| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
bloodlust priest
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
   |
Posted - 2011.10.13 15:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
when commandships were first introduced they had no competition from tier2 bc or t3, they have not been re-balanced since bar a nerf to the eos. here i shall underline what i see as workable changes to the field commandship line as they are all (yes even the sleipnir) underpowerd.
generally the ethos i will go with is to extend the damage while keeping tank similar, as t3 would be a lower damage higher tank alternative. i think this makes for an intelligent differentiation between classes. i shall illustrate changes with fittings that should work based off current popular fits. none too crazy.
-also im not saying how you should fit your ships here-
lets not forget these ships are expensive
the nighthawk
for anyone that has ever flown the nighthawk, its main defficiancy is grid and actually i think the rest is ok.
+cpu -718- and grid -1146- +1 launcher
[Nighthawk, New Setup 1]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Large Shield Booster II
Invulnerability Field II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Warp Disruptor II
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 Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Hobgoblin II x5
715 dps, no change from current tank. slightly faster with no need for rcu. this still wouldnt quite fit without +1 implants or faction/named mods i think fitting should still be tight just not as rediculous as now.
the absolution
currently the absolution is somewhat underwhelming. its slow has poor dps and range, im still not sure about bonus's but i think its wothwhile left alone in that regard. it will still struggle with tackling due to medslots but damage output is increased. also base speed should be given a small boost to push it over 1.1kms , maneuverability is important with this class i think
+turret +grid+ cpu
[Absolution, New Setup 1]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Warp Disruptor II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hobgoblin II x5
tank stays the same damage increased from 796 to 912 dps
Astarte
with the incoming blaster buff i resist temptation to eft it. but more base speed is defiantly needed and i think all active armor tanks should get a boost anyway. but thats for another thread.
i like the idea of the eos replacing the astarte as the field commandship however, as the astarte once looked at as a fleet cs doesnt seem so bad somehow. (although there is still the problem of info links)
anyhoo just for kicks
+ drone bay, reclassification
commandship bonus 10% to drone hitpoints and damge per level
[Eos, is it really so strange]
Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Armor EM Hardener II
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M
Medium Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Ogre II x5
816 dps doesnt seem unreasonable, skill intensive too. which i like just like the rest of them.
and the sleipnir.
i like it. its the only truly ok cs. but for my isk id like it to go 100ms faster mwd on. that is all.
i think these fits are a proper step up from tier 2 bc, and would make them once again viable. so many of us love commandships its a shame not to see them used |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
I would like to see a buff to the night hawk, as it is now its really not much of a step up from the drake in DPS. |
Elindreal
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm not sure what's going on here aside from you giving proposed new loadouts for each ship...
They do have a different role from T3's however.
you state:
"to extend the damage while keeping tank similar, as t3 would be a lower damage higher tank alternative"
First of all, most of the command ships already have a solid tank, in fact, more solid than their T3 counterparts (depending upon their subsystem configurations). This is made up for by generally having a much larger sig radius than a T3.
Second, command ships have the utility high for a ganglink module.
While T3's can also fit a ganglink (and have a better bonus for the link itself) to do so, they sacrifice a lot of tank.
The CCP ethos has generally been to allow a T3 to do it all, but not as well as the dedicated ship. And I believe this still holds true. If there is a ship which doesn't hold true, perhaps that would require some tweaking. But not so much as your proposal to add an extra turret/launcher to practically all the ships. This negates the point of the command ship even! |
bloodlust priest
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Elindreal wrote:I'm not sure what's going on here aside from you giving proposed new loadouts for each ship...
They do have a different role from T3's however.
you state:
"to extend the damage while keeping tank similar, as t3 would be a lower damage higher tank alternative"
First of all, most of the command ships already have a solid tank, in fact, more solid than their T3 counterparts (depending upon their subsystem configurations). This is made up for by generally having a much larger sig radius than a T3.
Second, command ships have the utility high for a ganglink module.
While T3's can also fit a ganglink (and have a better bonus for the link itself) to do so, they sacrifice a lot of tank.
The CCP ethos has generally been to allow a T3 to do it all, but not as well as the dedicated ship. And I believe this still holds true. If there is a ship which doesn't hold true, perhaps that would require some tweaking. But not so much as your proposal to add an extra turret/launcher to practically all the ships. This negates the point of the command ship even!
i used the eft fit to propose what could be possible, as for ganglinks t3's have already made fleet commandships completely redundant.
i understand the idea of utility high for ganglinks but no-one really uses the high for that, and what would be so wrong with an 8 high cs anyway ( eg 7 launchers 1 utility) field commandhsips are just strait combat ships like normal battlecruisers. but dont offer enough over tier 2 bc them to make them worthwhile.
this boost wouldnt be gamebreaking, you would still be flying more or less the same ship with a bit more potency in the dps area.
your examaples are somewhat fishy too as your comparing the wrong things i think |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
155
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Field Commandships are kinda bigger hacs that don't have much point to them. Sure, they can fit gang links, but then again so can BC's and Carriers whilst t3's provide stronger bonuses. The HAC+ thing has also been massively superseded by T3's and I now I don't think field command ships they have much going for them beyond their cost.
What the OP has suggested isn't bad however, just needed to be clearer.
And as for Field commandships i'd recommend giving them the HIC treatment:
From: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14433&find=unread
Quote:
Astarte:
- Becomes Fleet Commandship
- Field Commandship Damage bonus becomes Assault warfare link role bonus
- See "Combat: Blasters" for additional ship changes
Eos:
- Becomes Field Commandship
- Gains 50mb in drone bandwidth
- Info warfare bonus becomes turret falloff bonus
Fleet Commandships:
- The Astarte and Claymore have there tanking bonuses changed to 10% per level bonuses
- The Vultures first 10% optimal range bonus becomes an 10% shield hp per level bonus
Assault Warfare Link:
- Assault Warfare Link - Overload Efficiency: reduces the heat damage sustained by overloaded modules
- Assault Warfare Link - Trajectory Control: Increases the tracking speed or turrets, explosion velocity of missiles
- Assault Warfare Link - Capacitor Superiority: Increases ships capacitor size.
Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado.
Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
bloodlust priest
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:Field Commandships are kinda bigger hacs that don't have much point to them. Sure, they can fit gang links, but then again so can BC's and Carriers whilst t3's provide stronger bonuses. The HAC+ thing has also been massively superseded by T3's and I now I don't think field command ships they have much going for them beyond their cost. What the OP has suggested isn't bad however, just needed to be clearer. And as for Field commandships i'd recommend giving them the HIC treatment: From: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14433&find=unreadQuote:
Astarte:
- Becomes Fleet Commandship
- Field Commandship Damage bonus becomes Assault warfare link role bonus
- See "Combat: Blasters" for additional ship changes
Eos:
- Becomes Field Commandship
- Gains 50mb in drone bandwidth
- Info warfare bonus becomes turret falloff bonus
Fleet Commandships:
- The Astarte and Claymore have there tanking bonuses changed to 10% per level bonuses
- The Vultures first 10% optimal range bonus becomes an 10% shield hp per level bonus
Assault Warfare Link:
- Assault Warfare Link - Overload Efficiency: reduces the heat damage sustained by overloaded modules
- Assault Warfare Link - Trajectory Control: Increases the tracking speed or turrets, explosion velocity of missiles
- Assault Warfare Link - Capacitor Superiority: Increases ships capacitor size.
yeh ill read through and try to clear it up. fleet commands are a whole other level of ****** balance
|
Elindreal
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 16:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
stealth edit wasn't fast enough >.< |
Aznwithbeard
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 17:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
I think the CS really need a buff to cap, as pretty much all the field command ships are REALLY good at active tanking (at least, caldari/minnie/gallente are, not sure about the amarr one)
In terms of lets say the sleipnir, if youre going for a brawling type of setup, it has the same issues as the cyclone, 1 cap booster, and abality to fend off a neuting hurricane is less then steller.
If guessing this isnt much of a problem with the astarte, but as Ive never used it, I wouldnt know.
Just my thought- a properly fit CS should never even come close to getting owned by a BC.
|
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
155
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 17:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
It's a problem with the whole of active tanking lol.
Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado.
Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 17:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cap would be nice, tho, i just wonder why most the shield batle comnand ships only have 5 mids, thats a 3 slot tank at best. 2 slot if active tanked with a cap booster. |
Quark Valhala
Empirius Enigmus Navy
C0NVICTED
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 17:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:I would like to see a buff to the night hawk, as it is now its really not much of a step up from the drake in DPS.
Nerf Drake instead. But sure put an extra launcher point on night hawk agree. |
bloodlust priest
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 19:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Cap would be nice, tho, i just wonder why most the shield batle comnand ships only have 5 mids, thats a 3 slot tank at best. 2 slot if active tanked with a cap booster.
i dont think thats really an issue, i think lack of tackle/tank meds is actually a good thing balance wise. i do however think cs should have more base speed to use there manouverability rather than give them more tckling ability or tank. other ships do those things well
as for capacitor they are less nuet vulnerable than hacs but that problem stems more from med cap boosters to actual cap amount, dont get me wrong if you want to run an xlarge sleip you really should get cap problems. rep bonus on the eos/ astarte is a bit underwhelming but its the same on all active tanks |
muhadin
The Inevitable Corp
Black Legion.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 20:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
t3 gang links > Command ship gang links
Needs to be fixed, IMO. |
Rael Nazari
The Ankou
Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.13 23:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Easy fix:
NERF T2 BCs to the ground. Buff every CS to the level of the sleipnir. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 00:01:00 -
[15] - Quote
I wouldnt mind seeing teir 2 BCs nerfed a tad to make CSs better for their price |
Goose99
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
52
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 00:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
The only field cs that needs buff is eos. Slipneir needs a nerf. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |