These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Serenity Eon
League of Paranoid D-Scanners
#1921 - 2013-08-31 06:30:42 UTC
Centac wrote:
I find it incomprehensible that people want to argue that the laser using Absolution is balanced vs its no cap competitors, especially the Sleipnir. Does anyone really believe that lasers turrets are better than projectile turrets? They would have to be vastly better for the respective bonuses to be balanced. Not only do lasers still need high cap and the Sleipnir gets an additional falloff bonus as has been pointed out in this thread, the Absolution's damage bonuses are worse: two 10% damage bonuses for Sleipnir, one 10% damage and 5% rof for Absolution on the same 5 turrets and cap delta. (No, 5% rof is not close to an equal dps enhancer as 10% damage). To add insult, Sleipner gets 2 off bonus launcher slots for its 2 utility highs that Absolution lacks. Arguments that this constitutes balance strike me as patently absurd.


I 100% agree with you, unfortunately trying to change Fozzie's mind on the abso is like try to change a leopards spots, it won't happen Sad
Cade Windstalker
#1922 - 2013-08-31 10:53:44 UTC
Centac wrote:
I find it incomprehensible that people want to argue that the laser using Absolution is balanced vs its no cap competitors, especially the Sleipnir. Does anyone really believe that lasers turrets are better than projectile turrets? They would have to be vastly better for the respective bonuses to be balanced. Not only do lasers still need high cap and the Sleipnir gets an additional falloff bonus as has been pointed out in this thread, the Absolution's damage bonuses are worse: two 10% damage bonuses for Sleipnir, one 10% damage and 5% rof for Absolution on the same 5 turrets and cap delta. (No, 5% rof is not close to an equal dps enhancer as 10% damage). To add insult, Sleipner gets 2 off bonus launcher slots for its 2 utility highs that Absolution lacks. Arguments that this constitutes balance strike me as patently absurd.


Actually by default Lasers have better DPS than Projectiles, better damage application at range, and Beam Lasers track better than Artillery. Autocannons may track better than Beam Lasers but they also have a much shorter effective range, even within optimal +1/2 falloff (where they're still dealing about 80% of listed DPS).

Please research the numbers you're ranting about before you post. It saves everyone time, effort, and embarrassment.
Mr Doctor
Therapy.
Brave Collective
#1923 - 2013-08-31 18:26:56 UTC
What happened with the model change? Its mentioned as part of 1.1 but never hit sisi...
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#1924 - 2013-08-31 21:59:21 UTC
Mr Doctor wrote:
What happened with the model change? Its mentioned as part of 1.1 but never hit sisi...


I was literally just about to post about this.

We have about 4 days until 1.1 hits and there is no sign of these new models whatsoever. Part of me thinks they're not happening anymore.
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1925 - 2013-08-31 23:03:15 UTC  |  Edited by: MJ Incognito
Centac wrote:
I find it incomprehensible that people want to argue that the laser using Absolution is balanced vs its no cap competitors, especially the Sleipnir. Does anyone really believe that lasers turrets are better than projectile turrets? They would have to be vastly better for the respective bonuses to be balanced. Not only do lasers still need high cap and the Sleipnir gets an additional falloff bonus as has been pointed out in this thread, the Absolution's damage bonuses are worse: two 10% damage bonuses for Sleipnir, one 10% damage and 5% rof for Absolution on the same 5 turrets and cap delta. (No, 5% rof is not close to an equal dps enhancer as 10% damage). To add insult, Sleipner gets 2 off bonus launcher slots for its 2 utility highs that Absolution lacks. Arguments that this constitutes balance strike me as patently absurd.


Beam Absolution is a fleet concept... trying to compare it with 1v1 fighting style tactics makes no sense.

In fleets, the Capacitor issue is hardly a problem, especially since it mitigates neut effects as numbers go up.

Beams are so much higher DPS, and much higher tracking potential than Artillery could ever hope for... and Auto-cannon platforms are taking a hit with the Tracking Enhancer nerf.


  • Sleipnir is hardly gaining any shields, is gaining a lot of mass, losing a common range modifier from a module, losing drones, and is losing a lot of powergrid.

  • Absolution is gaining a huge chunk of base armor, losing mass, gaining capacitor due to 1 less gun, and it's gaining a bigger boost on it's damage with long range weapons... all the while keeping the full effect of it's range modifier item most commonly used.


There are only 2 real winners in this whole debacle of changes to Commands and even more so to HACs.

Claymore's will dominate 1v1 fights, and small gang fights
Absolutions will dominate most fleet fights
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#1926 - 2013-08-31 23:53:47 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. Please keep it civil people!

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1927 - 2013-09-01 07:07:49 UTC
So ccp, when can i get an response from you guys. I dislike some of the changes like written in all my posts here in the thread. Some changes are good. You want to change stuff, didnt react on player feadback and bring it on next patch, really good job. Go ahead if you want to lose more player, espacily some veterans.
Cade Windstalker
#1928 - 2013-09-01 07:13:57 UTC
Florian Kuehne wrote:
So ccp, when can i get an response from you guys. I dislike some of the changes like written in all my posts here in the thread. Some changes are good. You want to change stuff, didnt react on player feadback and bring it on next patch, really good job. Go ahead if you want to lose more player, espacily some veterans.


I hate to burst your bubble but CCP doesn't generally respond to individual player concerns, they respond to valid concerns that are brought up by multiple players. CCP is not required to respond to your individual issues no matter how valid you think they are and they certainly aren't required to respond to you whining about them not responding to your massive concerns.

I'm sure that they're very sorry that you and hundreds of others aren't personally happy with the changes. I have news for you, that's going to happen no matter what. It is physically impossible for any game dev anywhere, let alone CCP, to make a change to their game without upsetting someone and this includes the decision to not change something.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1929 - 2013-09-01 07:14:52 UTC
Dont Act if this is Incarna #2 your just to lazy to adapt.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1930 - 2013-09-01 07:21:24 UTC
Yes unfortunately you are right What?

But the fact that they remove the old cs, fleet and field CS and bring them very close together(+ remove the tanky damnation later on), didnt make alot people happy. So i am not alone. If they would talk to us and maybe some changes would be different, this would by a good step.
Cade Windstalker
#1931 - 2013-09-01 08:34:38 UTC
Florian Kuehne wrote:
Yes unfortunately you are right What?

But the fact that they remove the old cs, fleet and field CS and bring them very close together(+ remove the tanky damnation later on), didnt make alot people happy. So i am not alone. If they would talk to us and maybe some changes would be different, this would by a good step.


Well, lets see, we now have 2 CS for each race with completely different weapons systems, removing a long standing complaint with Command Ships as a whole and overall making the class much more useable as opposed to before when it was "Damnation, Slephnir, Astarte or go home".

Plus they haven't actually removed the Damnation's HP bonus yet and it doesn't seem like they're going to unless it's overpowered once they move command ships on-grid. Or, you know, it becomes sort of half useless. Either way it should be removed if either of those situations becomes the case. If it's still just 'okay', but there are actual decisions beyond "Damnation for fleet fights or nothing" then they'll probably leave it because why fix something that doesn't have problems?
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1932 - 2013-09-01 09:12:28 UTC
Well its your opinion. I have another one. Cs dont need an complete stylechange. Just some smaller optimizations.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1933 - 2013-09-01 09:42:46 UTC
Florian Kuehne wrote:
Well its your opinion. I have another one. Cs dont need an complete stylechange. Just some smaller optimizations.

For now at least that holds true, but what happens when they get through the gordian knot that prevents them from bringing links on-grid?

What we need and what most of us are trying to narrow down is a design that allows CCs to exist in both roamy as well as blobby weather when that fateful day arrives .. they have to provide boosts obviously, they need survivability enough for them to matter in a given fight, they need to have teeth/function enough to take on duties beyond boosting, FC need a way to easily and smoothly transition from link boat to link boat as they will be targeted with a vengeance (not the hull) in some engagements and since they are one of the last tiericide victims their predators must already be available.

Not an easy task to tick all those boxes, but that should be the aim and we are almost there for the most part. We could limit ourselves to small optimizations but we'd be forced to take this discussion as the on-grid day draws nearer - and as the old saying goes: Why put off for tomorrow what you can do today? Smile
Cade Windstalker
#1934 - 2013-09-01 10:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Florian Kuehne wrote:
Well its your opinion. I have another one. Cs dont need an complete stylechange. Just some smaller optimizations.

For now at least that holds true, but what happens when they get through the gordian knot that prevents them from bringing links on-grid?

What we need and what most of us are trying to narrow down is a design that allows CCs to exist in both roamy as well as blobby weather when that fateful day arrives .. they have to provide boosts obviously, they need survivability enough for them to matter in a given fight, they need to have teeth/function enough to take on duties beyond boosting, FC need a way to easily and smoothly transition from link boat to link boat as they will be targeted with a vengeance (not the hull) in some engagements and since they are one of the last tiericide victims their predators must already be available.

Not an easy task to tick all those boxes, but that should be the aim and we are almost there for the most part. We could limit ourselves to small optimizations but we'd be forced to take this discussion as the on-grid day draws nearer - and as the old saying goes: Why put off for tomorrow what you can do today? Smile


Yeah, the old command ships just sucked. The distinction between Field and Fleet was arbitrary and left half the people using a given weapon system going "but I wanted the other one in this role!". The fleet ones couldn't fight and the field ones couldn't tank or link which resulted in the Fleet ones basically being resigned to alt-boosting status and the Field ones basically being T2 Battlecruisers but having nothing to do with command.

Florian if you can honestly spell out, with examples, why this was better than the new ships that solve all of these problems and sets us up well Fozzie's concept for on-grid links then by all means do so but I'm just not seeing it. Your argument seems to boil down to "but they changed it!!! T_T" not any specific problem with what they've done beyond that they've done anything at all.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1935 - 2013-09-01 14:38:17 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
..Veshta if you can honestly spell out, with examples, why this was better than the new ships that solve all of these problems and sets us up well Fozzie's concept for on-grid links then by all means do so but I'm just not seeing it. Your argument seems to boil down to "but they changed it!!! T_T" not any specific problem with what they've done beyond that they've done anything at all.

Why would I spend time coming up with arguments to support a cause I have spent the past several years actively trying to defeat? Smile

Granted, most of my energy was directed towards the power links had through the perfect scalability .. the ability to apply full boosts to a full fleet with no drawbacks is insane and one of the reasons why off-grid links became the norm. If one ship can boost as (or more) effectively than multiple ships then only the foolish will opt for multiple which gave rise to the POS'ed 5+ link ships.
I am a proponent of leeching off the locking mechanics, not necessarily as locks but a hard limit (use a watch-list inspired thing perhaps) with a separate attribute like drone control range that determines how far a client can be from booster .. if it was based on locks you'd have damp fests which is as bad for game as off-grid links are (soon -> were).

The CC revisions are long overdue but have been rushed into .. they are inextricably linked to boosts, fleets and all that jazz, and from the "oh yeah, we have been talking .. " replies from Devs on the topic it seems to me that they did not actually sit down and think the whole 'where do we want them in Eve' thing though.

I thought my post, the one you quoted, detailed where I want them .. but for emphasis:
They should all have great tanking potential so they can survive the small/medium gang environment.
They should all have great damage/application potential so they can participate (read: get on mails with style!).
NB: The two above are linked, sacrifice one to bolster the other, but basis for it must be there.

They should all have survivability far above the norm in fleet environments, I for one am happy to see that Devs are willing to look outside the box at for example my (think I was first to suggest it at any rate) idea to use the all but abandoned Spectrum Breaker concept for that thus avoiding the breakage on smaller scales that excessive tanks/EHP would cause.

They will be primaried in some fights, the ones where their power is greatest in relation to the scale (read: medium size (30-50) fights) and current method of assigning boosters is inadequate in a high-attrition scenario.

And finally, they should have hard counters, preferably several among the existing ships .. only thing besides brute force that will take links out is heavy and constant neuting which is nowhere near enough counter-wise considering the power of links even when/if restricted to having max clients and being on-grid .. a link equals a faction fitted added slot to all under its umbrella which is immense.

So no examples of why/how the old is better than what is coming .. but I think the Devs missed the scope of the project as it is not merely CC's and links that will have to change but a whole slew of things related to gangs/fleets/links which is a lot of ground to cover.
Cade Windstalker
#1936 - 2013-09-01 15:01:02 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
..Veshta if you can honestly spell out, with examples, why this was better than the new ships that solve all of these problems and sets us up well Fozzie's concept for on-grid links then by all means do so but I'm just not seeing it. Your argument seems to boil down to "but they changed it!!! T_T" not any specific problem with what they've done beyond that they've done anything at all.

Why would I spend time coming up with arguments to support a cause I have spent the past several years actively trying to defeat? Smile

Granted, most of my energy was directed towards the power links had through the perfect scalability .. the ability to apply full boosts to a full fleet with no drawbacks is insane and one of the reasons why off-grid links became the norm. If one ship can boost as (or more) effectively than multiple ships then only the foolish will opt for multiple which gave rise to the POS'ed 5+ link ships.
I am a proponent of leeching off the locking mechanics, not necessarily as locks but a hard limit (use a watch-list inspired thing perhaps) with a separate attribute like drone control range that determines how far a client can be from booster .. if it was based on locks you'd have damp fests which is as bad for game as off-grid links are (soon -> were).

The CC revisions are long overdue but have been rushed into .. they are inextricably linked to boosts, fleets and all that jazz, and from the "oh yeah, we have been talking .. " replies from Devs on the topic it seems to me that they did not actually sit down and think the whole 'where do we want them in Eve' thing though.

I thought my post, the one you quoted, detailed where I want them .. but for emphasis:
They should all have great tanking potential so they can survive the small/medium gang environment.
They should all have great damage/application potential so they can participate (read: get on mails with style!).
NB: The two above are linked, sacrifice one to bolster the other, but basis for it must be there.

They should all have survivability far above the norm in fleet environments, I for one am happy to see that Devs are willing to look outside the box at for example my (think I was first to suggest it at any rate) idea to use the all but abandoned Spectrum Breaker concept for that thus avoiding the breakage on smaller scales that excessive tanks/EHP would cause.

They will be primaried in some fights, the ones where their power is greatest in relation to the scale (read: medium size (30-50) fights) and current method of assigning boosters is inadequate in a high-attrition scenario.

And finally, they should have hard counters, preferably several among the existing ships .. only thing besides brute force that will take links out is heavy and constant neuting which is nowhere near enough counter-wise considering the power of links even when/if restricted to having max clients and being on-grid .. a link equals a faction fitted added slot to all under its umbrella which is immense.

So no examples of why/how the old is better than what is coming .. but I think the Devs missed the scope of the project as it is not merely CC's and links that will have to change but a whole slew of things related to gangs/fleets/links which is a lot of ground to cover.


Sorry, I used the wrong name there Oops Quoted your post because it contained his and I miss-read who I was arguing against >.>

I'm not sure I agree on your overall views on the re-balance and what CCP's done though. I would say they've put the Command Ships at a very good spot in Eve that sets them up well to be taken on-grid.

I'm not sure if you saw this but Fozzie posted ~40 pages back on where they were going with bringing links on-grid and I think you might like it.

They're getting around the mid-sized to large fight issue by removing the current boosting structure so you're faced with the trade-off of multiple redundant boosting ships with somewhat less damage potential or putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping your logi can hold reps.

They're not getting hard-counters (beyond cap draining I suppose) but they are becoming more of a trade-off and fleets are going to have to decide how many Command Ships they can bring and where they want to distribute their links. If they bring a bunch of Command Ships then they're going to contribute less individually but the enemy will have a very hard time burning through them. If the enemy does decide to burn through then they'd better have good intel on who has what links to eliminate the most important ones first or they nee to be confident that they won't loose too many DPS ships in the time it takes them to burn through the heavily tanked CS.

Also editing my old post to get the name right...
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#1937 - 2013-09-01 19:22:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Florian Kuehne
Ok here we go again.

Giving Field Command Ship the same resistance like the Fleet Command Ship:
At first i thought this is way overpowered because these cs got a high damage output and now even more tank. But as i saw that hacs and the other t2 hulls got the same numbers, it is just a necessary step.
-->feels a bit weird but i am okay with that

Reducing Turretnumbers and gain a bit more damage and tracking to the ships:
To give these ships something special is good, so they got reduced ammo need, reduced cap and more ways to fit thier highslots. But i am not a fan to give all ships trackingspeed bonus...
-->great change but forcing a kind of role to the ship

Giving all ships the opportunity to use 3 gank links simultaneously and use different ones:
To use 2 kind of gang modules like armor & information warfare is what i was waiting for. The idea to give both ships the opportunity to use these modules is very weird because there is no more real GIVE BONUS SHIP with a big tank. I dont dislike the idea completely but this will change the way to build/fit fleets.
-->good direction but i would prefer to have small and big bonus on the field/fleet cs to still have a difference between those ships.

Better sensorstrength and armor/shield ratio etc.:
Finally some goos stats which make these ships worth in a lot of ways.
-->Absolutely needed, good stuff

Balancing/nerfing PG and CPU:
I think the reducing of PG is a bit to hard. You take 1 turret away and take some PG away but overall u loose PG u need to fit the ganklinks for example. I am a fan of fitting at minimum on 1600 Plate on a cs. But i am forced to use pg rigs and use faction items because of the cpu lack. If its ok if only the fleet cs got these fitting opportunity because they used to be the primary target because of many reasons.
-->cpu balance ok(just checked for armor ships), but pg nerf to hard, espacily for fleet cs

Example on astarte but stays for other ships as well: heavy neutron laster needs 187pg, u take 100 and the gank links needs 210 each.

Eos:
It is all about trackingspeed right? I dont know every ships gets trackignspeed nowadays. I really dislike this. You can can fit mods for that. Dronechanges are quite ok but i thought you guys have some better ideas. It still can have a bit more dronebay.
-->to launch 5 heavies again is really strong, remove the turret tracking bonus and give some addional dronbay again.

Damnation:
After 1.1 am forced to fit missile launcher. Beforce the patch i had the decision to fit turrets or launcher. On this account i dont have trained missiles with a reason, i have to skill these now. I dislike this.
-->dont know, may be ok because of overall balancing

Mobility:
Why are you boosting armor, shield and hull but reducing the mass instead of increase it? The same with the signature radius.
-->cs are not hacs :)
Cade Windstalker
#1938 - 2013-09-01 23:59:42 UTC
Florian Kuehne wrote:

-->great change but forcing a kind of role to the ship


This is hardly forcing a role on the ship. Overall they deal the same or more damage as before, they just have more options now. You can either fit links or you have two utility highs.

Florian Kuehne wrote:

-->good direction but i would prefer to have small and big bonus on the field/fleet cs to still have a difference between those ships.


There is no more distinction between "Fleet" and "Field" Command Ships, they're all just Command Ships and you get to pick your racial weapons system which is great for everyone.

Florian Kuehne wrote:
Balancing/nerfing PG and CPU:
I think the reducing of PG is a bit to hard. You take 1 turret away and take some PG away but overall u loose PG u need to fit the ganklinks for example. I am a fan of fitting at minimum on 1600 Plate on a cs. But i am forced to use pg rigs and use faction items because of the cpu lack. If its ok if only the fleet cs got these fitting opportunity because they used to be the primary target because of many reasons.
-->cpu balance ok(just checked for armor ships), but pg nerf to hard, espacily for fleet cs

Example on astarte but stays for other ships as well: heavy neutron laster needs 187pg, u take 100 and the gank links needs 210 each.


The Command Links had their PG requirements dropped by 100 so only 110 PG and the overall fitting changes were designed for you to have to make trade-offs while still having fairly generous fittings. In-fact Fozzie said several times that he was worried they might be giving these ships too generous of fitting margin.

Florian Kuehne wrote:
Eos:
It is all about trackingspeed right? I dont know every ships gets trackignspeed nowadays. I really dislike this. You can can fit mods for that. Dronechanges are quite ok but i thought you guys have some better ideas. It still can have a bit more dronebay.
-->to launch 5 heavies again is really strong, remove the turret tracking bonus and give some addional dronbay again.


Again, trade-offs. I'm pretty sure they gave it a turret bonus because otherwise when the Command Co-Processor changes happen it won't have to trade off any sort of bonus for fitting six links and that's not really a good thing.

Florian Kuehne wrote:
Damnation:
After 1.1 am forced to fit missile launcher. Beforce the patch i had the decision to fit turrets or launcher. On this account i dont have trained missiles with a reason, i have to skill these now. I dislike this.
-->dont know, may be ok because of overall balancing

Mobility:
Why are you boosting armor, shield and hull but reducing the mass instead of increase it? The same with the signature radius.
-->cs are not hacs :)


So fit out an Absolution, problem solved. It's a better turret boat now by a mile than the Damnation ever was.

Your assertion about mobility isn't correct. Overall Command Ships just moved toward similar align speeds with the Gallente and Minmattar closer to 12 seconds and the Caldari and Amarr closer to 13 seconds. Several of the Command Ships gained mass or lost agility in this change and they're still no where near the HACs in terms of mobility or align time.
Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj
DinoSquad
#1939 - 2013-09-02 12:10:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dinozauriusz II Urwiryj
IMHO this rebalance is bad idea. All EVE magic is about that every ship is specialised and is filling some, special role. Dividing command ships to fleet and field was very good! Now we will receive two identical ships just with different weapons - senseless. I assume that next time Recons will be mixed into the-same-with-different-weapons? I liked when ships were specialised. Now it seems that we are going to make it straight line: every next ship is just bigger, with better guns.
My opinion is: Do not follow this path. Keep this game complex and sophisticated. Introduce even more ships, even if they would not be specialised, just different for the same role (wolud be great to have more T1 frigates, or two types of stealth bomers for every faction, or two eWar ships, more destroyers, etc.). Just don't mix ships into one formless, kindless mass - you want fleet or field command ship with different weapon? Introduce two new Command ships (Naga hull would be great for fleet Command, keep Ferox as field command), just don't kill complexity of this game.
Please.

PS. bring more T3 ships (frigates would be interesting).
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#1940 - 2013-09-02 12:26:39 UTC
Try to bring Balance for all the PVP Whiners without equal the Ships altogether.

Hint: Its impossible.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup