These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Reduce the ridiculous SP requirements for Command Ships.

Author
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#61 - 2014-07-14 00:17:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
Cyno Saraki wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:

Not all of us, But your right the majority sit in boredom feeling only slightly more or less useful than titans and Jump Bridges..


Dunno about you & ur's but most if not all the time, the booster is an alt of some1 on grid.

Yeah but with nearly a 3k to 4.5k DPS active tank and pushing near 1k DPS I don't like leaving them behind, only lost one so far but we pick the engagements pretty carefully.

For the OP, regardless of how useless the tertiary skills seem the CS ships are pretty much all worth it in the end. Not all of them, but most of them are.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#62 - 2014-07-14 00:50:23 UTC
Cyno Saraki wrote:
The op is right, b4 the BC skill split, I made sure to train CS 1 across all my accts due to the imba buff. Forcing new players to train racial BC V + all the leadership ones is brutal compared to the previous way.

If you bother looking at the real numbers, it's actually faster now to train into CS than it used to be.
There was just a weird loophole at the skill change over a number of people (Self included I'll admit) took advantage of to get into CS before we would otherwise have been able to.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#63 - 2014-07-14 11:00:01 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
This is getting from silly to stupid


Owen Levanth wrote:
I don't give a rat's ass for the command ships and their role, my personal problem here is with not having T2-battlecruisers for the roles I like.

Luckily this does mean I won't have to set the training to train skills I don't want.

And your are on the fast lain right past the discussion, what are you doing here and not in a "New Combat T2 Battlecruiser" suggestion thread ??? Thank you for not participating, you are having a completely different argument with none of us...


Back to the topic, I wouldn't mind a reduction in training for the command ships, either. It would make more sense if you only had to train the most likely to be relevant skills, like armor-stuff if you want to fly an Amarr-command ship, for example.

Having just the command ships to look forward to, should I decide to invest training time in battlecruisers, is just another separate issue I have. And I just said that line about rats because I got annoyed with that other guy being willfuly obtuse.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#64 - 2014-07-14 15:33:06 UTC
i remember asking fozzie too reduce the need too train all 4 warfare skills instead of just 1 or 2 that you actually get a bonus for on command ships...

he said that the shield bonus amount is still useful on armour link ships and vice versa ...

changes i would like on CS and warfare link skill reqs
- only the 2 relevant warfare skills at lv1 should be required
- remove 'insert appropriately named' warfare link spec lv4

On T1 warfare links
- remove 'insert appropriately named' warfare spec lv1
-reduce 'insert appropriately named' warfare skill requirement to lv1

Then T1 combat battlecruisers could actually use T1 warfare links easily too begin with like they should be able too

Command Ships would only require relevant skills and be quicker too get into..

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

Feyrin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2014-07-14 23:04:37 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Arbitrarily classifying "skills needed to use links" as not-link skills and "skills that provide bonuses to links" as link skills is the height of semantics.

The leadership skills only benefit your gang if you're the only one in the gang to have them, otherwise they do nothing.

But seriously, be honest here. If you only looked at characters created after the patch that changed the command ship skill requirements, and compared the number of pilots that can fly a command ship to the number of pilots that can fly, say, marauders or hictors, (which have similar prereqs in terms of # of raw SP) you don't think that the number of CS pilots wouldn't be a third of the other two categories or less?

People fly 100+ fleets of Tengus. People fly 100+ fleets of Ishtars. You're never going to see a 100+ Vulture fleet, even though it's similar in power level and application to the former two ships.


Actually PL have a Vulture fleet that contains approximately 100+ vultures, ask CVA they have been on the receiving end sometimes. You know cause they undock and fight sometimes.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#66 - 2014-07-15 06:32:48 UTC
Feyrin wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Arbitrarily classifying "skills needed to use links" as not-link skills and "skills that provide bonuses to links" as link skills is the height of semantics.

The leadership skills only benefit your gang if you're the only one in the gang to have them, otherwise they do nothing.

But seriously, be honest here. If you only looked at characters created after the patch that changed the command ship skill requirements, and compared the number of pilots that can fly a command ship to the number of pilots that can fly, say, marauders or hictors, (which have similar prereqs in terms of # of raw SP) you don't think that the number of CS pilots wouldn't be a third of the other two categories or less?

People fly 100+ fleets of Tengus. People fly 100+ fleets of Ishtars. You're never going to see a 100+ Vulture fleet, even though it's similar in power level and application to the former two ships.


Actually PL have a Vulture fleet that contains approximately 100+ vultures, ask CVA they have been on the receiving end sometimes. You know cause they undock and fight sometimes.

Also please show me the 100+ Marauder fleets or Black Ops BS fleets (Not 100+ Bomber fleets).
You (Xeq) are trying to compare apples & oranges here, by using a ship with a lower training multiplier and a shorter train time in general as an argument.
Command ships are harder to train into than HAC's and T3's. They should be.
Xander Det89
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#67 - 2014-07-15 06:55:41 UTC
In other words, you just want a stripped down skill req so you can fly a CS as a super-hac and forget about the command role.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2014-07-15 11:23:00 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Also please show me the 100+ Marauder fleets or Black Ops BS fleets (Not 100+ Bomber fleets).
You (Xeq) are trying to compare apples & oranges here, by using a ship with a lower training multiplier and a shorter train time in general as an argument.
Command ships are harder to train into than HAC's and T3's. They should be.


You're talking about blackops and marauders and say I'm comparing apples and oranges? A rail Tengu, rail Vulture, and Ishtar (with Wardens) have exactly the same role. Marauders and blackops BS have vastly different roles from all other battleships.

Quote:
In other words, you just want a stripped down skill req so you can fly a CS as a super-hac and forget about the command role.


Honestly, you pretty much nailed it. The thing is 99% of the people that fly them use them as super-hacs. The link skills go totally unused. And before someone posts "they're not link skills, they're leadership skills!" remember that you can use that logic to justify requiring them for almost any other class of ship.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#69 - 2014-07-15 12:33:49 UTC
Xequecal wrote:

Quote:
In other words, you just want a stripped down skill req so you can fly a CS as a super-hac and forget about the command role.


Honestly, you pretty much nailed it. The thing is 99% of the people that fly them use them as super-hacs. The link skills go totally unused. And before someone posts "they're not link skills, they're leadership skills!" remember that you can use that logic to justify requiring them for almost any other class of ship.


If you don't want to be a valuable part of your alliance and contributor to fleets with your Leadership skills, that's one thing; however, if you only want to shoot stuff, you should not ask for reducing the skill time or change the skill types to unreasonable skills, you should instead ask for a new T2 BC that is solely focused on combat.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#70 - 2014-07-15 14:27:53 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:


If you don't want to be a valuable part of your alliance and contributor to fleets with your Leadership skills, that's one thing; however, if you only want to shoot stuff, you should not ask for reducing the skill time or change the skill types to unreasonable skills, you should instead ask for a new T2 BC that is solely focused on combat.


Most of the command ships' fitting options allow them to be used for both, and everything in between. I honestly can't see a reason why the requirements shouldn't reflect this.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#71 - 2014-07-16 01:03:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Bohneik Itohn wrote:

Most of the command ships' fitting options allow them to be used for both, and everything in between. I honestly can't see a reason why the requirements shouldn't reflect this.

Because it doesn't need to. The current requirements are shorter than the old train and land mid way between HAC's & Marauders, where it should be.
Which skill would you remove from the general command ships skill? Remember this is a non racial skill.
Which skill would you then replace it with because CCP aren't going to shorten the overall train. That is in keeping with the theme of 'command'.

And remember CCP are trying to go away from 5 different skills on the ship itself like the old CS had, instead having the racial skill to V for T2, then the relevant specialist skill. Since that keeps it smooth & easy to work out what is needed rather than labyrinthine skill trees like the old CS versions.
Dally Lama
Doomheim
#72 - 2014-07-16 01:51:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Dally Lama
The solution is for CCP to add another group of T2 battlecruisers. Slightly worse resist profile, slightly better damage output, no links.

Trying to argue that CS should have requirements cut down because the requirements are seldom taken advantage of is not a good argument IMO. They should instead be adjusting the ship so it's more often used in it's proper role. They can then add the new class mentioned above for combat T2 BC.

EDIT: Removing for example armor warfare requirements from caldari ships would make sense though.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#73 - 2014-07-16 02:12:44 UTC
Dally Lama wrote:
The solution is for CCP to add another group of T2 battlecruisers. Slightly worse resist profile, slightly better damage output, no links.

Trying to argue that CS should have requirements cut down because the requirements are seldom taken advantage of is not a good argument IMO. They should instead be adjusting the ship so it's more often used in it's proper role. They can then add the new class mentioned above for combat T2 BC.

EDIT: Removing for example armor warfare requirements from caldari ships would make sense though.

The problem is there is no special armour warfare requirement for Caldari Ships.
There is a requirement for the General all races Command Ships skill.

Which is needed for any of the races command ships.
Axon Magnus
Tactical Stability Union
#74 - 2014-07-18 13:35:20 UTC
i really like your idea , me too i dont see the reason for making it so long just to fly it , even worse its longer that the skills required to fly maruader ships , atleast they should me it so you dont need the skills of leadership just to fly it , especially if you just want to fly it for just combat :D Big smile
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#75 - 2014-07-18 14:33:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Bohneik Itohn
Dally Lama wrote:
The solution is for CCP to add another group of T2 battlecruisers. Slightly worse resist profile, slightly better damage output, no links.

Trying to argue that CS should have requirements cut down because the requirements are seldom taken advantage of is not a good argument IMO. They should instead be adjusting the ship so it's more often used in it's proper role. They can then add the new class mentioned above for combat T2 BC.

EDIT: Removing for example armor warfare requirements from caldari ships would make sense though.


Personally I'm not asking for a reduction in training time, just that the requirements be in line with other ships and not a slew of leadership skills that don't benefit the performance of the ship. Every other T2 ship in the game requires skills that directly affect the ships' attributes. The skills just don't apply to all of the roles the hull can fill, and that's a waste when you consider that a requirement like Energy Grid upgrades V is always going to have a positive benefit for a ship that requires it.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:

Most of the command ships' fitting options allow them to be used for both, and everything in between. I honestly can't see a reason why the requirements shouldn't reflect this.

Because it doesn't need to. The current requirements are shorter than the old train and land mid way between HAC's & Marauders, where it should be.
Which skill would you remove from the general command ships skill? Remember this is a non racial skill.
Which skill would you then replace it with because CCP aren't going to shorten the overall train. That is in keeping with the theme of 'command'.

And remember CCP are trying to go away from 5 different skills on the ship itself like the old CS had, instead having the racial skill to V for T2, then the relevant specialist skill. Since that keeps it smooth & easy to work out what is needed rather than labyrinthine skill trees like the old CS versions.


Again, don't care about the training time. Keep the same amount of SP but focused in different skills. (And as a side note, with a PvP training remap Marauders take less time for me to train than CBC's.)

You don't just have the theme command to work with. The rest of the name of the ship is "Battlecruiser". There is no reason that the ship cannot be used as a battlecruiser as well as a command ship, people do it every day to great effect. My entire perspective on the requirements for CBC's is that as a semi-new player, it makes no sense for me to train into one. If I start today by the time I finish I will have spent 1/3 of my entire time in Eve training for skills which improve a small gang or fleets capability to fight, but only encourage me to be somewhere other than the fight because that's 3-4 months that I wasn't training core skills in a ship that is getting called primary. Myself, and other fairly new players, have no interest is spending that chunk of time that we have currently invested in Eve just to sit in a safe while everyone else pews. It's easy to find no fault with the training requirements if you have 2, 3 or 4 years in all of the skills necessary for flying ships in general. After that, training for a CBC just feels like your filling out your already extensive repertoire, not wasting a significant amount your time on something that you still won't be able to enjoy or fly.

I train for HACs I get skills that make my HAC better. I train for Marauders I'm training skills that make my Marauder better. If as a semi-low or low SP player I train CBC's I get told to fit ECCM's and WCS's and sit in the middle of empty space, because I'm too valuable for the fleet to lose mid-fight, and my core skills necessary to keep me alive are anemic after devoting so much training time elsewhere.

It'd be great if, after devoting all of that time to "command" skills you would actually get to "command" something, but you don't, you instead get to listen patiently to events completely out of your control while you continuously click D-scan.

Excited to train CBC's as a new or semi-new player yet? Well if you really want to fill that "Command" role better train another ship so that you can actually be on grid.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#76 - 2014-07-18 18:22:40 UTC
people always say that a newer player should jump right to a battleship. Why should T2 battle cruisers be any different.

Personally I like the training for them now better than before, needing HAC 4 and everything else needed for that was just long for nothing.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#77 - 2014-07-18 18:36:48 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
people always say that a newer player should jump right to a battleship. Why should T2 battle cruisers be any different.

Personally I like the training for them now better than before, needing HAC 4 and everything else needed for that was just long for nothing.


Shocked Who's telling noobs to train for BS's for anything but grinding security missions? Shocked

T2 BC's are different in that they are much easier to get to a point where a player can fly them efficiently than a BS, max them out faster than a BS, and it encourages new players to try their hand at being an FC not just in name but in practice as well.

Train a BS for PvP early on and you've trained into a BS for Pvp. Woohoo. All of that SP you put into a line of BS's would have given you more options that as a new player you can effectively use in a line of cruisers. Train into a CBC early and you not only have more options than you would a T1 BS, but you also have the gunnery skills for cruisers and are capable of expanding the ship and fitting options for your entire fleet.

Now THAT is a goal a new player can get behind.... Until they look at the 3-4 months of training they're going to spend with no improvement in their current abilities to fit and fly ships.... Unless you've already got a line of ships skilled out to be quite competent in PvP(in which case I don't think the term new or semi-new applies to you) this is essentially saying that you don't want to do anything but play your skill queue for the next 90 days, because your options are not only limited but will remain limited, and nobody is going to want you FCing if you consistently get knocked off the field early in the fights.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Korvus Falek
Depraved Corruption
Lux Inter Astra
#78 - 2014-07-18 20:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Korvus Falek
Ellendras Silver wrote:


and speaking of this why isnt mining director 5 needed to inject orca or rorqual skills????? because lvl 1 is enough for those ships! i would love to fly command ships without links so tell me why i need to train a **** ton of skills that i dont want/need ???



Mining Foreman 5 is required, which is the equal skill to the other basic leadership skills. Mining Director is the more advanced skill and is needed at 1, same as the other advanced leadership skills for command ships.

May have been answered before I posted this, but I didnt feel like continued reading after your post.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#79 - 2014-07-18 23:09:54 UTC
K, I am gonna out myself a bit to make a point.

I am just a 18 month player and my main lasted 2 month until I decided, he needs some company and two more months for another child etc.
My main does random stuff can, do all kinds of things semi well, but was quite efficient with BC and BS after the 3rd month and never got problems since then.
My second was committed after a few months to Command ships, he is been training 9 months now and is close to CS5, BC skills are still missing, BUT I played that one every day, probably more then my main and training has never bothered me. I also used the Leadership skills and T1 modules effectively from day one.
Number 3 was committed from the first day to logi and is now 12 months in, with all related skills on 5 except logi 5 which is in the cue. Hmm, that's equally long as CS in total °°
Number 4 was committed right from the cradle for pvp and can fly all SB, CovOps, HAC .... everythign t2 cruiser size with 2 almost perfect weapons systems. Also 12 months.

So, tell em again, how training time, skill effectiveness and relations while training and new player training/experience and commitment are off ? Cause I don't get it and don't see it that way.
Not a single day did I have the feeling, that I was punished, forced or whatever rubbish people suggest new players feel or should feel in hindsight. And I consider myself a beginner at the time I made those decisions. And prior to this char I had no clue what EVE was about. And I collected and gathered all the info myself, I had no teacher, training corp or other outside help.

But hey, if you are a ****** FC or just a bad contact for new players and boast with your 80 mil skills and 6 bil ships and then tell the rookies, well, train some years, of course are they gonna hate, but not the skills, ... you, because you killed hope and the reality, that every day can be fun with the illusion, 'no you can't until you have trained ABC to level X'.

This cutting of command ship skills is a redundant discussion, it is well balanced compared with other classes and in itself, it makes sense and if you are interested in fleet support, the skills fit and are of use too.
All this, 'but I have to',' feel forced', 'brutal for beginners' (now if there is not a contraction, mentioning beginners and command ships in one sentence, almost as bad as the blocking rookies from using super shiatpost) is absolute nonsense and whining in the highest degree.
And every time the 'new player' image is held hostage for personal rosette pain, because you couldn't get your training sorted from week 1 and your crap is all over the place. Well, speak for yourself.

Doesn't mean things couldn't be more consistent, doesn't mean we might not wish for a Heavy Assault BC (T2), but stop whining about the skills and the system because you are butthurt and defending a lost argument with nonsense just to be right.

And the votes you collect are from people who always will say yes to anything that comes cheaper or easier. Does that make it right - No.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#80 - 2014-07-18 23:24:06 UTC
Ah, and another tiny little thing I forgot, as most others. Please, if you complain about the enormous amount of training time spent for the leadership skills, please don't forget to divide that time by 255 so you get the real training time down for 1 pilot. Cause that time that you are spending also works on the 254 possible other pilots that don't train.

And if you don't know that - why are you training Command Ships ?