Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 18:41:00 -
[1]
Field Command ships upgrade.
Tldr: **Field** command ships severely lack any staying power, and or dps, and or fitting, in the current eve environment. Since their introduction much has changed making field commands very obsolete for pretty much everything the field commands were designed for.
For people who still don't get it: THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR FLEET COMMAND SHIPS, ONLY FOR FIELD COMMAND SHIPS (The ones that do not give bonuses). (That said, i believe some small tweaks to them could be welcome, particularly Eos and if you want me to make a thread about those too, I'd be happy too, same for tier 1 bc's).
Having had the skill command ships at lvl 5 for well over 2 years now, and when people ask about command ships everyone always tells them to just fly a BC or t3 instead (or a BS if mobility does not matter), I thought it was time these got it's long deserved boost and make them more viable. I have been careful to not over boost them. Field commands have become more and more obsolete as the years have gone by, thus i am proposing this upgrade to them.
General boost to all 4 of them (Absolution, Nighthawk, Astarte, Sleipnir): -Make them all use base HP's from the tier 2 BC class instead of tier 1, this will help them have a little more staying power on the field, but still not enable massive buffers. -A small agility boost. They handle almost like a plated battleship. -30-40% sensor strength boost. This will place them not as high as recons and certainly less than an eccm'd battleship, and is something they really need.
Ship boosts (all of them +1 slot). (all fitting increments are BASE values, thus skills will boost them further).
Absolution: +1 med slot, + 15 cpu. It is still unable to make much use of the last high slot bar a small neut/nos, but it can now fit an eccm making a harbinger not outclass it in every regard bar pure ehp (harb still does more dps). This will enable it to work better solo, or in gang situations (In a fleet you'd use the damnation after all). For being so reliant on capacitor it has a very small cargo bay, a small boost there could be helpful. I was going to ask for a +25 m3 drone bay and bandwidth, but that might be too much.
Conclusion: This will make the abso much more viable as either expensive solo or actually more useful than a harbinger in gangs due to sensor strength and a bit more staying power (harb still does more dps though).
Nighthawk: With the tiny HP boost proposed above this ship will still have ehp comparable with a drake pvp fit. As with the absolution this ship needs another slot, and this ship REALLY needs a mid slot in regards to pvp, +1 med slot. A second thing it lacks which has been said countless times over the years is power grid, and it lacks a lot of it, assuming 5th low as a reactor control +80 PG, assuming power diagnostic, +150 PG, that is up to ccp, personally I'd recommend the +150 PG.
(With the HP boost and +1 med slot, some people may be worried about super passive tanks, I'd like to point out that a rattlesnake would still be better and that such a fit can't do anything but lol dps or lvl 5 mission/ded 10 plex tanking. Should ccp not like it, simply increase it's shield recharge base value somewhat to make it have the same passive tank as before it's boost).
Conclusion: You will have enough fitting for an active tank or a buffer tank (buffer tank does not fit cap booster as I believe giving it fitting for that would be too much). It will now no longer be a worse and more expensive drake but actually be viable, mostly due to sensor strength and another med slot like the abso. It will still be an expensive drake, just like the abso will still be an expensive harbinger, but it is no longer outclassed it every way.
Out of writing space, second post coming below. -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr!
Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail.
QFT! |
adriaans
Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 18:41:00 -
[2]
Astarte: This ship is a bit difficult, for being a pure gank ship it has too little dps over the other's and to little fitting for a proper neutron fit. To make it more ganky to keep it in it's role: +1 high slot, + 1 gun hard point, + 295 PG. This will enable it to fit 8x Netron blasters II and dual rep (assuming 2x dmg mods dual rep config with neutrons this will be the stats: 480 tank, 5x medium ecm drones will make that more effective, 856 gun dps). A small cargo bay increase for cap boosters just like the abso would be helpful too.
Conclusion: A shield buffered brutix no longer is more or less better than this ship, it now has it's role as i believe the astarte was designed to have, a proper gank boat, but now it actually has a semblance of a tank and it has finally a dps advantage over the other ships in it's class.
Sleipnir: Usually considered the best of the field commands (does not say much though), giving it another slot like the other's is a given and a tiny cpu increase for those who like XL booster configs. +1 med slot, + 45 cpu. This will enable it to keep it's niche as a heavy vaga/cyclone (depending on what you prefer, buffer or XL booster configs will now be a little better).
Conclusion: The sleip will be like it has always been but now a little better in it's niche role(s). The Xl booster fit will still crumble under any form of neuting or fight's lasting more than a minute and the buffer fit is still slower than hac's or shield bc's.
Overall conclusion: The field commands will now be more than just expensive battlecruiser and have a place in solo and small/mid sized gangs like they should (fleet commands (like damnation) are for big gangs/fleets if you still haven't gotten it). They're severe lack of slots and fittings will no longer be such a huge issue as it has always been. They will not obsolete the battlecruiser class and in a straight 1 vs 1 a battleship rightly will still beat them just fine. They will certainly not be overpowered as some people keep fearing.
(I believe the small HP boost and agility boost should also be applied to their base ships (prophecy, ferox, brutix, cyclone), but that their ''upgrading'' to be comparable to tier 2 Bc's should be different than the changes to these field command ships).
Agree with the above idea? Hate it? Change/tweak it somewhat? Post about it! And remember to check the ''I support'' field if you do! (And remember to keep proposals balanced!).
-sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr!
Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail.
QFT! |
Di Mulle
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 18:50:00 -
[3]
I am not prepared to discuss what exactly must be done, but something must...
And yeah, save Eos from being useless.
Supported.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 18:59:00 -
[4]
They are generally not used in PVP simply because the risk outweighs the benefit. The price is higher than a battleship, but a battleship brings more to a fight.
|
Captain Bevier
Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 19:02:00 -
[5]
I support this idea, especially the sleipnir, always wanted an extra med on one of those :P (dont really know about the other field commands apart from mission nighthawk)
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 20:57:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 26/03/2010 20:57:13 I like this.
Well, I think the Astarte is still problematic (because of rep bonus, and the fact midslots/lowslots are generally more valuable) but it's still a huge improvement.
Now, if only the Sleipnir looked like a T2 Hurricane Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Taya Greathame
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 22:02:00 -
[7]
seeing as this was my original proposal, i support this greatly.
Taya out!
|
Anglique
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 22:26:00 -
[8]
I'm unqualified to decide on how appropriate those specific suggestions are, but i'm definitely all for game balancing, so 1up from me. |
Quantum Doom
Nova Aquilae Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 22:42:00 -
[9]
oh yeah definitely supported .. the amount of time spent fiddling with the bastards trying to get em to fit + not suck could have been so better utilized killing someone with one honest
|
Alchemist Zemont
Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 01:52:00 -
[10]
Field Commands and Eos need MAJOR loving, I always wanted to see the absolution have the range bonus of a zealot I know this would make it OP but would be fun XD
Eitherway commands need a buff ______________________________________ ... |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 07:30:00 -
[11]
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 ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Chislaki Valda'Q
Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 10:06:00 -
[12]
I got BC5 for ages but lack of Performance coupled with cost is a Reason i never trained into any CS.
signed!
|
Skylar Gray
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 13:51:00 -
[13]
Astarte: +1 Low slot instead of high.
Agreed with the rest. Good post.
Also, as far as the Eos, all they need to change to make it not completely useless (like, literally less than Black=Ops useless) is give it back 5 heavys. The massive nerf was from 7 guns + 5 heavys to 3 heavys and 5 guns. Just give back the drones, keep off the guns (**** take another for 4). Awesome tanking ishtar?
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 14:41:00 -
[14]
Edited by: adriaans on 27/03/2010 14:41:40 Thanks for the support so far guys! I have updated the thread with the other suggestions noted as ''alternative boost'' on the absolution and the astarte.
The reason for it fon revedhort is because i believe the astarte was made to be a pure gank boat and i didn't want to make it to similar to the others and try and keep it unique for what it was supposed to do, the racial concept. Perhaps it would do better with another low slot than a high, it's hard to say as that would depend a lot on circumstances, either would be a major upgrade to it though :) It's a major pain trying to balance this ship though...^^
As for the abso the 4th med i took as an inspiration from the harbinger, im a bit afraid another low would make way for too big tanks for a BC class ship, but running some more calculations and theoretical fittings of said change i can see it work :)
Skylar: Remember to check the 'i agree with proposal box'! That said i believe the Eos as a fleet command ship should not have 5 heavy drones, it could use 4 heavies though, along with other changes to make it a more used fleet command. It's main problem is that it's bonuses are made for running along with recon ships, which it is incapable of doing in it's current state. --signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Tornicks
U-208 Blade.
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 15:10:00 -
[15]
Agree to the OP, especially in the HP boost part.
-- 'Non-essential personnel, abandon ship.' Admiral Yakiya Tovil-Toba's last command, CE23155
|
Rastino
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 17:34:00 -
[16]
Decently supportedā.
By the way this is my first supporting anything. Normally I just tell people why the subject is bad but this is one of the few really good proposals on this forumā. More like this please.
|
Jacob Stov
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 23:21:00 -
[17]
Full support. Enough fitting for tank + gank + one ganglink.
|
Kazzzi
Iniquitous Technologies Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 06:04:00 -
[18]
boost! |
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 07:54:00 -
[19]
once they will be able to outtank normal BS they will be worthy for use in bigger battles.... at least for FCs. still can be used in local skirmishes as the wild card, but the pricetag is horrible. another idea is to make them T1 so u can insure them ..... here we go .... u will see them much more on the field.
"There is no honor in war, so do not seek it here" |
Nico Terces
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 09:46:00 -
[20]
Supported.
This and a boost to local repairsystem bonusses (10% instead of 7.5% to armor rep amount) would make the astarte so much more useful.
|
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 10:24:00 -
[21]
Even if they aren't meant to be HAC on steroids Field command ships need some redoing.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 16:37:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 28/03/2010 16:40:45
Originally by: Nico Terces Supported.
This and a boost to local repairsystem bonusses (10% instead of 7.5% to armor rep amount) would make the astarte so much more useful.
Removing it in favour of a 10% armor (or even shield, ha ha) HP bonus would make it so much more useful, honestly.
In fact, it would be a very interesting ship with a extra high, a tad more grid and armor HP bonus, being basically something with the gank and buffer of a BS with T2 resists on top (but minus the range and utility highs), and would make a lot of sense in certain types of gangs.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Jacob Stov
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 19:21:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 28/03/2010 16:40:45
Removing it in favour of a 10% armor (or even shield, ha ha) HP bonus would make it so much more useful, honestly.
In fact, it would be a very interesting ship with a extra high, a tad more grid and armor HP bonus, being basically something with the gank and buffer of a BS with T2 resists on top (but minus the range and utility highs), and would make a lot of sense in certain types of gangs.
I don't like that idea. Moves the game once more towards buffer tanks. Better give all them rep/boost bonused ships the same bonus to received RR. Otherwise they would have the same issues as the Nidhoggur. This way Hype and Mael can keep all their guns, are fine for solo and and in gangs paired with logsitics.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 20:43:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jacob Stov
I don't like that idea. Moves the game once more towards buffer tanks. Better give all them rep/boost bonused ships the same bonus to received RR.
This is in fact a very good idea.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 09:49:00 -
[25]
I like the Sleip and Nighthawk changes.
Sick with the extra med on the Absolution, for small gang and solo 4 mids are nice and for larger things a BS is superior anyway.
Astarte, well can't see any real improvement by a extra turret or a extra low. Diemost and Astarte really need something special that makes them worth over the Brutix/Mega or simply a proper DPS(plus dps projection at close range) to make the point blank suicide concept halve way interesting at the given price levels of the hulls.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 21:30:00 -
[26]
Supported, and best use the tier 2 models for the field command ships, they are there, they look good, use them (save for the Eos/Astarte, Brutix model fits the Astarte better, Myrmidon role fits the intended Eos role better).
|
Last Wolf
Rage For Order
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 06:55:00 -
[27]
A bit more subtle than my idea. But I support anything that is a boost to field commands. (I have Commandship V also. Oh no you don't! Incoming witty reply, ETA: 300 seconds! |
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:14:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Zilberfrid Supported, and best use the tier 2 models for the field command ships, they are there, they look good, use them (save for the Eos/Astarte, Brutix model fits the Astarte better, Myrmidon role fits the intended Eos role better).
Why do all you people persist in this annoying request?
If you must have a T2 ship that looks like the tier2 BC, then hey why not ask for a real new T2 ship based on it? Then you won't ruin a perfectly fine looking ship or 4.
Actually forget reason, just shut the hell up about your idea, its annoying and I want to bash heads in every time its mentioned.
P.s. Perhaps the best idea to buff he Field Command Ships is to first buff the tier1 battlecruisers and to pass on the buff to the T2 variants.
For all Tier1 Battlecruisers, reduce their signature a marginal amount, then improve their agility and max velocity. This way they are faster, more agile and harder to hit than the tier2 battlecruisers. This would make sense as its just doesn't make sense that the tier2's can have more EHP, more DPS, more slots, more PG & CP. And yet be the same size, agility and speed. Thats a WTF in my books.
Then give the Prophecy a little more armor and the Ferox a little more shield, then increase the Brutix and Cyclone's Capacitor Capacity a bit and increase their Repair bonus to 10%/lvl.
That would take care of a minor but suitable buff to the tier1's. If we pass those bonuses to the Tech2's. Then thats a good start.
What ever happens after for individual t2 buffs, I am down with it if it doesn't include hull changes....
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 11:03:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Nian Banks
Originally by: Zilberfrid Supported, and best use the tier 2 models for the field command ships, they are there, they look good, use them (save for the Eos/Astarte, Brutix model fits the Astarte better, Myrmidon role fits the intended Eos role better).
Why do all you people persist in this annoying request?
If you must have a T2 ship that looks like the tier2 BC, then hey why not ask for a real new T2 ship based on it? Then you won't ruin a perfectly fine looking ship or 4.
Mostly because people want a gank and spank T2 ship that looks like the tier2 BC. So requests for that get answered with "but it would be more of the same".
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 13:28:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Nian Banks
Originally by: Zilberfrid Supported, and best use the tier 2 models for the field command ships, they are there, they look good, use them (save for the Eos/Astarte, Brutix model fits the Astarte better, Myrmidon role fits the intended Eos role better).
Why do all you people persist in this annoying request?
If you must have a T2 ship that looks like the tier2 BC, then hey why not ask for a real new T2 ship based on it? Then you won't ruin a perfectly fine looking ship or 4.
Mostly because people want a gank and spank T2 ship that looks like the tier2 BC. So requests for that get answered with "but it would be more of the same".
Yes, a new T2 BC would need a role. There are two tiers of hulls that have not been given the T2 treatment, and they are arguably some of the best looking hulls in the game. Unlike the tier 3 BS, the tier2 BC already has a T2 ship with comparable bonuses that probably should have been on that hull. |
|
Krystal Flores
Sinister Elite
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:19:00 -
[31]
supported,
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:47:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Nian Banks
Originally by: Zilberfrid Supported, and best use the tier 2 models for the field command ships, they are there, they look good, use them (save for the Eos/Astarte, Brutix model fits the Astarte better, Myrmidon role fits the intended Eos role better).
Why do all you people persist in this annoying request?
If you must have a T2 ship that looks like the tier2 BC, then hey why not ask for a real new T2 ship based on it? Then you won't ruin a perfectly fine looking ship or 4.
Mostly because people want a gank and spank T2 ship that looks like the tier2 BC. So requests for that get answered with "but it would be more of the same".
Yes, a new T2 BC would need a role. There are two tiers of hulls that have not been given the T2 treatment, and they are arguably some of the best looking hulls in the game. Unlike the tier 3 BS, the tier2 BC already has a T2 ship with comparable bonuses that probably should have been on that hull.
This: a tier 2 BC in role is similar to the Field command, while the more modest fleet command has a similar feel to the tier 1 bc's. (except as stated before).
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.04.01 19:16:00 -
[33]
Originally by: adriaans
... Nighthawk Stuff ...
I really cant see a powergrid buff necessary for the nighthawk. It already functions as the most powerful in the group. Every fit demonstrated by people who complain about the Nighthawk either want both Gank AND Tank and try and jam a warfare mod on it. Im sorry, even though it gets a bonus to fitting the warfare mod, doesnt mean you should fit it; it doesnt get a effectiveness bonus so use something else in the highslot. Furthermore, if you arent willing to sacrifice a bit of tank to stuff on your Heavy Assault Missiles, just fit regular Heavy Missiles instead (for which it was balanced around) because it fits just fine that way.
Originally by: adriaans
... Astarte stuff ...
Kinda tough to root for this one. In its current role its just a crazier, slower, more expensive, and more damaging Die-most. Good for some people, bad if the battle doesnt end in less than 2 minutes. Its true, its not any more valuable than a standard Brutix. A seventh low-slot would benefit it greatly, giving it a power mod for Neutrons. Furthermore, changing its falloff bonus to an optimal bonus would help keep it in range a bit better which is problematic with the new webs. Dunno if it would be good to swap it to the Myrm. Eos is made by Creodron, and as said before, it needs its own hot droney love boost. Make the Astarte the pre-Eos-nerf Eos? That would be pretty sick with 5x Ogre IIs with drone bonus plus Neutron Blaster face-raping. I always liked the Brutix hull however: Looks like you are punching someone in the face with a giant fist attached to rocket engines.
Absolution and Sleipnir... I guess they are OK. The damage from the Absolution is extremely underwhelming, even after the laser buff and scorch and gets way outclassed by the Harby. It needs to be the eHP god of laser buzzsaws that the Zealot isnt. The sleipnir is good, but I havent flown it and seen it flown even less so I have no comment.
Maybe the biggest problem with these ships, aside from their bonuses, is their cost! If CCP were to lighten the material load in order to build these ships, they would be a ton more useful. It currently costs 170 - 190 mil to purchase one? I havent checked in a while but it couldnt have gotten any better. For a ship that typically dies in a blaze of glory, making it cheaper would certainly be a gigantic boost. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.01 21:50:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 01/04/2010 21:55:22 Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 01/04/2010 21:52:27
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Originally by: adriaans
... Nighthawk Stuff ...
I really cant see a powergrid buff necessary for the nighthawk. It already functions as the most powerful in the group. Every fit demonstrated by people who complain about the Nighthawk either want both Gank AND Tank and try and jam a warfare mod on it. Im sorry, even though it gets a bonus to fitting the warfare mod, doesnt mean you should fit it; it doesnt get a effectiveness bonus so use something else in the highslot. Furthermore, if you arent willing to sacrifice a bit of tank to stuff on your Heavy Assault Missiles, just fit regular Heavy Missiles instead (for which it was balanced around) because it fits just fine that way.
It doesn't - if fact, you may think it fits fine cause you have a weird 7|5|5 layout, which kinda suggests you using a fitting mode. But that's just a fuzzy logic, nothing else. Slots are usually there to give you some advantage, not to remedy design faults. That's an outstanding case, prolly just Eagle has the same issue being a railboat with a clear lack of PG to fit rails.
I can understand 8|5|5 on Sleip - it can utilize those new fancy Tracking Enhancers and its base resists on the shield are all more or less even all across the board, while NH has got that pathetic 0% in EM (ok, 25% if you count in the resist bonus - but since it's a bonus, I personally wouldn't), so by all means it takes more slots for Nighthawk to set up a decent tank.
Basically atm you can have just 2 setups which won't requre you using a fugly fitting mode - 1 LSE buffer tank or Medium Shield Booster'ed one. And that's without any GangLinks or - God forbids! - HAMs. No need to say, that's just not enough. It definitely should be 2 LSE and Large Booster instead. Anything else will most likely result in you creating yet another abomination without MWD or with some other major fault of that sort. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Dyvim Slorm
Jazz Associates Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2010.04.02 12:56:00 -
[35]
Supported
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Maybe the biggest problem with these ships, aside from their bonuses, is their cost! If CCP were to lighten the material load in order to build these ships, they would be a ton more useful. It currently costs 170 - 190 mil to purchase one? I havent checked in a while but it couldnt have gotten any better. For a ship that typically dies in a blaze of glory, making it cheaper would certainly be a gigantic boost.
Have to agree with with this, the cost is a real issue with these ships.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.04.02 21:14:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 02/04/2010 21:15:38
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
It doesn't - if fact, you may think it fits fine cause you have a weird 7|5|5 layout, which kinda suggests you using a fitting mode. But that's just a fuzzy logic, nothing else. Slots are usually there to give you some advantage, not to remedy design faults. That's an outstanding case, prolly just Eagle has the same issue being a railboat with a clear lack of PG to fit rails.
I can understand 8|5|5 on Sleip - it can utilize those new fancy Tracking Enhancers and its base resists on the shield are all more or less even all across the board, while NH has got that pathetic 0% in EM (ok, 25% if you count in the resist bonus - but since it's a bonus, I personally wouldn't), so by all means it takes more slots for Nighthawk to set up a decent tank.
Basically atm you can have just 2 setups which won't require you using a fugly fitting mode - 1 LSE buffer tank or Medium Shield Booster'ed active one. And that's without any GangLinks or - God forbids! - HAMs. No need to say, that's just not enough. It definitely should be 2 LSE and Large Booster instead. Anything else will most likely result in you creating yet another abomination without MWD or with some other major fault of that sort.
You should see the fugly Brutix/Astarte shield buffer fits Ive seen (that actually work strangely enough!)
While I do not believe in a powergrid boost, I cannot argue that with a simple slot adjustment to a 7/6/4 like its cohort the Vulture would be OK. The only issue I see with this is the Nighthawk becoming the god of passive shield tanking (current is around 1.1k DPS) since it will easily out damage the Drake (although it probably should, but not with that crazy tank in play).
I suppose the big thing is that the Nighthawk gets the whine because they have to fit an RCU. It has an excess of CPU so if you want that grid you have to pay for it. That seems balanced to me: I cant have an Astarte with a decent buffer without downgrading to Ions or Electrons (nor will I be able to catch anything with the crap speed either). If you gave it the grid, you need to gimp it elsewhere to keep it balanced; that said I dont see any people willing to give up anything for it. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.02 21:43:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 02/04/2010 21:44:46
Why the hell does anyone insist on this ******ed passive tanking? It's one of those things I will never get.
Only the most stupid farmers ever consider passive tanking a Nighthawk. I personally don't give a crap at what's the recharge rate of my shields - heck, CCP might reduce it to a mom's level and I'll still be happy as long as they fix other issues with it (PG, slot layout and stupid explosion velocity bonus. Sig radius one is a lot more handy since the day they changed missile damage formula). I don't see any problem with adjusting the recharge rate if that's your main concern.
Also, comparing NH with Astarte is a bit misleading. How about we compare NH's fittings with Drake's? Surely it has some CPU problems, but that's OK for a tech1 ship. On the other hand fugly Drakes have no issues grid-wise while fitting 2 LSE, MWD and Heavies. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.04.03 14:21:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Fon Revedhort Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 02/04/2010 21:44:46
Why the hell does anyone insist on this ******ed passive tanking? It's one of those things I will never get.
Only the most stupid farmers ever consider passive tanking a Nighthawk. I personally don't give a crap at what's the recharge rate of my shields - heck, CCP might reduce it to a mom's level and I'll still be happy as long as they fix other issues with it (PG, slot layout and stupid explosion velocity bonus. Sig radius one is a lot more handy since the day they changed missile damage formula). I don't see any problem with adjusting the recharge rate if that's your main concern.
Also, comparing NH with Astarte is a bit misleading. How about we compare NH's fittings with Drake's? Surely it has some CPU problems, but that's OK for a tech1 ship. On the other hand fugly Drakes have no issues grid-wise while fitting 2 LSE, MWD and Heavies.
This.
Also pointing out that the nighthawks grid boost i proposed INCLUDES a fitting mod to fit a standard pvp with without gang link (RCU and PDU).
Should we perhaps propose changes to the ship bonuses as well? (only command ship bonus can be changed really unless ccp stops following the t1 -> t2 bonus conversion they do with all ships) --signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.03 18:33:00 -
[39]
Originally by: adriaans
Should we perhaps propose changes to the ship bonuses as well? (only command ship bonus can be changed really unless ccp stops following the t1 -> t2 bonus conversion they do with all ships)
Actually the NH does not inherit battlecruiser skill bonuses from the Drake or from the Ferox (it's ROF for the NH and kinetic damage for the Drake, and hybrid optimal for the Ferox), so it's safe to change those as well.
And personally I would opt for removing the rep bonus from the Astarte (and Brutix as well, really, and Myrmidon as well) as I view it as not so useful, but some like it, so.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
AtheistOfDoom
The Athiest Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.03 19:06:00 -
[40]
Nice changes. supported. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.04.03 19:35:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: adriaans
Should we perhaps propose changes to the ship bonuses as well? (only command ship bonus can be changed really unless ccp stops following the t1 -> t2 bonus conversion they do with all ships)
Actually the NH does not inherit battlecruiser skill bonuses from the Drake or from the Ferox (it's ROF for the NH and kinetic damage for the Drake, and hybrid optimal for the Ferox), so it's safe to change those as well.
And personally I would opt for removing the rep bonus from the Astarte (and Brutix as well, really, and Myrmidon as well) as I view it as not so useful, but some like it, so.
Rep bonus on the myrm rocks actually, mostly because it can utilize a triple rep setup though.
Ahh i totally forgot about the ferox -> nighthawk bonuses do not carry over fully (resists does though).
I'll play around with various bonuses and see if i can come up with something good to add to these changes --signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.05 09:39:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Jacob Stov Full support. Enough fitting for tank + gank + one ganglink.
this! astarte should have an 8'th high for a ganglink and appropriate extra fittings, field command ships are woefully poor bang for buck at the moment, and the nighthawk is awfully short of fittings for a long time now and seems to underperform compared to a drake for the most part.
Also even though fleet commands are not relevant to the OP's post, the vulture should have the 6'th turret the ferox has
|
stadshage
Trojan Trolls Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.05 13:16:00 -
[43]
yea these ships need some kind buff
like the idea by the topic maker but other kind of buff is also good though not sure what that would be then huh |
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.04.05 22:29:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Why the hell does anyone insist on this ******ed passive tanking? It's one of those things I will never get.
They do it because it works. It combines the advantages of both high eHP and repairing with a zero capacitor cost. I wasn't advocating it, I was just identifying a consequence of such a change.
Originally by: Gneeznow
Originally by: Jacob Stov Full support. Enough fitting for tank + gank + one ganglink.
this! astarte should have an 8'th high for a ganglink and appropriate extra fittings, field command ships are woefully poor bang for buck at the moment, and the nighthawk is awfully short of fittings for a long time now and seems to underperform compared to a drake for the most part.
Also even though fleet commands are not relevant to the OP's post, the vulture should have the 6'th turret the ferox has
Oh heck no... As much as Id love the idea of having crazy high slots, tank, and gank on my Astarte, the idea is to balance. If you dont sacrifice one for the other, then its moot. Besides, Astarte doesnt have a ship bonus to specific links. If you wanted a link you would be better off bringing the Fleet equivalent. More grid/eHP for survivability? Sure, but there certainly should be a cost for fitting the marginal utility of a gang link. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 00:36:00 -
[45]
Price is an issue with these ships but only because of the tier 2 BCs. A field command is only 150-200m isk iirc and a HAC is around 100-120m so it's not that much more expensive.
If you look at the ships with the compare tool you'll find that the field command ships are basically the same as their t1 counterparts with +1 slot, t2 resists and a turret or two strapped on.
Field commands need basically what the OP stated, more HP, more speed/agility, more sensor str, more scan resolution, +1 slot.
Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose. |
Orree
Dynaverse Corporation Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 15:33:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Gneeznow
Originally by: Jacob Stov Full support. Enough fitting for tank + gank + one ganglink.
this! astarte should have an 8'th high for a ganglink and appropriate extra fittings, field command ships are woefully poor bang for buck at the moment, and the nighthawk is awfully short of fittings for a long time now and seems to underperform compared to a drake for the most part.
Also even though fleet commands are not relevant to the OP's post, the vulture should have the 6'th turret the ferox has
Completely agree on all accounts, especially the bit about field commands being very poor bang for the buck.
I loved flying sleipnirs (on another character), but after a while it just became silly to keep flying them because they are just big, expensive primary target bait and this far outweighs any enjoyment or benefit one gets from flying them. The nighthawk would never be my first (or even second) choice in pvp missile boats and I've never bothered owning a vulture. My absolution hasn't seen the light of day in years. My astarte fell to PainBall's blasterthron in late 2007 and I haven't purchased another one since. I have a buddy with an Eos bpo but have never bothered to hit him up for one...heheh.
I'm always shocked when anyone says the nighthawk is fine as-is. PvE, yeah...and even then, it's fitting-challenged.
---------- "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli |
Jag Kara
United Investment
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 00:42:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Jag Kara on 07/04/2010 00:43:56 I support this. For less isk/skill/etc. you can field a battleship or battlecruiser that competes or beats it in capability.
Secondly, I cannot aggree more that the nighthawk needs another mid and more pg. While the nighthawk is based off the ferox hull, its obvious that it is really the t2 drake, which for some reason gets better fitting setup. The nighthawk is great, but the drake can fit more HAMS, LSE IIs, and what not with no issues while the nighthawk struggles with a set of HMs and 2 LSE. It seems to me that if it is supposed to be better, ergo tech 2, it should be able to be fit better.
As for the possible massive passive tank boost, who cares? its not like it will make a difference in either pvp or pve. The days of 1v1 pvp are long gone, so having enough tank to beat anyones dps is pointless. You'll just end up blobbed. As for pve, it can already tank any level 4 easily and do the tanking for a level 5, its not making a difference. Even if it makes tanking a level 5 solo easy, the setup in no way could even do a level 5 solo with its dps. In Soviet Russia, carebears gank YOU! |
Arcane Azmadi
First Flying Wing Inc Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.07 04:21:00 -
[48]
Actually, my problem with Field Command Ships is that they're NOT "command ships" at all- they're HABs (Heavy Assault Battlecruisers). They get exactly NO bonuses to fleet boosting that a normal T1 battlecruiser doesn't get- their advantages over the T1 variants are pretty much the same as a HAC's advantages over a T1 cruiser. So they'd damn well better be as proportionately stronger than their T1 counterparts as the HACs are. Currently they're just lousy (or at least inadequately worthwhile) value for money.
|
Master Akira
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
|
Posted - 2010.04.10 15:36:00 -
[49]
Supported! NH does needs more PG.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.04.10 15:57:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Arcane Azmadi Actually, my problem with Field Command Ships is that they're NOT "command ships" at all- they're HABs (Heavy Assault Battlecruisers). They get exactly NO bonuses to fleet boosting that a normal T1 battlecruiser doesn't get- their advantages over the T1 variants are pretty much the same as a HAC's advantages over a T1 cruiser. So they'd damn well better be as proportionately stronger than their T1 counterparts as the HACs are. Currently they're just lousy (or at least inadequately worthwhile) value for money.
Agreed, put grid and slots needed for Field Commands to fit a ganglink w/o gimping setup.
|
|
Enzu777
|
Posted - 2010.04.10 18:27:00 -
[51]
|
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.04.10 21:07:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Yaay on 10/04/2010 21:07:13 Most of your suggestions apply to the tank of these ships, which IMO is the right fix. I would also add either +50 cargo capacity or + 10m/s speed to the fixes for all of them.
Right now the Teir 2 BC are way more valuable for virtually 0 loss of income. Especially with the Rig changes due to the extra rig slot.
I still think the Drake needs to lose 100 PG in addition as it just has way to much tank. That would ultimately benefit the NH argument.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Aleena Doran
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 00:31:00 -
[53]
Supported. Spent long time training for command ships .... but rarely use them. Cost/benefit is way out of line with T1 BC.
|
Lord Zulu
The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 00:50:00 -
[54]
Yep they need a boost i remember the days long long ago any small gang would fear a field command in the hands of a skilled pilot they were tools of death now they are pretty much a joke
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 01:09:00 -
[55]
what if field commands had full t2 resistances like their fleet command brothers?
|
HeavyWave
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 11:00:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Fistme what if field commands had full t2 resistances like their fleet command brothers?
Or like heavy assaults? I've always found it weird that my abso has worse resistances then zealot Those become higher only after you factor in the bonus. Would be handy, but that change alone won't change much - for instance, NH will get slightly higher term and kin and those already are the highest resistances by a large margin. The EM-hole and slot layout disparity outlining this hole would still be left there as it.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 13:19:00 -
[57]
Originally by: HeavyWave
Originally by: Fistme what if field commands had full t2 resistances like their fleet command brothers?
Or like heavy assaults? I've always found it weird that my abso has worse resistances then zealot Those become higher only after you factor in the bonus. Would be handy, but that change alone won't change much - for instance, NH will get slightly higher term and kin and those already are the highest resistances by a large margin. The EM-hole and slot layout disparity outlining this hole would still be left there as it.
Good point, it would be more of a "band-aid" fix than adressing the cause of the current issues with field commands. I still stand by my point that ALL field commands and to a lesser extent ALL BCs should have slot layouts and grid reworked to allow for a decent fitting while also fielding a gang link of their choice. Personally I think that Gang Links requirements are WAY too high and take too much cap to boot but i guess that is for a different topic.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 18:16:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Fistme
Originally by: Arcane Azmadi Actually, my problem with Field Command Ships is that they're NOT "command ships" at all- they're HABs (Heavy Assault Battlecruisers). They get exactly NO bonuses to fleet boosting that a normal T1 battlecruiser doesn't get- their advantages over the T1 variants are pretty much the same as a HAC's advantages over a T1 cruiser. So they'd damn well better be as proportionately stronger than their T1 counterparts as the HACs are. Currently they're just lousy (or at least inadequately worthwhile) value for money.
Agreed, put grid and slots needed for Field Commands to fit a ganglink w/o gimping setup.
They should get 100% reduction in CPU/PG cost of a single warfare link, so you can fit one only for free. That helps solve the PG/CPU problems, although Astarte still needs an extra highslot and NH still needs more PG.
Then they probably need a small bonus to the effectiveness of that single gang mod - otherwise the T3's 25% strength bonus looks too attractive. Maybe 3%/level?
Then the gang mods themselves need overhauling. Let's face it, the Minnie and Amarr links are great and the Gall and Cal ones are a bit crappy - the inforwarfare links are too niche, tend to be stacked with modules and are a bit weak anyway, while the Caldari ones are designed for shield gangs that simply don't exist thanks to the absurd CPU requirements of shield transporters. Okay, they help with e.g. shield cruiser gangs, but you'd still prefer the Minnie ones there.
So... Amarr ones are fine, leave them as is. Minmatar gets sig radius, tackle range and MWD/AB speed boost bonus. These are too good. The sig radius bonus isn't stacked with other mods, unlike e.g. shield/armour resists, neither is the speed boost bonus. While it makes sense in principle for these to be Minmatar links, their magnitudes should be examined. The tackle mod range bonus is too good. It should apply only to webs, while Gallente gets a gang mod for disruptor/scrambler range.
The Gallente link for sensor strength makes sense racially, but it needs to be stronger, and to avoid being too niche it should also give a bonus to scan resolution. Hell, you could even throw a targeting range bonus in as well. The second Gall link could be the scrambler/disruptor range one. The third could be ewar mods strength and range - I'd like this to be a Caldari one really, but I'm not sure what to do with the Caldari ones if it were moved to Caldari. Hell, I'm not sure what to do with the Caldari ones anyway - even if shield transporter CPU requirements are fixed then armour BS gangs will still be dominant, simply because of slot layouts.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:47:00 -
[59]
Support a boost to field command ships. Astarte especially. Its just terribad. Maybe switch the falloff bonus for a ROF bonus. More PG is required and I think a low slot over a high with a ROF bonus.
Reduce cost of these ships too. No point flying a CS over a BS at the minute.
Originally by: Gypsio III
Then the gang mods themselves need overhauling. Let's face it, the Minnie and Amarr links are great and the Gall and Cal ones are a bit crappy - the inforwarfare links are too niche, tend to be stacked with modules and are a bit weak anyway, while the Caldari ones are designed for shield gangs that simply don't exist thanks to the absurd CPU requirements of shield transporters. Okay, they help with e.g. shield cruiser gangs, but you'd still prefer the Minnie ones there.
So... Amarr ones are fine, leave them as is. Minmatar gets sig radius, tackle range and MWD/AB speed boost bonus. These are too good. The sig radius bonus isn't stacked with other mods, unlike e.g. shield/armour resists, neither is the speed boost bonus. While it makes sense in principle for these to be Minmatar links, their magnitudes should be examined. The tackle mod range bonus is too good. It should apply only to webs, while Gallente gets a gang mod for disruptor/scrambler range.
The Gallente link for sensor strength makes sense racially, but it needs to be stronger, and to avoid being too niche it should also give a bonus to scan resolution. Hell, you could even throw a targeting range bonus in as well. The second Gall link could be the scrambler/disruptor range one. The third could be ewar mods strength and range - I'd like this to be a Caldari one really, but I'm not sure what to do with the Caldari ones if it were moved to Caldari. Hell, I'm not sure what to do with the Caldari ones anyway - even if shield transporter CPU requirements are fixed then armour BS gangs will still be dominant, simply because of slot layouts.
Gallente gang links are a joke. They need an entire new line of gang links that fit the Gallente doctrine. Assault Warfare Links anyone? These links would improve weapon performance but NOT DPS.
Info links moved to new ship class for each race -Covert Command- (T2 Destroyer anyone?)
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:33:00 -
[60]
The answer to woes of Field commands is not in warfare links. If you want to fit a unbonused warfare link on a ship, Tier 2 BCs already do this for a hugely lower price while generally fitting tank and DPS on top (well, with more problems on some ships, sure).
Furthermore, with two ship classes bonused for warfare link efficiency there's really no point in adding a extra role bonus on top here.
Sure, the Astarte could use a utility high anyway (ditto Brutix) and more fitting anyway for it not to be worthless, but that alone doesn't make the ship stop being a failboat.
+1 slot to all (and extra utility high on top for Astarte and Brutix since, let's be fair, losing 10m3 of dronebay compared to a Cyclone/Sleipnir is not worth a highslot) and rebalancing bonuses and fitting across the class is imo the way to go, along with giving them Tier 2 BC base HP, and a few nice extras like higher sensor strenght and slightly higher agility as per the OP's suggestion.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:43:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
The answer to woes of Field commands is not in warfare links. If you want to fit a unbonused warfare link on a ship, Tier 2 BCs already do this for a hugely lower price while generally fitting tank and DPS on top (well, with more problems on some ships, sure).
Furthermore, with two ship classes bonused for warfare link efficiency there's really no point in adding a extra role bonus on top here.
Sure, the Astarte could use a utility high anyway (ditto Brutix) and more fitting anyway for it not to be worthless, but that alone doesn't make the ship stop being a failboat.
+1 slot to all (and extra utility high on top for Astarte and Brutix since, let's be fair, losing 10m3 of dronebay compared to a Cyclone/Sleipnir is not worth a highslot) and rebalancing bonuses and fitting across the class is imo the way to go, along with giving them Tier 2 BC base HP, and a few nice extras like higher sensor strenght and slightly higher agility as per the OP's suggestion.
Ditto this for simplicity. Also, add in a cost reduction because they will still be insta-primary. Thank you for someone else agreeing that Field Command + Ganglink = fail. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:41:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Also, add in a cost reduction because they will still be insta-primary. Thank you for someone else agreeing that Field Command + Ganglink = fail.
Agreed. Field Command ships are "Pocket Battleships". With the option of fitting a gang link
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 13:24:00 -
[63]
definitly support a boost to the bc line of ships, especially the commands
|
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:32:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Yaay on 14/04/2010 16:34:17 It may also make sense to give these ships another set of gang bonuses that are more offensive in nature, but limit them to 1 gang module out of 3 racial choices. So maybe one set of them boost tracking, optimal, falloff... but only 1 fits per ship. One set boost Neut/nos amounts, range. One set boost drone damage, tracking, speed. And one boost overheating effects?
In other words, very specialized boost, but because it's only ever 1 bonus, maybe these ships are geared towards small gang warfare, and specialized pockets within a fleet.
That might keep them as decent pvp ships, but better field command experiences. They're much more offensively minded, and their bonuses are geared as such. But with only 1 mod fitting, it's hard to weigh their benefit to that of the fleet commands that give massive bonuses up to 7x per ship per wing or fleet.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:42:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Originally by: Cpt Branko
The answer to woes of Field commands is not in warfare links.
Ditto this for simplicity. Also, add in a cost reduction because they will still be insta-primary. Thank you for someone else agreeing that Field Command + Ganglink = fail.
I flat don't buy this argument. I don't see the point of flying a 200 mill ISK field command when I could just jump in a ~50 mill ISK BS. Sure, there are advantages in terms of resists and mobility, but there are disadvantages in terms of RR options, neuts, EHP and DPS.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 23:10:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Ditto this for simplicity. Also, add in a cost reduction because they will still be insta-primary. Thank you for someone else agreeing that Field Command + Ganglink = fail.
I flat don't buy this argument. I don't see the point of flying a 200 mill ISK field command when I could just jump in a ~50 mill ISK BS. Sure, there are advantages in terms of resists and mobility, but there are disadvantages in terms of RR options, neuts, EHP and DPS.
Which part of the argument is not bought? I suppose I dont understand what your objection to my agreement was because it seems like you partially agree as well. As with all T2 ships, they offer increased resists, bonuses, and mobility (particularly in lower class vs. higher) and on a 1v1 basis, most Field Commands will obliterate a "~50mil BS" handily (or at least should, hence a boost request). Furthermore, the on-paper DPS potential of most of these ships is a LOT higher than said battleships (i.e. I can find a fitting that will nudge the Astarte well over 1k DPS at the cost of eHP) but as with all ships you generally trade off monster DPS for eHP, repairing, mobility, remote rep, etc. This is all just a wishy-washy way of saying "This ship is just like the T1 version, but a whole lot better." The problem with that is the T1 Tier 2 can often outclass these ships by a wide margin hence the need for a boost. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 09:48:00 -
[67]
My objection to the "no-GM" idea is simply that a field CS without a GM is inferior to a battleship in terms of DPS, EHP and gang utility, but costs 150 mill ISK more. Ships, especially T2 ships, need roles, and field CS don't have one. Simply boosting their base stats etc won't give them one.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:56:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Gypsio III My objection to the "no-GM" idea is simply that a field CS without a GM is inferior to a battleship in terms of DPS, EHP and gang utility, but costs 150 mill ISK more. Ships, especially T2 ships, need roles, and field CS don't have one. Simply boosting their base stats etc won't give them one.
What's the role there? You know, you can fit a BC to have good DPS, good EHP and a warfare link and about 1/10th the price of a CS. Alternatively if your gang is sizeable enough you benefit more from a fleet CS which loses DPS but gains EHP and three bonused warfare links.
Warfare link is a additional extra when we discuss field CS, not THE role, since gang boosting role is largely covered. What I basically envision field CS as is a "HAC on seteroids" with somewhat less mobility (but more then BS and preferably slightly more then Tier 2 BCs) but delivering what is essentially speaking close to BS-level DPS and having the option to fit a warfare link. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:01:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 15/04/2010 12:01:40
I suggested a proper role a while ago.
Evidently, the idea itself was just way too good and sophisticated for the average forum level ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:16:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
What's the role there? You know, you can fit a BC to have good DPS, good EHP and a warfare link and about 1/10th the price of a CS. Alternatively if your gang is sizeable enough you benefit more from a fleet CS which loses DPS but gains EHP and three bonused warfare links.
Warfare link is a additional extra when we discuss field CS, not THE role, since gang boosting role is largely covered. What I basically envision field CS as is a "HAC on steroids" with somewhat less mobility (but more then BS and preferably slightly more then Tier 2 BCs) but delivering what is essentially speaking close to BS-level DPS and having the option to fit a warfare link.
Sure, a BC can fit a gank link. But it's tough on PG and CPU and it receives no bonuses to the link's bonus's strength. A field CS that could fit a link at no PG/CPU cost with a respectable bonus to its strength, while possessing good actual combat capabilities (unlike the fleet CS) would be an attractive option and viable role, I think.
I don't like the "HAC on steroids comparison" because HACs are defined by mobility or range, and field CS have no more of either than BCs. Now, I have no fundamental objection to a rework of the class into super-HACs, but I suspect it would be tricky to balance them with HACs and still make both worthwhile. And even then, why not give them a link bonus as well?
|
|
HaartSp
The Deliberate Forces
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:39:00 -
[71]
Yes, Field CSes should be boosted.
|
Darth Felin
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:40:00 -
[72]
+45 CPU is too much for a Sleipnir but other ideas are decent.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:33:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 15/04/2010 16:36:15
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Cpt Branko
What's the role there? You know, you can fit a BC to have good DPS, good EHP and a warfare link and about 1/10th the price of a CS. Alternatively if your gang is sizeable enough you benefit more from a fleet CS which loses DPS but gains EHP and three bonused warfare links.
Warfare link is a additional extra when we discuss field CS, not THE role, since gang boosting role is largely covered. What I basically envision field CS as is a "HAC on steroids" with somewhat less mobility (but more then BS and preferably slightly more then Tier 2 BCs) but delivering what is essentially speaking close to BS-level DPS and having the option to fit a warfare link.
Sure, a BC can fit a gank link. But it's tough on PG and CPU and it receives no bonuses to the link's bonus's strength. A field CS that could fit a link at no PG/CPU cost with a respectable bonus to its strength, while possessing good actual combat capabilities (unlike the fleet CS) would be an attractive option and viable role, I think.
I don't like the "HAC on steroids comparison" because HACs are defined by mobility or range, and field CS have no more of either than BCs. Now, I have no fundamental objection to a rework of the class into super-HACs, but I suspect it would be tricky to balance them with HACs and still make both worthwhile. And even then, why not give them a link bonus as well?
This actually seems like a worthy discussion. Whats the point of a Field CS as opposed to a Fleet CS? One can differentiate this in two ways:
- Fleet commands are designed for large gang warfare (sniping, structure bash, fleet battles) whereas Field commands are designed for small gang warfare (gate camps, raiding parties, 1v1).
- In fleets, there is an emphasis on DPS and eHP. Anything the Fleet command can do to increase those is key, and hence needs a lot of bonuses to do so: lock speed, resists, etc.
- In small gangs, there is an emphasis on DPS, speed, and size. The Field Command can provide bonuses, but its mostly a pittance because more often than not it is more important to bring something fast with high DPS. The Field command can do this: it has crazy DPS bonuses.
- Fleet commands are supposed to hang back and be in charge of fleets, while Field commands are supposed to be in the fray and take charge of the situation.
- Fleet commands already do this well. They have three bonuses and (typically, sans Eos) have high eHP. They may be primary, but they can (should) take a beating and still provide bonuses essential to the survival of the fleet.
- Field commands do this by providing high DPS on the spot when and where needed and have enough eHP to survive until their target is dead. They need to have the highest DPS to target variety ratio in the game (be able to attack everything from frigates up to battleships, which medium weapons do a good job of), stick to their target like glue until the job is done (through speed matching, scrambling, webbing, weapon effectiveness), then bail should the need arise.
These only exist in philosophical terms of course. Camp #1 is difficult because you can see Fleet Commands filling both roles, but for #2 the case is easy to make. If you look at the bonuses for each of the field command ships you will notice that they all have two damage bonuses, a tank bonus, and a weapon effectiveness bonus (range, explosion velocity, cap use). With the current prevalence of eHP and cap warfare (thanks CCP for the double HP boost a few years back) the repping bonuses on the Sleipnir and Astarte are largely useless due to high eHP needs in sustained fights. The way missiles work, the explosion velocity bonus is probably useless if it cant help you nail fast frigs (I dont use missiles in PVP). Cap usage bonuses are really nice, but there are alternative solutions in quick fights. Edit: This needs some added thinking. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Jacob Stov
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:42:00 -
[74]
Field command ships should just comfortably fit a ganglink. I believe that would be their role. Lead small gangs, where the loss of DPS compared to a fleet command isn't worth it. Unfortunately that role is already covered by T3 cruisers.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 22:55:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/04/2010 22:56:18
Originally by: Jacob Stov Field command ships should just comfortably fit a ganglink. I believe that would be their role. Lead small gangs, where the loss of DPS compared to a fleet command isn't worth it. Unfortunately that role is already covered by T3 cruisers.
Or Tier 2 BCs if price is a concern. Some of them can sport very competitive DPS, solid EHP and a warfare link.
They need to be first and foremost excellent combat ships, which some of the ships in the class most definitely are not.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 03:48:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/04/2010 22:56:18
Originally by: Jacob Stov Field command ships should just comfortably fit a ganglink. I believe that would be their role. Lead small gangs, where the loss of DPS compared to a fleet command isn't worth it. Unfortunately that role is already covered by T3 cruisers.
Or Tier 2 BCs if price is a concern. Some of them can sport very competitive DPS, solid EHP and a warfare link.
They need to be first and foremost excellent combat ships, which some of the ships in the class most definitely are not.
Yes, but that's partly due to the teir 2 BC's being a tad overpowered. I mean there's virtually no comparison between what the teir 1 BC were and what the teir 2 became. Some of the Bonuses on the teir 2 BC's don't even make sense.
The drake is the primary example. It is the only caldari Missile boat that get's a resist bonus instead of a range bonus. It makes the ship a much harder tank than it really should be.
The hurricane and the Harbinger are incredibly easy to fit too. Compare the Teir 2 BC's to the Teir 4 Cruisers and their much more difficult fitting problems and you really see the imbalance.
I personally love the Teir 2 BC's and wish more T1 ships were that easy to fit and use. Honestly, if the Teir 1 cruisers were that easy to fit, I'd use them more often. But that said, it makes the Tech 2 field ships and a lot of the tier 1 BC's look crappy by comparison. I wish both sets of ships would get a boost, as well as teir 1 cruisers to make the use of tech one gear even more attractive. That might actually bring down Tech 2 cost even more.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
JShepard
Caldari Imperial Syndicate Forces Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 04:17:00 -
[77]
Edited by: JShepard on 16/04/2010 04:17:40 What is this crap, making BC5 worth training (for pvp), BLASPHEMY I SAY!
|
Battleangel Libby
Stellar Solutions Factory
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 10:36:00 -
[78]
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 12:25:00 -
[79]
How about introducing a new line of offensive gang link modules specialized for different weapon types. Field Command ships could then have a small bonus to these offensive gang link modules just as fleet commands get the bonuses to the other gang link modules.
I'd rather Field Commands get a Niche role rather than try and pretend to be a BS.
|
TraderVolCh
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:12:00 -
[80]
|
|
JcJet
Stone Circle Tower of Dark Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:10:00 -
[81]
---
|
Ugly Gorinich
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:02:00 -
[82]
signed
|
Samson Viryn
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:06:00 -
[83]
boost
|
Damnskippy
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 19:42:00 -
[84]
They need something. Battlecruisers perform nearly as well for a small fraction of the cost.
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 20:44:00 -
[85]
I will probably get flamed somewhat, but is not part of the problem the tier 2 bc's? If I compare them, they do tend to stick out a bit on the upside of the power level.
I'd say turn a bat in that direction, perhaps a 7,5% reduction in armor, shield and cap.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 21:43:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Zilberfrid I will probably get flamed somewhat, but is not part of the problem the tier 2 bc's? If I compare them, they do tend to stick out a bit on the upside of the power level.
I'd say turn a bat in that direction, perhaps a 7,5% reduction in armor, shield and cap.
They are, but the changes you mention won't mean lot. Heck, the 7.5 percent cap/armor advantage is already built-in for those, you'll just bring them down to tier-1 level in that very area, while tier-2 will still enjoy abnormal slot amount. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 23:04:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Originally by: Zilberfrid I will probably get flamed somewhat, but is not part of the problem the tier 2 bc's? If I compare them, they do tend to stick out a bit on the upside of the power level.
I'd say turn a bat in that direction, perhaps a 7,5% reduction in armor, shield and cap.
They are, but the changes you mention won't mean lot. Heck, the 7.5 percent cap/armor advantage is already built-in for those, you'll just bring them down to tier-1 level in that very area, while tier-2 will still enjoy abnormal slot amount.
It's not the slots that are the problem, it's the bonuses and fittings.
Harbinger: high gun damage and a large drone bay and a ton of Powergrid.
Drake: High power grid, Shield resist, and Damage bonus with 7 launchers for decent to high damage.
Sleipnir: Fast, High DPS, decent drone bay, and incredibly easy to fit.
Compare any of those to the teir 1 BC that are always short on fittings, much lower tanks, and much lower dps except the brutix. But the brutix is a paper tiger on tank even if it does have nice DPS.
People don't buy this, but the Prophecy has almost no advantage over the Harbinger. Harbinger has higher base armor, shields and an extra Mid. IT also has way higher powergrid and a larger drone bay making fitting a large tank plus guns pretty easy.
I played with EFT last night and got a harbinger to about 135k EHP with a damnation. It also did about 550 DPS. I tried something similar with the Proph and got 159k EHP (*a whoping 24,000 more), but lost a ton of firepower and had huge issues on fittings. So why on god's green earth would I ever choose to use the Proph when the Teir 2 is so much stronger. 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.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 04:23:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 21/04/2010 04:23:49
It is slots (dronebays including) combined with extra fittings.
Abaddon's got 'the best' set of bonuses you can ever think of - resistances plus damage. It has 8 guns, but in no way it is imbalanced in comparison to Geddon.
I wouldn't care all that much about Harbinger, should it have 4 lows or 3 meds/5 lows. Instead for some weirdest reason there are 6. As tech1 ships have always been basically free and it doesn't matter whether the hull is 20 or 40 mil isk, the huge increase in perfomance comes at absolutely no cost. Imagine battleships being done that way, - Abaddon then easily could have 2 extra meds ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 10:02:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/04/2010 10:07:52 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/04/2010 10:04:27 Tier 2 BCs are fine.
As for the "they do XYZ on the cheap", nerfing them would do nothing for field CS. Why would I still fly a field CS over a HAC (more mobility, equal midslot/lowslot count*, less DPS/EHP though) or, eg. shield tempest (cheaper by miles and miles, almost as mobile, generally speaking more DPS and EHP, heavy neuts, etcetera). A tier 1 BS will dominate a CS about every time, and in most cases without breaking a sweat (eg. failstarte).
*Which is probably the best argument for giving field CS a extra low/mid - they share mid/low slot amount with the ship half class down.
Originally by: Yaay So why on god's green earth would I ever choose to use the Proph when the Teir 2 is so much stronger.
Tiers on all sub-BS ships are broken, really. The Stabber is inferior in about every way bar speed to the Rupture. The Breacher/Slasher is inferior in every way to the Rifter. Etcetera.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Aspherical
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 17:44:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Aspherical on 21/04/2010 17:46:02 Edited by: Aspherical on 21/04/2010 17:45:07 I can only speak for the Nighthawk
But yes a Drake is really nearly as good as a Nighthawk and sometimes I really thought about switch the Command role to an assault role to make the Nighthawk a Heavy Assault BC, with better tank and more DPS and/or range bonus like the Cerberus.
So delete the ganglink mod. Nighthawk spread out the Resistances not full T2 but 25% em before bonus more Powergrid so that it can fit HAM and with a RC also medium Neut
+12.5% RoF per CS level BUT no kinetic / Expl. velocety bonuses
+10% HM velocety per BC and/or special role bonus 25% to HAM velocety per level +1 medslot
|
|
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.
|
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 15:47:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
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.
I inflated a little, but you are forgetting some stuff: Overheat your neutrons, switch over to Caldari navy AM (which is cheap), and add a ROF/DMG rig and you sit pretty at just under 1000 DPS flat. Double-up the rigs and add a reactor control for fitting to push it over 1k. Yeah, sure, its paper thin but it goes the distance if noone primaries you. For a Tier 1 ship, that's pretty smoking. Stack another 200 on for the Astarte. Id admit barring cost Id take the Astarte, but if someone gave me an Astarte plus fittings, Id probably sell it off and purchase 4 Harbys or 5 Brutixs.
For the Astarte, the wasted bonus is the Repping amount. Im seriously wondering what CCP was thinking if they weren't thinking "its not a large HAC!" giving it a full rack of turret slots. Fields werent really made (either in cost or bonus) to fit command links. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 17:07:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
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.
I inflated a little, but you are forgetting some stuff: Overheat your neutrons, switch over to Caldari navy AM (which is cheap), and add a ROF/DMG rig and you sit pretty at just under 1000 DPS flat. Double-up the rigs and add a reactor control for fitting to push it over 1k. Yeah, sure, its paper thin but it goes the distance if noone primaries you. For a Tier 1 ship, that's pretty smoking. Stack another 200 on for the Astarte. Id admit barring cost Id take the Astarte, but if someone gave me an Astarte plus fittings, Id probably sell it off and purchase 4 Harbys or 5 Brutixs.
For the Astarte, the wasted bonus is the Repping amount. Im seriously wondering what CCP was thinking if they weren't thinking "its not a large HAC!" giving it a full rack of turret slots. Fields werent really made (either in cost or bonus) to fit command links.
I was assuming CN AM to get 860. I tend to prefer Trimark rigs to DPS on most fits, because DPS are stacking nerfed against your magstabs, which makes them fairly pointless(10-15% EHP > 2-5% DPS). And I tend to standardize on all-V skills and no overheating - since every ship gets roughly the same bonus from overheating, it just makes the numbers confusing to include it.
As for cost efficiency, yes, the Astarte is pretty bad in that regard. But sometimes you want capability over redundancy, and there's not much above command ships for capability.
|
Sakos Vartrow
Rapscallions Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 12:15:00 -
[123]
Supported.
These ships really need a buff to make them at least better than tier 2 BCs.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 17:52:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Sakos Vartrow Supported.
These ships really need a buff to make them at least better than tier 2 BCs.
Find me a sane field command fit that's worse than an equivalent tier-2 fit. At anything. Okay, the Absolution loses its web, but other than that.
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 12:23:00 -
[125]
Edited by: adriaans on 31/05/2010 12:22:45
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Sakos Vartrow Supported.
These ships really need a buff to make them at least better than tier 2 BCs.
Find me a sane field command fit that's worse than an equivalent tier-2 fit. At anything. Okay, the Absolution loses its web, but other than that.
Some people seem to exaggerate a little, however a myrm/drake will give many of these a run for their money.
The point of this thread however is that they are at best marginally better than the tier 2 BC's while massively more expensive AND have no role in small gang warfare (or any other warfare for that matter) as they should have. Add in the fact that a BS is still better and just as agile while still cheaper and these ships have nothing no other ship can do better for cheaper. The changes i proposed would make them a lot more viable in small gang warfare, which are what they are designed for. And in no way would any of these be overpowered with the changes either, they would still be a little on the weak really.
--signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 18:06:00 -
[126]
Mea culpa - Caldari is the one race I don't fly, so I forgot that the Nighthawk loses a mid compared to the Drake. Stupid Ferox hull. So yeah, the Nighthawk actually has less EHP than the Drake, at least if you expect it to have the speed mod and point that the Drake can carry. Mind you, if you ditch the point, a heavy missile Nighthawk has 6k more EHP and 11 more DPS than a HAM Drake, not to mention 4x the range. The HAM fit has no range or missile precision advantages, but it beats the Drake by 66 DPS instead of 11. I'm not going to pretend that ditching the point isn't a serious failing - it is. Losing the sixth mid hurts. And I suppose it does wreck my previous claim. But the Nighthawk is the worst field command anyways, and my objections to your changes were primarily based on the three good field commands. I mean, boosting the Nighthawk is a reasonable thing to ask for. The CSM already passed that one. But boosting the Sleipnir? Really? That's the part that made me laugh at this thread.
As for cost efficiency arguments, just ask yourself this. Does the Dramiel need a boost? After all, it's 200x as expensive as a Rifter, and it's certainly not 200x as effective.
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 21:55:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto text
Small gang pvp which these ships are designed for means Ham's work perfectly fine. Actually the astarte in my opinion is even worse than the nighthawk. and the absolution barely better. I agree the sleipnir is decent, but it is definitively not good, it is simply the better of the lot... which really does not say much. It can't fit a half decent active tank with mwd and a point (808 dps tanked, cap lasts just above 1 min with mwd off, needs a cpu mod as well, 830dps), or it can do a ''bigger vagabond'' kind of fit which brings it to same dps, 71k ehp, aligns slower than a tempest, but a gang mod actually fits now. <- a tempest does the bigger vaga thing better... thats saying something!
If you play around with fits and consider my proposals (and we cant really give some of these ships slots and not the others), you will find that they are VERY balanced in comparison to what their niches are supposed to be (2 each (staying power in small gangs and the ability to give gang bonuses while utilizing a proper fit (astarte being a pure dmg dealer instead)). In no way whatsoever would any of these ships become overpowered.
and as for the last part, the dramiel and the daredevil are what i always have considered the lvl of efficency pirate ships should be at, i find those 2 ships perfectly balanced (the others need a little buff). 90m fitted vs 3m fitted = 30x as expensive btw ;) --signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 23:59:00 -
[128]
I didn't say that HAMs were bad. I said that a Nighthawk with low-DPS weapons outDPSed a Drake with high-DPS weapons(even before you take the explo velocity bonus into account).
As for the case of the Sleipnir, it's not a Vaga. They're kind of similar, but not really. With similar fits(ambit-rigged autocannons, designed to hold orbit out of web range, in this case) the Vaga moves twice as fast, and the Sleip has 3x the EHP and 50% more DPS plus a gang link. How do you compare those?
As for the Tempest, I really don't know WTF you're talking about. Putting the Tempest into a similar fit, it moves 300 m/s slower than the Pest and takes 50% longer to align, though it gets about 50% more range, 20% more EHP, and 30% more DPS. Did you put a 1600mm on a Sleipnir or something?
As for the Dramiel, I agree that it's a fine ship, though I'm more of a Daredevil man. But on the cost side, I've seen plenty of Rifters that cost under a mil(because really, why are you putting T2 on a ship that cheap?), and a few Dramiels that cost a whole lot more than 90(T2 rigs and RF gyros do that). Fitted cost is a function of how much you're inclined to pay. But if you agree that even an x30 cost bump should get you x2 capability, what should a x4 or so cost bump like a field command ship get you?
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 02:29:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto text
The point is the drake is simply more viable, especially as it gets more ehp with *almost* the same dps.
Tempest align (shield nano neuting kiter fit): 10.2 sec. (900 dps using light drones, 3.5 + 31km) (TWO heavy neuts AND medium ecm drones). Sleipnir: 8.6 sec. that's 1.6 sec difference in aligning. (and not a single armor mod :P) (700 dps including drones, 3.5+35km) Pretty much exactly same EHP. Speed, sleip is marginally faster (143m/s).
Yes the vaga is faster and has more falloff, however this is the ONLY viable sleipnir fit as the active tank fit lacks a mid slot AND cpu AND capacitor (or tank when not). Not to mention a drake AND a harb has more ehp than it and comparative dps (armored cane too, but dps somewhat lower)
Field commands in my opinion to be able to fill their role as a small gang ship should be performance wise decidedly better than tier 2 BC's (they're not) and somewhat weaker than tier 1 BS's (they are WAY weaker). Which is where my boosts would place them.
If all the other CS's get boosted the sleip will be the worst, boost all of them and i think they will all be very balanced against each other. The astarte possibly falling somewhat behind but that's a brutix hull problem more than anything. And these ships REALLY need a boost, surely we can agree on that?
as for the rifter fit, it's t2 guns and rolled tungsten plate, rest was cheap named (very common fit), with dram all t2 and deadspace AB. (faction/t2 ammo included in cost). Heh and yeah i lost my dram to one of those 350 mill drams :P --signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 05:32:00 -
[130]
Drake: Yeah, the lack of a sixth mid really kills the Nighthawk. If any of them need boosting, it'd be the one.
Tempest: A naked Tempest with a MWD active gets an 18 second align. Sleipnir is 12. Just how many agility mods are you fitting? The only way I get 10.2 seconds is with four nanos and a gang boost(which I haven't been using, to keep the numbers standardized). Also, in order to fit two heavy neuts, a MWD, cap booster, LSE, and a full set of 1600s, you need a RCU. Where the hell are your damage mods? By the time you fit the DCU, you've shield tanked a ship with six lows, and have exactly zero damage mods equipped.
And no, we do not agree that these ships REALLY need a boost. That's the whole point of this argument. The Nighthawk could use a mid in place of a low and some extra PG. The Astarte could use a utility high and the fitting for a gang link(though the medium neut that would inevitably be put there instead might make it a bit OP for solo work), but that's just on the principle that every command ship should fit a link, as a solo ship it's fine. The Absolution is fine, and the Sleipnir is fine. Maybe a bit of dabbling around the edges can be justified, but nothing serious, and adding a full slot and a lot of fitting to use it certainly qualifies as serious.
Have you ever looked at what a sniper HAC is capable of? Comparing a sniper Zealot(the best of the lot) and a sniper Megathron(decidedly mediocre), the Mega has 76k EHP to 21k, 312 DPS to 290, and 183km optimal to 114km. Costs about 50 mil less to lose one, too. And when the fighting gets closer, it's even got a pretty nice set of drones to throw in, where the Zealot's got nothing. The Mega would undoubtedly kick the crap out of a Zealot under any conceivable circumstances...until you remember that the Zealot can move, and the Mega can't. Field command ships, when viewed solo, are in much the same category as HACs - they're not ships with a battleship's raw stats, but they make up for it with mobility, tracking, and all that other stuff. The gang links also make them dual-role gang boosters, which a battleship isn't. I'm not sure exactly what standards you're trying to judge these ships by, but by any sane standard I can think of, the class is generally fine. Needs a few tweaks, sure - what doesn't? But you're talking about a wholesale renovation, which is frankly silly.
|
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 13:20:00 -
[131]
Edited by: adriaans on 01/06/2010 13:23:26
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto text
The stats are with MWD off as any sane person does not run a mwd more than needed. secondly the tempest fits no armor mods... why do you even fit some?
The difference with both mwd on is 2.7 seconds.
[Tempest, Shield nano neut kiting 2] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L 800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma L
Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Vespa EC-600 x5 Hornet II x5
[Sleipnir, Shield buffer] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II
10MN MicroWarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Invulnerability Field II
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x3 Hobgoblin II x2
How you can say these ships are fine baffles me to be honest... Do you have any experience to back that claim up with, because I'd love to hear about it, do you really think these ships would overpowered by it, i definitely do not think so (a tier 1 BS will still be better and cheaper).
Field commands are a widely agreed obsolete class for soon 2 years and PARTICULARLY since t3 introduction, i did my best from my own experience (CS 5 pilot, flly all except astarte) of what i think they need. These ships first of all lacks agility and better sensor strength (less easy to be jammed) and needs some more EHP. Secondly all except the sleipnir needs more fitting assuming slots stay the same. Those are the very important parts. Then there is the issue of slots... the problem is you can't just give the nighthawk an extra mid or an astarte an extra high/low without giving the others anything, all ship classes/tiers have the exact same amount of slots total.
That's exactly one of the problems, these ships are MARGINALLY more agile than tier 1 BS's! They simply don't have mobility, no staying power, all but 1 have no gang boosting fitting abilities. I am judging them as a standard between Tier 2 BC's and Tier 1 BS's, which is where they should be, considering T3 became the old field command ships back in the days, and they now hold the spot of tier 2 BC dps, tier 3 BS EHP or better and gang boosting and recon sensors and better boosting abilities...., all for 450 mill isk, which is only 150m more than field commands.
And really, they can drop the slot boost if they do the ehp increase, sensor strength increase, fitting increase and agility increase. It won't make them good, but at least perhaps make them useful on occasions. --signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Leila Duran
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 15:47:00 -
[132]
Yes please, even the playfield a little by making CS worth their buck.
|
Sabrina Al'Kian
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 23:33:00 -
[133]
Sounds good to me.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 05:26:00 -
[134]
Okay, first off, your Tempest fit doesn't actually fit - you're about 1700 PG short. Second, you get an extra 2k EHP and better performance with RR from an invuln in place of the second LSE. Third, what idiot uses resist rigs? Those things blow. Fourth, with zero ambit rigs and faction ammo, you only get 31km falloff, which means that at disruptor range you're doing less than 60% of your nominal damage.
As for fitting armor mods, that was a typo. I said a full set of 1600s, I meant a full set of 800s, i.e. 800mm autocannons. I should really stop making dumb mistakes if I want to win this argument.
And yes, I fly command ships, I have both an Astarte and a Sleipnir. I don;t have a huge amount of TQ experience with them, because I'm a cheap bastard at heart, but I've used them a bunch in Sisi duels, and I've done enough PvP to read a stats block and have an idea of how a ship will perform. Command ships are for people who want capability more than cost-efficiency, and who prefer the mobility/tracking/etc to the raw numbers of a battleship. It's not a big niche, and it never will be, the same way that pirate cruisers aren't taking over for battleships either. But it's one that should exist and it's one that they generally perform well. And despite your comparison of a nano-fit Tempest with a non-nano-fit Sleipnir, the agility difference is very noticeable. A Pest takes half again as long as a Sleip to align. A triple-plate Mega takes a third longer than a single-plate Astarte to align. There's also generally a 15-25% speed difference, and about a 500% difference in tracking(not a typo).
As for individual stat tweaks, if you want to throw them three or four points of sensor strength, I'm fine with that. EHP is not an issue on most of them, the Abso is north of 100k and the Astarte is north of 70k, both of which are acceptable. The Sleip is lower, but the Sleip also doesn't fit as buffery a setup, and the Nighthawk can do better than the Absolution if you're willing to give it a four-slot tank, and is at about Astarte levels with three.
I've also come up with an Astarte change that lets it have the gang link without giving it more slots than anyone else or gimping it - change the damage bonuses to ROF(or alternately, make one of them 10%/level, which is slightly more powerful), knock off a turret hardpoint, and add about 8 PG and 20 CPU to compensate for the difference between a neutron blaster and a gang link. It's a 2.5% DPS loss at max skills, but I don't think anyone will mind. And when I said the Nighthawk should get an extra mid, you apparently missed the part where I said it should have one less low slot to compensate.
Also, how do you figure that the Astarte and Absolution need more fitting? The Astarte fits a 1600, MWD, and full rack of neutrons with a single ACR - it takes AWU 5 and fits by 0.15 PG, but it fits. The Absolution is tight if you want to fit the gang link and a medium cap booster, but it still only needs one RCU and two pieces of named/faction gear or a 1% hardwire to work(with T2 heavies and a 1600), which isn't crazy. I wouldn't be opposed to the Abso getting a touch more fitting, but it'd be less of a boost than an upgrade to medium drones.
One last thing. When you say that a field command costs 300 mil, you might want to try saying it in a post where you don't list off a fit that costs almost exactly 200.
|
Vehlin
Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 12:18:00 -
[135]
One point that comes up a lot, if you give them enough fitting for the gang link, people will abuse it to fit a neut instead for solo work.
What about giving CS's a bigger bonus to ganglink fitting such that they can easily fit a ganglink, but only a ganglink. At the end of the day these are Command Ships, they are meant to be running with 1 link, they shouldn't have to gimp their fitting in order to do it.
|
Lerth O'Ferris
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 12:49:00 -
[136]
I've just come up with another idea which might help Nighthawk a lot: replace kinetic damage bonus with rainbow one I don't see it making NH any more overpowered than the current Raven hulls, which in fact have exactly the rainbow damage bonuses (rof actually, but that's still DPS).
|
knobber Jobbler
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 14:38:00 -
[137]
+1 Fully supported.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 17:18:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/06/2010 17:18:34
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I've also come up with an Astarte change that lets it have the gang link without giving it more slots than anyone else or gimping it
Just add the freaking slot, actaully.
Sleipnir: 8 highs, 5 meds, 5 lows. Astarte: 7 highs, 4 meds, 6 lows. (oh, it gets 10m3 more dronebay, zomg)
Add the utility high on both the Brutix and the Astarte and you've gone a long way towards fixing both ships.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 18:19:00 -
[139]
Edited by: adriaans on 02/06/2010 18:20:11
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto text
The fit most certainly fits without even needing implants... :/ Are you sure you got an up to date EFT? And sorry you're right, extenders rigs + invul is what it should be, i posted my cheap fit apparently :/
hehe seems we both make them :)
SISI duels really have nothing to compare with TQ pvp really, it's ok for testing if a fit is viable, but it really does not represent how pvp is on TQ in any way, not to mention most opponents one fights on SISI have ******ed fits. I fly every class of ships of every single race pretty maxed (sub capital) and the agility difference is rather minimal actually, it's generally better to just stick a inertia mod on a untrimarked geddon than flying an absolution.
A drake almost gets the same stats as you're absolution stats... If you drop a low slot from the nighthawk it either looses the RCU needed to fit stuff or a dmg mod which means it's dps sucks even more, or do we agree nighthawk needs a fitting increasing, i think we do? The astarte needs more tank OR more dps, a shield gank myrmidon WITH tackle and mwd gets 68.6k ehp (vs the 70k quoted) of you're fit while doing just shy of 800 unheated... So we have established that the sleips buffer isnt that viable, well here comes the surprise, neither is it's active tank unless you buy a crystal set or faction booster (however we're balancing around t2 setups). With a mwd, scram/disrupt and a cap booster, it's cap lasts 1 min and it only have 2 slots for tanking.. and despite it's price, like all the other CS's it does NOT tank you're average battlecruiser even with standard blue pill! In fact you need the claymore (+1 med) for that, which by the way is actually a better sleipnir (guns + hams AND it gets a gang link!!!!).
Did i also mention those ships that directly compete with field CS's cost merely a fraction, take less skills and give 90% of the effectivness? This is one of the reasons i want to see these ships boosted, i don't really care how they do it, as long as they get the advantage they deserve. (and i do not mean overpowered advantage like :P)
I figure they both need fitting considering they both need fitting mods and/or faction mods to fit what should be a decent setup, if they can fit them without fitting mods, a lot of the problems suddenly goes away.
Whops, typo there, meant 250m difference.
As for you're vision of a field command's niche vision, you may wish to check out T3 cruisers, they do everything for 2.5 times the price, but 5-10 times better, EHP wise, gang boosting wise, (damage is pretty similar), take less skills, no fitting issues, recon sensors! and so on... as i said, the field commands are out of date, they need something to bring them back up to date :)
(i hope i covered all, i'm very tired ^^)
Vehlin : I agree, that would also be a very good thing and would solve half of the fitting issues!
--signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Andrea Montfaucon
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 10:37:00 -
[140]
Back to the top with you.
|
|
Kushan
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2010.06.11 13:14:00 -
[141]
I like it.
|
Tribalist
Saints Amongst Sinners
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 18:41:00 -
[142]
/ supported! something needs to be done for the field Command ships.
Lots of different ideas, adding slots, andding PG etc.. I remember when I trained for CS I thought I was getting a tougher Bad Ass Ship that gave bonuses during small gang / fleet ops. (oops)
So how about focusing on what the ship is all about "COMMAND" Would a bonus unique to Field Command ships work?
Example: Command Ship Skill: additional 2% bonus per level of command ships skill to all leadership bonuses.
This would encourage thier use in fleets again. This bonus would be in addition to any warefare link and it would be across the board for every leadership skill the pilot has.
At best, it gives an additional 10% to one warfare link and an across the board boost to shield, hitpoints, speed, agility, etc of 10% ( at level 5)
Tribe
Support Towelness - http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1320055 |
Jerick Ludhowe
Monsters
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 19:50:00 -
[143]
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 13/06/2010 19:52:34
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/06/2010 17:18:34
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I've also come up with an Astarte change that lets it have the gang link without giving it more slots than anyone else or gimping it
Just add the freaking slot, actaully.
Sleipnir: 8 highs, 5 meds, 5 lows. Astarte: 7 highs, 4 meds, 6 lows. (oh, it gets 10m3 more dronebay, zomg)
Add the utility high on both the Brutix and the Astarte and you've gone a long way towards fixing both ships.
+1 high and +25m3 drone bay(not bandwith). If the astarte and brutix are going to be worse against bc sized targets than their competition at least give them the utility needed to deal with smaller ships that many of the other bcs and command ships already have.
Too many disadvantages w/o any real advantage other than paper tanked unrealistic eft dps.
Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you ***got" |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.06.13 22:09:00 -
[144]
I'm overall a really big fan of this. I'd really like to see an extra weapon hardpoint on most of these guys - the Nighthawk especially. Just make sure the fittings aren't ******edly gimped please (See: Nighthawk).
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 19:25:00 -
[145]
+1 |
Takashi Halamoto
No Limit Productions Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 11:52:00 -
[146]
Command ships definatly need some love, (particularly the Fields) so i support this, for a ship that costs more than a battleship and cant be insured there has to be some payoff for using it, im not saying better than a bs, but still there should be a pro, and the fact that almost all the Field's are outclassed by the Tier2 BC is just wrong, these are advanced battlecruisers they should definatly outperform a t1 BC
but this proposal improves them without making them uber god Me? im just sitting here,
|
Urhgo Khanab
Rogen's Heroes -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 12:42:00 -
[147]
Supported
|
CyberGh0st
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 20:59:00 -
[148]
Supported http://www.mmodata.net Favorite MMO's : DAoC Pre-TOA-NF / SWG Pre-CU-NGE |
K1RTH G3RS3N
Haunted House
|
Posted - 2010.06.19 11:11:00 -
[149]
as it stands, i am better off with a drake then a nighthawk in my style of pvp... this isn't very logical, and is all because it lacks a mid slot and some grid.
... |
Vehlin
Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 08:35:00 -
[150]
The main issue we have with these ships is that nobody can really agree on a role for them.
When they were originally released they functioned as more of a Heavy Assault Battlecruiser when compared to the tier 1 BCs. This role more or less dried up when the tier 2 BCs were released.
T2 BCs (and T2 BSs) are pretty much the only ship classes in the game where people who CAN fly the T2 variant still fly the T1 ship in preference for one reason or another. Either they need to see a price cut (via reducing production cost) or they need to be bumped up to a level of usefulness similar to the jump between cruiser->HAC.
It's pretty much that simple, either give them better DPS or give them a viable role in boosting. Without either of those they're just a slow, expensive BC with little or no benefit over a ship that requires a a lot less investment in skills and isk to fly.
|
|
Ravinus Brown
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 08:49:00 -
[151]
Supported.
|
ghdfhdfhdfhdf
|
Posted - 2010.06.21 08:50:00 -
[152]
Supported
|
Cy Kopath
|
Posted - 2010.06.24 15:59:00 -
[153]
Definitely supported. The field commands are lagging behind quite badly these days.
|
Andrea Montfaucon
|
Posted - 2010.06.29 09:40:00 -
[154]
:Necromancy:
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 21:57:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Andrea Montfaucon :Necromancy:
Yeap ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 06:46:00 -
[156]
Supported.
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
pHenomena1337
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2010.07.07 08:31:00 -
[157]
yea |
Corelich
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 16:13:00 -
[158]
Im a nearly pure pvpler and can fly the Sleipnir. I never do, because in most situations it dont bring enough benefits over hurricane, drake or Tempest.
|
Amanda Eidolo
The Python Cartel.
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 12:02:00 -
[159]
Yeah, supporting this. -------- Ķ |
Lifia Kerum
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 12:30:00 -
[160]
I support this idea, mostly in the fact that those Field CSs need a boost. Making them fit the role of 'small gang CS' as opposed the the Fleet CSs' 'fleet gang CS' would be a good way to increase their usefulness. Oh, and get their hull on par with tier 2 BCs (slots, PG/CPU...) ---
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Could we now get back on topic? It is tiring to verbally spank children early in the morning.
|
|
wr3cks
Reliables Inc Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.08.03 19:48:00 -
[161]
Supported
Would love to take some of these out for a spin but the cost/quality tradeoff vastly favors BCs, as the OP states.
|
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 09:55:00 -
[162]
kinda supporting the idea. For the price they should carry more tank and gank.
"There is no honor in war" |
Echo Gemini
Intergalactic Sunrise
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 10:28:00 -
[163]
Planting seeds of evil! |
Rebbi
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 21:48:00 -
[164]
Supported
|
Hack Harrison
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 12:19:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Hack Harrison on 27/08/2010 12:22:20 Edited by: Hack Harrison on 27/08/2010 12:21:03 I have a nighthawk and am doing some low sec pvp. I fly a drake for pvp and use the nighthawk as an uber l4 mission runner. The reason for this is I can't fly a vulture and I cannot get a viable pvp fit. I either can fit for some DPS/tank without a gang link or point, or I have to forego DPS with PG modules (8 days required still to use reactor IIs ) to try and keep some tank.
Now I won't say that either of these are perfect setups (just some quick EFT tests)
[Vulture, Gang Boosting w/mwd] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Medium Shield Booster II Photon Scattering Field II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II
Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
[Nighthawk, Ground Up PvP All l5] Damage Control II Reactor Control Unit II Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Invulnerability Field II Photon Scattering Field II Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
While the DPS on the Vulture is pretty low, it has a lot of shields (buffer) and can rep back up. The tank becomes MUCH more once you apply boosting. The net result is a very limited benefit in using the nighthawk over a drake, while the vulture IMHO is better in a small gang as it has a better chance of tanking if called primary while your fleet start killing the other sides ships...
Now if I use this setup (with boosting and all l5)
[Drake, Fleet Boosting PvP] Damage Control II Co-Processor II Power Diagnostic System II Reactor Control Unit II
Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Photon Scattering Field II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
I get less DPS, but more EHP and a much cheaper outlay due to ship cost
Something is definately not right here...
|
Hack Harrison
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 03:12:00 -
[166]
Bump - I want my nighthawk fixed...
|
Ervol Libra
Pinky and the Brain corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 11:19:00 -
[167]
make it worth the money
|
Hack Harrison
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 04:18:00 -
[168]
So I can now use the warfare link. It would be nice if I could use the ship for PvP fleet boosting as opposed to just PvE.
Fix it already!!!
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa.
|
Posted - 2010.10.22 19:36:00 -
[169]
UP! --signature-- F.CS boost: Here Vid: Link |
Sagara Takeda
Black Dragon Crime Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.10.23 08:15:00 -
[170]
Supported. Fleet command ships need upgraded. These are T2 Battlecruisers.... T1 Battlecruisers shouldn't be owning them in stats and so forth. T2 cost more...T2 BC's require a **** ton of skills. They need to be better, plain and simple.
|
|
Soporo
|
Posted - 2010.10.23 15:28:00 -
[171]
This comes up every year. Every year it gets ignored by CCP. It will continue to be ignored, as all other ballance issues usually are. Look how long it took lolRockets to get looked at.
Still, supported.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 10:08:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Andrea Montfaucon :Necromancy:
---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Mashie Saldana
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 14:01:00 -
[173]
Well I wouldn't mind a Sleipnir that can fit both point and web.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2010.11.25 01:57:00 -
[174]
Any news on the issue from our (beloved) CSM? ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
WhisperOfDeath
|
Posted - 2010.11.25 15:21:00 -
[175]
Supported
|
Jita mcheck
|
Posted - 2010.11.25 22:54:00 -
[176]
|
Nagging Girlfriend
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 02:04:00 -
[177]
|
Ranka Mei
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 10:11:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Sagara Takeda Supported. Fleet command ships need upgraded. These are T2 Battlecruisers.... T1 Battlecruisers shouldn't be owning them in stats and so forth. T2 cost more...T2 BC's require a **** ton of skills. They need to be better, plain and simple.
Yes, the skills required for a command ship are staggering, considering what it eventually delivers. Command ships deserve a boost. --
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 11:53:00 -
[179]
Definitely need a revision, poor things have been stuck in mediocrity for years. Same for fleet commands really, the primary function of links is done much better by the T3s .. but first things first.
Originally by: Sagara Takeda ... T2 cost more...T2 BC's require a **** ton of skills. They need to be better, plain and simple.
Not quite as simple as that they can also provide something unavailable elsewhere (ex. Black Ops). Otherwise yeah, pretty much
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 12:35:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Anubis Xian on 20/12/2010 12:36:30 I'd say the biggest boost you could give to Field Commands without changing anything else is to give them 600 calibration.
And what is this about the Harbinger outDPSing the Absolution? Out alpha definately, but not out DPS.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 13:06:00 -
[181]
support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Ogogov
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 15:24:00 -
[182]
Hear that noise?
That's my Astarte in the hangar, crying. ;_;
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 17:45:00 -
[183]
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 18:52:00 -
[184]
I support this proposal.
But I think that it is also important to consider what CCP has done with the addition of the Tech 3 Strategic Cruisers as some of the improvements requested in this thread are easily covered by current T3 cruiser fits.
While I am not saying that T3 cruisers should supersede Field Command ships, CCP made a choice to introduce a class of ships that is on-par and sometimes superior to the elder statesmen of T2 hulls.
Yes, I am aware of the financial and training expenses involved with fielding a T3 cruiser.
|
Alias 6322A
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 19:08:00 -
[185]
Supported
If you look at the prereq's for a Field ship, you'll notice the assault ship skills are needed. I always assumed that these ships were meant to be the third ship in the "Assault" versions.
Harpy/Hawk >>> Cerberus/Eagle >>> Nighthawk
Same idea for the other races. These ships are meant to be heavy hitters but not much else. Like all Tech II ships, they have a 'role' that makes them more specific to a task compared to T1 ships, but more powerful in that role. 'Tis how EVE works.
As a side note...if you look at all the other types of Tech II ships, you'll notice that within a hull-class every ship has a Tech II version. Why is it that the Myrmidon, Drake, Hurricane, and Harbinger don't have Tech II counterparts...it's interesting that as the ships that 'favor damage' compared to their brothers, which usually have some sort of tank bonus, they didn't become the Field Command Ships. Instead we have two kinds of Ferox, Brutix, Cyclone, and Prophecy. Just food for thought for a potentially new skin (but not new ship).
|
Elana Dyson
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 20:24:00 -
[186]
Supported.
|
Mielono
SWARTA
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 11:12:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Culmen
A cat is like that carebear who sticks around only while there's food, and at best kills a few rats.A dog F*cking enforces NBSI, and deep down is slightly disappointed you aren't tak |
Orar Ironfist
Veto.
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 21:32:00 -
[188]
**** Yes. CS5 Crew checking in. Havent flown the Astarte in years and I desperately want that to change.
|
Ephemeron
Solitairian Society
|
Posted - 2010.12.27 23:54:00 -
[189]
I have also spent some time analyzing fleet command ships, deciding they weren't worth it. The t1 BC is very close to matching their power and 1/10 the cost. T3 are better yet, at double the cost.
While roaming in 0.0, I notice very few people use fleet commands - much more people use t3. Most people go for BC - cause they are just so damn cheap.
I think it's a good idea to boost them.
|
Meadowlark
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 01:46:00 -
[190]
I support this.
|
|
Khaeros
|
Posted - 2011.01.06 08:05:00 -
[191]
I support the motion, these ships need some adjustments
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |