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?

This definitely!
And don't change their hulls to other BC models!
And don't make the claymore a missile boat, it's gay!

Nerd boner. So the eos is a big tristan?

CCP FOZZIE,

why does the Sleipnir only have a sensor strenght of 20 when all the other COMMAND ships have sensor strengths at 21 or higher most being at 22 or 23

so damnation gets
20% armour res bonus and 50% armour amount.

the eos and astate both start with less base armour and get a rep bonus plus dps bonus... like wtf

surely one of them should get the res and armour amount bonus

same can be said for vulture and the claymore/Sleipnir

you want them on grid? so at least give us one from each race that can stay on grid a while before it explodes please

I think the bolded part is actually part of the problem. There's only so many bonuses you can do for drones, and the drone boat space is looking a little crowded. I mean, how many varied bonuses can you give for drone boats? So far we have ships that do drone velocity, drone damage, drone hitpoints, drone tracking and drone optimal, in some combination of thereof. What's more, of the 125 mb/s drone ships, we have damage/hp + velocity/tracking (Nexor) and damage/hp, drone operation range, heavy mwd/tracking and sentry optimal/tracking (Ishtar). So where, then, is there room for an Eos with bonuses that don't completely overlap somewhere in there? Already Nexor and Ishtar's heavy uses overlap (with Ishtar being better at it); now the Eos will largely do the same thing, as well.

I'd almost say give Eos a dual tank bonus so as to not overlap *so* much with the Nexor or Ishtar. But overall, in the drone ship space, it's getting a bit cramped with an uncomfortable bit of overlap.

If by "mow it down" you mean take 10+ minutes to kill, then yeah I agree with you...

Not really a fan of the changes from a large fleet perspective.

At present on TQ in armour fleets the damnation is the only viable armour command ship as its the only one with the ehp to be able to survive just getting vollied off the field, skirmish/info links are run on damnations in most armour fleets because claymores/eos are simply too weak. Nothing in this update will change that.

The vulture is again the only shield option but is somewhat weaker than the damnation and more reliant on active, neut-able, modules to get decent ehp than the damnation is (plus you can't slave the shield tank). Vultures tend to get vollied pretty early in most big fleet fights and again no other command ship is even slightly viable for shield fleets.

The vulture should really have a shield ehp bonus in place of one of those optimal range bonuses to give it a better chance of surviving a fleet fight. Its no fun fcing when you know you'll just get blapped of the field as soon as the fight starts because your command ship simply cannot have enough ehp (I run HG slaves and faction hardeners on my damnation so that it has a decent chance of actually living through the first 30 seconds of a big fight). And as anyone who has FC'd knows you really want to be the ship in the fleet command position so you can probe and fleet warp, which pretty much means running a command ship.

Imo the eos and claymore should also get at least a resist bonus in place of the local rep bonus. This would make them more viable for larger fleets while also giving them an effective rep bonus from the additional reps so they are still good for smaller gangs. This also leaves the slep/astarte with the local reps for those that want buffed local reps.

Please think of the FCs!

PLEASE give one gallente ship a resistance bonus. armour rep amount is useless in a larger fleet.

please please please please please please!!!!!!!!

I usually like to sit back and wait and see how the changes play out. I don't mind some shuffling around of roles and ship purposes, so long as the common goal is to INCREASE the diversity of the game, and the ships within it.

However,

Much like your original proposed changes for haulers, I feel like you've reduced the diversity of the game here. You finally recognized that you were dumbing down your game in the case of the industrials. I hope you can recognize the same quality in this change.

I'm sure that Field command ships will be more capable in some senses, but the bottom line is that DPS is dropping across the board. I feel like you're really only doing it to attack the prevalence of Sleipner's in the tournament. This isn't about boosts, since field command ships were rarely used for boosting.

Anyway, I have two problems with your changes.


1: There's really no such thing as a field command ship anymore. You have taken it right out of the game. The two ships are now virtually identical in role - with the only real difference being the weapon type. They are both fleet command ships now, aren't they? And if they are, how can you not recognize that you have reduced the diversity of your game?

2: People who originally trained for field command ships did so through the Heavy Assault Cruiser line. You may have taken that requirement out a few months ago, but it doesn't suddenly change the fact that people originally were training for a: DPS Attack ship. Changing the skill requirement and then completely changing the ship is pretty poor form.

Recognizing that your changes were unjust, I think you tried to obfuscate. Instead of just taking the pinnacle of the Assault ship line and wiping it out, INSTEAD you removed the assault skill first, waited a few months, and then turned them all into boosting ships.

Not cool, and very disingenuous.

Stage 1: Promise that if you could fly the ship before, you can fly it afterwards.
Stage 2: Change the skill requirements of the ship to be for a different ship. Claim it's won't hurt anyone because of stage 1.
Stage 3: Change the ship itself to be a different ship. Point to stage 2 for justification. Ignore the promises made in stage 1.

This is hardly fair.

For a more extreme example, should you have the right to:
Change the skill requirement on Archon to be Mining Foreman 5, and 2 months later change the Archon into a fleet mining ship?