining?


Well, to be fair, now that more of the bonuses are wrapped up into the links themselves you can fly a boosting alpha cane to protect you from those evil gankers.
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#420 - 2013-08-01 22:36:23 UTC
I don't fly in large fleets, but I do keep reading about them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend I see is that as fleet fights get larger, and alpha becomes more impossible to tank, the tactic of blapping FCs off the field at the outset of any battle gets more popular.

Its easy to understand WHY its being done, but is it good for the game? Seems to me FCs have enough on thier plates just herding the sheep that there should be some kind of dedicated C&C ship for them to fly. One that has insane HPs, excellent EWAR resistance or immunity and long lock range. They also need to be mobile/agil enough to stick with the fleet its flying in, so perhaps multiple flavours of such a ship is required (frig/cruiser/BC/BS/Cap?).

For obvious reasons they'd have to be pretty annemic at anything except FCing (no highs maybe? or one to get on KMs).

While these changes look pretty nice from a small gang/fleet perspective, Its going to be pretty hard to command from a pod if the trend continues as EVE grows.