Player Features and Ideas Discussion

i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do

Command ships just doubled in price.

since the upcomming patch where all of this changes

The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links:
Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish
Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information
Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information
Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426016


and I disagree that the Cs should get 3 bonuses. T3s are meant to be general use and t2 specialized. so it makes sence t3 gets a wider but lesser bonus.

Nice changes. But imo the nighthawk could use a buff in DPS. A tiny buff from the hull, and a rebalance of heavy missiles now that medium turrets are rebalanced too, damit !

I also note the increase in shield resistances, of a fair amount, but leaving the EM hole. That's interesting :)

Feedback: (I'm focussing more Gallente stuff because thats what I normally prefer to fly)

i) Not sure I agree with the fundamental change by moving Gallente away from Information etc. People have done a lot of training for maxing a ship like the Eos out only now to be told all their Information warfare spec training is useless for that ship and they now need to train 2 other spec skills. In principle this is wrong without offering people refunded skillpoints to re-spend.

ii) While I love the Eos getting its 125 bandwidth of drones back, I don't like the fact you've taken a slot from the ship for this making the Eos 6-4-6, while the Astarte remains 7-4-6.

The Eos should retain 7 highs (albeit yes with more utility highs than turrets to compensate for potentially more overall DPS) because 125 of drones are great but not worth a whole slot. I realise you're trying to stop it becoming a 'WTFsolopwnmobile' again, but being honest and realistic, I doubt many people would complain about a few odd people going out to solo in a 250m+ command ships. More likely they'd be rubbing their hands.

iii) Have you considered splitting the bonuses within races to be more true to their original design? For Example:

Eos - Infomation and Armour
Astarte - Armour and Skirmish

Each race would then have more of a mix of boosting possibilities within the Field and Fleet command ships rather than duplicating the boosting roles within each race

iv) Can you confirm the new Faction Mindlinks will be 25% for 2 boosting types, and the T2 will become 25% for just one?
- If so, this seems completely unintuitive and you're making T2 worse than faction. T2 should remain boosting one, but with a higher bonus than the dual boosting faction mindlinks IMHO. Say 50% for one boost still for T2 mindlinks and 25% each for 2 boosts for faction.
Or alternatively convert the current existing mindlinks all to T1, and leave room for adding a superior/more focussed (than faction - which will become the new baseline) set of T2 mindlinks in the future.

General feedback:

Just to add, I've been playing 8 years now and command ships (the Eos and Astarte) were the first specialised role of ships I trained up for way back then. I really used to enjoy playing the on-grid command ship boosting role before the T3 off grid made that job redundant, so I am absolutely delighted to see the on-grid balls deep form of command put back on top of the boosting pyramid.

Typically in Eve, more risk garners higher rewards, and an on-grid boosting ship is certainly in more risk, so I'm happy the off-grid T3 sillyness has finally had its day at the peak without being made completely redundant.

Perhaps the next thing you CCP folks will consider is introducing some sort of separate boosting 'pyramid' rather than using the FC / Wing / Squad command positions for the massive scale fights.

It is a bit too easy right now to focus the 'boosting ship' and alpha any on-grid boosts off the field in a big fight. Having some contingency within a boosting pyramid structure taking into account for example in a 250 man fleet the fact you brought 5 Damnations, 3 Eos and 3 Claymores and 2 Vultures to maintain boosts in some pre-ordained command / boosting setup rather than the current mechanics which would require mid-fight those ships would manually need to be shifted within fleet positions as each one dies in order to keep the whole fleets boosts active.

The command structure works great in smaller fleets, but a solution (like the above) for larger fights with a bit more loss mitigation built in would be nice - A working "fleet booster role" that can be dished out multiple times to all those running links would be a start.

Cheers.

I usually like to sit back and wait and see how the changes play out. I don't mind some shuffling around of roles and ship purposes, so long as the common goal is to INCREASE the diversity of the game, and the ships within it.

However,

Much like your original proposed changes for haulers, I feel like you've reduced the diversity of the game here. You finally recognized that you were dumbing down your game in the case of the industrials. I hope you can recognize the same quality in this change.

I'm sure that Field command ships will be more capable in some senses, but the bottom line is that DPS is dropping across the board. I feel like you're really only doing it to attack the prevalence of Sleipner's in the tournament. This isn't about boosts, since field command ships were rarely used for boosting.

Anyway, I have two problems with your changes.


1: There's really no such thing as a field command ship anymore. You have taken it right out of the game. The two ships are now virtually identical in role - with the only real difference being the weapon type. They are both fleet command ships now, aren't they? And if they are, how can you not recognize that you have reduced the diversity of your game?

2: People who originally trained for field command ships did so through the Heavy Assault Cruiser line. You may have taken that requirement out a few months ago, but it doesn't suddenly change the fact that people originally were training for a: DPS Attack ship. Changing the skill requirement and then completely changing the ship is pretty poor form.

Recognizing that your changes were unjust, I think you tried to obfuscate. Instead of just taking the pinnacle of the Assault ship line and wiping it out, INSTEAD you removed the assault skill first, waited a few months, and then turned them all into boosting ships.

Not cool, and very disingenuous.

Stage 1: Promise that if you could fly the ship before, you can fly it afterwards.
Stage 2: Change the skill requirements of the ship to be for a different ship. Claim it's won't hurt anyone because of stage 1.
Stage 3: Change the ship itself to be a different ship. Point to stage 2 for justification. Ignore the promises made in stage 1.

This is hardly fair.

For a more extreme example, should you have the right to:
Change the skill requirement on Archon to be Mining Foreman 5, and 2 months later change the Archon into a fleet mining ship?

Not empty quoting.

I agree with this.... But CCP will not remove a ship. It would hav been great to roll the field command ships into the hac's "disassemble the ships, rebonus to hac's a little for the ship loss.

It won't happen but its a good thought.

can you please do us a favour?

make the 7.5% armor bonus also include a cap activation reduction too! that would make the bonus actually usefull

thanks

Some great changes.

Like a few others I think the 7.5% per level active armor rep bonus seems odd and after the mostly very good changes it sticks out even more as being out of place.

Something like a 7.5% per level sig reduction bonus or something of that nature would be more useful IMO.

The Eos I'd rather see dropping back to 3 turrets and getting an extra 25-50m3 drone bay as compensation or staying with 5 turrets and keeping the extra utility high - the current layout seems so much of a compromise and likely to end up being one of those things thats too much of a halfway house to do anything other than under-perform in either intended configurations.