| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
   |
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Magnus Coleus wrote:How about this: Field command ships:
- Optimized for small gangs (armor rep / shield booster / base shield regen bonuses)
- Can use 2 links
- Slight DPS boost (compared to current proposal)
- Slight sensor / range nerf
Fleet command ships:
- Optimized for larger fleets (resist bonuses)
- Can use 3 links
- Reasonable DPS nerf (compared to current proposal)
- Reasonable sensor / range buff
[...] giving each race a resist-based command ship and a repair-based command ship would silence the main complaint people seem to have.
Gū¦
This.
Grarr Dexx wrote:[...] Why can't it be:
Gall Cal Min Amarr: ACTIVE PASSIVE
Big gangs can't have shield/armor + skirmish?
Gū¦
Or this, which is kind of the same thing.
There are two types of command ships, so just give each race a "local tank" version (field command) and a "fleet tank (resist-based)" version (fleet command).
|
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 21:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Looking only at the defensive bonus type, I think most people would feel happier with something like this:
Gallente field command: +% to armor repairer amount
Gallente fleet command: +% to armor resists
Amarr field command: +% to armor repairer speed (cycle reduction)
Amarr fleet command: +% to armor resists
Minmatar field command: +% to shield booster amount
Minmatar fleet command: +% to shield resists
Caldari field command: +% to shield base regen
Caldari fleet command: +% to shield resists
The actual percentages would need to be fine-tuned, and the field command defensive bonuses could move around (ex., maybe give more shield regen to Minmatar and better shield boosting to Caldari, or replace the base shield regen bonus with a shield booster cycle duration, etc.), but the general idea is:
Field command ships: better bonus for small gangs (local repair, self-reliant)
Fleet command ships: better bonus for fleets (resists, rely on remote reps) |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 22:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...]
Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues".
|
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with the existence of active repair bonuses on half of these ships, but I think that giving all command ships buffer bonuses isn't the right way to go. I believe that the four skirmish bonus command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.
I don't think the issue is "the existence of repair bonuses on half of these ships". The issue is how that "half" is defined.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that command ships have two sub-categories, which are a perfect way to make that distinction:
- Give fleet command ships resist bonuses (and make them rely on the fleet for repairs).
- Give field command ships active repair bonuses (and make them self-reliant).
The actual bonuses can be differentiated by race, but this way not only does every race have both options, there is also a stronger sense of identity and role for field command ships vs. fleet command ships.
The issue people have is that some races seem to have two field command ships and zero fleet command ships.
|
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:
Why are you boosting the Field Command Ships so hard [...] the abylity to use gangmodules with bonuses too, in comparison to the Fleet Command Ships? [...] The two ships are like equal with the changes, i really dont get it...
Me neither. All the dev posts here seem to ignore the fact that there are two different kinds of command ships (and there doesn't seem to be any sense of identity for them). Maybe they're trying to get rid of fleet command ships entirely, and just don't want to say it explicitly?
The most ironic thing, of course, is that those two sub-classes would be perfect to solve the complaint most people have about the currently proposed changes:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3461970#post3461970
Additionally, fleet command ships should have some benefit in terms of links (either 1 more link or a stronger bonus to the links). |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 23:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:It's pretty obvious that they wanted to avoid giving it a sentry bonus because sentries are flavor of the month
Not just of the month; they're objectively better than other combat drone types in most situations, and have been for a long time. Which is a bit silly; the peak of the drone skill tree is when you get drones that actually function as turrets. 
Part of the problem with (real, moving, non-sentry) drones is the UI, but (although they are making some superficial improvements to it) there don't seem to be any plans to overhaul that.
If they want drones to remain stupid, slow, and hard to control (so they get destroyed often), they need to give ships much bigger drone bays, or get rid of drone bays and let players launch them from the normal cargo hold. With that change, I guess the "treat drones as ammo" philosophy can make sense. Until then, heavies just move too slowly and die too easily to justify using them instead of sentries.
Heavy drones often get killed before they even reach their target, and in less time than it takes them to react to the "recall" command (i.e., before they even turn back, let alone dock). |
| |
|