Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xahara
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.05.09 23:41:00 -
[91]
This topic was definitely in the wrong page. :)
|
Thresh Avery
Best Path Inc. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 06:01:00 -
[92]
Good stuff. You've put a lot of thought and sense into the improvements and not been unreasonable with your requests.
You have my full backing.
|
Trader Jen
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 06:11:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Trader Jen on 10/05/2010 06:10:39 agreeing with op |
yani dumyat
The 23rd Sense
|
Posted - 2010.05.10 21:22:00 -
[94]
+1
If CCP don't want to boost the nighthawk please can they replace the n with an s. _______
"Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth." |
T'Amber
www.shipsofeve.com
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 11:41:00 -
[95]
I support your thread.
I do however have some other ideas to help buff field command ships (I'll post them after the CSM5 elections) with some anti blob weapons/ bonuses.
And although I have command ship to V on my other main this has in no way influenced my decision.
-T'amber
POLITICS:SIMULATORÖ
|
Vehlin
Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.11 13:58:00 -
[96]
Definitely support this. Field Command ships are fairly overshadowed by the BCs.
|
Roblight
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:20:00 -
[97]
I agree with basically everything said as I have experienced that these ships need a little loving so a T1 version doesn't do the same or better
|
Lerth O'Ferris
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 19:07:00 -
[98]
My enlighted master asked me to approve this thread.
Since in the modern world slaves can vote as well (wtf?), I'm abusing this and voting.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.13 20:18:00 -
[99]
This idea is among the stupidest non-troll proposals I've ever seen on the Assembly Hall. You think that the Sleipnir, one of the scariest ships in Eve, needs a massive buff? You're crazy.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Monsters
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 17:32:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto This idea is among the stupidest non-troll proposals I've ever seen on the Assembly Hall. You think that the Sleipnir, one of the scariest ships in Eve, needs a massive buff? You're crazy.
The vast majority of people in this thread do not think that the sleipnir is the issue at all. I'd argue that it is the most well designed of all the Field Commands ships atm and is what CCP should strive for when balancing the others.
The two ships that have attracted the most attention in both this discussion and others similar to this one are the Nighthawk and the Astarte. These are the ships that I believe have fundamental issues with both fitting and slots especially when compared to the much cheaper and arguably more effective tier 2 BCs.
Nighthawk needs more grid, this issue has been identifies and agreed upon by a large portion of the community for quite a long time running. The Astarte In my opinion needs an 8th high slot and the additional grid/cap needed to run a gang module on a competitive combat setup. I believe that the Armor Repair Bonus that is commonly associated with Gallente BCs needs a revisit as well. I do not believe the solution should be to change the bonus but rather increase the % on the BC and related t2 type ships. The major issues I see with increasing this tanking bonus is that it could potentially have a negative impact on pve balance. Although to be completely honest it's not like the Brutix, Myrmidon, or Astarte are kings of pve atm.
Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you ***got" |
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 18:50:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe The vast majority of people in this thread do not think that the sleipnir is the issue at all. I'd argue that it is the most well designed of all the Field Commands ships atm and is what CCP should strive for when balancing the others.
The two ships that have attracted the most attention in both this discussion and others similar to this one are the Nighthawk and the Astarte. These are the ships that I believe have fundamental issues with both fitting and slots especially when compared to the much cheaper and arguably more effective tier 2 BCs.
Nighthawk needs more grid, this issue has been identifies and agreed upon by a large portion of the community for quite a long time running. The Astarte In my opinion needs an 8th high slot and the additional grid/cap needed to run a gang module on a competitive combat setup. I believe that the Armor Repair Bonus that is commonly associated with Gallente BCs needs a revisit as well. I do not believe the solution should be to change the bonus but rather increase the % on the BC and related t2 type ships. The major issues I see with increasing this tanking bonus is that it could potentially have a negative impact on pve balance. Although to be completely honest it's not like the Brutix, Myrmidon, or Astarte are kings of pve atm.
I didn't read all four pages, I was replying to the OP, who asked for an extra slot and a bunch of CPU for a ship that's already pretty awesome. Same with the Absolution. I'm fine with giving the Nighthawk some PG, and I agree that active tank bonuses need to be buffed, probably to 10%/level, on all ships that have them. Giving the Astarte room for a gang link is probably too much, but at least within the bounds of reason. But that isn't what the OP asked for. He asked for an eighth neutron blaster on the Astarte, and an extra mid/low slot on both the Absolution and the Sleipnir. All of those suggestions are frankly ludicrous.
|
Elyseum
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 14:27:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Venkul Mul Even if they aren't meant to be HAC on steroids Field command ships need some redoing.
why shouldnt they be HACs on steroids ?
these are the FIELD command ships right ? T2, insanely expensive. there has to be something justifying the cost and usage over a standard BC.
|
Elyseum
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 14:44:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Yaay That imbalance directly relates to the imbalance that was created when Teir 2 got released and became the "almost as good as t2 for way less" choice.
t2 battlecruisers are the meat and potatoes of this game in terms of bang for the buck
DO NOT F ING F WITH MY HURRICANE AND HARBINGER DAMN YOU
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 20:17:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Elyseum
Originally by: Venkul Mul Even if they aren't meant to be HAC on steroids Field command ships need some redoing.
why shouldnt they be HACs on steroids ?
these are the FIELD command ships right ? T2, insanely expensive. there has to be something justifying the cost and usage over a standard BC.
Because "Command ships aren't meant to be HAC on steroids" is the comment some CCP Dev did in a blog a lot of years ago when explaining why they aren't stronger than what they are.
An no, I don't want to sped hours searching the correct reference.
In CCP idea command ship have a role in being command ships (and so they should have the capacity to use efficiently command modules) not in being bigger HACs.
That don't mean to that command ships can't be made better, simply that it should not revolve only around making them simply better killing machines but instead making them capable of doing the role they are intended for.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 20:25:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Venkul Mul In CCP idea command ship have a role in being command ships (and so they should have the capacity to use efficiently command modules) not in being bigger HACs.
Then they should not have introduced field command ships, because fleet command ships cover that role completely.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Misanth
Reaper Industries Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 22:29:00 -
[106]
I support the thread in the sense that they need a boost.
However, I think Fon tunes them in a better direction:
Originally by: Fon Revedhort Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 27/03/2010 07:29:42 Something is to be done, but some proposals are just weird.
Why the hell would you want to give Astarte yet another gun when she still dies with its current 7? It won't make this ship that much better as no one sane complains on the DPS of it, but rather on the lack of mobility/features. Addition of another tanking slot is already way better since 7 guns with 2 damage mods is superior to 8 with just one, and I'm yet to see any setup with 2 MFS which isn't a complete kamikaze-mobile.
+1 med for Abso is dandy, but kinda corrupts the whole racial concept, as Amarr are somewhat supposed to lack mids. I'd vote for another tanking slot, too.
Changes for Sleip and NH look reasonable.
More PG and +1 med for NH? Hell, yeah
Normally in EVE ships have a role. CCP try to balance things around that, create things around that, and that's the whole concept behind them. What's common between these ships?
* They were, on creation, very nice balanced between tank and gank. Your survivability let you outlast opponents while having a quite respectable damage output. -> That has changed through the years. The introduction of rigs, and inflation in skillpoints/isk, combined with ALOT more pilots nowadays, as well as the totalhelldeath of active tanking has killed this.
I'd like to see some love in general to active tanking, that would sort these ship out partially, as well as a multitude of other ships. At the end of the day, these ships should be able to tank, while doing respectable damage, and should have enough fitting over to throw on a ganglink. These are not big scale fleet ships, but should be shining in small- and medium scale. - I'd tell you why but then I'll have to kill you. And to kill you I'd have to log in. And to log in I'd have to stop browsing these forums. Both you and me knows that'll never happen. |
Mr Swifty
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 23:50:00 -
[107]
Support.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.05.15 23:56:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Misanth
Addition of another tanking slot is already way better since 7 guns with 2 damage mods is superior to 8 with just one, and I'm yet to see any setup with 2 MFS which isn't a complete kamikaze-mobile.
You could shield tank it
Also, armor astarte is a suicide mobile anyway.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 02:56:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Misanth
Addition of another tanking slot is already way better since 7 guns with 2 damage mods is superior to 8 with just one, and I'm yet to see any setup with 2 MFS which isn't a complete kamikaze-mobile.
You could shield tank it
Also, armor astarte is a suicide mobile anyway.
I fly an armor Astarte with 2 damage mods, 7 T2 neutrons, and 74k EHP. Not as much as I'd truly like on a command ship, but hardly papery.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 06:40:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/05/2010 20:32:39 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/05/2010 20:29:14
Originally by: Venkul Mul In CCP idea command ship have a role in being command ships (and so they should have the capacity to use efficiently command modules) not in being bigger HACs.
Then they should not have introduced field command ships, because fleet command ships cover that role completely.
They introduced so much stuff in the meantime, anyway, that boosting CS is really in order, particularly the horribad ones (hi Astarte). Them being able to sport a warfare link (which is Sleipnir and Abso only anyway and Abso has problems doing it) is a nice thing for a small gang, but said small gang also needs a ship which performs in direct combat.
Large gangs will never use the field CS in boosting role since Fleet does it 11ty billion times better. Then again, I'm ok with them being trash too, since they salvage well and sometimes drop faction loot , ideal loot pinatas and preety easy to kill on top.
I have already supported the thread as changes are in order, simply I was saying that making field command ships a super HAC was not CCP idea.
T3 cruisers command version has removed one of the possible (after changes) role, that of a ship faster/more agile, capable of working well with cruisers fleets.
For sure all the field command ships need to be capable to use a warfare link without nerfing too much tank and DPS.
Probably this summer CCP will do some rebalancing of weapons and ships, so maybe they will look command ships.
As there is a lot of rebalancing it is only a small chance.
|
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 23:06:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/05/2010 20:32:39 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/05/2010 20:29:14
Originally by: Venkul Mul In CCP idea command ship have a role in being command ships (and so they should have the capacity to use efficiently command modules) not in being bigger HACs.
Then they should not have introduced field command ships, because fleet command ships cover that role completely.
They introduced so much stuff in the meantime, anyway, that boosting CS is really in order, particularly the horribad ones (hi Astarte). Them being able to sport a warfare link (which is Sleipnir and Abso only anyway and Abso has problems doing it) is a nice thing for a small gang, but said small gang also needs a ship which performs in direct combat.
Large gangs will never use the field CS in boosting role since Fleet does it 11ty billion times better. Then again, I'm ok with them being trash too, since they salvage well and sometimes drop faction loot , ideal loot pinatas and preety easy to kill on top.
I have already supported the thread as changes are in order, simply I was saying that making field command ships a super HAC was not CCP idea.
T3 cruisers command version has removed one of the possible (after changes) role, that of a ship faster/more agile, capable of working well with cruisers fleets.
For sure all the field command ships need to be capable to use a warfare link without nerfing too much tank and DPS.
Probably this summer CCP will do some rebalancing of weapons and ships, so maybe they will look command ships.
As there is a lot of rebalancing it is only a small chance.
Underlining the key words here :)
It makes me giggle recalling them to admit NH's grid issues back in the early 2008. Absolutely nothing has been done since then.
I'd bet we would actually get tech3 battlecruisers sooner then they fix CS class. And I just hope those will pwn as much as current Strategic Cruisers do. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.05.23 20:19:00 -
[112]
agree'in with fon here
dont touch the sleip.
the only thing an abso could use is another lowslot, but that could still make it too OP
astarte needs grid and an increase to rep amount
nighthawk needs grid, + the bonuses to apply to HAMs ---- People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
New PVP Movie - Space Vikings II |
Vehlin
Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.25 08:45:00 -
[113]
If they don't want the Field CSs to be super HACs then they should concentrate on making them a Fleet CS for small gangs.
Give them the ability to fit a ganklink without having to gimp the fitting to do it, also give them a bonus to the ganglink's effectiveness. This would still leave the Fleet Command Ships with the 3 links and uber tank for fleet engagements and let the Field Command Ships deal with boosting sub-BS gangs
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.05.25 20:57:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Misanth
Addition of another tanking slot is already way better since 7 guns with 2 damage mods is superior to 8 with just one, and I'm yet to see any setup with 2 MFS which isn't a complete kamikaze-mobile.
You could shield tank it
Also, armor astarte is a suicide mobile anyway.
I fly an armor Astarte with 2 damage mods, 7 T2 neutrons, and 74k EHP. Not as much as I'd truly like on a command ship, but hardly papery.
I shieldtank my Brutixi (Brutixes?) and I enjoy my 1.1k DPS. Astarte can power out 1.4k if I remember correctly. 74k eHP is really paltry considering how damnned slow it is compared to a harby (which will end up with MORE and cost less and more reach), you will be insta-primaried, and you still don't make use of the tempting repair bonus. Loot pinata indeed.
Originally by: Vehlin If they don't want the Field CSs to be super HACs then they should concentrate on making them a Fleet CS for small gangs.
Give them the ability to fit a ganklink without having to gimp the fitting to do it, also give them a bonus to the ganglink's effectiveness. This would still leave the Fleet Command Ships with the 3 links and uber tank for fleet engagements and let the Field Command Ships deal with boosting sub-BS gangs
This would require a revamp of the whole ganglink structure, because even if this was implemented, the Astarte would continue to be worthless (Infowar? lolwhut?) ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Elmanketticks
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 00:40:00 -
[115]
Support! Especially the Nighthawk part! Give us one single gridslot more for gods sake please!
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 16:40:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I fly an armor Astarte with 2 damage mods, 7 T2 neutrons, and 74k EHP. Not as much as I'd truly like on a command ship, but hardly papery.
I shieldtank my Brutixi (Brutixes?) and I enjoy my 1.1k DPS. Astarte can power out 1.4k if I remember correctly. 74k eHP is really paltry considering how damnned slow it is compared to a harby (which will end up with MORE and cost less and more reach), you will be insta-primaried, and you still don't make use of the tempting repair bonus. Loot pinata indeed.
A Brutix doesn't get 1100 DPS without officer gear. A Brutix with max skills, 7x neutrons, 3 damage mods, and Hammerhead IIs gets 860 DPS. The same fit on an Astarte gets 1035, for comparison. For a Harby to get more EHP than that Astarte, it needs to fit a 1600, 2 EANM, a damage control, and three Trimarks, and even then it only hits 76k. The fit is reasonable, but it does a third less DPS and moves slower even at max skills. I'd still take the Astarte in a second(ignoring cost). Yeah, it's not the same as a triple-plate Geddon, but it has as much EHP as most sniper-fit battleships. Any BC that can tank three races of(old) doomsday isn't doing too badly on tank.
Also, no repair bonus is tempting on anything too small to use battleship reppers, unless you're running L3 missions.
|
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 16:51:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Misanth
Addition of another tanking slot is already way better since 7 guns with 2 damage mods is superior to 8 with just one, and I'm yet to see any setup with 2 MFS which isn't a complete kamikaze-mobile.
You could shield tank it
Also, armor astarte is a suicide mobile anyway.
I fly an armor Astarte with 2 damage mods, 7 T2 neutrons, and 74k EHP. Not as much as I'd truly like on a command ship, but hardly papery.
In addition to the OP, how would you feel about either 25 more drone bay or an extra turret on the absolution without Power Grid change. Because atm with the additional zealot turret added and the much more useful range and speed of the zealot, plus the other battleships and BC options, there's still so many alternatives to the absolution that nobody will ever fly one.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Another Troll
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 21:24:00 -
[118]
Although I am losing faith in this section of the forums, I support this matter.
|
Kyang Tia
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 21:33:00 -
[119]
Supporting this! Astarte, Absolution and Nighthawk really need to have a role besides being expensive and sometimes worse than Tier 2 BCs.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 02:36:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Yaay In addition to the OP, how would you feel about either 25 more drone bay or an extra turret on the absolution without Power Grid change. Because atm with the additional zealot turret added and the much more useful range and speed of the zealot, plus the other battleships and BC options, there's still so many alternatives to the absolution that nobody will ever fly one.
In addition to the OP, christ no. As an alternative, the drone bay change seems reasonable enough, though I'm not a fan of the second turret, because it's still a command ship and still ought to have a utility high to fit the warfare link. I don't want it to have the same problem the Astarte has in that regard(speaking of which, if you want an Astarte buff I'd like, +1 high, +160 PG, +40 CPU would be nice...even though I know most people would just fit a medium neut ). Also, +1 turret is a pretty big bonus, especially on a ship with dual DPS bonuses. I don't think the Absolution needs that much of a buff. But a bit more drone space, getting it up to Harby levels, is fine by me.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |