These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

"Light" Command Ships

Author
Aesheera
Doomheim
#21 - 2013-10-08 20:25:35 UTC
Agreeing with more Destroyer variants, but not "light command ships".

Command destroyers, nah, T3's say hi if you want a lighter solution to actual command ships.
People simply need to actually start tanking them soon.

- I think my passion is misinterpreted as anger sometimes. And I don't think people are ready for the message that I'm delivering, and delivering with a sense of violent love.

Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#22 - 2013-10-08 20:52:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Katrina Oniseki
Supported, but I suggest they only use a maximum of 1 link per hull while still being able to decently fit the rest of the hull.

There needs to be a reason to use heavier and slower ships. Two links is pushing the envelope, but I'll support that if it's as difficult to do as fitting twin bubblers on an interdictor. A single T2 destroyer should not be able to fit three links, ever.

Hull ideas:

Kaalakiota Corax (Black & Red)
Creodron Algos (Pearlescent Green/Blue)
Viziam Dragoon (Green & Gold)
Core Complexion Talwar (Black with Blue lights)

Katrina Oniseki

Jaz Antollare
SovNarKom.
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2013-10-08 21:40:24 UTC
I like this thread.
I support the idea about 1-2 links with medium bonuses.

It could be some thing like the entrance for the command bonuses specialization tree.
Imo they should go in the tankines instead of dps.

And its the room to make t2 adaptations of the new destroyer hulls!!
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#24 - 2013-10-08 22:04:20 UTC
If your frigate & destroyer skirmish fleet in FW can't have command ships due to speed and gate restrictions, theirs can't either.

If you believe that warfare links are overpowered you should be rejoicing about the ability to hit & run without the hindrance of an overpowered game mechanic, not looking for ways to keep the overpowered mechanic in your small, nimble fleets.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2013-10-08 22:42:39 UTC
I could support such a ship but under a few conditions.

The links would need to be unbonused, and the ship could only fit its racial links.

For instance a T2 Algos could fit armor and skirmish warfare links.

Under those conditions I would be ok if they could run 3.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#26 - 2013-10-09 01:36:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Mara Rinn wrote:
If your frigate & destroyer skirmish fleet in FW can't have command ships due to speed and gate restrictions, theirs can't either.

If you believe that warfare links are overpowered you should be rejoicing about the ability to hit & run without the hindrance of an overpowered game mechanic, not looking for ways to keep the overpowered mechanic in your small, nimble fleets.

Don't get me wrong... I have a love-hate relationship with regards to warfare links. I dislike them on principle... but they have often given me edges in engagements I had no business surviving, much less winning. And I don't see them being removed anytime soon given that several ships are specifically centered around them (I would personally like to see them removed almost altogether).

That said... the reason I have brought up (see: rehashed) this idea is because I do believe that similar and/or balanced (but not equal) options should be available to [almost] every combat style in EVE.
Sure, you can nano-fit a T3 for a frigate/destroyer gang... but it won't keep up in warp and certainly won't be able to fly or employ similar tactics the rest of the gang can... making it more of a target than it already is. Then there is the "price tag" issue (bringing a ship worth more than the entire gang several times over would be a no-go for most).


Now I personally like what others have said here where these ships would be limited to fitting 1 Warfare Link with no ability to fit any more. Given the power of boosting that would be a fair trade-off and force people to consider what bonus they would find most important; speed, longer points/webs, tank, etc.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-10-09 01:49:42 UTC
So long as boosts are moved on grid at the same time or before this, then yes please.

+1
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-10-09 02:04:40 UTC
I'd like to see small ganglinks that can be fit to frigates and destroyers (only the ones that allow them of course) that would have offensive bonuses instead of defensive bonuses. There would be no need to focus fire on the light command ship to ensure the fleet is killable, so that might keep them alive longer. It would also be good for small skirmish fleets doing hit-and-run tactics. They could have a pretty short range too, like 25km or something. The big command ships can be all about massive fleets and whatnot, with their range being the whole grid.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#29 - 2013-10-09 04:04:26 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Sure, you can nano-fit a T3 for a frigate/destroyer gang... but [issues]

Now I personally like what others have said here where these ships would be limited to fitting 1 Warfare Link with no ability to fit any more. Given the power of boosting that would be a fair trade-off and force people to consider what bonus they would find most important; speed, longer points/webs, tank, etc.


I would like to see command processors moved to a rig, allowing any ship to potentially perform a battle-cruiser role of bringing non-hull-bonused warfare link(s) if they so desire. The ability for a hull to fit warfare links would thus be equivalent to an extra rig slot and bonus warfare-link-only CPU. What penalties would be suitable for such a rig? Reduction in EHP, bloom in sig radius, penalty to CPU/PG? There is also the option of consuming 400 calibration, preventing the use of command processor rigs on T2 & pirate ships.

So for the moment assume that I support the idea of allowing flexible deployment of warfare links: what penalty would you be willing to accept in return for a Skirmish Warfare - Interdiction Manoeuvres warfare link? Consider the difference between an Oracle and Prophecy for example.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#30 - 2013-10-09 04:29:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I think that goes a little beyond the scope of the thread here (sorry if that sounds like a cop-out... they're actually interesting ideas but would require another thread).

All I'm proposing here is a Tech 2 Destroyer than can run a limited amount of Warfare Links, nothing more or less.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#31 - 2013-10-09 05:19:46 UTC
Well, what are you prepared to sacrifice over what a T1 destroyer offers?

I'm working on the assumption that there is a heck of a lot of gear that you have to squeeze into that hull in order to allow it to fit warfare links in the first place.

Would a "light command ship" work with only 75% of the DPS and tank of the T1 destroyer equivalent?
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#32 - 2013-10-09 05:30:29 UTC
Something I've felt the need to complain about as well. I have no issues with links going ongrid - I support it. But not if smaller ship classes wont have their own command ships. Adding these different classes will make boosting more obtainable for lower level players as well as allow for more dynamic options for players - especially those in Lowsec and FW.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#33 - 2013-10-09 06:17:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Mara Rinn wrote:
Well, what are you prepared to sacrifice over what a T1 destroyer offers?

I'm working on the assumption that there is a heck of a lot of gear that you have to squeeze into that hull in order to allow it to fit warfare links in the first place.

Would a "light command ship" work with only 75% of the DPS and tank of the T1 destroyer equivalent?

I'd personally be fine with giving up a fair bit of DPS and either speed or tank. I'm under no illusion that this ship would not have to give up something to gain its specialty.

I'm merely hesitant to give more precise details as everyone has an idea on what it should be (though, there seems to be a consensus growing here that it shouldn't be able to fit more than 1 or 2 links)... and I'm just trying to sell the concept itself.
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-10-09 08:07:37 UTC
No, just no.

Frigates, Destroyers and hell even T1 Cruisers should be able to hold their own just fine against other Frigates, Destroyers and Cruisers; while I certainly advocate the idea that there needs to be more destroyers and maybe a few more frigate hulls, inventing another link ship just seems wasteful, pointless and will probably cause more harm than good.

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2013-10-10 00:16:28 UTC
Sorta +1. I think controlling assigned drones should become the purview of command ships and that a T2 destroyer variant would make an awesome small scale version of this. Not sure I'd actually want it to have the ability to run links though...

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#36 - 2013-10-11 00:48:19 UTC
Shameless self-bumping.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#37 - 2013-10-11 00:55:05 UTC
Supported. Logical direction for destroyers to support skirmish gangs when links go on grid.

A good bet this will happen too. Been hinted at on podcasts.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#38 - 2013-10-11 01:05:13 UTC
A bump for yes.

A smaller and faster CS sounds perfect to go with all these deadly cepter/AF/EAF fleets.

And the notion that it can only boost for a squad and not a whole fleet seems like a sound idea to keep it from overlapping the CSes too much.

Maybe a smaller bonus too.

The Drake is a Lie

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-10-11 01:54:44 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
[quote=ShahFluffers]I would like to see command processors moved to a rig
This would be really bad because the opportunity cost for not fitting a different kind of rig is far too small. It would allow ships to fit 2/3/4 (depending on the rig) ganglinks and still have excellent tank and/or DPS (AND, in the case of the Myrmidon).

There should be a high opportunity cost for fitting command processors, to give command ships a distinct advantage in fitting ganglinks. I might decrease the current cost of the command processor if EVE ever goes to on-grid boosts, but it should at least cost a medium slot and a bit of fitting. Even if the rig cost 400 calibration, it wouldn't be worth a medium slot plus a significant amount of CPU and powergrid.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#40 - 2013-10-11 02:22:24 UTC
It'd be kind of unfortunate if something like this didn't happen after links go on grind. Frigate gangs are already weighed down substantially if they want to bring links along, which puts them at a pretty heavy relative disadvantage compared to heavier gangs that are running links. Basically, frigates can either bring linked and trade in the primary advantage of running frigates, or they can not bring them and be at a pretty egregious disadvantage when trying to engage gangs of larger ships.

(Of course, I'd rather they axed links entirely, but that's clearly not going to happen).