Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
222
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello, From what CCP has said, no Command Ship buff will be coming in Odyssey? It was a couple months ago when they announced that they would fix off-grid boosting and make Command Ships more viable in combat (and better at boosting than T3's) but since then, CCP has not said a word about it. We're almost up to Odessey and still no word.
It seems that there is no Command Ship buff coming in Odyssey.
|

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote: It seems that there is no Command Ship buff coming in Odyssey.
Correct.
And good thing, too, since it would probably involve a minigame. |

Perihelion Olenard
162
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 21:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
They also said one day they'll fix POSes and overhaul drones. I wear my sunglasses at night. |

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
669
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 21:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Not sure they ever said it was supposed to be in Odyssey, merely that it would be done as part of the overhaul known as tiericide .. which they are doing at a breakneck (Amarr necks for the most part ) pace.
Personally doubt we will see or hear anything with regards to CC revamp until they find a solution to the off-/on-grid link question as splitting those two development wise would mean more work overall .. all pressure is on the coders to solve the grid vs. system riddle and it will increase as stuff is crossed off the tiericide list. |

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2084
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 21:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Not sure what they would try to accomplish by making links on-grid except pushing high-sec combat into more populated areas and making people field backups in null, low, and wh...Oh, right. More alt accounts for the cash munnay. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |

Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts Hegemonous Pandorum
173
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 21:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
I think the second coming of christ is more likely than ccp fixing off grid boosting. |

Lord Haur
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
I would guess that the command ship rebalancing will be deployed in a Odyssey point release in a couple months time. They're pretty high up the list of things to rebalance (along with HACs).
The relevant quote from the dev blog here is as follows:
Quote:When we're finished with tech 1 hulls we are going to start looking into more advanced roles, starting with Command ships
And the bit on the OGB issue:
Quote:As a side note, as we announced a while ago, we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid. Command and Tech3 ships providing that much of an advantage should commit to an engagement instead of being safely parked inside a POS bubble
While there are currently technical obstacles to moving boosters ongrid, that should not delay a much-needed command ship rebalance. |

QuakeGod
Empire Manufacturing
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Making the command modules work on-grid only shouldn't be hard to implement at all. All they have to do is make the command modules have a radius or range of 100km or so. If you are outside of that range, you no longer receive the benefits. |

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2084
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
They can fix links by making them unable to work inside a POS shield, while at the same time giving them the siege mechanic that immobilizes the boosting ships during use. Then you either have to choose between deploying them to the fight itself, or risk getting probed out and killed without support.
Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |

brinelan
The Flying Dead Ethereal Dawn
32
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
They said back at fanfest that command ships wouldn't be done until sometime after Odyssey |
|

Sarmatiko
1118
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Odyssey expansion doesn't necessary means only "Odyssey 1.0" release. I'm sure we will see some rebalancing in the next point releases. CCP should deal with BC skill rework first and make sure it will happen without problems on initial Odyssey release. Then if all goes normally - they can proceed with further Command ship rebalance.
|

baltec1
Bat Country
6513
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:21:00 -
[12] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys.
A damnation can get over 300k buffer... |

Digital Messiah
Heroic Era
286
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
I don't know, it would be nice for command ships to be what they are for the most part a boosting fleet dps vessel. But they do fill that role quite nicely. Having a dps and boosting variation for every faction is also nice. I use my sleipnir for most everything as it can hit frigs to battleships and pumps out almost 800 dps.
It is hard to have your cake and eat it to. If you want command ships to be better than t3 for boosting where does that leave t3's? Who is going to choose to fly a ship that costs you sp on loss in PVP when it doesn't even have a higher reward of boost? I am unsure to if they are even better at boosting? But they have far greater risk / reward than an expensive hull all on its own.
If command ships were going to get a bonus I would elect that they fix the damage on the nighthawk. They murdered it with the heavy missile nerf, not that the tengu wasn't king of that domain anyways. The Gallente hulls Eos and Astarte are in a bad place thanks to medium hybrids not being very good in comparison to other weapon types in the medium area. The Amarr command ships have decent potential in PVP but are out classed by everything in PVE. I would say the Minmatar command ships are doing the best atm in PVE. They put out more tank than needed for a whole room, can select damage types, and get great fall off.
All in all they need to increase the command ships ability to project damage further than their 15-35km average. Or evaluate their strong need for capacitor and dead space modules to shine. Both would be a huge boon to the hulls but would essentially make them all what they didn't want tengus to be. When ever they look at ship design they are changing fundamental aspects of the game. Making one ship on par with how the tengu hull was, would fotm countless people in PVP and only further increase the ease of doing Level 4's/5's in a battle cruiser sized hull. "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"
|

Lord Haur
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:32:00 -
[14] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:They can fix links by making them unable to work inside a POS shield, while at the same time giving them the siege mechanic that immobilizes the boosting ships during use. Then you either have to choose between deploying them to the fight itself, or risk getting probed out and killed without support.
Giving gang links the siege mechanic would be a very quick way to ensure that nobody uses on-grid gang links at all. There is literally one fleet concept that consistently stays in one place for a significant length of time, and that's sentry carriers. |

Nex apparatu5
Arda Para Subire
544
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys.
A damnation can get over 300k buffer...
Stop bringing sense and facts to our argument. |

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2084
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys.
A damnation can get over 300k buffer... With how many links?
edit: Let me put it to you this way: command ships will probably get rebalanced to some degree so we can't guess around in regard to their future fittings, but I really don't see T3s getting the same treatment at all. As someone who's pretty used to fielding a glass T3 booster since when I do fight, it's usually five to one to ten to one odds, I can tell you for a fact that the ships are so thin, you could gank them with a few thrashers. And while this isn't a problem in empire, neither is off-grid boosting per se.
The only people such a change would affect would be null and wormhole dwellers, and the only solution will be to have backup boosting ships, aka more alt money for CCP. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14330
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys.
A damnation can get over 300k buffer... With how many links? The three it's intended to have. Hell, even the wtfawfulineveryway Eos gets 140k EHP. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.-á |

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2084
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys.
A damnation can get over 300k buffer... With how many links? The three it's intended to have. Hell, even the wtfawfulineveryway Eos gets 140k EHP. That's the part I don't wholly agree with. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |

Korvus Falek
Depraved Corruption Darkspawn.
66
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys.
A damnation can get over 300k buffer... With how many links? edit: Let me put it to you this way: command ships will probably get rebalanced to some degree so we can't guess around in regard to their future fittings, but I really don't see T3s getting the same treatment at all. As someone who's pretty used to fielding a glass T3 booster since when I do fight, it's usually five to one to ten to one odds, I can tell you for a fact that the ships are so thin, you could gank them with a few thrashers. And while this isn't a problem in empire, neither is off-grid boosting per se. The only people such a change would affect would be null and wormhole dwellers, and the only solution will be to have backup boosting ships, aka more alt money for CCP.
281k without links, 342 with only its 3 links going, which it will have on anyways since thats its job. Can get quite a bit more tank if you shiny it up with faction/ded or t2 rig fittings. Im sure there might be more efficient ways to fit, but I just tossed this one together.
[Damnation, Boosting] Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Thermic Membrane II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
[empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
|

baltec1
Bat Country
6513
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Tippia wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:baltec1 wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: Just making them be required to be present on the battlefield is stupid. They're glass ships that can be popped in 2-3 Tornado volleys.
A damnation can get over 300k buffer... With how many links? The three it's intended to have. Hell, even the wtfawfulineveryway Eos gets 140k EHP. That's the part I don't wholly agree with.
What?
That the Eos is bad or that the command ships get battleship level buffers? |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14330
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:That's the part I don't wholly agree with. So basically, the argument is that if you waste all the fitting space on stuff that's not tank, it doesn't tank wellGǪ
Riiiight. That's not really a problem with the ship.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.-á |

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2084
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
They can give all the boosting ships an extra million hitpoints and my argument will remain the same. I'm not arguing against the concept of the defense/payload tradeoff, but the fact that the change constitutes a simple cash grab by CCP since the only way to compensate for it will be to field more of the things.
And let me add again, this change would also do nothing to inhibit the people who use boosters in high-sec. In fact it already makes more sense to keep them on-grid in high-sec since you can ship-scan enemies and drop extra cap charges for yourself, etc. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |

Korvus Falek
Depraved Corruption Darkspawn.
66
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:49:00 -
[23] - Quote
I think the person disagrees with the ship being intended to use 3 links at once, hence limiting its ability to provide dps to the fight. Or something along those lines.
edit: fielding more links wont help since links dont stack over top of other ones. Only the highest bonus per link type is provided. You should learn mechanics better |

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2084
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
Korvus Falek wrote:I think the person disagrees with the ship being intended to use 3 links at once, hence limiting its ability to provide dps to the fight. Or something along those lines.
edit: fielding more links wont help since links dont stack over top of other ones. Only the highest bonus per link type is provided. You should learn mechanics better Nah, dps is irrelevant.
What I'm trying to say is that my paper T3 booster in high-sec will never die even if it needs to be on grid. Meanwhile, players everywhere else would not be given the same advantage.
Requiring on-grid boosting would create a new balancing issue that would shift the risk/reward formula ever more in favor of high-sec.
What are they going to do, make boosting non-corp-members give you a suspect flag?
Oh, ****. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |

baltec1
Bat Country
6513
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 22:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Nah, dps is irrelevant.
What I'm trying to say is that my paper T3 booster in high-sec will never die even if it needs to be on grid. Meanwhile, players everywhere else would not be given the same advantage.
Requiring on-grid boosting would create a new balancing issue that would shift the risk/reward formula ever more in favor of high-sec.
What are they going to do, make boosting non-corp-members give you a suspect flag?
Oh, ****.
Or they can use a command ship to fill the role of command ship. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14330
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 23:07:00 -
[26] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Or they can use a command ship to fill the role of command ship. GǪwhich, by the way, rather neatly answers the original question: command ships will get their revamp together with T3 so make the CS better at being command ships than the T3s are.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.-á |

baltec1
Bat Country
6513
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 23:11:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tippia wrote:baltec1 wrote:Or they can use a command ship to fill the role of command ship. GǪwhich, by the way, rather neatly answers the original question: command ships will get their revamp together with T3 so make the CS better at being command ships than the T3s are.
Just one of many nerfs to T3 |

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
2084
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 23:11:00 -
[28] - Quote
Which is nice and has my support, but I'd still like to know why they're giving null players a crutch like this.
And T3 ships will still likely be viable boosters due to the 50% probe strength sub. I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:
https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted |

Lord Haur
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 23:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
And that's fine, you're trading the probing bonus for EHP and (post-change) boost strength. |

baltec1
Bat Country
6514
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 23:19:00 -
[30] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Which is nice and has my support, but I'd still like to know why they're giving null players a crutch like this.
And T3 ships will still likely be viable boosters due to the 50% probe strength sub.
They have the same if not more EHP as the main line of battleships in any fleet so its not much of an issue unless they hit warp rather than align. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |