Your confusing the Abso with the Damnation, The Abso like the Slep and Astarte is the DPS ship, but with a cap bonus rather than a range bonus like the other two have. Lasters usualy win out on range but if the laser ship has no range bonus and the others all do than the lasers lose its one advantage.

...A significant downside for the astarte is that - when dualwebbed - you're pretty much screwed. And every afterburning t1 cruiser says ***** *** tracking or screw you range :S

It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.

Update time!
We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.



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

Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
4% bonus to all Shield Resistances
7.5%(+2.5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage
Command Ships skill bonuses:
7.5%(+2.5) bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy missile launcher rate of fire
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)
3% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
Fittings: 900 PWG (+190), 550 CPU (-5)

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.

so you want the only command ship that can be used on grid and survive in big fleet fights to eventually be reduced to the point it cant be used on grid in big fleet fights?

In a 100 man fleet, a 50% increase in your dps equates to an increase of (roughly) 0.5% of your fleet. That is an insignificant increase when compared to the increase in fleet effectiveness by fitting 1 more command module.

That one module effectively gives every ship in the fleet an extra slot.

This is the purpose of a command ship.

Sorry but I don't understand this at all. Where is the 50% increase in DPS coming from?? If the current changes go through as proposed, the nighthawk will have the ability to fit 3 warfare links, 1 launcher and 5 small drones ( so effectively, no dps).

What I would like to see is a command ship that doesn't need to sacrifice all its dps and or tanking ability to run links. I have pretty good boosting skills but rarely fly command ships as they are just not, and with the proposed changes will not be a practical ship to fly into combat. It is clear those who put these changes forward have never flown command ships (with links).

NB; why have 7 highslots if you have to leave 3 of them empty?? Quite simply.. The nighthawk does not have enough PG to even be considered in the "fitting trade offs" category CCP is so fond of.
I have no problem dropping "some" dps or tank to fit 3 links but to have drop next to all dps and have minimal tank?? Next time your out in your boosting tengu, warp it on grid and see how long it survives. There is a reason people boost offgrid, no right or wrong, the reason is - on grid boosting is committing suicide

Lets resolve this argument one way or the other.

Q1: What is the exact number of EHP a fleet command ship need to be able to survive while being given logi reps?
Q2: Is it possible to fit the damnation with that much EHP?

Let's have some justified numbers before we start complaining.

The 50% was an example number to illustrate the point that dps is not the issue.

Ability to survive, I agree with you, is.

Are you saying there is no viable nighthawk fit in which it is possible to survive, given that you will have some form of logistics on grid with you?

That seems unlikely, but I'll see if I can fit something up on sisi since I haven't tried it yet. What numbers do you need to regard it as survivable?

Incidentally, Sisi seems to have a bug that prevents the nighthawk from activating more than one siege module at a time. Since I'm the first to mention it, I presume I'm the first to actually fit up a ship before complaining?

Except for armor CS you can fit 1600+2 MAR+cap booster+guns+links (with some meta 4 indeed) and with shield if you want dual XL-ASB no amount of meta4 will save you, you need 6 fitting mods/rigs.

...That depends on how big a fleet your in, how much logi you have compared to the incoming dps.. Won't matter how much logi you have if the command ship is primary vs a high alpha fleet...

http://i52.tinypic.com/1zwypsg.jpg

One XL-ASB rep for 980Hp VS 640 for a dual MAR
A XL-ASB with a shield amplifier will rep for 1330HP (more than 4 MAR).
A sleipnir can rep for 1880HP with CS 5 and a shield amplifier (6x more than a MAR)

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.

http://i52.tinypic.com/1zwypsg.jpg

One XL-ASB rep for 980Hp VS 640 for a dual MAR
A XL-ASB with a shield amplifier will rep for 1330HP (more than 4 MAR).
A sleipnir can rep for 1880HP with CS 5 and a shield amplifier (6x more than a MAR)

Isn't that the reverse of what you want for balance, I mean the big fleet already has the advantage of being a big fleet making them nearly invincible seems the reverse of what we are wanting here.

Not a jab, just asking for edification.

If you want an unkillable fleet commander, bring a titan. They give huge fleet boosts and you can't alpha them.

For God's sake guys...

With the greatest respect, until you give the devs numbers you are not in a position to tell them how to improve the design.

They're just not going to listen to "it's ****" claims.

Give a concrete example.

Here is a concrete example:
...
Nighthawk
...

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.

Regarding the EHP issue of command ships especially in massive battles, I would suggest the following...