Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
THEDON1
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 14:57:00 -
[1]
i think this would be a good idea for 2 extra slots on BC's and CS's for just command mods maybee like rig slots or whatever . because i know i dont fit any command mod on my setups even with 5mill in leadership, but with 2 extra slots for just command mods maybee people would use them more often. i mean come on the abso had 3 mids! needs some command mods love imo
whos with me ?
signed THEDON1
|
Kirzath
Sinister Elite Raining Doom
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:04:00 -
[2]
Doesn't the Abso already have a utility high for the very purpose?
|
Flitz Farseeker
Gallente Interstellar Stormfront Outcasts Rebellion
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:04:00 -
[3]
Not me. The whole point is that you sacrifice DPS for the benefit from the command module - just like choosing between gank or tank.
Instead of dedicated slots, maybe CCP needs to look at upping the bonuses from command modules to give us more incentive to use them.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:06:00 -
[4]
Be careful what you wish for, CCP might just remove a few weapon hardpoints to make way for three utility slots.
|
kyrv
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:07:00 -
[5]
how about warefare link module stacking?
|
blackmambasnake
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:08:00 -
[6]
Edited by: blackmambasnake on 25/08/2009 15:12:11 wrong char oops
|
THEDON1
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:12:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kirzath Doesn't the Abso already have a utility high for the very purpose?
i thought command mods were mid slot items? ive never fitted one so i dont know. was hopeing they were anyways, i ment new mid slots just for command mods or more high slots like someone said and keep all the other slots as they were or even like a rig slot where they cant be took out without distruction
|
Zlut Gothica
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:22:00 -
[8]
Fleet Command Ships are allready enabled to fit tons of Gang Links.
[Claymore, Test] Caldari Navy Co-Processor Caldari Navy Co-Processor Caldari Navy Co-Processor Caldari Navy Co-Processor
10MN MicroWarpdrive II Cap Recharger II Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I
Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing Improved Cloaking Device II
Polycarbon Engine Housing I Polycarbon Engine Housing I
Hammerhead II x4
Needs a 3% Powergrid Implant and can run all 7 Gang Links permanently. The CN Co-Processors costs some ISK, but not really that much for a dedicated group of players, that want to have maximum gang-support-skills/modules.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:23:00 -
[9]
Originally by: THEDON1 i thought command mods were mid slot items?
The gang modules are high slots, the command processors (that let you run more gang modules at once) are midslots.
|
Pater Peccavi
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:25:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Flitz Farseeker Instead of dedicated slots, maybe CCP needs to look at upping the bonuses from command modules to give us more incentive to use them.
Yay, we'll get more command ships sitting at a POS or SS. Just the fix we need. ______ Why has the number of players online dropped from 50k to 25k? BECAUSE OF SWINE FLU |
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:35:00 -
[11]
Well first of all I think we need to separate Fleet Command and Field Command ships and their roles. Fleet Command can already fit 3 gang mods standard and have the option of sacrificing mids to fit more. This is reasonable and for that purpose Fleet CS serve their role well enough.
For Field Commands, gang mods shouldn't be the focus. They should be combat oriented ships that perform some role that cruisers or battleships don't. They are almost as slow and big (sigwise) as battleships while their tanking relies on medium sized modules and the only reason they can get BSlike tanks is by virtue of T2 resistances. The only notable advantage that Field Commands have over Battleships is the tracking of medium weapons which would make them better at fighting smaller ships. But this advantage is offset by battleships' longer range, drones and heavy neuts. So if the role is to be anti-cruiser for instance, Field Commands are not up to the task because they are way too slow to catch cruisers and have way too little range to reach them.
That's how I would approach the Field CS problem. I think they should be given more ample fitting first to allow them to fit that one gang mod without compromising their combat fit otherwise. In addition give them all a range bonus* in addition to the current bonuses so that their cruiser sized weapons have battleshipesque range. Note that they still do less damage than battleships but they would be better against smaller ships which would be their raison d'etre.
* In the Nighthawk's case, though, as it cannot fit heavy assaults reasonably and is forced to use heavy missiles, a damage bonus would probably be more appropriate. ----------------------
|
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 15:42:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/08/2009 15:42:31 Field commandships need more sails.
Jin is preety correct in his assesment, anyway. Although the thing I would really like would be to base them on Tier 2 BCs, which imo have superior slot layouts on the whole (and are for the most part gankier ships to begin with; add in T2 bonuses and you get monsters). Of course, I don't see that happening - so, yes, extra range bonus to bring them to BS-like ranges would be a great fix.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente NME1
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 16:49:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Guillame Herschel on 25/08/2009 16:50:20
Originally by: Jin Entres (Field Commands) should be combat oriented ships that perform some role that cruisers or battleships don't. They are almost as slow and big (sigwise) as battleships ...
Why do people consistently screw this up? It's right there on the ship data sheet: For each race, every Battlecruiser hull, whatever tech level or tier, has the same mass, base velocity, sig radius and agility. The Cyclone, Hurricane, Claymore and Sleipnir have identical mobility attributes, and the same is true for the other three races' BC hulls. The only thing that distinguishes them is slot layout, fitting and bonuses.
-- The crazy tree blooms at every moment of liberal ascendancy.
|
Deathbarrage
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 17:35:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel Edited by: Guillame Herschel on 25/08/2009 16:50:20
Originally by: Jin Entres (Field Commands) should be combat oriented ships that perform some role that cruisers or battleships don't. They are almost as slow and big (sigwise) as battleships ...
Why do people consistently screw this up? It's right there on the ship data sheet: For each race, every Battlecruiser hull, whatever tech level or tier, has the same mass, base velocity, sig radius and agility. The Cyclone, Hurricane, Claymore and Sleipnir have identical mobility attributes, and the same is true for the other three races' BC hulls. The only thing that distinguishes them is slot layout, fitting and bonuses.
You're quite right, however your arguement's quite wrong since he didn't contradict you. He merely said BC hulls have a relatively large sig radius and low mobility when you take into account their firepower as compared to cruiser-hulled ships.
|
Footoo Rama
Gallente Caldari Illuminati
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 18:08:00 -
[15]
I see 2 threads... one that wants to keep the gank on these ships and be able to bonus the fleet at the same time... guess what trade off these ships should not be able to do both.
The other thread is interesting... There is no anti-cruiser platform a fast cruiser or BC with destroyer like mods would be an example... sacrifice a little tank for 8 highs running small or medium guns limited mid/lows 3/4 or 4/3 depending on race and getting range on cruisers. Also would need a small cargo bay... to prevent abuse. ------- "Because the Dominix is the Chuck Norris of Eve!" |
Contralto
GCHQ
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 18:53:00 -
[16]
I just put my leadership alt in a Warfare link Tengu, he is giving a 28.105% bonus to fleet on the 3 Siege warfare links. This compares to 25.875% from the Vulture, (max skills and Siege mind-link).
He is a remote Lvl V mission booster, the 3 Armor Warfare links are also fitted but these produce only 15% boost on the Tengu.
He isn't combat skilled so I haven't tried any weapon fits along with the 3 siege Links.
|
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 19:00:00 -
[17]
Moved to Features and Ideas Discussion.
Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 20:17:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Deathbarrage
Originally by: Guillame Herschel Edited by: Guillame Herschel on 25/08/2009 16:50:20
Originally by: Jin Entres (Field Commands) should be combat oriented ships that perform some role that cruisers or battleships don't. They are almost as slow and big (sigwise) as battleships ...
Why do people consistently screw this up? It's right there on the ship data sheet: For each race, every Battlecruiser hull, whatever tech level or tier, has the same mass, base velocity, sig radius and agility. The Cyclone, Hurricane, Claymore and Sleipnir have identical mobility attributes, and the same is true for the other three races' BC hulls. The only thing that distinguishes them is slot layout, fitting and bonuses.
You're quite right, however your arguement's quite wrong since he didn't contradict you. He merely said BC hulls have a relatively large sig radius and low mobility when you take into account their firepower as compared to cruiser-hulled ships.
Indeed. Regular BC's are viable because they are cost effective: they offer an in-between that is better than a cruiser but not as expensive as a battleship. This is especially true now that battlecruisers can be rigged much cheaper than battleships. Note also that Tier 1 Battlecruisers are almost completely useless since the introduction of Tier 2's. And unfortunately CS's are based on Tier 1 BC's. They also cost more than battleships and if you compare the relative risk (fit versus insurance payout), they can cost several times as much to lose. So that cost has to be justified by some performance which is either an improvement over something or a niche role that is not filled by another ship. Tier 2 BC's come very close to CS performance which made their problem salient.
So simply pose the question: why would I want to fly a (Field) Command Ship over a Battleship or a T1 Tier 2 Battlecruiser? Does it do something better or something different? Or does it do the same thing cheaper? If the answer to these questions, as I believe it to be, is a resounding no, then (Field) Command Ships clearly lack a role and are consequently unviable for use for anything but cosmetic reasons. ----------------------
|
Asurix
Caldari StoneDogS Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.25 20:37:00 -
[19]
Absolution tanks better then a harbinger... I got nothing else
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |