| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Esotera
   |
Posted - 2005.12.08 12:09:00 -
[1]
I would like to start a debate.
My views on this are as follows:
In TQ you need going by the modules description and skills needed Squadron Command V and Wing Commander I to use a Command processor. You need this to run more than one gang module at the same time. (what it says if you try)
Now the new T2 BC (only gang boosting ones I'm on about here) have had there requirements dropped to Squadron Command IV on SISI from Và. And given the ability to use 3 at the same timeà.
My question is how can you use 3 modules at the same time with less skill requirements that no TQ on a T1 BC. Oh and also why have you got to have logistics IV on a gang boosting BCà that also makes no senseà.
I would suggest that you need to have following skills for a T2 GANG Boosting BC:
Squadron Command V
Wing Commander IV
Then you could use the ship and all 3 gang boost at the same time. I know I for one have trained Squadron V as all the skills to use more than one gang boosting module needs this skill at V.
These are specialized GANG specific ships and should have higher skill requirements than a std T2 BC.
|
HeadWar
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 12:24:00 -
[2]
I agree, except I think that both Command Ships should have Squadron Command 5, not just the Fleet Command one. These are Command Ships, after all, and part of the beauty of it is that you won't fly them unless you really dedicate your training towards it.
By reducing the skill requirement to Squadron Command 4, you are reducing the Command Ships to super HACs, easily available to those who already are dedicated combat characters, with high Perception and Willpower, and low Charisma.
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 12:32:00 -
[3]
ôIn TQ you need going by the modules description and skills needed Squadron Command V and Wing Commander I to use a Command processor.ö
You donÆt need Wing Command, where did you get that from? But I agree The new ships should need Squadron Command V
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 12:35:00 -
[4]
If you want to use command processor you need Squadron V and Wing commder I
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 12:40:00 -
[5]
ôIf you want to use command processor you need Squadron V and Wing commder Iö
No you donÆt. For starters the Wing Comm skill book is not out. Secondly command processor donÆt need it. Go check the modules.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
mimik
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 12:51:00 -
[6]
there doesn't have to be a skill link between the ship and the potential mods u can fit on it.
the pre reqs for the ship allow u to fly the ship only. if u want to take advantage of the additional mods then u need the skills for the mods.
a geddon gives u a bonus to large energy turrets but u dont need to have large energy turrets trained to be able to fly the ship.
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 12:54:00 -
[7]
I take back that you need wing command skill for a the command processor.... Still does not change my main reason for wanting the skills to be changed.
Thank you for correcting me.
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 12:56:00 -
[8]
Mimik
You seem to miss the point of the post.. I'm saying that the skills need to fly the GANG T2 BC should be as I have stated.... As the T2 BC says it can use 3 gang boost mod's without a command processor...
Does that help you.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:00:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Pottsey
Edited by: Pottsey on 08/12/2005 12:48:05
ôIf you want to use command processor you need Squadron V and Wing commder Iö
No you donÆt. For starters the Wing Command skill book is not out. Secondly command processor donÆt need it, go check the modules. Lastly its called Wing Command not Commander.
Nah, she's actually trying to say that you need a (boxed, original - pirated won't do) copy of Wing Commander I before they let you fly a T2 BC
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:22:00 -
[10]
Please can we keep this free of silly replys. I'm trying to make a point about skill needs here for a new T2 Ship.
|
|
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:34:00 -
[11]
ôthere doesn't have to be a skill link between the ship and the potential mods u can fit on it.ö
ôa geddon gives u a bonus to large energy turrets but u dont need to have large energy turrets trained to be able to fly the ship.ö
The difference here is the ship has the modules built in, not as an extra fitted module. Would you be happy for a geddon with a built in energy turret to be useable by someone without the needed energy turret skill? ThatÆs whatÆs happening with TC BC's they have modules built into them which everyone else has to train up to use.
ThatÆs why I agree with Esotera if a ship has built in modules the same skills to use the modules should be in the list to fly the ship.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:37:00 -
[12]
Thank you Pottsey well put... Now we just need to convince the dev's of this error...
|
Menelak Faf
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:40:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Originally by: Pottsey
Edited by: Pottsey on 08/12/2005 12:48:05
ôIf you want to use command processor you need Squadron V and Wing commder Iö
No you donÆt. For starters the Wing Command skill book is not out. Secondly command processor donÆt need it, go check the modules. Lastly its called Wing Command not Commander.
Nah, she's actually trying to say that you need a (boxed, original - pirated won't do) copy of Wing Commander I before they let you fly a T2 BC
I may actually have one of those around here somewhere...
SoonÖ is relative. |
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:51:00 -
[14]
Here is the solution:
There are two types of T2 BC's right?
 The HAC version
The Fleet Command Version
So, for the HAC version, make its requirement HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5.
And make the Fleet Command one need SQUADRON COMMAND level 5.
I fail to see how anyone without HAC/Squad Command level 5 deserves to pilot a T2 BC. They should be for absolute specialists alone.
____________________________________________
|
mimik
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:51:00 -
[15]
Edited by: mimik on 08/12/2005 13:51:12
my apologies - i misread your post - i thought u were querying why the ship had a different set of pre reqs from a mod that could be used on said ship. i didn't realise that u automatically get the same ability from the ship itself without having trained the skills.
looking at it from another angle u require the racial BS skill at level 1 to fly a typhoon or dominix. to use more than 5 drones on a typhoon however u need drone interfacing where the bonus on a domi allows u to use a 6th drone without having the required pre req. isn't that the same as here ie the ships own bonus allows it to do things that other ships need an extra skill for as it is specialised in that role?
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:53:00 -
[16]
Denrace,
That is my point completely.... Its a specific ship... The T2 GANG BOOSTING ship should have Sqaudron V as needed skill at the moment they have made it IV...
|
Jim'ard Stone
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:08:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Denrace
So, for the HAC version, make its requirement HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5.
You cant really do that without upsetting the nice skill tree ccp has laid - as if your guna do that you'll need to make HAC's require Assault ships 5.
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:13:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jim'ard Stone
Originally by: Denrace
So, for the HAC version, make its requirement HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5.
You cant really do that without upsetting the nice skill tree ccp has laid - as if your guna do that you'll need to make HAC's require Assault ships 5.
So? Then change that too. Should have been like that from the start anyway.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:19:00 -
[19]
Guys can we please keep this on topic.
This is about making T2 GANG BOOSTING BC need Squadron V at least (and Wing Command IV I think)
Not other ships or skill needs.
ty
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:20:00 -
[20]
ôon a domi allows u to use a 6th drone without having the required pre req. isn't that the same as here ie the ships own bonus allows it to do things that other ships need an extra skill for as it is specialised in that role?ö
Not quite the same as the Domi you do need the pre required skills before you can use the bonusÆs and you cannot use that 6th drone without having the drone skills.
The way to treat the Domi bonusÆs is it adds +1 to your drone skill level and adds +1 to the level cap so in effect you have a level 6 skill or at max level it becomes a level 10 skill. The Domi is not letting you fit new stuff only increasing the skill cap.
The TC2 BC is letting you use a module that the T1 pilots have to train up 1.2 million skill points for.
The Fleet Command ship should need those 1.2mill skill points trained before you can fly it. ItÆs not right that the T2 leadership based ships needs less leadership skills to fly then the T1.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
|
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:21:00 -
[21]
Again Pottsey a great reply :)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:46:00 -
[22]
Edited by: j0sephine on 08/12/2005 14:47:08
"The TC2 BC is letting you use a module that the T1 pilots have to train up 1.2 million skill points for.
The Fleet Command ship should need those 1.2mill skill points trained before you can fly it. ItÆs not right that the T2 leadership based ships needs less leadership skills to fly then the T1."
No, the fleet command ship allows you to do more than tech.1 equivalent, lessening the need to use the module which costs some extra skill points. This is balanced out by increased amount of skill points required to fly the ship in the first place, when compared to tech.1 version.
Everyone who complains this is not fair... by the same logic it's not fair tech.2 assault ships come with built in equivalents of at least one extra damage mod, sometimes tracking enhancers, passive shield/armour hardeners, and multitude other modules... without requiring you to actually train skills needed to install these modules, and without forcing you to spend slots on fitting them. This is simply a benefit you get for picking tech.2 ship.
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 08/12/2005 14:47:08
"The TC2 BC is letting you use a module that the T1 pilots have to train up 1.2 million skill points for.
The Fleet Command ship should need those 1.2mill skill points trained before you can fly it. ItÆs not right that the T2 leadership based ships needs less leadership skills to fly then the T1."
No, the fleet command ship allows you to do more than tech.1 equivalent, lessening the need to use the module which costs some extra skill points. This is balanced out by increased amount of skill points required to fly the ship in the first place, when compared to tech.1 version.
Everyone who complains this is not fair... by the same logic it's not fair tech.2 assault ships come with built in equivalents of at least one extra damage mod, sometimes tracking enhancers, passive shield/armour hardeners, and multitude other modules... without requiring you to actually train skills needed to install these modules, and without forcing you to spend slots on fitting them. This is simply a benefit you get for picking tech.2 ship.
I think your missing the point of my original post j0sephine...
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:54:00 -
[24]
No, i think she got it perfectly.
Squardon V is not necessary nor needed, the issue of needing more skills to use command processors is a non-issue.
-------------
Where are the named 800mm Plates and Mega Ions, CCP?
|
TerrorWOLF
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:54:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Denrace
Here is the solution:
There are two types of T2 BC's right?
The HAC version
The Fleet Command Version
So, for the HAC version, make its requirement HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5.
And make the Fleet Command one need SQUADRON COMMAND level 5.
I fail to see how anyone without HAC/Squad Command level 5 deserves to pilot a T2 BC. They should be for absolute specialists alone.
Denrace stop it with your HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5 the T2 BCs aren't assault ships with more damage (i don't see the speed end agility), they are something different. I can understand it that they need Squadron Command 5 like it was (but i am happy they put it to 4) but not Heavy Assault Ships. I specialist in BCs because i like them even before there was talk about the T2s coming out and people laugh and say i was stupid. I fell good in one. If you specialized in HACs and put Heavy Assault Ships to 5 its your thing but Command Ships aren't HACs and don't force other players to do thing you have done because you wanted it to do.
May Your Death Be Slow And Painful
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 15:01:00 -
[26]
keepiru,
I think you are also missing my point.... You need to have Squadron V to us a command processor to run more than 1 GANG mod in a T1 BC... Why would you need less skills to use a T2.. Needing Squadron V should be a PRIMARY skill needed for a T2 GANG BOOSTING BC...
|
HeadWar
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 15:13:00 -
[27]
Edited by: HeadWar on 08/12/2005 15:15:15
Here's another thought. How about instead of requiring racial cruiser lvl 5, require one of the Advanced Warfare skills at lvl 5, for each of the race pairs. For example, the Minmatar ones would require Advanced Skirmish Warfare lvl 5. (Or lvl 4, if lvl 5 is deemed too high. In some way emphasise that these are COMMAND ships, not mainly combat ships.)
I see these ships as a great way to finally reward those people who have high Charisma. (Not that I do, but it's not uber low either, like people who knew what they were doing when picking attributes.)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 15:17:00 -
[28]
Edited by: j0sephine on 08/12/2005 15:20:20
"I think your missing the point of my original post j0sephine..."
No, i think we just see it a bit different ^^
* the squadron ships allow one to do the gang support work without requiring the exact same skills that one would need to do the same work, using tech.1 ship (which forces you to fit extra modules)
but
* the squadron ships require different, enhanced set of skills to be used, when compared to that tech.1 ship from previous point.
you might see it as irrelevant if you already have these additional skills trained, but for anyone who hasn't the amount of training they'll have to do in order to use that tech.2 ship ... will be even more extensive than training for that one module for tech.1 ship. Having the need to train the skills needed for that module delayed... is sort of "reward" they get for training for that particular tech.2 ship. And it's not reqlly different from how many other tech.2 ships are, in comparison to their tech.1 versions.
And well, this is all caused in the first place by the silly requirement of Squadron Command 5 on the command processor. Which just proves the point i've been making for a while, how CCP is making mistake imo with plastering lvl.5 requirements on everything lately, in futile attempt to delay people who's been playing for 1-2 years from being able to operate these things quickly after they're introduced. Now it just came and bit them in the ass -- amount of piled up lvl.5 requirements grew to the point where it's completely silly, but when they back out of it, this is "unfair" for people who already trained these skills to lvl.5 just so they'd use individual modules.
Possible solution? change the command processor requirements to Squadron Command 2 or 3. (it's tech.1 module, requiring lvl.5 of skill with lvl.5 pre-requirement on it is absolutely nuts) Then change the skill itself so that it resembles the drone control skill ... i.e. each level of Squadron Command trained past the level required to use processors, allows to use one more command processor. So if requirement is lvl.3, somene with lvl.3 can use 1 processor, someone with lvl.4 can use 2 of them, etc.
this way ships can have reasonable requirements, while people who already trained that skill fully still have better abilities than those who didn't ... as they're able to operate more gang modules than anyone else.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 15:25:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Esotera
keepiru,
I think you are also missing my point.... You need to have Squadron V to us a command processor to run more than 1 GANG mod in a T1 BC... Why would you need less skills to use a T2.. Needing Squadron V should be a PRIMARY skill needed for a T2 GANG BOOSTING BC...
I understand what you mean perfectly, I simply fail to see it as a problem.
Id explain it more but, j0s is much better at explaining stuff than i am, and seems to think about the same way i do vis-a-vis this issue.
-------------
Where are the named 800mm Plates and Mega Ions, CCP?
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 15:35:00 -
[30]
If you look at the build requirements all the gang mods are actually tech 2 mods with just a tech1 labling.
|
|
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 15:43:00 -
[31]
"If you look at the build requirements all the gang mods are actually tech 2 mods with just a tech1 labling."
Yeah, putting tech.2 components in the list of materials needed to make them wasn't the brightest idea if they're supposed to be tech.1 thing, either :<
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 16:57:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Esotera
keepiru,
I think you are also missing my point.... You need to have Squadron V to us a command processor to run more than 1 GANG mod in a T1 BC... Why would you need less skills to use a T2.. Needing Squadron V should be a PRIMARY skill needed for a T2 GANG BOOSTING BC...
The motherships all get +1mod/level - should they require squadron command 5? (serious question - I like people to be consistant in their positions)
|
Sivona
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:00:00 -
[33]
Is the tech II command BC's being able to run 3 gang modules with only squadron command 4 confirmed. If so it seems really quite pointless training squadron command 5 (a tier 6 charisma primary) and the whole concept of specilisation is defunct - you can get there in about 6 days of training, for one of the most specilised roles on the battlefield.
|
Sivona
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:02:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Esotera
keepiru,
I think you are also missing my point.... You need to have Squadron V to us a command processor to run more than 1 GANG mod in a T1 BC... Why would you need less skills to use a T2.. Needing Squadron V should be a PRIMARY skill needed for a T2 GANG BOOSTING BC...
The motherships all get +1mod/level - should they require squadron command 5? (serious question - I like people to be consistant in their positions)
The cost of the mothership is mroe of the limiting factor than skill requirement, not the case for tech II BC's, i would be actually quite suprised it is not a pre-requsite as the whole concept is these are super heavy logistics/gang ships.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:05:00 -
[35]
More like 8-9 days if you *already* have HAC 4 & *have spent 30 days training BC 5*
Plus of course any amount of leadership skills @ 5 to actually use gang modules in the fleet version - dont lie to yourself, field ccs are just big slow hacs.
I dont particularly call that low specialisation.
-------------
Where are the named 800mm Plates and Mega Ions, CCP?
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: TerrorWOLF
Originally by: Denrace
Here is the solution:
There are two types of T2 BC's right?
The HAC version
The Fleet Command Version
So, for the HAC version, make its requirement HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5.
And make the Fleet Command one need SQUADRON COMMAND level 5.
I fail to see how anyone without HAC/Squad Command level 5 deserves to pilot a T2 BC. They should be for absolute specialists alone.
Denrace stop it with your HEAVY ASSAULT SHIPS level 5 the T2 BCs aren't assault ships with more damage (i don't see the speed end agility), they are something different. I can understand it that they need Squadron Command 5 like it was (but i am happy they put it to 4) but not Heavy Assault Ships. I specialist in BCs because i like them even before there was talk about the T2s coming out and people laugh and say i was stupid. I fell good in one. If you specialized in HACs and put Heavy Assault Ships to 5 its your thing but Command Ships aren't HACs and don't force other players to do thing you have done because you wanted it to do.
Look, the combat based version of each races T2 BC is BASICALLY A BIG Heavy Assault Ship.
Theres no getting around it. It is a step up from a HAC, and is a big, powerful ship, which should have primarily HAC based skills.
The fleet command BC is a different kettle of fish though.
____________________________________________
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:09:00 -
[37]
ôThe motherships all get +1mod/level - should they require squadron command 5? (serious question - I like people to be consistant in their positions)ö
In the case of the Mothership I would have it as an optional skill. So those with squadron command 5 get the +1 mod per level bonus. Those without squadron command 5 can still fly the ship only they donÆt get the bonusÆs. Its a shame ships dont have an optional style bonus that's only active when you have a skill.
Back on the difference between T1 and T2. What should the skill difference be between using T1 and T2. Should T2 take 2 million more skill points, 4mill, 8mill? Something else?
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Sivona
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:15:00 -
[38]
Originally by: keepiru
More like 8-9 days if you *already* have HAC 4 & *have spent 30 days training BC 5*
Plus of course any amount of leadership skills @ 5 to actually use gang modules in the fleet version - dont lie to yourself, field ccs are just big slow hacs.
I dont particularly call that low specialisation.
Leadership and gang modules skills are already required for the tech I version frankly i dont know many PVP orientated players who dont have HAC 4 and its not a big training. Battlecruiser 5 for most pvp orientated players is only 25-26days and if you wish to be used in a fleet battle is very very useful anyway, anyone wishing to specilise in this role is already on the way to training this as its the only way you can get some durability and reach out and touch a target.
The point here is this goes against the whole paradigm that has stood since day 1 of tech II, that tech II requires more specilisation than tech I, in this case the tech II result of multiple gang modules can be achieved with significantly less training within its key field. Tell me any other tech II item that requires less skill to use it than the tech I. This is inconsistent with everything skill related in the game.
|
Barbicane
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 18:01:00 -
[39]
I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem.
It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser.
What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead  ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal.
This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR.
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 19:09:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Barbicane
I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem.
It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser.
What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal.
This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR.
A 20% boost is small?!
|
|
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 19:11:00 -
[41]
Edited by: SengH on 08/12/2005 19:11:14
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Barbicane
I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem.
It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser.
What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal.
This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR.
A 20% boost is small?!
last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge.
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 19:34:00 -
[42]
Originally by: SengH
Edited by: SengH on 08/12/2005 19:11:14
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Barbicane
I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem.
It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser.
What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal.
This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR.
A 20% boost is small?!
last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge.
You're right... I thought I recalled it being 20% on SISI for some build... anyways, you still get your command coprocs and a 10% boost (even if that translates to 2-3%, I know people that have taken large projectile spec to 5 for 2% damage)
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 19:41:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: SengH
Edited by: SengH on 08/12/2005 19:11:14
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Barbicane
I don't find lowering the T2BCs prereqs to Squadron Command 4 to be the problem.
It actually makes sense that BC2 vs. T1 BC compares to HAC vs. T1 cruiser.
What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal.
This needs to be addressed by CCP before releasing RMR.
A 20% boost is small?!
last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge.
You're right... I thought I recalled it being 20% on SISI for some build... anyways, you still get your command coprocs and a 10% boost (even if that translates to 2-3%, I know people that have taken large projectile spec to 5 for 2% damage)
Its less than 2-3 %. At an average specialist skill of lvl 4. 10% of 12% is 1.2%.
|
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 19:42:00 -
[44]
Nah i think the current requirements are spot on, i do like the look of the caldari gang ship for its two rail bonuses. How far do 250's hit with maxed out skills?
Author of "The Apoc Guide" |
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 19:42:00 -
[45]
While i do believe it isn't right to lower the Fleet command BC's Squadron Cmd req to IV, i know i might - and probably am - biased by having trained Squadron Command to V. This also puts me in a position where any suggestion might seem geared towards the favour of anyone who took the time to train this skill. But here goes :)
I have no problem with the Field Cmd ship having it's Squadron Command lowered to IV, this ship already requires other skills to lvl V to be truly effective (small/medium turret).
But as far as the Fleet Cmd ship is going, i can't help but feel a bit.. fooled.
While i can see it from the people who has yet to train Squadron Command to lvl V, and is interrested in flying these ships' point of view, i can't help but wonder what happened to all the Gang specialisation?
The Cmd-CPU bonus surely frees up more slots, which is all nice and dandy, but the fact that there is only one single Gang Assist Module oriented bonus, on a ship that should have been so specialised towards GA modules, more or less - in my humble opinion - equates to Logistic Ships only having a single bonus towards their niche support type, and nothing else.
As for me, i would not consider a Logistics ship with a single +5% effectiveness to a single type of support, along with 2 offensive and 1 tanking oriented bonuses, a Logistically specialised ship. :)
Would it be an idea, to more or less try to mimic the logistical ship boni in some manner?
Another possibility could be to add a 3rd bonus to the Fleet Command ships (-5 / -15% GA mod Cap useage per level), coming from the Squadron Command skill. This would help to circumvent the fact, that while us who trained Squadron Cmd to V are now able to use Cmd-CPU's, we have no need to use them, seeing as either half of our bonuses are geared toward us also fitting other hi-slot modules, or we simply do not have the cap to actively use more then 3 mods at a time. :)
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
Jin Entres
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 19:44:00 -
[46]
I'd really like this change to be reverted. Mainly for a few reasons:
1. Field Command ships are the Mk II HACs in combat ability. If the specialization required will stay this low, it's the realistic next step for all well-established HAC pilots. They will be considerably more common and that will reflect in price aswell.
The specialization needed is in my opionion both too low and does not reflect the role these ships are designed for (to my knowledge).
2. Charisma has never had a purpose for PvP before. Still, when I and many others created our characters not knowing virtually anything about EVE and chose the 'profession' Commander, that's what we got.
With these new ships, I saw a glimpse of hope - maybe there would at last be a specialization field for me. Something to make up for the several million skillpoints I'm lagging behind those who started at the same time.
I'm disappointed and will not hide my discontent.
However I'm happy with the other new content.
|
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 19:55:00 -
[47]
Originally by: j0sephine
Possible solution? change the command processor requirements to Squadron Command 2 or 3. (it's tech.1 module, requiring lvl.5 of skill with lvl.5 pre-requirement on it is absolutely nuts) Then change the skill itself so that it resembles the drone control skill ... i.e. each level of Squadron Command trained past the level required to use processors, allows to use one more command processor. So if requirement is lvl.3, somene with lvl.3 can use 1 processor, someone with lvl.4 can use 2 of them, etc.
edit: alternatively, drop the requirements on the command processor even further, just to leadership 4 or 5. and either leave the squadron command skill with its current effect, or improve the boost it gives some tiny bit o.O;
Quoted so ppl actually read it and see what a damnably fine idea it is.
Good thinking with this one j0.
Nyxus
Plasmatique> "Cry 'Cartiff' and let slip the dogs of war!" |
Shira d'Radonis
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 20:03:00 -
[48]
Squad Command V for the Fleet Command ships and HAC V for the Field Command Ships kills two birds with one stone... it gives the charisma-heavy players and those heavily-invested in leadership skills their own ship class, and it puts a rest to the griping of HAC pilots who have already trained HAC 5 and feel they've wasted their time since apparently the field command ship is going to pwn all according to popular opinion.
-----------------------------------------------
ôàquod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales suntö
|
Imhotep Khem
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 20:05:00 -
[49]
Well going to tier 2 usually requires some IV skills and going to Tech 2 requires some V skills.
The whole tree si kind of flaky. These are called T2 BC so they require BC V. But you can see they also blend HAC and Logistics as well. So I think you can consider these ships both tier 2 and tech 2. Tier 2 HAC/Logistics Tech 2 BC. So it requires IV on HAC/Logictics and V on BC.
I agree in that I was hoping for more seperation between leadership and fighters. CCP just refuses to create horizontal seperation, only verticle.
I think they made a mistake with the HAC requirement. You cant be both Command and Assault!? Field command should have defensive and logistics bonuses, not damage bonuses. Both should require logistics neither HAC.
AS it stands the Field Command does not add any flavor to the game. Its just another gun boat.
____
If your not dyin' your not tryin'. |
Barbicane
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 21:29:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Barbicane on 08/12/2005 21:33:01
Originally by: SengH
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: SengH
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Barbicane
...What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal....
A 20% boost is small?!
last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge.
...
Its less than 2-3 %. At an average specialist skill of lvl 4. 10% of 12% is 1.2%.
Yup, that's what I meant.
With the other skills maxed, it's a matter of 18.75% effect with Squad Command level 5 vs. 17.5% with level 4 on base 2% gang mod. That extra 1.25% is hardly worth the 25-30 day training time. I'm pretty sure there are a good number of other skills you could train in that time that will give more benefit to your gang.
Wing Command could improve the difference, but I bet it will take a looong time before it is introduced. CCP probably want to study the effects of the current leadership skills first. |
|
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:11:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Barbicane
Edited by: Barbicane on 08/12/2005 21:33:01
Originally by: SengH
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: SengH
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Barbicane
...What I do find to be a problem is that Leadership specialization takes a blow with this change. All of a sudden, those people who bothered to train Squadron Command 5, thinking it would make them great leadership specialists, got shafted and lost 30 days of training (should have trained Battleship 5 instead ) since there difference between Squad Command lvl 4 and 5 all of a sudden is very minimal....
A 20% boost is small?!
last I checked it was only 10% boost and when your talking about the base gang mod effectiveness being 2-3% thats really small. Only when you start maxxing your skills does it give you an edge.
...
Its less than 2-3 %. At an average specialist skill of lvl 4. 10% of 12% is 1.2%.
Yup, that's what I meant.
With the other skills maxed, it's a matter of 18.75% effect with Squad Command level 5 vs. 17.5% with level 4 on base 2% gang mod. That extra 1.25% is hardly worth the 25-30 day training time. I'm pretty sure there are a good number of other skills you could train in that time that will give more benefit to your gang.
Wing Command could improve the difference, but I bet it will take a looong time before it is introduced. CCP probably want to study the effects of the current leadership skills first.
They are impossible to study. Sure you can say you go a bit faster here a bit more shield there. But at the end of the day your final result is the success of the engagement and theres no exact same engagement you can reproduce to say.. here and here have gone differently.
|
Barbicane
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:19:00 -
[52]
Originally by: SengH
Originally by: Barbicane
...With the other skills maxed, it's a matter of 18.75% effect with Squad Command level 5 vs. 17.5% with level 4 on base 2% gang mod. That extra 1.25% is hardly worth the 25-30 day training time. I'm pretty sure there are a good number of other skills you could train in that time that will give more benefit to your gang.
Wing Command could improve the difference, but I bet it will take a looong time before it is introduced. CCP probably want to study the effects of the current leadership skills first.
They are impossible to study. Sure you can say you go a bit faster here a bit more shield there. But at the end of the day your final result is the success of the engagement and theres no exact same engagement you can reproduce to say.. here and here have gone differently.
By "study", I meant listening to people whining on how overpowered the gang mods are  . But you're probably right. It would be too hard to separate this data from everything else.
|
Niki Silver
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:39:00 -
[53]
I find it very disturbing that the command bonuses for the fleet command ships make it specialize with a certain type of gang assist module. For example the Claymore gets a 3% bonus per level for Skirmish warfare links. Well that's all fine and dandy but I want to use Armor Warfare links. Will be damned if am gonna switch to Amarr ships to be able to do that effectively.
The Fleet Command bonus needs to be to all gang assist modules, not a particular type. It is just plain wrong to force a ship that requires such a rediculous ammount of skill to use a certain type of module.
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:50:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Jim Steele
Nah i think the current requirements are spot on, i do like the look of the caldari gang ship for its two rail bonuses. How far do 250's hit with maxed out skills?
Mine on my Eagle with HAC 5 and full range mods (tracking comps + tracking enhancers and long range ammo) hit for over 230km
(damage is crap though)
____________________________________________
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:51:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Shira d'Radonis
Squad Command V for the Fleet Command ships and HAC V for the Field Command Ships kills two birds with one stone... it gives the charisma-heavy players and those heavily-invested in leadership skills their own ship class, and it puts a rest to the griping of HAC pilots who have already trained HAC 5 and feel they've wasted their time since apparently the field command ship is going to pwn all according to popular opinion.
Perfect.
____________________________________________
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 22:58:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Denrace
Originally by: Jim Steele
Nah i think the current requirements are spot on, i do like the look of the caldari gang ship for its two rail bonuses. How far do 250's hit with maxed out skills?
Mine on my Eagle with HAC 5 and full range mods (tracking comps + tracking enhancers and long range ammo) hit for over 230km
(damage is crap though)
On test server, one of the tech 2 railgun charges is the damage of lead with a +100% range modifier. It severely nerfs your tracking, but who cares? You're dealing base damage at 250km!
On a different note - Squadron command is on the Command Ship skill so it'd require CCP changing the skill structure entirely to make one ship need SC 4 and the other 5.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 00:36:00 -
[57]
Edited by: j0sephine on 09/12/2005 00:36:18
"The point here is this goes against the whole paradigm that has stood since day 1 of tech II, that tech II requires more specilisation than tech I, in this case the tech II result of multiple gang modules can be achieved with significantly less training within its key field. Tell me any other tech II item that requires less skill to use it than the tech I. This is inconsistent with everything skill related in the game."
While it's true, the actual inconsistency here is with extremely high requirements set for tech.1 gang modules. Asking to copy this error onto ships which are supposed to be specialized for this field, and then to make other ships in the same group follow this scheme... not only doesn't correct the problem in question, but if anything makes it more acute and spreads it further.
And as far as skill requirements go... a small comparison, perhaps, is in order for people screaming to have the requirements upped
amount of skillpoints needed to assemble and undock:
* tech.2 battlecruiser as currently on SiSi: 5.89 mil
* tech.2 battlecruiser as requested: 6.66 mil
* dreadnaught: 4.24 mil ... 5 mil if included jump drive navigation which isn't technically required
yup, in the current form tech.2 battlecruiser already takes ~40% more skillpoints just to be put together, than tech.1 capital ship two sizes larger. What you're asking is to have that gap to be made even wider, close to ~60%
is this ship really that much better than a dreadnaught, to justify this kind of skill gap? And before you answer 'yes because dreadnaughts in turn cost more' ... ask yourself if you'd pay ~1.5 x the price of dreadnaught to fly one of these new battlecruisers, if their skill requirements were in turn reduced to ~2.5 mil skillpoints...
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 08:22:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Pottsey on 09/12/2005 08:24:32
I agree that the skillpoints are on the high side but what about keeping Squad Command level 5 for the Fleet command and getting rid of the logistics skills? ItÆs not like the ship uses any of the logistics skills or modules.
Actually I do like the logistics skills being part of the ship for a roleplay point of few but it seems like the best skill to cut out.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 08:36:00 -
[59]
The main problem is in the correct hands... these ships will turn an average fleet into a near invincible one. There is no major improvement in any one area, but playing the strengths of your fleet with the individual gang mods really turns them into omgwtfbbq ships. The problem is the stacking and the generaility with which it applies across the whole fleet. CCP is taking a wary approach here. 10% additional shield and armor hp might not seem like alot. But ie. you have 30 BSes in your gang. Thats an extra 30000 cumalative HP your fleet has more than the others. Sure its only an extra 1000(500 shield/500 armor) per ship, but it buys your guys precious extra seconds to get out.
Likewise the T2 BCs used by someone who knows what hes doing... will make a fleet thats aware of the bonuses nigh invulnerable. Esp with the stacking on top of the current bonuses + the mindlink implant. The T1 BC + Gang mods have already had more effect on the TQ battles today than Dreadnoughts ever had. Its very hard to analyze quantitatively, but I agree with CCPs assessment that you should need more SP to use it than a capital ship.
However for a command ship just an extra 3 gang mods + 3% per level of command ship seems a bit pathetic. I'd rather them drop all the gun bonuses and go full out leadership upgrades.
New bonuses:
Per level of BC: 10% reduction of cap usage of gang assist modules + (original BC bonus.
Per level of Command ship: +2/3% increase to effectiveness of all gang warfare modules & ability to use +1 gang module per level.
99% reduction to gang warfare CPU requirements and 75% reduction of command processor CPU requirements per level.
Ability to use all 8 hislots of the fleet command ship with gang mods as a full out command ship should not be gimped. For a 300mil ++ ship I'd expect to use it to the max. Ofc you could burst all 8 gang mods but you wouldnt have much cap left after hehe.
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 10:27:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Pottsey
Edited by: Pottsey on 09/12/2005 08:24:32
I agree that the skillpoints are on the high side but what about keeping Squad Command level 5 for the Fleet command and getting rid of the logistics skills? ItÆs not like the ship uses any of the logistics skills or modules.
Actually I do like the logistics skills being part of the ship for a roleplay point of few but it seems like the best skill to cut out.
I must say I like your view and sengh view. I really have no idea why the logistics is on there.. And I do agree these ships need to be very specific.
|
|
|
Zenst
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 11:47:00 -
[61]
shoulda they require squadron command l5, this is the question.
Being selfish I'd say no. But I also still believe EW t2 shoudl of been l5, again I'd had that ahead of release.
Ths logistics ship out of the two, yes but saying that without l5 squadron command your not realy leveraging it to its potential so are losing out in that sence by only having l4.
The non support based one is clerly a BCHAC for what of a better term and as such I'd deffintly say no on that one.
A comparision would be HAC's not needing the logistics skill, which makes sence as it is. This scalled down would you be happy to train logistics just to fly a HAC ;).
As for the skill req's well to do frmo l4 to l5 on BC and squad you would be looking at 1.5-2 months training give or take. That and seeding/building and getting the market loaded, well would balance out just right. So squadron command l5 before you touch them even if they are l4 woudl be well on the cards realisticly speaking and not delaying your flying one to any great degree.
The main cry on this is from people who planned ahead from what they were told and did l5 squadron command and have it already. Well personaly if i did I would see it from this way - i'd be better flying them with l5 then people with just l4 and by having the skil req reduced to l4 only means most wont bother and as such you would be the uber T2 BC peep over others instead of what is forcing a level playing feild with little skil leverage/variation.
So in a sence by you having l5 and them now only needing l4 you are in effect in a stronger position than all those that wont even bother and go for min to get into the ship. Which add's to more variation's and makes skills more visable as apposed to being just place holders prereq's by forcing people to the same level.
All said I like the reduction as will mean people can specialise as apposed to being forced to all specialise to the same level for the sake of it.
|
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 13:16:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Santiac on 09/12/2005 13:19:29
Originally by: Zenst
... Well personaly if i did I would see it from this way - i'd be better flying them with l5 then people with just l4 and by having the skil req reduced to l4 only means most wont bother and as such you would be the uber T2 BC peep over others instead of what is forcing a level playing feild with little skil leverage/variation. ...
The thing is, that you will not benefit that much at all from having Squadron Command to V, the only reason left to train it to V is to use cmd-cpu's, which is only really needed on T1 BC's, seeing as they do not have the inherent ability to use 3 GA-mods simultaneously. This coupled with the 2 offensive boni of the Fleet Command ships, leaves the pilot unable to fit more then - at tops - 3 modules, if you want to make any use of half the bonuses involved :)
Thus eliminating any other reason to train the skill, other then the minute bonus to warfare bonuses given by squadron command per level.
A good example is the Eos:
BC skill: +5% Hybrid Dmg(A), +7,5% Armor Rep Effectiveness(B)
Cmd skill: -10% Drone Control Mod CPU needs(C), +3% Information Warfare Module Cffectivness(D)
The ship has a slot layout of 7/5/5
Now, bonuses A, C and D are all geared towards seperate Hi-slot modules (Turrets, drones, GA)
This should be coupled with the fact that currently the ship only has a drone bay size of 50m3 (only enough to control at the most 10 lights, 5 mediums or 2 heavies - iirc)
So your options are to either take full advantage of 1 of the 3 bonuses, or spread them out. For example fitting 3 GA mods and 4 Drone control Mods/Turrets. Yet, unless they increase the drone bay, i can't see a reason to try and fly 9 lights instead of 5 medium drones.
If you want to fit more GA mods, you will have to decrease the meaningfulness of the offensive boni :)
This opposed to Logistic ships who disregard their inherent cruiser skill bonuses, to make full useage of their specialised role, when the Fleet Cmd ship does not, seems a bit odd.
Then of course, it could all be explained by CreoDron and Duvolle Labs got into a bit of a measuring contest trying to show off their specialty, forgetting what role they intended for the ships in the first place ;P
[EDIT] Of course, none of these stats are set in stone yet i'd imagine :) [/EDIT]
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 15:01:00 -
[63]
"The thing is, that you will not benefit that much at all from having Squadron Command to V"
This didn't stop many people from training heavy assault skill to lvl.5 even though benefits from it can be comparably slim... they wanted to train it, they spent their extra time on it, they have something to brag about, as it's something that sets them apart from the regular HAC pilots who didn't bother.
This factor is completely removed if top level is required to operate ship from the very start. "everyone is special... meaning, no one is"
"the only reason left to train it to V is to use cmd-cpu's, which is only really needed on T1 BC's, seeing as they do not have the inherent ability to use 3 GA-mods simultaneously. This coupled with the 2 offensive boni of the Fleet Command ships, leaves the pilot unable to fit more then - at tops - 3 modules, if you want to make any use of half the bonuses involved :)"
Seeing how any firepower-related contribution command ship can make is nearly worthless (unless we talk of very small scale fight you'll want to keep it out of sight just so it doesn't get popped two seconds in the fight, anyway) it'd actually make lot of sense to train the skill... so that you can fit full rack of gang mods instead of whatever few cannons you'll put there instead for show, and never really fire.
I'd have to agree with what's mentioned earlier in this thread and the others... that for fleet command ship which is supposed to enhance others' abilities, the boosts on these ships don't make much sense if combined with fact gang support modules are high slot gear. :/
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 15:05:00 -
[64]
"I agree that the skillpoints are on the high side but what about keeping Squad Command level 5 for the Fleet command and getting rid of the logistics skills? ItÆs not like the ship uses any of the logistics skills or modules.
Actually I do like the logistics skills being part of the ship for a roleplay point of few but it seems like the best skill to cut out."
I could see that work, but does it also mean, the field command ships consequently get their heavy assault requirement removed and get the squadron leader requirement set to lvl.5, too? ^^; While this makes sense for fleet command ships, field commands with their utter lack of gang-related abitilites, do not... So should they on the other hand be given requirement of heavy assaults 5, and have the squadron command requirement scrapped entirely? ^^;;
|
Lucre
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:05:00 -
[65]
As a semi-aside, can we have these ship classes renamed please, before it's too late? Otherwise we'll be forever stuck trying to distinguish between FCCs and FCCs!
How about Battle Command Cruisers (BCCs) and Battle Cruiser Flagships (BCFs)? Or Assault Battle Cruisers (ABCs) and Command Battle Cruisers (CBCs)?
Or whatever - just so long as we can tell the damn things apart!
|
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:17:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Santiac on 09/12/2005 16:19:39
Originally by: j0sephine
"The thing is, that you will not benefit that much at all from having Squadron Command to V"
This didn't stop many people from training heavy assault skill to lvl.5 even though benefits from it can be comparably slim... they wanted to train it, they spent their extra time on it, they have something to brag about, as it's something that sets them apart from the regular HAC pilots who didn't bother.
This factor is completely removed if top level is required to operate ship from the very start. "everyone is special... meaning, no one is"
Granted, it does hold more prestige to have a high ranking skill maxed when it is not needed to be effective, and dont get me wrong, i do enjoy the fact that my GA mods get a static additive 50% increase.
The thing that sets it apart for me, using your example, is that while training HAS to V gives you a bonus to the directly specialised role, Squadron Command does not.
Of course your example could translate onto Medium Turret Spec V aswell, but in that case it would most often be the case, that the pilot would not have to use his hi-slots on anything else then turrets, increasing the overall gain, but then again - the bonus from 1 GA module does translate onto multiple friendly targets, and as such Medium Turret Spec V vs. Squadron Command is quite balanced
Originally by: j0sephine
"the only reason left to train it to V is to use cmd-cpu's, which is only really needed on T1 BC's, seeing as they do not have the inherent ability to use 3 GA-mods simultaneously. This coupled with the 2 offensive boni of the Fleet Command ships, leaves the pilot unable to fit more then - at tops - 3 modules, if you want to make any use of half the bonuses involved :)"
Seeing how any firepower-related contribution command ship can make is nearly worthless (unless we talk of very small scale fight you'll want to keep it out of sight just so it doesn't get popped two seconds in the fight, anyway) it'd actually make lot of sense to train the skill... so that you can fit full rack of gang mods instead of whatever few cannons you'll put there instead for show, and never really fire.
I'd have to agree with what's mentioned earlier in this thread and the others... that for fleet command ship which is supposed to enhance others' abilities, the boosts on these ships don't make much sense if combined with fact gang support modules are high slot gear. :/
I agree, further down in my earlier post i came in on this subject - and if we draw a comparison from you example above with HAS V, it seems strange why CmdS V would only increase 1 GA/Logistic related bonus on the Fleet Cmd ship, and 2 dmg related bonuses on the Field Cmd ships - seeing as both should be geared towards GA modules, or at least that was the impression i got, might just have been one big misunderstanding on my part. :)
[EDIT]
Originally by: Lucre
As a semi-aside, can we have these ship classes renamed please, before it's too late? Otherwise we'll be forever stuck trying to distinguish between FCCs and FCCs! ...
Could always refer to them as Field's and Fleet's or FiC's and FleC's ;P
[/EDIT]
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:19:00 -
[67]
/me sings ABC...easy as 1,2,3
ABC!!!!
This is awesome!
ASSAULT BATTLECRUISERS!!
Great idea 
____________________________________________
|
Imhotep Khem
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:02:00 -
[68]
Field Command == ship inflation
____
If your not dyin' your not tryin'. |
Mathir
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:26:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Mathir on 09/12/2005 18:30:33
One of the other options for the use of Squad Command V would be somewhat dramatic: limit gang size and allow larger gangs with increasing levels of Squad Command. I must admit, having unlimited gang size with leadership bonuses across all members is (to my way of thinking) rather unbalanced as you are getting pretty much "free" bonuses for large numbers of ships with little effort. If gangsize was constrained, there'd be more possibility for use of a Squad Command modifier to gang size along with the gang bonuses you'd get with the modules. In most other MMORPGs that have "any in range" bonuses/effects, you are typically constrained by your (always size limited) gang or "up to 10" or some such upper limit for negative effects. WoW warrior "shouts," for instance, are 4 enemies or all group members. In EQ, there are some "unlimited" area of effect (AoE) spells, but they are pretty rare and time limited.
Another thought, also from other MMORPG's, would be the notion of a "raid" (perhaps a "fleet" in our world) that is a Gang of Gangs and let there be a Fleet Command skill that would need SQ V as a req, to allow formation and subsequent bonus propagation of Fleet level boni.
Corporate on my uniform, Freelancer in my heart
Fly Free, Live Free |
Barbicane
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:36:00 -
[70]
Originally by: SengH
...Ability to use all 8 hislots of the fleet command ship with gang mods as a full out command ship should not be gimped. For a 300mil ++ ship I'd expect to use it to the max. Ofc you could burst all 8 gang mods but you wouldnt have much cap left after hehe.
After a good night's sleep I've come to realize that you could probably stick a few command processors on the Fleet command ship and get that nber-specialized 8x Gang assist mod ship we're asking for.
|
|
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:53:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Lucre
As a semi-aside, can we have these ship classes renamed please, before it's too late? Otherwise we'll be forever stuck trying to distinguish between FCCs and FCCs!
How about Battle Command Cruisers (BCCs) and Battle Cruiser Flagships (BCFs)? Or Assault Battle Cruisers (ABCs) and Command Battle Cruisers (CBCs)?
Or whatever - just so long as we can tell the damn things apart!
I vote Field Command ships be changed to Super Heavy Assault Cruisers, or SHAC for short.
|
Kaylana Syi
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:56:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Esotera
Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 08/12/2005 14:47:08
"The TC2 BC is letting you use a module that the T1 pilots have to train up 1.2 million skill points for.
The Fleet Command ship should need those 1.2mill skill points trained before you can fly it. ItÆs not right that the T2 leadership based ships needs less leadership skills to fly then the T1."
No, the fleet command ship allows you to do more than tech.1 equivalent, lessening the need to use the module which costs some extra skill points. This is balanced out by increased amount of skill points required to fly the ship in the first place, when compared to tech.1 version.
Everyone who complains this is not fair... by the same logic it's not fair tech.2 assault ships come with built in equivalents of at least one extra damage mod, sometimes tracking enhancers, passive shield/armour hardeners, and multitude other modules... without requiring you to actually train skills needed to install these modules, and without forcing you to spend slots on fitting them. This is simply a benefit you get for picking tech.2 ship.
I think your missing the point of my original post j0sephine...
I think you missed J0sephine's point... which I agree with. I know you are saying that in j0s' example we get a free hardner that we would already be able to use and the t2 BC is giving you a free module that you should already be able to use. However, the damn ship costs a boat load of SP and this would break a lot of vet pilots like myself from every training one and further the specialization of every new player with more/clear goals. I see this as giving a medium and making the players happy, like keeping Thorax's drone bay for over 2 yeras the same, over Roleplayability.
Originally by: "Oveur"
I don't react to threats any better than you do
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:12:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Barbicane
Originally by: SengH
...Ability to use all 8 hislots of the fleet command ship with gang mods as a full out command ship should not be gimped. For a 300mil ++ ship I'd expect to use it to the max. Ofc you could burst all 8 gang mods but you wouldnt have much cap left after hehe.
After a good night's sleep I've come to realize that you could probably stick a few command processors on the Fleet command ship and get that nber-specialized 8x Gang assist mod ship we're asking for.
Wont work. Not enuff CPU. Each command proc is 100 CPU and each gang assist is 50 CPU. Unless have a BC that has at least 900 cpu... you cant even fit everything on there.
|
Aleis
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:39:00 -
[74]
Squadron Command should stay part of both ships as the GA modues are what they are made for,.....yes the Fields (HABC? Heavy Assault BattleCruiser?) could be used as uber HACs, but the point was that they would be Gang Module ships that could withstand Direct confrontation that happens in a battle, While the Fleets (FCB?) were ment to be the Uber Assist ship but have to hide in the back. They are both SUPPOSED to be Gang Assist ships, just with a different bonus. so the Squad command makes sense as a prereg. on both ships.
For those saying that the Skill tree on them is starting to add up to large amounts, well they are right, but look at the trend for larger T2 equipment, Large auto spec needs medium auto spec, which in turn needs small auto spec. HAC needs Assault, so wouldn't the logical progression for a HABC require HAC as well?
Admitedly i do have most of it all trained already but Logicaly it makes sense if you follow the trend for other style ships. one way to save all this bickering would be ot straight up GIMP the offensive ability and make both of them True Logistic/Gang Assist hybrids so all the PvPer's can leave us legitamite Gang pilots in peace. So we can really have a ship that makes a noticable difference that even Battleship logistic set-ups can't boast. but i guess i'm dreaming on that
|
Trooper66
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 02:50:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Mathir
Edited by: Mathir on 09/12/2005 18:30:33
One of the other options for the use of Squad Command V would be somewhat dramatic: limit gang size and allow larger gangs with increasing levels of Squad Command. I must admit, having unlimited gang size with leadership bonuses across all members is (to my way of thinking) rather unbalanced as you are getting pretty much "free" bonuses for large numbers of ships with little effort. If gangsize was constrained, there'd be more possibility for use of a Squad Command modifier to gang size along with the gang bonuses you'd get with the modules. In most other MMORPGs that have "any in range" bonuses/effects, you are typically constrained by your (always size limited) gang or "up to 10" or some such upper limit for negative effects. WoW warrior "shouts," for instance, are 4 enemies or all group members. In EQ, there are some "unlimited" area of effect (AoE) spells, but they are pretty rare and time limited.
Another thought, also from other MMORPG's, would be the notion of a "raid" (perhaps a "fleet" in our world) that is a Gang of Gangs and let there be a Fleet Command skill that would need SQ V as a req, to allow formation and subsequent bonus propagation of Fleet level boni.
The way the Gang is set up in this game makes it worth all the while!...Don't mess with my EVE. Never Again compaire my EVE to second hand games again!!!...Please.
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 11:41:00 -
[76]
Any update from a DEV on this please.....
|
Trelennen
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 14:59:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Trelennen on 11/12/2005 15:00:07
Originally by: HeadWar
Edited by: HeadWar on 08/12/2005 16:04:18
Edited by: HeadWar on 08/12/2005 15:15:15
Here's another thought. How about instead of requiring racial cruiser lvl 5, require one of the Advanced Warfare skills at lvl 5, for each of the race pairs. For example, the Minmatar ones would require Advanced Skirmish Warfare lvl 5. (Or lvl 4, if lvl 5 is deemed too high. In some way emphasise that these are COMMAND ships, not mainly combat ships.)
I see these ships as a great way to finally reward those people who have high Charisma. (Not that I do, but it's not uber low either, like people who knew what they were doing when picking attributes.)
Oh, and I just realized, why isn't this thread in the Development forum?
That is a brilliant idea. At least for the Command T2 BC, it would be much better and much more in line with their role than Cruiser 5. And both cruiser and xxx warfare specialist skills are rank 5 skills (well the warfare specialist skill has a bit higher requirement, requiring level 5 in the rank 2 warfare skill, level 4 only in frig for cruiser, but that's not that a big difference ).
Both command ships being command ships afterall, both should require racial warfare specialist skill at 5 instead of racial cruiser 5 in fact.
I sign for this idea.
And I agree that having T2 specialised ship which require less skills in that specialisation field than its T1 counterpart is plain silly. That would be like if AFs could have the equivalent of 3 T2 turrets without the skills for them!
Originally by: DarK
The cluetrain obviously doesn't stop at this station anymore...
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 15:35:00 -
[78]
ISD GM DEV response please
|
Aleis
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 16:45:00 -
[79]
I'm not one but i'v noticed something while reading forums
"ISD GM DEV response please"
never works, and seems to actualy deter them from commenting.
|
Imhotep Khem
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 18:06:00 -
[80]
Dont expect a comment. I never seen one before ever. I seen blogs, thats about it.
Cruiser I requires Frigate IV
BS I requires Cruiser IV
Heavy Assault I requires Assault IV.
Thats how classes graduate. IV to get to the next size.
So to be honest the requirement of BC V is flawed. It should be BC IV to get the COmmand SHip Skill. And then it wouldnt be so bad requiring Squad Command V.
____
If your not dyin' your not tryin'. |
|
|
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 22:01:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Santiac on 11/12/2005 22:02:15
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
Dont expect a comment. I never seen one before ever. I seen blogs, thats about it.
Cruiser I requires Frigate IV
BS I requires Cruiser IV
Heavy Assault I requires Assault IV.
Thats how classes graduate. IV to get to the next size.
So to be honest the requirement of BC V is flawed. It should be BC IV to get the COmmand SHip Skill. And then it wouldnt be so bad requiring Squad Command V.
You forget:
Frigate V -> AS I
Cruiser V & AS IV -> HAS I
now, following that evolution:
Cruiser III -> BC I
Frigate V, Cruiser V, AS IV, HAS IV, BC V -> next step
This being the biggest T2 ships so far, requiring additional skills at V/IV (Leadership, Squadron Command), seems like a logical step, otherwise specialisation would only depend on what ship you chose, and not what tree. :)
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
Trelennen
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 22:07:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
Dont expect a comment. I never seen one before ever. I seen blogs, thats about it.
Cruiser I requires Frigate IV
BS I requires Cruiser IV
Heavy Assault I requires Assault IV.
Thats how classes graduate. IV to get to the next size.
So to be honest the requirement of BC V is flawed. It should be BC IV to get the COmmand SHip Skill. And then it wouldnt be so bad requiring Squad Command V.
Your graduation doesn't apply for BC -> BC T2. You should compare with:
- T2 frigs need frigates 5
- T2 cruisers need cruiser 5
- T2 BCs then should need (and need) BC 5 .
And as for the graduation for T1 ships, destroyers and BCs don't really fit in, as it's:
- destroyers require frig 3 to be flown
- BC require cruiser 3 to be flown
Originally by: DarK
The cluetrain obviously doesn't stop at this station anymore...
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 22:08:00 -
[83]
I wish CCP would just make up their mind and not make these ships into the "phoon/nightmare" of the leadership world. Their not really command ships and their not really HABCs either.... T2 ships are supposed to be SPECIALIST ships... atm the 2 T2 BCs are trying to be both a HABC and a Command ship but not doing enuff of both.
|
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.12.11 22:09:00 -
[84]
Originally by: SengH
I wish CCP would just make up their mind and not make these ships into the "phoon/nightmare" of the leadership world. Their not really command ships and their not really HABCs either.... T2 ships are supposed to be SPECIALIST ships... atm the 2 T2 BCs are trying to be both a HABC and a Command ship but not doing enuff of both.
I must admit i agree completely :)
I was under the impression the at least the Fleet Command ships would be akin to the specialisation you would see in Logistics cruisers
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
Esotera
|
Posted - 2005.12.12 10:07:00 -
[85]
So from reading this post again I can see that we have had some great ideas on what the skill needs should be.
Shame that there is no one listening from the CCP side :(
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.12.12 10:57:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Esotera
So from reading this post again I can see that we have had some great ideas on what the skill needs should be.
Shame that there is no one listening from the CCP side :(
because of how leadership mods have collateral effects of all areas at the same time. I'd be wary too.... if fooling around with this stuff.... its fiddling with the basic core values of ships by modifying them unstacked. I'd be wary too, its kinda like genetic engineering but less complex
|
Liet Traep
|
Posted - 2005.12.12 11:29:00 -
[87]
Originally by: HeadWar
By reducing the skill requirement to Squadron Command 4, you are reducing the Command Ships to super HACs, easily available to those who already are dedicated combat characters, with high Perception and Willpower, and low Charisma.
Wow i was thinking the same thing as I started training BC 5. I would have trained Squadron Command to 5 even with my pitiful charisma but this just gives me a chance to get in one before springtime. :)
|
Imhotep Khem
|
Posted - 2005.12.12 15:05:00 -
[88]
Originally by: SengH
I wish CCP would just make up their mind and not make these ships into the "phoon/nightmare" of the leadership world. Their not really command ships and their not really HABCs either.... T2 ships are supposed to be SPECIALIST ships... atm the 2 T2 BCs are trying to be both a HABC and a Command ship but not doing enuff of both.
QFT.
Not only are the ships tweeners, they require their pilots to also train a mishmash of otherwise unrelated skills. (Command and Logistics are not related, Command and Assault are not related. Where is the freaking Command ship?)
"Get your arses on that battlefield and kill those enemies!! First though, a single file line so I can fuel and tuneup these vehicles.."
If you look at CCPs dev Blogs and ship descriptions, etc. you can see they started out on the right track. Something caused them to make this odd abomination we have today. Maybe there is a liquor store across from the new office? Maybe there needs to be?
____
If your not dyin' your not tryin'. |
grizouh
|
Posted - 2005.12.12 15:07:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Niki Silver
I find it very disturbing that the command bonuses for the fleet command ships make it specialize with a certain type of gang assist module. For example the Claymore gets a 3% bonus per level for Skirmish warfare links. Well that's all fine and dandy but I want to use Armor Warfare links. Will be damned if am gonna switch to Amarr ships to be able to do that effectively.
The Fleet Command bonus needs to be to all gang assist modules, not a particular type. It is just plain wrong to force a ship that requires such a rediculous ammount of skill to use a certain type of module.
/signed
I do not have a problem with the skills required to use these ships but I do with the limitation to one leadership spec on one racial bc2.
(which i already stated in another thread earlier: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=254142&page=4#106 )
Even change it to SQ5, no prob at all as all Gangassist dedicated peeps have it anyway to use more than one modul right now as long as the bc 2 are not available but I simply do not see the point to start up again with another race frig/cruiser skill just to get the extra boni for the adv leadership skill which I chose to train before anyone could know extra bonuses will be restricted to racial ships...
It also penalize peeps which decided to spend a lot of time training in more than just one spec skill.
Make a clear cut between the assault and leadership boni for the two versions of the bc2 and give the leadership trained persons a bit more love ;o)
|
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.12.12 15:21:00 -
[90]
Giving the primary/secondary racial warfare trees would be nifty, and would go well in line with what pre-reqs they've given the Racial Navy Doctrine skills (for example the Gallente Navy Doctrine skill.
If not that, then at least some other type of GA oriented skill bonus
Even though CCP has not replied in this thread, on any of our points, yet, there is no harm in starting brainstorming - see if we can come up with some nifty bonuses for them, since i'm sure they would want more exotic and varied bonuses then (+% effectiveness, -%cap consumption/+%duration) :)
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |