Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
4482
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 07:55:36 -
[31] - Quote
command ships are fine. learn to EVE.
I'm a Snaper - imgur.com/8EHPPWU
mad? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Hengle Teron > v(t) = dp / dt
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
790
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 09:39:15 -
[32] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:CCP can't figure out what they want to do with how links work. Until they do that I wouldn't expect to see command ships get any of the issues with them seriously addressed.
make links ongrid only, problem solved. Whoever wants to boost his fleet, has to bring it up. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1883
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 09:44:56 -
[33] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Huh, I didn't realize the stated purpose of a command ship was to be a main front-line brawler with the bonuses to match. Somehow I always got the impression the main purpose was to supply links and a hefty tank, with moderate dps and a moderate ability to apply it.
But don't let that get in your way of a vision of a god tier pwnmobile with increased ewar resistance, damage bonuses, damage application bonuses, ability to easily field a full rack of links, insane tank (as if the damnation didn't already have enough) and whatever bells and whistles you think they need to transform from a link/tank oriented ship to a solo cruising monster.
If you had read the devs statement on the CS ships changes. .they stated that they ALL SHOULD BE FRONT LINE SHIPS", and taht is why some got extra resistances while others got more dps
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1884
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 10:03:40 -
[34] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:CCP can't figure out what they want to do with how links work. Until they do that I wouldn't expect to see command ships get any of the issues with them seriously addressed. make links ongrid only, problem solved. Whoever wants to boost his fleet, has to bring it up.
That. CCP must make links work on grid only, and then they can buff a bit CSs.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Gosti Kahanid
GANOR Deep Space Explorers GANOR INC.
74
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 10:47:59 -
[35] - Quote
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:Rowells wrote:You must have missed the entire balancing discussion on this. When was this? Are they gonna have another because they sure as hell need one. Here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=264775
And commandships are good as they are. They are commandshiphs, not combat ships. |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
272
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 12:09:36 -
[36] - Quote
Gosti Kahanid wrote:Segraina Skyblazer wrote:Rowells wrote:You must have missed the entire balancing discussion on this. When was this? Are they gonna have another because they sure as hell need one. Here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=264775 And commandships are good as they are. They are commandshiphs, not combat ships.
They are fully meant to be combat ships
Fozzie from the thread you linked:
Quote: The goal remains to make each command ship an entertaining and engaging ship to fly by giving them all the bonuses to gang links and all bonuses for combat. Their specialization is derived from the gang link bonuses, with a strong subtheme of durability as befits a ship class that lends itself to FCing and that is a very valuable target.
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
790
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 12:13:43 -
[37] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:They are fully meant to be combat ships Fozzie from the thread you linked: Quote: The goal remains to make each command ship an entertaining and engaging ship to fly by giving them all the bonuses to gang links and all bonuses for combat. Their specialization is derived from the gang link bonuses, with a strong subtheme of durability as befits a ship class that lends itself to FCing and that is a very valuable target.
they have combat abilities but their focus is clearly on providing bonuses, this is why they are called command ships and are their own class. They must never excel at combat or overshadow other ships specialized on combat, they arent meant as superior battle machines, at least this would be very wrong if that was their focus. |
Feyrin
Unforeseen Consequences. Black Legion.
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 13:49:32 -
[38] - Quote
There is nothing wrong with command ship combat ability. The issues you are experiencing are reflective of the meta leaning toward speed sig and range. Largely due to the balance issues around bombers in nullsec. Your personal issues with being unable to take out a prepared gang with logistics and ewar are entirely intentional. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1884
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 13:58:45 -
[39] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:King Fu Hostile wrote:They are fully meant to be combat ships Fozzie from the thread you linked: Quote: The goal remains to make each command ship an entertaining and engaging ship to fly by giving them all the bonuses to gang links and all bonuses for combat. Their specialization is derived from the gang link bonuses, with a strong subtheme of durability as befits a ship class that lends itself to FCing and that is a very valuable target.
they have combat abilities but their focus is clearly on providing bonuses, this is why they are called command ships and are their own class. They must never excel at combat or overshadow other ships specialized on combat, they arent meant as superior battle machines, at least this would be very wrong if that was their focus.
And yet NO one ever uses CS for links , people use T3 because they can keep up with fleet and fit more easily. So no.. CS are COMBAT ships.. and almsot every single one used is used because of TANK and dps.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1884
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 13:59:34 -
[40] - Quote
Feyrin wrote:There is nothing wrong with command ship combat ability. The issues you are experiencing are reflective of the meta leaning toward speed sig and range. Largely due to the balance issues around bombers in nullsec. Your personal issues with being unable to take out a prepared gang with logistics and ewar are entirely intentional.
They have one problem, that they share with BC. 10mn prop mods push them VERY VERY badly, so much that they move worse than attack battleships.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
792
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 14:13:41 -
[41] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: And yet NO one ever uses CS for links , people use T3 because they can keep up with fleet and fit more easily. So no.. CS are COMBAT ships.. and almsot every single one used is used because of TANK and dps.
people use T3 because its safer to park a very hard probeable T3 on safespot and watch close range for probes, instead of keeping CS alive on field. I guess this will change once CCP fixes (read:removes) this whole offgrid link bs. Nonetheless, command ships arent primarily for combat but for command links as their name suggests, otherwise we wouldnt have this whole class anyways, right?
Yes, some people mount guns on them and utilize them for combat, which doesnt change their primary designed purpose though - some people used to battle in rorquals or scimitars. So what? Even if some of them are strong in combat role, its not their primary role, so they shouldnt excel in it so stop requesting that. |
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
16
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 14:42:03 -
[42] - Quote
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:In 2012 there was no ship that could outbrawl a sleipnir. The sleipnir literally ate any all cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships along with their tech 2 and faction counterparts (yes marauders included) for breakfast lunch and dinner all day long 7 days a week.
...and you don't understand how wrong this is? This is the exact reason why they needed some re-balancing.
This game isn't about "i have the uber-armor/sword/whatever and you can't touch me anymore". It's about knowing your strengths and weaknesses and also the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy... and acting accordingly. A ship without weaknesses or with too many strengths throws everything out of whack. Hence the term "(re-)balancing".
|
Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling
484
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 15:58:48 -
[43] - Quote
Mornak wrote:Segraina Skyblazer wrote:In 2012 there was no ship that could outbrawl a sleipnir. The sleipnir literally ate any all cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships along with their tech 2 and faction counterparts (yes marauders included) for breakfast lunch and dinner all day long 7 days a week. ...and you don't understand how wrong this is? This is the exact reason why they needed some re-balancing. This game isn't about "i have the uber-armor/sword/whatever and you can't touch me anymore". It's about knowing your strengths and weaknesses and also the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy... and acting accordingly. A ship without weaknesses or with too many strengths throws everything out of whack. Hence the term "(re-)balancing".
Completely agree, but the whole notion that cost isn't a balancing factor is completely absurd. If I'm going to pay 300 million isk for a ship, then I want 300 million isk worth of ship. If I don't get that I'll spend my money elsewhere. I think it's fair to say a command ship is not 300 million isk worth of ship. If it was, then a 1v1 with a ship that's in the same speed, signature and weapon class should not be an issue. Edit:I should add I'm talking about a T1 counter part.
Command ships sell you on the promise that they will provide a dual role capability of being a sturdy and capable combat ship, while being an excellent command link platform. Right now it's lacking in both regards, but I think the later is an issue that could be fixed by removing off grid boosts and focusing on fixing the former.
If cost plays no role in balancing, then all of a sudden, surprise surprise, the cheaper ship that's just as effective for the same role overshadows the more expensive ship and the more expensive ship falls into obsolescent obscurity.
Schrodinger's Hot Dropper
The Fate of Forum Alts
|
Segraina Skyblazer
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 03:07:26 -
[44] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: And yet NO one ever uses CS for links , people use T3 because they can keep up with fleet and fit more easily. So no.. CS are COMBAT ships.. and almsot every single one used is used because of TANK and dps.
people use T3 because its safer to park a very hard probeable T3 on safespot and watch close range for probes, instead of keeping CS alive on field. I guess this will change once CCP fixes (read:removes) this whole offgrid link bs. Nonetheless, command ships arent primarily for combat but for command links as their name suggests, otherwise we wouldnt have this whole class anyways, right? Yes, some people mount guns on them and utilize them for combat, which doesnt change their primary designed purpose though - some people used to battle in rorquals or scimitars. So what? Even if some of them are strong in combat role, its not their primary role, so they shouldnt excel in it so stop requesting that.
If CCP thoughts on this subject aligns with yours then CCP should add a new line of tech 2 battlecruisers called ASSAULT BATTLECRUISERS that don't require 50 days of training useless leadership skills or TECH TECH TECH 3 3 3 BCs.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
279
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 04:03:05 -
[45] - Quote
I would love to see a t2 battlecruiser that is designed off the Attack battlecruisers, bonused fitting for 100mn props and uses medium guns, pumping out reasonable DPS, with medium BC sig and insane on-grid speed.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Vapor Ventrillian
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 04:15:43 -
[46] - Quote
One Word buddy...Aliens!
The Evil Overlord of Scope, self elected as all good overlords should be
|
Feyrin
Unforeseen Consequences. Black Legion.
40
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 08:27:51 -
[47] - Quote
Look I was at fanfest both last year and the year before. The message on off grid boosting is clear CCP want to remove it. However it is not simple. Technically its really hard and like fixing the POS code will need an imaginative solution they dont have at the moment. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
154
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 09:02:16 -
[48] - Quote
Segraina Skyblazer wrote:Rowells wrote:Segraina Skyblazer wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:whats wrong about command ships? They tank a lot and they provide links regardless if jammed or not - this is their purpose. They arent meant as better combat machines. In that case CCP needs to get rolling and bring out the Tech 3 Battlecrusiers. I think I'll just skip CS and go straight for the marauders namely the vargur. if you had issues with CS having weak sensors marauders wont be any better. The marauders have bastion mode to take care of cheap ewar tactics
Your an idiot, Marauders are never the next step up direct from command ships. While i do agree that the slot layout on some ships could be better (nighthawk)
But, if you think that a ship is supposed to be able to handle every situation without making any sacrifices then go play another game. Each ship can be fitted to counter certain things if you want, they are not there to innately provide the perfect solution to everything. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2728
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 09:42:27 -
[49] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |