These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1701 - 2013-08-20 23:35:20 UTC
Vegine wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.

Adapt and survive...



Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now.


Ain't that the truth...

except....that eos's got a heavy drone bonus that's starring at SOME PEOPLE in the eye up close.

I mean, REALLY CLOSE.

did I mention close????


Both gallente and minmatar command ships are designed (i.e. have bonuses and slots that favour) small scale skirmish pvp.

Both amarr and caldari command ships have bonuses and slots that guide them towards larger fleet fights at longer ranges.

Fair or not, that's the way it is. The question is, can we use these material facts to our advantage in the game or not. The first of us who finds a way will tend to win more fights.

Sisi is here for us. Now is the time for us to figure it out - before it gets really expensive on TQ!

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
#1702 - 2013-08-20 23:41:09 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
[quote=Vegine][quote=Mournful Conciousness][quote=Domanique Altares][quote=Mournful Conciousness]
Sisi is here for us. Now is the time for us to figure it out - before it gets really expensive on TQ!


too late for EOS it seems :P price already almost doubled (so did my investment).

But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches...
Jim Lopau
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#1703 - 2013-08-21 00:08:14 UTC
Vegine wrote:
[But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches...


see hull resists
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1704 - 2013-08-21 00:10:54 UTC
Vegine wrote:

too late for EOS it seems :P price already almost doubled (so did my investment).

But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches...


I think it's easy to miss some of the advantages of the EOS because on paper the Astarte looks better, however...

The astarte can project damage for 5km. It could fit railguns but it has no tracking bonus to them so on balance I expect that it will be used as a boosting brawler (and by some, just a heavy brawler although I think there are better options).

The EOS can project damage theoretically out to 60km (or more with a DLA). Now I know drones take time to travel, and I know that in a 1v1 they get shot. But in (say) a 5v5 there's no time to be shooting drones. You're too busy calling primaries or saving your skin. Now the EOS also has the "useless" tracking bonus, but that's not so useless if it's being applied to the new more powerful railguns, particularly when backed up with heavy drones (I know, they'll take 20 seconds to get to target, but fights are often much longer than that). Not to mention the massive utility of EC-900 drones. Those guys play hell with ships' target locking. Even with recent changes to sensor strengths. They effectively remove one opposing ship from the fight until you are ready to take hime down.

So it seems to me that the Astarte is a reasonable option for close-in fighting, and the EOS is a better option for keeping the command ship at range, or countering a fleet that has ranged damage projection.

People have been complaining about the lack of a low slot on both ships, or the small (ish) drone bay (me included to begin with), in the same way as they have about the nighthawk's slot layout. but I think many of these posts are made because people are thinking of these ships in the old (pre 1.1) terms of just being brawlers (or in the case of the nighthawk, a capless PVE ship).

In the new world, these ships have very strong boosting bonuses and most of their utility will come from that. Damage application is a bonus but not the whole story as it used to be.

I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1705 - 2013-08-21 00:37:50 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I think it's easy to miss some of the advantages of the EOS because on paper the Astarte looks better, however...

The astarte can project damage for 5km. It could fit railguns but it has no tracking bonus to them so on balance I expect that it will be used as a boosting brawler (and by some, just a heavy brawler although I think there are better options).

The EOS can project damage theoretically out to 60km (or more with a DLA). Now I know drones take time to travel, and I know that in a 1v1 they get shot. But in (say) a 5v5 there's no time to be shooting drones. You're too busy calling primaries or saving your skin. Now the EOS also has the "useless" tracking bonus, but that's not so useless if it's being applied to the new more powerful railguns, particularly when backed up with heavy drones (I know, they'll take 20 seconds to get to target, but fights are often much longer than that). Not to mention the massive utility of EC-900 drones. Those guys play hell with ships' target locking. Even with recent changes to sensor strengths. They effectively remove one opposing ship from the fight until you are ready to take hime down.


If what you're saying here is true at all then the navy vexor must be pwning noobs currently in PvP, because the eos is esentially a boosting navy vexor.
Cage Man
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#1706 - 2013-08-21 00:38:12 UTC
I still believe the night hawk needs another med slot. The drake gets 6 mids and 3 rigs. This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links.
Sliepner is a lot better than its T1 counterpart.. the Nh is not, and even after the change will probably still not be.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1707 - 2013-08-21 00:49:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.


It probably has allot more to do with the fact that it's going to be the preferred ogb for armor as it has ideal bonuses and far less to do with it's "amazing combat performance"
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#1708 - 2013-08-21 00:59:09 UTC
Cage Man wrote:
This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links.


Not interested in gang links. Is upset when gang link ship doesn't work as well for non gang link activities.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1709 - 2013-08-21 07:06:43 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.


Patch time speculation has very little to do with ship performance, everybody wants to try the new shiny and you'll make a killing in the first weeks. Also remember that the Eos was a practically unsellable item earlier, the hulls just didn't move and the old price reflected that.

Quote:
So it seems to me that the Astarte is a reasonable option for close-in fighting, and the EOS is a better option for keeping the command ship at range, or countering a fleet that has ranged damage projection.


Eos could have been a ranged option with sentries.

.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1710 - 2013-08-21 08:04:49 UTC
Roime wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.


Patch time speculation has very little to do with ship performance, everybody wants to try the new shiny and you'll make a killing in the first weeks. Also remember that the Eos was a practically unsellable item earlier, the hulls just didn't move and the old price reflected that.

Quote:
So it seems to me that the Astarte is a reasonable option for close-in fighting, and the EOS is a better option for keeping the command ship at range, or countering a fleet that has ranged damage projection.


Eos could have been a ranged option with sentries.


if it had been given a sentry drone range bonus, it would have been seen as a mega-buffered dominix with a smaller sig radius, gang links and good self-repair (You can get more EHP on an EOS than a domi).

They're already nerfing the domi's sentry bonus because it's OP.

You can still put sentries on it, with 2 DLAs, a couple of omnis and a target painter it's going to be a real PITA to anything within 100km.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Cade Windstalker
#1711 - 2013-08-21 08:12:54 UTC
Vorgx wrote:
I have to say that i was excited when i heard about the CS changes, now that i read the changes i understand that i will not use them anymore, they are pretty mediocre ships that not worth the isk.

sadface for this totally fail changes


Because buffing them pretty much across the board, giving them quite generous fittings, and making it so they can all fit three links is "mediocre" compared to before when there were a total of 3 command ships worth flying in any situation?

We're looking at ships that can, finally, directly compete with T3s for damage, compete up to a point on tank, and finally boost better. What, exactly, were you hoping for? Mini-doomday devices and 2-million base EHP each?

Cage Man wrote:
I still believe the night hawk needs another med slot. The drake gets 6 mids and 3 rigs. This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links.
Sliepner is a lot better than its T1 counterpart.. the Nh is not, and even after the change will probably still not be.


Your definition of "better" confuses me... we have better damage, better resists, better fittings, more cargo space, an applied damage bonus...

In-fact the only thing I can find that's worse is the inertia modifier, by a grand old .01x which is, overall, not worth complaining about.

Even with 5 mids you can fit a far better tank than the Drake and with the extra fittings you have the option of some truely hilarious ASB fits like the one Fozzie posted earlier.

Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
The eos is just in a sad spot ATM
250 dronebay is too small, (adding 200 is a little too much)
And it still is just lacking when it comes to being compared to other commandships especially the Astarte
Even when I mwd around in an eos the ogres can't keep up with me...
And this whole hacs have more regen than commandships is just weird and wrong
As somebody pointed out the abso should have highest cap regen etc etc
It's like ccp is just too timid with these ships....
And btw these ships are meant to be combat ships if you choose them to be
Not strictly links


You're forgetting how cap regen bonuses work, so when you apply skills, recharge mods, rigs, ect the Command Ships end up with a higher cap recharge because they have far more total capacitor than the HACs and the Abso ends up with the highest cap regen after skills are applied because of its higher cap pool.

The EOS has a nice bonus to drone hitpoints to mitigate damage, and another to MWD velocity so it shouldn't be losing drones at much of a rate unless you're using the thing to 1v1 that, for some odd reason, wants to give you more time to neut it out and/or is ignoring your gun damage for silly reasons. It's also beating out the Myrm by being able to hold and field 2 full flights of Heavy Drones so I'm not sure what the issue is, unless you somehow feel it should be a mini-Dominix, which... is really not needed.

mine mi wrote:
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.


If you read Fozzie's post back here in the thread you'll note that they are not planning for an arms race to see who can alpha capital-tanked command ships first.
Doed
Tyrfing Industries
#1712 - 2013-08-21 08:42:27 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Vorgx wrote:
I have to say that i was excited when i heard about the CS changes, now that i read the changes i understand that i will not use them anymore, they are pretty mediocre ships that not worth the isk.

sadface for this totally fail changes


Because buffing them pretty much across the board, giving them quite generous fittings, and making it so they can all fit three links is "mediocre" compared to before when there were a total of 3 command ships worth flying in any situation?

We're looking at ships that can, finally, directly compete with T3s for damage, compete up to a point on tank, and finally boost better. What, exactly, were you hoping for? Mini-doomday devices and 2-million base EHP each?

Cage Man wrote:
I still believe the night hawk needs another med slot. The drake gets 6 mids and 3 rigs. This combination still makes the drake a better choice for pvp if you not interested in the command links.
Sliepner is a lot better than its T1 counterpart.. the Nh is not, and even after the change will probably still not be.


Your definition of "better" confuses me... we have better damage, better resists, better fittings, more cargo space, an applied damage bonus...

In-fact the only thing I can find that's worse is the inertia modifier, by a grand old .01x which is, overall, not worth complaining about.

Even with 5 mids you can fit a far better tank than the Drake and with the extra fittings you have the option of some truely hilarious ASB fits like the one Fozzie posted earlier.

Eldrith Jhandar wrote:
The eos is just in a sad spot ATM
250 dronebay is too small, (adding 200 is a little too much)
And it still is just lacking when it comes to being compared to other commandships especially the Astarte
Even when I mwd around in an eos the ogres can't keep up with me...
And this whole hacs have more regen than commandships is just weird and wrong
As somebody pointed out the abso should have highest cap regen etc etc
It's like ccp is just too timid with these ships....
And btw these ships are meant to be combat ships if you choose them to be
Not strictly links


You're forgetting how cap regen bonuses work, so when you apply skills, recharge mods, rigs, ect the Command Ships end up with a higher cap recharge because they have far more total capacitor than the HACs and the Abso ends up with the highest cap regen after skills are applied because of its higher cap pool.

The EOS has a nice bonus to drone hitpoints to mitigate damage, and another to MWD velocity so it shouldn't be losing drones at much of a rate unless you're using the thing to 1v1 that, for some odd reason, wants to give you more time to neut it out and/or is ignoring your gun damage for silly reasons. It's also beating out the Myrm by being able to hold and field 2 full flights of Heavy Drones so I'm not sure what the issue is, unless you somehow feel it should be a mini-Dominix, which... is really not needed.

mine mi wrote:
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.


If you read Fozzie's post back here in the thread you'll note that they are not planning for an arms race to see who can alpha capital-tanked command ships first.


% is % regardless of the base numbers, be it 50000 cap or 500 cap 4.5 cap/sec will be the same, adding bonuses from skills and its still the exact same % behind the hacs. It simply baffles me how bad many people on these forums are at math.

But whatever, where is the Claymores 7.5% dmg bonus it should have instead of one of the RoF bonuses?

And still nothing regarding cap recharge is downright pathetic by CCP, in all honesty.

The cap reliant weapon ones should have 5-15% better cap, abso getting the biggest boost, astarte 2nd then vulture and lastly eos, capless ones are ok as it is now.

And no, they dont need more cap recharge than Sac and Deimos.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1713 - 2013-08-21 09:02:44 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


if it had been given a sentry drone range bonus, it would have been seen as a mega-buffered dominix with a smaller sig radius, gang links and good self-repair (You can get more EHP on an EOS than a domi).

They're already nerfing the domi's sentry bonus because it's OP.

You can still put sentries on it, with 2 DLAs, a couple of omnis and a target painter it's going to be a real PITA to anything within 100km.



Well, except you can't get more EHP out of the Eos than the Domi, especially not when fit to hit with drones out to 100km. Which, with three links, runs into CPU issues requiring you to drop the tank even more, or just settle with less range. In any case it does less damage, as Domi can use shorter range sentries to reach 100km.

Mindlinked, max buffer Eos with T2 trimarks boosting itself tops out at 220K EHP omni, all tank triple plate Domi in same fleet gets 243K EHP. Ofc racial resists give the edge clearly to Eos against kin/therm damage (350 vs 220), but against explosive the Domi has over 100K more EHP.

It's not a very good choice for a sentry fleet, at least not being with the main fleet and contributing to damage. It's probably not bad at shaking off tackle, tho, so it might still work when links come to grid.

Anyway, I'll take it as a T2 Myrm with great links- slow, tanky and can deal with most ships in and under it's size class in 1vs1 situations, and looks rather strong for armor brawler gang boosting. Very nice rep stats with just one MAAR, while still sporting BS-class buffer :)

.
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#1714 - 2013-08-21 12:23:59 UTC
Why most CS can fit 5 turrets-2 launchers or 2 turrets-5 launchers, when the absolution only has 5 turrets, no launcher and the EOS 4 turrets, no launcher?
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1715 - 2013-08-21 12:29:23 UTC
Doed wrote:


The cap reliant weapon ones should have 5-15% better cap, abso getting the biggest boost, astarte 2nd then vulture and lastly eos, capless ones are ok as it is now.

And no, they don't need more cap recharge than Sac and Deimos.


they really don't need a cap bonus ffs. have u flown an abso? taking it down from 6 to 5 guns will save it plenty of cap, and the new fittings give you the chance to fit a NoS just to make it completely stable. the only time you'll have cap issues on an abso is when your MWDing.

these ships are not supposed to be able to do everything and fit links with ease. you have to choose your fittings carefully to take up a role.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1716 - 2013-08-21 12:32:28 UTC
bloodknight2 wrote:
Why most CS can fit 5 turrets-2 launchers or 2 turrets-5 launchers, when the absolution only has 5 turrets, no launcher and the EOS 4 turrets, no launcher?


If you ever actually fit launchers in those slots, you're terrible.
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1717 - 2013-08-21 12:33:29 UTC
bloodknight2 wrote:
Why most CS can fit 5 turrets-2 launchers or 2 turrets-5 launchers, when the absolution only has 5 turrets, no launcher and the EOS 4 turrets, no launcher?


Simple,

The Abso is a focused turret ship, always has been
The EOS's guns are actually it secondary weapon, the drones are primary

Also it helps to keep the models the same as previous ones when 6/7 slots are taken up by weapons as thats what the BC hulls were originally designed for (lazy CCP)
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#1718 - 2013-08-21 12:44:06 UTC  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I think it's easy to miss some of the advantages of the EOS because on paper the Astarte looks better, however...

The astarte can project damage for 5km. It could fit railguns but it has no tracking bonus to them so on balance I expect that it will be used as a boosting brawler (and by some, just a heavy brawler although I think there are better options).

The EOS can project damage theoretically out to 60km (or more with a DLA). Now I know drones take time to travel, and I know that in a 1v1 they get shot. But in (say) a 5v5 there's no time to be shooting drones. You're too busy calling primaries or saving your skin. Now the EOS also has the "useless" tracking bonus, but that's not so useless if it's being applied to the new more powerful railguns, particularly when backed up with heavy drones (I know, they'll take 20 seconds to get to target, but fights are often much longer than that). Not to mention the massive utility of EC-900 drones. Those guys play hell with ships' target locking. Even with recent changes to sensor strengths. They effectively remove one opposing ship from the fight until you are ready to take hime down.


If what you're saying here is true at all then the navy vexor must be pwning noobs currently in PvP, because the eos is esentially a boosting navy vexor.

shhhh, don't talk about the navy vexor, it is fine where it is, leave him where it belongs, in the hands of ppl who know to use it

bloodknight2 wrote:
Why most CS can fit 5 turrets-2 launchers or 2 turrets-5 launchers, when the absolution only has 5 turrets, no launcher and the EOS 4 turrets, no launcher?


because COMMAND SHIP
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1719 - 2013-08-21 12:48:10 UTC
navy vexor is my favourite little brawler. once I figured out how to fit the high slots I was surprised CCP allowed it onto TQ... :-)

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#1720 - 2013-08-21 12:52:53 UTC
bloodknight2 wrote:
Why most CS can fit 5 turrets-2 launchers or 2 turrets-5 launchers, when the absolution only has 5 turrets, no launcher and the EOS 4 turrets, no launcher?


it is odd that the Absolution got a launcher removed instead of added...
Eos well its a droneboat so no real surprise there..

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