EVE Search - [Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 46 post(s)
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 398	Posted - 2013.08.01 15:25:00 - [1] - Quote Whats with the big cargobay size differences from 300 - 700? The damnation still has the 10% HP bonus really OP comes to mind.... Why does the Vulture get a 10% damage bonus but the eagle can't get it? EOS has a Hybrid tracking bonus why? Also was expecting more HP Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 398	Posted - 2013.08.01 15:49:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Xequecal wrote: 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. We want there to be a variety of different ships for people to fly that have different skill levels. Command ships require a lot of training, this is part of their design. Until that training is complete there's a lot of other options including the T1 battlecruisers or Navy Battlecruisers, both of which are a lot of fun in combat and are very capable of providing helpful gang links to your fleetmates. yes but forcing say an amarr CS pilot to train lv5 skills that are of no use is silly .. armoured warfare is the only skill that should be mandatory not training skirmish.. siege.. info.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 398	Posted - 2013.08.01 15:50:00 - [3] - Quote Tobias Hareka wrote: Harvey James wrote: The damnation still has the 10% HP bonus really OP comes to mind.... Quote: Also was expecting more HP Are you sure? Quote: EOS has a Hybrid tracking bonus why? It's brawler? It uses blasters? EOS is a droneboat......... and why should the damnation have so much more tank than the rest of them? its lack of dps is more important to address surely Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 398	Posted - 2013.08.01 15:55:00 - [4] - Quote Any chance of changing the T2 resists 0% -90% is bizarre frankly.. some more sensible omni resists make more sense? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 398	Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 - [5] - Quote And what's with missile brawlers getting more HP than the blaster version Nighthawk - Vulture Also why does the vulture need 2 optimal range bonuses to use blasters? .... its not a sniper come on damage or tracking please Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 398	Posted - 2013.08.01 16:23:00 - [6] - Quote Also curious to know Fozzie .. in the future when OGB is removed what kind of ranges do you have in mind for links? and have you factored that into the CS rebalance? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 399	Posted - 2013.08.01 18:12:00 - [7] - Quote Fozzie These should all have an extra high and extra turret/launcher .. when you said you would make them all have good dps i would have thought you would do this. Does the Astarte need its falloff bonus still? Why do they all have the same cap recharge.. come on have you not learnt that laser ships need more cap than missiles or projectiles? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 400	Posted - 2013.08.01 18:18:00 - [8] - Quote Naomi Knight wrote: so they all are the same just with different weapons?:O They did the same boring thing with the combat bc's why would they do anything different here? Attention to detail seems lacking in the recent rebalancing changes Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 401	Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 - [9] - Quote I'm Down wrote: Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships. The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense Let me explain this clearly before people chime in: A ship with a 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage will receive 50 damage A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage. That means you really only take a 10% reduction in damage. This goes back to bad development where devs think % resistance works in some magical fashion rather than realistically. Hence the nerf to 4% per level recently as a compromise to active boosters. Proof the Devs don't know **** about mechanics The only time a resist bonus actually matters the way the Devs run numbers is when you start at 0% resist across the board. This hardly ever happens as a matter of base statistics on all ships. Furthering the problem is Tech 2 resistances. A Tech 2 ship with a 20% resist bonus does not actually receive 20% less damage than a comparable tech 1 ship. Instead, it receives 20% less damage than a comparable ship with the same base resistances. 2 totally different mechanics at play. How is this bad for Tech 2 balance. Well lets further examine the claymore / nighthawk conundrum I posted about earlier. Claymore without any bonuses has 220 total resist for an average of 55 Nighthawk with bonuses has a 240 total resist for an average of 60% damage reduction Lets use really lazy math since it provides easy to work with numbers 100 damage applied on the claymore nets 45 damage 100 damage applied on the nighthawk nets 40 damage. 2 ways of looking at this: Offensively, I have 12.5% more projected damage versus the claymore.* Defensively, the nighthawk is receiving 8.9% less damage than the claymore.* *this is a ratio mechanic that causes 2 different values. It seems weird at first until you realize how the wording plays. One is how much more damage is the claymore taking compared to the NH (ratio of C:NH). The other is how much less damage is the Nighthawk taking compared to the Claymore (ratio of NH:C) Both ways show that in no way do you approach 20% reduced damage, and certainly not higher than 20% reduced damage. However the Developers will try to convince you that this is not true because in Imagination land, they are allowed to assume all resistances are 0 to start with and there's no such thing as diminished returns in EVE. Fact is, the gaps that Caldari and Gallente have are far inferior to the more spread, resist gap fills of the Amarr and Matar. When you make 2 similar ships with other drastically severe balance problems like the NH and Claymore, this resist gap really shows how bad the balance is. So glad our developers can post on here how smart they are about their mechanics and how closely they sit to each other in the office to assure us they know what they're doing. Maybe you should learn core mechanics and fundamentals of the game first. This is just another in a long line of failures. Perhaps a better option for T2 ships is to use HP bonuses instead of resist bonuses as they will probably get more bang for the buck. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 401	Posted - 2013.08.01 20:52:00 - [10] - Quote Dograzor wrote: Dvla wrote: 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. Valid questions, CCP do you have answers? They don't usually answer our questions .. why would they change that here? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.

Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 401	Posted - 2013.08.01 20:55:00 - [11] - Quote Calmoto wrote: resist + armour hp bonus on a damnation where is the vultures shield hp bonus? active boosting on a claymore? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL wtf is going on indeed why does the damnation get so many tank bonuses and the rest get crappy active tank or resist bonuses that aren't that effective on T2 ships on their own. They should all get a 10% HP bonus and the other three bonuses should be damage and ROF based bonuses its odd they are getting bonuses that normally only snipers or attack ships get. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 403	Posted - 2013.08.02 15:55:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: In general guys I'm not quite caught up on the thread yet, so expect my posting here to slow down until the tournament weekend ends. I'm taking a vacation day today and will be quite busy tomorrow and Sunday, but am already sketching up some changes in response to your feedback so far. I really do appreciate the feedback, don't feel like I'm abandoning you when I don't post much this weekend. don't worry about that mine are the most important posts anyway :P at least leave us with some thoughts please Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 403	Posted - 2013.08.02 16:20:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Diivil wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Some good points, although I'm curious about why you didn't post them with your main. I think you know that I have plenty of respect for your opinions. 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 :) My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it. anyone else notice that a different character responded here fozzie posted to Dvla ? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 404	Posted - 2013.08.02 16:37:00 - [14] - Quote Craystorm wrote: Harvey James wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Diivil wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Some good points, although I'm curious about why you didn't post them with your main. I think you know that I have plenty of respect for your opinions. 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 :) My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it. anyone else notice that a different character responded here fozzie posted to Dvla ? You are not a very bright man. and you are not a very pleasant person is this you're way of telling me that the guy who responded is an alt of the other guy by any chance? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 404	Posted - 2013.08.02 16:50:00 - [15] - Quote Baren wrote: CCP FOZZIE, could we remove the Hybrid tracking bonus the EOS gets and add another DRONE bonus, The Tracking bonus it gets isn`t going to do much since it is clearly a drone boat and only has 4 turret slots. Indeed the Astarte would benefit from having the tracking bonus instead Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 408	Posted - 2013.08.02 18:47:00 - [16] - Quote It is a bit odd that they have kept the active tanking bonus on these ships afterall isn't the point of CS too boost a fleet so ergo solo pvp isn't going to happen in CS sooooo...... in a fleet Buffer and Logi is more necessary and common .. so options are - keep the field CS aspect at least unofficially and make these the small gang active tank mobile CS - or design them with buffer and resists and brawling in mind so remove range bonuses and buff HP removing active tank bonuses After all we have navy bc's now which seem to have been geared more towards mobility and small gangs Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 408	Posted - 2013.08.02 23:32:00 - [17] - Quote Mole Guy wrote: now that the hype is over, i have read through most of the complaints and have to agree with a lot of the peeps here. since i fly amarr, i was only looking at the hamnation and drooling over its hp and ham speed bonus. something i noted months ago in our "command ship" chatter was that ALL command ships will need ehp since they will be forced on grid. that expensive of a ship WILL be primaried. that powerful of a ship WILL be primaried. as a role bonus to ALL cmd ships, drop the damnation 10% armor per level and give them ALL 10% to either shield or armor. the nighthawk needs some serious lovin. its so low on pg its not funny. as noted several times, the claymore dominates it in everything. and why is it that the minmatar ships have a huge resist profile to begin with? they are known for speed, not resists. amarr and caldari have to get to command ship rank 5 to compete with the claymore, sleipnir, muninn, vaggy eyc, etc. caldari is known for shield resists. they should not come second to a ragtag bunch of duct-taped fleets and neither should amarr. our resist profile should be unmatched as winmatar speed should be unmatched. gallente dps should be unmatched. its tradition...blaster boats..nuff said. now bring in the sleipnir. thats thing is a beast. it already has a resist profile from hell and its fast and dishes out damage like that? what happened to the astarte? that thing needs to be a beast too. winmatar needs ALL of their t2 shield resists lowered as a rule. who ever originally made them favored minmatar and its been followed through the same for years. either boost all the rest on their profiles so we have em shield resistances from the factory or drop minmatar down some. now, for command ships, drop the kinetic only. give more mid slots on the nighthawk. its a shield based critter. the claymore has always been about balance between shield and armor..typical minmatar. give more pg to the nighthawk. drop the tracking bonus on the eos. i mean really? bonuses for 4 blasters when its a drone boat? give it another drone bonus, like range/tracking on the domi. drop the active rep bonus. these are for fleet support, not solo. one cannot run links in solo play. they CAN be used for solo play, but their intent is fleet use. small fleet, large fleet doesnt matter. one cannot be a commander of yourself. and why do command ships have less slots than their parent ships? thats kinda weird. 1 more slot in a favorable spot would make these better. Some nice points here i would like to pickup on the minmatar insane resists especially when you're talking 90% EM granted that's armour to which i come to the next point is the sleipnir is going to get the hurricane hull so i would think making it the armour based hull with the cane flexibility for shield tanking and perhaps could have armoured warfare instead of siege there's no reason why both CS should be limited to the same links. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 414	Posted - 2013.08.04 13:28:00 - [18] - Quote Would anyone else like the vulture too actually be a proper blaster boat? seriously 2 optimal bonuses ... its not a rail boat the eagle has the same problem of getting more range than it needs .. when it actually needs more dps to be useful. The model looks mean ... the colour scheme on the vulture is a bit lame compared to the nighthawk.. but nonetheless it looks mean so give it the stats to back it up - more tank than the nighthawk it should be a blaster brawler ... no kiting means more tank surely??? - remove 1 optimal bonus at least and give it a second 10% damage bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 414	Posted - 2013.08.04 19:11:00 - [19] - Quote FOZZIE something being picked up on in this thread is the resist quantity imbalance between minmatar ships and the rest.. care to take a look? and perhaps sort out the crazy gaps in resists like 0% on EM and then 90% EM 10% EXP etc.... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 415	Posted - 2013.08.04 19:42:00 - [20] - Quote Panhead4411 wrote: I'm confused, so you wanted to make it so each faction would have one ship bonused with each of their weapon systems....yet... The turret ships now HAVE to fit launchers if they want to reclaim any of their lost DPS from the loss of their BONUSED weapon system...that just doesn't make sense. I don't want to be force to fly dual weapon ships because you (CCP) think "effective turrets" is the same as actual turrets. What i find odd is that they think navy should have an extra slot when these CS need that extra high so they wouldn't need to remove so many turrets/launchers. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.

Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 421	Posted - 2013.08.06 14:27:00 - [21] - Quote how would people feel about having a 20% link strength bonus instead of the 15% proposed? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 421	Posted - 2013.08.06 14:35:00 - [22] - Quote Kane Fenris wrote: Roime wrote: Yeah, one cap booster is always a gamble, but the NOS helps a bit. I regard kin/them as the highest threat on TQ these days, and 1360 hp/s tank against Barrage isn't actually crap either. It's true that neither Astarte or Eos will not start working in blobs, which was probably one of the concerns that you refer to, but these changes do have a positive net effect for small gang use imo. T2 Brutix obviously shares all the drawbacks of it's big-sig, slowish blaster T1 BC brother, but Gallente can't have all the candy. And currently we have most of the candy in EVE, Gallente OP -threads will start popping up this autumn. finally somebody who isn't stuck in the now century old winmatar mentality although that being said minmatar still have the best T2 resists and quantity of resists to boot Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 426	Posted - 2013.08.06 17:49:00 - [23] - Quote can we get away from the field / fleet roles please? I'm sick of fleets being so poor that on one puts weapons on them and fields being like HAC versions of bc's.. Also the cargo amounts vary wildly please normalize it. Vulture - needs some proper dps its NOT a sniper Damantion - dps is still lame and is overtanky Eos/Astarte - active reps on a fleet ship is pointless if it gets alpha-ed off the field immediately Claymore - active reps on a fleet ship is pointless if it gets alpha-ed off the field immediately Sleipnir - active reps on a fleet ship is pointless if it gets alpha-ed off the field immediately would like to see it become armour tanked as it will be a cane soon and could provide a armour link alternative as minnie are 50/50 armour shield tanked it makes more sense. Nighthawk - not too convincing claymore robs its best bonus .. seems to lack about 250 pg just for normal fit Absolution - looking better needs more tank like they all do .. besides damnation ofc Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 426	Posted - 2013.08.06 18:00:00 - [24] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Harvey James wrote: can we get away from the field / fleet roles please? I'm sick of fleets being so poor that on one puts weapons on them and fields being like HAC versions of bc's.. Also the cargo amounts vary wildly please normalize it. Vulture - needs some proper dps its NOT a sniper Damantion - dps is still lame and is overtanky Eos/Astarte - active reps on a fleet ship is pointless if it gets alpha-ed off the field immediately Claymore - active reps on a fleet ship is pointless if it gets alpha-ed off the field immediately Sleipnir - active reps on a fleet ship is pointless if it gets alpha-ed off the field immediately would like to see it become armour tanked as it will be a cane soon and could provide a armour link alternative as minnie are 50/50 armour shield tanked it makes more sense. Nighthawk - not too convincing claymore robs its best bonus .. seems to lack about 250 pg just for normal fit Absolution - looking better needs more tank like they all do .. besides damnation ofc Yet again not understanding that you don't always fight 100 alphamaels... and how does the nighthawk need another 250 base pg? Do you fit your nighthawks with XL-ASBs? Edit: Agree though that minmatar/gallente CS should have substantial cargo holds, as they are the ships carrying loads of cap boosters around. If flying a amarr/caldari CS, you very likely got capchains in your fleet. a HAM nighthawk with 2 LSE's mwd and 2 links Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 426	Posted - 2013.08.06 18:39:00 - [25] - Quote mm.. the Nighthawk does have 5 mids only how odd Whilst im a fan of more variance between ships.. eg.vulture (what should be a blaster boat) has the same speed as the nighthawk ... 5 mids on a shield based CS is just plain silly or an oversight .. which suggests a lack of thoroughness on fozzies part. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 426	Posted - 2013.08.06 19:34:00 - [26] - Quote Frothgar wrote: I'm kinda worried about the lack of a damage application bonus on the abso. Absolution retains the dated 10% cap usage Damanation has 10% velocity Nighthawk has 5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity) Vulture has 2x 10% Optimal Astarte has 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff Eos has: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone tracking and microwarp velocity (was drone bay bonus) 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking (was link bonus) Sleip has: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff And Claymore has: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity (was MPT tracking) Basically every other ship gets similar damage boosts save the damnation and the eagle, and the abso has cap usage instead. I'd prefer a small 7.5% optimal/level so as to help with damage application. As it stands the damnation is just a much more efficient damage projector and in most engagements would do more damage due to that fact alone (They're both bricks) mm.. i do think lasers are poor for brawling and need a buff on this as-well as the cap issues Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 426	Posted - 2013.08.06 20:09:00 - [27] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: Lasers seem pretty fine imo. You're going to be mainly flying these in a gang, just sit back a little and enjoy the extra damage projection you get over blasters and autocannons. I wouldn't want the laser bonuses on the Absolution changed unless they were going to give it a role bonus for cap usage... Tracking would be kinda nice to set it aside from the Legion / Zealot mind. lasers are far from fine -cap usage is 3 times that of blasters if not more - tracking is poor, up close especially - amarr ships usually lack mids for control - amarr ships lack speed to stay at range - lasers can be neuted out and TD'ed easily and very effectively Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 426	Posted - 2013.08.06 20:13:00 - [28] - Quote bloodknight2 wrote: I was really hoping to see a third rigs (on all CS) and a fourth med slot on the abso =( mm.. well they should all have an 18th slot really there's no reason why navy should have the extra slot here.. yet you like at navy frigs to AF's there is 2 slots difference ... navy cruisers and HAC's have the same slots the inconsistency is irritating.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 433	Posted - 2013.08.07 15:49:00 - [29] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Update time! We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read. Absolution: -200 Shield +100 Armor +100 Hull Damnation: +100 Shield -300 Armor +100 Hull Nighthawk: +75 PWG Shifting strength between the two dps bonuses adds 1 effective launcher (now 11) and especially increases damage dealt with non-kin missiles. Post-patch Nighthawk does the same damage with non-kin missiles as current nighthawk, and 1 more effective launcher with kin. (Plus all the other buffs) Kinetic missile bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Caldari BC Missile RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships Astarte: +100 Armor Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now). Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships Eos: -300 Shield +500 Armor +300 Hull We're moving the gang link bonuses for command ships back to the command ships skill, at 3% per level instead of the 15% role bonus. 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 bonused command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch. REALLY!!! 45 pages and this is all you come back with completely ignoring the issues being talked about - lack of slots -Vulture is ignored completely seriously is it a sniper???? more dps its meant to be a blaster boat and mobility - ignored sleipnir being a armour alternative ( hurricane model) and the fact that minnie is 50/50 should be reflected here - HP is still lacking / active tank is ridiculous on fleet ships non of these are kiters/solo ships......... - Damnation is still overtanky compared to the rest but dps is still pretty low Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 433	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:01:00 - [30] - Quote Seems to me its caldari who have been shafted in both this thread and the HAC thread.... besides the cerberus that eventually got fixed after a lot of posting and the CSM probably did the most convincing.. And please explain why Navy BC's get more slots????? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.

Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 433	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:08:00 - [31] - Quote Phantra wrote: not bad. but far from good either Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 433	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:14:00 - [32] - Quote it seems like 90% of the things we have said have been ignored and you just gave us or taken away some HP and messed around a little with bonuses that give us an extra half a turret... great listening fozzie at least rise changes stuff in his threads to things we actually want Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 434	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:23:00 - [33] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Trolly McForumalt wrote: Unless you are trying to keep that module off hulls larger than cruiser size - are you? Yes. RML's need to be deleted a Navy caracal can do the job with its bonus quite well .... although javelins could do with a damage buff. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 435	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:31:00 - [34] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: Harvey James wrote: Heribeck Weathers wrote: Love the changes... except for... WHY you no make vulture worth flying out side of link only fits?!? Its an eagle with two utility highs. please give it a bigger damage bonus, or maybe take a range bonus to a trackign bonus, or anything to make people atempt to brawl ocasionaly with it. in the ATXI it was used with missiles ..... tell you something about those optimal bonuses at all fozzie??? Well, to be fair, medium rails will be getting a buff which should make them more attractive. One thing those optimal bonuses allow is the use of short range ammo at much longer ranges, which does have it's advantages. I think I'd be happier if one were a tracking bonus (as that would help with blaster fits as well), but we'll see how it plays out. I'm sick of caldari gun boats being forced into fitting Rails ....... i would like some good blasterboats ffs..... they seem to stop at the Moa. When you look at the awesome Vulture hull you think it should be a monster of a ship not some pitiful ship pinging spike from 150km what is the point of that??? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 435	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:32:00 - [35] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: Wrayeth wrote: Nice changes to the nighthawk bonuses. I honestly wasn't expecting a DPS increase. If I might ask, though, what's the reasoning behind not moving a lowslot to a mid? Do you feel that it would step on the toes of other ships? Are you concerned that it might be overpowered? Personally, I can't imagine the Nighthawk being worth the ISK if it continues to have only 5 mids; even the Drake has more. As such, even with the bonus changes, I can't see myself purchasing one. I'll probably stick to my Sleipnir and Absolution, and maybe throw in a Claymore. Keep 5 lows for when tracking enhancers affect missiles. Presto! Longer range Nighthawk! But seriously, since it's definitely a shield ship, 5 mids is pretty scarce. If Fozzie wants the nighthawk to remain a tankless wonder that only kites than why does the damnation get the velocity bonus??? Seriously Fozzie why does the damnation get a range bonus for??? its a brick that wants to brawl .... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 435	Posted - 2013.08.07 16:36:00 - [36] - Quote Wrayeth wrote: Maximus Andendare wrote: Keep 5 lows for when tracking enhancers affect missiles. Presto! Longer range Nighthawk! But seriously, since it's definitely a shield ship, 5 mids is pretty scarce. I'm afraid I don't see that in any way balancing out the Nighthawk's lack of ability to fit a good tank at the same time it fits the necessary tackling/utility gear for PvP. Range is not in any way my priority interest on the NH - we have the Vulture for that. Can you even fit Rails on a vulture along with links???/ but more to the point why would you want to ??? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 435	Posted - 2013.08.07 17:15:00 - [37] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: Any chance you might address the fact that some of the bonuses ships get are just inferior to others. Like on a Vulture, a 50% optimal range bonus doesn't actually give you more dps at range than a ROF bonus. You feel like it should but it really doesn't, if you equalize ranges on different ships you will find that a DPS bonus >> optimal range at pretty much all ranges unless you're trying to shoot into SEBO'd ranges. Just look at the ferox vs the brutix. Even though the ferox has one more physical gun and a double optimal range bonus the brutix wins the dps race at pretty much all ranges. The brutix outdpses the ferox to ******* 60km and beyond that the ferox only pulls ahead slightly. Should make optimal range bonuses higher (could also make railguns less falloff based) Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists. But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 435	Posted - 2013.08.07 18:15:00 - [38] - Quote Ersahi Kir wrote: Harvey James wrote: Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists. I think he was talking about the vulture and not the ferox. Harvey James wrote: But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet We don't need fleets of command ships wrecking all comers, we need command ships to give fleets boosts. Unfortunately, we have the well designed damnation and 7 other ships that are over-sized HAC's. The real issue here is that command ships, HACs, and T3 ships are still going to be stomping over each other because they all fill the same niche. Too bad the obvious command ship niche of 'fleet booster able to survive fleet sized alpha' was ignored in favor of shoving more ships into the medium sized brawler niche. There could always be a limit per fleet so say 3 CS one for each booster FC/WC/SC. or maybe 1 per fleet in the highest boosting position and the other 2 slots would have to be filled by T3's or T1 bc's Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 435	Posted - 2013.08.07 18:28:00 - [39] - Quote Shpenat wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Update time! We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read. Astarte: +100 Armor Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now). Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships This has one problem though. You are giving astarte 11 effective turret for damage. But at the same time you are increasing its 7 turrets to 8 effective turrets considering cap and ammunition consumption. yet astarte has smaller cargohold than brutix with 6 effective turrets. Any plan to compensate? Yes another thing Fozzie has ignored is the small cargobays on some of the ships yet one CS has 700... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 435	Posted - 2013.08.07 20:09:00 - [40] - Quote FOZZIE Have you considered reducing the sig radius on all these ships to help mitigate some damage alongside adding more EHP??? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.

Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 435	Posted - 2013.08.07 20:25:00 - [41] - Quote CS also need more cap Fozzie some more than others please recognize this in the cap recharge rate .. details are everything Fozzie stop being lazy Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 440	Posted - 2013.08.08 20:20:00 - [42] - Quote Tobias Hareka wrote: Soldarius wrote: Its really sad when people are flying Damnations with skirmish links because nothing else will survive on field. Some boosts are better than no boosts and an empty wallet. Vulture? its still massively undertanked, lacks dps, lacks,mobility .. lacks any attention it was the only one in the second round to get no changes at all. .. besides perhaps the minnie ships but they are already great ships so... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 442	Posted - 2013.08.10 17:06:00 - [43] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: And still, lasers are screwed, as every other type of weapon system gets 3 weapon-damage applicable bonuses, while lasers have to give one up just to be able to use them. there's a chronic lack of attention to detail in this thread ... maybe fozzie is overworked, the alternative is he is being lazy or doesn't care enough. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 444	Posted - 2013.08.11 21:16:00 - [44] - Quote Snape Dieboldmotor wrote: I really like these ships. As stated by others, the shield equivalent of the Damnation is an obvious hole. A role that would be perfectly filled by the Vulture by removing a optimal range bonus for a shield HP bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 449	Posted - 2013.08.13 15:45:00 - [45] - Quote is it just me that wants the sleipnir to be armour tanked with armour link? There are plenty of minmatar ships that are armour tanked so why not represent this correctly in the command ships? FOZZIE Come on the Fleet bc is a cane and the sleipnir is going to be a cane when you change them so why not make the change? Or are you expecting people to have to use the Loki for bonused armour links? Sleipnir: Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF) 5% Armour hitpoints Command Ships skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 3% bonus to strength of Armoured Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L, 5 turrets (-2), 2 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 1300 PWG (-160), 425 CPU (-50) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4500(+176) / 5000(+1166) / 3500(+137) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75(+12.5) / 60(+10) / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 90(+5) / 67.5(+8.13) / 25 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2625 / 583s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000(+300000) / 12.49s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25(-15) / 25(-15) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+25) / 220 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 20 Ladar (+4) Signature radius: 240 Cargo capacity: 475 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 450	Posted - 2013.08.14 11:40:00 - [46] - Quote FOZZIE !!! are you still reading this or what?? cargobays need sorting out.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 451	Posted - 2013.08.14 14:45:00 - [47] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: 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 Fitting what you want on a ship is intended to take creativity and require tradeoffs. In your case I advise checking out meta modules. Switching the LSEs and DC to meta 4 and dropping to two BCUs allows your fit to work without any fitting mods or implants, even with T2 links. Add Genolution CA-1 and CA-2s and a 3% cpu implant it works with 3 BCUs. 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 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 451	Posted - 2013.08.14 14:59:00 - [48] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Harvey James wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: 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 Fitting what you want on a ship is intended to take creativity and require tradeoffs. In your case I advise checking out meta modules. Switching the LSEs and DC to meta 4 and dropping to two BCUs allows your fit to work without any fitting mods or implants, even with T2 links. Add Genolution CA-1 and CA-2s and a 3% cpu implant it works with 3 BCUs. 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 It's a 200m isk ship. And that's fitting three links with full tank in the mids. Swapping in any of a scram, sensor booster, eccm, small cap booster would all make the fit much easier. X-LASB actually fits fine with a copro and CPU rig even with three links and four HAMs. Now that I'm looking at it we should probably nerf its CPU a little. 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? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 451	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:12:00 - [49] - Quote Quote: Well it has double the damage bonus of the Eagle, but otherwise their bonuses are the same yes. Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance. btw could you convince Rise to give that double damage bonus to the eagle along with some decent speed and drones please? :) Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 451	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:24:00 - [50] - Quote Fozzie Have you looked at the sleipnir armour version proposal i posted a couple of pages back? and what do you think? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.

Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 452	Posted - 2013.08.15 13:19:00 - [51] - Quote Dav Varan wrote: Just has a thought that might be crazy. This 7.5% armor rep per level. What about 10% per level reduced rep time instead. So at lvl 5 a med repper would basically have the rep of 2 med reppers It would use more cap of course and a med injector would not be able to keep pace with 2xMAR. This would basically be the same as Burst tank from a ASB Increased cargo bays for the extra needed charges of course. r.p. Advanced Gallente system shunt heat out of armor reps with increased effeciency blah blah etc etc. +1 But cap requirements would have to be reduced for armour reps.... but then they need to do that anyway... although it would mean AAR's would run out much quicker of nanite paste ... but they need to improve AAR's anyway less nanite paste consumption would be needed and allowing nanite skills to affect AAR's would be nice .. also change the reload times of AAR's or use an inject system so you can still rep at 75% whilst you wait for nanites to inject 15-20 secs. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 452	Posted - 2013.08.15 16:41:00 - [52] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Dav Varan wrote: Just has a thought that might be crazy. This 7.5% armor rep per level. What about 10% per level reduced rep time instead. So at lvl 5 a med repper would basically have the rep of 2 med reppers It would use more cap of course and a med injector would not be able to keep pace with 2xMAR. This would basically be the same as Burst tank from a ASB Increased cargo bays for the extra needed charges of course. r.p. Advanced Gallente system shunt heat out of armor reps with increased effeciency blah blah etc etc. +1 But cap requirements would have to be reduced for armour reps.... but then they need to do that anyway... although it would mean AAR's would run out much quicker of nanite paste ... but they need to improve AAR's anyway less nanite paste consumption would be needed and allowing nanite skills to affect AAR's would be nice .. also change the reload times of AAR's or use an inject system so you can still rep at 75% whilst you wait for nanites to inject 15-20 secs. Perhaps we could have a armour repping cap reduction skill? .. like the shield compensation skill .. which could probably do with a buff btw. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 452	Posted - 2013.08.15 20:39:00 - [53] - Quote Florian Kuehne wrote: I still think those cs changes are very weird, cant even understand why are you doing this...thought making fleets more viable is good...but u nerfing boosts and taking the fleet -giving ship away. Of two cs each race u make like one. the thing i find most disappointing about is the lack of variety within each race.. i would like to have seen Sleipnir - armour/skirmish links - to cater for armour minnie fleets and also change to cane model will make more sense Armour HP based like damnation but with 5% armour HP Vulture - shield/skirmish links - a mobile blaster boat to cater for caldari blaster fleets .. ferox's moa's merlin's. Shield HP bonus a shield version of damnation bonus Absolution - armour/skirmish links - a more mobile scorch ship to cater for more kitey laser ships like NOmen's, NHarbingers etc. Eos - shield/skirmish links - a mobile drone boat with shield links to cater for gallente shield blaster boats. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 453	Posted - 2013.08.16 12:43:00 - [54] - Quote Harvey James wrote: is it just me that wants the sleipnir to be armour tanked with armour link? There are plenty of minmatar ships that are armour tanked so why not represent this correctly in the command ships? FOZZIE Come on the Fleet bc is a cane and the sleipnir is going to be a cane when you change them so why not make the change? Or are you expecting people to have to use the Loki for bonused armour links? Sleipnir: Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (was 5% RoF) 5% Armour hitpoints Command Ships skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 3% bonus to strength of Armoured Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M(-1), 6 L(+1), 5 turrets (-2), 2 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 1300 PWG (-160), 425 CPU (-50) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4500(+176) / 5000(+1166) / 3500(+137) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75(+12.5) / 60(+10) / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 90(+5) / 67.5(+8.13) / 25 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2625 / 583s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000(+300000) / 12.49s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25(-15) / 25(-15) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+25) / 220 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 20 Ladar (+4) Signature radius: 240 Cargo capacity: 475 @ Fozzie .. have you considered doing this or something similar and what did you think? There are 10 minnie ships that are either armour tanked or can armour tank fairly well .. so why no armour CS??? Rifter, Rupture, Stabber fleet issue,Scythe fleet issue, Rapier, Hurricane (fleet),Tempest, Typhoon, Wolf, Muninn. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 453	Posted - 2013.08.16 18:42:00 - [55] - Quote @ Fozzie Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 453	Posted - 2013.08.16 18:53:00 - [56] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Harvey James wrote: @ Fozzie Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ? You skipped the bold! I think that the armor Sleip would be too radical of a change to a fun ship for too little gain. Minmatar always has the Loki for armor boosting, and it's not like anyone is enforcing single race fleets Same thing with a shield bonused Gallente CS. Even though both races have plenty of interesting options with both types of tanking, they both have a strong primary tanking identity which is what the Command Ship bonuses and stats are reflecting. so you were reading them but just ignoring me ... i see you're point but part of minnie character is split tanking on many of there ships and the model change will be strange having an ASB cane.... also loki won't have the tank at fleet level i imagine.. at least put it up for a vote Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 453	Posted - 2013.08.16 19:06:00 - [57] - Quote fozzie do you not think that all ships should have its own role? and uniqueness? with that in mind why are all the CS basically the same but with different weapon systems none of them have any real individuality bar perhaps the Astarte which is actually quite mobile .. shame vulture is so slow... surely different links combining with different ship roles is more interesting and desirable as a whole? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 456	Posted - 2013.08.17 21:24:00 - [58] - Quote Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote: Regarding the EHP issue of command ships especially in massive battles, I would suggest the following: - Squad commanders should get 1-2% HP bonus (shield, armor, hull) for every pilot within his squad - Wing commanders should get the same for every pilot within his wing - Fleet commanders should get the same for every pilot within his fleet So for a 200+ sized fleet this would be quite substantial to the top dog. But since it scales with fleet size it would not be too powerful in small fleets. And this bonus should be tied to the fleet structure, and apply to any ship in a commanding position, not just CS. I guess it might be a bit tricky to code, especially if you only are to receive bonuses from fleet members on grid and preferrably in a ship (not pod), so that the bonus gets weaker when the fleet gets weaker. interesting concept to give the 3 commander positions bonuses to their ships.... FC - Fleet Flagship - 10% HP bonus, - 5% agility WC - Wing Command ship - 7.5% HP bonus, -3% agility SC - Squad Command ship - 5% HP bonus, -2% agility Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 456	Posted - 2013.08.18 12:03:00 - [59] - Quote S1dy wrote: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3438123#post3438123 Just leaving this here. Though a few points get some love now it's still my current point of few how they should balance Command Ships. mm.. i agree the Vulture should be the shield equivalent of the damnation ... when asked about it fozzie said he was trying to get rid of the HP bonus the damnation has rather than add HP bonuses to others but i think he has to be more fair here either - remove HP bonus from damnation - or add HP bonus to vulture add same level as damnation 10% or reduce both ships to 5% otherwise its just plain favoritism I would also suggest making the Eos and Sleipnir armour HP ships aswell. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 456	Posted - 2013.08.18 12:47:00 - [60] - Quote Veshta Yoshida wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...I would also suggest making the Eos and Sleipnir armour HP ships aswell. Problem with that is it will defeat the purpose of the whole exercise, which is to make all viable with or without links, it is the same reason why the Damnation bonus has to go bye-bye. Reference: Damnation bricks like a champ but has less damage output than the Sacrilege, a ship that has always been sub-par on damage by the way. Ask yourself this: If Vulture/Eos/Sleipnir were to get the brick bonus, what sacrifices would you be willing to make? Remove 75m3 of drones from Eos? Drop both damage bonuses on Sleipnir to 5% and remove a turret? .. end result would be what we have now, CC's that are pointless outside of 'Da Blob' and even in the 'Da Blob' their life expectancy would only be marginally increased or they'd be completely ignored as link bonus drop means that the 1M dps a fleet pushes out is indirectly increased by a large amount. The ability to survive on-grid is solved by EHP increases on paper only, we have had blanket EHP increases in the past and all they did was prolong solo engagement slightly (active tank changes have done far more!) and enlarge gang sizes. We need a non EHP based answer to the question of on-grid survivability, preferably one that does not make small gangs obsolete. Vulture - trade an optimal range bonus for shield HP Eos - trade armour rep for armour HP Sleipnir - trade shield boost bonus for armour HP Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.

Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 456	Posted - 2013.08.18 13:34:00 - [61] - Quote Serenity Eon wrote: Veshta Yoshida wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...I would also suggest making the Eos and Sleipnir armour HP ships aswell. Problem with that is it will defeat the purpose of the whole exercise, which is to make all viable with or without links, it is the same reason why the Damnation bonus has to go bye-bye. Reference: Damnation bricks like a champ but has less damage output than the Sacrilege, a ship that has always been sub-par on damage by the way. Ask yourself this: If Vulture/Eos/Sleipnir were to get the brick bonus, what sacrifices would you be willing to make? Remove 75m3 of drones from Eos? Drop both damage bonuses on Sleipnir to 5% and remove a turret? .. end result would be what we have now, CC's that are pointless outside of 'Da Blob' and even in the 'Da Blob' their life expectancy would only be marginally increased or they'd be completely ignored as link bonus drop means that the 1M dps a fleet pushes out is indirectly increased by a large amount. The ability to survive on-grid is solved by EHP increases on paper only, we have had blanket EHP increases in the past and all they did was prolong solo engagement slightly (active tank changes have done far more!) and enlarge gang sizes. We need a non EHP based answer to the question of on-grid survivability, preferably one that does not make small gangs obsolete. Why not remove the 10% hitpoint bonus from the damnation (replacing it with a ROF bonus), so it can be PVE viable, then add a 50% hitpoint role bonus to all command ships? Perhaps.... at 25% maybe but i doubt fozzie would go for that Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 457	Posted - 2013.08.19 20:15:00 - [62] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback: Nighthawk: +100 PWG +10 CPU Sleipnir: +50 CPU why does the Sleipnir need +50 CPU? ... after you saying the fittings were actually generous and you wanted to take some back? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 457	Posted - 2013.08.19 20:39:00 - [63] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Harvey James wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback: Nighthawk: +100 PWG +10 CPU Sleipnir: +50 CPU why does the Sleipnir need +50 CPU? ... after you saying the fittings were actually generous and you wanted to take some back? A lot of the fittings for command ships were quite generous, after looking at and considering feedback we determined that these two cases were the exception. We still have the option to pull some of these ships back a bit after seeing them in the wild for a few months, which is an option we will not hesitate to use quickly as needed. so +50 CPU for ??? ASB's' Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 457	Posted - 2013.08.21 12:52:00 - [64] - Quote bloodknight2 wrote: Why most CS can fit 5 turrets-2 launchers or 2 turrets-5 launchers, when the absolution only has 5 turrets, no launcher and the EOS 4 turrets, no launcher? it is odd that the Absolution got a launcher removed instead of added... Eos well its a droneboat so no real surprise there.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 457	Posted - 2013.08.21 15:45:00 - [65] - Quote @ Fozzie any chance of increasing the Vultures pg and cpu to make full use of the mid slots as that ASB uses up a lot aswell as Hardeners? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 457	Posted - 2013.08.21 16:01:00 - [66] - Quote @ Fozzie why are still allowing minnie ships to have higher T2 resists than the rest get overall? Sleipnir has 225 Vulture has 200 Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 459	Posted - 2013.08.24 14:08:00 - [67] - Quote it's funny looking at the description of ishukone on the vulture it says ...Most of the recent designs off their assembly line have provided for a combination that the Ishukone name is becoming known for: great long-range capabilities and shield systems unmatched anywhere else. yet the Nighthawk has better shields mm..... i think you need to switch their shield HP around .. also vulture is a fair bit heavier on mass than the ferox ... the vulture needs more... also please switch that second optimal bonus to a 5% ROF that second optimal is a waste of a bonus space. clearly the nighthawk is meant to be more mobile and kitey of the two so surely it should have weaker tank than the vulture anyway Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 483	Posted - 2013.09.04 11:10:00 - [68] - Quote crikey the claymore is hard to fit even with cpu rigs, nano, meta 4 long point CA 1-2 imps and still no cpu left for last mid slot Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.