Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now..

So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?

The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.

How much of an effect will the decrease in number of turrets/increase in DPS bonuses have on the DPS of command ships like the Sleipnir/Astarte/Abso?

CCP Fozzie, these changes look great, can't wait to use an Eos finally.
What about the orca? It is a command ship and I believe you said it was going to be part of the command ship balance pass.

I'm not sure I enjoy the Astarte changes. For a damage-only role, the Navy Brutix is essentially now a higher-damage and higher-EHP alternative, and at half of the price. All the other ones are nice, but the Astarte is just disappointing. Really disappointing.

You need to increase the RoF bonus to 7.5% or add additional drone bandwidth/bay.

Such as?

Well here you go.

I see, I was hoping the Orca would get a Siege warfare link bonus in addition to its mining link bonus, and since non-mining links can't be used in a pos I don't believe it would be broken.

Just for reference the Rorqual gives 10% while deployed, or is that being changed?

CCP FOZZIE, I just have a question on wording

Nighthawk:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)


Should it not say,

Nighthawk:
5% bonus to reduction of Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)

Any chance of looking at the skill requirements to fly these things? Nine months of training just to undock one, over a year for Command Ships V and full effectiveness is frankly absurd, and the majority of those SP will not provide any benefit to you the vast majority of the time.

Given up on trying to justify the Astarte nerf?

CCP FOZZIE can you please get as active as you are in his Rebalance Threads ``cough`` cough`` HAC`s

Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost.

Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.

Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.

Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.

Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?

Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.

The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.

Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least.

In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :)

It's literally the Obama Care of Eve the way the push through this crap without any thought.

Any news on when these changes may hit a test server?

Will they be getting a 3rd command ship bonus then or will we be losing the replaced bonus?

What about the very slender drone bay of the Eos?

Are you still happy with the Damnation's dual tank bonuses and how that effectively makes the Damnation the only viable fleet command ship?

Is the OP going to be updated to reflect the 3% per level, or was I reading that wrong?

@ CCP Fozzie

I can understand the reluctance to add any additional slots to the CS but they do need one.
Otherwise a Navy BS can match it for usefullness in a fleet.

So here's my idea;

Allow Command ships to fit 3 rigs, and give it 450 Calibration.

This means your not going to mess up the amount of utility on the ship to make it the out and out best.

Claymore is a disaster on Sisi.
Just tried fitting one.

Forget it.

Needs about 85 more CPU to fit a shield buffer with 3 command links, 4 HAM's, and 3 T2 BCU's.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=269052&find=unread

yes 12 mil for a meta 4 DC really??
those 2 implants are 25mil each minimum and i would imagine ASB's would be even harder to fit

LOL at that foz... whilst you're here any chance of talking about the vulture since i haven't seen you write a single thing about it?
in particular why it has too have the same bonuses as a eagle? rather than more HP or damage bonus?

Drone bay fozzie drone bay... 250m3 means that your drones are going to be shot out from under you in no time when fighting anyone w/o an amoeba brain. Atm you don't even have a backup wave of heavies if you intend to fit any other types of drones which any sane person will do.

Give it 325m3 and I'll be "more" inclined to believe that they are well balanced.


also Fozzie, any word on current cargo holds for these ships? If they are not suppose to match their t1 parents via a balancing decision it's at least intended. Just wanted to make sure you did not overlook this.

Regardless, thanks for breathing some more life into the game with these changes.

Has the ship models changed yet and if so, any images? Curious minds want to know

I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships.
If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board.

@ Fozzie

Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ?

The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits.

But that's just my opinion.

why does the Sleipnir need +50 CPU? ... after you saying the fittings were actually generous and you wanted to take some back?