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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 70 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 46 post(s)
Jerick Ludhowe trolllolcorp 533	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:23:00 - [1381] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The 400m3 on the Astarte and Eos was a conscious decision, yes. It's possible we might change it but we don't automatically give ships every feature their "parent" has. The giant cargobays on the Damnation and Nighthawk I mostly left in place because there wasn't a good enough reason to drop them down and overloading players holds on patch day isn't something we want to do without a good reason. Word, just wanted to make sure. Although I do find it questionable that ships w/o an active tanking bonus are the ones that get the biggest hold. What's purpose of this hold? Unless it's there to hold charges for the more "thirsty" commands.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1443	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:23:00 - [1382] - Quote Can we get a bit more drone bay for the Eos please, 2 flights of heavies is quite limiting, maybe 300 just enough to carry a extra set of smaller drones. Ideas for Drone Improvement
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 451	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:24:00 - [1383] - 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.
Lephia DeGrande Luxembourg Space Union 29	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:24:00 - [1384] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Keep up the test server testing guys, thanks for the feedback so far. We'll be keeping an eye on things like the Astarte and Eos on the test server but my feeling at this point is that the balance between them is pretty good. The blaster Astarte will do more damage at 500m, but the Eos is less vulnerable to TDs, ECM, Neuts, can hit smaller targets more effectively and can choose damage types. 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. ^ This much, pls rethink this fozzie.
Oddsodz Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 78	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:25:00 - [1385] - Quote Oh maybe it would be nice to have a remote ECCM module bonus instead of the repping bonus on the EoS. That way I can help my Logi from jamming.
Dav Varan Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis 47	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:27:00 - [1386] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Give it 325m3 and I'll be "more" inclined to believe that they are well balanced. +1
Eldrith Jhandar Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 12	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:32:00 - [1387] - Quote People seem to be forgetting how these arnt just for giving bonuses, they are also meant to be combat pew pew ships. And it's not even 702 vs 785 it's 702 vs 785+[50-70 from implants] +[80 from hams] And taking away from the astartes versatility instead of bringing the eos into line is a bad idea IMO On the teat server I saw an eos losing its hammerheads to an astartes blasters... Before he could recall them, 250 drone bay isn't enough if the eos is meant to be using heavies And I'm thinking and attemtping to balance on a solo to small gang level 5/5/7 might be too much, I havnt done the numbers for everything to see how we'll it'll be in line tank wise if somebody went full tank as compared to other ships, claymore sleip abso etc, but in terms of eos-Astarte it would be much closer to balanced than now If nothing more the bonuses need looked at or a slot needs to be given back, you say fozzie how these ships effectively get another high from double damage bonuses but then take a high from the eos without giving it a double damage bonus It either needs another slot or better bonuses and it also needs more drone bay, 250 for a drone boat meant to use heavy drones. Just isn't enough +1 mid or +1 low And the eos might be slightly better vs neuts even tho it is an active tanker because its guns don't have to fire to do most of its damage, but the Astarte doesn't have the fear of losing its drones...
Mournful Conciousness Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 122	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:37:00 - [1388] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The 400m3 on the Astarte and Eos was a conscious decision, yes. It's possible we might change it but we don't automatically give ships every feature their "parent" has. The giant cargobays on the Damnation and Nighthawk I mostly left in place because there wasn't a good enough reason to drop them down and overloading players holds on patch day isn't something we want to do without a good reason. Please understand that on Sisi you are not seeing the astarte etc being used as a skirmish booster. Gangs have an OGB and then use the astarte/eos as a front line dps ship with 2 nosferatus. This is how they are staying alive (i speak from experience here). I can understand the decision, because in a very small scale skirmish the eos/astarte's strong capacitor and very strong resitances make each cap booster count for a great deal more than on the T1 ships. In reality though these ships will be primaried because they are dangerous and killing them weakens the gang. They will be energy neutralised very heavily (I have already seen this on SiSi). They will need 2 cap boosters to stay up. That's ok since they are not designed to be tacklers, but they will burn through cap very quickly. I think they and the game would benefit from an increased cargo capacity. I speak as a player who will be using the eos as a gang booster in skirmish squads in foreign wormholes. We just don't have the option to OGB in these situations. I look forward to it, but as the ships stand, I would not field an Eos or Astarte without at least one oneiros in the fleet.
Jerick Ludhowe trolllolcorp 533	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:38:00 - [1389] - Quote I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin.
Frothgar V0LTA Verge of Collapse 82	Posted - 2013.08.14 15:38:00 - [1390] - Quote The 10% cap/level seems poor on the Absolution. Every other CS gets some sort of damage projection bonus (Falloff, Exp Radius, Exp Velocity, Missile Velocity) Due to the general brickiness of the abso it has some real issues with applying damage. Its still in the same boat its on in TQ which is all properly fit BS have better damage, more EHP, and about 1.5/2x the range, on top of that the abso isn't going to be chasing down anything except a plated amarr battleship. That in itself means it won't have a role. While it might be dangerous to do a flat 10% optimal/level, the reduced amount of guns on the abso really makes the cap bonus of questionable utility. I'd love an optimal range bonus, but if 10% is too good, perhaps 7.5%/level so as to not make the zealot/Nomen redundant? I'd also love to see something done with its fitting so that beams could be a viable option. The fitting, range and damage/range compared to the Sleip or Astarte means currently its just not happening. (Sleipnir makes an solid arty boat, Astarte can do rails fairly decently) <3 Edit: Perhaps Gleam also plays an issue in making beams poor. Lazers being exclusively in optimal means short range ammo for beams really get some savage drawbacks compared to say projectiles and blasters.

Eldrith Jhandar Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 12	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:08:00 - [1391] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin. 5/5/6 would be a step I the right direction, and it's not the amount it ranks that worries me from 7 lows, it's how cap stable it would be compared to the vulture clay sleip which can do the same tank with xl shield boosters, those shield ships have huge tanks but struggle on cap for that tank, the eos wouldn't without cap pressure on it 325 would give 2 sets of heavies a set of mess and a set of lights which is so much better And I can get behind the 3 rig idea for all commandships, would help to fill a lot of the holes that many of these ships have such as a t2 tracking rig for the abso +20% tracking for about 10mil Edit: this would also give a rig for the nighthawk and claymore to get CPU, or fill pesky resistance holes that 6 slots doesn't allow you to fill
Dav Varan Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis 47	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:12:00 - [1392] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin. No The slot layout is fine. Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second. and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams.
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:16:00 - [1393] - Quote I know this is pointless and a waste of time, but I really hate the direction fittings are going in. Personally speaking, I think that a ship should be fitable for its intended role without extra things like grid and cpu implants or fittings mods like cpu IF you have maxium fitting skills. (I mean any skill that could affect the CPU or grid of any module you chose to fit) I know this might be a poor comparison as really the only thing people care about is PVP in this thread, and also the two ships I'm comparing might be a bit silly but they are similar in a lot of ways: Astarte Medium Armor Repairer II Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 10MN Afterburner II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script Cap Recharger II 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II This is over cpu by 20 (or 4%) and has a bit of spare grid. Eagle Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II 10MN Afterburner II Medium Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M This has over 75 cpu left and over 200 grid.... Both are using 5 guns, 2 dmg mods, and 4 slot tanks. Their resit profiles are similar. These are both really really simple fits. But, it doesn't make since to me that these two ships have near exactly the same CPU for pretty similar things and are in two completely different classes. If you want us to fit 5 guns and 2 link mods for on field combat, then you should at least give them the fitting to do so. You have to realize that fitting CPU or GRID mods is a huge oppurtunity cost waste, you are essentially losing TWO slots (one because you have to fit a fitting mod and two because you can't use that slot for something else like dmg or tank)
Mournful Conciousness Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 122	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:18:00 - [1394] - Quote Dav Varan wrote: No The slot layout is fine. Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second. and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams. I think you are right in all circumstances except crystal implants and gist shield modules. We have not seen Gist X-L shield fits on sisi yet because the deadspace modules are not generally available. When these ships go to TQ I expect to see some uber-tanking shield monstrosities. This is not a problem with command ships. It's a problem with the ridiculously low (50%) cap requirements of gist shield boosters.
Mournful Conciousness Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 122	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:22:00 - [1395] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: ...I know this might be a poor comparison as really the only thing people care about is PVP in this thread, and also the two ships I'm comparing might be a bit silly but they are similar in a lot of ways: ... I hear you but in this example, the astarte is doing something the eagle is not - it's giving armour boosts to everyone in your (PVE) fleet. It seems reasonable to me that this would require some sacrifice elsewhere, no? [am a fan of the astarte, but for the good of the game accept its limitiations - except the small cargo hold ;-) ]
Frothgar V0LTA Verge of Collapse 82	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:25:00 - [1396] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: I know this is pointless and a waste of time, but I really hate the direction fittings are going in. Personally speaking, I think that a ship should be fitable for its intended role without extra things like grid and cpu implants or fittings mods like cpu IF you have maxium fitting skills. (I mean any skill that could affect the CPU or grid of any module you chose to fit) I know this might be a poor comparison as really the only thing people care about is PVP in this thread, and also the two ships I'm comparing might be a bit silly but they are similar in a lot of ways: Astarte Medium Armor Repairer II Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 10MN Afterburner II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script Cap Recharger II 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II This is over cpu by 20 (or 4%) and has a bit of spare grid. Eagle Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II 10MN Afterburner II Medium Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M This has over 75 cpu left and over 200 grid.... Both are using 5 guns, 2 dmg mods, and 4 slot tanks. Their resit profiles are similar. These are both really really simple fits. But, it doesn't make since to me that these two ships have near exactly the same CPU for pretty similar things and are in two completely different classes. If you want us to fit 5 guns and 2 link mods for on field combat, then you should at least give them the fitting to do so. You have to realize that fitting CPU or GRID mods is a huge oppurtunity cost waste, you are essentially losing TWO slots (one because you have to fit a fitting mod and two because you can't use that slot for something else like dmg or tank) So... you're trying to do some things with these setups that don't really make much sense. I'm assuming they're going to be PvE fits since you have no points, and you're incredibly slow. First for the Astarte, you could make it a fine PvE boat. in your case you're really crazy overtanked, but you have no cap coming in to it. You have 6 slots dedicated to tanking, but you don't select a damage type. If you were say running lvl4s, drop the active hardeners, put in say a tracking enhancer, and ditch your tracking computers for cap recharge. You should be able to perma run everything. For the eagle, you're using an undersized tank, cruisers easily fit "Large" shield boosters. That should put your fits more towards something functional.
Frothgar V0LTA Verge of Collapse 82	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:28:00 - [1397] - Quote Mournful Conciousness wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: ...I know this might be a poor comparison as really the only thing people care about is PVP in this thread, and also the two ships I'm comparing might be a bit silly but they are similar in a lot of ways: ... I hear you but in this example, the astarte is doing something the eagle is not - it's giving armour boosts to everyone in your (PVE) fleet. It seems reasonable to me that this would require some sacrifice elsewhere, no? [am a fan of the astarte, but for the good of the game accept its limitiations - except the small cargo hold ;-) ] If you just said "PvE Fleet" the sacrifice is you're going to get Awoxed ;)
Eldrith Jhandar Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 12	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:33:00 - [1398] - Quote Dav Varan wrote: Jerick Ludhowe wrote: I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin. No The slot layout is fine. Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second. and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams. The damage is not protectable, even at 15k Doing the math right now, 2 armor reppers one aux nano pump one nano bot accel 152.13 hp/s using 3 slots (cap booster) Xl asb gets a monstrous 563 hp/s with one slot and no rigs, not even close, you can argue about reloads but then again you can reasonably add another asb xl or l Xl t2 booster gets 396.29hp/s also without rigs but needs a cap booster Dual rep seems pretty lackluster
Goldensaver Perkone Caldari State 221	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:34:00 - [1399] - Quote Harvey James wrote: 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 I made a post a couple pages back that said that your problems could be fixed literally by just changing a BCU to a Co-Processor. Seeing your fit you're quite apparently not a primary damage dealer. The damage is nice, but you don't need 3 BCU's for it.
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.14 16:59:00 - [1400] - Quote Mournful Conciousness wrote: I hear you but in this example, the astarte is doing something the eagle is not - it's giving armour boosts to everyone in your (PVE) fleet. It seems reasonable to me that this would require some sacrifice elsewhere, no? And I understand what your saying, but the astarte in this design was meant to do both (given the role bonus) etc. My point was I dont understand why CCP would not make a ship with an intended function without giving the ship the need resources to do that function?

Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.14 17:06:00 - [1401] - Quote Frothgar wrote: So... you're trying to do some things with these setups that don't really make much sense. I'm assuming they're going to be PvE fits since you have no points, and you're incredibly slow. First for the Astarte, you could make it a fine PvE boat. in your case you're really crazy overtanked, but you have no cap coming in to it. You have 6 slots dedicated to tanking, but you don't select a damage type. If you were say running lvl4s, drop the active hardeners, put in say a tracking enhancer, and ditch your tracking computers for cap recharge. You should be able to perma run everything. For the eagle, you're using an undersized tank, cruisers easily fit "Large" shield boosters. That should put your fits more towards something functional. Well I did mention my comments weren't related to PVP, so... Speed is not really of a concern in PVE, the astarte is not a speed boat to begin with, so you aren't going to be sig tanking it like you would a frig etc. You don't need points since the targets don't run. As to cap, anything past 2 minutes recharge I've found to be over kill (given the damage application and tank anyway) There is no need to perma run everything. The only benefit to perma running stuff is if you are too lazy to pulse your mods. In any case I have only 4 slots dedicated to tank, not 6. One rep and three hardners. My actuall mission 4 fit loses the Adapt nano and adds a third Mag Stab for more damage. The point here was to show similar fits on ships that use the same gun types. Its seems weird that a cruiser and a battle cruiser would have exactly the same CPU output given the role the BC is intended to fill.
Goldensaver Perkone Caldari State 221	Posted - 2013.08.14 17:11:00 - [1402] - Quote Eldrith Jhandar wrote: Dav Varan wrote: Jerick Ludhowe wrote: I think 5-5-6 with 325m3 drone bay would be the kicker. Like you said 5-5-7 (@ eldrith) would be just a bit "too" much. Just imagine a 7 slot tank tri rep eos with dual cap injectors and nos/nuets in the highs. Sure, dps will be questionable, but you're going to tank more than almost anything (barring caps) and also have Massive therm/kin resistance which is perfect considering the highest dps ships in the game do therm/kin. No The slot layout is fine. Dual rep kicks out comparable reps to a shield tanked X-Large asb setup 112 versus 115 ( claymore ) per second. and it has plenty of dps 700 most of which is projectable to at least the same extent as hams. The damage is not protectable, even at 15k Doing the math right now, 2 armor reppers one aux nano pump one nano bot accel 152.13 hp/s using 3 slots (cap booster) Xl asb gets a monstrous 563 hp/s with one slot and no rigs, not even close, you can argue about reloads but then again you can reasonably add another asb xl or l Xl t2 booster gets 396.29hp/s also without rigs but needs a cap booster Dual rep seems pretty lackluster Edit: once you get deadspace boosters which are fairly cheap it gets even better Alright, gonna be completely honest with you, not sure where you're getting your numbers. The rep numbers are looking decent, though still off, but I can't figure out the ASB numbers. The rep numbers I'm getting are: 320 HP, 12 second duration. 25% reduction to duration from skills, 37.5% bonus to amount from hull, 15% reduction to duration from rig, 15% increase to amount from rig. Then apply heat of +10% amount and -15% duration Most of this isn't from mods, so I don't see any stacking penalties. So: (320 * 1.375 * 1.15 * 1.1) / (12 * .75 * .85 * .85) Then multiply it by 2 for 2 reppers. I get 171.2 HP/s from the 2 reppers and 2 rigs. oh, forgot the 15% increase to rep amount they're giving it next patch So with that: 196.9 HP/s Now for the booster I'm getting 980hp, 5s duration, 37.5% bonus to amount from hull. So: (980 * 1.375 * 1.1) / (5 * .85) Or 348.8 HP/s on an XLASB with no other mods. Now that XL ASB takes up much more fitting than 2 reppers even with the PWG penalties. 200 CPU vs 56, 500 PWG vs 302.2. I'm not necessarily saying that makes up for only taking one slot, not using cap, and still repping more HP/s. Just wondering where you got your numbers.
Anhenka Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 88	Posted - 2013.08.14 17:21:00 - [1403] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. This honestly has to be the most disturbing post by a CCP member I have ever seen. I have said it a dozen times, and will say it a dozen more. If you nerf off grid boosting (Which is fine by me), we need a way to keep them alive ongrid, and that is NOT nerfing the only Command ship that can actually be used in a larger fleet fight without it dying when you sneeze on it. Well that and links not automatically disabling in warp (Once ogb is removed) so that the linker does not have to scramble to put up links after every on grid warp.
Valfreyea Zervas Aeronautics Tribal Band 14	Posted - 2013.08.14 17:27:00 - [1404] - Quote Still wondering about those hybrid tracking bonuses and the limited dronebay on the Eos. Not sure what it can do. Those heavies get killed fast, regardless of range, since they're slow and have a massive sig radius. And the tracking bonus still kinda feels like an afterthought.
Kallie Rae NorCorp Security Tribal Band 40	Posted - 2013.08.14 17:34:00 - [1405] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Kara Vix wrote: Has the ship models changed yet and if so, any images? Curious minds want to know Ship models are not changing for 1.1, that is something planned for later. I'll see about getting that sticky up asap so we can link to it. Why? :( Was really hoping to see the Eos in the myrmidon shell soon.
Mournful Conciousness Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate 122	Posted - 2013.08.14 17:51:00 - [1406] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Mournful Conciousness wrote: I hear you but in this example, the astarte is doing something the eagle is not - it's giving armour boosts to everyone in your (PVE) fleet. It seems reasonable to me that this would require some sacrifice elsewhere, no? And I understand what your saying, but the astarte in this design was meant to do both (given the role bonus) etc. My point was I dont understand why CCP would not make a ship with an intended function without giving the ship the need resources to do that function? Well, I imagine that the CCP devs are as surprised as I am that you would consider using a command ship for pure PVE. I am certain that they didn't even consider that to be any part of its role. If you have found a new extra niche for it, then I salute you. However I would not hold your breath for this ship to be made better at PVE.
Suzuma Makiriemi Industries 2	Posted - 2013.08.14 18:00:00 - [1407] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Keep up the test server testing guys, thanks for the feedback so far. We'll be keeping an eye on things like the Astarte and Eos on the test server but my feeling at this point is that the balance between them is pretty good. The blaster Astarte will do more damage at 500m, but the Eos is less vulnerable to TDs, ECM, Neuts, can hit smaller targets more effectively and can choose damage types. The Astarte can bring Valkyrie drones and do 3 types of damage. If you think anyone is going to bring Amarr drones on an Eos, you are very much mistaken. Please post an Eos fit showing how you came to the conclusion that the hybrid tracking bonus is needed on a drone ship. I am sure the entire playerbase is aware what 3 utility highs and bonused drones do to "small targets".
Valterra Craven 100	Posted - 2013.08.14 18:06:00 - [1408] - Quote Mournful Conciousness wrote: Well, I imagine that the CCP devs are as surprised as I am that you would consider using a command ship for pure PVE. I am certain that they didn't even consider that to be any part of its role. If you have found a new extra niche for it, then I salute you. However I would not hold your breath for this ship to be made better at PVE. Why would you not consider it? Cheaper than a t3 and about as effective.... Again my point was, they want that ship to be a damage and boosting ship. Given its role that likely means 4 slot tank, 5 weapons, and 2 links. It can't do that due to lack of CPU. I'm not asking them to be balance around PVE or PVP, just around the roles they are intended to fill. Think about it, besides EHP and ship bonuses, the astarte and eagle are surprisingly similar. The astarte takes shedload of extra skils to fly in its role and is slightly more expensive than an eagle. It should be able to fit the above with max fitting skills without needing fitting mods or implants.
Ersahi Kir The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance 303	Posted - 2013.08.14 18:06:00 - [1409] - Quote I honestly think my eos is going to be degraded to 'guristas ratting' duty. If it can't do that reasonably then it will be replaced with an ishtar. Hurray for turret tracking bonus.
PinkKnife Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 396	Posted - 2013.08.14 18:09:00 - [1410] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Keep up the test server testing guys, thanks for the feedback so far. We'll be keeping an eye on things like the Astarte and Eos on the test server but my feeling at this point is that the balance between them is pretty good. The blaster Astarte will do more damage at 500m, but the Eos is less vulnerable to TDs, ECM, Neuts, can hit smaller targets more effectively and can choose damage types. So, why then would anyone ever fly the Eos when the Astarte does more damage at it's intended role? Again, why are we bringing back split weapon bonuses? It does nothing but gimp the Eos into some nonsensical role where a short range blaster boat will always win. There's no reason to fly an Eos over the Astarte in this role. The Drone bonuses are nice, your explanation is full of theory crap. You can't choose damage types unless you plan ahead and bring multiple sets of drones, something not easily done on a small'ish drone bay. (two sets of sentries max) Or, if as you pointed out, its for smaller drones, fine, but then why stick it with a medium hybrid tracking bonus when small targets are inevitably going to be faster, harder to catch and harder to shoot at with medium turrets over drones? It's not even a damage bonus, its to tracking, so what, you can catch all those pesky frigates that go to tackle drone ships, with your guns? How the ** does that make any sense? Remind me again how you change damage types on Hybrids? Oh wait, again thats the other half bonused system that makes the ship worthless in most roles and only kinda okay in one. So the point of this is because Eos pilots surely go around solo'ing frigates and cruisers and never fly as commandships in actual fleets that have, you know, support ships or other frigates and cruisers? The point I'm making is that you're splitting the benefits for no reason. We saw the last few years that split bonuses suck, and CCP has moved to remove them, so why are they still kept here? Don't gimp this ship for no reason, and give it a third drone bonus (** give it drone range again, I don't care). Yes the Eos is less vulnerable to some Ewar, but why make it vulnerable at all? Why kick it in the gut just because? Are you worried that it might somehow be overpowered? Then as I said, give it a fake bonus (like the cap use on the Absolution) that doesn't really do that much. It just reeks of half-assery. You're better than that Fozzie, surely you can come up with some way, ANYWAY to avoid split damage bonuses that we've all known, and CCP has said and admitted to, are crap.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 70 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.