Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2326
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 17:22:21 -
[31] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Command ships are so bad it's funny.
I've got command ships 5 and near perfect skills and I'm still not going to touch one with a ten foot pole.
What do you expect them to do beside being a little better at combat than a T1 BC and much better at boosting than a T1 BC? Their current "better at combat than T1" might be debatable since the last buff to T1 BC but their T2 role of boosting is already in place.
The train time and cost are not really supposed to be argument to ask for a ship to be better. Making a ship better is supposed to be based on it not filling it's role because it's out-done by something else. They boost better than their T1 counterpart and are arguably better in combat than their T1 counterpart. If you really want a T2 "combat" BC, it might warrant a new class instead of stapling additional role on a ship that already has a defined role. |
Salvos Rhoska
1539
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 21:02:35 -
[32] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Command ships are so bad it's funny.
I've got command ships 5 and near perfect skills and I'm still not going to touch one with a ten foot pole.
This begs the question, why the hell did you get these skills in the first place?
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. I N F A M O U S
507
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 22:25:10 -
[33] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Glathull wrote:I love how all the people who don't even fly the ships have all these great ideas about how to "fix" them.
And by love, I don't actually mean love. My cursory proposal doesnt change the ships themselves at all. Just reduces the training time to get into them. In order to benefit from the Warfare Links, you have to train those skills at the same rate as before anyways. The modules in and of themselves themselves provide very little benefit. Skilling is required to multiply it to pragmatically useful levels. While the player is skilling those, the T2 Battlecruiser hulls themselves still provide a very formidable weapons platform, but are largely useless in the Link department, till the player skills them up.
Glathull's point still stands, doesn't it? But then again, you do love to hear yourself type those responses. |
Salvos Rhoska
1540
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 22:42:03 -
[34] - Quote
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:Glathull's point still stands, doesn't it? But then again, you do love to hear yourself type those responses. He didn't make a point. He expressed an opinion and preference. But yes, it still stands, as does mine. And I can't hear myself typing my responses as my keyboard is very silent.
PvE v PvP
Selling CODE licenses! 9.99mil isk!
Bid for unique CODE neon edition special agent certificate!
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
128
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 23:31:24 -
[35] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Command ships are so bad it's funny.
I've got command ships 5 and near perfect skills and I'm still not going to touch one with a ten foot pole. What do you expect them to do beside being a little better at combat than a T1 BC and much better at boosting than a T1 BC? Their current "better at combat than T1" might be debatable since the last buff to T1 BC but their T2 role of boosting is already in place. The train time and cost are not really supposed to be argument to ask for a ship to be better. Making a ship better is supposed to be based on it not filling it's role because it's out-done by something else. They boost better than their T1 counterpart and are arguably better in combat than their T1 counterpart. If you really want a T2 "combat" BC, it might warrant a new class instead of stapling additional role on a ship that already has a defined role.
As long as TC3 capability of using OGB exist, that defined Role you speak of is redundant. CSs main focus should be combat, not link boosting. And as combantant ships they pale in comparison to their little cousins, the HACs. HACs has nearly identical tanking, better cap recharge, identical cargo hold capacity and far better mobility then the CSs. It's clearly obvious to me that CCP didn't thoroughly complete the CSs rebalance 20 months ago when they did the HACs. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
694
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 01:28:42 -
[36] - Quote
I beg you to remember that balance is boring. I didn't think they needed to be nerfed back when they were nerfed.
-á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
691
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 03:05:18 -
[37] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote: You don't fly Command Ships at all, do you? And if you do, you definitely don't use it for combat.
PEW! PEW! PEW!
I love command ships. Had full L5 for all leaderships and hulls plus fittings before I could fit T2 turrets. This picture is a fave of mine. I play eve for fun, so I brought em on roams. Hell, full tank config, I loved attracting agro. Meant they were shooting at toughest hull on grid instead of the damage dealers and logi. On grid also meant I wasnt having to warp around to evade scanners. Links dont work in warp. I like that current tactics means that a T1 frig can completely take command ships out of the fight.
Sides, on grid is more fun!
Scipio Artelius wrote: While changes to OGB might hopefully eventually happen at some point or not in the near distant futureGäó, I actually hope it's a lot more creative than simply bringing links on grid.
edit: probably shouldn't have even mentioned that tbh. This is a thread about Command Ships, not links.
They are closely related. Command ships used for command do very well. Not sure what people want until their role gets improved. Most every command complaint relates to or can be remedied by something separate from the hull
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Otso Bakarti
Filial Pariahs
328
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 04:04:11 -
[38] - Quote
Janeway84 wrote:They could make their stats over run the t3 cruisers since you need to spend more time to train CS than t3's Imo CS could need more cpu and grid and perhaps a midslot more on each and perhaps a highslot more aswell for +1 turret / launcher. MJD bonus would be fun and cap injector bonus gets huge original idea points +1
If they protect themselves, one more high to make that a reasonable expectation. The additional mid? I guess if shield tanking. If armor tanking then a low.
Fighting in one of these? I always thought that was a bit odd. CS should be almost purely a support ship, with enough tank and oompf to protect itself should an engagement start to go sideways. The ships it supports should be providing the firepower and protection (to state the obvious). There really are better ships to fight with.
Maybe it's not a good idea to view the requirements of this ship in terms of solo PvP, or using it as a main damage doer. It'd be a shame to lose any of it's support function to such cross purposes. One size fits all usually doesn't fit anybody.
Back from the 90-day suspension for speaking truth to power.
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
130
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 04:28:33 -
[39] - Quote
Otso Bakarti wrote:Janeway84 wrote:They could make their stats over run the t3 cruisers since you need to spend more time to train CS than t3's Imo CS could need more cpu and grid and perhaps a midslot more on each and perhaps a highslot more aswell for +1 turret / launcher. MJD bonus would be fun and cap injector bonus gets huge original idea points +1 If they protect themselves, one more high to make that a reasonable expectation. The additional mid? I guess if shield tanking. If armor tanking then a low. Fighting in one of these? I always thought that was a bit odd. CS should be almost purely a support ship, with enough tank and oompf to protect itself should an engagement start to go sideways. The ships it supports should be providing the firepower and protection (to state the obvious). There really are better ships to fight with. Maybe it's not a good idea to view the requirements of this ship in terms of solo PvP, or using it as a main damage doer. It'd be a shame to lose any of it's support function to such cross purposes. One size fits all usually doesn't fit anybody.
CCP really made a big mistake when they bridged all CSs into the "Supporting Fleet Boosting" Role. Before they were divided with one being a fleet support booster and the other solely combantant role. Now at this rate, they're gonna need to come out with an entirely new class of T2 BCs meant for pure combat. This way there would be no more confusion about the roles of the CSs.
|
NFain
Elysian Ascent Empyreus
154
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 07:29:19 -
[40] - Quote
101 guide to CS balance:
1) add a mid and a low slot 2) add a 6th hard point to all 3) increase cpu/pg to allow for variations in fits, not one fit that magically make them work decently. 4) give us back the old ship models >:(
But yeah basically they used to be awesome, then they blew, then they got kinda better but with tiericide they're useless in the state they're in. |
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
130
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 09:20:23 -
[41] - Quote
NFain wrote:101 guide to CS balance:
1) add a mid and a low slot 2) add a 6th hard point to all 3) increase cpu/pg to allow for variations in fits, not one fit that magically make them work decently. 4) give us back the old ship models >:(
But yeah basically they used to be awesome, then they blew, then they got kinda better but with tiericide they're useless in the state they're in.
Well to be honest I wouldn't say they're useless, just lacking (quite a bit). More so when compared next to the HACs.
|
Nicolai Serkanner
Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Co. I N F A M O U S
510
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 10:24:50 -
[42] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Nicolai Serkanner wrote:Glathull's point still stands, doesn't it? But then again, you do love to hear yourself type those responses. He didn't make a point. He expressed an opinion and preference. But yes, it still stands, as does mine. And I can't hear myself typing my responses as my keyboard is very silent.
Semantics. Your trolling becomes way to obvious. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16753
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 10:36:44 -
[43] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:NFain wrote:101 guide to CS balance:
1) add a mid and a low slot 2) add a 6th hard point to all 3) increase cpu/pg to allow for variations in fits, not one fit that magically make them work decently. 4) give us back the old ship models >:(
But yeah basically they used to be awesome, then they blew, then they got kinda better but with tiericide they're useless in the state they're in. Well to be honest I wouldn't say they're useless, just lacking (quite a bit). More so when compared next to the HACs.
Command ships are not supposed to be hacs only bigger, they are a fleet support ship.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
692
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 13:42:19 -
[44] - Quote
Otso Bakarti wrote:
If they protect themselves, one more high to make that a reasonable expectation. The additional mid? I guess if shield tanking. If armor tanking then a low.
Fighting in one of these? I always thought that was a bit odd. CS should be almost purely a support ship, with enough tank and oompf to protect itself should an engagement start to go sideways. The ships it supports should be providing the firepower and protection (to state the obvious). There really are better ships to fight with.
Maybe it's not a good idea to view the requirements of this ship in terms of solo PvP, or using it as a main damage doer. It'd be a shame to lose any of it's support function to such cross purposes. One size fits all usually doesn't fit anybody.
An additional tank spot would be nice if nothing to encourage squad on squad instead of blob combat comes up.
If there was to be a short term change, I would make ganglink bonus have a falloff based on range. This should be no problem, even OGB. Buff mid and low, happy. Expand and focus on the command ship functionality. Heck, I have, for a long while, thought that tactical overlay should be removed from default and reserved for command ships or similar.
Want damage, isnt that what the smaller, and faster HACs are for? More combat out of them just means they are overshadowing another role or just not being used for current role. Want high damage that can take a beating while tackled? Isnt that the role of T1 battleships?
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Divine Entervention
Rational Chaos Inc. Phoebe Freeport Republic
670
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 13:50:40 -
[45] - Quote
Seeing as how a command ship is my mid-term goal after the falcon(like 2 weeks until it's at level 4 so enjoy being able to target things while you still can), I approve this request. |
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
515
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 16:00:53 -
[46] - Quote
I was thinking about that new idea for the fleet MJD action. Why not put that into command ships and only give it to fleet positions? IE you need to be in a command position in a fleet and in a command ship to use it. Would bring back the need to keep your commanders alive and give a reason for command ships as a whole to do the "command" sort of thing like their name would allude to.
Just a random thought of the day.
Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Richard B. Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Richard B. Riddick: Had to end sometime.
|
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
693
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 16:24:01 -
[47] - Quote
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:I was thinking about that new idea for the fleet MJD action. Why not put that into command ships and only give it to fleet positions? IE you need to be in a command position in a fleet and in a command ship to use it. Would bring back the need to keep your commanders alive and give a reason for command ships as a whole to do the "command" sort of thing like their name would allude to.
Just a random thought of the day.
Okay, as far as good ideas go, that one rates pretty highly for me.
Give command ships the more advanced fleet warps and the like? That would be pretty awesome.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
1087
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 22:57:46 -
[48] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:I was thinking about that new idea for the fleet MJD action. Why not put that into command ships and only give it to fleet positions? IE you need to be in a command position in a fleet and in a command ship to use it. Would bring back the need to keep your commanders alive and give a reason for command ships as a whole to do the "command" sort of thing like their name would allude to.
Just a random thought of the day. Okay, as far as good ideas go, that one rates pretty highly for me. Give command ships the more advanced fleet warps and the like? That would be pretty awesome.
Yeeeesss.
Make them actual Command and Control platforms.
Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.
I invented Tiericide
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
130
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 01:16:46 -
[49] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:NFain wrote:101 guide to CS balance:
1) add a mid and a low slot 2) add a 6th hard point to all 3) increase cpu/pg to allow for variations in fits, not one fit that magically make them work decently. 4) give us back the old ship models >:(
But yeah basically they used to be awesome, then they blew, then they got kinda better but with tiericide they're useless in the state they're in. Well to be honest I wouldn't say they're useless, just lacking (quite a bit). More so when compared next to the HACs. Command ships are not supposed to be hacs only bigger, they are a fleet support ship.
Like I said, this "Fleet Support Role" that CSs are now labeled as, was an error by CCP. They were clearly meant to be combantant T2 BCs 2 years before CCP derped them all together into that boring role. Now the only logical thing for CCP to do would be to either make them both a combantant and fleet support booster or introduce another T2 BC class designed for pure combat. From my speculation, I'm guessing CCP planned on introducing T3 BCs using the same designs from the T3Ds. But harsh feedback from the T3Ds designs have put that on hold. So while the plans for introducing another T2 or T3 BC are at a stalemate, I'd rather them to add necessary improvements on the current T2 BCs. Lets face it, with the T1 BC buff who would pay 6x the price and train 3x as long to fly a CS in their current state? |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
130
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 01:36:33 -
[50] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:I was thinking about that new idea for the fleet MJD action. Why not put that into command ships and only give it to fleet positions? IE you need to be in a command position in a fleet and in a command ship to use it. Would bring back the need to keep your commanders alive and give a reason for command ships as a whole to do the "command" sort of thing like their name would allude to.
Just a random thought of the day. Okay, as far as good ideas go, that one rates pretty highly for me. Give command ships the more advanced fleet warps and the like? That would be pretty awesome.
Yea that was pretty good, at least their roles would be more definitive. Of course that also means the players can at long last look forward to additional combat focused T2 or T3 BCs in the future.
|
|
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
182
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 08:14:40 -
[51] - Quote
The problem with links is the Command Processor.
Either limit 1 per ship, or else make a low-slot CP available to balance shield/armor tanks on Command Ships. Limiting the fitting will also reduce the T3C OGB issues. |
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
695
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 17:48:39 -
[52] - Quote
Kaldi Tsukaya wrote:The problem with links is the Command Processor.
Either limit 1 per ship, or else make a low-slot CP available to balance shield/armor tanks on Command Ships. Limiting the fitting will also reduce the T3C OGB issues.
Well... That goes back to the OGB. Most subprocessor fit T3 and command ships are frail and would not last on grid if more than one. However, back in my final days of nullsec, I flew a command archon. Heavy tank and supportt for the logi carriers, etc. Needed the subproc.
To quote Lfod Shi
The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
|
Servo Libertas
Federal Dynamics
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 18:35:28 -
[53] - Quote
I like my eos, but even with the bonus to heavies they still die fairly quickly. The tracking speed for medium turrets is in flavor with most Gallente ships, but in this case I'd rather have something like +7.5% or 10% hit points for heavy drones on top of the +10% it already has for all drones. It could use a slight boost to drone bay capacity, but it is not in dire need of it. Another option, though probably way over the top, would be to have something like "-7.5% heavy drone signature resolution per level".
|
NFain
Elysian Ascent Empyreus
154
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 06:12:53 -
[54] - Quote
bumping for the love this desperately needs |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
601
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 10:33:46 -
[55] - Quote
The only alliance I have ever heard of who implemented a Command Ship fleet was Pandemic Legion and while they only tested it by tormenting Provi ratters they did make a vulture fleet. From what I put together it wasn't something you want to butt heads with. If you had enough of them on the screen that they didn't stick out like a sore thumb, they would be formidable. You would need a super rich and super bored alliance to see it happen though.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
135
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 11:05:51 -
[56] - Quote
Ioci wrote:The only alliance I have ever heard of who implemented a Command Ship fleet was Pandemic Legion and while they only tested it by tormenting Provi ratters they did make a vulture fleet. From what I put together it wasn't something you want to butt heads with. If you had enough of them on the screen that they didn't stick out like a sore thumb, they would be formidable. You would need a super rich and super bored alliance to see it happen though.
Almost any ship in eve when formed in a mass fleet with a competent FC would be formidable. That doesn't mean the ship when used solo would be just as formidable. Command ships used to be very powerful solo combatant ships, but that's no longer the case since other classes received substantial buffs while the CSs remained statistically untouched for the past 3-4 years.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2590
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 11:06:57 -
[57] - Quote
Ioci wrote:The only alliance I have ever heard of who implemented a Command Ship fleet was Pandemic Legion and while they only tested it by tormenting Provi ratters they did make a vulture fleet. From what I put together it wasn't something you want to butt heads with. If you had enough of them on the screen that they didn't stick out like a sore thumb, they would be formidable. You would need a super rich and super bored alliance to see it happen though. Someone in lowsec had an Absolution fleet I believe also. But again it was one of the powerhouse corp/alliances in Lowsec. And no-one else picked it up. It was good, but I'm not sure it was actually better than other options, just cool and different and still effective. |
Lan Wang
V I R I I Ineluctable.
1664
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 11:24:45 -
[58] - Quote
seen a couple of absolution doctrines, one of my old corps had absolution fleet and so either shadow cartel or snuffbox
Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP
Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic | Angel Cartel | Serpentis |
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
135
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 11:32:48 -
[59] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:seen a couple of absolution doctrines, one of my old corps had absolution fleet and so either shadow cartel or snuffbox
I believe they both used them. They were just tinkering about trying to do something different and unique. If they wanted to, they could've use the Zealot, Sacrilege in the same fashion, but choose the Abso. Why? Because nobody hardly uses them in fleets. So yea they're gonna appear to be good due to unfamiliarity. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3407
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 11:47:51 -
[60] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Command ships are not supposed to be hacs only bigger, they are a fleet support ship. Given how they're actually designed I'm not sure what CCP actually thought they were supposed to be.
Field command ships are clearly intended to be HACs but bigger to a point where it's questionable as to why they even have gang link bonuses as at all. Fleet command ships however are clearly intended to serve as support ships by providing bonuses and not much else.
There's clearly a demand for both of these functions. People want T2 combat oriented battlecruisers and people want their fleet bonus ships. However for some reason at this point these distinctly different roles are lumped onto the same class of ship. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |