These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1501 - 2013-08-16 18:33:56 UTC
Cyaron wars wrote:
I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships.
If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board.
Don't forget that for the most part, T2 ships can do something "special" that T1 can't. So, while T1 can do with having more fitting vs T2, it can't ever offer that "something special" that T2 can.

I do have to agree with you, however, regarding some questionable "balancing" choices, like allowing oversized, capless and not limited to 1 for XLASBs but limiting armor tanking to cap-intensive, only same class, limited to 1 per ship on AARs. At the same time, though, there's some value in some limitations. I mean look at how 1600 plates are more or less required on anything cruiser-sized and larger. Since that's the case, why even have 800mm in the game? Along those same lines, who has ever used a 50mm or 100mm plate?

Inherent differences with armor tanking vs shield tanking are good things. They'll be better things when resist bonuses for armor don't outclass active tanking by leaps and bounds.

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

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

Valterra Craven
#1502 - 2013-08-16 18:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
CCP Fozzie wrote:

It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP.



That explains everything then... /threadover.

I thought that icnarnia taught you guys something... namely that pissing off your player base constantly was a sure fire way to lose business...

I don't understand the logic in making player investment in the game less worthwhile. It deifies all common sense.

I'm by no means saying that fitting t2 ships should be easy... what I am saying is that it should be easier than it is when considering all fitting skills to 5...

What exactly is the cost benefit analysis here...? Spending more time and money to get less just doesn't add up.

Edit: At least now I understand WHY you are making the choices you are with this pass since the rest of my questions in the link thread weren't able to.
Cyaron wars
Academia RED HOT Corporation
#1503 - 2013-08-16 18:40:30 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cyaron wars wrote:
I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships.
If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board.


It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


Well, I can say that even max skilled pilot cannot fit dual ASB Claymore. Not that I am stuck on particular ship, but I for example love to fly my dualasb sleipnir and engage gangs. In future I won't be able to do so even if I will spend trillions of ISK on fitting mods and implants. I admit that dualasb is kinda crap but that's only thing that keeps me alive against everything else, I would gladly fly dualrep eos or Astarte but unfortunately those ships even with rep bonus and 2x reps running cannot compete with ASB. So this patch is killing one of the best balanced solo ship ever making it yet another part in blob warfare. This is what I will never understand, you are putting 2 ships for each race doing same thing but with different guns. If we are speaking about uniqueness then why you are putting them doing same stuff? You really think anyone actually cares about links putting extra dps on field? I doubt it. Let's take Damnation with it's bonuses. Damn enyo can outdps that ship. What Damnation suppose to do in small gang? Apply it's 300 dps?? or tank them all to death? Why don't u just split them as they were before? They were not amazing but were still better compared to what they will become now. You could leave Caymore as command ship while leaving more combat role to sleipnir, you could do same to every other ship and slightly boosting armor reps for them.

Just to show you what that ship is capable off see this link and tell me if it will be able to do anything like that after you will tweak it?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1504 - 2013-08-16 18:42:58 UTC
@ Fozzie

Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1505 - 2013-08-16 18:48:13 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
@ Fozzie

Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ?


You skipped the bold!

I think that the armor Sleip would be too radical of a change to a fun ship for too little gain. Minmatar always has the Loki for armor boosting, and it's not like anyone is enforcing single race fleets Smile

Same thing with a shield bonused Gallente CS. Even though both races have plenty of interesting options with both types of tanking, they both have a strong primary tanking identity which is what the Command Ship bonuses and stats are reflecting.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1506 - 2013-08-16 18:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
@ Fozzie

Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ?


You skipped the bold!

I think that the armor Sleip would be too radical of a change to a fun ship for too little gain. Minmatar always has the Loki for armor boosting, and it's not like anyone is enforcing single race fleets Smile

Same thing with a shield bonused Gallente CS. Even though both races have plenty of interesting options with both types of tanking, they both have a strong primary tanking identity which is what the Command Ship bonuses and stats are reflecting.


so you were reading them Smile but just ignoring me Cry ... i see you're point but part of minnie character is split tanking on many of there ships and the model change will be strange having an ASB cane.... also loki won't have the tank at fleet level i imagine.. at least put it up for a vote

plus claymore and sleipnir are too similar really .. also with changing bc to being race specific makes cross training harder.
And its the best race too make such changes...too radical just look at the cruiser changes and the geddon .. good changes i may add we need more variety and flavour in the game and within each race at least at CS level

Also Vaga is very similar to the sleipnir now ..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1507 - 2013-08-16 18:53:24 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits.

But that's just my opinion.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1508 - 2013-08-16 18:58:18 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits.

But that's just my opinion.


Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings).

One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1509 - 2013-08-16 19:01:50 UTC
CCP has his ideas and thats its, simple.

I am over all dissapointed of these changes, sad ccp.

Give us back 2 cs roles, one for fast engagments with high dps, decent tank and the possibilty to fit very well with high SP.
On the other hand, take the cs role with high resistance tank and gankboni or with some utility-tools like good neuts.
By the way that about gang modul fo more damage?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1510 - 2013-08-16 19:06:03 UTC
fozzie

do you not think that all ships should have its own role? and uniqueness?
with that in mind why are all the CS basically the same but with different weapon systems none of them have any real individuality bar perhaps the Astarte which is actually quite mobile .. shame vulture is so slow... surely different links combining with different ship roles is more interesting and desirable as a whole?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1511 - 2013-08-16 19:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lephia DeGrande
Ersahi Kir wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits.

But that's just my opinion.


I have to admit i can life with that because T2 should be specialized, if i want a flexibel Ship i choose Faction Stuff or T3.

The Problem is i cant see the specialized function as Fleet Booster in Command Ships, because we dont have any ships besides the Damnation because they choose Damage over Durability which is strange and because of the new Navy BCs this role is already taken.

After OGB is removed, Command Ships should be the FIRST and the LAST Ship in a fight, regardless of Gang or Fleet but you cant boosting until the end, you got shot down first, because of Damage AND Booster in combination with average defense you will always the first target because of the insanly high value, regardless of gang or fleet.

This is in my opinion the complete opposite of specialized.

Sry, for the massiv use of because´s ^^

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#1512 - 2013-08-16 19:34:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Soon Shin
The Nighthawk still needs more fitting and the low slot needs to be moved to the midslot for Christs sake.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


Specialization? You have got to be kidding me, the role bonus and configuration is the specialize, I fail to see how making the fitting gimped compared to Tier 1 is ideal.

You made Command ships to be able to gank, tank, and command, or one or the other. How are supposed to do that if you don't give us the means to do so.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1513 - 2013-08-16 19:47:19 UTC
Cyaron wars wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cyaron wars wrote:
I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships.
If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board.


It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


Well, I can say that even max skilled pilot cannot fit dual ASB Claymore. Not that I am stuck on particular ship, but I for example love to fly my dualasb sleipnir and engage gangs. In future I won't be able to do so even if I will spend trillions of ISK on fitting mods and implants. I admit that dualasb is kinda crap but that's only thing that keeps me alive against everything else, I would gladly fly dualrep eos or Astarte but unfortunately those ships even with rep bonus and 2x reps running cannot compete with ASB. So this patch is killing one of the best balanced solo ship ever making it yet another part in blob warfare. This is what I will never understand, you are putting 2 ships for each race doing same thing but with different guns. If we are speaking about uniqueness then why you are putting them doing same stuff? You really think anyone actually cares about links putting extra dps on field? I doubt it. Let's take Damnation with it's bonuses. Damn enyo can outdps that ship. What Damnation suppose to do in small gang? Apply it's 300 dps?? or tank them all to death? Why don't u just split them as they were before? They were not amazing but were still better compared to what they will become now. You could leave Caymore as command ship while leaving more combat role to sleipnir, you could do same to every other ship and slightly boosting armor reps for them.

Just to show you what that ship is capable off see this link and tell me if it will be able to do anything like that after you will tweak it?


does the duel asb fit on the slip work with 220's or duel 180's?

true an enyo can out dps a damnation but then again how much ehp does that enyo have? is it close to 300k ehp?

astarte is does not shine in duel rep... it fits much better MAAR+1600 tank...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1514 - 2013-08-16 19:49:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.


The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits.

But that's just my opinion.


Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings).

One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all.



do not worry i still lub yeah! just let me know when the rattlesnake will loose its missile velocity bonus and gain a drone tracking/optimal range bonus...

also why on g-ds green earth does the eos have one less slot but only 250m3 drone bay?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1515 - 2013-08-16 20:19:14 UTC
jeah plesae give eos a bigger dronebay and not these damn tracking bonuses lol
absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#1516 - 2013-08-16 20:23:52 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
fozzie

do you not think that all ships should have its own role? and uniqueness?
with that in mind why are all the CS basically the same but with different weapon systems none of them have any real individuality bar perhaps the Astarte which is actually quite mobile .. shame vulture is so slow... surely different links combining with different ship roles is more interesting and desirable as a whole?
Command ships are command ships. They are different just like Logistics, HACs, Dreads, Titans etc. are different across races Blink
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1517 - 2013-08-16 20:49:51 UTC
I'm opening a petition to inform CCP Fozzies account has been hacked. No way these posts are from the real CCP Fozzie.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1518 - 2013-08-16 20:52:28 UTC
Florian Kuehne wrote:
absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np.

Astarte has to be at point blank rage to apply that DPS. What range does the Absolution need to be at in order to apply its DPS?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1519 - 2013-08-16 20:58:43 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
I'm opening a petition to inform CCP Fozzies account has been hacked. No way these posts are from the real CCP Fozzie.



why not? afaik he is on his way back to T.Dot for vaca and to come to the event... so chances are he is loaded on booze and having a good time on the plane home.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1520 - 2013-08-16 21:00:13 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Florian Kuehne wrote:
absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np.

Astarte has to be at point blank rage to apply that DPS. What range does the Absolution need to be at in order to apply its DPS?


when ever i read point blank range it reminds me of duck hunter back in the day when i would put the gun up to the screen to make sure i did not miss.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.